What is meant by “inappropriate or unnecessary” detention?
Inappropriate and unnecessary are certainly judgment calls, though they should not be completely subjective. Places do differ, for example, in terms of how they rate the seriousness of particular offenses, and other places differ on how long cases should take to get processed (which is really what unnecessary is about). But that is exactly why JDAI calls for a collaborative, data-driven process, so policy makers and practitioners can actually weigh these decisions and make judgments about inappropriate and unnecessary. "Inappropriate detention" is that which occurs for reasons other than detention's two authorized purposes 1) to ensure appearance in court and 2) to minimize risk of re-offending prior to adjudication. "Unnecessary detention" is that which occurs when either lengths of stay are longer than needed or alternative policies and practices would obviate the need for continued holding in a secure facility.
Why is addressing case processing so important to detention reform?
Detention centers are designed for short-term holding of kids while their cases are adjudicated. They are typically shallow in terms of program services (though DJJS is ahead of the curve) and are not designed to have extensive rehabilitative value. Reducing length of stay means that kids who need treatment or long-term confinement can get into the right kind of facility for those services, as opposed to waiting in a facility that was not designed to meet those needs. Finally, if the question is read to imply that longer stays have greater deterrent impact, the response is simple: there is absolutely zero empirical evidence that longer stays deter delinquency. In fact, the evidence available all suggests that confining kids in these institutions makes them more likely to have long and troubled delinquency/criminal careers. Additional thoughts to ponder:
A) Adolescent development: After kids have misbehaved, how many parents tell them “we’ll deal with this in 120 days?” Delaying cases unnecessarily is simply inconsistent with what we know about adolescent development and teaching “lessons.”
B) System efficiency: Do you want police officers to have to come to court repeatedly because policy regarding continuances is so lax? Do you want assistant prosecutors making multiple appearances only to have cases postponed? How about victims?
C) Length of stay: Reducing case processing times for detained cases reduces lengths of stay and, therefore, is an effective way to reduce average daily population, especially because it does not involve taking any “risks” (insofar as the cases are not at liberty, just confined for shorter periods). There are lots of bed days that can be saved typically.
D) Fast case processing expands your Alternative-To-Detention program capacities: If cases languish in ATD programs unnecessarily, then the program slots are filled and fewer kids can be placed in them. This means detention use will be greater than needed. Excessive time in ATD programs also means that program failure rates will be higher, which translates into less confidence in the programs and, therefore, less utilization.
E) Fast case processing increases kids’ chances of success and reduces risk of future detention: When out-of-custody cases take forever to reach disposition, kids are more likely to fail to appear in court and/or get re-arrested. That means they will certainly be detained next time they get picked up.
F) Case processing reforms can help reduce racial disparities in use of detention: Case processing times do vary by race/ethnicity, with kids of color typically staying longer in detention than white kids. Sometimes that’s because of lack of dispositional resources for specific youth; other times it may be because of representation issues. Regardless of the reasons, if we can identify where cases get delayed and introduce changes to speed the process, it is likely that we can reduce LOS for kids of color and, therefore, reduce disparities in populations.