BACK TO TOP
DOWNLOAD 
CHAPTERS
TOPIC
21 MIN READ

SHRINKING
SYSTEMS

Shrinking systems requires system leaders partnering with key stakeholders and youth, families and communities in order to reform policies and programs internally and externally.

ABOUT THIS TOPIC

This module includes information from three chapters focusing on how to shrink systems and reduce the number of youth incarcerated through reforming policy and case decision challenges systems face.

OVERVIEW

Shrinking youth justice systems will depend on reforming policies, programs and practices, reducing the number of young people in institutional incarceration and reforming the case decision making process. Policies and procedures that do not support the direction of transformation should be identified and reformed in order to create a policy framework that aligns with a mission supportive of transformation. This shift will create organizational policies and procedures that support a community-led, family-focused and youth-centered model. As a result, communities will be able to provide most of the services young people need with the support and funding of the system.

Another step in moving away from an institutional, carceral model to one that is strengths-based and community centered, is to dramatically reduce the number of young people in institutional settings. Many incarcerated young people are not a risk to public safety and are incarcerated on minor offenses. The young people are taken from their homes and communities, and kept in a system that lacks urgency to return them home. Rather than finding services that promote the healing and well-being of young people, systems rely on incarceration as the primary method of accountability despite evidence of the harm it causes. The goal is to reduce the number of young people in detention and out-of-home placements as a bridge to more fully replacing institutionalization with a community-based approach.

Finally, reforming the case decision making process within a system can help divert many young people from incarceration to community-based alternatives. Improving decision making to promote equitable decisions that support youth well-being will provide alternatives to incarceration, and opportunities for diversion. These opportunities for diversion depend on the policies of the jurisdiction, local leadership or politics, resources available to leaders and staff making diversion decisions, and finally, the personal leanings and biases of the individual making the decision. This will especially impact the disproportionate amount of Black and Brown youth that are moved deep within the system. These decisions that are often made by individuals define how the system operates and can distort even the most well-intentioned policies. Building understanding among leaders and partners about how case decisions are made, and involving youth and their communities who are directly affected by these decisions are some of the important steps systems must make to support diversion to community-based alternatives to incarceration.

Artwork by K in collaboration with Terry Brown and the Performing Statistics project.
Courtesy of ART 180.

View more artwork at our digital gallery.
.

KEY takeaways

DRAG | SWIPE
TAKEAWAY   1

CENTER YOUTH,
FAMILIES, & COMMUNITIES IN REFORMING POLICY & PRACTICE.

TAKEAWAY 2 

REDUCE CONTACT
YOUTH HAVE WITH
THE JUSTICE SYSTEM AT THE FRONT END.

TAKEAWAY  3

PROVIDE ALTERNATIVES
TO INCARCERATION.

TAKEAWAY  4

STRENGTHEN COMMUNITY-BASED SUPPORTS.

TAKEAWAY  4

UNDERSTAND THE DATA BEHIND THE POLICIES & PROCESSES TO GAIN A FULLER PICTURE.

SELF-ASSESSMENT INDICATORS

Indicators
that progress
has been made TO IMPROVE CASE DECISIONS

Indicators that a jurisdiction has made significant progress in improving case decision making.

SELF-ASSESSMENT INDICATORS

INDICATORS THAT 
PROGRESS HAS 
BEEN MADE TO 
IMPROVE CASE 
DECISION MAKING

Indicators that a jurisdiction has made significant progress in improving case decision making include:

Leaders have developed a comprehensive understanding of how case decisions are made within their own agency and across the agencies of the youth justice system, including who makes decisions at each key point, what factors are utilized for decision making and any structured decision-making tools and assessments that are being used or considered.

Leaders have convened a collaborative working group of system leaders and partners to develop a strong shared understanding of how decisions are made; leaders have included youth, family members and community members in the working group as partners.

Leaders and collaborative partners have developed a system flow map that depicts and explains how decisions are made at each key point of the system, including the factors that guide decision making and any structured decision making tools, assessments and key information that are used to guide decisions at each point.

Leaders have worked with data staff or contractors to conduct a detailed baseline and trend analysis of case decisions, including how decisions are currently being made about youth at key decision points; the numbers of youth being diverted and moving forward at each system point; key trends at each decision point; how different categories of youth (for example, youth of different races, ethnicities, ages, genders and home communities) experience each decision and where disparities lie; whether risk assessment instruments are valid and how they are being used; and how youth, families and system staff perceive decision making processes.

Leaders have engaged in an in-depth case review process to complement quantitative baseline and trend analyses, including a review of written case records and interviews with young people, family members, key decision makers and service providers.

Leaders have shared the results of quantitative and qualitative analysis with the collaborative working group, including other system leaders and youth, family and community partners and are working with these partners to strategize about potential policy and practice responses to improve decision making.

Review processes indicate that case decision making is improving in equity and quality; disparities in decision making for different categories of youth are decreasing; diversion to community-based services is increasing across categories of youth and incarceration is decreasing; indicators of youth well-being and success are positive; and youth, families, community members and staff express confidence in decision-making processes. If review processes indicate challenges, leaders are working with partners to implement policy and practice responses to address them.

Leaders have implemented case decision processes that incorporate youth and family voice into decisions in a meaningful way.

Leaders have begun to implement policy and practice responses to improve decision-making, such as reviewing variability in individual decision making to raise awareness and change behavior; reviewing and altering the factors guiding decision making to ensure alignment with the goals of transformation; introducing policy, administrative guidelines and risk assessment guidelines to limit the use of detention and incarceration to serious offenses; ensuring the effective and consistent use of risk assessment instruments, including strong review of overrides resulting in placement; and utilizing thorough training, supervision and performance reviews to align decision making.

Leaders have committed to and scheduled routine re-assessments of case decision making and have a forum (for example, the ongoing collaborative working group) to share and review this information and develop further reforms and course corrections as needed to continue progress with improving case decision making.

SELF-ASSESSMENT INDICATORS

Indicators
that action
is needed TO 
IMPROVE CASE 
DECISIONS

Indicators that a jurisdiction has significant work to do in improving decision making for youth.

SELF-ASSESSMENT INDICATORS

INDICATORS THAT 
ACTION IS NEEDED TO IMPROVE CASE DECISION MAKING

Indicators that a jurisdiction has significant work to do in improving decision making for youth include:

Leaders have little understanding of how case decisions are made within their own agency and across the agencies of the youth justice system.

Leaders are not working with other agencies or partners such as youth, family members and community members to develop an understanding of how decisions are made.

Leaders have little data about case decisions or trends in case decisions and/or have done little qualitative research (e.g., case file reviews and interviews) to understand more; they know little about how youth currently move through the system and how pathways vary by youth characteristics such as race, ethnicity, age, gender and home community; they may be unaware of problems with current case decision making or how it impacts youth.

Leaders have not incorporated youth and family voice into decisions in a meaningful way.

Leaders are not working on policy and practice responses to improve decision making, or they are doing so on their own, without collaboration with other agencies or partners; without key information or collaboration, they may not understand what to do to improve decision making.

Leaders have no formal process for assessing or re-assessing the effectiveness and fairness of current case decisions.

SELF-ASSESSMENT INDICATORS

Indicators
that progress
has been made TO REFORM POLICIES

Indicators that a jurisdiction has made significant progress in reforming youth justice structures, policies and practices.

SELF-ASSESSMENT INDICATORS

INDICATORS THAT 
PROGRESS HAS 
BEEN MADE TO 
REFORM POLICIES

Indicators that a jurisdiction has made significant progress in reforming youth justice structures, policies and practices include:

Leaders are very transparent about the current practices and challenges of the youth justice system.

Rather than operating in a silo, leaders invite input from and meaningful collaboration with youth impacted by the system, their families and communities, staff and other youth-serving systems.

Leaders have worked with partners to develop a shared vision for transformation.

Leaders have communicated the elements of the new vision to their own staff as well as leaders and staff in other parts of the system, legislators, judges, community groups, young people and their families, including a commitment to the inclusivity of staff and partners in the new vision and work of transformation, and the reasons why transformation is critical.

Leaders have created multiple pathways for community input and collaboration in the transformation process and are working with community partners to design a community-based and –led continuum of services, including clarifying roles and responsibilities between the system and community partners and creating structures for ongoing support and collaboration in the delivery, monitoring and improvement of services.

Leaders are working with partners to review policies to ensure they fit with the system’s new vision, identifying changes that are important to achieve immediate objectives, eliminating or suspending policies that create barriers to change and working with staff to develop new policies that provide clear guidance for new forms of practice.

Leaders are working with partners from all parts of the system to identify opportunities to change existing laws and regulations that stand in the way or hamper transformation.

Leaders have begun to redesign and simplify procurement processes to support community organizations in receiving contracts for delivering youth justice programming and in succeeding in that work. Leaders have committed resources to providing community organizations with technical assistance and/or hub support to navigate the procurement system, including support from successful community-based peers.

Leaders are reorganizing the internal policies, contracting processes, budgets and other architecture for supporting community partners providing services in a continuum of care, including allowing for flexibility in start-up periods, invoicing and payment; facilitating referrals and matching processes; and supporting community organizations with collecting data, measuring performance and meeting reporting requirements.

Leaders are working with partners to re-think and re-design internal system policies and practices for supporting a community-led continuum of care, including developing or hiring intermediary organizations to provide back-office supports such as accounting, human resources and IT services to networks of small community-led organizations.

SELF-ASSESSMENT INDICATORS

Indicators
that action
is needed TO 
REFORM POLICIES

Indicators that a jurisdiction still has significant work to do in reforming its youth justice structures, policies and practices.

SELF-ASSESSMENT INDICATORS

INDICATORS THAT MORE ACTION IS NEEDED TO REFORM POLICIES

Indicators that a jurisdiction still has significant work to do in reforming its youth justice structures, policies and practices include:

Leaders continue to operate largely as managers working in a silo, and are not transparent about current practices, challenges or the work of transformation.

Leaders do not invite collaboration with youth, family and community partners, system staff and/or other youth-serving systems.

Leaders have not worked with partners to develop a shared vision for transformation and have not communicated a new vision to staff, other youth justice leaders and partners.

Leaders continue to operate under existing youth justice policies and paradigms and have not begun to investigate policies to identify those that would support or hinder transformation. Leaders have not considered which policies and structures would need to shift to support a community-led continuum of care.

Leaders have mostly excluded community partners from the work of transformation. Leaders are not working with community partners to design a new community-based and –led continuum of care, have not created meaningful opportunities for community input and/or collaboration and are not thinking through shifts in procurement, contracting, budgeting and other processes that would support community partners in creating and operating a continuum of services.

Leaders continue to work primarily within the existing operational paradigm. They have not begun to think about how to shift internal operations—including human resources, training, communications, quality assurance and performance measurement—to support transformation and partnership with communities.

TAKE 
ACTION.

These steps provide specific guidance for how to reform policies and programs, reduce reliance on incarceration, and improve case decision making. All of these steps are central in youth justice system reform, and can be implemented concurrently.

DRAG | SWIPE
REFORMING POLICIES

Create a Supportive Policy Environment.

Click to
flip card
REFORMING POLICIES

Create a Supportive Policy Environment.

As system leaders discover policies and procedures that don’t support the direction of transformation, they should identify those that create major roadblocks as targets to make changes that align with a policy framework supportive of transformation.

Click to
flip card
REFORMING POLICIES

Develop Procurement Processes that HELP BUILD a Community-Based Continuum.

Click to
flip card
REFORMING POLICIES

Develop Procurement Processes that HELP BUILD a Community-Based Continuum.

Review budgeting, procurement and contracting systems to ensure the system is able to support youth-centered and family-focused services in the community.

Click to
flip card
REFORMING POLICIES

Shrink the front-end pipeline into the justice system.

Click to
flip card
REDUCING INCARCERATION

Shrink the front-end pipeline into the justice system.

Create multiple opportunities to divert youth from entering the justice system pipeline. This will allow more youth to be served in their communities and fewer to be deeper in the system which will decrease the overall demand and need for incarceration.

Click to
flip card
REDUCING INCARCERATION

Eliminate THE USE OF incarceration To address SOCIAL PROBLEMS.

Click to
flip card
REDUCING INCARCERATION

Eliminate USE OF incarceration to address social problems.

Create a multi-agency workgroup to identify and review youth involved in multiple systems who are currently incarcerated in order to either find alternatives to incarceration or prevent the transfer from social services to the justice system.

Click to
flip card
REDUCING INCARCERATION

Strengthen
& expand community-based alternatives
to detention & incarceration.

Click to
flip card
REDUCING INCARCERATION

Strengthen & community-based alternatives to detention & incarceration.

Center youth, families, and communities to develop an ideal continuum of services and supports for youth in communities with high levels of youth involved with the juvenile justice system.

Click to
flip card
CASE DECISIONS

EDUCATE Leaders & Partners
About How Case Decisions are Made.

Click to
flip card
CASE DECISIONS

EDUCATE Leaders & Partners About How Case Decisions are Made.

Leaders must increase understanding among system leaders and partners of how decisions are made about young people across agencies and decision points in the system.

Click to
flip card
CASE DECISIONS

Include Young People & Their Families in Decisions that Affect Their Lives.

Click to
flip card
CASE DECISIONS

Include Young People & Their Families in Decisions that Affect Their Lives.

It is a key responsibility of leaders wanting to transform the system to create opportunities for young people and their families to be full partners in case decision making processes.

Click to
flip card
CASE DECISIONS

Make Policy & Practice Changes to Address the Findings of the Review Process.

Click to
flip card
CASE DECISIONS

Make Policy & Practice Changes to Address the Findings of the Review Process.

Through reviewing the current case decision making process, identify action step(s) that make a difference in reducing incarceration, increasing equity, and improving outcomes for youth, families, and communities in case decision making.

Click to
flip card

DEEP DIVES

CREATING STAFF 
REVIEW TEAMS

Learn about how to develop an ongoing staff review team with membership from staff at every level of the agency to facilitate organizational culture change.

UTILIZING SYSTEM Assessments

Learn about how to how to structure and utilize
system assessments to advance system transformation.

TYPES OF
DATA ANALYSIS

Learn about the different types of analyses that can be useful tools in examining current practice, understanding changes and trends in practice. .

TIPS & Case
Studies

Take a look at some tips and notable examples of places working to reform youth justice policies and practices.

DRAG | SWIPE
Case Study

EXAMPLE OF CASE REVIEW PROCESS: QUALITY SERVICE REVIEW (QSR)

Explore
Case Study

EXAMPLE OF CASE REVIEW PROCESS: QUALITY SERVICE REVIEW (QSR)

One version of this type of in-depth case review is the Quality Service Review(QSR) methodology, developed for child welfare. For example, Utah uses a QSR to assess performance of the state’s youth justice system. The Utah review includes a case review instrument that covers a number of client status and system performance indicators.

  • Client status indicators, including: (1) safety, (2) accountability, (3) youth well-being (emotional and physical health, and learning progress), (4) stability and (5) family functioning.
  • System performance indicators, including: (1) teaming, (2) assessment, (3) service planning, (4) plan implementation and (5) discharge planning.

Additional resources with more detailed descriptions and examples from jurisdictions that have implemented the QSR process are available in the resource list at the end of this chapter.

READ MORE
Tips

A SNAPSHOT OF DIVERSION OPTIONS

Explore
Tips

A SNAPSHOT OF DIVERSION OPTIONS

Substantial evidence tells us that the great majority of young people are very unlikely to be arrested a second time, and so changes in processing that create more exit ramps—without any conditions—can be one of the most effective diversion strategies. Examples of these include but are not limited to:

Unconditional Release/Stationhouse Adjustment

Police warn youth and/or inform parents of incident without formal arrest, and release youth to parent/guardian.

Pre-arrest Diversion

Pre-arrest diversion, such as Florida’s Civil Citation initiative, which files no formal charges with court for first-time misdemeanors. Youth maybe required to do community service hours to avoid charges being filed subsequently.

Prosecutorial Diversion

Prosecutorial diversion, such as the Wayne County, MI (Detroit) RightTRAC program, which partners with community-based providers to divert youth assessed to be at low risk of violence from the youth justice system, while addressing needs, holding youth accountable and repairing harm caused to family, victims and community.

Diversion to Other Systems

Diversion to other systems, recognizing that young people who are homeless, have mental health needs, are abused or neglected, have traumatic stress disorder and/or have experienced human trafficking should be diverted away from youth justice to systems that are better designed to meet their specific needs.

Youth Courts

Informal forums where young people play a role in responding to offenses committed by their peers as an alternative to formal adjudication.

Restorative Justice Programs

Restorative justice programs, such as Restorative Response in Baltimore, MD, which provide diversion from the justice system, either before any delinquency allegations are processed, or post-adjudication, as an alternative to formal court-ordered services or sanctions. As experience with restorative justice has continued to grow, its potential as an approach to even quite serious offenses, including those that resulted in grievous harm, is increasingly recognized. Common Justice has become a model program for restorative justice, based in Brooklyn, New York.

READ MORE
Case Study

YOUTH INCARCERATION IN THE COVID ERA: LESSONS LEARNED

Explore
Case Study

YOUTH INCARCERATION IN THE COVID ERA: LESSONS LEARNED

One silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic is that it provided examples that urgent and focused attention to finding alternatives for incarcerated young people can safely and swiftly reduce institutional populations. In response to the health risks to youth and staff in holding youth in congregate care during a pandemic, many states reduced the number of young people in institutional placement considerably.

According to a longitudinal survey collected by the Annie E. CaseyFoundation on national detention data, the overall population fell by almost 30% in the first two months of the pandemic and remained at that reduced level for about a year.7 Unfortunately populations rebounded in 2022 to pre-pandemic levels, primarily because young people – particularly youth of color – stayed longer in detention; admissions remained lower than they had been prior to the onset of COVID-19. However, a more nuanced analysis showed very different patterns for jurisdictions across the country. About a third of sites sustained decreases in detention admissions and kept releases constant, resulting in a 37 percent decline between 2020 and 2022, while about a third returned to business as usual and detained 56 percent more young people in 2022 compared to 2020. The sites that are succeeding are leading the way and showing us that precipitous and impactful decreases in youth incarceration are possible to sustain long-term.

“The Number of Youth in Secure Detention Returns to Pre-Pandemic Levels.” Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation.

There is also evidence that youth prison populations were reduced following the onset of COVID-19. Though data on state commitment populations is limited and has not been updated beyond 2020, Youth First examined data in 31 states and found a 24 percent decline in post-adjudication incarceration in the first six months of the pandemic. Four states – Delaware, Maryland, Mississippi and North Dakota –cut their youth incarceration population by half or more over that period.

A recent report from the Urban Institute detailed efforts to sustain reduced reliance on incarceration in three states – Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey –during the COVID era, each of which saw early reductions of 39 percent, 47 percent and 60 percent, respectively. These states join others, including Washington, DC and New York, which have reduced incarcerated populations in response to a crisis and shown that reductions are possible.

READ MORE
Case Study

BALTIMORE CHILDREN & YOUTH FUND

Explore
Case Study

BALTIMORE CHILDREN & YOUTH FUND

Founded in 2015, Baltimore Children & Youth Fund (BCYF) provides public funds to support community programs for young people in Baltimore. They work to ensure youth are able to succeed in school and live in stable, supportive communities. A task force made up of community leaders, youth program service providers and City government representatives was created in 2017 to make recommendations for the fund’s operations. In order to prioritize racial equity, BCYF selected Associated Black Charities (ABC) to be the intermediary as they knew how to build the capacity of organizations serving BlackCommunities. Funds of $10.8 million were then allocated by ABC to be distributed in grants to organizations serving children, youth and supporting organizations. Additionally, they provided recommendations that stressed community empowerment and racial equity as guides for the fund. During the first grant cycle, $9.6 million in grants were given to 84 organizations around Baltimore, 66% of which were led by African Americans.

READ MORE

HOW MUCH DO 
YOU KNOW?

Take a short quiz to find out.