Source: https://jjie.org/hub/community-based-alternatives/reform-trends/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:12:44+00:00

Document:
Youth come to the attention of law enforcement for many reasons, some for law violations and others for normal adolescent conduct. Early intervention is intended to create alternative responses to youth behavior which, when implemented well, can keep youth from having contact with the juvenile justice system, such as an arrest, petition, or status offense referral. Some examples are detailed below.
In the past three decades, schools have become a major source of referrals to the juvenile justice system. This phenomenon has come to be called the “school-to-prison pipeline,” or the “schoolhouse-to-jailhouse track.” Minor school disciplinary problems that used to be handled by school administrators are now frequently referred to law enforcement.
A number of innovations have been developed to reverse this trend and keep youth from getting to the front door of the juvenile justice system. Below are some examples.
These programs bring together the people who have had a conflict to peacefully heal the harm done. It involves holding youth accountable for the harm they have done and involving them in determining how to repair it. There are a variety of restorative conflict resolution programs, examples of which are detailed below.
Victim – Offender Mediation – In this process the victim and offender come together with a mediator for a dialogue about the incident, and generally a restitution plan is developed.
Conferencing – This process is similar to victim-offender mediation, but both parties have the ability to invite support people to the dialogue, such as parents, teachers, and secondary victims.
Circles – In this process, a subgroup of the school – such as a group of students or students and teachers – sits in a circle and passes around an object; only the person holding the object can talk.
Peacemaking circles have been used successfully in Peoria, Illinois, where they began at Manual High School in 2006. Within three years, the school had trained hundreds of teachers, and the practice spread to seven local schools. Surveys showed a number of benefits, including improved school attendance, better school work, better relationships with students and teachers, and fewer school removals.
Peer Mediation – Student mediators are trained and then can facilitate sessions between parties in conflict. There is not necessarily a clear offender in these sessions.
Peer/Teen Jury Programs – Students who have broken school rules go before other students trained to be jurors and they discuss the reasons for the student’s actions, who was affected by them, and how the student can repair the harm. Typical cases that they handle include truancy, classroom disruption, and minor property damage.
From 2008-2010, peer juries at Manual High School in Peoria, Illinois and two other area schools handled a total of 119 cases referred by school administrators; only 6 required a referral back to the administration for further discipline.
A comprehensive school-wide evidence-based disciplinary plan consists of strategies and techniques to achieve the goals of developing students’ self-discipline, preventing and correcting misbehavior, and effectively responding to students with serious and chronic behavior problems. A number of evidence-based strategies have been developed to accomplish these goals. Examples are detailed below.
These strategies focus on increasing desirable behaviors instead of just decreasing unwanted behavior through punishment.
Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports (PBIS) uses school-wide proactive strategies to encourage positive social behaviors, rather than focusing only on punishing negative behaviors. Behavioral expectations are taught to students just as other core curriculum subjects are taught.
75 percent reduction in out-of-school suspensions for general education students and 85.6 percent for special education students.
Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools (CBITS) is a component of PBIS, in which school staff are trained to manage students’ behavior and use practical intervention techniques instead of calling the police.
School staff in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana were trained in this approach in 2008, and were able to reduce school arrests by 16 percent in a year.
Project Achieve helps schools develop and implement Positive Behavioral Support Systems (PBSS), a school-wide approach to build and reinforce students’ problem- solving and conflict resolution skills in a positive and safe setting.
This report from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges highlights the importance of effective data-collecting and sharing between schools, mental health professionals, law enforcement, and the juvenile justice system to further student success and reduce referrals to to the juvenile justice system. The report also focuses of what information should be collected and shared between schools and the justice system to promote School-Justice Partnerships.
Schools can be encouraged to use these evidence-based disciplinary programs through approaches such as rewarding them for reducing disciplinary referrals.
Louisiana passed legislation in 2010 requiring that the school master plans various localities were required to prepare include provisions for staff and administrator training on positive school behavioral supports and practices.
“Zero tolerance” policies create mandatory punishments of suspension or expulsion from school for certain offenses, without exception and without regard to the seriousness of the particular action. Many such policies were enacted following the Columbine school shooting and passage of the Gun- Free Schools Act by Congress in 1994, which required states to pass zero tolerance laws mandating that any student that brought a gun onto school property be expelled.Current research has indicated that zero tolerance policies have been largely ineffective at increasing school safety and are even counter-productive, as students suspended and expelled from school are more at risk for dropping out and committing delinquent acts.
In January 2014, the Department of Education and the Department of Justice released groundbreaking federal school discipline guidance to help school districts end discriminatory school discipline policies. The guidance clarifies schools’ obligations under our civil rights laws and provides examples of best practices so they can implement positive alternative practices. Click here to access the guidance package.
From Clayton County, Georgia to Denver, Colorado, localities have begun adopting protocols and policies to clarify the role of the police in school discipline issues in order to block the school-to-prison pipeline.
The Advancement Project has published a Model School Discipline Policy, based on the actual policies from several city public school systems, which can be used by localities to modify their school policies, to help eliminate the school to prison pipeline.
In Meridian, Mississippi, state officials are being sued by the federal government for operating a “school-to-prison pipeline” by arresting and incarcerating students for minor disciplinary infractions such as talking back to teachers and violating dress codes, and then sending them to a youth court, where they are denied basic constitutional rights.
Delaware passed legislation in 2009 amending the “zero tolerance” provision of the law to allow school boards the discretion not to expel a child that committed a “zero tolerance” offense or to modify the terms of expulsions.
Whether kids are pushed out of school through zero tolerance and other discipline policies leading to suspension and expulsion, are missing school as a result of chronic truancy, or because they have dropped out, they are at greater risk of involvement in the juvenile justice system. Community-based programs that address these school-related problems can also have a huge impact on reducing delinquency.
See Section 5 below, Diverting Youth Who Commit Status Offenses – Strategies: Legislative, for information on states that have made reforms to their truancy laws to reduce juvenile justice system involvement.
Washington state passed legislation in 2010 establishing a statewide dropout reengagement system to provide educational opportunities and access to services for youth aged 16-21 that have either dropped out of school or will not be able to accumulate sufficient credits to graduate high school by age 21.
Indiana passed a law in 2011 (HB 1107) allowing the juvenile court to appoint an early intervention advocate for at-risk children who can develop an individualized plan for a child that can include services such as counseling, tutoring, and mentoring.
Little Rock, Arkansas passed a 1-cent sales tax increase in 2011 that included $3 million in additional revenue for prevention, intervention, and treatment programs to reduce juvenile crime.
Nebraska passed legislation in 2010 providing for early intervention with at-risk children and families, focusing on parental involvement, school attendance, and alternatives to detention.
Research has indicated an increased risk of justice system involvement for victims of child maltreatment (and for African-American youth in particular). The risk of arrest is much greater for youth who enter the child welfare system due to maltreatment and behavioral problems (88 percent) than for those in the child welfare system due to maltreatment alone (38 percent). Additionally, a recent study of youth in King County, Washington, found youth with extensive child protection system involvement were two-and-one-half times more likely to reoffend.
Studies have found that a large percentage of youth in the child welfare system have behavioral health problems—over 40 percent in one study, and 54 percent of those placed in foster care in another. Yet poor identification of youth with mental health issues and substandard mental health care hampers treatment of these children.
Reducing the use of institutional placements, called “congregate care,” for youth in the child welfare system has been found to improve outcomes for youth. Youth served in family foster care settings were 2.5 times less likely to have a subsequent arrest than youth placed in group homes. Youth with behavioral problems are more likely to be placed in congregate care, which may then make them more likely to get in trouble with the law.
Since children in the child welfare system in general are at greater risk of justice system involvement, programs aimed at reducing child abuse and neglect could also reduce juvenile justice system involvement.
Home visitation programs have been effective in reducing abuse and neglect.
A Hawaii program that provides new parents who are at risk of maltreating their children with child development training and health services has helped to significantly reduce abuse and neglect.
Youth involved in both child welfare and juvenile justice have been found to be at higher risk of re-offense. Increased collaboration between the two systems, as well as other child-serving systems, such as mental health and education, could help to identify youth at greater risk of juvenile justice system involvement and could improve treatment programs for these youth by blending funding, integrating information about the youth, and providing more flexible programming for children crossing both systems.
For further information on cross-system collaboration with the mental health system click here.
This initiative helps jurisdictions work through a planning process to develop a coordinated and integrated juvenile justice and child welfare system. This process includes developing structures for collaboration, such as interagency agreements to institutionalize it, integrated management information systems, and blended funding streams.Many states and localities have used the SSI model, including: the state of Arizona; Clark County, Washington; DuPage County, Illinois; Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; King County, Washington; Los Angeles County, California; and the state of South Dakota. Below is a detailed example of how this model has been used.
Designing and piloting a school dropout retrieval and retention program.
The Crossover Youth Practice Model (CYPM) focuses on developing policies and practices that reflect how courts, mental health professionals, and probation officers should work together to improve outcomes for crossover youth.
The model is structured into three phases and five practice areas reflective of many dually-involved youth, beginning with the point of arrest in the delinquency system, to case assignment and case planning, coordinated case supervision, and finally planning for permanency, transition, and case closure.
Localities in the following states have participated in this model: California, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington. See below for a detailed example of how this model has been used.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania’s CYPM leadership team developed several diversion mechanisms, including a “Crossover Court” that serves youth in the child welfare system who have been arrested. The crossover court’s aim is to create a single court process for youth and their families, and work to divert youth in the child welfare system from the formal delinquency process. They have been able to divert nearly 900 youth from the delinquency system.
The Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Act (JJDPA) was amended in 2002, and reauthorized in 2018, by adding funding for juvenile delinquency prevention and treatment of youth in the juvenile justice system (or at-risk of involvement) who are victims of child abuse and neglect, or who have experienced violence. It also contained a requirement for the states to coordinate their child welfare and juvenile justice systems.
The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) was amended in 2003 to add supporting or enhancing interagency collaboration between the child welfare and juvenile justice systems to the list of purposes for which state grants could be awarded.
The state of Oregon passed legislation in 1999 creating a new method for comprehensive planning for services for children, identifying a number of state agencies as partners, including the Department of Human Services, the Criminal Justice Commission, and the Department of Education. In 2002, Oregon’s governor issued an executive order to further the implementation of the law by requiring that all the principal state partners develop formal agreements to improve coordination among the state partners and other state agencies.
Diversion refers to programs that divert or redirect youth away from juvenile justice system processing, as well as programs that divert youth from secure detention in a juvenile justice facility.
These programs can keep youth from contact with the system or keep them from getting a juvenile justice charge on their record after an initial contact, and can take place at many points in the juvenile justice processing continuum.
Schools frequently use the police to handle even minor discipline problems, sending many youth into the justice system. Often, a student’s unruly behavior is at least in part due to a mental health disorder.
Training school staff and police officers to identify and appropriately respond to youth with mental health needs can decrease referrals to juvenile court, especially when coupled with alternative community-based mental health resources to which youth can be referred instead.
More on school-based diversion to mental health.
More on the “schoolhouse-to-jailhouse” track.
A number of youth who act out in schools and in the community have mental health or substance abuse disorders that exacerbate their behavior. Unnecessary arrests and processing of these youth can be decreased when law enforcement officers are trained to recognize the signs and symptoms of mental illness, substance abuse, and developmental disabilities in youth, and to de-escalate their interactions with them. Increasing access to mental health services and supports for these youth is also helpful.The National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, with support from the Models for Change initiative, has developed a Crisis Intervention Training for Youth curriculum to teach law enforcement officers how to recognize and respond to youth with acute mental illness symptoms. Techniques enable law enforcement officers to effectively handle crises in the field in lieu of arresting youth.
These programs divert youth from the juvenile justice system at time of arrest.
Florida has used the civil citation program the most widely, and passed statewide legislation enacting this program.
Officers have the option of giving youth a civil citation if their alleged offense is a first time, non-violent misdemeanor.
Youth are assessed to determine needs, referred to a community diversion program, given sanctions, and/or treatment.
If the youth successfully completes the program, the youth gets no arrest record. If unsuccessful, the youth is formally charged and processed through the juvenile justice system.
Recidivism rates for youth in the program have been much lower than for youth in residential juvenile programs – 7 percent, vs. 41 percent.
A number of programs have been established to divert youth at the point of intake—one of their earliest points of contact with the juvenile justice system. Some programs of this nature have been set up specifically for youth with mental health or substance abuse disorders. Other programs are available to any youth, though they are generally set up for youth charged with low-risk, non-violent offenses.
These programs generally require that intake officers receive training to recognize the signs and symptoms of mental illness, substance abuse disorders, and developmental disabilities. Below is an example.
Texas has created a specialized probation diversion program for youth with mental health needs known as the “Front-End Diversion Initiative.” It aims to divert youth with identified mental health needs from being adjudicated delinquent.
Youth in these programs generally must fulfill certain conditions, such as paying restitution, doing community service, or attending treatment services. Upon successful completion, either no charges are brought or the charges that were levied are dismissed. Below is an example.
This program is for youth who have committed a first-time, non-violent, non-sexual offense. Youth must admit to their charges. Youth are screened, assessed, and provided with services. Upon successful completion, charges are dropped and their record expunged.
Balanced and restorative justice programs are based on the concepts of accountability, community safety and competency development. They emphasize repairing the harm the offender caused the victim and the community, and focus on identifying offender strengths and building on positive attributes.
This program in Illinois targets youth charged with a first-time offense. They gain access to services and make a contract to complete certain conditions that may include an apology letter to the victim, a victim-offender conference, accountability worksheets, community service, and/or restitution.
King County, Washington has developed a domestic violence diversion process for youth who have been violent with family members. All cases of domestic violence are reviewed to see if they are appropriate for diversion and many are referred to “Step-Up” – a domestic violence counseling program for teens.
Youth remain in the system, but are provided with community alternatives so they do not have to be confined prior to trial in a detention facility. Alternatives include supervised release with programs such as home detention, electronic monitoring, intensive supervision, and day and evening reporting centers, and local residential and treatment programs. While not considered a community-based alternative, some youth are released outright without a supervised release program or services.
These are facilities in the community that youth report to on a daily basis for a specified period of time. The staff closely supervises the youth and may provide a number of services, such as counseling, vocational training, educational programs, and substance abuse treatment.
Confining youth to their homes with or without electronic monitoring, under the close supervision of probation officers, has been used as an alternative to secure detention and as an alternative to incarceration after a youth is found delinquent. For more information, see the section above on Diversion.
Electronic monitoring can involve a range of devices. Generally, youth wear an electronic wrist or ankle device that emits an electronic signal to a device in their home which is monitored 24 hours a day.
A randomized study of youth under electronic monitoring and those with traditional home confinement found low recidivism rates for both (4 percent and 3 percent respectively).
Communities can save money using home confinement or electronic monitoring. Electronic monitoring programs can range from $5.50 to $10 per day, whereas detention centers range from $100 to $160 per day.
The costs to youth and their families for electronic monitoring can be high, however, unduly burdening indigent families as many communities require families to pay the costs of using the system. Parents may be required to set up telephone landlines to use the system and may have to pay for installation and equipment fees.
Electronic monitoring can result in “false positives,” such as when the system is connected to a cell phone and a low battery generates a false report on the youth.
Specialty courts are designed to handle youth on a special docket, such as those with substance abuse or mental health disorders, or both. Youth may be diverted prior to adjudication, or after. Examples of youth specialty courts are juvenile mental health courts and juvenile drug courts.
For youth adjudicated or found delinquent, there are many community-based alternatives to incarceration in jail-like facilities. These alternatives do not carry the dangers for youth that incarceration does and are generally much more cost-effective. Studies have found community-based programs to be more effective at reducing recidivism than secure confinement, particularly those that are evidence-based. Below are some examples of the many community-based alternatives being used and links to resources with further information.
Standard probation is widely used and one of the oldest forms of community-based alternatives to incarceration. Youth remain in the community, are supervised by a probation officer, and generally must comply with certain conditions.
Common conditions include meeting regularly with their probation officer, adhering to a curfew, doing community service, and paying restitution for any damages they may have caused.
Other conditions sometimes required are drug counseling and participating in other types of services.
Probation may be for a set period, or may be open-ended. Regular review hearings are generally held in court to monitor the youth’s progress.
If youth do not abide by their probation conditions, a court may and order a range of sanctions or revoke their probation.
Restorative community service focuses on accountability, integration, and change. The Clark County Juvenile Court in Washington has transformed their approach to community service by eliminating youth work crews and using this new approach.
Youth have the opportunity to make amends for their offense by giving service of recognized value back to the community.
An important aspect of the program is that youth work alongside community members on their projects. This provides them with a positive role model and a feeling of integration into the fabric of the community.
Through this process, youth can begin to see themselves in a new light as being capable of making positive contributions to the community.
Examples of projects Clark County youth have worked on include Habitat for Humanity building projects, neighborhood clean-up days, working with food banks and homeless shelters, and working in senior citizen homes.
Restitution is monetary compensation that a youth pays to a person or a business for a loss or injury that was a result of the youth’s actions. It can often be difficult for youth to pay restitution for a number of reasons, such as being currently incarcerated for their offense, being too young to work, not having the skills to get a job, or having difficulty getting a job because of their juvenile record.A program that tries to address these concerns is Project Payback in North Central Florida, which began in 1997.
Project Payback offers youth individual job skills training and provides payment for “community restitution service” hours for youth who are unable to become employed.
Project Payback monitors the monthly compliance of the youth referred to them, reports their compliance status to court, initiates enforcement action for non-compliance, and informs victim of the status of the case.
Prior to Project Payback, an average of $166 per month was being paid in total restitution for juvenile offenses and currently the average is over $3500 per month.
An example of this type of program is the Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS) program for youth charged with serious offenses. A team of probation officers frequently monitors the youth, requires adherence to strict curfews, and arranges services for the youth based on the results of a comprehensive needs assessment. The program lasts from eight to 14-½ months.
Confining youth to their homes, with or without electronic monitoring, has been used as an alternative to secure detention and as an alternative to incarceration after a youth is found delinquent. Click for more information.
Many evidence-based treatment programs are primarily designed for use in the community instead of institutional settings, though most have been adapted for use in both settings. Studies have found many of these programs are more effective at reducing recidivism than incarceration, and cost significantly less. Some effective intensive family-based treatment programs that have begun to be widely used include Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care, Functional Family Therapy, and Multi-Systemic Therapy. Learn more here.
This refers to small, community-based facilities that work closely with youth, as opposed to confining youth in large, centrally-located impersonal institutions with few services. Missouri led the way in developing this type of system and has had a great deal of success with this approach.While this model still involves incarceration, the fact that the facilities are offered closer to youths’ homes and are more therapeutic than the more common model of state facilities, which are often similar to adult jails, has led some to consider it a better alternative for those youth that judges will not release.
Passed legislation in 2006 requiring the Division of Youth Services (DYS) to establish an adolescent offender program that “must incorporate evidence-based practices and positive behavioral intervention” including elements such as tutoring, mentoring, and substance abuse treatment.Pursuant to this legislation, DYS has set up a three-phase program to target youth who have been adjudicated delinquent.
In 2007, the Texas legislature passed SB 103, which prohibited youth adjudicated delinquent for misdemeanor offenses from being committed to juvenile correctional facilities and provided $57 million to local juvenile probation departments who would now need to supervise these youth.
In 2009, Texas lawmakers appropriated $50 million to establish the Community Corrections Diversion Program (the “Grant C” program) to allocate money to local probation departments for alternatives to commitment in order to further reduce the number of youth in juvenile secure correctional facilities. The legislature also eliminated approximately $100 million in funding for state-run secure correctional facilities based on the decreased population.
In 2011, the Texas legislature passed SB 653, which created the new Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) and specifically prioritized the agency’s focus on community-based alternatives in the purpose clause of the legislation.
The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) has been a leading innovator in performing cost-benefit studies of evidence-based options for juvenile justice. Beginning in the mid-1990s, WSIPP was directed by the Washington legislature to identify “evidence-based policies” that were shown to improve particular outcomes. One of the areas they have studied is juvenile justice.
WSIPP has found many community-based programs to be more cost-effective than juvenile incarceration. Click here for cost-benefit information on the community-based programs they have recently evaluated.
WSIPP has also identified programs that are ineffective and the where the costs do not outweigh the benefits. These include the Scared Straight and the Juvenile Wilderness Challenge programs.
A number of organizations have identified “model” programs through a process of reviews of the research and made available catalogues of these programs. Examples include the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Model Programs Guide and Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development.
Because meta-analyses have found many non-“brand-name” practices to be effective, the Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP) was developed to help jurisdictions bring local practices into conformity with what research has shown to work.
SPEP itemizes the characteristics of effective programs.
SPEP creates a metric that assigns varying points to programs based on characteristics of the program related to recidivism.
Administrators can use this metric to assess their current programs and identify methods to improve them.
The SPEP tool has been implemented in a number of jurisdictions, including North Carolina and Arizona, where it has led to recidivism reductions.
Evidence-based practices need to be effective with the type of youth served. For example, some practices that may generally be effective with white youth may not be as effective for youth of color. Cultural adaptations take an evidence-based practice and adapt it for language, racial and ethnic group, and/or geographic setting. Proponents of cultural adaptations recommend them as a bridge between the evidence-based practice and the need for cultural competence so that the treatment aligns with the youth’s worldview.
Youth charged with status offenses—actions such as running away from home and being truant—are among the categories of youth most likely to be harmed by incarceration. Locking up these youth who have not been found delinquent not only jeopardizes their safety, but doesn’t address what is generally at the root of their problems – child abuse and neglect, poverty, family disorganization, and trauma. It isolates them from their families and can cause their behavior to deteriorate rather than improve. Community-based responses have been shown to be much more effective and cost-efficient.
Florida has a two-tier system for troubled non-delinquent youth – Families in Need of Services (FINS) and Children in Need of Services (CINS).
Florida has established a network of service providers to work with troubled youth and their families. The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) contracts with the Florida Network of Youth and Family Services (“the Network”) to provide the services.
The process begins when a family having trouble with a child—such as skipping school or running away—contacts a network provider, or when law enforcement or school staff refers the child. Services are provided through the FINS system. Most situations are resolved in this way.
If the next level of intervention is needed, then the matter is referred to court as a CINS case, and the court can order a youth to treatment or services or secure shelter for up to 90 days.
The program has been very successful, with 91 percent of youth remaining crime-free after six months of services. It is estimated that the program has saved the state $160 million dollars.
Louisiana’s informal Families in Need of Services (FINS) program is a statewide program offering services for status offenders and their families. However, many youth are referred to juvenile court on FINS petitions, which can include status offenses such as “ungovernable behavior,” running away from home, curfew violations, and truancy.
Because a substantial number of youth were being formally adjudicated on FINS petitions and placed on probation, detention, and/or committed to non-secure custody, the Models for Change initiative worked with several jurisdictions in Louisiana to divert youth who committed status offenses from the formal juvenile justice system.
Working to eliminate FINS interventions involving probation, detention, and non-secure placement.
Jefferson and Rapides Parishes have dramatically reduced the volume of informal FINS cases, formal FINS petitions, and FINS adjudications since these strategies were implemented.
In 2002, New York City began the Family Assessment Program (FAP). The goals were to provide services for children and families more quickly and reduce reliance on the family court for youth who commit status offenses.
Families seeking services now meet with a FAP specialist immediately who assesses their situation and can make needed referrals without filing the case in court. Four levels of care are available, from family stabilization to Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care.
Two-and-a-half years after the program began, probation intakes of youth who had committed status offenses had declined almost 80 percent.
Orange County began the “Family Keys” program in 2003 to develop an immediate crisis response for families.
Family Keys is a part of the Southwest Keys Programs, which is a non-profit organization that works with youth in the status offense system.
Parents seeking help for a child who chronically misbehaves call the probation department for an initial assessment; eligible families are referred immediately to Family Keys.
Family Keys visits and interviews the child and family within 48 hours, and connects them to services within a short time frame.
Of the 2,180 families who accepted Family Keys services between 2003-2008, 98 percent of the children avoided out-of-home placement. Additionally, by 2009, 88 percent of youth who participated in Family Keys were living at home in the community with their parent/guardian after exiting the program.
Total PINS placements dropped from 71 in 2006 to 11 in 2010 after instituting the reforms.
Multnomah County started its Juvenile Reception Center in 1998 to reduce unnecessary incarceration of youth in the detention center. This allowed police officers who arrested youth aged 11-17 for a status offense or minor delinquency offense to take them to the reception center instead of juvenile detention. There, an intake counselor does a thorough assessment of the youth’s needs and then works with the family to provide counseling and supportive services. For further information, go here – scroll down for a video.
Four demonstration sites in Washington state having been working with the Models for Change initiative to reduce reliance on formal processing for truant youth. A statewide “Becca Task Force” works on truancy issues at the state level.
Truancy petition filing rates have decreased 22 percent statewide since the program developed under Models for Change began. Truancy contempt hearings are down 29 percent and truancy contempt orders are down 37 percent.
The West Virginia legislature passed B. 2550, signed by Gov. Tomblin on March 26, 2015, which requires school-based interventions to be made before schools can refer youth to court for truancy.
B. 2550 also doubles the number of absences required to trigger a court referral.
For further information on these and other state strategies, see the Vera Institute of Justice, Status Offense Reform Center’s website.
A growing number of judges do not place youth in secure detention for status offenses, even in jurisdictions that allow them to do so when youth violate court orders related to their case, such as orders to attend school regularly (known as the “valid court order” exception).
Many have initiated or participated in cross-system collaborative efforts with stakeholders in a variety of systems, such as the school system and the child welfare system, to develop new alternatives to the court system.
The federal JJDPA was enacted in 1974 and reauthorized in 2002, and again in 2018. It sets forth standards for the care and custody of youth that come into contact with the justice system, including those charged with status offenses. States that agree to abide by the Act (Wyoming is the only state that has not) receive federal funds in exchange for complying with the Act’s key provisions.
JJDPA core requirements include the deinstitutionalization of status offenders. It prohibits youth charged with status offenses from being securely confined.
JDPA allows an exception to this prohibition – the “valid court order exception” allows youth adjudicated for status offenses to be confined if they violate a direct order from the court. These orders are often general—such as requiring regular school attendance.
The 2018 reauthorization passed with stricter requirements to the valid court order exception. A VCO must be written and may not be renewed. The court must show that the VCO was violated, and provide factual basis that shows reasonable cause to believe the order was violated. If a youth is found in violation of a VCO, they may be placed in a detention facility but for no longer than seven days and the court must provide a plan for release of the youth.
Although about half the U.S. states and territories prohibit the valid court order exception, or don’t use it, about half do use it.
A status offense is non-delinquent and non-criminal. Rather than resolving factors that led to a status offense, placing these youth in detention can aggravate these factors, because the youth are exposed to negative influences in detention centers and will be burdened with the stigma of having been placed in one.
Detention is more costly and less effective than home and community-based care.
Detention interrupts education, making youth who are detained less likely to return to school. This can further aggravate status offender issues, such as truancy and running away.
In 2005, the Connecticut legislature began to overhaul its status offender system by requiring that by 2007, judges would be prohibited from placing children who commit status offenses in secure detention.
In 2006, the legislature established an advisory board to monitor the progress being made on system changes and recommend further reforms.
In 2007, the legislature required that all children referred to court for status offenses be initially diverted.
After a brief screening by a probation supervisor, children in crisis are referred to family support centers and youth with lower level needs are referred to a local youth service bureau or a program in the community.
The family support centers offer a variety of services, including crisis management, family mediation, cognitive behavioral support groups and one-on-one therapeutic sessions.
A formal petition on a youth who has committed a status offense is only filed in court if a youth’s behavior escalates, or the youth has repeated crises.
After four family centers were opened in 2007, the number of youth detained for status offenses dropped from 493 in 2006-7 to 0 in 2008-9; and as of 2010-11, the juvenile court formally processed only four-and-a-half percent of youth referred for status offenses, down from 50 percent in 2006.
In May 2013, HB 242 was signed into law, completely revising the state’s juvenile code. Among other changes, the new code works to reduce the formal juvenile justice system involvement of youth who have committed status offenses.
Pursuant to the new legislation, schools must demonstrate that they have tried to address a youth’s issues at the school level before they can refer the youth to juvenile court.
Youth in court for a status offense must be treated in the least restrictive environment possible.
Limits are placed on the use of secure detention for youth who have committed status offenses, and the use of placement (equivalent to prison in the adult context) is prohibited.
Restricted when a PINS petition can be filed.
The Washington state legislature passed the “Becca” bill (S.B. 5439) in 1995 in response to the deaths of three runaway children, including 13-year-old Rebecca Hedman. The bill provides for strict court enforcement of runaway and truancy laws.
The Becca bill led to a huge number of court filings against youth who committed status offenses in Washington State (more than 18,000 in 2006) and a considerable amount of controversy regarding this approach to truancy.
The Washington State Becca Task Force was founded in 2002. It is a statewide voluntary organization composed of state leaders, including legislators, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and treatment providers.
The mission of the task force is to help keep kids in school and out of the justice system, through a number of mechanisms, such as early truancy interventions, sharing research and best practices for truancy prevention and intervention, and collaborating on statewide Becca reform efforts.
Models for Change has been working with demonstration sites in Washington state since 2006 on new approaches to truancy that rely less on formal court processing.
For further information on these and other state strategies visit the Status Offense Reform Center’s website.
Funding for community-based alternatives does not have to come from new sources of revenue. Resources currently being spent on costly facilities to securely confine youth can be “realigned” or “reinvested” by states and counties to discourage state incarceration of youth and encourage use of more cost-effective community-based alternatives.
Below are examples of several states that have successfully altered the fiscal architecture of their juvenile justice systems in this way.
In 1965, California passed the Probation Subsidy Act, which gave financial incentives to county probation departments for each offender that they did not commit to the state. The program lasted until 1978, and led to significant cost savings and reductions in incarceration.
In 2007, California passed legislation (S.B. 81) prohibiting the commitment of youth adjudicated delinquent for non-violent offenses to the state Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) and establishing a Youthful Offender Block Grant Program, which provided state funds to counties to serve youth not committed to DJJ.
Through this initiative, the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice contracted with Evidence-Based Associates to divert youth from residential placements into two types of community-based therapeutic alternatives – Multi-Systemic Therapy and Functional Family Therapy.
The initiative saved the state more than $8 million dollars in its first year and has been expanded in subsequent years; the state has seen more cost savings and a corresponding drop in recidivism.
Like Ohio, the Illinois legislature passed Redeploy Illinois in 2004 to reduce overcrowding in its juvenile facilities.
Counties that wish to participate in Redeploy must agree to reduce the number of youth committed to state facilities by 25 percent of the average of the past three years, and must compensate the state for commitments that exceed that amount. In return, the state reimburses the counties for funds spent on local alternatives.
A majority of participating counties reduced their state commitments, though not all did. Between 2005 and 2010, counties participating in Redeploy Illinois reduced commitments to Illinois prisons by 51 percent (from 1,737 to 854). During that period, the 28 participating counties kept 883 youth away from state prisons, saving the state an estimated $40 million.
The state passed the “Close to Home” initiative in 2012.
Under this initiative, New York City youth have been moved from the state’s “non-secure” and “limited secure” facilities to settings administered by the city and run by non-profit organizations under contract with the city administration for Children’s Services. However, advocates note that this doesn’t mean youth are placed in alternatives to a residential facility.
The state is funding these new local programs through a block grant to the city.
The Ohio legislature passed legislation establishing the RECLAIM Ohio (Reasoned and Equitable Community and Local Alternatives to the Incarceration of Minors) in 1993 to try to reduce overcrowding in state juvenile facilities.
RECLAIM uses a formula that ties the funds counties receive from the state to reductions in counties’ use of state juvenile facilities. The funding structure encourages counties to develop community-based alternatives.
Since RECLAIM was enacted, the number of youth committed to state facilities has fallen significantly, and recidivism has dropped as well.
In 2010, the Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS) initiated a program called “Targeted RECLAIM” to direct funds to six counties that committed the highest percentage of youth to state facilities.
The six participating counties have to use the funds for model or evidence-based programming for youth in order to meet the goals for reducing the number of youth they send to DYS facilities.
In 2012, Targeted RECLAIM funding was awarded to eight additional counties.
Targeted RECLAIM has helped these counties to significantly reduce their DYS admissions; through fiscal year 2012, the RECLAIM counties reduced their admissions by 712 youth, compared to the year prior to starting the initiative.
Additionally, youth served by Targeted RECLAIM services were found to be 2.4 times less likely to be incarcerated after completing their services than youth who were committed to state facilities.
Overall, DYS average daily population has decreased significantly since the start of Targeted RECLAIM, from 1,430 youth in 2009 to 649 youth in 2012.
Pennsylvania passed Act 148 in 1976, which altered its counties’ financial incentives in order to prioritize keeping youth involved in the justice system at home or in community programs.
Under the act, the state reimburses counties for 80 percent of community-based services, but only 40 percent of the cost of confinement in a state facility or juvenile detention center. The Act led to steep declines in state commitments.
Act, the Legislature required that the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission (TJPC) pay the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) $51,100 for each youth committed to TYC in excess of 1,783 youths per year.
This led to TJPC initiating a Commitment Reduction Program under which counties propose plans for reducing commitments and receive grant money from TJPC to fund community-based programs.
Since the program has started, the state has saved more than $200 million dollars and commitments have dropped more than 68 percent.
In 1979, Wisconsin passed the Community Youth and Family Aids Program (“Youth Aids”). Youth Aids encourages counties to treat youth locally by distributing juvenile funds to the counties through a process that discourages committing youth to the state.
Youth Aids has led to a significant decline in youth incarceration that has coincided with a decline in youth arrests.
Contracting with a collaborative of private substance abuse and mental health providers to provide supervision and services to youth.
This organization works with a handful of states to implement justice reinvestment strategies. The process involves developing a team of policymakers, experts, and stakeholders that then move through three phases: analyzing data, developing policy options, and measuring performance. While often focused on adult criminal justice systems, strategies have also been implemented involving juvenile justice systems.
Unsafe conditions in juvenile facilities, often exacerbated by overcrowding caused by the huge number of youth being incarcerated, have led to numerous class-action lawsuits throughout the country. State efforts to improve conditions have increasingly incorporated an emphasis on community-based alternatives.
“Downsizing”—closing secure juvenile detention facilities and jails or reducing their bed space—can free up resources to be used for community-based alternatives. This has been done in a variety of ways. Sometimes facilities are simply shut down, generally due to serious health or safety concerns for the youth; other times measures are taken that reduce the populations, such as by limiting the types of youth that can be detained or committed, which then allows for a facility to be shut down or bed space to be reduced.
The JDAI initiative of the Annie E. Casey Foundation is a process that uses core strategies to reduce the unnecessary and inappropriate use of secure detention as well as to increase the fairness and reduce the costs of the juvenile justice system overall, without compromising public safety. It has been quite successful at reducing the number of youth in secure detention in communities all over the country. JDAI efforts are currently ongoing in 300 counties nationwide.
In 2012, the Indiana Department of Correction (IDC) was able to close the South Bend Juvenile Correctional Facility and planned to transition many youth to community-based facilities.
The IDC was able to accomplish this by reducing its overall juvenile population from 1,100 youth to approximately 550 through reducing length of stay guidelines, sending youth to the least restrictive setting, and working with the courts to develop more community- based diversion programs. They are also beginning work with the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI).
In 1972, Jerome Miller, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Division of Youth Services (DYS)—frustrated with the fact that the longer youth stayed in DYS facilities, the worse they behaved after release—shut down all the state’s facilities and limited commitments to high-risk youth in small facilities.
Juvenile crime declined following this change, and fewer released juveniles went on to commit crimes as adults.
In 2011, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued rules requiring that when judges order a youth to an out-of-home placement, they must explain why they are doing so, and why it is the least restrictive placement.
When youth violate a court order, court staff must consider alternative sanctions to secure detention.
Lauderdale County was directed to apply to join Annie E. Casey’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) to reduce the use of secure detention.
Create a regional system of small, community-based facilities and community services.
Reduce the population of its current facilities with the goal of expanding regional beds while reducing or closing existing facilities.
Continue to review the RECLAIM formula in order to achieve its population reduction goals.
Develop a plan to retain youth in the justice system in the community where possible, and reduce reliance on institutional confinement.
Utah – In the mid-1970s, Utah was sued for inhumane treatment in its juvenile facilities and almost lost control of its large juvenile facility, the Youth Development Center (YDC). To avoid this, Governor Matheson closed down the YDC, funded community programs, and built three small, high-security facilities. This saved Utah millions of dollars and improved outcomes for youth.
Legislative strategies include comprehensive system reforms to reduce incarceration and increase community-based alternatives, as well as more targeted efforts to reduce detention and/or commitments, close particular prisons, and other types of initiatives. Below are some examples.
By 2007, juvenile crime in Arkansas had dropped 41 percent and Arkansas was looking for less costly, more effective ways to treat youth in the juvenile justice system.
The Arkansas General Assembly passed Senate Resolution 31 in 2007, which required an analysis of the current juvenile justice system and ways to improve it.
This led the Arkansas Department of Youth Services (DYS) to introduce a five-year plan to reform the juvenile justice system in 2009 that focused on shifting the emphasis from incarceration to community-based treatment.
Since that time, there have been steady drops in the number of overall commitments to state facilities.
In 2011, Texas passed legislation that closed three of its 10 youth prisons and shifted state money to local programs, tasking the new Texas Juvenile Justice Commission with maximizing community-based programs.
Connecticut passed legislation in 2011 (H.B. 6634) restricting the use of secure detention, in part by requiring the court to find probable cause that the youth committed the offense and that there is no less restrictive alternative.
Florida passed legislation in 2011 (S.B. 2114) providing that, with some exceptions, youth can no longer be committed to juvenile residential facilities unless they have a felony conviction, three or more prior misdemeanors, or are adjudicated of offenses highly correlated with a risk of re-offense.
In 2009, Mississippi passed legislation (H.B. 1494) requiring courts to make a specific finding that there is no reasonable alternative to a non-secure setting before they can (a) send youth who have committed a first-time, non-violent offense, or youth under the age of 10 to the state training school, or (b) send youth charged with first-time non-violent offenses to detention for more than 90 days.
The following year, Mississippi passed legislation (S.B. 2984) providing that a young person could not be committed to the state training school if they were adjudicated delinquent for a non-violent felony or fewer than three misdemeanors.
In 2007, Texas passed legislation (S.B. 103) prohibiting the court from committing youth for any offense other than a felony.
In 2000, Virginia passed legislation (H.B. 295) restricting the commitment of youth to only those youth 11 years or older who (a) have currently or in the past committed an offense that would be a felony if they were an adult, or (b) have previously been adjudicated delinquent of three or more offenses that would be misdemeanors if they were adults.
 Advancement Project, “Education on Lockdown: The Schoolhouse to Jailhouse Track” (March 2005), http://bit.ly/19czeYV.
 Toran Hansen, “Restorative Justice Practices and Principles in Schools,” Center for Restorative Justice and Peacemaking (September 2005), ; Jon Kidde and Rita Alfred, “Restorative Justice: A Working Guide for Our Schools” (San Leandro, CA: Alameda County Health Care Services Agency School Health Services Coalition, 2011).
 Patrick Griffin, “Models for Change: Innovations in Practice,” (Chicago, IL: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, November 30, 2010), 6, at http://www.modelsforchange.net/publications/287.
 Alternatives, Inc., “Peer Jury,” accessed April 14, 2018 at AlternativesYouth.org.
 Griffin, “Models for Change: Innovations in Practice,” 6.
 George Bear, “Discipline: Effective School Practices,” in Helping Children at Home and School III: Handouts for Families and Educators, ed. Andrea S. Canter, Leslie Z. Paige, Steven Shaw (Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists, 2010), accessed April 14, 2018 at nasponline.org.
 “Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports,” National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, accessed April 14, 2018 at www.ncjfcj.org.
 Angela A. Ciolfi, Crystal Shin, and Jeree Harris, “Educate Every Child: Promoting Positive Solutions to School Discipline in Virginia” (Charlottesville, VA: Legal Aid Justice Center JustChildren Program, November 17, 2011), 11-12, accessed June 12, 2013, at http://bit.ly/15bbeRy.
 Griffin, “Models for Change: Innovations in Practice,” 8.
 “Positive Behavioral Supports,” Project Achieve, accessed May 29, 2013 at www.projectachieve.org.
 Ciolfi, Shin, and Harris, “Educate Every Child,” 11. The report suggests that the Virginia Board of Education use its Virginia Incentive Program (VIP) to reward schools that reduce disciplinary referrals, suspension, and expulsion.
 S.B. 527, 2010 Leg., Reg. Sess. (La. 2010), http://bit.ly/10p3bod.
 Youth United for Change, Advancement Project, and The Education Law Center [PA], “Zero Tolerance in Philadelphia: Denying Educational Opportunities and Creating a Pathway to Prison” (January 2011), http://bit.ly/10p3wqT; “Schools and Justice,” National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, accessed April 23, 2013, http://bit.ly/18PLIsB.
 “Fair and Effective Discipline for All Students: Best Practice Strategies for Educators,” National Association of School Psychologists, accessed on NASP Center May 28, 2013, http://www.naspcenter.org/factsheets/effdiscip_fs.html; NASP Center, “Zero Tolerance and Alternative Strategies: A Fact Sheet for Educators and Policymakers,” National Association of School Psychologists, accessed May 28, 2013, http://bit.ly/1bLQ6Fo.
 National Council of Family and Court Judges, “Resolution Regarding Juvenile Courts and Schools Partnering to Keep Kids in School and Out of Court” (Las Vegas, NV: March 21, 2012), http://bit.ly/11JyGV5.
 For examples, see “Forms, Policies, Protocols,” National Council of Family and Court Judges, accessed April 23, 2013, http://bit.ly/19cBf7g; Advancement Project, “Proposed Memorandum of Understanding between the School District and Police Department,” http://bit.ly/16x99CT (model policy), but see also the actual “Summary of Intergovernmental Agreement between DPS and DPD,” Advancement Project.
 State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch, Court Support Services Division Policy and Procedures, “Juvenile Services Intake Procedures,” Policy No. 7.4 (June 15, 2011), http://bit.ly/13SJceq.
 Advancement Project, “Model School Discipline Policy,” http://bit.ly/13SJnGy; National Juvenile Justice Network, “Policy Platform: Safe and Effective School Disciplinary Policies and Practices” (Washington, DC: August 2011), http://bit.ly/15ikFyG.
 Terry Frieden, “Mississippi Town Sued Over School-to-Prison Pipeline,” CNN Justice, October 26, 2012, accessed June 16, 2013 at http://bit.ly/13SJCS7.
 H.R. 120, 145th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Del. 2009), http://bit.ly/11JzKbv.
 .S.B. 1540, 2009, Reg. Session (Fla. 2009), http://bit.ly/125CoXV.
 “OJJDP Model Programs Guide: Truancy Prevention,” U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), accessed June 3, 2013, http://1.usa.gov/1o7zzbL; Colorado Foundation for Families and Children, “Youth Out of School: Linking Absence to Delinquency” (Denver, CO: September 2002), accessed June 16, 2013 at http://1.usa.gov/1TdBN59.
 H.B. 1418, 61st Leg, Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2009).
 “2011 Juvenile Justice State Legislation,” National Conference of State Legislatures, accessed June 3, 2013, http://bit.ly/12PPXSQ; H.D. 1107, 117th Gen. Assemb., First Reg. Sess. (Ind. 2011), http://bit.ly/11rVAQQ.
 Annie Balck, “Advances in Juvenile Justice Reform: 2009-2011” (Washington, D.C.: The National Juvenile Justice Network, 2012), 7, http://bit.ly/1TdC3B9.
 “Introduction and Overview,” in “Juvenile Justice Guide Book for Legislators” (Denver, CO: 2011), 4, http://bit.ly/ZWs349.
 Joseph P. Ryan, “Child Maltreatment,” Sage Publications (April 25, 2012), 2, http://bit.ly/19To6mH; Janet K. Wiig and John A. Tuell with Jessica K. Heldman, “Guidebook for Juvenile Justice & Child Welfare System Coordination and Integration,” 3rd ed. (Washington, DC: Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps, 2013), xiii, accessed at http://bit.ly/1nVvZ0b.
 National Juvenile Justice Network, “Child Welfare: Gateway to Juvenile Court for African-American Youth,” (January 2013), at http://bit.ly/17ZldzT; Models for Change, “Knowledge Brief – Is There a Link between Child Welfare and Disproportionate Minority Contact in Juvenile Justice?” (John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, December 2011), http://bit.ly/Zydj7O.
 Hunter Hurst, “Update 2012: Headlines,” (Chicago, IL: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Models for Change initiative, November 2012), 11, http://bit.ly/12LQbcx.
 Ryan, “Child Maltreatment,” 7; Joseph P. Ryan, et al., “Juvenile Delinquency in Child Welfare: Investigating Group Home Effects,” Children and Youth Services Review 30 (2008):1088 – 1099.
 Wiig and Tuell, “Guidebook for Juvenile Justice & Child Welfare System Coordination and Integration,”, xv; “Delinquency Prevention and Intervention,” in “Juvenile Justice Guide Book for Legislators” (Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures, 2011), 8, http://bit.ly/19TztuO.
 Wiig and Tuell, “Guidebook for Juvenile Justice & Child Welfare System Coordination and Integration,”, xvii – xix, accessed at http://bit.ly/1nVvZ0b.
 Denise Herz, et. al., Addressing the Needs of Multi-System Youth: Strengthening the Connection between Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice (Washington, DC: The Center for Juvenile Justice Reform and the Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps, March 2012), 4-5.
 Herz, et. al., Addressing the Needs of Multi-System Youth, 27-34.
 Gregory Halemba and Gene Siegel, “Doorways to Delinquency: Multi-System Involvement of Delinquent Youth in King County (Seattle, WA)”, (Chicago, IL: Models for Change, September 23, 2011), at http://bit.ly/12LRdW0. See a sample resource inventory of the King County project in Herz, et. al. 57.
 Herz, et. al., Addressing the Needs of Multi-System Youth, 34-44.
 Herz, et. al., Addressing the Needs of Multi-System Youth, 55.
 Herz, et. al., Addressing the Needs of Multi-System Youth, 38.
 Denise Herz, et. al., Addressing the Needs of Multi-System Youth: Strengthening the Connection between Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice (Washington, DC: The Center for Juvenile Justice Reform and the Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps, March 2012), 24-25.
 Herz, et. al., Addressing the Needs of Multi-System Youth, 25.
 Janet K. Wiig with John A. Tuell, “Guidebook for Juvenile Justice & Child Welfare System Coordination and Integration” (Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, Dec. 8, 2008), Appendix F, 117 – 120, accessed at http://bit.ly/12WxRP7.
 “Strategic Innovations: Efforts that are Likely to Improve Services and Policies for Youth with Mental Health Needs Involved with the Juvenile Justice System,” Models for Change, accessed February 27, 2013, at http://bit.ly/11oHlQg.
Resources for this section: “Florida’s Civil Citation Initiative,” Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (January 2012), available at http://bit.ly/1040A0J; “Civil Citation Model Plan,” Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (January 2012), at http://bit.ly/1040A0J; “Florida Civil Citation,” Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, accessed February 14, 2013, http://bit.ly/11NrkyW; Gary Walby, “Juvenile Justice Diversion Programs: A Study of Civil Citation and Teen Court Programs in Florida” (Tallahassee, FL: Ounce of Prevention Fund of Florida, July 31, 2008), accessed June 19, 2013 at http://bit.ly/121cusK.
 Models for Change Mental Health/Juvenile Justice Action Network, “Intake-Based Diversion” (Delmar, NY: National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, September 2012), 4, at http://www.ncmhjj.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/FEDI-Brief.2012.pdf.
 Models for Change Juvenile Diversion Workgroup, “Juvenile Diversion Guidebook” (Chicago, IL: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, March 2011), 47, http://bit.ly/1ajKAfa.
 Resources for this section: Models for Change, “Juvenile Diversion Guidebook”; “Illinois Balanced and Restorative Justice (IBARJ),” Illinois BARJ Project, accessed February 13, 2013, http://www.ibarji.org/WhatIsIt.asp; “Restorative Justice Online,” Prison Fellowship International Center for Justice and Reconciliation, accessed February 13, 2013, http://www.restorativejustice.org/; “Balanced and Restorative Justice,” Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, accessed February 13, 2013.
 Models for Change, “Juvenile Diversion Guidebook,” 43.
 King County, Washington, “Assault 4 DV/Diversion Protocol,” (King County Juvenile Division, October 16, 2012). At http://bit.ly/14L7x8D. Received via email communication with Marcus Stubblefield, Systems Integration Coordinator, Uniting for Youth, Office of Performance, Strategy and Budget, Office of King County Executive, June 14, 2013.
 “About JDAI,” Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, JDAI Connect, accessed August 8, 2018.
“Results from the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative,” The Annie E. Casey Foundation, accessed May 28, 2013, at http://bit.ly/1avbaSF.
 “JDAI Core Strategies,” Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) Help Desk, accessed June 10, 2013, http://bit.ly/11Ns7jq.
 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), “Day Treatment,” OJJDP Model Programs Guide, accessed April 24, 2013, at http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Day_Treatment.pdf.
 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), “Home Confinement/Electronic Monitoring,” OJJDP Model Programs Guide, accessed September 6, 2018.
 Stacey L. Sklaver, “The Pros and Cons of Using Electronic Monitoring Programs in Juvenile Cases,” http://bit.ly/15lE16a.
 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, “Juvenile Drug Courts: Strategies in Practice,” (March 2003), http://1.usa.gov/16MF5TK.
James Austin, Kelly Dedel Johnson, and Ronald Weitzer, “Alternatives to the Secure Detention and Confinement of Juvenile Offenders” (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention), 3. Studies done from the 1960s to the mid-1990s also found community-based programs were more effective at reducing recidivism and improving community adjustment than traditional juvenile justice programs. See also Joel Copperman, Sarah Bryer, and Hannah Gray, “Community-Based Sentencing Demonstrates Low Recidivism Among Felony-Level Offenders,” Offender Programs Report Vol. 8, No. 2 (2004): 29, at http://www.cases.org/images/OPR.pdf; Richard A. Mendel, No Place for Youth: The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration (Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2011), 11-12, available at: www.aecf.org/noplaceforyouth.
 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), “Probation as a Court Disposition,” Statistical Briefing Book, accessed June 18, 2013, http://1.usa.gov/11zD21b.
 “Restorative Community Services,” Clark County [WA] Juvenile Court, accessed April 25, 2018, http://1.usa.gov/19jRLma; “What is Restorative Community Service?” Clark County [WA] Juvenile Court accessed April 25, 2018, http://1.usa.gov/12WIAcD.
 Gretchen Howard, “Project Payback: a Juvenile Restitution Program,” Making Restitution Real, The National Center for Victims of Crime (2011), at http://bit.ly/17ooVDT.
 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), “Intensive Probation Supervision: Intermediate Sanctions,” OJJDP Model Programs Guide, accessed September 6, 2018.
 Note that these programs can be used at other points in the process as well – such as prevention and alternatives to secure detention.
 Miss. Code Ann. § 43-27-201 (Lexis 2012).
 “Division of Youth Services: Community Services Programs and Services,” Mississippi Department of Human Services, accessed April 23, 2013.
 Senate Bill 103, 83rd Reg. Sess. (Texas 2007).
 Tony Fabelo, Nancy Arrigona, Michael D. Thompson, Austin Clemens, and Miner P. Marchbanks III, “Closer to Home: An Analysis of the State and Local Impact of the Texas Juvenile Justice Reforms,” (The Council of State Governments, January 2015), http://bit.ly/1Ews84R.
 Fabelo, et. al., “Closer to Home: An Analysis of the State and Local Impact of the Texas Juvenile Justice Reforms,” 17.
 For a discussion of the Model Program approach, see Mark W. Lipsey, et.al., Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs (Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, December 2010), 17, at http://www.modelsforchange.net/publications/284.
 Mark W. Lipsey, et. al., Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs (Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, December 2010), 18-19, at http://www.modelsforchange.net/publications/284; National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, “A Practical Approach to Linking Graduated Sanctions with a Continuum of Effective Programs” (Training and Technical Assistance Program Bulletin, Vol.2, No. 1, 2004), at http://ncjfcj.webfactional.com/sites/default/wp-content/uploads/linkinggraduatedsanctions_0.pdf.
 “Juvenile Justice System Improvement Project: Research Basis,” Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, accessed July 28, 2013, at http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/jjsip/researchbasis.html.
 W. Haywood Burns Institute, “Non-Judicial Drivers into the Juvenile Justice System for Youth of Color” (2011): 9, http://bit.ly/SclWrC.
 Sarah Cusworth Walker, Eric Trupin, and Jacquelyn Hansen, “A Toolkit for Applying the Cultural Enhancement Model to Evidence-Based Practice” (Division of Public Behavioral Health & Justice Policy, University of Washington and The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Models for Change initiative, Nov. 22, 2013), http://bit.ly/1g39C6Z.
[82a] National Juvenile Justice Network, “Supporting Immigrant Youth Caught in the Crosshair of the Justice System,” 2018.
 Coalition for Juvenile Justice SOS Project, “Positive Power: Exercising Judicial Leadership to Prevent Court Involvement and Incarceration of Non-Delinquent Youth” (Washington, DC: 2012), at http://bit.ly/1bFHRdE.
 Sara Mogulescu and Gaspar Caro, “Making Court the Last Resort: A New Focus for Supporting Families in Crisis” (Vera Institute of Justice and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s Models for Change initiative, December 2008), 3-6, at http://bit.ly/16MIsu0.
 Florida Network of Youth and Family Services, “Annual Report 2012,” 23, at http://bit.ly/19jUTyt.
 Hunter Hurst, “Update 2012: Headlines” (Chicago, IL: Models for Change, November 30, 2010), 7-8, http://bit.ly/12LQbcx.
 Beginning in 2002, the Vera Institute of Justice helped 23 counties in New York reform their status offender systems in various ways, including improving local services and programs for these youth, particularly crisis response, and relying on the family court only as a last resort. See Mogulescu and Caro, “Making Court the Last Resort,” 9-10.
 Tina Chiu and Sara Mogulescu, “Changing the Status Quo for Status Offenders: New York State’s Efforts to Support Troubled Teens” (New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice, December 2004), http://bit.ly/12WLJch.
 “ACS Launches New Services Continuum for Family Assessment Program,” New York City Administration for Children’s Services, March 17, 2011, at https://www1.nyc.gov/site/acs/justice/family-assessment-program.page.
 Mogulescu and Caro, “Making Court the Last Resort,” 6-7.
 “Multnomah County Juvenile Reception Center,” accessed August 15, 2018.
 Hurst, “Update 2012: Headlines”, 9-10.
 Coalition for Juvenile Justice, “Focus: Reauthorization of the JJDPA” (January 11, 2013), at http://bit.ly/1bYd9g8.
 Coalition for Juvenile Justice and National Criminal Justice Association, “Summary of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2018,” 2019, p. 1.
 “Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Protection Act,” 6-7.
 Mogulescu and Caro, “Making Court the Last Resort,” 9-12.
 Richard Mendel, “Juvenile Justice Reform in Connecticut: How Collaboration and Commitment Have Improved Public Safety and Outcomes for Youth” (Washington, DC: Justice Policy institute, February, 2013), 17, at http://bit.ly/19TOw7L.
 “Georgia’s Step Forward: Transforming a Status Offense System to Help Children, Families, and Communities,” Vera Institute of Justice, May 30, 2013; accessed June 20, 2013, at http://bit.ly/19WBXIE.
 Institute for Public Health and Justice, “Sustaining Juvenile Justice System Reform: A Report to the Louisiana Juvenile Justice Implementation Commission” (New Orleans, LA: LSU Health Sciences Center, School of Public Health, January 2013), 33.
 Sara Mogulescu and Gaspar Caro, “Making Court the Last Resort: A New Focus for Supporting Families in Crisis,” (Vera Institute of Justice and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s Models for Change initiative, December 2008), 7-8, at http://bit.ly/16MIsu0.
 “PINS Reform Legislation” Legislation and Regulations, New York State Office of Children and Family Services, accessed September 8, 2018.
 Hunter Hurst, “Update 2012: Headlines” (Chicago, IL: Models for Change, November 30, 2010), 10, http://bit.ly/12LQbcx.
 Hurst, “Update 2012: Headlines,” 10.
 Washington State Becca Task Force, “Truancy in Washington State. ‘Pay Now or Pay More Later,” 2 (December 2009), at http://bit.ly/181F812.
 Douglas N. Evans, “Pioneers of Youth Justice Reform: Achieving System Change Using Resolution, Reinvestment, and Realignment Strategies” (New York, NY: Research and Evaluation Center, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, July 2012), 15.
 National Juvenile Justice Network, “The Real Costs and Benefits of Change: Finding Opportunities for Reform During Difficult Fiscal Times” (Washington, DC: June 2010), 3, at http://bit.ly/10TTegO.
 Evans, “Pioneers of Youth Justice Reform,” 35-37; “Policy and Practice – Florida’s Redirection Initiative: Using Evidence-Based Practices to Improve Juvenile Outcomes and Save Taxpayers Money,” National Center for Justice Planning.
Evans, “Pioneers of Youth Justice Reform,” 32-35; National Juvenile Justice Network, “The Real Costs and Benefits of Change,” 2-3.
 State of Illinois, Department of Human Services. “Redeploy Illinois: Annual Report to the Governor and the General Assembly; Calendar Years 2010-2011.” 2011, p. 15, at http://bit.ly/1974sTG.
Evans, “Pioneers of Youth Justice Reform,” 52-54; Abigail Kramer, “News Brief: Governor Decides – in Juvenile Justice, City Kids Belong Near Home” (Center for New York City Affairs, January 17, 2012); “New York City Administration for Children’s Services Close to Home: Plan for Non-Secure Placement,” New York City Administration for Children’s Services; S. 6527 –E Budget/A. 9057 – D Budget, at 42-74 (N.Y. 2012), at http://bit.ly/12M9B0Q.
 Evans, “Pioneers of Youth Justice Reform,” 21-24; National Juvenile Justice Network, “The Real Costs and Benefits of Change,” 2; “Policy and Practice – Supporting Local Practice through Funding Innovation: RECLAIM Ohio and Targeted RECLAIM,” National Center for Justice Planning, accessed May 6, 2013, http://bit.ly/10zeqdO. Note that RECLAIM Ohio was also a response to the 2008 class action conditions lawsuit, S.H. v. Stickrath, Case No. 2:04-CV-1206 (S.D. Ohio, April 9, 2008) (stipulation for injunctive relief).
 “What is Targeted RECLAIM?” Ohio Department of Youth Services, Targeted RECLAIM, accessed June 17, 2013, http://1.usa.gov/11oFOKa.
 Evans, “Pioneers of Youth Justice Reform,” 15-18.
 “Getting More for Less in Juvenile Justice,” Texas Public Policy Foundation (March 2010), 5, at http://bit.ly/13Unjgi.
 Evans, “Pioneers of Youth Justice Reform,” 38-40.
 Evans, “Pioneers of Youth Justice Reform,” 18-21; National Juvenile Justice Network, “The Real Costs and Benefits of Change,” 2.
 Douglas N. Evans, “Pioneers of Youth Justice Reform: Achieving System Change Using Resolution, Reinvestment, and Realignment Strategies” (New York, NY: Research and Evaluation Center, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, July 2012), 42-46.
 Evans, “Pioneers of Youth Justice Reform,” 11.
 “About JDAI,” Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), accessed July 31, 2018, Juvenile Justice (JDAI).
 “IDOC Announces Closure of South Bend Juvenile Correctional Facility,” Indiana Department of Corrections press release, May 22, 2012.
Douglas N. Evans, “Pioneers of Youth Justice Reform: Achieving System Change Using Resolution, Reinvestment, and Realignment Strategies” (New York, NY: Research and Evaluation Center, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, July 2012), 4-5.
 Evans, “Pioneers of Youth Justice Reform,” 6-7.
 Balck, Annie, “Advances in Juvenile Justice Reform: 2009-2011” (Washington, D.C.: The National Juvenile Justice Network, 2012), 5, http://bit.ly/R1ZRnO.
 EW, CM, and Disability Rights, Mississippi v. Lauderdale County, Miss., Case No. 4:09 CV 137 TSL-LRA (S.D. Miss, April 30, 2010) (settlement agreement order).
 S.H. v. Stickrath, Case No. 2:04-CV-1206 (S.D. Ohio, April 9, 2008) (stipulation for injunctive relief), 10 – 12.
 S.H. v. Stickrath, Case No. 2:04-CV-1206, at 10 (S.D. Ohio, April 9, 2008, 10).
 This formula ties the funds counties receive from the state to reductions in counties’ use of state juvenile facilities. See National Juvenile Justice Network, “The Real Costs and Benefits of Change: Finding Opportunities for Reform During Difficult Fiscal Times” (June 2010), 2, at http://bit.ly/10TTegO.
 Douglas N. Evans, “Pioneers of Youth Justice Reform: Achieving System Change Using Resolution, Reinvestment, and Realignment Strategies” (New York, NY: Research and Evaluation Center, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, July 2012), 5-6.
 Douglas N. Evans, “Pioneers of Youth Justice Reform: Achieving System Change Using Resolution, Reinvestment, and Realignment Strategies” (New York, NY: Research and Evaluation Center, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, July 2012), 8-9.
 Patricia Kilday Hart, “Texas Lawmakers in Lockstep on Juvenile Justice Reform Efforts,” Houston Chronicle, May 22, 2011, accessed May 14, 2013, at http://bit.ly/10zgz9f.
 Annie Balck, “Advances in Juvenile Justice Reform: 2009-2011” (Washington, D.C.: The National Juvenile Justice Network, 2012), 22, http://bit.ly/R1ZRnO.
 VA. CODE ANN. § 16.1-278.8(14) (2012).

References: § 43
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 16