Author(s): The Sentencing Project
Published: June 25, 2021
Report Intro/Brief:
“Raise the age (RTA) reforms brought the vast majority of children (under the age of 18) back to the jurisdiction of juvenile court. While every state’s reforms included both misdemeanor and some felony charges, RTA reforms did not address other pathways into adult court such as judicial transfer or automatic transfer, laws that allow youth to be charged as adults for more serious offenses regardless of their age; laws that disproportionately are applied to youth of color. Further reforms are necessary to ensure that every child falls under the jurisdiction of juvenile court.
Despite the incremental approach of RTA reforms, opponents suggested that the costs of the reforms would be prohibitive, largely due to the need to build more secure facilities to accommodate the 16 and 17 year olds returning to the juvenile justice system. Fiscal notes often cited exorbitant costs associated with expanding the number of secure beds (professional jargon for holding incarcerated children in locked facilities) as a challenge to this common-sense reform.
Even proponents of raising the age believed that adding significant numbers of youth would strain the capacity of secure facilities, such as detention centers, youth prisons, and other out-of-home placements. Despite arrests of 17 year olds making up a majority of low-level charges (similar to younger youth), and a significant decline in the use of secure placement in this century—the number of beds and how to pay for them constituted a significant hurdle in RTA policy reform negotiations.
This report reviews each of the states that have raised the age of jurisdiction for its youth justice system and assesses the resulting housing needs for incarcerated youth. These states’ experiences present a clear picture that adding more youth under the jurisdiction of juvenile courts does not inevitably require additional secure facilities to house them, dispelling many of the assumptions of lawmakers and opponents of reform. The long-term declines in youth offending and arrests assume much of the credit for the decline in expected expenditures. Indeed, facilities continue to be closed or have excess capacity around the county, including in the states that recently raised the age.
Together, these states present a hopeful picture for the states that have yet to raise the age as well as those states that may add older adolescents under the jurisdiction of their juvenile courts.”
>>> CLICK HERE to see all of Youth Today’s REPORT LIBRARY
