TESTIMONY OF LISA FELDMAN
AUTHOR

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

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE YOUTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES

Friday, October 19, 2001
Council Chamber
441 Fourth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001

To accomplish this objective, we used comparative detention and arrest data that was provided by the two jurisdictions' police departments and juvenile justice agencies, along with a review of numerous newspaper articles about detention facility closures in both DC and Maryland.

We interviewed numerous experts who have worked with either jurisdiction-or sometimes both-about the issues facing policymakers regarding juvenile justice and to provide an historical context to the data and the reasons behind facility closures in both jurisdictions.

Our analysis found that as new alternatives were put in place in DC as a result of the lawsuits and court orders that brought closure to Cedar Knoll and the DC Receiving Home, the average daily population of detained youth dropped 71% (from 411 to 124) during the 1990's. Conversely, while Maryland closed one facility (the Montrose Training School) during the 1990's, their average daily population of detained youth rose by 3% (349-440).

Significantly, the rate of youth violent crime in the District decreased by 55% while they closed facilities and implemented more community programs. This drop in crime is more than three times greater (15%) than the drop in violent crime experienced in Maryland as they steadily increased their use of secure detention.

In light of these findings and the current debate around new approaches to deal with youth who are arrested and held pre-trial Building Blocks for Youth has four 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 of youth detained over the 1990's.
• Study why disproportionate minority confinement is occurring in Maryland and DC and suggest approaches to redress inequities in the use of detention-where most days, every youth in detention is African American.
• Use professional association standards that suggest smaller, community-based detention alternatives are the best model before building youth detention facilities-such as the standards set forth by the American Bar Association and the Institute of Judicial Administration