With the recent release from the Annie E. Casey Foundation about the significant decline in incarceration and crime rates of youth, there is much good news. Fewer kids are being arrested, fewer are being locked up, more alternatives are being developed, and our communities are safer. Less clear is the reason for the decline(s) and given the “chicken and egg” dilemma, are incarceration rate declines the result of declining crime, or perhaps even the cause of declines as we get smarter and more successful about working with youth, or is there some sort of interrelationship that we can’t fully measure.
What is clear is that the news is good, but as is suggested by a recent post by Jeffrey Butts, one of the pre-eminent researchers in juvenile justice, if the gains are at least in part the result of our good work, we need to avoid being complacent about that and thinking that good news will satisfy the “get tough on crime” crowd if/when crime rates rise again or some serious incident takes center stage in the media. Perhaps some of that will be tempered by the Right on Crime movement, but we can’t rely on that alone. We need to be prepared to explain what we have done, provide meaningful data to help us evaluate and change what we are doing when needed, and remember that reductions in incarceration are only going to be viewed as positive by the public as long as crime rates are low or falling. Doing what works isn’t easy. Sustaining what works in the face of pressures to go backwards will be even harder. By Jim Moeser
