Bill Overview
Title: Prohibiting Detention of Youth Status Offenders Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits states, as a condition of receiving funds under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Program, from placing juveniles who commit status offenses in secure detention or correctional facilities for violations of valid court orders.
Sponsors: Rep. Cárdenas, Tony [D-CA-29]
Target Audience
Population: Juveniles who commit status offenses
Estimated Size: 50000
- The bill addresses juveniles who commit status offenses. Status offenses are non-criminal behaviors that are considered offenses due to the age of the offender, such as truancy or curfew violations.
- Juveniles involved in status offenses who would have previously been placed in detention facilities are the primary individuals affected by this bill.
- Elimination of detention facilities as a consequence for status offenses may impact state juvenile justice systems and policies, as they will need to find alternative ways to address these cases.
- Families of juveniles who might have been detained may also be impacted by changes in handling such offenses.
Reasoning
- The policy will mainly impact juveniles who commit non-criminal behaviors (status offenses) by changing how they are dealt with in the justice system.
- With the prohibition of detention for these offenses, states will need to find alternative ways to address them, possibly through community programs, counseling, or probation.
- Juveniles involved in status offenses often come from varied backgrounds, so the personal impact will differ based on individual circumstances, family support, and community resources.
- Families of these juveniles might benefit from keeping the child at home, leading to potentially better family relations and less disruption from the juvenile’s environment.
- The policy might also relieve some state resources, allowing them to focus juvenile justice efforts on more serious offenses, though initial adjustments may require funding for alternative provisions.
Simulated Interviews
Student (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 16 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy makes me feel like there are more options to help me stay in school rather than just getting punished.
- I think counseling or programs to help with my truancy would be better than detention.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
High School Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 15 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relieved that I won't have to face detention for missing curfews. It gives me a chance to work on my issues without feeling criminalized.
- I believe this will give families a chance to address our issues more constructively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Part-time worker, Student (Houston, TX)
Age: 17 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been in detention before for running away. This policy means I might have a chance to deal with my issues without being locked up.
- I would prefer more support from counseling or community services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 16 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's helpful that I'm not going to get detained for something like curfew breaking.
- I think this gives me more confidence to work on my behavior with my family.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Middle School Student (New York, NY)
Age: 14 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Feeling worried about being sent away is always on my mind, so this policy helps ease my fears.
- I hope this means better school support now.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Student (St. Louis, MO)
Age: 13 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I used to be scared of the idea of detention because of my truancy. Knowing I won’t be sent away allows me to focus on getting help instead.
- I hope more schools start supporting kids like me who face bullying.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 17 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy change means we might get more help rather than being locked up.
- I hope it encourages more community interventions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 15 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Detaining kids for curfew violations seems extreme, so I think this policy is fair.
- Having alternatives to detention feels like a more supportive approach.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Student (Jackson, MS)
Age: 16 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy will help more kids stay out of trouble without having to sit in a detention facility.
- I'm hoping there will be more programs to help us make better decisions in the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 14 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relieved this policy is in place since I was worried about detention for skipping school.
- I hope schools address why we skip rather than just punishing us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $48000000 (Low: $28000000, High: $68000000)
Year 3: $45000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $65000000)
Year 5: $40000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $60000000)
Year 10: $35000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $55000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Key Considerations
- Implementation consistency across states could vary, affecting cost estimates.
- Effectiveness of alternative programs in reducing recidivism rates will influence long-term fiscal effects.
- Collaboration with local agencies may determine the success and economic efficiency of program rollouts.