11 comments
I strongly oppose the proposed length of stay guidelines adopted by the Board of Juvenile Justice. I am a youth defender and have been so for the last 17 years. The proposed guidelines were submitted to the Board of Juvenile Justice and adopted without any concomitant impact study. The proposed guidelines contradict current research and evidence-based policies on youth incarceration by dramatically increasing length of stay. The proposed guidelines also fail to account for the costs of such a dramatic increase in DJJ population and the required personnel and facilities. The guidelines that were adopted and implemented in 2015 are effective at achieving the goal of youth court which is, foremost, rehabilitation of youth. An impact study to justify the proposed length of stay increases should be required before they can be adopted.
I have serious concerns about the significant increase in the proposed length of stay guidelines proposed by DJJ. It is my understanding that evidence based research shows that longer periods of detention increase recidivism. Under the current guidelines, committed youth must complete recommended programming before release, so I am not sure why a longer stay is necessary. In addition, the availability of a serious offender commitment is always an option for any youth who has demonstrated a need for a longer period of detention. Finally, requiring a youth to demonstrate a lengthy period of consistent good behavior before considering release is likely unrealistic and will result in even longer periods of detention and worse behavior.
In the past several months, I have observed that the new DJJ guidelines that require mandatory detention for youth who commit specific offenses has caused significant trauma to young people with no prior history of delinquency or with mental health issues. In my experience, removing the ability of local Court Services officers to exercise discretion in issuing detention orders has been extremely problematic. Taking away the discretion of DJJ officers to make holistic decisions about when a youth is ready for release will have the same effect. As a local prosecutor, I retain the ability to voice my own concerns as well as those of the community and victims regarding the proposed release of a juvenile offender if it is appropriate and warranted.
I am in support of changes more adequately tailored to the dual goals of rehabilitation of the juvenile and safety of the community - the stated purposes of this separate juvenile justice system. I have been in prosecution for 15 years. The first 10 years of my career were focused on cases in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court including juvenile offenders. How about data on the link between juveniles most likely to commit serious criminal offenses and thus more likely to recidivate when many of them are returned to the same terrible home environment that led them to this life of crime? We take the most dangerous and violent juvenile offenders out of the community for the shortest period of time possible before releasing most of them back to the same "people, places, and things" that laid the foundation for a life of crime. Then you want this juvenile to fight against the lifestyle in which he or she was raised to be an upstanding citizen? How are we to achieve meaningful rehabilitation to counter years of abuse, trauma, gang membership, etc. during the current paltry length of stays? What about safety of the community? Sec. 16.1-227 states the purposes of the JDR court are "that in all proceedings the welfare of the child and the family, the safety of the community and the protection of the rights of victims are paramount concerns of the Commonwealth..." Just this May I had 2 juveniles, 14 and 15 years of age, that I tried in the JDR court as they did not qualify for a transfer to Circuit Court based on changes in the law. If they did qualify I could have obtained a serious offender commitment which would have more adequately addressed their needs and the safety of the community. They were co-defendants charged with 2 counts of malicious wounding, 2 counts of armed robbery, 2 counts of A&B by mob, grand larceny, 2 counts of use of a firearm during the commission of a felony, 2 counts of brandishing, and possession of a handgun by a minor. If they were adults they would have faced a max of over 100 years in the penitentiary. They were sentenced to a commitment to DJJ estimated LOS 6-9 months. The victims were horrified that in as little as 6 months these juveniles could be released back into their community. Feb 2019 a different juvenile offender, was convicted of a street robbery and committed for 7-10 months. By December 2020 he was out, violated parole, picked up new criminal offenses that involved firearms and while wanted killed a man. He was later convicted of involuntary manslaughter and possession of a firearm by a violent felon. He was 15 years old. I can give more examples where the LOS is NOT the causation of recidivism. Again these changes allow for tailoring to the specific cases of each juvenile. Remember these are the juveniles who are committing the worst offenses or are already repeat offenders in order to be committed to DJJ. Given that juveniles are committing more serious offenses in my city and many with firearms, I welcome the change. The current short LOS incentivize the transfer of juveniles to Circuit court for more appropriate sentencing options. "The numbers of juveniles in the state’s correctional centers, and held in local or regional detention centers, is expected to rise. After a sharp drop in juvenile cases in fiscal year 2021, cases increased by nearly 32% in fiscal 2022." This came from a Nov. 2022 RTD article. While this number includes detention centers notice adult jails are included. So should we send our violent juveniles and repeat offenders to adult court and jail and/or penitentiary or have an adequate juvenile alternative for treatment and safety of the community?
I am writing to express my alarm and dismay about the Length of Stay (LOS) guidelines proposed by the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice (VA DJJ) that were published for public comment on December 5, 2022. I am writing this public comment in my personal capacity and not on behalf of Race Forward or any other organizational entity.
For over ten years, I have worked in and with youth and adult justice systems across the country with a focus on addressing living and working conditions in prisons and jails and advancing racial equity. I came to this work after my own experience with the justice system in Virginia as a 19 year old. The inhumane conditions left me awestruck. Additionally, being a white woman in a jail where the majority of incarcerated people are Black and Brown stayed with me and drove my commitment to racial justice. Following this experience, I received my Masters in Social Work from New York University and began my professional career in youth justice reform. My experience includes working in the Alternative to Placement Assessment unit at the NYC Department of Probation; at the Juvenile Justice Strategy Group in the Annie E. Casey Foundation (AECF); the Vera Institute of Justice as the Co-Founder and Project Director of the Restoring Promise Initiative [working with adult state prisons across the country to improve living conditions for incarcerated young people, and working conditions for frontline staff]; as Assistant Commissioner at the NYC Department of Corrections at Rikers Island Jail Complex; and today I work as the Director of Root Solutions to Public Safety at the national non-profit Race Forward.
While working at AECF, I was part of the team that partnered with VA DJJ on their transformation process. In this role, I worked on the system assessment in 2014, supported the research and data analysis that informed the new Length of Stay policy, and supported implementation of the new policies inside the facilities bringing VA DJJ into alignment with national research and best practices.
I remember the first time I visited a VA DJJ youth prison. Standing in the solitary confinement unit [at the time called the IBRU – Intensive Behavior Redirection Unit], listening to the sounds of screaming teenagers suffering the effects of sensory deprivation, I was thrust into the kind of dehumanizing climate that would become all too familiar to me in my later work in adult prisons. Every corrections agency I have worked with is susceptible to the same dangerous recipe – large and overcrowded facilities with high staff to youth ratios resulting in higher rates of violence, uses of force, lower program participation, less family contact, and worse public safety outcomes in the long term. The Bon Air IBRU embodied this tragic reality and continues to haunt me.
Every ingredient in that toxic recipe is intensified the longer a young person is kept in custody and away from their community. DJJ is now poised to walk away from a 2015 LOS policy that mitigated those harms and turn instead to a new policy that will worsen them. Here are three implications of this shift that, based on my experience, should give DJJ pause:
The history of VA DJJ should be warning enough to this end. I remember learning about the young person who committed suicide during Director Andy Block’s tenure and the grief that rippled throughout the agency. The moment was met with an urgent commitment to wholly transform the department recognizing the harm the current conditions were causing to young people, families, and communities, particularly youth and families of color. This commitment was anchored in an acknowledgement that healing happens in the context of community – not in the geographically and socially isolating context of a prison [youth or adult] – and in fact, the geographic and social isolation of Beaumont and Bon Air were undermining the departments commitment to safety and wellness of youth and staff.
Shorter lengths of stay also contributed to increases in family engagement at DJJ since 2015. We know from national best practices – and Virginia’s data based on the Transformation Update Reports – that increased family engagement has a direct relationship with increased safety inside facilities across all safety metrics [assaults, contraband, uses of force, etc]. In addition, increased family engagement increases the likelihood that a young person will be successful when they return home including reduced recidivism, and higher rates of engagement in school, programs, and pro-social activities. Reducing the LOS and in turn reducing the number of youth incarcerated set the stage to be able to have meaningful family engagement and disrupt the cycle of family separation by the state both of which would be compromised if the proposed LOS policy is put in place.
There is a striking lack of supporting evidence as VA DJJ has yet to publish an impact assessment, a racial equity impact analysis, or present a data or research driven rationale. For example, based on VA DJJ’s data Black youth are not only more likely to be committed to DJJ at disproportionally high rates, they also stay in DJJ custody longer compared to their white counterparts. Under the proposed LOS policy, 90% of indeterminately committed youth would now have an early release of nine months or more. DJJ should take great care in conducting a racial equity impact analysis to ensure that an old pattern does not re-surface or worsen where Black and Brown youth languish in prison as a result of systemic racism.
The team involved in the 2015 LOS policy change took great care to ensure the proposal was grounded in the latest research and was vetted through an impact assessment in order to have an informed calculus for how to prepare the system including the frontline staff charged with bringing the new policy into practice. It should be of grave concern to the DJJ Board and to the public that no impact assessment has been presented. This lack of planning and intention is both a concern for public safety reasons as noted above, and from a fiscal responsibility standpoint.
I have worked in a wide range of settings, jurisdictions, and agencies in my career. I was proud of the work accomplished by VA DJJ, especially the hard work done by the frontline staff to bring the policy changes to life on the ground inside the institutions themselves. This work brought Virginia DJJ to the national stage and in the company of some of the most innovative leaders while ushering in the next generation of youth justice reform. I – and many others - have pointed to VA DJJ as a shining example of what’s possible when you commit to bring a system into alignment with a set of values such as data and research driven decision making, restorative justice, and centering the dignity of the people who live and work in its facilities. This proposed LOS policy is a betrayal of those values that Virginia’s have held, setting the agency – and youth justice reform – back, and casting a shadow of shame across the state.
Violence is an important issue that we must confront as a society. Like many others, I have dedicated my career to advancing innovative solutions to meaningfully address violence in a way that truly centers the expertise of the person/ people most harmed by violence. I have learned that reparative/ restorative justice efforts that invest in the community and seek to repair harm are far more impactful and effective than stays in correctional facilities, and that any time a child is removed from their community there is a ripple effect extending far beyond what those in positions of power are often able to feel. The cumulative impact of our collective failure to appropriately address and repair harm from violence is serious. The proposed LOS policy falls in line with the decades and centuries old “tough on crime” approach that has failed to improve public safety, and caused serious harm to young people, families, and communities of color.
Now, more than ever, we need youth justice leaders to be bold by re-committing to proven policies that have supported our collective public safety and racial justice goals. My hope in writing this public comment is to reinforce the importance of Virginia leaders to recommit to the Virginia of the future: Where research and data drive decision making; where racial equity and inclusion are centered; and where justice and human dignity are reflected in policy and practice.
I am the current Commonwealth's Attorney for Loudoun County. I have served in that capacity since January 1, 2020. Prior to my current position, I practiced law in Virginia since 1993. I served as a guardian ad litem (GAL) for over 25 years, and a substitute judge for the 20th Judicial Circuit for 11 years.
I am requesting that the proposed "Guidelines for Determining the Length of Stay of Juveniles Indeterminately Committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice" be withdrawn as it is NOT based on data and will not enhance public safety nor increase the rehabilitation of the juveniles.
I represented hundreds of juveniles in the juvenile courts - either as a GAL in abuse & neglect cases or as defense counsel for juveniles accused of delinquency. Initially, the courts were quick to separate children from their families and community and to order them in residential program or to commit them to the Department of Juvenile Justice. It was common for the children to return to the community and be disconnected from their peers, family and community. The lack of connection resulted from their separation from the same for extended periods of time. As studies support, separating children from family, friends and community causes trauma to the children, their family, friends and community.
Extended periods of incarceration increase the harmful impact on the child, their family and the community. The child's ties to the community become frayed and weaken their pro-social ties, increases their trauma, and interrupt the natural maturation process.
In the early 2010 decade, our courts in Loudoun County identified that the commitments to DJJ, placements in juvenile detention and residential facilities were disproportionately imposed upon our children from communities of color and poverty. The focus by the Courts and later reinforced by DJJ policy was to keep the children in the community - use local detention centers, provide enhanced services, engage community stakeholders, etc. - in lieu of a commitment to DJJ. The results were a resounding success. Most of the children were held accountable and did not reoffend. The services were a success in that the children AND their family received assistance to make broader improvement and assert the family as the primary accountability partner for the child's behaviors. The community, school and families were partners with the court in the education and rehabilitation of the children; Then, after the court was no longer involved with the child, the community, school and families assumed and continued with the role of holding the child accountable. All of these stakeholders were engaged and invested in the individual success of the child. They created a partnership of success because they know that the child will be in their community.
The proposed changes - increase in length of stay - for juveniles serving an indeterminate commitment to DJJ is a threat to the safety of our communities. As is common knowledge, a child that comes into contact with the criminal system has a greater chance or recidivating if they are not engaged or involved in the community. The engagement of the community increases the long-term success of the child. The community is better equipped to assess the needs of the child, refer to or render appropriate services, and reintegrate into the community in stages. The threat to the safety of the community arises when children are removed from their family and community - incarcerated/detained in a facility that does not provide easy access to family members, the children are excised from their community, they don't continue with relationships with peers and teachers. Thus, upon their return to the community, they need to restart/develop relationships that may have diminished during their placement in DJJ. This increases the chances that they will reoffend upon their return to their community. The other challenge is that while the child is working on their programs, the community / family / school is not part of the child's progress. Thus, when the child returns, there is not a continuum or consistency of care but a drastic change.
Local services and facilities are more able to provide for the safety, connection and development of the child than the DJJ facilities. The cost of care is cheaper for everyone when we serve our children in our communities. The proposed changes to the length of stay recommends almost doubling the stay for the children under the premise that they will be allowed time to complete their programs. This is a false premise per DJJ's own recidivism data - the evidence supports that keeping children in their community for services has decreased recidivism from years of the past.
Another consideration is that the adult courts have recognized that reduced incarceration increases safety in the community - thus, they invest in specialty / treatment courts that allow the participant to remain in the community and receive treatment/services rather than incarcerating them. This consideration should be employed with children as they are more dependent on their families, community, schools, etc., and can benefit from building these support systems as a youth rather than being separated from them.
DJJ's premise that the proposed extended length of stays allows for DJJ to provide enhanced educational and vocational training is the very issue that we have with over-incarceration in America. We must end the falsehood that incarceration is a form of treatment - it is not. We were not able to incarcerate ourselves out of the drug crisis, not the mental health crisis and we can't incarceration ourselves out of the juvenile brain development crisis. Investing in adding these services in the DJJ facilities requires that the Commonwealth divert funding from the localities to the state facilities. That is NOT a solution but a guarantee that we will increase the number of children in custody yet not enhance community safety.
Voices for Virginia’s Children is the Commonwealth’s only independent, multi-issue child policy and advocacy organization. We champion public policies and legislation that achieve positive and equitable outcomes for young people.
Voices oppose the new Guidelines for Determining the Length of Stay of Juveniles Indeterminately Committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice (“Guidelines”). The Guidelines ignore the overwhelming body of evidence on the harms of incarceration for young people. They discount years of progress in reducing both the direct care population in DJJ and overall rates of recidivism, and they are contrary to public safety. Moreover, the Guidelines have been developed without a comprehensive, data-driven study of their impact on public safety, DJJ operations and costs, and the physical and mental health of young people in direct care. We ask the Board of Juvenile Justice to delay implementation of these guidelines to allow for a comprehensive review of data and evidence and robust engagement with public stakeholders.
While Virginia has made some advances in alternatives to youth incarceration, most young people committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice (“DJJ”) are still placed into “direct care,” meaning that they are confined to either a Juvenile Detention Center or to Bon Air, Virginia’s remaining maximum security youth prison. The new Guidelines will prolong periods of incarceration for youth, further cutting ties to family and community and interrupting the desistance process—all factors that endanger, rather than protect, public safety, while leading to additional trauma for young people.
Long periods of incarceration are not effective at improving public safety; on the contrary, incarceration harms young people, leading to worse health outcomes, higher recidivism, and worse educational and employment outcomes. A 2021 National Institutes of Justice publication, Pathways to Desistance From Crime Among Juveniles and Adults, which reviewed extensive literature on desistance from crime, states that “longer prison sentences are not effective in promoting desistance from crime and reducing recidivism. In fact, confinement disrupts the desistance process in many ways, and it should be used only as a last recourse. When possible, jurisdictions should favor alternatives to confinement for both juveniles and adults.”
Length of stay guidelines were significantly revised in 2015 to align with the latest research on youth justice. According to DJJ’s own analysis ahead of the 2015 revisions, commitments to DJJ for longer than 10-15 months were associated with worse rates of recidivism after release. Under new Guidelines, however, most indeterminately committed young people would have a “late” release date of 15 months or longer, and it is unclear that the Board has reviewed any newer data to show that longer stays will improve public safety.
The new Guidelines reverse years of progress in public safety and youth justice and run contrary to the evidence that the 2015 guidelines—and, more broadly, the bipartisan supported DJJ Transformation—are working. Under the 2015 guidelines and DJJ’s shift to community-based alternatives to incarceration, recidivism has been consistently lower for young people placed on probation than for those committed to DJJ and later released to parole. To continue this improvement in public safety, DJJ should be doubling down on its goal of investing in community-based alternatives, not creating longer periods of incarceration.
As a Commonwealth’s Attorney charged with responsibility for maintaining and enhancing public safety, I write in opposition to the proposed “Guidelines for Determining the Length of Stay of Juveniles Indeterminately Committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice.” Despite statements to the contrary in section 4.0, are not data-driven, and will ultimately harm public safety.
I rely on evidence and data to guide my approach to cases. The overview (section 4.0) of these proposed guidelines refers to “the public’s perception of safety and security,” when youth commit serious offenses. Science, not perception, should drive our responses and we should rely on the strong base of research about what does and does not work to improve the likelihood that the young people in our juvenile justice system will change their behavior and succeed as assets to their communities.
The overview also implies that the proposed longer LOS ranges are needed to provide accountability. In section 4.0, the proposed guidelines state, “Accountability requires that staff make every effort to instill in juveniles a full appreciation of the harmful impact their actions have had on victims, the larger community, and the juveniles themselves.” Accountability is paramount, but by this definition, accountability does not require a longer period of incarceration, or even, arguably, incarceration at all. Across the country, jurisdictions are using restorative justice processes to ensure that young people understand — and more importantly, take direct responsibility for — the impact of their actions on victims, the community, their families and themselves. These programs have demonstrated dramatic reductions in recidivism for youth with serious offenses when compared with current court system processes and dispositions. (And have produced greater hearing for victims as well.)
The proposed LOS guidelines revise and dramatically increase the LOS ranges across all Tiers and risk levels, and add specific, time-consuming release criteria. These changes will dramatically increase the time youth spend in DJJ custody without any data-driven rationale for the change. Moreover, the proposed guidelines ignore the evidence that the current guidelines are working.
The LOS guidelines adopted in 2015 are grounded in research using DJJ’s own data analysis that tracked re-arrest rates while controlling for offense and risk level. Among other findings, the Virginia-specific data showed that the probability of recidivism — expressed in the one-year rearrest rate — “increased by 33.3% if the [youth’s] LOS was longer than 15 months, and the probability of rearrest within one year was 44.3% higher for a [youth] with a LOS longer than 15 months compared to a [youth] with a LOS of 10 months or less.”
DJJ has not presented any findings that contradict the body of research supporting the current guidlines. In fact, the results achieved using the current 2015 LOS guidelines confirm the research findings. Despite the fact that DJJ has focused on a higher proportion of youth assessed as high risk, between 2014 and 2020, risk-adjusted recidivism rates fell 10% for youth released from DJJ facilities to parole. According to DJJ’s FY 2021 Data Resource Guide (page 79), recidivism for direct care releases, parole placements and parole releases have all fallen from 2018-2020.
This proposed LOS policy does not include any updated data analysis tracking the impact of time in custody. Meanwhile, the proposed changes in the Tier ranking system (section 6.2, moving many youth with misdemeanors and all of those with parole violations into higher Tiers) and the projected LOS (table, section 6.3) will dramatically increase the LOS for all indeterminately committed youth, without a corresponding public safety benefit. Given the earlier data analysis, there will be increased recidivism under these LOS guidelines, since 12 out of 20 Tier/Risk categories have a proposed late release date of at least 15 months, with several of them extending considerably longer, and the highest at 36 months.
Further, national research supports the notion that longer stays in custody weaken youths’ pro-social ties to family and community, add to trauma, lead to worse health and mental health outcomes in adulthood, interrupt the maturation process, and ultimately lead to weaker communities.
Youth with indeterminate commitments will return to their communities. We owe it to those communities — and to the young people leaving DJJ custody — to give these youth the best chance of success. DJJ’s own recidivism data shows that working with young people in the community, even young people who have been assessed as being at a higher risk to recidivate, is more effective than confinement. DJJ should be looking for more ways to support youth during their reentry and while on parole rather than extending their time in prison-like settings.
Finally, the proposed release eligibility criteria (section 8.2) that require completion of vocational programs and will add considerably to youths’ LOS. What is the rationale and evidence base for the proposed release eligibility criteria, and how will DJJ ensure that they are applied appropriately and fairly?
While it is laudable that DJJ provides some vocational training options for youth in custody, DJJ should not be in the business of incarcerating youth in order for them to receive such training. It is not clear whether DJJ has explored ways to provide the treatments and services committed youth may need while they are on parole rather than relying on an extended stay in confinement to provide access to these services. Given the detrimental effects of incarceration, serving youth in the community whenever possible should be a top priority.
Vocational skill development can and should be made available to justice-system-involved youth in the community. Court Services Units across the Commonwealth already build local partnerships for various services and supports; these can and should include connecting youth with vocational programming in the community through partnerships with local career and technical education options, workforce development centers and apprenticeship and other training programs, especially those geared to the local employment context.
Further, without any other changes, the longer lengths of stay in the proposed guidelines will result in a much higher population of youth in DJJ custody. It’s impossible to know exactly how large the increase will be, because DJJ has not released any analysis or population forecast that takes into account these drastically longer LOS guidelines. Nevertheless, it’s clear that the population will grow, which will require additional staff, likely result in overcrowding at Bon Air and may eventually make it necessary to (re)open an additional facility.
Even if staffing capacity is currently adequate, how will DJJ ensure that it remains so with these changes? The Community Treatment Model (CTM) that DJJ uses in Bon Air requires a cadre of well-trained staff. The proposed LOS changes would exacerbate any existing staffing challenges and/or create such challenges, posing a serious threat to program quality and treatment for youth in direct care. Quality programming and treatment are key to reducing recidivism; if DJJ can’t deliver these because of instituting longer stays, they are making the prospects for public safety worse.
Furthermore, DJJ has re-invested the savings from facility closures into a much-needed continuum of community-based programs and services throughout the Commonwealth. With an increased population of youth in direct care and without a substantial agency budget increase, funds for these services would likely be re-directed to treating youth in facilities, despite the fact that DJJ’s own data shows that treating youth in the community is more effective and costs taxpayers less. This will have a disproportionate impact on jurisdictions that don’t have as much local funding to fill the gap.
DJJ should withdraw these extremely flawed proposed LOS guidelines and do a thorough assessment before submitting any revised LOS policy. The assessment should include an analysis of DJJ data to determine the impact of LOS on recidivism, including the point of diminishing returns at which more time in custody ceases to improve a young person’s likelihood of desistance from crime. At minimum, the assessment should also analyze the impact on the population in Direct Care — and in Bon Air specifically — factor the analysis into the required population forecasts, and determine whether DJJ has the human and financial resources, and the physical capacity, to provide safety, connection, purpose, and fairness for that expected population of young people.
RISE for Youth is a nonpartisan organization committed to ensuring every space that impacts a young person's life encourages growth and success. RISE promotes the reduction of the criminal justice system's impact on the lives of youth through the creation of healthy communities and community-based alternatives to youth incarceration. Our work centers youth and their communities who together, challenge and dismantle racial and social injustice in Virginia.
RISE and all collaborating organizations stand in opposition to the proposed changes to the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice (("DJJ") Length of Stay ("LOS") Guidelines.
The mission of the DJJ is to protect the public by preparing court-involved youth to be successful citizens. In essence, DJJ is tasked with helping to keep communities safe by (1) providing effective programming that helps rehabilitate youth behavior and (2) keeping youth from reentering the legal system. During the last seven years DJJ has undergone extensive transformation, much of which has yielded positive results for youth in its care. One of the most sweeping changes during this period of transformation was an overhaul of the LOS policy. The LOS policy offers standards and guidance regarding the length of time a youth should be held in DJJ's custody when that time is not explicitly determined by the court. In drafting the 2015 LOS policy, DJJ initially heeded the vast body of research that demonstrated that keeping youth in custody longer yielded both a diminishing return and increased harm and, therefore, shortened the amount of time youth in Virginia were held in custodial settings.
Disturbingly, DJJ has recently proposed adopting a new LOS policy that would take us backwards by significantly increasing the amount of time youth committed to its care would remain in custody. DJJ has claimed a decrease in treatment completion and an increase in recidivism rates as the rationale for these proposed changes. However, these proposed policy changes are not supported by DJJ's data, which demonstrates that recidivism fell from 2014 to 2020 for youth at all risk levels, whether placed on probation or on parole (after a stay in DJJ custody). But youth at all risk levels fared better on probation.
The proposed guidelines further ignore research that shows keeping youth in custody longer in fact increases the chances that the youth will reoffend. A November 2022 publication summarizes the serious problems with an overreliance on confinement for young people. Among the findings cited is the prevalence of trauma among youth in the juvenile justice system, and the fact that confinement in a facility exacerbates youth trauma. A 2017 study that analyzed data collected from 14,344 participants in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health, found that "incarceration duration during adolescence and early adulthood is independently associated with worse physical and mental health later in adulthood." Study authors noted that "This relationship holds even when accounting for baseline health and key social determinants of health." The study found that an incarceration duration of more than one year as a young person "is associated with worse adult mental health and adult functional limitations," including depressive symptoms and suicidal thoughts.
In its presentation to the board of Juvenile Justice on November 9, 2022, DJJ stated that the percentage of young people completing treatment for aggression management and for substance use desistance has declined since the 2015 LOS policy was adopted. Because DJJ did not show any supporting data or explain what time periods were being compared, it is hard to evaluate this claim. However, the programs currently used by DJJ are designed, according to the FY2021 Data Resource Guide ("DRG"), to be completed in less than six months (in most cases, well under six months). Under the 2015 policy, almost none of the young people released in FY2021 stayed in custody for less than six months.
The FY21 DRG on page 45 says that treatment completion for intensive aggression management "requires approximately 4 months. The DRG does not give a specified duration for substance use treatment, but it sets out a range of "five weeks to six months" based on individual needs. The DRG on page 53 also says that no young people with an indeterminate commitment released in FY2021 had a late release date of less that six months. While more than one-third of stays were much longer (the actual average LOS for all indeterminately committed youth was 10.3 months) because the 2015 LOS policy allowed for overrides of the guidelines based on individualized case reviews.
According to its own data outlining the estimated time to complete treatment, the 2015 LOS policy allows ample time to complete treatment. Moreover, the statistics DJJ cites show that under the 2015 policy about 70% of young people did complete these treatment programs. Identifying and addressing the specific barriers that affect the other 30% is more effective and efficient than drastically increasing LOS to apply to all youth. We have just come out of a global pandemic that impacted every aspect of our society, to include the functioning of the DJJ. Instead of advocating for harmful increases in LOS policy, DJJ should evaluate the timeliness of its internal procedures and the effectiveness of its treatment programs - including its capacity to provide effective, continuous treatment for young people in the community rather than in DJJ facilities. DJJ does not need to arbitrarily increase LOS for all young people, in order to do better for the faction of youth who are not currently being served effectively.
The range of interventions for court-involved youth include diversion, probation, and commitment to some form of direct care. According to the date on page 87 of the FY21 DRG, the most common intervention for all youth found delinquent in Virginia is placement on probation; and the most common intervention for youth who receive indeterminate commitments - custodial sentence that consists of a range of time and not a fixed time - to DJJ is placement on parole (of the 305 youth released from DJJ direct care 256 were placed on parole).
Through its risk assessment instrument, the Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument ("YASI"), DJJ classifies young people into one of three levels (Low, Moderate, and High) in terms of the risk that they will recidivate (i.e., be rearrested, reconvicted, or reincarcerated within some period of time), based on the young person's background, psychological and behavioral characteristics, and other individual factors. Youth classified as High risk are more likely to recidivate than those classified as Low or Moderate risk.
DJJ tracks recidivism in various ways, but the timeliest is the one-year rearrest rate - the percentage of youth who received a given intervention who are rearrested for any reason within one year after that intervention.
In its annual DRG, DJJ publishes one-year rearrest rates for youth placed on probation and youth placed on parole, broken out by their assessed risk levels on the YASI. Page 87 of the DRG data shows that one-year rearrest rates were lower for youth placed on probation and parole, whether High risk or Low to Moderate risk on the YASI, in FY2020 (under the 2015 policy) than in FY2014 or FY2015 (under the prior policy). Thus, according to its own data, there in no question that recidivism has been improving under DJJ's 2015 LOS policy.
Most notably, the data also shows that - for youth at all risk levels - recidivism has consistently been lower for those placed on probation than for those who were committed to DJJ and later released to parole.
According to data on page 83 of the DRG for indeterminate sentences to DJJ, the average LOS for youth released from DJJ custody fell from 18.7 months in 2014 to 14.2 months in 2020 and the average LOS for youth on probation fell from 12.9 months in 2014 to 11.8 months in 2020. Thus, these improvements were achieved with shorter lengths of stay - for probation as well as DJJ custody - which is a significant policy achievement that creates better public safety and better outcomes for young people at lower cost to the public.
Because longer stays mean higher costs to the public, the 2015 policy could be judged a success if recidivism had simply stayed the same. The fact that recidivism declined shows a remarkable improvement in DJJ's performance. What DJJ's recidivism data articulates is that working with young people in the community, even young people who have been assessed as being at a higher risk of recidivism, is more effective than confinement. A strategy designed to improve outcomes for public safety and for youth should start by looking for ways to provide more and better interventions in the communities where young people live - not by seeking ways to keep them confined for longer.
There is no question that youth must be held accountable for their actions and harmful behavior must be corrected. In fact, accountability is a standard that communities, local and state leaders, and the criminal justice system must all be held to as well. But as even this policy notes, accountability is about young people understanding the impact of their actions and taking responsibility for them so they do not repeat them. Accountability does not require longer lengths of stay in custody.
DJJ's presentation to the Board of Juvenile Justice relied heavily on attributed quotes from juvenile justice system stakeholders asserting that thee is not, and never has been, support within the juvenile justice system for the 2015 LOS policy. This misrepresents the history of the 2015 policy, as it was developed with extensive participation and input from across Virginia's juvenile justice system. When it was published for public comment, almost every comment received was supportive. Even the Virginia Association of Commonwealth Attorneys, while raising concerns about it, did not have consensus within its membership and did not take a position for or against the policy. The 2015 LOS policy was approved unanimously by a Board of Juvenile Justice that included members appointed by governors of both parties. The Board of that time did not approve the policy on the first presentation, but rather asked DJJ to provide more information and allow time for public comment.
We must not allow the progress of the last five years to be dismantled based on the unfounded claim that youth are either not held long enough to receive the full benefit of programs while in DJJ custody or the fallacy that youth are coming back into the justice system because they were not held in DJJ custody long enough. These claims are not only unfounded but run counter to research and DJJ's own data. Addressing the needs of youth in DJJ's custody is of paramount importance to ensure we are preparing youth to return to their communities. The 2015 LOS policy is providing the needed guidance. Holding youth longer is not the answer. DJJ must take an introspective look to ensure it is accountable to meeting its own standards of quality to help youth succeed. We look forward to the day when the number of young people involved with the justice system decreases because Virginia in intentionally creating healthy communities for all youth and their families. We have great hope that the few youths who do find themselves involved with the juvenile justice system will be appropriately held accountable and given the opportunity to be restored to healthy, thriving communities.
The following is a list of organizations who support the contents and recommendations of this comment:
Valerie Slater, Esq., Executive Director, RISE for Youth
Rob Poggenklass, Interim Executive Director, Justice Forward Virginia
Alyson Clement, CO-Executive Director, National Juvenile Justice Network
Fallon J. Speaker, Esq., Legal Director, Youth Justice Program, Legal Aid Justice Center
Amy Woolard, Chief Program Officer, ACLU of Virginia
Laura Goren, Director of Research and Education Policy, The Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis
Rev. Lauren Ramseur & Rev. Ashley Diaz Mejias, Co-Pastors, Voices of Jubilee, Presbytery of the James
The current LOS guidelines (adopted in 2015) were developed based on research, best practices, and consensus among a wide range of stakeholders. The current LOS policy led to decreases in the direct care population, aggressive incidents at Bon Air, use of force incidents at Bon Air, workers' compensation claims, and rearrest rates. The current policy also led to an increase in community-based programs. All of these outcomes benefit our youth, their families, and our community.
The new proposed LOS guidelines will serve to detriment kids, their bonds to their families, and their rehabilitation. My concern is that the proposed policy will threaten funding for community-based services, which are evidence-based and effective. I urge the board to pursue a study of the proposed policy on recidivism, as well as budgetary impacts, before considering adopting the proposed LOS guidelines.
The Youth Correctional Leaders for Justice is a coalition of current and former leaders of youth justice agencies. We believe that separating youth from their families and communities, and emphasizing punishment and retribution, harms young people and their communities. We aim to facilitate community-centered justice, in which archaic, distant youth prisons are closed and communities have the resources to address the needs of youth, while helping to ensure accountability, personal responsibility, and validate victims of crime. We imagine a world where all youth have access to the support and guidance they need to become thriving, productive adults, within their own homes and communities.
Increasing the length of stay (LOS) is out of line with best practices. We agree that youth need to receive educational services and other opportunities for social, emotional, and workforce development, but youth should be served in the least restrictive environment possible. Based on our experience and the research documenting the harms of youth incarceration, we know that youth experience better outcomes when they receive services at home, in their community. Increasing the LOS does not produce better outcomes or improve public safety , in fact, the data in the DJJ’s 2021 Data Resource Guide suggests that recidivism rates are lower since the 2015 changes that shortened the LOS for youth (p. 87). Increasing the LOS jeopardizes the progress DJJ has made in recent years in reducing the youth population (p. 74) recidivism (p. 79) according to the Data Resource Guide.
The proposed guidelines have the potential to dramatically increase the length of stay (LOS) for youth and cause an increase in the population of youth committed to DJJ, based on the forecasted population projections in the DJJ’s Data Resource Guide (p. 75). As Youth Correctional Leaders, we are acutely aware of the impact that length of stay has on the conditions in youth justice facilities. Increased lengths of stay inherently leads to higher populations within facilities which creates harmful conditions for young people, decreases opportunities for youth to receive the benefits of programming, and creates budgetary and staffing concerns. Given the staffing concerns facing juvenile facilities across the country, we strongly advise against taking measures that would further increase the number of young people detained and exacerbate staffing resources.
The current LOS Guidelines that were adopted in 2015 have proven to be effective at reducing the overall population, creating safer facilities for committed youth and staff in those facilities, and improving the overall recidivism rate of youth who are released from DJJ. Research from Virginia and the field at large suggests that increasing the LOS for youth will increase recidivism, and neither the youth or public benefit from commitments (Mulvey & Schubert, 2012).
As current and former correctional leaders, we strongly advise against adopting the proposed LOS Guidelines.
My name is Julie McConnell, and I am a Professor of Law, Legal Practice and Director of the Children’s Defense Clinic at the University of Richmond. I have worked in youth justice for more than 25 years. I write today in my personal capacity. I previously served as a prosecutor in the Richmond Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office, where I was a supervisor in the Richmond Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court. In that office, I specialized in the prosecution of violent youth crimes, domestic violence, elder abuse, child physical and sexual abuse, and domestic homicide cases. I have also served as an assistant public defender in the City of Richmond, where I handled hundreds of criminal cases from trespassing to murder, and spent several years in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. Before law school, I worked as a lobbyist and was involved in the revision of the Virginia Juvenile Code in the mid-1990s. Currently, I also serve as Chair of the Virginia Advisory Committee on Juvenile Delinquency and Prevention, Chair of the Annual Robert E. Shepherd Jr. Youth Law and Education Conference, and Chair of the Virginia Bar Association’s Commission on the Needs of Children. I am also co-editor of the Virginia CLE Manual Juvenile Law and Practice in Virginia, published every three years.
Having worked on all sides of the aisle and having handled thousands of delinquency cases, I have carefully observed our efforts over the last three decades to find the right solutions to help young people avoid the juvenile legal system. When Virginia revised the length-of-stay guidelines in 2015 to be more in line with evidence-based best practices, it was based on data that showed children have better outcomes when we try to limit as much as possible, how long they are removed from their homes for delinquent behavior. Nothing has changed about that data.
We still know that children are less likely to recidivate when we disrupt their family connections and support systems as little as possible. And they are also more likely to succeed in the community when they stay in school and are able to find employment. When kids are removed from home, many find it very difficult to return to school after their incarceration. It is also difficult to obtain employment when a young person has a delinquency record. Sealing or expunging delinquency records would be a much more meaningful way to reduce recidivism.
Several studies have been done that show definitively that the harms involved in long-term incarceration far outweigh any perceived benefit from harsher punishment.
Finally, racial disparities are baked into Virginia’s juvenile legal system, particularly when it comes to who gets held in correctional facilities both pre- and post-trial and who doesn’t. Youth of color are significantly more likely to be incarcerated than non-Hispanic white youth with similar characteristics and offending histories. When JLARC studied Virginia’s legal system, they found that over the last decade, Black youth were 2.5 times more likely than white youth to be referred to the juvenile justice system. Given that disturbing fact, we must pay particularly careful attention to the negative ways in which longer length of stay guidelines will impact Black youth. JLARC, 2021 Report to the Governor and the General Assembly on Virginia’s Juvenile Justice System, p. 36.
Until Virginia fully invests in evidence-based trauma-informed responses to the root causes of delinquency, we will continue to see a recidivism rate that is higher than anyone would like to see. What we need is better-trained, better-resourced individuals who are committed to helping young people find a more productive pro-social path, not more punishment. We need robust programming available the moment kids start to have trouble in school, in their homes, and in the community. We need access to comprehensive mental health treatment for kids who are suffering from unspeakable trauma. Until we fully commit to helping these kids process the experiences they are surviving in their communities, we will continue to see far too many kids stuck in the revolving door of the juvenile legal system. These children need the kind of positive structure, opportunities, and stimulation we try to provide our own children. What will help kids desist from delinquent behavior is giving them opportunities to mature and develop in ways that will help them reject criminogenic thinking. I implore you to invest in meeting kids' needs rather than simply locking them away in juvenile prisons. We can both hold young people accountable and also intelligently respond to their needs. The key is not longer sentences; it is using the time young people are in the juvenile legal system to holistically address the complex reasons they are there and to support them in successfully transitioning out of the system. When we do that, we will make the community safer and help these kids successfully move away from delinquent behavior.
Thank you.