Like other states, Wisconsin has seen significant declines in juvenile crime over the past decade or more, as measured by the number of youth arrested, the number of delinquency charges filed in court, and the number of youth placed in institutions. WCCF previously documented these changes in a Fall 2011 report, “The State of Juvenile Justice in Wisconsin: What do we Really Know.” Early returns on 2011 arrest data indicate that the decline continued, but also point to some concerns that indicate we may be seeing those trends slow or even change.
Will some of the changes made in the 2011-13 budget related to juvenile justice work for youth and our communities, or will they hamper the progress that has been made in dealing more effectively with youthful offenders? There are three key changes worthy of note, each with different potential outcomes.
One of the most notable changes was the consolidation of three juvenile correctional facilities into one site, reflecting the reality of the significant declines in the number of youth ordered to secure institutions and the development of more cost-effective community-based solutions to redirect youth and protect our communities. This is a step in the right direction but will require ongoing attention to ensure that the institution’s programs and services receive the necessary funding to address the needs of the youth that are placed there. All research evidence suggests that larger institutions are less effective than community-based programs or even smaller secure settings; we therefore need to think about this consolidation as an important first step in improving our system, but by no means the last.
The second change was a provision that permits courts to place a delinquent youth in a local juvenile detention facility for up to 180 days as a disposition. The clear intent of this change was to permit the development of alternative local or regional corrections programs. Whether this works for kids and our communities rests solely on the ability of counties to develop these programs in a way that incorporates what we know works with youthful offenders. They should not “widen the net” downward and confine youth who do not need to be confined. While we support the intended concept and remain optimistic based on how counties have begun implementing this option, it would have been better to take the time to develop some standards for this type of programming.
The third–and most disconcerting–change has been the substantial reduction in Youth Aids funding going to counties to support community-based programs and services for youthful offenders. Through an initial reduction of 10% and a subsequent lapse of 7%, counties are receiving significantly less support to maintain the gains they have made in developing cost-effective prevention and intervention programs. County human services departments are beginning to reduce staff, trim contracts with community-based programs, and eliminate non-mandated prevention programs to accommodate this reduction exactly at the time we need to be taking the savings from declining delinquent caseloads and investing it in proven prevention and early intervention strategies.
We know more than ever about what works with youthful offenders, and we will carefully watch these changes to see if they help or hurt efforts to protect our communities and get youth on the right track.
Jim Moeser
