tion of advocacy groups), producing data regarding the costs of operating facilities, and conducting a well-organized media campaign. The task force also played an important role in supporting and sustaining the momentum. According to Carrión:

The Task Force was instrumental in moving the process along. Its report became the blueprint for reform and the effort was given credibility. The Governor viewed the Task Force as an antidote to anticipated backlash. Here was an independent prestigious body to counter the opposition. People were respectful of such a deliberative body that was also inclusive. Its report was embraced and was responsible for pushing forward the work. It was also reassuring to the advocates who tend to want quick results. It assured them that there would be no turning back.41

The task force disbanded after the release of its report, but its recommendations have continued to influence juvenile justice budget decisions, according to Carrión. By March 2012, New York had closed 18 facilities, eliminating 969 beds and 1,035 full-time positions (see Box 9-3). The secure population has been reduced by 23 percent, the limited secure population by 55 percent, and the nonsecure population by 56 percent. The numbers of youth in direct care have continued to decline. Expanded mental health services for youth in facilities, as well as those being maintained in communities, have been developed. New York City Mayor Bloomberg decided not to send New York City youth to upstate facilities (Bosman, 2010). Brooklyn to Brooklyn, a newly established program located in the community, offers a continuum of nonresidential and residential services based on the pillars of the Missouri model. Incentives have been offered to jurisdictions with the highest placement rates to divert youth from detention, and reinvestment funds have been targeted to community-based services in those jurisdictions that are home to the greatest number of youth placed in state custody.42


Previously reviewed evidence shows convincingly that reforming juvenile justice in accord with well-established principles of adolescent development can reduce offending and promote accountability while treating juvenile offenders fairly and serving their individual needs. There is no need to trade public safety for due process and individualized treatment.

Despite the momentum for developmentally grounded juvenile justice reform, it is disappointing, though perhaps not surprising, that the changes


41 Telephone conversation with Gladys Carrión, commissioner, New York Office of Children, Youth, and Family Services, July 12, 2011.

42 E-mail correspondence from Gladys Carrión, commissioner, New York Office of Children, Youth, and Family Services, March 16, 2012.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement