aecf-NoPlaceForKidsFullReport-2011

Is It Really Safe to Reduce Juvenile Confinement?Jurisdictions that have substantially reduced youth confinement in recent times have not suffered anyincrease in juvenile offending. Indeed, sharply reducing juvenile custody populations seems not toexert any independent upward impact on juvenile offending rates.United States: 1997 to 2007. Between 1997 and2007, the date of the most recent Census ofJuveniles in Residential Placement, the share ofthe juvenile population confined in correctionalcustody nationwide declined from 256 of every100,000 youth to 194—a 24 percent reduction.The rate at which adjudicated youth wereconfined in facilities described as long-termsecure care correctional facilities—which includemost training schools and youth prisons—plummeted41 percent over this decade. 107 Despite thereduced reliance on incarceration, juvenile crimerates fell across the board from 1997 to 2007,including a 27 percent drop in the juvenile arrestrate for violent index crimes. 108 Clearly duringthis decade, reduced juvenile incarceration didnot spark a new wave of youth violence.A more detailed analysis comparing trends at thestate level finds no correlation between juvenileconfinement rates and violent youth crime.When states are broken into four groups based onthe change in their rates of juvenile confinementfrom 1997 to 2007, the states that decreasedjuvenile confinement rates most sharply (40percent or more) saw a slightly greater decline injuvenile violent crime arrest rates than states thatincreased their youth confinement rates. Statesthat reduced juvenile confinement slightly (0 to20 percent) or moderately (20 to 40 percent)saw a smaller reduction in juvenile violent felonyarrest rates. 109 (See Fig. 10 on p. 27.)California 1996 to 2009. On a typical day in1996, the California Youth Authority incarcerated10,000 youth. 110 By June 2010, the averagedaily population of committed youth in statecorrectional facilities had dropped to under1,500—an 85 percent decline. 111 Even includingthe substantial number of California youthhoused in county-run correctional camps, thestate’s incarcerated juvenile population declined50 percent from 1999 through 2008. 112Contrary to the common presumption that moreincarceration breeds less crime, California’s juvenilecrime rates have declined substantially duringthis period of rapid de-incarceration. The arrestrate for property index offenses fell steadily from1995 through 2009. 113 The juvenile arrest rate forviolent index crimes also declined substantially,falling in 2009 to its lowest level since 1970. 114More detailed analysis of trends in within Cali forniaprovides no suggestion that greater reliance onincarceration improves public safety. In a July 2010publication, the Center on Juvenile and CriminalJustice analyzed California’s juvenile crime andcorrectional trends at the county level. “Across thestate, the lowest-level and fastest-declining countiesin terms of juvenile incarceration rates did nothave significantly different juvenile crime rates orchanges in crime rates compared to counties withthe highest-level and fastest-increasing juvenileincarceration rates,” the report found. 115Texas Before and After 2007. Unlike California,Texas began to steadily increase its incarceratedjuvenile population in the mid-1990s. Between1995 and 2000, Texas doubled the number ofyouth in state custody and then permitted populationsto fall only modestly over the subsequentsix years. 116 Yet, despite pursuing a diametricallyopposite incarceration policy, Texas achievedjuvenile crime outcomes eerily similar to California26