The Problem of Mass Incarceration

Solutions—Not Incarceration

Today, all fifty states and D.C., along with the federal government, have separate systems for dealing with juveniles and adults differently; and the intention, often, has been a restorative, not punitive approach.  However, all through the content discussion of this unit we bump into problems with juvenile justice. To summarize, the numbers on racial disparities show us that some communities and families are generationally adversely affected. We have ignored neuroscience and statistics that tell us that young people are more likely to come out of juvenile incarceration no more contrite or productive than then they went in; in fact, they are likely to be more emotionally and socially damaged. But there are also known solutions. Federal and state legislators have enacted laws to document and change the system, and communities have stepped up to fill in the gaps, but in our own states and communities, even young people, when they understand they system, can advocate and educate to make common sense improvements. The solutions below are only a few of many.  Some we are working towards already. I will briefly introduce these, and students will work with some of them, or they may discover some of their own.  They will become research topics for students as they start down the other side of this unit, moving from an understanding of the problems towards finding their voices to fix them.

1. The Missouri Approach and rehabilitation: Several other solutions below are encouraged as part of the Missouri Approach; we must shift our focus to rehabilitation and treatment rather than to default to adult-appropriate incarceration practices. The Missouri approach has the goals of restoring youth to their families, schools, and communities as healthy, law-abiding citizens. The approach is based on three core beliefs: (1) that all people, including young people, want to do well and succeed; (2) that with appropriate help all youth can make behavioral changes that will led them to success, and (3) that the missions of youth corrections systems is to provide just the right help to enable young people to make the right choices towards their success (keeping public safety in mind).  They use smaller, close-to-home programs, family-like groups, and least-restrictive environments.  The approach is therapeutic rather than correctional and involves the whole family. Emphasis is on prevention, intervention, and treatment in partnership with community resources.³⁸ Danielle Sered explains that in contrast, prisons protect people from what they have done.  There is no reckoning, no chance for restitution or closure or understanding. “All one has to do to be punished is not to escape.”³⁹ We rob young minds from the opportunity to develop and learn and to consider how to make things right.  If we want young offenders to heal, atone, restore, incarceration is the least likely solution. Previous incarceration is the most significant factor in predicting recidivism—“greater than a poor parental relationship, gang membership, and weapon possession.” And suicide rates for previously incarcerated offenders is two to four times that for other youth.⁴⁰ David Muhammad said, “It's not like those young people don't need something. They just don't need a probation officer. They don't need searches and monitors and surveillance. They need adults in the community who care about them to engage them.”⁴¹
2. Community-based programs: Community-based programs are an aspect of the Missouri Approach, as well. Youth placed in supervised, close-to-home facilities rather than detention or prison are 14% less like to re-offend.⁴² Nonprofits have initiated change with programs like Tulsa’s Women in Recovery. In this program a court liaison works with attorneys, judges and prosecutors to identify candidates for Women in Recovery’s counseling and rehab program as an alternative to prison sentences “based on individual risks and needs assessment.”⁴³ Its capacity is limited, however. Programs like Tulsa’s Project Trust have the potential to improve understanding and communication between youth and the police department.  In the interest of balancing the state formula for funding corrections, money could be directed to diversionary and therapeutic programs like these instead of prisons and detention centers.
3. Neuroscience and aging out: We should pay attention to neuroscience and human behavior that tell what common sense already has. The adolescent mind brings challenges—youth are more likely to succumb to peer pressure or make emotionally-driven decisions. Dramatic and crucial changes are happening in the brain’s structure and function; brains of children and adolescents are developmentally different and therefore should not be treated the same. Fortunately, an adolescent’s brain is also rich with opportunity to benefit from appropriate guidance and support. We should also consider the phenomenon of “aging out,” as described in the problems above.  Most of us engaged in some degree of delinquent behavior as adolescents without incurring legal consequences. We tended to outgrow the behaviors that often got us into trouble.  Neuroscience and human behavior confirm that incarceration not only stunts socio-emotional development, but also deprives us of opportunities for development and healing.⁴⁴ Mike Keefe has a cartoon that addresses this. 
4. Preadjudicatory detention: We should stop holding alleged offenders in detention while we determine court proceedings. In addition to previous documentation against locking up, we know that youth held in detention are more likely than those with the same offenses who were not detained to be sent to a juvenile facility. Pre-trial detention is also used or minors’ protection, further assaulting a vulnerable young person. Unnecessary detention interrupts education, employment, and their physical and mental well-being. Additionally, “upwards of two thirds of young people in detention centers meet the criteria for having a mental disorder.”⁴⁵ Except for serious concern for public safety, preadjudicated detention does more damage than good.
5. Juvenile facilities: The new Tulsa County Family Center for Juvenile Justice, in description, addresses researched-based suggestions for improved juvenile justice facilities. They tend to be institutional and depend on confinement, suggesting to youth that they are criminals from the minute they enter. Instead, juvenile facilities should be rehabilitative, trauma-informed, and family-centered, with access to mental and physical health needs, and family and legal services. Families served by the system often face challenges of transportation and other basic needs that make it harder to work with their youth through their problems. These resources should be easily at hand.
6. Quality education: Education is a legal right to youth at all times, even when incarcerated or detained. However, the quality of education in many facilities is inferior to that in regular schools. Like all students, these youth need access to quality education for academics, communications, and/or vocational training as appropriate to their needs and situation to help them succeed after release. However, traditional schools and strategies often have not worked for the youth in question, so we must offer curricula that is relevant and supports to fill in their individual gaps.
7. Risk screening: Objective, judiciously selected risk screening should be used to determine if secured detention is necessary for any child or adolescent in consideration for it. It should be able to objectively measure “the risk of re-offending before adjudication and the risk of failing to appear at a court hearing.”⁴⁶ Tulsa County uses the YLSI (Youth Level of Service Inventory) for risk-assessment. Objective assessments can also help isolate other risk factors that should be addressed to support a young person’s success. These may include mental health, addiction, and trauma.
8. Other alternative outcomes: As students discover their own interests through the unit’s activities, they may also look into other solutions, like restorative programming and youth courts.