States Commit to Comprehensive Juvenile Legal System Reforms

From 2013 to 2018, eight states­—Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia¹—passed expansive legislation to improve youth² justice systems with the support of Pew’s public safety performance project. All reforms were designed to improve public safety, control costs, and ensure the best outcomes for young people, their families, and their communities.³ Pew provided technical assistance to each state, with support from the Crime and Justice Institute at Community Resources for Justice.

Although the specific reforms varied, each state relied on the same process. Bipartisan working groups of state leaders, policymakers, and stakeholders began by conducting analyses of their juvenile legal systems. They gathered years’ worth of data across multiple state agencies, reviewed a large body of research, and consulted numerous stakeholders in the system, including law enforcement, court officials, and impacted young people and families. Their work culminated in a comprehensive set of recommended policy changes, many of which were passed by their respective legislatures with strong support.⁴ The chart below captures the breadth of reforms at the time the legislation was signed into law.

State Reforms Span Entirety of Juvenile Legal System, From Pre-Arrest to Re-Entry

Evidence-based policies offer roadmap for other policymakers, practitioners, and advocates to pursue changes in their own states

Learn more about the juvenile legal system reform measures that were passed in each state’s legislature. Click on each system touchpoint to reveal more detail about what the reforms did and discover how they affected youth engaged with the legal system.

Reform measures are meant to address different phases within the legal process. Those system touchpoints include:

• Pre-arrest—Occurring prior to a young person being referred to the juvenile legal system.
• Pretrial—Specific to reforms that have an effect after a young person has been referred to the juvenile legal system, but prior to an adjudicatory hearing.
• Disposition—Reforms that address how courts decide to handle a juvenile case after adjudication.
• Confinement—Policies that affect whether youth are removed from home and for how long.
• Community supervision—Measures that tailor the level and duration of assigned mandatory oversight of youth outside secure facilities, incentivize compliance, and improve system responses for noncompliance.
• System accountability—Provisions intended to ensure ongoing system oversight, including the data and fiscal support needed to promote future research-backed implementation and reforms.

Research supporting the reforms

Each state passed reforms to address its unique system challenges, but all eight states were guided by research in the field about what works to enhance public safety, reduce costs, and effectively support young people and families.⁵

A longitudinal study of more than 1,200 adolescents found that community-based interventions lead to better outcomes for youth than formal court processing and are less costly for the system overall.⁶ Many states adopted changes that align with this finding. Utah removed the court’s jurisdiction over many school-based offenses;⁷ South Dakota created a fiscal incentive for counties to encourage the use of diversion;⁸ and Kentucky⁹ created a new program to ensure that youth have the support they need to successfully complete community-based diversion.

Additionally, research has shown that in situations where youth are formally processed through the system, removal from home generally fails to protect public safety compared with noncustodial options,¹⁰ and longer periods outside the home yield no further benefits.¹¹ To address this, Kansas¹² and Utah¹³ created a statutory presumption that most youth remain in their communities instead of being taken to a facility. Utah¹⁴ and Tennessee¹⁵ limited placement lengths to three to six months in most circumstances, while Georgia¹⁶ prohibited residential placement for most misdemeanors and all status offenses—youth noncriminal violations, including truancy and underage use of alcohol—except for youth with three or more prior adjudications (the juvenile court equivalent of a conviction or guilty plea in the criminal system). 

Finally, for adjudicated youth who remained in their communities, all eight states made changes to tailor supervision to the needs of each individual young person.¹⁷ Studies have found that shortening probation lengths,¹⁸ using incentives for positive behavior,¹⁹ and eliminating unnecessary financial obligations²⁰ contribute to a youth’s success on supervision. Other policy changes sought to bolster the system to monitor its success, be accountable to the community, and prioritize evidence-based and sustainable practices.

Moving forward

These eight states prove that states can undertake reform efforts that span the entirety of the juvenile legal system, from before youth are arrested to how and when they exit the system. The work in these states offers a roadmap for policymakers, practitioners, and advocates to approach comprehensive changes in their own states. Read more about each state’s efforts here: Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, South Dakota, West Virginia, Kansas, Utah, and Tennessee. 

Endnotes

1. Georgia General Assembly, “Georgia House Bill 242,” 2013; Hawaii State Legislature, “”Hawaii House Bill 2490,” 2014; Kansas Legislature, “Kansas Senate Bill 367,” 2016; Kentucky General Assembly, “Kentucky Senate Bill 200,” 2014; South Dakota State Legislature, “South Dakota Senate Bill 73,” 2015; Tennessee General Assembly, “Tennessee House Bill 2271,” 2018; Utah State Legislature, “Utah House Bill 239,” 2017; West Virginia Legislature, “West Virginia Senate Bill 393, 2015.
2. Georgia statute defines “youth” as individuals under the age of 17 at the time of their referral to court. The remaining states mentioned define youth as under the age of 18.
3. The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Utah’s 2017 Juvenile Justice Reform Shows Early Promise” (2019), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2019/05/utahs-2017-juvenile-justice-reform-shows-early-promise; The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Kansas’ 2016 Juvenile Justice Reform” (2017), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2017/06/kansas-2016-juvenile-justice-reform; The Pew Charitable Trusts, “South Dakota’s 2015 Juvenile Justice Reform” (2016), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2016/01/south-dakotas-2015-juvenile-justice-reform; The Pew Charitable Trusts, “West Virginia’s 2015 Juvenile Justice Reform” (2016), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2016/05/west-virginias-2015-juvenile-justice-reform; The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Hawaii’s 2014 Juvenile Justice Reform” (2014), https://www.pewtrusts.org/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2014/07/hawaiis-2014-juvenile-justice-reform; The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Kentucky’s 2014 Juvenile Justice Reform” (2014), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2014/07/kentuckys-2014-juvenile-justice-reform; The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Georgia’s 2013 Juvenile Justice Reform” (2013), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/0001/01/01/georgias-2013-juvenile-justice-reform; Joint Ad-Hoc Tennessee Blue Ribbon Task Force on Juvenile Justice, “Final Report” (2017), https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tccy/documents/youth-justice/JJ-BlueRibbon-Report-2018.pdf.
4. The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Utah’s 2017 Juvenile Justice Reform Shows Early Promise”; The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Kansas’ 2016 Juvenile Justice Reform”; The Pew Charitable Trusts, “South Dakota’s 2015 Juvenile Justice Reform”; The Pew Charitable Trusts, “West Virginia’s 2015 Juvenile Justice Reform”; The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Hawaii’s 2014 Juvenile Justice Reform”; The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Kentucky’s 2014 Juvenile Justice Reform”; The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Georgia’s 2013 Juvenile Justice Reform”; Joint Ad-Hoc Tennessee Blue Ribbon Task Force on Juvenile Justice, “Final Report.”
5. The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Utah’s 2017 Juvenile Justice Reform Shows Early Promise”; The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Kansas’ 2016 Juvenile Justice Reform”; The Pew Charitable Trusts, “South Dakota’s 2015 Juvenile Justice Reform”; The Pew Charitable Trusts, “West Virginia’s 2015 Juvenile Justice Reform”; The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Hawaii’s 2014 Juvenile Justice Reform”; The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Kentucky’s 2014 Juvenile Justice Reform”; The Pew Charitable Trusts, “Georgia’s 2013 Juvenile Justice Reform”; Joint Ad-Hoc Tennessee Blue Ribbon Task Force on Juvenile Justice, “Final Report.”
6. E. Cauffman et al., “Crossroads in Juvenile Justice: The Impact of Initial Processing Decision on Youth 5 Years After First Arrest,” Development and Psychopathology 33, no. 2 (2021): 700-13, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33955345.   
7. Utah State Legislature, “Utah House Bill 239.”
8. South Dakota State Legislature, “South Dakota Senate Bill 73.”
9. Kentucky General Assembly, “Kentucky Senate Bill 200.”
10. T.A. Loughran et al., “Estimating a Dose-Response Relationship Between Length of Stay and Future Recidivism in Serious Juvenile Offenders,” Criminology 47, no. 3 (2009): 669-740, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801446.
11. J.C. Howell and M.W. Lipsey, “Research-Based Guidelines for Juvenile Justice Programs,” Justice Research and Policy 14, no. 1 (2012), https://humanrights.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/media/Research-Based%20Guidelines%20for%20Juvenile%20Justice%20Programs%20by%20Howell%20and%20Lipsey.pdf.
12. Kansas Legislature, “Kansas Senate Bill 367.”
13. Utah State Legislature, “Utah House Bill 239.”
14. Ibid.
15. Tennessee General Assembly, “Tennessee House Bill 2271.”
16. Georgia General Assembly, “Georgia House Bill 242.”
17. West Virginia Legislature, “West Virginia Senate Bill 393”; Utah State Legislature, “Utah House Bill 239”; Tennessee General Assembly, “Tennessee House Bill 2271”; South Dakota State Legislature, “South Dakota Senate Bill 73”; Kentucky General Assembly, “Kentucky Senate Bill 200”; Kansas Legislature, “Kansas Senate Bill 367”; Hawaii State Legislature, “Hawaii House Bill 2490”; Georgia General Assembly, “Georgia House Bill 242.”
18. Howell and Lipsey, “Research-Based Guidelines for Juvenile Justice Programs.”
19. E. Cauffman and L. Steinberg, “Emerging Findings From Research on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice,” Victims & Offenders 7, no. 4 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2012.713901.
20. A.R. Piquero and W.G. Jennings, “Research Note: Justice System-Imposed Financial Penalties Increase the Likelihood of Recidivism in a Sample of Adolescent Offenders,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 15, no. 3 (2016): 325-40, https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204016669213.