Fact Sheet

A Tale of Two Jurisdictions:
Youth Crime and Detention Rates in Maryland & the District of Columbia

Printable Version (MS Word)

Background

The National Context:

• The use of pre-trial detention for youth has increased substantially over the last decade. Youth detention populations grew by 38 percent between 1987 and 1996, and today, over 70 percent of the detention facilities in America are over capacity (detain more youth than they were designed to hold). The detention population has grown nationally, despite a decade long decline in youth crime.

DC and Maryland: Two Different Detention System Stories Through the 1990s.

• Litigation over the conditions of confinement at the three DC facilities that confined youth (Cedar Knoll, which closed in 1994; the Receiving Home, which closed in 1995, and Oak Hill, which is still operating) compelled the District to reduce the number of youth detained. Over the 1990s, as new alternative to detention programs were put in place, the average daily population of youth detained in DC dropped from 411 to 124. The youth detention rate fell by 71%.

• While, Maryland closed one commitment facility (the Montrose Juvenile Training School) in the late 1980s, and pledged this year to close its largest detention facility (the Cheltenham Youth Facility), in the 1990s, the average daily population of youth detained in Maryland rose from 349 to 440-a per capita increase of 3%.

Public Safety Impact: Declining Use of Detention in DC came with Larger Crime Drop.

• Over the 1990s, DC's average daily population of youth in detention dropped by 70%, but DC experienced three times the drop in the juvenile violent crime rate experienced in Maryland.

• Maryland, which saw an increase in the number of youth in detention and a slight increase in its detention rate over the 1990s experienced a smaller drop in violent crime than DC.

Recommendations

• Conduct thorough utilization reviews and population profiles before new youth detention centers are built.

• Expand the use of community-based programs and detention alternatives, like those that helped DC to reduce the number youth detained over the 1990s.

• Study why disproportionate minority confinement is occurring in Maryland and DC, and suggest approaches to redress inequities in the use of detention. In Maryland, African American youth represent 32 percent of the youth population, but are 62 percent of the youth detained. In DC, on most days, every youth in detention is a youth of color.

• Use as their guide, standards promulgated by professional organizations (such as the American Bar Association and the Institute of Judicial Administration) before building youth detention facilities. These standards suggest smaller, community-based detention facilities are the best model to meet the needs of youth rehabilitation and public safety.