aecf-NoPlaceForKidsFullReport-2011

Before California prohibited state commitmentsfor misdemeanors and most non-violent felonycrimes in 2007, the population in state youthcorrectional facilities had already fallen from ahigh of 10,000 in 1996 to just 2,500. Most ofthese reductions can be traced to an innovativesliding-scale fee schedule enacted in 1996 thatsubstantially increased the cost to counties forcommitments of low-level offenders. Before thelaw was enacted, counties paid just a token fee($25 per month) for any youth in state custody.Under the new rules, the counties still paid little($150 per month) for the most serious offenders,but they had to pay 50–100 percent of the actualcost for youth with less significant offendinghistories. 126 The state’s confined population fellby more than half in the first seven years after thesliding-scale fees were imposed. 127PRIORITY4.Adopt Best Practice Reforms for Managing Youth OffendersIn addition to better programmatic alternatives, every jurisdiction must adoptcomplementary policies, practices, and procedures to limit unnecessary commitmentsand reduce confinement populations.Specifically, state and local juvenile justice leadersshould:Implement Detention Reform. Now operating in150 jurisdictions in 35 states plus the Districtof Columbia, the Annie E. Casey Foundation’sJuvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI)has reduced the daily detention populations inparticipating sites by 41 percent. JDAI jurisdictionshave also reduced the number of youthfuloffenders committed to state custody by 34percent. 128 Because youth detained pending theiradjudication hearings are placed more frequentlyin residential facilities than youth who remain inthe community, detention reform is an essentialstep for any jurisdiction seeking to reduce correctionalconfinement.Rethink Zero Tolerance School Discipline Policies.Youth charged in court for minor misbehaviorunder zero tolerance school discipline policiesare often placed on probation and can easilyend up in a detention or corrections facility ifthey violate probation rules. Innovative juvenilecourt leaders in Clayton County, Georgia, havereduced school-based referrals by two-thirds since2004 by forging an agreement with the schoolsto limit court referrals for minor misbehavior. 129Jefferson County (Birmingham), Alabama,reduced school-based referrals by 50 percent byinitiating a similar agreement in 2009. As theycurtailed zero tolerance, both these counties havesubstantially reduced correctional placements.Make Better Use of Juvenile Court Diversion.Arrests for serious violent crimes have fallen byone-third since their highs in the mid-1990s,and serious property crime arrests have fallen bynearly half. 130 Yet the total number of youth petitionedand found delinquent in juvenile courtsnationwide has fallen much more modestly dueto juvenile courts’ increasing propensity to prosecuteyouth for minor offenses. 131 Growing evidencesuggests that involvement in juvenile courtproceedings can itself be criminogenic—reducingthe likelihood that young people will age out ofdelinquency as they mature. Expanding diversionand limiting formal court processing of nonseriousoffenses can reduce the number of youth32