HOME  » NEWSROOM  » Press Releases  » 2007 Press Releases

For Immediate Release: December 4, 2007
Contact: LaWanda Johnson (202) 558-7974 ext. 308

There is no relationship between the rates at which people are sent to prison for drug offenses and the rates at which people use drugs in counties. For example, although Rockingham County, NH, has a larger percent of its population reporting illicit drug use, Jefferson Parish, LA, sent more people to prison for a drug offense at a rate 36 times that of Rockingham.

Higher county drug prison admission rates were associated with how much was spent on policing and the judicial system, higher poverty and unemployment rates, and the proportion of the county’s population that is African American.

Researchers attributed disparate policing practices, disparate treatment before the courts, mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws, and differences in the availability of drug treatment for African Americans compared with whites as reasons for the significant racial disparities seen in drug imprisonment rates.

“Laws—like drug laws—that are violated by a large percentage of the population are particularly prone to selective enforcement,” says Phillip Beatty, co-author of the study. “The reason African Americans are so disproportionately impacted may, in part, be related to social policy, the amount spent on law enforcement and judiciary systems, and local drug enforcement practices.”

While the report does not make detailed recommendations for counties, the authors suggest that policymakers consider reforming drug policies to include:

De-escalation of the “drug war.” Drug enforcement practices are focused in the African-American community, despite evidence that they are no more likely than their white counterparts to be engaged in drug use or drug delivery behaviors. Local, state and federal policymakers should closely examine racial disparities in local drug imprisonment rates that result from these practices, and consider alternative approaches to reducing drug use and sales.

Careful consideration of public safety funding. While policing and judicial expenditures need to be prioritized to help deal with violent crime, other ways to promote public safety would include investments in public health policies and services that reduce poverty and unemployment.

A shift to evidence-based drug enforcement practices. Reform drug enforcement practices, and collect data to analyze the fairness of local drug enforcement tactics and policies.

“Rather than focus law enforcement efforts on drug-involved people who bear little threat to public safety, we should free up local resources to fund treatment, job training, supportive housing, and other effective public safety strategies,” says Jason Ziedenberg, executive director of the Justice Policy Institute.

The report, “The Vortex: The Concentrated Racial Impact of Drug Imprisonment and the Characteristics of Punitive Counties,” is embargoed until Tuesday, December 4, 12:01 a.m. (Tuesday’s Newspapers). On December 4th, the report will be available on JPI’s website at www.justicepolicy.org. For more information, contact LaWanda Johnson at (202)558-7974 ext. 308 or ljohnson@justicepolicy.org.

 

###

The Justice Policy Institute is a Washington, D.C.-based think tank dedicated to ending society’s reliance on incarceration and promoting effective and just solutions to social problems.

 

 

For immediate release: November 28, 2007

Contact: LaWanda Johnson (202) 558-7974 ext. 308

 

Mississippi Juvenile Justice Reformer Named New JPI Executive Director


WASHINGTON, DC - The attorney who drafted, advocated for and helped pass sweeping juvenile de-incarceration legislation in Mississippi has been selected by the Justice Policy Institute's Board of Directors to lead the organization into its next decade.

The Justice Policy Institute (JPI), a national public policy institute dedicated to ending society's reliance on incarceration and promoting effective solutions to social problems, announced today that co-founder and Executive Director Jason Ziedenberg will step down and be replaced by Sheila A. Bedi. The transition will take place on January 14, 2008.

"We are incredibly excited to have found someone as dynamic, talented and dedicated to JPI's mission as Sheila is," said JPI Board Treasurer, Peter Leone. "Under Sheila's leadership, JPI will continue its work in highlighting the negative consequences associated with society's reliance on incarceration."

Bedi is currently the co-director and founder of the Mississippi Youth Justice Project (MYJP), a non-profit public policy and legal advocacy organization dedicated to the reform of Mississippi's juvenile justice system. At MYJP, Bedi drafted and helped win passage of the Mississippi Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2005, a measure which prohibits the incarceration of first-time non-violent offenders and establishes community-based alternatives to incarceration. Bedi drafted The Mississippi Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 2006 which requires training for juvenile defenders, re-entry planning for formerly incarcerated youth, set standards for juvenile detention centers and helped secure over $7 million for previously unfunded programs and services that will reduce the number of incarcerated children in Mississippi-including wrap-around services and other community-based alternatives.

"After years of advocating for children locked-up in our nation's most brutal and notorious prisons, I know that just building 'better' prisons will only perpetuate the cycle of incarceration, compounding our communities' public safety challenges," said Bedi. "JPI's cutting-edge research and advocacy confirms that our nation's over-reliance on incarceration is the greatest civil rights and political crisis of our time. As Executive Director, I look forward to building on JPI's success and contributing to the de-incarceration movement nationwide."

Since 1997, the Justice Policy Institute has worked to enhance the public dialog on incarceration through accessible research, public education and communications advocacy. Lawmakers, media, advocates, systems reformers, and the general public rely on JPI's timely analyses. Over the last decade, JPI's research and communication strategies have helped prevent federal laws that would prosecute more youth as adults, and the organization has collaborated with national and state-based campaigns to repeal these laws. JPI has worked to prevent initiatives for longer prison sentences or tougher juvenile justice measures from being enacted at the local, state and federal level. JPI has pursued legislation to divert drug-involved individuals from prison to drug treatment programs in Maryland and California, and has helped reshape public opinion around California's "Three Strikes Laws" and reforms to Maryland's drug sentencing statutes. JPI has elevated the importance of and promoted effective strategies to reduce the number of young people in pre-trial juvenile detention and reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system. JPI has published more than four dozen policy reports which constitute a "cannon" of work that supports reducing the use of incarceration.

After a decade of serving in a number of positions at JPI, including three years as Executive Director, Ziedenberg is returning to the West Coast in 2008.

"We thank Jason for his tireless work in helping JPI transition into a potent vehicle for de-incarceration work, and for managing the challenging shift of the organization to a new generation of leaders in this field," said Leone.

 

For Immediate Release: October 2, 2007
Contact: Jason Ziedenberg (202) 558-7974 x312 or LaWanda Johnson (202)558-7974 x308

Washington, D.C. –At the hearings, Congress will hear about two very different approaches to dealing with youth and gang violence—one that offers more of the same failed suppression tactics and one that offers the “PROMISE” of prevention.

Congressman Robert Scott (D-VA), chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee will hold hearings today, entitled “Gang Crime Prevention and the Need to Foster Innovative Solutions at the Federal Level?” The hearing will be at 1 p.m., in room 2141 of the Rayburn House Office Building

The subject of the hearing will be the Youth Prison Reduction through Opportunities, Mentoring, Intervention, Support, and Education Act (Youth PROMISE Act) introduced by Congressman Scott. The bill is an evidence-based method proven to reduce youth violence and delinquency, and would direct resources towards communities facing an increased risk of crime and gang activity in order to enable those communities to begin to address significant unmet neighborhood needs. The Youth Promise Act contains nearly no “gang suppression” policies or funding.

In contrast, experts say S 456, introduced by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-California), is fundamentally flawed with an emphasis on punishment and incarceration rather than prevention and early intervention. Additionally, advocates say that the bill has well documented problems of racial and ethnic disparities causing greater incarceration and severity of sanctions for youth of color in the juvenile and criminal justice systems.

“Senator Feinstein’s bill replicates the failures of the policies of Los Angeles and Chicago, and seeks to nationalize this approach in federal legislation,” says Kevin Pranis, co-author of Gang Wars: The Failure of Enforcement Tactics and the Need for Effective Public Safety Strategies, a report issued by the Justice Policy Institute in July.

JPI says specific parts of Feinstein’s Gang Abatement and Prevention Act are particularly worrisome including:
• Definitions of “Gang” and “Gang Crime” so broad, and so vague that it will dramatically increase unwarranted federal prosecution of young people. S 456 defines a gang as a formal or informal group, organization, or association of five or more individuals, each of whom has committed at least one gang crime; and who collectively commit three or more gang crimes. Research has shown that the vast majority of adolescent crimes occur in groups and that this “group context” is the most significant trait of offending during the adolescent years. The definitions contained in S 456 could apply to young people who have nothing to do with the serious gang violence that some communities endure.
• Gangs database that labels young people of color as gang members. S 456 would create a National Gang Activity Database, which in combination with the overbroad definitions of a gang, may lead to racial profiling. In Los Angeles, which employs a gang database, the Los Angeles district attorney’s office found that close to half of black males between the ages of 21 and 24 had been entered into LA county’s gangs database, even though no one could credibly argue that all of these young men were current gang members.
• Life without Parole for Youth. This legislation calls for significantly enhanced penalties, including life without parole sentences, which are inappropriate for youth, and contraindicated by widely accepted scientific research in the field of adolescent brain development. Research on adolescent brain development reveals, as the Supreme Court has acknowledged, there are fundamental differences between adults and adolescents, and the “culpability or blameworthiness” of an adolescent’s crimes are “diminished, to a substantial degree, by reason of youth or immaturity.”

Gang Wars points to Los Angeles and Chicago as examples of the tragic failure of the most popular suppression approaches to gangs. Despite decades of aggressive gang enforcement – including mass arrests and surveillance, huge gang databases, and increased prison sentences for gang crimes – gang violence continues at unacceptable rates. Despite this failed track record, policymakers nationwide risk following blindly in Los Angeles’ and Chicago’s troubled footsteps.

“Decades of harsh police suppression tactics in Los Angeles have proved counterproductive,” says Judith Greene, co-author of Gang Wars. “Not only has the City lost its ‘war’ on gang crime – the number of gang members has actually doubled. It’s time for new strategies that include making a real commitment to provide community youth programs, improve the quality of public education, increase social supports for struggling families and revitalize impoverished neighborhoods where unmet needs breed gang violence.”

New York City, by contrast, did not embrace the aggressive tactics chosen elsewhere when gang crime was on the rise, and has experienced far less gang violence. When gang violence became a serious problem, the city established a system of well-trained street-workers and gang intervention programs, grounded in effective social work practices and independent of law enforcement. Gang experts conclude that the city’s serious problem with street gang violence had largely faded away by the 1980s. Crime is at an historic low in New York.

To speak to one of the researchers or receive a copy of Gang Wars: The Failure of Enforcement Tactics and the Need for Effective Public Safety Strategies, contact Jason Ziedenberg or LaWanda Johnson at 202-558-7974.

The Justice Policy Institute is a Washington, D.C.-based think tank dedicated to ending society’s reliance on incarceration and promoting effective and just solutions to social problems.

The Justice Policy Institute today launches the second in a series of research briefs that examine the impact of positive social investments on public safety. "Employment, Wages and Public Safety," one of four briefs, finds that increased employment rates and wages are associated with public safety benefits. The release of this brief corresponds with concerns about U.S. job losses and the small uptick in the national crime rate.

Key findings from "Employment, Wages and Public Safety" include:

Increased employment is associated with positive public safety outcomes. Researchers have found that from 1992 to 1997, a time when the unemployment rate dropped 33 percent, "slightly more than 40 percent of the decline [in overall property crime rate] can be attributed to the decline in unemployment."

Increased wages are also associated with public safety benefits. Researchers have found that a 10 percent increase in wages would reduce the number of hours young men spent participating in criminal activity by 1.4 percent.

States that had higher levels of employment also had crime rates lower than the national average. Eight of the 10 states that had lower unemployment rates in the United States also had violent crime rates that were lower than the national average. In comparison, half of the 10 states with the highest unemployment rates had higher violent crime rates than the national average in 2005.

The risks of incarceration, higher violent crime rates, high unemployment rates and low wages are concentrated among communities of color. Communities of color and African Americans, specifically, experience more unemployment and lower average wages than their white counterparts. At the same time, communities of color are more likely to experience higher rates of violence than are white communities, and African Americans are more likely to be incarcerated than are whites.

A previous brief examined the impact of investments in education on public safety outcomes. Upcoming briefs will examine the intersection of policies on housing and drug treatment with safety and crime rates.

Washington D.C.- The Justice Policy Institute today launches the first in a series of research briefs that examine the impact of positive social investments on public safety. "Education and Public Safety," one of four briefs, finds that states that invest more in education have lower rates of violent crime and incarceration. The upcoming briefs will examine the intersection of policies on housing, employment, and drug treatment with safety and crime rates.

Key findings from "Education and Public Safety" include:

Graduation rates were associated with positive public safety outcomes. Researchers have found that a 5 percent increase in male high school graduation rates would produce an annual savings of almost $5 billion in crime-related expenses.

States that had higher levels of educational attainment also had crime rates lower than the national average. Nine out of the 10 states with the highest percentage of population who had attained a high school diploma or above were found to have lower violent crime rates than the national average, compared to just four of the 10 states with the lowest educational attainment per population.

States with higher college enrollment rates experienced lower violent crime rates than states with lower college enrollment rates. Of the states with the 10 highest enrollment rates, nine had violent crime rates below the national average. Of the states with the lowest college enrollment rates, five had violent crime rates above the national average.

States that made bigger investments in higher education saw better public safety outcomes. Of the 10 states that saw the biggest increases in higher education expenditure, eight saw violent crime rates decline, and five saw violent crime decline more than the national average. Of the 10 states that saw the smallest change in higher education expenditure, the violent crime rate rose in five states.

The risk of incarceration, higher violent crime rates, and low educational attainment are concentrated among communities of color, who are more likely to suffer from barriers to educational opportunities. Disparities in educational opportunities contribute to a situation in which communities of color experience less educational attainment than whites, are more likely to be incarcerated, and more likely to face higher violent crime rates.

The Justice Policy Institute is a non-profit public policy and research institute dedicated to ending society's reliance on incarceration and promoting effective and just solutions to social problems.

Groundbreaking New Report: Gang suppression tactics fail to reduce crime, can worsen problem; Pervasive myths about gang members and gang crime debunked

Experts tell lawmakers more police, more prison and more punishment have not stopped gang violence; advocate for science-based approach to public safety

Washington, D.C. –A groundbreaking new report released today by the Justice Policy Institute argues that the billions of dollars spent on traditional gang suppression activities have failed to promote public safety and are often counterproductive. The report is released as lawmakers consider legislation to stiffen penalties for gang-related crime and increase funding for gang suppression.

Gang Wars: The Failure of Enforcement Tactics and the Need for Effective Public Safety Strategies, written by Judith Greene and Kevin Pranis, undertakes an extensive review of the research literature on gangs to clarify persistent misconceptions and examine the effectiveness of common gang control strategies.  According to the report, in cities like Los Angeles where gang activity is most prevalent, more police, more prisons and more punitive measures haven’t stopped the cycle of gang violence. Most surprising are conclusions that gangs are responsible for a relatively small share of crime; gang activity has not grown in the U.S.; whites make up a large – if largely invisible – proportion of gang members; most gang-involved youth quit before reaching adulthood; and heavy-handed suppression tactics can increase gang cohesion while failing to reduce violence.

“The current preoccupation with gangs is a distraction from very real problems of crime and violence that afflict too many communities,” says report co-author Kevin Pranis.  “Gangs do not drive crime rates, and aggressive suppression tactics simply make the situation worse by alienating local residents and trapping youth in the criminal justice system.  Our review of the research found no evidence that gang enforcement strategies have achieved meaningful reductions in violence, but ample proof that science-based social service interventions can curb delinquency.”

Senator Diane Feinstein (D-California) and Congressman Adam Schiff (D-California 29th) have introduced legislation that would create new federal penalties, establish a national gangs database, and invest more than $700 million in suppression activities, dwarfing the funds provided for prevention.

Gang Wars points to Los Angeles and Chicago as examples of the tragic failure of the most popular suppression approaches to gangs. Despite decades of aggressive gang enforcement – including mass arrests and surveillance, huge gang databases, and increased prison sentences for gang crimes – gang violence continues at unacceptable rates.  Despite this failed track record, policymakers nationwide risk following blindly in Los Angeles’ and Chicago’s troubled footsteps.

“Other cities should not adopt Los Angeles’ disastrous ‘war on gangs.’ That approach has failed our communities for generations, and we can’t afford to lose any more youth to violence or prison,” says Luis Rodriguez, a nationally recognized Chicano writer and poet, and author of Always Running: La Vida Loca, Gang Days in L.A. “We need to invest in jobs, schools, and programs that are  proven to reduce recidivism, and reject the policies that prevent young people from leaving gang life behind them.”

New York City, by contrast, did not embrace the aggressive tactics chosen elsewhere when gang crime was on the rise, and has experienced far less gang violence. When gang violence became a serious problem, the city established a system of well-trained street-workers and gang intervention programs, grounded in effective social work practices and independent of law enforcement. Gang experts conclude that the city’s serious problem with street gang violence had largely faded away by the 1980s.  Crime is at an historic low in New York. 

“This reports shows that the cost of uninformed policy making is simply too high—in dollars and in lives,” says report co-author Judith Greene. “It is unfortunate that this new legislation threatens to continue this legacy of waste.”

In addition to Chicago, Los Angeles and New York, the report also examines gang problems and gang enforcement efforts in diverse jurisdictions including Boston, Dallas, Detroit, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, St. Louis, and the state of North Carolina.

Based on a review of existing research, Gang Wars draws the following conclusions: 

• Gang members account for a relatively small share of crime in most jurisdictions.  The available evidence indicates that gang members play a relatively small role in the national crime problem. Further, analysis of state-level data shows no consistent relationship between crime rates and reports of gang activity.
  
  
  
• The public face of the gang problem is black and Latino, but whites make up the largest group of adolescent gang members.  Law enforcement sources report that over 90 percent of gang members are nonwhite, but youth survey data show that whites account for 40 percent of gang members between the ages of 12 and 16. The disparity raises troubling questions about how gang members are identified by law enforcement.
  
  
  
• Gang control policies make the process of leaving more difficult by continuing to target former members after their gang affiliation has ended. Most young people who enter gangs will leave the gang within a year. But law enforcement practices can target former gang members long after their active participation in the gang has ended, and may dissuade employers from offering jobs to former gang members or youth who merely look like gang members.
  
  
  
• Heavy-handed suppression efforts can increase gang cohesion and police-community tensions, and they have a poor track record when it comes to reducing crime and violence. In Chicago, a cycle of police suppression and incarceration combined with a legacy of segregation to sustain unacceptably high levels of gang violence. Results from the Department of Justice-funded interventions in the three major cities of Dallas, Detroit, and St. Louis show no evidence of a positive impact on target neighborhoods. The picture is little better for gang enforcement strategies that seek to combine suppression with social service interventions: evaluations of Operation Ceasefire and the “Comprehensive Gang Program Model” show that neither was able to replicate the apparent success of the pilot programs, or to achieve a “balance” between law enforcement and community stakeholders.

“We’ve tried to win the war on gangs with law enforcement alone, but we have little to show for it,” says National Black Police Association Executive Director Ronald Hampton. “Rather than engaging in endless battles against gang members, we need to target the problem behavior that hurts communities.  We should support the kinds of prevention and proven programs that we already know reduce violence and crime.” 

The report advocates that public policy be directed toward reducing youth violence by learning from the lessons of the past and results from recent innovations in juvenile justice policy:

• Expand the use of evidenced-based practice to reduce youth crime. Instead of devoting more resources to the already heavily funded and ineffective gang enforcement tactics, policy makers should expand the use of “evidenced-based” interventions that are scientifically proven to reduce juvenile recidivism.
  
  
  
• Promote jobs, education, and healthy communities, and lower barriers to the reintegration into society of former gang members. Gang researchers observe that employment and family formation help draw youth away from gangs. Creating positive opportunities through which gang members can leave their past, as opposed to ineffective policies that lock people into gangs or strengthen their attachments, can help to improve public safety.
  
  
  
• Redirect resources from failed gang enforcement efforts to proven public safety strategies. Gang injunctions, gang sweeps, and various ineffective enforcement initiatives reinforce negative images of whole communities and run counter to best practices in youth development. JPI suggests that, instead, localities should end practices that can make the youth violence problem worse, and refocus funds on effective public safety strategies.

###

The Justice Policy Institute is a Washington, D.C.-based think tank dedicated to ending society’s reliance on incarceration and promoting effective and just solutions to social problems.

For immediate release: June 5, 2007
Contact: Laura Jones (202)-558-7974 x307
Jason Ziedenberg, (202)-558-7978 x312

38 National and State-Based Organizations Voice
“Grave Concerns” for Senator Feinstein’s Gang Bill;
Emphasizes Costly, Stop-Gap Approaches Could Worsen Problem,
Unfairly Targets Undocumented Youth

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Thirty-eight national and state-based organizations expressed “grave concerns” in a joint letter about Senator Feinstein’s “Gang Abatement and Prevention Act” (S. 456) bill which is being discussed in a hearing today. The signatories, which include research and policy organizations, youth advocates, mental health experts, faith-based groups, immigrant rights advocates, and community-based organizations working to reduce youth violence warn that the bill overemphasizes incarceration and suppression at the expense of a more effective approaches, defines “gangs” so broadly that non-criminal youth in groups could be convicted, and unfairly targets undocumented youth.

“We are eager to see sound and reasoned approaches that improve public safety, but this bill could compound violence we are already seeing in some communities by layering ineffective policies on top of deep social problems,” said Justice Policy Institute executive director Jason Ziedenberg.  “Rather than investing in the kinds of approaches proven to reduce youth violence, this bill clings to the failed policies of the past.”

The letter signed from the 38 organizations says that the bill fails to promote a “balanced” approach to public safety.  Of the $240.5 million in appropriations requested by the bill, only 20 percent is allocated for prevention and intervention services, which have been shown to be essential in reducing crime.  Additionally, 21 out of 23 substantive sections of the bill focus on creating new crimes and enhancing penalties for the convicted.  Research suggests that policies relying on juvenile and adult incarceration have failed to curb youth or gang violence, and imprisoning young people may contribute to increased juvenile recidivism.

The overbroad and too-inclusive definition of gangs in the bill will dramatically increase unwarranted federal prosecution of youth of color, and could ensnarl a wide spectrum youth.  If a group of five youth regularly associate, and members of that group commit what could be defined as a gang crime on three separate occasions, all five youth could be prosecuted under the gang laws, even if some of the members never participated in criminal activity.

Experts on immigration policy find that the bill unfairly and unnecessarily targets undocumented youth with enhanced sentences based on immigration status rather than the nature of the crime. The immigrant provisions are unnecessary and duplicative, given that comprehensive immigration reform is being addressed by Congress.

“Youth of all color commit crimes, including gang offenses, at similar rates, but by design, this bill will have a disproportionate impact on youth of color, and will not help stabilize communities already in distress,” said Ziedenberg.  “Instead of continuing the failed federal approach on gangs, Congress should support preventative approaches to delinquency that are proven ways of reducing juvenile recidivism.”

###

The Justice Policy Institute is a Washington, D.C.-based think tank dedicated to ending society’s reliance on incarceration and promoting effective and just solutions to social problems.

For immediate release: March 21, 2007
Contact: Laura Jones 202-558-7974, ext. 307 or cell: 202-425-4659
Jason Ziedenberg, 202-558-7974, ext. 312 or cell: 510-332-6503

NEW REPORT: Legal loophole leads to explosion of youth in adult jails; Abuse and isolation rampant; Majority held for nonviolent crimes

Incarcerating youth as adults does not reduce crime and disproportionately impacts youth of color; New campaign calls on Congress to ban use of adult jails for youth under 18

Washington, D.C.—Despite a federal law that prohibits the incarceration of youth in adult correctional facilities, the number of young people held in jails across the country has exploded by 208 percent since the 1990s, according to a new report released today at the national press club by the Campaign for Youth Justice. States exploit a loophole in federal law, which was designed to protect youth from the proven dangers of adult jails but only applies to youth in the juvenile justice system. Congress is considering the reauthorization of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) this year, and advocates are asking that all youth under 18 be protected from incarceration in adult facilities.

“Federal law exists to protect youth from being locked up in adult facilities, but too many youth are falling through the cracks,” said Campaign for Youth Justice executive director Liz Ryan. “We want Congress to close the loophole, and make sure every young person is treated the same. No youth under 18 should end up in an adult jail before they’ve even had a trial—it’s bad for youth and doesn’t protect communities.”

The Consequences Aren’t Minor: The Impact of Trying Youth as Adults and Strategies for Reform presents research, statuary analysis, and case studies to highlight the problems with the policies and practices that treat young people as adults in the justice system. The study examines the laws and data in seven key states: California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin. An estimated two hundred thousand youth end up in the adult system each year, and 40 states allow or require the jailing of youth in adult facilities before they ever go to trial.

Youth prosecuted as adults are often held in adult jails for months or years, even though most are charged with nonviolent offenses, the report demonstrates. A 17-year-old girl in Wisconsin, for example, served 75 days as a in an adult jail for violating probation by stealing a neighbor’s bicycle. In Chicago, a 17-year-old boy was arrested for “armed robbery” after he took a schoolmate’s gym clothes, and was detained at the Cook County jail for several weeks.

Data shows that tens of thousands of young people end up in the adult system for non-violent offenses. In 2003, over half the youth in California’s adult system were prosecuted for misdemeanors and less than 30 percent received a prison sentence, suggesting that the majority of youth could be safely handled in the juvenile justice system. Of the 8,000 young people who enter Connecticut’s adult court system, the vast majority are arrested for non-violent offenses. In 2002 almost 14,000 17-year-olds were admitted to Wisconsin’s adult jails but only 15 percent of these youth were arrested for violent crimes.

Research—including studies funded by the U.S. Justice Department—show that sending youth to the adult criminal justice system doesn't work to reduce crime. In one study comparing the recidivism of youth waived to criminal court in Florida with those retained in juvenile court, the research found that those in the “adultified” group were more likely to be re-arrested and to commit more serious new offenses; they also re-offended more quickly.

The laws are not evenly applied, with youth of color and those without access to adequate legal counsel more likely to end up in adult correctional facilities. Nationwide, three out of four young people admitted to adult prison in 2002 were youth of color. In Florida, Wisconsin, California, Connecticut, Illinois and North Carolina, youth of color represented nearly or more than 7 out of 10 youth in the adult justice system. Youth of color in Illinois make up just one-third of the general population, but in some jurisdictions make up 9 out of 10 young people in the adult system.

The report notes that juvenile judges are frequently excluded from the decision to prosecute youth as adults Instead, prosecutors and state laws determine which youth end up in the adult system, no matter how minor the nature of the offense. In 15 states prosecutors rather than judges have the discretion to send youth to the adult system. In other states, laws have lowered the age by which a youth ends up in the adult court, or they are automatically transferred based on the nature of the charge.

"As a former prosecutor and head of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, I have had the opportunity to witness first hand the impact of trying and sentencing youth as adults," said Shay Bilchik, director of the Center for Juvenile Justice Reform and Systems Integration at the Public Policy Institute of Georgetown University.  "While I once supported these laws, their virtual unbridled use has negatively impacted too many young offenders with whom the juvenile justice system could have done a better job in rehabilitating and promoting public safety and youth development.    States need to seriously consider reforming these laws, providing strict guidelines and reintroducing the role of the judge in making these jurisdictional determinations."

Jails are not designed to safely hold youth, who are either incarcerated in cells with adults, or separated in forms of isolation that can lead to depression or even suicide. Studies show that youth who are incarcerated in adult facilities are more likely to suffer abuse, become mentally and emotionally ill, and may be rearrested and commit more serious offenses than youth who benefit from the treatment, counseling and services available through the juvenile justice system. A recent Zogby poll conducted for National Council on Crime and Delinquency finds that 7 in 10 respondents felt that putting youth under age 18 in adult correctional facilities makes them more likely to commit future crime.

“The problem is that we are sending too many youth to the adult court who can be safely and more effectively handled in the juvenile justice system,” said Ned Loughran, executive director of the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators. “We have more information and evidence on what works than ever before. Now, we just need to keep this population in the juvenile justice system so they can benefit from all the advances in services and treatment.”

The report urges policy makers to take advantage of the shift in public opinion and new adolescent brain development research that inspired the Supreme Court to end the death penalty for minors. The report calls for a ban on the incarceration of youth in adult jails or prisons, and in the rare cases where the seriousness of a crime warrants consideration of prosecution in the adult system, a juvenile court judge should make the decision rather than prosecutors or state law.

“Young people need opportunities to turn their lives around, but these policies rob them of their futures,” said Roneka Jenkins, who is 16 years old and attends Thurgood Marshall Academy. “We need to give youth the education and skills to get good jobs and contribute to society. That’s best for everyone.”

The Campaign for Youth Justice (C4YJ) is dedicated to ending the practice of trying, sentencing and incarcerating youth under the age of 18 in the adult criminal justice system. For more information about the report, the initiative, or the event at the National Press Club, visit: www.campaign4youthjustice.org or call Laura Jones at 202-558-7974, x307.

###

The Justice Policy Institute is a Washington, D.C.-based think tank dedicated to ending society’s reliance on incarceration and promoting effective and just solutions to social problems.

For Immediate Release: February 26, 2007
Contact: Laura Jones (202)-558-7974 x307 or cell (202) 425-4659