The movement to find alternatives to incarceration for juveniles began in the 1960’s and 1970’s. One significant event that raised awareness of the possible problems with juvenile detention was the 1967 Supreme Court decision In re Gault, in which the Supreme Court reviewed the case of a 15-year-old boy who was sentenced to spend six years in a youth correctional center for making a single obscene phone call. In the end, the Supreme Court decided that Gault’s due process rights had been violated. Not only did this lead to efforts to decriminalize common juvenile offenses like truancy and curfew violations, but it also prompted the first efforts to implement community-based programs as alternatives to incarceration (Krisberg, 2005).
The movement gained strength in the 1970’s. In particular, there were concerns about deteriorating conditions in the juvenile detention centers at the time, especially overcrowding, which could pose health and safety risk to the juveniles who were incarcerated (“Alternatives to Detention and Confinement,” 2014). Also, with more youth advocates taking legal action in the wake of the In re Gault decision, there were concerns about the long-term legal viability of youth detention centers, as well as continued federal funding (Austin, Johnson, & Weitzer, 2005).
At the same time, between the late 1960’s and the mid 1990’s, social science researchers were conducting studies that all indicated that youth detention centers were doing more harm than good for juvenile offenders. While most researchers were finding that community-based programs had better outcomes, even the studies that had less conclusive results provided evidence that community-based programs were at least as effective as juvenile incarceration (Austin, Johnson, & Weitzer, 2005).
Throughout this period and still today, economic factors have also driven the movement to replace juvenile incarceration with community-based alternatives. Specifically, it costs about $241 per day for a bed in a juvenile detention center, which means that around $88,000 per year is being spent to confine juvenile offenders (Salsich, 2013). This is compared to less than $75 per day for most community programs (“Alternatives to Youth Incarceration”). Therefore, one of the most powerful arguments for reducing youth incarceration is to save taxpayer money.
Three Alternatives to Youth Incarceration
There are several alternatives to youth incarceration that are currently being used by juvenile courts. One example is home confinement (also known as house arrest). In this type of program, the court sets specific limitations on the youth’s movements. They are usually allowed to go to school, work, or go on essential errands, but other than that, they must remain at their home. Typically, the courts track the individual’s movements using an electronic monitoring system. For instance, in one program in Florida, the juvenile was required to wear a tamper-resistant bracelet that automatically sent location data to a monitoring center (“Alternatives to Detention and Incarceration,” 2014).
Another alternative is day or evening reporting centers. This is another nonresidential way to intensively monitor the activities of juvenile offenders without incarcerating them. Usually, offenders are required to check in at a reporting center at a certain time, 5 days per week, for a certain number of hours. These centers often provide valuable services such as drug rehabilitation, academic training, job training, life skills building training, and mental health counseling (Austin, Johnson, & Weitzer, 2005). One example of such a program is the AMIkids Community-Based Day Treatment Services. This daytime program combines intervention services with academic services, allowing juveniles to return home to their families (“Alternatives to Detention and Incarceration,” 2014).
A third option is specialized foster care. This is a residential option, in which foster families are trained to provide support for juveniles with a history of delinquency. Juveniles in these programs are closely monitored, and foster parents can provide personal mentoring and age-appropriate discipline. One example of this is Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC). MTFC sets up a support system comprised of the foster parents, the foster family members, and a treatment team of professionals, who work together to provide a positive and structured environment for the juvenile delinquent (“Alternatives to Detention and Incarceration,” 2014).
Benefits of Community-Based Alternatives to Incarceration
Research shows that there are significant individual and societal benefits associated with community-based alternatives to incarceration. Community-based provide better preparation for youths to re-enter society and contribute in a positive way. For instance, incarcerated youths are 26 percent less likely to complete high school (Salsich, 2013). Incarceration also hurts future employment prospects, as individuals are less likely to find a job. Those who work also earn lower wages. In addition, juvenile delinquents are at higher risk for mental health problems, which juvenile detention facilities are not equipped to meet, but community-based programs can provide access to counseling and other necessary services (“Alternatives to Detention and Incarceration,” 2014). Community-based options can also help to reduce crime rates for society as a whole, since individuals incarcerated as juveniles have a 70 to 80 percent chance of recidivism (Salsich, 2013).
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is clear that community-based sanctions for juvenile offenders, rather than traditional incarceration based on the adult prison model, can improve the juvenile justice system. Not only do these programs save taxpayer money, but they also offer benefits to individual offenders as well as the broader society.
- Alternatives to detention and confinement. (2014). Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/208804.pdfhttps://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/AlternativesToDetentionandConfinement.pdf
- Alternatives to youth incarceration. (2017). American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/issues/juvenile-justice/youth-incarceration/alternatives-youth-incarceration
- Austin, J., Johnson, K.D., & Weitzer, R. (2005). Alternatives to the secure detention and confinement of juvenile offenders. Juvenile Justice Bulletin.
- Krisberg, B. (2005). Reforming juvenile justice. The American Prospect. Retrieved from http://prospect.org/article/reforming-juvenile-justice
- Salsich, A. (2013). Alternatives to youth incarceration. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. Retrieved from https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/communities-and-banking/2013/fall/alternatives-to-youth-incarceration.aspx
