North Carolina Juvenile Justice Reinvestment Act (HB 280): A Missed Opporunity For Substantive Reform of the Juvenile Justice System

North Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Martin has recently announced  the Judicial Branch's support of the Juvenile Justice Reinvestment Act, HB280. The Bill seeks reform the North Carolina justice system's response to children and teenagers under the age of 18, most notably by prosecuting 16- and 17-year-olds non-violent offenders in juvenile court rather than in adult criminal court. According to statistics from the Bill's supporters , 96.7% of all 16-17 year old offenders charged with misdemeanors and non-violent felonies. With that in mind, Martin made the additional claim that if passed, HB280  will help "strengthen families and [will] likely to result in lower recidivism, less crime, and increased safety," as well as ". . . economic benefits for the state of North Carolina." Examining the text of the proposed legislation, it is immediately clear how the State of North Carolina will save money by diverting juvenile nonviolent offenders from the well-worn path that inevitably leads to prison. With fewer juveniles in this stream of dismal commerce, the numbers incarcerated will inevitably go down, translating to cost savings both in the short and long run. However, one is hard-pressed to find a basis for the other lofty claims made by Justice Martin. The Bill does nothing on its face to enhance or additionally fund existing programs designed to provide treatment to 16 and 17 year olds. Thus, the shop-worn dispositional remedies of community based punishment, wilderness camps, diversion to DSS custody and for the worst offenders, commitment to "youth development centers" remain the sole basis to "strengthen families" and "reduce recidivism". Anyone who works in the North Carolina Juvenile Justice System knows how challenging it is to make effective use of the existing dispositional alternatives provided by the Juvenile Code. Juvenile offenders who have reached 16 and 17 years of age in many cases have already been in the system for several years. These juveniles are, in many cases, jaded and un-amendable to or unwilling to benefit from therapeutic intervention. Moreover, these juveniles are also well aware that juvenile court imposes a relatively low opportunity cost upon their libertine and riotous behavior. Thus, the mere threat that at most a juvenile could be held in secure custody for 14 days, or be subject to house arrest, or get sent off to wilderness camp may hardly register as any form of deterrent. If legislators wish to achieve real and meaningful reform of the Juvenile Justice System, they must address two issues that are not at all mentioned in HB 280. First, the deterrence formula that is set forth in North Carolina General Statute 7B-2506 (Dispositional alternatives for delinquent juveniles) and 7B-2508 (Dispositional limits) needs reconsideration. The current Juvenile Code prevents a District Court Judge from imposing the full range of dispositional alternatives upon Level I offenders, the very offenders who most likely can be deterred from future acts of delinquency if they are hit hard with both consequences and therapeutic intervention at the earliest stage of their potential criminal career. Instead, North Carolina saves the more substantive dispositional alternatives--placement in a residential treatment facility, intensive probation, regimented training programs, and up to 14 days of juvenile detention--for Level II and Level III offenders. While this type of sentencing has the merit of being proportional, such a policy goal is hardly beneficial to society when low level dispositional sentencing leads only to acclimatizing the juvenile to the juvenile justice system and retards the effectiveness of any subsequent higher level punishment. Second, greater emphasis needs to be made to afford juvenile offenders increased access to community based mental health services. Too often inadequate funding streams cripple juvenile court counselor's ability to access residential placements and critical mental health treatment. As a result, even Level II and III juvenile offenders who could benefit from residential treatment or enhanced mental health services are not able to gain access because there aren't enough beds available at a residential treatment facility. Where access to a treatment facility is available, such a resource tends to be reserved for the worst offenders because financial resources are scarce. This very phenomena has led in years past to increased numbers of older juvenile offenders being diverted to DSS custody, the perception being that social services had greater resources available and could more adequately provide treatment. The problem with such an idea is that, even if it were once true that the county DSS had greater resources, those days are long gone with now record numbers of children in foster care and county social services budgets stretched to their limits. While no one denies that financial responsibility is a good thing in government, that fact remains that making public policy decisions can not be viewed exclusively through the lens of the accountant. As in business, sometimes you have to spend money if you are going to make money. If North Carolina is truly going to strengthen families and reduce recidivism among 16 and 17 year old juvenile delinquents, it needs to make a sizeable financial investment aimed at developing solutions that will deter delinquency, get at the root cause of the delinquency, and provide a basis for reform and rehabilitate the juvenile offender so that the likelihood of re-offense is diminished. House Bill 280, with its exclusive emphasis on saving money by narrowing the definition of who can go to prison, fails significantly in this regard.