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: Sen. Casey, Robert P., Jr. [D-PA]
Target Audience
Population: Juvenile status offenders
Estimated Size: 200000
- Juvenile status offenders are young people who engage in behavior deemed inappropriate or unacceptable for their age by the legal system, such as truancy, running away, or violating curfew.
- Data on how many juveniles commit status offenses varies, but all juveniles involved in some form of status offense could be potentially impacted.
- Numerous advocacy organizations estimate that hundreds of thousands of youths are involved in the juvenile justice system annually in the U.S., with status offenders constituting a significant portion of those cases.
- The exact number globally would be larger, as the concept of status offenses exists in various countries, although definitions and legal implications may vary drastically.
- Considering variances globally, developed countries with similar legal frameworks to the U.S. are the most comparable in terms of juvenile justice systems.
Reasoning
- The population affected by this policy includes juveniles who are status offenders, their families, legal and social service providers, and the communities in which they live.
- Status offenders are juveniles who have committed acts that are not criminal offenses but are deemed inappropriate due to their age, such as truancy and running away.
- The policy aims to reduce the detention of these juveniles, thereby potentially improving their long-term wellbeing and reducing the stigma and impact of incarceration.
- Given the budget constraints, the policy needs to be targeted carefully, prioritizing regions or demographics with the highest incidence of status offenses.
- Many families and communities may experience only indirect impacts, with localized effects being more pronounced.
- The wellbeing of those directly affected, including the juveniles, is expected to improve, while those not directly impacted may not perceive any change.
Simulated Interviews
high school student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 17 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hated being locked up. It didn't help me. Maybe this change will help more kids like me stay out of jail.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
high school student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 15 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad I got counseling instead of going to juvie. It helped me more.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
part-time worker (Rural Alabama)
Age: 16 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I guess it's good fewer kids go to jail, but doesn't change much for us in small towns without resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
College student (New York, NY)
Age: 18 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step in the right direction for juvenile justice reform. It can keep young people out of the system and provide them with better support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Juvenile court judge (Houston, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing detention for status offenses aligns with restorative justice principles. More support and intervention will be crucial for its success.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Social worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy helps redirect resources where they're needed most. It'll take time, but it should help reduce the stigma of juvenile detention.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
High school principal (Detroit, MI)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the benefit in this policy, but schools need more support to keep students engaged and out of trouble.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired law enforcement officer (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Lifting the burden of detention can free up resources for other preventive measures. I've seen far too many kids that don't belong behind bars.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Non-profit director (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a valuable change, but the effectiveness will depend on implementation and the availability of community resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Public defender (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill might reduce caseloads for status offenses and let us focus on more serious cases with better outcomes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $400000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $500000000)
Year 2: $380000000 (Low: $280000000, High: $480000000)
Year 3: $360000000 (Low: $260000000, High: $460000000)
Year 5: $320000000 (Low: $220000000, High: $420000000)
Year 10: $280000000 (Low: $180000000, High: $380000000)
Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $300000000)
Key Considerations
- States will need to establish alternative intervention measures, necessitating initial costs covered by federal stipends shifted from detention funding.
- The policy shifts focus on rehabilitation over punitive measures, potentially leading to long-term societal benefits.
- Close monitoring of implementation is required to ensure states comply and effectively replace detention practices.