A Fiscal Perspective: The
National Trend Towards
Free Market Principles in
Juvenile Justice
Marc Levin and Jeanette Moll
Center for Effective Justice, Texas Public Policy Foundation
Presentation to the Nebraska Juvenile Justice Summit
December 6, 2012
Introduction to the Foundation
• The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a state-based think
tank covering a broad range of issues, from health care
to education, with a mission to promote individual
responsibility, free enterprise, limited government, and
private property rights.
• In 2005, the Center for Effective Justice was founded
within the Foundation, focusing on criminal justice
reforms within Texas.
• Our work in Texas eventually spread to juvenile justice,
and successful policy implementation in Texas led to the
expansion of our work to other states.
Ten Guiding
Principles
First: Some Confinement is
Necessary
• Juvenile justice systems simply must provide at least some
style of secure confinement for the small minority of serious or
violent juvenile offenders.
• Public safety concerns demand this level of security to prevent
further crimes while the youth undergoes rehabilitation.
• However, those facilities must be sufficiently safe to allow for
effective rehabilitation for juvenile offenders.
• Generally, smaller facilities and those closer to home are
better.
o The Missouri Model; $120 per day and less than 9 percent
recidivism in adult or juvenile system.
Second: CommunityBased Programming
• Countless studies have highlighted the general
effectiveness of community-based programming
over institutional state “training schools,” which
usually are located hundreds of miles away from a
youth’s home.
• This effectiveness generally springs out of positive
connections made and maintained in the
community; however, the lower costs of
community-based placements can dramatically
effect state budgets.
Third: Because of the effectiveness of
community-based programming…
• Confinement should not be the default response for
most youth.
• Careful distinctions are needed to differentiate
between the majority of youth, who are low-risk and
would likely become worse off due to confinement,
from the small minority of high-risk youth, who
would benefit from secure confinement.
• In Texas, a broad barrier was set for state level
secure confinement (misdemeanant youth).
• Other states limit confinement on a case-by-case
basis.
Fourth: Risk and Needs
Assessments are Necessary
• A proven and reliable risk and needs assessment can,
on its own, greatly increase successful outcomes in
juvenile justice systems.
• Static and dynamic factors; risks and needs.
• Provides invaluable information on treatment plans and
placement options.
• Most useful when available and used by each decisionmaker at each juncture of the justice system.
Fifth: School Discipline Heavily
Impacts Juvenile Justice
• The advent of zero-tolerance policies began a
trend away from traditional in-school discipline,
towards greater reliance on juvenile justice
interventions into common school misbehavior.
• This use of the juvenile justice system to discipline
students can come at a high cost and overburden
the courts, diverting valuable justice system
resources away from genuine public safety
concerns.
• Research shows that a balanced approach to
school behavior issues can reduce overreliance on
the justice system while creating better outcomes
for students.
Sixth: Juvenile Probation is
Often the Best Alternative
• Juvenile justice systems are under pressure to avoid
secure confinement for most juvenile offenders.
Probation can provide a wide-range of supervisory
alternatives to confinement.
• Costs for probation are mere fractions of costs of
confinement, and probation can be easily tailored to
each juvenile offenders needs and risks.
o Average cost for basic probation per day per youth in
Texas is $17.25, which equates to $6,296 per year.
• Few geographic limitations (in terms of service
providers).
Seventh: Focus on the
Evidence
• Evidence-based programming is the “buzz-word” in
juvenile justice systems.
• Simply, an evidence-based program is one that has
been proven to reduce the risk of criminal behavior.
• Funding is increasingly tied to the exclusive use of
such programming.
• Multiple databases track and compile research and
evidence.
• While it is important to use proven programs, it is
also important to avoid ignoring creative solutions
and innovation.
Eighth: Juveniles in Adult Facilities
Are at a Unique Disadvantage
• Even serious juvenile
offenders face risks and
disadvantages in adult
lockups.
• The risks include an
increased likelihood of
physical and sexual
assault as well as suicide
risks.
• Disadvantages include a
lack of education and
age-appropriate
programming.
Ninth: The Performance
Incentive Funding Revolution
• Texas implemented performance incentive funding
in 2009. Under the Commitment Reduction Program,
counties are provided with funding to retain
jurisdiction over youths who would otherwise be
committed to state facilities.
• Other states—Ohio and Illinois—have implemented
their own version of performance incentive funding.
• While each system is unique, the common thread is
financial assistance following a reduction in state
commitments. This creates a fiscal incentive toward
treatment closer to home.
Tenth: Juvenile Justice
Reform is Spreading
• Unlikely states, actors, and policymakers are taking
up juvenile justice reforms for fiscal and moral
reasons.
• A common refrain: “If Texas can do it . . .”
• Louisiana, Mississippi, Virginia, Georgia, Florida,
Texas, California, Colorado, Nebraska: almost every
state is looking for better outcomes and increased
cost-effectiveness for juveniles.
The Texas
Model
Texas Reform Origins
• In 2006, a crisis struck juvenile justice in Texas.
• Criminal prosecutions were not enough:
o Judges began avoiding sending youth to state
facilities.
o The Legislature swiftly acted to bar any further
misdemeanants in state secure facilities.
o Legislation was passed to increase security, install
video cameras, and provide for an Ombudsman.
Damage Done
• Legislators had lost faith in the state facilities and
began seeking out better ways to handle juvenile
justice.
• State facility populations continued to decline, and
thus state savings due to lower rates of
incarceration could be passed on to the counties.
• The Commitment Reduction Program was enacted
in 2009.
o
o
o
o
Community-based.
Less than $140 per day.
Evidence-based.
Claw-back provision.
Justice Reinvestment Results
• An initial $45 million funding of the Program gave
counties grant money to place youths in communitybased settings.
• Reduced populations in state facilities permitted the
closure of three facilities and a cost savings of $100
million.
• Initial results show that out of 4,000 youths first placed
through the Program, only 58—or 1.4 percent—
eventually required placement in a state facility.
• Delinquency rates continue to fall. Statewide referrals
are down 18 percent, outpacing the national drop of 13
percent.
The Texas Model for
Other States
• Texas’ success was largely predicated on unlikely
policymakers aggressively turning their attention toward
this issue and making the bold choices once thought
unlikely from a state like Texas.
• As the state reaped the benefits—both in lower costs and
in lower delinquency rates—other states sought to learn
from our success.
• The Foundation began to export the Texas Model to
other states, by reaching out to conservatives to share
our research and lessons learned.
• The Texas Model is not limited to performance incentive
funding—but moreover, the recognition that
confinement is not always the answer.
Right-Sizing
Nebraska’s
Juvenile Justice
System
An Overview
• Due to the size and type of state Nebraska is, the
juvenile justice system here is substantially more
compressed than most other states.
• However, that compression means that each dollar in
the system is even more precious, and that in some
sense it may be easier to create an effective and
efficient system.
• State law already permits a county-state partnership for
community-based juvenile justice. Expansion of that
partnership would dramatically decrease costs and
increase effectiveness.
• That partnership would play a role in each of the five
pressure points on the Nebraska system.
County Juvenile Services
Aid Program
• Created in 2001; statutorily limited to $4 million each
year. In 2010 total funding was $1.4 million.
• Community-based programming available under
the Aid Program is broad, but cannot include
secure facilities.
• In 2010, the $1.4 million was leveraged to provide
services for 12,000 youth, including 4,000 diversions,
restitution, community service, and mentor-mentee
matches.
Expanding the Aid
Program
• The entire cost of a diversion via the Aid Program is
equal to two days in a YRTC.
o $257 per day, vs. $65 for group homes or $15 for electronic monitoring.
• This Aid Program represents juvenile justice
reinvestment like other states have had great
success with, and could present significant cost
savings for the juvenile justice system.
• How to expand? Specifically tie grants to a county’s
reduction in the number of youths sent to a state
facility.
o Low-level commitments.
o Commitment for the purpose of programming?
o Chemical dependency: 77 percent in Nebraska.
First Pressure Point:
Truancy
• The current response to truancy over-relies on the
juvenile justice system.
• Truancy is a problem that requires a serious
response: it is linked to losses in educational
achievement, decreased employment gains, and
higher risks for drug use and other delinquency
issues.
• Omaha World-Herald found a correlation between
absenteeism with increased probability of dropping
out.
o More than 20 days; 1-in-3 chance of graduating.
Truancy, continued
• In the 2010-2011 school year, over 9,000 students
were sent to the juvenile justice system based on a
truancy issue.
• Justice system intervention is not always effective:
o Replacing the parental role;
o No evidence it works and not targeted to the problem;
o Expensive.
• Schools should have central role.
o In Douglas County, the GOALS system attempts to proactively prevent
students from ever reaching the 20 day threshold.
o But if they do, the Truancy Diversion Program is an interagency effort to
weed out youth who do not need justice system intervention.
• Diversion Plans.
• Only 5 percent required filing of a petition.
An Efficient Response to
Truancy Cases
• The County Aid program could provide the essential
truancy prevention and response programming in
schools and in the diversion program.
• In addition, the Legislature should enact a policy
that requires the adoption of a memorandum of
understanding between the Board of Education, the
Office of Court Administration, and DHHS, similar to
those approved for the Board of Education and
universities, which will permit data sharing between
the justice system and the educational system.
Second Pressure Point:
Secure Pre-Trial Detention
• In fiscal year 2011, 2,240 Nebraska youth were detained
in a secure or staff-secure facility at least once, and the
number of bookings totaled 3,171, reflecting multiple
detentions of some of those youth.
• Detention precipitates higher rates of incarceration,
even for similarly situated youth. Studies have found that
youth are more likely to eventually receive formal
judicial intervention and incarceration, even when
controlling for offense severity, race, age, and gender.
• Additionally, youth can learn deviant behavior when
housed with more dangerous or violent youth, an effect
called “peer deviancy training.”
Detention, continued
• Alternatives: Risk assessments; deferred prosecution
programs; mental health docket; evening reporting
center; shelter options; specialized docket for gang
members, human trafficking, and prostitution
charges; electronic monitoring.
• Nationwide, JDAI sites saw a 6.1 percent drop in rearrest rates while awaiting adjudication; 7.2 percent
drop in failures to appear.
• The evidence suggests Nebraska could safely
reduce detention usage.
o Low-level crimes.
o 20.25 days, on average.
Early Results in Douglas County
• Nebraska is now a statewide JDAI site, but Douglas
County was the first to adopt the reforms.
• Between February 2011 and this year, average daily
population within their detention facility declined 38
percent, from 167 in 2007 to 104 in 2011, and the
average length of stay in the facility has dropped
four days in that same time frame.
• As detention in Douglas County costs
approximately $200 per day, per juvenile.
Third Pressure Point: Youth
Population in the Adult System
• Nebraska has some youths currently handled in the adult
system that may more appropriately be handled in the
juvenile system.
• In raw numbers, approximately 2,619 youth were directly filed
in the adult court, and 20.2 percent or 477 of those youth were
then transferred to the juvenile court system. Of those 2,619
youth, 35 percent (914 youth) were ages 11-16.
• Adult court jurisdiction over juveniles can decrease the
rehabilitative opportunities for youths. In a review of seven
different studies on this topic, the American Journal of
Preventive Medicine found an average 33.7 percent increase
in the likelihood that a juvenile in the adult court system would
be re-arrested for a “violent or other crime than were juveniles
retained in the juvenile justice system.”
o Holds true even if the original sentence was probation (DOJ).
Adult System, continued
• Not necessarily the “worst of the worst;” not
necessarily true rehabilitation possibilities.
o Only 12 percent of youths tried as adults received some
form of incarceration in jail or prison, while 63 percent
received a fine of between $80 and $170. In 2010, only 36
youths were placed in the Nebraska Correctional Youth
Facility, the destination for all youths tried as adults and
sentenced to a prison term in Nebraska.
o These even small numbers of youth placed in the adult
correctional facility have a dramatic effect on the
correctional system budget. Nebraska’s Correctional Youth
Facility currently costs $230.25 per day, over $84,000 per
year, which is triple the average cost per adult offenders
elsewhere in the correctional system.
Policies to Correct System
Placements
• Create a presumption, or “default,” that youths 16
and younger should be handled by juvenile
courts (or county courts acting as juvenile courts).
o Include a specific waiver provision that would
allow judges to remove a youth to the adult
court system when the circumstances so
require, this would ensure that the public safety
is still held to preeminent importance.
o Such a default would otherwise ensure that the
juvenile justice system—and all its attendant
tools—is at least considered as a method to
address youth crime and reduce future
criminality.
Policies, continued
• Consider blended sentencing.
o Sentence begins in a juvenile facility. At the age of
majority or other specified point in time, the juvenile
justice agency or the original sentencing judge
reevaluates the juvenile’s progress; if insufficient
rehabilitation is found, the second part of the blended
sentence kicks in, and the juvenile (now an adult) is
transferred to the adult system for the balance of the
sentence. If the agency or the judge is satisfied by
the rehabilitation, then the juvenile is released on
parole.
o Satisfies need to involve the adult court system to
alleviate public safety concerns, but also permits
younger offenders to begin their sentence with other
minors and in more age-appropriate settings and
programming.
Fourth Pressure Point:
Diversion and Probation
•
•
Nebraska has a formal diversion program, which is an excellent tool
for county officials.
o Commonly, charges involve alcohol. 68 percent of diverted
juveniles are misdemeanants.
Biggest issue: lack of adherence to the diversion itself.
o 287 youth (5.8%) in one year referred to diversion had no contact
whatsoever with the diversion program.
o Only 70-90 percent of youth usually participated in one or more
appointment.
o One study suggests that only 53 percent of all diverted cases
were completed “successfully” (completed all of the
programmatic requirements). (Data and study may be updated.)
o Out of cases closed (some sort of review of the case file) only 62
percent were successful diversion completions.
Increasing Diversion
Effectiveness
• Low participation rates may impact the
rehabilitation effects of diversion and its
ability to remove youth from the system.
• Enhancing the County Aid Program will
greatly enhance diversions, both in breadth
and quality.
• Another policy goal: increase family
involvement.
o Require attendance at first or more meetings.
o Sign a behavior contract.
Successful Probation
Completions
• Probation population decreased 11 percent
between 2004 and 2011.
o 44 percent misdemeanors, 5.7 percent felonies. Liquor offenses,
property crimes, assault, and disturbing the peace were the most
common offenses.
• 8.1 percent revocation rate, but a 13.7
percent “unsatisfactory closure” rate.
• Successful closures are on the decline.
o From 2004 to 2011, the number of successful discharges each
year from probation dropped from 2,499 to 1,820, a drop of 27
percent. This occurred even though the probation population itself
only dropped 11 percent, revealing a proportionally greater
decrease in unsuccessful closures.
Increasing Probation
Effectiveness
• The County Aid Program will play a role in
increasing probation programming.
• Consider a civil citation program to divert low-level
youth away from probation entirely.
o In lieu of arrest; community-based programming
and services.
o Florida boasts high rates of completion (99
percent in some counties) and saved $50 million
over five years.
o Legislature had passed a pilot program for civil
citations; expand from pilot to statewide.
Increasing Probation
Effectiveness, continued
•
•
Administrative Sanctions
o HOPE Court; immediate sanctions and penalties rather than
delayed revocations.
o For the HOPE Court in Hawaii (adults) the results were more than
50 percent reduction in probation revocations and reoffending,
an 80 percent reduction in missed probation appointments, and
an 86 percent reduction in positive drug tests.
o LB 800 (2010) permitted administrative sanctions; a mandatory
system of administrative sanctions for certain juveniles may
decrease revocations and unsuccessful completions.
Ensure Full Information Sharing
o The information learned and used prior to disposition and during
supervision needs to be fully shared and communicated with
each responsible officer. This would provide supervision officers a
broader frame of reference as to how the youth has responded to
different interventions during their progression through the system.
Fifth Pressure Point: Overuse
of Secure Confinement
• In FY 2010, 592 youths were committed to the two
YRTCs for an average of 160 days (boys) and 229
days (girls). Costs ranged from $183 per day to $257
per day.
o Over 50 percent of total OJS budget.
o After one year, 29 percent (boys) and 17 percent (girls) returned
to custody.
• Given the nature of the offense in some cases (theft,
drug possession, shoplifting), some youths in YRTCs
may be low-level and receive more harm than
good from secure confinement.
o 40% committed for a property crime, 10% for a drug crime, 27%
for a violent crime, 13% for a public order offense, and a small
minority for probation violations.
Right-Sizing Nebraska’s
YRTCs
• Use the County Aid Program to provide counties
with the resources who retain youths that otherwise
would be sent to state facilities.
o Residential treatment, group homes, and drug
treatment would be excellent county-based
alternatives that could be funded with a per diem
from the state. Since less than the daily cost at a
YRTC, state savings could follow.
Length of Stay
• In Nebraska, the boys’ YRTC currently has an appropriate
average length of stay. The girls, at 229 days, may be too long
in some cases.
• Residential treatment for juveniles with shorter lengths of stay—
around six months—are associated with increased treatment
effectiveness and gains in positive outcomes, and that longer
lengths of stay do not increase positive outcome measures.
o Two year study of 17,000 youth in Florida found “no
statistically significant relationship to recidivism” for low-risk
and moderate risk youth.
o A different study matched youths with longer lengths of
stay with youth with shorter lengths of stay and found little
or no impact on re-arrest rates.
Conclusion
• Nebraska is on the “right track.”
• The County Aid Program may provide the key to a
more efficient and cost effective juvenile justice
system from top to bottom: truancy, detained
youths, probation and diversion placements, and
even avoiding secure confinement when its safe to
do so.
• Every youth diverted from a life of crime saves
society $2 million over his or her lifetime.