Skip navigation

Juvenile Justice Reform – A Blueprint, YTFG, 2012

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
JUVENILE
JUSTICE REFORM
A BLUEPRINT

Improving Outcomes for Youth

We invite you
to join us
in embracing
a commitment
to juvenile
justice reform
An overwhelming enthusiasm
for previous editions of this
Blueprint has led us to print a
third edition. Our tenets for
improving outcomes for youth
have been updated and expanded,
as has the resource section with
a growing list of foundations and
nonprofit organizations. We
hope the framework assists you
in finding opportunities to enhance
your work to improve outcomes
for justice-involved youth.

An Invitation

|2

A Problem

|1

AN INVITATION
Youth in the justice system are not so different from youth
that many government agencies, nonprofit organizations,
businesses and philanthropists already serve. If your
organization supports youth development, education and

“	For these are all

after-school programs, foster care, workforce development,

	
	
	
	

you to become aware of these justice-involved youth and

our children.
We will all profit by, 		
or pay for, whatever
they become.

”

or public health, you will recognize many of the same youth
who are entangled in the juvenile justice system. We invite
see where your organization’s priorities overlap with their
needs. There is tremendous potential for positive investments towards their future success.

The time is ripe. Juvenile
justice systems are changing.
Federal statistics from 2011 indicate that the number of
youth held under lock and key dropped 25 percent over
the past decade, and by more than half in some states.

	

James Baldwin, Author

Jurisdictions are using evidence-based interventions
in community settings for many youth, and those youth
who are confined are being better prepared to pursue
educational and vocational opportunities upon their release.
The Juvenile Justice Work Group of the Youth Transition
Funders Group is comprised of regional and national
grantmakers working across the fields of justice, education,
foster care, human services, workforce development,
and public health. We support policies, programs and
advocacy at the federal, state and local levels that
promote fair, effective and age-appropriate treatment
of youth. We help governments and nonprofits preserve
public safety while improving young people’s chances
to become successful and productive adults.

An Invitation

|3

A Problem

Gender and Sexual Orientation
Girls represent a growing segment of the juvenile justice
population. They are disproportionately incarcerated,

Nationwide, police make about 2.2 million juvenile
arrests each year, and 1.7 million youth are referred to
juvenile courts. An additional 200,000 youth are tried in
adult court. An estimated 400,000 youth cycle through
juvenile detention centers. Each night in 2007 over
60,500 youth were confined in a correctional facility. 1
Each year approximately 200,000 youth under age 24
leave secure juvenile correctional facilities or state and
federal prisons. 2

together with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
(LGBT) youth, for status offenses such as running away,
and they are held in custody longer than boys for similar
behavior. 6 Gender-specific programming for justiceinvolved girls aims to address the realities of their lives,
including frequent histories of sexual and physical abuse
and teen pregnancy. LGBT youth who are incarcerated
experience significantly higher rates of bullying and
physical and psychological abuse. 7 For LGBT youth in the
justice system, states as diverse as New York, Utah and
Hawaii are adopting non-discrimination policies, practices,

Who is Incarcerated?
Poverty is the largest common denominator for
incarcerated youth, exacerbated by race. Few confined

and training for courts and juvenile justice administrators.

teens have committed serious felony offenses, such

Overlap between Child Welfare
and Juvenile Justice Youth

as robbery or burglary. About 80 percent of youth

Both justice-involved youth and youth in foster care

taken into custody are locked up for drug offenses,

are often raised in families that are characterized by

misdemeanors and property crimes. Many confined youth

dysfunction, abuse and neglect. Studies have found

are guilty only of status offenses, such as running away

that child abuse and neglect increase the risk of being

or truancy (only crimes for juveniles) and probation

arrested by 55 percent and increase the risk of being

violations (such as missing curfew). 3 Considerable

arrested for violent crime by 96 percent. 8 Youth need

discretion built into the juvenile justice system means

interventions that interrupt cycles of violence and

that youth from resource-rich neighborhoods and

victimization. Rather than harsh punishments, they

families are more often dealt with informally, while

need interventions that promote pro-social engagement.

disadvantaged youth—disproportionately youth of
color—penetrate more deeply into the justice system. 4

Racial and Ethnic Inequity
in the Juvenile Justice System

School to Prison Pipeline
From 1995 to 2004, the national juvenile arrest rate for
serious property and violent crimes declined 45 percent,
and homicide rates plummeted 70 percent. 9 Yet in this

Inequitable treatment of youth of color occurs through-

same period, the numbers of youth adjudicated delinquent,

out the juvenile justice system. Youth of color are over-

placed in secure confinement and sentenced to proba-

represented at many points in the system, and there is

tion all grew. 10 Twice as many youth were adjudicated for

also disparate and harsher treatment of youth of color

disorderly conduct in 2004 as in 1995. 11

compared to white youth who are charged with similar
offenses. Approximately two-thirds of incarcerated
5

youth nationwide are youth of color. w

The proliferation of zero tolerance policies in our nation’s
schools has helped propel this dramatic increase in minor
court cases. First enacted into law by state legislatures
and eventually by Congress in 1994, disciplinary policies

A Problem

|4

A Problem

|5

mandating severe punishments— suspensions, expulsions

Over their lifetimes, children who have been incarcerated

and referral to law enforcement— have been expanded

achieve less educationally, work less and for lower wages,

in many districts to cover a broad canvas of student

fail more frequently to form enduring families, experience

behaviors. They include not only possession of weapons,

more chronic health problems, including addiction, and

drugs and alcohol, but also prescription and over-the-

suffer more imprisonment than those who have not been

counter medications and common objects like nail

confined. 19 Recidivism studies show consistently that 50

clippers. Zero tolerance policies also cover such behaviors

to 70 percent of youth released from juvenile correctional

as making threats, truancy, tardiness, and vague, catch-all

facilities are rearrested within two to three years. 20

categories like “insubordination” and “disrespect.”
This is particularly disturbing for two reasons. First, most
Zero tolerance and other harsh disciplinary policies

young people age out of crime on their own, regardless

prematurely push struggling students out of schools and

of the intervention. 21 Research shows that incarcerating

into the juvenile justice system, dramatically increasing its

juveniles actually interrupts and delays the normal

racial disparities.

12

A landmark study of school discipline

pattern of “aging out” because it interrupts a child’s

in Texas showed that six in ten students were suspended

natural engagement with families, school and work. 22

or expelled at least once from seventh grade on, and

Second, most youth in the juvenile justice system can

that after their first suspension, youth were nearly three

be adequately supervised in community-based programs

times as likely to be involved in the juvenile justice system

or with individualized services without compromising

the next year. 13 Moreover, African American students

public safety. The vast majority of studies find that

and students with education disabilities were dispropor-

incarceration is no more effective than probation or

tionately likely to be removed from the classroom. 14

community-based sanctions in reducing criminality. 23

Overwhelming evidence shows that such policies are
counterproductive. After a comprehensive review, the

Unsafe Conditions of Confinement

American Psychological Association concluded that zero

America’s youth corrections institutions suffer from
widespread physical abuse and excessive use of

tolerance policies are associated with more, not less,
misbehavior and lower, not higher, academic achievement.

15

force by staff; 24 an epidemic of sexual abuse; rampant
overreliance on isolation and restraint; unchecked youth-

Incarceration:
Less Effective, More Expensive

on-youth violence; and frequent violence against staff.

No experience is more predictive of future adult difficulty

to and worsening mental health problems during periods

than confinement in a secure juvenile facility. 16 Confinement

of incarceration. One study found that for one-third of

in a secure facility all but precludes healthy psychological

incarcerated youth diagnosed with depression, the onset

and social development. Without enough freedom to

of the depression occurred after they were confined. 25

exercise autonomy, the gradual process of maturation—

While states will continue to incarcerate youth who pose

learning self-direction, social perspective and responsibility

serious risks to public safety, confinement of young

—is effectively cut off.

17

Research shows longer stays in

The environment breeds chaos and violence, contributing

people in locked facilities must be an option of last resort.

juvenile institutions do not reduce recidivism. In fact,
youth with the lowest offending levels report committing
more crimes after being incarcerated. 18

A Problem

|6

A Problem

|7

An Opportunity
Throughout the country, there is movement away from
punitive policies and practices, and a desire to reduce the
number of incarcerated youth and preserve public funding
without jeopardizing public safety. Many factors, explored

“…developments

below, contribute to this shifting perspective, leading us
to conclude that the time is ripe to fundamentally change
the juvenile justice landscape. This Blueprint presents a

	
	
	
	
	
	
	

in psychology
and brain science
continue to show
fundamental
differences
between juvenile
and adult minds.

	
	

Justice Kennedy, US Supreme Court,
Graham v. Florida, 2010

”

framework to guide these changes.

New Adolescent Brain Research
New developments in brain science highlight stark
contrasts between adolescents and adults. We now know
that the portions of the brain that govern impulse control,
planning and thinking ahead are still developing well
beyond age 18. 26 Adolescents are far less able than adults
to gauge risks and consequences, handle stress, and resist
peer pressure. Citing this new brain research, in 2005
the U.S. Supreme Court held the juvenile death penalty
unconstitutional. Again in 2010, the Supreme Court cited
brain research in holding that states may not sentence
youth under 18 to life without parole in non-homicide
cases. State legislatures have relied on adolescent brain
development research to raise the age of juvenile court
jurisdiction. Increasingly, policymakers and the public
understand that because adolescent’s brains have not
fully developed, youth are less culpable than adults for
their actions.

Scientific Evidence on What Works
There is powerful evidence on what works in responding
to delinquency. Blueprints for Violence Prevention, a
project of the Center for the Study and Prevention of
Violence at the University of Colorado, has identified
three scientifically proven model programs widely used
for youth in the juvenile justice system: Multisystemic
Therapy (MST), Functional Family Therapy (FFT), and
Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC).

An Opportunity

|9

All focus on the family. None involve incarceration. All
are cost-effective, and all deliver results.

27

These models

The MacArthur Foundation’s Models for Change, inspired
by its groundbreaking research documenting the develop-

are spreading and now serve more than 400,000 youth a

mental differences between adolescents and adults,

year. The studies provide a strong scientific base to show

aims to advance replicable models of effective, fair, and

what works. They give policymakers an opportunity to

developmentally sound juvenile justice policies and

make better choices about the efficient and effective use

practices. With focused efforts in four states -- Illinois,

of increasingly scarce juvenile justice resources.

Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Washington -- as well as
engagement with 12 additional partner states, Models

Well-Documented Models
of Systemic Reform

for Change is working on issues of aftercare, community-

Understanding how to change broad public systems has

indigent defense, mental health, disproportionate

increased dramatically. Under the long-time leadership

minority contact, and right-sizing jurisdictions.

based alternatives, evidence-based practices, juvenile

of Mark Steward, Missouri created a model system of
small home-like rehabilitation centers for confined youth

At least 204 facilities in 27 states are implementing

that is being replicated in Washington, D.C. as well as

Performance-based Standards (PbS), a management

in localities around the country. The model has several

tool developed by the Council of Juvenile Correctional

key elements. Youth are placed close to home. They are

Administrators with support from the federal government

actively involved in their treatment. Treatment is group-

that uses data to improve conditions of confinement.

based. Facilities do not look anything like youth prisons.

PbS tracks key indicators such as the use of restraints

The staff are highly trained. Physical restraints are used

and isolation to provide a clear representation of what

as a last resort. Planning for reentry begins as soon as

is really happening to youth and staff in locked facilities

youth enter the facility.

and provides administrators with tools and encourage-

Foundations have also launched large-scale systemreform efforts to reduce incarceration and provide better
treatment for youth. The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s 18year old Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI)
is a model for effective reduction of reliance on detention
that does not jeopardize public safety. Operating in 110
sites in 27 states and the District of Columbia, JDAI sites
employ eight core strategies: stakeholder collaboration;
data-driven decision making; objective tools to aid in
detention admission decisions; development of communitybased alternatives to detention; case processing reforms;
strategies for reducing detention because of writs,
warrants, and probation violations; reduction of racial
and ethnic disparities; and compliance with standards to
ensure safe and humane conditions in juvenile facilities.

ment to improve conditions and programming.

Financial Incentives
and Fiscal Realignment
Reforms that keep youth in their communities cost less
and produce more value than secure confinement. Public
expenditure on corrections is second only to Medicaid as
the largest growing budget area of state governments.
Correctional confinement costs on average $200 to $300
per youth per day, far more than even the most intensive
home- and community-based treatment models, which
are also better at holding youth accountable and reducing
recidivism. 28 A study by the Washington State Institute
for Public Policy found that every dollar spent on detention achieved only $1.98 worth of benefits (reduced crime
and cost of crime). By sharp contrast, for every dollar
spent, diversion and mentoring programs produced $3.36
worth of benefits. Aggression Replacement Training
produced $10 worth of benefits while Multi-Systemic
Therapy produced $13 worth of benefits. 29

An Opportunity

| 10

An Opportunity

| 11

With states facing serious budgetary constraints, it is an
opportune time for policymakers to consider ways to reduce juvenile justice spending that does not compromise
public safety. Resource-realignment from locked facilities
to community-based alternatives can reap better results
for communities, taxpayers and children. States such
as Wisconsin, Ohio, and Illinois have created innovative
financial incentives to support the growth of communitybased alternatives-to-placement. By redirecting the cost
to incarcerate youth from states to counties, initiatives
such as Reclaim Ohio and Redeploy Illinois have reduced
the number of youth in state custody, improved recidivism rates, and resulted in substantial cost savings. 30

The Role of Philanthropy
in Juvenile Justice Reform
Philanthropists, government officials, business leaders,
and nonprofit organizations are working together to
ensure that opportunities for justice-involved youth are
improved. Philanthropy can:
•	 facilitate convenings that enable public officials to
	 learn, plan and make connections
• 	promote interagency collaboration
• 	fund pilot projects that determine the effectiveness
	 of an approach
•	 encourage systems reform and innovation that make
	 public services more effective and fair

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	

Youth are often
locked in the state
system simply
because there is
nowhere for them
to go locally—and
no easy way to pay
for those services.

•	 invest in research projects to learn more about issues
	 of shared concern
•	 generate and vet promising policy solutions
• 	urge public engagement processes that increase youth,
	 family and community participation in identifying and
	 addressing problems
•	 support advocacy and communication to educate
	 the public, key stakeholders and the media about
	 pressing issues
•	 participate in networks and coalitions exploring solutions
Through the Juvenile Justice Work Group, grantmakers
align efforts, share strategies and knowledge, coordinate
and maximize investments, capitalize on each other’s
expertise, and build upon each other’s work. We are
finding our investments rewarded with growing success.
An Opportunity

| 12

A Problem

| 13

A Blueprint

1. Divert Youth from the Justice System

			

10 TENETS TO IMPROVE 		
OUTCOMES FOR YOUTH 		

Youth are often better served if involvement in the justice
system can be avoided. Most youth age out of delinquent
behavior without any formal justice-system intervention. 31
Unnecessarily exposing young people to the juvenile justice

1.

		 Divert

Youth from
		the Justice System

2.
		Reduce
Institutionalization

system can actually encourage future criminal activity
rather than deter it. 32 For many youth entering the justice
system, the consequences of a single lapse in judgment
can haunt them for a lifetime.

		Eliminate
Racial
3.
		and Ethnic Disparity

One diversion strategy provides law enforcement with

4.
		Ensure
Access to
		Quality Counsel

pre-arrest diversion for those in a mental illness crisis.

	 5. Create a Range of Effective
	
Community-Based Programs

give youth who are stopped by police for minor offenses

		Recognize
and Serve Youth
6.
		With Specialized Needs

7.
		Build
Small Rehabilitative
		Facilities

alternatives to arrest, such as Crisis Intervention Teams,
an innovative police-based first responder program of
Civil citation programs, supported by the Eckerd Family
Foundation and adopted in counties throughout Florida,
the option of performing community service and receiving
counseling instead of being charged with a crime. Prearrest diversions have been proven to be cost effective
as well as beneficial for youth. In Florida, civil citation
programs have saved the state more than $50 million
in five years. 33
Another strategy is to develop post-arrest alternatives
that divert youth from court involvement. In New York City,

8.
		Improve
Aftercare
		and Reentry

with consent of the victim, the Department of Probation

		Engage
Youth, Family
9.
		and Community

The Annie E. Casey Foundation supported the creation of

10.
		Keep Youth Out of Adult

juvenile justice system, and a nonprofit organization

		Courts, Jails and Prisons

has statutory authority to divert young people who have
been arrested before their cases are sent for prosecution.
the Juvenile Reception Center in Portland, Oregon, where,
in lieu of formal court intervention, the police, the county
collaborate to provide social service referrals for about
2,000 youth a year who are picked up by the police for
non-violent acts such as shoplifting.

A Blueprint

| 14

A Blueprint

| 15

2. Reduce Institutionalization

3. Eliminate Racial and Ethnic Disparity

Institutionalizing young people must be the choice of last

In nearly every state, in every juvenile offense category—

resort, reserved only for those who pose such a serious

person, property, drug, and public order—youth of color

threat that no other solution would protect public safety.

receive harsher sentences 38 and fewer services than

Incarcerating youth disrupts their positive social develop-

white youth who have committed the same category of

ment and exposes them to negative behaviors. Youth should

offenses. 39 Confidential youth surveys show that during

never be placed in a facility solely because of their family

adolescence, youth of all races and ethnicities become

situation or social service needs.

involved in violence, property crimes and other delinquent

The overwhelming majority of justice-involved youth can
be served, and the public kept safe, by community-based
services that align with best practices in the field. 34 Jurisdictions can distinguish between youth who pose risks to
public safety and those who can be placed in less-restrictive
settings by using validated risk and needs assessments that
measure risk to public safety and guide placement decisions;
expedited case processing; and sentencing guidelines.
Texas, North Carolina and Virginia have adopted legislation
to keep youth convicted of misdemeanors out of state
custody and have reduced commitment rates substantially:
36 percent in Texas from ‘07 to ‘10; 61 percent in North
Carolina from ‘98 to ‘08, and 50 percent in Virginia from
‘99 to ‘09. 35 Starting in 2000, Wayne County (Detroit),
Michigan launched a groundbreaking juvenile care

behaviors with only modest differences in the frequency
and severity of their lawbreaking. 40 Yet African-American
youth are arrested at dramatically higher rates than
white youth for all types of crime. Once arrested, they
are more likely to be detained, formally charged in
juvenile court, placed in a locked correctional facility,
waived to adult court, and incarcerated in an adult facility. 41
Jurisdictions can significantly reduce racial and ethnic
disparities in their juvenile justice systems. They can use
data to detect disparate treatment. They can eliminate
subjectivity from decision-making with objective screening instruments. Jurisdictions can develop culturally
competent programming, create a system of non-secure
graduated sanctions for youth , and employ mechanisms
to divert youth of color from secure confinement. 42

management network. Management of adjudicated

The W. Haywood Burns Institute and the Center for

youth was shifted to the county from the state and funds

Children’s Law and Policy are working with state and

saved from reductions in incarceration were invested in

local jurisdictions to eliminate racial and ethnic disparity

local programs. As a result, Wayne County’s use of short-

in the juvenile justice system. With support from many

term detention has been cut in half; the average daily

foundations, including Annie E. Casey, MacArthur, Ford

population of youth in training schools declined from 731

and Open Society, these organizations use data-driven,

in ‘98 to two in ‘10; and the recidivism rate two years

consensus-based approaches to assist a broad range

following court termination was only 18 percent. System

of stakeholders, including judges, prosecutors, public

costs dropped from $113 million in ‘99 to $88 million by ‘10. 37

defenders, and police, reduce racial imbalance and
ensure that juvenile justice systems are fair and equitable.
Santa Cruz County, CA cut the average number of Latino
youth in detention in half. Baltimore County, MD, Rock
County, WI, and Union County, NC all reduced the
percentage of youth of color in secure detention from
between 32 and 50 percent.

A Blueprint

| 16

A Blueprint

| 17

5.	Create A Range of Effective

4.	Ensure Access to Quality Counsel

Community-Based Program

Effective assistance of counsel is essential to reducing

Community-based programs positively change the

unnecessary detention, transfer to adult court, and

trajectories of young people’s lives. Jurisdictions are

incarceration of young people. 43 Youth in delinquency cases

building continuums of alternative-to-placement

have a constitutional right to counsel, as the U.S. Supreme

programs with graduated levels of supervision and

Court made clear in the 1967 landmark case, In re Gault.

services to ensure that youth are placed in programs

Yet across the country, youth too often face court hearings

that help them desist from delinquency and progress

without the assistance of competent counsel, sometimes

personally. Having a variety of community programming

appointed as little as five minutes before a case is called,

available for youth provides options for decision-makers

and many waive their right to counsel altogether. Like all

and therefore options for youth.

people, youth need access to qualified, well-resourced
defense counsel throughout the entire juvenile or criminal
court process.

Community-based alternative-to-placement programs
range from probation to wraparound services with
intensive supervision. They can include home confinement,

Beneficial reforms include early assignment of counsel;

alternative education, family preservation, mentoring,

policies that ensure that all youth are represented; specialized

victim-offender mediation, restitution, community service,

training for attorneys on topics such as adolescent develop-

respite care, and day and evening reporting centers with

ment, mental health and special education; and cross-system

educational, recreational and counseling opportunities.

representation when adolescents are involved in multiple

Programs can stand alone or be housed in existing

systems such as special education and child welfare.

organizations serving a broad range of youth. Evidence-

44

An informed defense attorney can also ensure that youth

based programs such as Multi-Systemic Therapy, Functional

are not subject to unwarranted collateral consequences of

Family Therapy, and Multi-Dimensional Treatment Foster

juvenile justice-involvement that can affect education,

Care (MST, FFT and MTFC) serve those with the highest

employment and residence.

risk of offending.

The Juvenile Indigent Defense Action Network (JIDAN),

Foundations can encourage jurisdictions to adopt

coordinated by the National Juvenile Defender Center, is

evidence-based and evidence-informed programming

a MacArthur Foundation Models for Change-supported

as well as broaden the evidence-based field by support-

effort launched in 2008 to implement targeted strategies

ing evaluations of new, innovative programs. The Edna

to improve juvenile indigent defense policy and practice

McConnell Clark Foundation has invested more than $21

nationwide. A JIDAN member, Massachusetts created

million in Youth Villages, a nonprofit organization that

a Juvenile Advocacy Department (JAD) in its statewide

runs evidence-based programs for justice-involved youth,

indigent defender agency, with nine juvenile defender

including MST, in several states. Expanding on this idea,

officers and enhanced capacity to provide leadership,

the Annie E. Casey and Robin Hood foundations sup-

training, support, and oversight to nearly 600 private

ported the design and implementation of the “Blue Sky

attorneys in best practices in juvenile defense. Since JAD

Project” in New York City to integrate MST, FFT and MTFC

opened, attorneys representing youth in Massachusetts

into a single continuum of care for young people who

have seen a significant increase in training opportunities

would otherwise be sentenced to placement. In Blue Sky’s

and requirements and a dramatic increase in oversight.

second year of operation, 62 percent of participants were

Motions practice on behalf of youth in court has also

arrest-free within one year from the start of services,

significantly increased.

representing a reduction in all categories of arrests, and
significant declines in felonies and violent felonies in
some boroughs.

A Blueprint

| 18

A Blueprint

| 19

6.	Recognize and Serve Youth 	
with Specialized Needs

	

7.	Build Small Rehabilitative Facilities

The juvenile justice system is too often used as a dumping

Juvenile correctional institutions do not live up to their

ground for youth with mental health needs. Research shows

name. Placing youth in large, group confinement facilities

that 70 percent of youth involved with the juvenile justice

is not justified from the perspective of treatment effective-

system meet the criteria for at least one mental health

ness or the prevention of future recidivism. 48 For youth

or substance abuse disorder.

who pose serious risks to public safety, several jurisdictions

45

Juvenile justice systems

regularly act as weigh stations where youth are confined

are phasing out large, prison-like institutions and building

solely due to a lack of community mental health treatment. 46

small, home-like secure facilities in their place. Small

These juvenile justice facilities are often overcrowded and

rehabilitation centers give young people the care and

understaffed and youth are exposed to stress, trauma and

interaction they need.

serious harms. Youth who have behavioral and mental
health needs are particularly vulnerable to these harms,
which result in serious injuries, self-mutilation, suicides
and death. 47

The best facilities are run by youth specialists who are
highly motivated and well trained, most with a college
degree. The culture and the physical environment
are conducive to positive youth development 49 and

Juvenile justice involvement is only appropriate when a

rehabilitation. These facilities are located close to the

youth’s delinquency—not his or her needs or disabilities—

communities where young people live, allowing families

is the primary reason for confinement. Vulnerable youth

to repair and renew relationships and practice skills for

can be identified through comprehensive screening and

addressing challenges youth face upon release. Staff

assessments in order to provide appropriate treatment,

members provide developmentally appropriate individual

supports and services. Mechanisms to divert youth such

and group programming with the goal of enabling youth

as juvenile mental health courts, wraparound services and

to reintegrate into their communities. Lengths of stay

referrals to community-based programs are all gaining

are determined by achievement of treatment goals and

recognition as strategies for getting justice-involved youth

youth are released when treatment goals are met.

into mental health services, which are less expensive and
more effective settings for meeting their needs.

Missouri created the first such model, which has proven
extremely successful. Its rehabilitative approach has been

Launched in 2005, The California Endowment’s $6.5 million

shown to better protect public safety and produce more

Healthy Returns Initiative (HRI) worked with five county

impressive outcomes than large institutions or other

probation departments to improve access to health and

punitive alternatives. Not only do youth released from

mental health services for youth in detention facilities. The

the Missouri system have lower rates of further juvenile

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJ) is helping policy-

and criminal justice involvement (70 percent of Missouri

makers assist teenagers caught in a cycle of drugs, alcohol

youth avoided recommitment to any correctional setting

and crime through a five-year, $21 million Reclaiming Futures

three years after discharge, as compared to a 45 to 75

initiative encompassing ten pilot sites across the nation.

percent re-arrest rate nationally), they also show improved

Recent evaluations of both of these initiatives demonstrated

educational outcomes and family functioning. 50 With

success in inspiring important changes in juvenile justice

support from the Annie E. Casey and Open Society

systems: counties were able to more systematically identify

foundations, and Atlantic Philanthropies, the Missouri

youth with health and mental health needs and connect them

Youth Services Institute is working with jurisdictions

to appropriate care and resources in the community. In

across the country to implement the “Missouri model.”

addition, HRI counties reported reductions of self-harm
behaviors inside juvenile hall and fewer days in custody for
participating youth, which resulted in probation cost savings.

A Blueprint

| 20

A Blueprint

| 21

8.	Improve Aftercare and Reentry

9.	Engage Youth, Family and Community

The best reentry programs begin while a youth is still

An overwhelming body of research shows that parents

confined. Nearly 100,000 youth are released from juvenile

and families are crucial to successful youth development.

justice institutions each year. Most are returned to families

Unfortunately, most juvenile justice systems are more

struggling with poverty in blighted neighborhoods with

inclined to ignore, alienate or blame family members than

high crime rates, few programs, and poorly performing

engage them as partners. 52

schools. Key to success is connecting youth to people,
programs and services that reinforce their rehabilitation
and help them become successful and productive adults.

Involved adults are necessary to keep young people active
in their own rehabilitation. Using techniques such as
family conferencing, jurisdictions are learning to work

Successful aftercare and reentry programs require

with parents—not against them—for the benefit of youth.

coordination between multiple government agencies and

Counties are soliciting consumer feedback from youth

nonprofit providers, not only to develop new services, but

in their care, thereby improving the quality of their

to help youth better access existing services. Upon release,

programs and also building competencies in young

teenagers must enroll immediately in school or have a job

people. Participatory justice initiatives aim to engage

waiting. Otherwise, they are more likely to return to their old

a broad swath of community members in a youth’s

friends and delinquent behaviors. Workforce development—

rehabilitation. Young people and their parents around

helping teens attain job skills and earn money—is a key

the country are successfully advocating for reform.

motivator for adolescents, increasing their commitment to
and enthusiasm for learning. Youth must have quick access
to mental health and substance abuse services as needed.
And they must receive strong support from family and other
caring adults. 51

The Family Justice Program of the Vera Institute of
Justice provides training and technical assistance to help
community-based organizations and justice agencies adapt
case management styles that are strength-based and
family-focused. The Campaign for Youth Justice National

With support from the MacArthur and Stoneleigh foundations,

Parent Caucus is a group of families with justice-involved

the Pennsylvania Academic and Career/Technical Training

youth that are advocating in communities, states and at

Alliance (PACTT) improves the academic, career and technical

the national level to demand a more just and effective

training that youth in placement receive to help them transi-

justice system. Common Justice, a demonstration project

tion successfully back to their home communities. PACTT

of the Vera Institute, funded by the Langeloth, Blue Ridge,

works with residential facilities to align academic programs

and Stoneleigh foundations, offers an alternative to the

with Department of Education standards and offers entry-

adversarial court system that uses voluntary participatory

level industry-recognized certifications portable after

dialogues among harmed (victim) and responsible

discharge. PACTT has stimulated rapid expansion of career

(offender) parties and their families, friends and neighbors.

training programs and currently has more than 60 offerings,

This model promotes healing and accountability while

including culinary arts, maintenance, auto body, welding,

facilitating the recovery of individuals and communities.

and office support. Today, close to a quarter of youth

Participatory justice (often called restorative justice) has

discharge with either a high school diploma or GED and

been shown to reduce recidivism, 53 significantly reduce

about half of the youth leave placement with an employabil-

post-traumatic stress in victims, 54 and leave both harmed

ity portfolio and soft skills competencies.

and responsible parties more satisfied with outcomes. 55

A Blueprint

| 22

A Blueprint

| 23

10.	Keep Youth Out of Adult Courts,
Jails and Prisons

Currently an estimated 200,000 youth are tried, sentenced
or incarcerated as adults every year across the United States. 56
During the 1990s—the era when many of our most punitive
criminal justice policies were developed—49 states altered
their laws to increase the number of minors being tried as
adults. On any given day, 10,000 youth are detained or
incarcerated in adult jails and prisons. Studies show that
youth held in adult facilities are 36 times more likely
to commit suicide and are at the greatest risk of sexual
victimization. 57 Youth of color are over-represented in the
ranks of juveniles being referred to adult court. In 2008,
the U.S. Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention found that transferring youth to
the adult criminal justice system does not protect the
community and substantially increases the likelihood that
youth will re-offend. 58
Multi-faceted campaigns have proven successful in changing
these laws and policies within states. Campaign organizers
establish goals that are specific, measurable, achievable,
realistic and targeted. Youth and parents are involved. Dedicated resources are important. Campaigns include organizing
and base-building; coalition building; direct action; external
communication and outreach; policy research; strategy; and
evaluation and documentation. Celebrating small successes
maintains dedication to the effort.
The Campaign for Youth Justice is dedicated to ending the
practice of prosecuting, sentencing and incarcerating youth

“	Working together,
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	

with righteousness 		
and hope, we can
create a country
that is about
reverence and
reconciliation, not
a world of shackles
and concrete cells.

	

Lateefah Simon, Advocate

”

under the age of 18 in the adult criminal justice system.
Since 2005, with support from the Open Society, Public
Welfare, MacArthur, Annie E. Casey, Ford, Eckerd Family
and Tow foundations, the Chasdrew Fund, and Atlantic
Philanthropies, the Campaign and its allies have affected
policy changes in more than a dozen states. With assistance
from the Campaign, in 2007 the Connecticut Juvenile
Justice Alliance secured the passage of a law that raised
the age of juvenile court jurisdiction from 16 to 18.

A Blueprint

| 24

A Solution
Philanthropists working across fields of justice,
education, foster care, human services, workforce
development, public health, racial justice, and human
rights are making strategic investments through small,
moderate and large grants. Philanthropy is supporting
research and advocacy, funding innovative programs,
convening government, business and community
stakeholders and supporting education and training

JUVENILE JUSTICE FUNDERS
The Annie E. Casey
Foundation
Bart Lubow
701 St Paul Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
t 410.547.6600
blubow@aecf.org
www.aecf.org

Atlantic Philanthropies
Kavitha Mediratta
75 Varick Street, 17th floor
New York, NY 10013
t 212-916-7300
k.mediratta@atlanticphilanthropies.org
www.atlanticphilanthropies.org

Blue Ridge Foundation

public education campaigns in particular over the past

Meryl Schwartz
150 Court Street, 2nd Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
t 718-923-1400
mschwartz@brfny.org
www.brfny.org

decade has led to dramatic improvements in the lives

Butler Family Fund

for government and nonprofit leaders. Philanthropic
support for federal and state-based advocacy and

of justice-involved youth. But there is much more to do.
Through the YTFG Juvenile Justice Work Group (JJWG),
grantmakers in all fields affecting disconnected youth
can support policies, programs, and advocacy at
the federal, state and local levels that promote fair,
effective and age-appropriate treatment of youth.
Philanthropy can help governments and nonprofits
preserve public safety while improving young people’s
chances to become successful and productive adults.
We hope to entice philanthropists, policymakers,
advocates and service providers, particularly those
already serving disadvantaged youth, to seize this
opportunity to advance juvenile justice reform. After
all, these are all of our children; let us profit from
what they become.
If you are interested in finding out more about the
Youth Transition Funders Group Juvenile Justice Work
Group, becoming a member, or sharing resources,
please reach out to us through the JJWG Coordinator,
Julie Peterson at: jempeterson@verizon.net, or the
YTFG Director, Lisa McGill at: lmcgill@ytfg.org

Martha Toll
1634 I Street, N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20006
t 202.463.8288
mtoll@butlerfamilyfund.org
www.butlerfamilyfund.org

The California Endowment
Barbara Raymond
1000 N. Alameda Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
t 800.449.4149
braymond@calendow.org
www.calendow.org

Carter and Melissa Cafritz
Charitable Trust
Mary Hallisay
1660 L Street, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036
t 202-331-3800
mthallisy@aol.com

Chasdrew Fund
923 Cameron Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
www.chasdrew.org

Criminal Justice Funder
and Activist Network
Bruce Reilly, Interim Coordinator
t 646-926-0504
CriminalJusticeFN@gmail.com
www.CJFANetwork.com

Eckerd Family Foundation
Joseph Clark
3000 Bayport Drive, Suite 560
Tampa, FL 33607
t 813-514-0858
jclark@eckerdfamilyfoundation.org
www.EckerdFamilyFoundation.org

Edna McConnell Clark
Foundation
Danielle Scaturro
415 Madison Avenue, Floor 10
New York, NY 10017
t 212.551.9100
dscaturro@emcf.org
www.emcf.org

The Elias Foundation
Jackie Mann
17 Marble Avenue
Pleasantville, NY 10570
t 914-449-6782
jmann@eliasfoundation.org

Ford Foundation
Kirsten Levingston
320 East 43rd Street
New York, NY 10017
t 212.573.5000
k.levingston@fordfound.org
www.fordfound.org

Bernard F. and Alva B. Gimbel
Foundation
Leslie Gimbel
271 Madison Avenue, Suite 605
New York, NY 10016
t 212-684-9110
lg@gimbelfoundation.org
www.gimbelfoundation.org

The George Gund Foundation
Marcia Egbert
1845 Guildhall Building
45 Prospect Avenue, West
Cleveland, OH 44115
t 216-241-3114
megbert@gundfnd.org
www.gundfnd.org

Hartford Foundation
for Public Giving
Judy McBride
10 Columbus Blvd., 8th Floor
Hartford, CT 06106
t 860-548-1888
jmcbride@hfpg.org
www.hfpg.org

The Heckscher Foundation
for Children
Heather Sutton
123 East 70th Street
New York, NY 10021
t 212-744-0190
hsutton@heckscherfoundation.org
www.heckscherfoundation.org

The Jacob and Valeria Langeloth
Foundation
Scott Moyer
275 Madison Avenue, 33rd Floor
New York, NY 10016
t 212-687-1133
smoyer@langeloth.org
www.langeloth.org

Stephen and May Cavin Leeman
Foundation
Cavin Leeman
215 W. 92nd Street, #13A
New York, NY 10025
t 212-873-5555
cpl@cpleeman.net

The John D. and Catherine
T. MacArthur Foundation
Laurie Garduque
140 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603-5285
t 312.726.8000
lgarduqu@macfound.org
www.macfound.org

Funders

| 27

New York Foundation

Public Interest Projects

The Tow Foundation

Maria Mottola
10 E. 34th Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10016
t 212-594-8009
mmottola@nyf.org
www.nyf.org

Don Cipriani
45 West 36th Street, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10018
T 212-378-2800
dcipriani@publicinterestprojects.org
www.publicinterestprojects.org

Diane Sierpina
50 Locust Ave.
New Canaan, CT 06840
t 203.594.4123
diane@towfoundation.org
www.towfoundation.org

The Nicholson Foundation

Public Welfare Foundation

U.S. Human Rights Fund

Michael Green
744 Broad Street, 26th Floor
Newark, New Jersey 07102
T 973-202-1508
mbgchef@gmail.org
www.thenicholsonfoundation-newjersey.org

Katayoon Majd
1200 U Street NW
Washington, DC 20009
t 202.965.1800
kmajd@publicwelfare.org
www.publicwelfare.org

Sue Simon
45 West 36th Street, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10018
t 212-378-2800
ssimon@publicinterestprojects.org
www.ushumanrightsfund.org

New York Community Trust

Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation

Youth Justice Funding
Collaborative

Kristin Schubert
College Road East and Route 1
P.O. Box 2316
Princeton, NJ 08543
t 877-843-7953
kschubert.rwjf.org
www.rwjf.org

Lindsay Shea
42 Broadway, Floor 18
New York, NY 10004
t 212.269.0304
www.youthjusticefund.org

David Rockefeller Fund

Elenore Garton
160 Allens Creek Road
Rochester, NY 14618
t 585-461-4696
nelli_garton@hotmail.com

Roderick Jenkins
909 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10022
t 212-686-0010
rvj@nyct-cfi.org
wwww.nycommunitytrust.org

Open Society Institute
Leonard Noisette
400 West 59th Street
New York, NY 10019
t 212.548.0600
lnoisette@sorosny.org
www.soros.org

Open Society
Institute-Baltimore
Monique Dixon
201 North Charles Street, Suite 1300
Baltimore, MD 21201
t 410.234.1091
mdixon@sorosny.org
www.soros.org

Overbrook Foundation
Rini Banerjee
122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2500
New York, NY 10168
t 212-661-8710
rbanerjee@overbrook.org
www.overbrook.org

Philanthropy New York
Ronna Brown
79 Fifth Avenue, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10003
t 212-714-0699
rbrown@philanthropynewyork.org
www.philanthropynewyork.org

Pinkerton Foundation
Christopher Bell
610 Fifth Avenue, Suite 316
New York, NY 10020
t 212-332-3385
chrisbell@pinkertonfdn.org
www.pinkertonfdn.org

Prospect Hill Foundation
Penny Fujiko Willgerodt
99 Park Avenue, Suite 2220
New York, NY 10016
t 212-370-1165
pwillgerodt@prospect-hill.org
www.prospect-hill.org

Funders

| 28

Marianna Schaffer
420 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
t 212-869-8500
mschaffer@rockco.com

Gardiner Howland Shaw
Foundation
Thomas Coury
355 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02116
t 617-247-3500
admin@shawfoundation.org
www.shawfoundation.org

Sherwood Foundation

Marie C. and Joseph C. Wilson
Foundation

Zellerbach Family Foundation
Amy Price
575 Market Street, Suite 2950
San Francisco, CA 94105
t 415.421.2629
amy.price@zellerbchfamilyfoundation.org
www.zellerbchfamilyfoundation.org

RESOURCES

Kristin Williams
3555 Farnam Street
Omaha, NE 68131
t 402-341-1717
kristinw@sherwoodfoundation.org
www,sherwoodfoundation.org

The following is a partial list of
nonprofit organizations to which
YTFG members turn regularly for
information, advice and assistance.

Skillman Foundation

The Advancement Project

Ed Egnatios
100 Talon Center Drive, Suite 100
Detroit, MI 48207
t 313-393-1185
eegnatios@skillman.org
www.skillman.org

Stoneleigh Foundation
Cathy Weiss
123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1130
Philadelphia, PA 19109
t 215-735-7080
cweiss@stoneleighcenter.org
www.stoneleighcenter.org

Tiger Foundation
Charles Buice
101 Park Avenue, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10178
t 212-984-2565
charles_buice@tigerfoundation.org
www.tigerfoundation.org

Non-Profit Organizations

Campaign for the Fair
Sentencing of Youth
Jody Kent
1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
t 202-289-4672
jkent@fairsentencingofyouth.org
www.fairsentencingofyouth.org

Campaign for Youth Justice
Liz Ryan
1012 14th Street, N.W., Suite 610
Washington, D.C. 20005
t 202-558-3580
lryan@cfyj.org
www.campaignforyouthjustice.org

Center for Children’s Law
and Policy
Mark Soler
1701 K Street NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 2006
t 202.637.0377
msoler@cclp.org
www.cclp.org

Center for Smart justice
Florida Tax Watch
P.O. Box 10209
Tallahassee, FL 32302
t 850-222-5052
www.floridataxwatch.org

Center for Young Women’s
Development
Marlene Sanchez
1550 Bryant Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94103
t 415.703.8800
marlene@cywd.org
www.cywd.org

Children’s Defense Fund
Maria Wright Edelman
25 E. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
t 800-233-1200
www.childrensdefense.org

Coalition for Juvenile Justice

Judith Browne-Dianis
1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 850
Washington, D.C. 20005
t 202-728-9558
jbrowne-dianis@advancementproject.org
www.advancementproject.org

Nancy Gannon Hornberger
1710 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.,
10th floor
Washington, D.C. 20036
t 202-467-0864
gannon@juvjustice.org
www.juvjustice.org

Ella Baker Center

Commonweal

Jakada Imani
1230 Market Street
PMB 409
San Francisco, CA 94102
t 415.951.4844
assist@ellabakercenter.org
www.ellabakercenter.org

W. Haywood Burns Institute
for Juvenile Justice
James Bell
180 Howard Street, Suite 320
San Francisco, CA 94105
t 415.321.4100
jbell@burnsinstitute.org
www.burnsinstitute.org

David Steinhart
PO Box 316
Bolinas, CA 94924
t 415.388-6666
steinhartd@aol.com
www.commonweal.org

Correctional Association
of New York
Gabrielle Prisco
2090 Adam Clayton Powell Blvd.,
Suite 200
New York, NY 10027
t 212-254-5700
gprisco@correctionalassociation.org
www.correctionalassociation.org

Resources

| 29

Endnotes

Council for State Governments
Justice Center

National Council on Crime
and Delinquency

Michael Thompson
100 Wall Street, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10005
t 212-482-2320
mthompson@csg.org
www.csg.org

Alex Busansky
1970 Broadway, Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612
t 510.208.0500
abusansky@sf.nccd-crc.org
www.nccd-crc.org

1
	 Mendel, Richard, No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing Juvenile
	Incarceration, The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2011

Equity Project

National Juvenile
Defender Center

3

Patricia Puritz
1350 Connecticut Avenue NW,
Suite 304
Washington, DC 20036
t 202.452.0010
ppuritz@njdc.org
www.njdc.org

	

Shannan Wilber
c/o Legal Services for Children
870 Market Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
t 415-863-3762
shannan@lsc-sf.org
www.equityproject.org

Fight Crime: Invest in Kids
Miriam Rollin
1212 New York Avenue NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
t 202.776.0027
Miriam@fightcrime.org
www.fightcrime.org

Georgetown University Center
for Juvenile Justice

National Juvenile
Justice Network
Sarah Bryer
1319 F Street, NW, Suite 402
Washington, DC 20004
t 202.467.0864
bryer@juvjustice.org
www.njjn.org

Shay Bilchick
Box 571444
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.,
Suite 5000
Washington, D.C. 20057
t 202-687-7657
shaybilchick@gmail.com
cjjr.georgetown.edu

Policy Research Associates

Justice Policy Institute

Marc Mauer
1705 DeSales Street, N.W., 5th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036
t 202-628-0871
mauer@sentencingproject.org
www.sentencingproject.org

Tracy Velazquez
1003 K Street NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20001
t 202.363.7847
tracy@justicepolicy.org
www.justicepolicy.org

Juvenile Justice Project
of Louisiana
Dana Kaplan
1600 Oretha Castle Haley Blvd
New Orleans, LA 70113
t 504.522.5437
dkaplan@jjpl.org
www.jjpl.org

Juvenile Law Center
Robert Schwartz
1315 Walnut Street, Floor 4
Philadelphia, PA 19107
t 215.625.0551
rschwartz@jlc.org
www.jlc.org

Missouri Youth Services
Institute
Mark Steward
1906 Hayselton Drive
Jefferson City, MO 85109
t 573.636.5037
mysi@earthlink.net
www.mysiconsulting.org

National Center for Youth Law
Patricia Soung
405 14th Street, 15th Floor
Oakland, CA 64612
t 510-835-8098
psoung@youthlaw.org
www.youthlaw.org

Resources

| 30

Joe Cocozza
345 Delaware Avenue
Delmar, NY 12054
t 518-439-7415
jcocozza@prainc.com
www.prainc.com

The Sentencing Project

Southern Poverty Law Center
Richard Cohen
400 Washington Avenue
Montgomery, AL 36104
t 334-956-8200
Richard.cohen@splc.org
www.splcenter.org

Vera Institute of Justice
Michael Jacobson
322 Broadway, Floor 12
New York, NY 10279
t 212.334.1300
mjacobson@vera.org
www.vera.org

YouthBuild USA

2

	 A Road Map for Juvenile Justice Reform, Annie E. Casey Foundation,
June 2008. Mears, D. and Travis, J., The Dimensions, Pathways and
Consequences of Youth Reentry, Urban Institute, 2004.

	
	

	 Ibid, Road Map

4

	 Annie E. Casey Foundation Investment Strategy - 2005 Budget Year,
Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative

5

	 KidsCount, Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2004

6

	

	 Soler, M. et. al., Lessons for a New Era, Georgetown Journal on Poverty
Law and Policy, 2010.

7
	 Beck, et. al., Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth
	2008-2009, BJS, 2010.
8

	 Back on Track: Supporting Youth Reentry from Out-of-Home Placement
to the Community, Youth Reentry Task Force of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Coalition, 2009.

	
	
9

	 Ibid, Road Map

10

	 Ibid.

11

	 Ibid.

12

	 Zero Tolerance Policy Report, American Bar Association, 2001; Richart,
et. al., Unintended Consequences: The Impact of Zero Tolerance and Other
Exclusionary Polices on Kentucky Students, Building Blocks for Youth, 2003.

	
	

13
	 T. Fabelo, et. al., Breaking School’s Rules: A Statewide Study of How
	 School Discipline Relates to Student’s Success and Juvenile Justice
	Involvement, Council for State Governments, 2011.
14

	 Ibid, Breaking School’s Rules

15

	 Ibid, Road Map

16

	

	 M. Wald and T. Martinez, Connected by 25: Improving the Life Chances
of the Country’s Most Vulnerable 14-24 Year Olds, 2003.

17

	 L. Steinberg, et. al., Reentry of Adolescents from the
Juvenile Justice System: A Developmental Perspective, Urban Institute
Reentry Roundtable, 2003.

	
	

18

	 Mulvey, E, Highlights From Pathways to Desistance: A Longitudinal Study
of Serious Adolescent Offenders, OJJDP Juvenile Justice Fact Sheet,
March 2011.

	
	
19

	 Ibid, Road Map

20

	 Ibid, Pathways to Desistance

22
	 Holman, Barry and Ziedenberg, Jason, The Dangers of Detention:
	 The Impact of Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Secure
	Facilities, Justice Policy Institute, 2010.
23

	 Ibid, No Place for Kids

24

	 Ibid.

25

	Ibid, The Dangers of Detention

26

	Ibid, Road Map

27

	 Evaluations of MST for serious juvenile offenders demonstrate reductions
of 25 to 70 percent in long-term rates of re-arrest, reductions of 47 to 64
percent in out-of-home placements, improvements in family functioning,
and decreased mental health problems. Henggeler, S. et. al.,
Blueprints for Violence Prevention Series, Book Six: Multisystemic Therapy.

Dorothy Stoneman
58 Day Street
Somerville, MA 02144
t 617-623-9900
dstoneman@youthbuild.org
www.youthbuild.org

	
	
	
	

Youth Law Center

29

Carol Shauffer
Sue Burrell
417 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94104-1121
t 415.543.3379
cshauffer@ylc.org
www.ylc.org

Ibid, Lessons for a New Era

21

28

	Ibid, Road Map

	Ibid, The Dangers of Detention

30

	
	

	Charting a New Course. The Real Cost and Benefits of Change:
Finding Opportunities for Reform During Difficult Fiscal Times, National
Juvenile Justice Network, 2010.

31

	
	

	 Ziedenberg, J., Juvenile Justice Reform: Most Minor Delinquents
Diverts from the Juvenile Justice System Avoid Reoffending, Reclaiming
Futures, 2009.

Endnotes

| 31

32

	
	
	
	

	 Bernburg, J., et. al., Official Labeling, Criminal Embeddedness, and 		
Subsequent Delinquency: A Longitudinal Test of Labeling Theory, Journal 	
of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43, 67-88, 2006; Gatti, U.,
et. al., Latrogenic Effects of Juvenile Justice. The Journal of Child
Psychology, 50(8), 991-998, 2009.

33

	 Florida Tax Watch Center for Smart Justice, www.floridataxwatch.org

34

	Charting A New Course: A Blueprint for Transforming Juvenile Justice
in New York State, A Report of Governor David Paterson’s Task Force on
Transforming Juvenile Justice, 2009.

	
	
35

	Florida Tax Watch Center for Smart Justice, www.floridataxwatch.org

36

	Wayne County, MI Children and Family Services Factsheet, 2010.

37

	 Butts, J & Evans, D (2011). Resolution, Reinvestment, and Realignment:
	 Three Strategies for Changing Juvenile Justice, John Jay College of
	 Criminal Justice, 2011.
38

	
	
	
39

	
	
	
	
	

	Poe-Yamagata, E. and Jones, M., National Council on Crime and
Delinquency, And Justice for Some: Differential Treatment of Minority
Youth in the Juvenile Justice System,” National Council on Crime and 	
Delinquency, Building Blocks for Youth, 2000.

	Research suggests that the overrepresentation of youth of color cannot
be explained by a higher level of offending. Krisberg, B., Juvenile Justice,
Redeeming Our Children, 2005, p. 87. Also, the practice of institutionalizing
youth to give them access to services disproportionately impacts youth of
color, who often come from under-resourced, urban and marginalized
communities. Ibid, Charting A New Course.

40

	Ibid, Road Map

41

	 Ibid, Road Map

42

	

	Hoytt, E,H,, et. al., Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform 8: Reducing
Racial Disparities in Juvenile Detention, Annie E. Casey Foundation.

43

	Jones. J., Access to Counsel, OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 2004

44

	
	
45

	
	
	

	Puritz, et. al., A Call for Justice: An Assessment of Access to Counsel
and Quality of Representation in Delinquency Proceedings, American Bar
Association, 1995.

	American Psychological Association, Statement on Reforming the
Juvenile Justice System to Improve Children’s Lives and Public Safety
(2010) U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor in Support of JJDPA, 	
2010

46

	Ibid, APA

47

	Ibid, APA

48

	Promising Practices for the Healthy Returns Initiative: Building
Connections to Health, Mental health and family Support Services in
Juvenile Justice, California Endowment, 2010; Buck Wilson, et. al.,
Reforming Juvenile Justice Systems: Beyond Treatment, A Reclaiming
Futures National Evaluation Report, 2010.

	
	
	
	
49

	Ibid, Resolution, Reinvestment and Realignment

For more information, contact:
YTFG JUVENILE JUSTICE WORK GROUP
Nelli Garton, Co-Chair
nelligarton@gmail.com
Diane Sierpina, Co-Chair
diane@towfoundation.org
Julie Peterson, Coordinator
jempeterson@verizon.net

50

	Positive Youth Development is a comprehensive framework that
emphasizes the importance of building on positive attributes that young
people have to promote their success.

	
	
51

	 Ibid, Charting A New Course

52

	Ibid, Back on Track

53

	Ibid. Road Map

54

	

YOUTH TRANSITION FUNDERS GROUP
Lisa McGill, Director
lmcgill@ytfg.org
Blueprint available at www.ytfg.org

	Umbreit, M. et al, The Impact of Victim-Offender Mediation: Two Decades
of Research, Federal Probation 65, No. 3, 2001

2012

55

	Angel, C., Crime Victims Meet Their Offenders: Testing the Impact
	 of Restorative Justice Conferences on Victims’ Post-Traumatic Stress
	Symptoms, A Dissertation in Nursing and Criminology at the University
	 of Pennsylvania, 2005.
56

	Ibid, Victim Offender Mediation

57

	Key Facts: Youth in the Justice System, Campaign for Youth Justice,
	 June 2010.
58

Written by
Julie Peterson
Designed by
Sonia Biancalani-Levethan, Fog Design

	Ibid, Key Facts

59

	Ibid, Road Map; Ibid, Key Facts; Ibid, Lessons for a New Era

	

Endnotes

| 32

A Problem

| 33

Today in America,
three million young
adults, ages 14 to 24,
are neither in school
nor employed.
The Youth Transition Funders Group is
a network of grantmakers whose mission
is to help all youth make a successful
transition to adulthood by age 25. Most
young people make a safe passage
from adolescence to adulthood with the
support of their families, caring adults,
communities, and schools. However, youth
with few supports – such as teens aging
out of the foster care system, youth
who do not finish high school, or youth in
the juvenile justice system – need help
to find the right path to success. YTFG
is dedicated to improving the lives of the
three million young people, between the
ages of 14 and 24, in need of extra support.

WWW.YTFG. ORG

An Invitation

| 34

 

 

Federal Prison Handbook - Side
PLN Subscribe Now Ad 450x450
Prison Profiteers - Side