Imagine, at the age of only eleven years old, being sentenced to life in prison for your

very first offense. This is legal in United States, along with other harsh sentences for juveniles,

that some would consider inhumane. There are approximately 90,000 young people in either

juvenile detention or correctional facilities across the country. Almost 60 percent of these youths

are imprisoned or detained for minor offenses, such as misdemeanors or status offenses (Flatow).

Annie E. Casey’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiatives began as a multi-million

dollar, five-year, five-site experiment meant to streamline and rationalize juvenile justice

systems (aecf.org). But if these policies were adopted across the United States, all of the youths

that would generally be placed in the juvenile detention system, which encompasses ages

seventeen and under, could be reformed outside of state correctional facilities. This would save

countless U.S. dollars, and would establish chances for each youth to create a better life. Casey’s

foundation, through work with public agencies, implements innovative and effective reforms;

such as probation-service programs, teaching programs, and other non-detainment programs, that

are meant to help to improve the futures of youths that have been, are in, or are likely to enter the

juvenile justice system (aecf.org).

The idea that punishing minors for their crimes will reduce crime is outdated, and

actually statistics now show that the opposite effect has occurred. According to a study of

Chicago youth incarceration, “Mass incarceration of American youth is actually making the

country’s crime problem worse,” (Aizer and Doyle). In this article, Aizer and Doyle discuss the

conclusions they have about the effects that incarceration has on juveniles. It was found that

those incarcerated youth had a 39 percent lower probability to complete high school, 13 percent

lower than non-imprisoned juvenile offenders (Aizer and Doyle). An even more surprising

realization, “given that prison is supposed to deter crime, going to jail also made kids more likely

to offend again,” (Aizer and Doyle). These young offenders were 67 percent more likely to

reoffend and end up in jail by the age of 25, or commit more violent crimes later in life than

other young offenders that did not go to prison (Aizer and Doyle).

The juveniles who have committed non-violent or minor offenses are imprisoned with

violent and experienced offenders, who not only tend to abuse the less violent newcomers, but

also can teach them the skills to commit more serious future crimes. When incarcerated, the

youths are surrounded by peers that have all committed crimes and the social norms change, in

the detention facility it is the norm to brag about the seriousness of the crime or what they have

not been caught for. This teaches the inexperienced youths that crime is something to be proud

of, therefore changing some of their goals and causing high rates of recidivism.

Another idea on why these youths reoffend is based off the Labeling Theory. This is a

“theory of how the self-identity and behavior of individuals may be determined or influenced by

the terms used to describe or classify them” (wikipedia.com). It is associated with the concepts

of self-fulfilling prophecy and stereotyping. It is associated with the concepts of self-fulfilling

prophecy and stereotyping. When someone is told that they are a criminal that should be

punished, he begins to believe that it is true and he begins to conform to this new identity. This is

also thought of as a self-fulfilling prophecy, and when the youth succumbs to the prophecy, he

will abandon social norms to act like a criminal. Once a child believes that everyone thinks of

him as a bad person, it is easier for him to allow himself to fall into this predetermined role as a

criminal.

Annie E Casey’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiatives program (JDAI) is a great

way to reduce incarceration rates and reoffending rates of non-violent juvenile offenders.

Through the work that the AECF does with public agencies, they are able to effectively reform

and improve the futures of youths that would normally been left to fend for themselves within

the juvenile justice system. Research done by the AECF has found that, “detention itself has a

significant negative impact on delinquency cases and is associated with negative long-term life

outcomes” (AECF, 2011). Their research has shown that when youth are detained they are more

likely to be found delinquent in court and sent to correctional facilities than other youths who are

being brought up on the same charges that were not detained before their court appearance.

“They are also more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol. Placement in locked detention -

particularly if it leads to a lengthy period of correctional custody - interrupts the natural

maturational process through which most young people grow out of delinquent behavior,”

(AECF, 2011).

For years, JDAI has been slowly established in certain areas, but the data for the year of

2011 shows how much JDAI could do if it were a widespread program. In 2011, JDAI succeeded

in substantially reducing reliance on secure detention. Sites reported detaining 41 percent fewer

youth on an average day in 2011 than they did prior to implementing JDAI reforms. JDAI was

able to reduce annual admissions to detention by almost 55,000 youth compared with pre-JDAI

admissions, a decrease of 38 percent , and detain fewer youth of color, who are the most

commonly detained youths in the juvenile justice system. They also reduced their commitment of

youth to state custody, experienced reductions in juvenile crime, and made continued

improvements in reporting capacity. (aecf.org)

Although JDAI has taken hold and blossomed in more than 100 sites in 25 states, New

Jersey has been named the “JDAI Model State.” An example of New Jersey’s success according

to the foundation is that the “annual admissions to detention dropped by 41 percent and average

daily population declined by 44 percent. As a result, 2,616 fewer youth were detained in 2008

than in 2003” (Annie E Casey Foundation). New Jersey’s success did come at a price, however,

since the state provided the Juvenile Justice System with $8 million in order to put that JDAI

practices in place. The price of this project is what has certain people skeptical of the worth of

the program, but in the long run, it will save states more money that they paid to put the

programs in place. By lowering the population of juvenile detention centers and juvenile wings

of correctional facilities, the state will save money on each youth they do not have to detain.

According to the Justice Policy Institute, it costs $240.99 per day to detain one youth in a

detention facility (Petteruti, Walsh, Velaquez). This number could decrease dramatically if the

juvenile imprisonment population was decreased with JDAI programs. For example, if only 200

youths were kept out of these facilities a year, the state would save $8 million in less than half of

a year. The majority of correctional facilities populations easily exceed 200 youths per day. Any

state that puts these initiatives into practice will save millions of dollars a year.

JDAI will not only save state and federal government money, but it will also improve the

lives of many youths. An example of an area that is improving the lives of its youth is Cook

County, Illinois. Cook County is located within the city limits of Chicago, and is considered to

be the second most heavily populated county in the United States besides Los Angeles,

California. Cook County is known to have a youth crime problem, including gang activity. The

goal of JDAI is that the juveniles who are caught offending at an early stage have a chance of

being reformed without being incarcerated. In Cook County, JDAI programs have been able to

“reduce its average daily population in locked detention from 682 to 420 between 1996 and

2005.” This was a dramatic drop that enabled Cook County to develop “alternatives to locked

detention for young people who don’t pose a serious threat of fleeing or reoffending, including

community-based evening reporting centers that offer constructive activities during afternoons

and early evenings while allowing youth to stay at home and in school,” (AECF, 2011). These

activities allow the youth to avoid gangs, and to learn skills that will help them later on, so that

they can avoid a life of crime.

Juvenile detention reforms set forth by the Annie E Casey Foundation have proven very

successful. These Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiatives have demonstrated that they are able

to effectively lower rates of recidivism while creating chances for the youths to build better lives

for themselves outside of a juvenile detention center. Changing the life of one child can lead to a

future family without crime, which can in the long run change the life of an entire community.

This holds true for Joey Schaeffer and his friend (who will be called John for his privacy). Joey

is a friend, who had a close connection with JDAI. Him and his friend, John were youths living

in Cook County, Illinois when John was arrested for a misdemeanor crime. Instead of being sent

to a juvenile detention center with more experienced and tougher youths who were detained for

much more serious crimes, he was sentenced to activities through JDAI programs. These evening

activities and services allowed John to separate himself from his criminal friends and lower his

gang activity while teaching him valuable life skills. John is now raising his child through a

crime-free lifestyle hoping to give him a better life than he had (Joey Schaeffer). The long term

effects of Annie E Casey’s Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiatives leads to a better tomorrow

for future generations.

"About Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative." About Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Apr. 2014.

Aizer, Anna, and Josephy J. Doyle Jr. “Juvenile Incarceration, Human Capital and Future Crime.” The National Bureau of Economics Research. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Apr. 2014

Flatow, Nicole. “Youth Incarceration Dropped 40 Percent, But Most Still Detained For Minor Offenses.” ThinkProgress. N.p., 19 June 2013. Web. 6 Apr. 2014

Menna, Wiliam. "Evaluated Labeling Theory of Juvenile Delinquency." Sciences 360. RR Donnelley, 15 Sept. 2007. Web. 8 Apr. 2014.

Petteruti, Amanda and Walsh, Nastassia, and Velázquez, Tracy. “The Costs of Confinement: Why Good Juvenile Justice Policies Make Good Fiscal Sense.” The Justice Policy Institute (2009). Web. 6 Apr. 2014.

Schaeffer, Joey. "Re: Cook County." Message to the author. 12 Apr. 2014. E-mail

The Anne E. Casey Foundation. “Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative Draft” 2011 Annual Results Report. Web. 6 Apr. 2014

Zack, Beauchamp. "Throwing Kids In Jail Makes Crime Worse, Ruins Lives."ThinkProgress. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Apr. 2014.