Thursday 8 August 2019

North Carolina's Juvenile Justice Reinvestment Act: No Change in Juvenile Recidivism and a $20 Million Dollar Taxpayer Boondoggle?


In 2017, the North Carolina General Assembly passed Senate Law 2017-57, otherwise known as the Juvenile Justice Reinvestment Act, which raised the Juvenile Court jurisdiction in North Carolina to include offenses incurred by 16 and 17 year olds. This expansion of juvenile court jurisdiction, premised in part upon the notion that juveniles commit offenses largely due to psychological immaturity (their brains aren’t fully developed), is said by some to have the potential to double the population being served in the Juvenile Justice System. If the advocates that led to the passage of this legislation are correct, the public will benefit in a number of ways. These include a reduction in overall incarceration costs (since juvenile offenders will no longer be able to serve sentences in excess of their 20th birthday); greater ability to provide necessary psychological and psychiatric services to this population; and a reduced recidivism rate (since with all the psychiatric and psychological treatment these juveniles will be getting and with their increased psychological maturity, they will be less likely to want to commit offenses in the future). In a nutshell, the Juvenile Justice Reinvestment Act is claimed to save money and reduce crime as a result of “raising the age” of juvenile accountability in North Carolina.

While there seemed to be little more than cheerleading in the days that led to the enactment of this legislation, now that "Raise the Age" is about to begin, it would be an appropriate time to examine two of the essential claims that supported the bill’s passage.

When one examines the first claim made in support of raising the age, that the people of the State of North Carolina will save money, the States own reporting seems to demonstrate that the claim is unsupportable and largely false. Estimates provided by the Juvenile Jurisdiction Advisory Committee Interim Report this year show needed expenditures of $5.7 million in Fiscal Year 2020 alone with a slightly lesser sum recurring in the years thereafter. Juvenile Jurisdiction Advisory Committee Juvenile Age Interim Report, January 15, 2019. The Committee Report also recommends that the General Assembly fund the state court system’s “existing deficiencies at a cost of $15 million in Fiscal Year 2020” and at a rate of $14.5 million in every year thereafter. Interestingly, the Committee Report mentions no offset monies coming from the North Carolina Division of Prisons (or any other participant in the adult court system). So one can only assume that these funds will be additional expenditures with savings arising if, and when, crime goes down.

The second claim, that crime will go down as juvenile recidivism rates decline, is also likely to be false. In a law review article published in the Journal for Legal Studies in 2015, Professor Charles E. Loeffler of the University of Pennsylvania and Lecturer in Law Ben Grunwald of the University of Chicago Law School report the results of their own study of the effect of “raise the age” as it was implemented in Illinois and specifically with regard to its impact on juvenile offenders in Chicago. Charles E. Loeffler and Ben Grunwald, Decriminalizing Delinquency: The Effect of Raising the Age of Majority on Juvenile Recidivism, 44 J. Legal Stud. 361-388 (June 2015). According to their research, which utilized a difference-in-differences design with multiple control groups, increasing the maximum age for juvenile court did not affect the rate of juvenile recidivism in Chicago. Other studies, according to the authors, have reached similar conclusions in other jurisdictions. Another interesting conclusion drawn by the authors is that previous studies used to support the raise the age legislation were potentially flawed. These studies, which showed a higher rate of recidivism among juveniles transferred to the adult system, focused on juveniles who had committed serious felonies, which are relatively rare, instead of the vast majority of juvenile offenses that involved misdemeanors and lesser felonies. Thus, it may be the case that the raise the age legislation was fashioned as a remedy for a problem that might not have even existed.

Despite all the fanfare and media hype that led to the passage of this State’s “Raise the Age” legislation, it seems likely that the people of North Carolina will not be rewarded with any significant change in the nature of juvenile re-offense patterns. Rather, they can expect juveniles to re-offend in much the same way as they did before the passage of the legislation. Furthermore, taxpayers can expect a bill of nearly $5.7 to $20 million dollars each year beginning in 2020.  What will they get for their money? It seems not a whole lot of anything.


No comments:

Post a Comment