As often as possible, it’s healthful to push past all the damning, screaming crime headlines to do a reality check: bottom line, juvenile crime is down in America.

Amid news stories that raise the specter of increasing juvenile crime, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that crime rates overall, particularly for violent crimes, are still near 30-year lows. The cries of alarm are reminiscent of those heard in the early 1990s, when a rise in violent juvenile crime and myths of superpredators helped transform a system that had been focused on individualized treatment and rehabilitation for nearly a century into one that was increasingly harsh and punitive. SOURCE

But how do we keep improving on this trend? Well we know some of what works.

Over the past decade, groundbreaking research on adolescent development and on what works to help young people steer clear of crime has brought about more rational and effective policies. Illinois, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Washington were among the first to incorporate this new knowledge in reshaping our juvenile justice systems. SOURCE

This week, The Christian Science Monitor features ‘Better Models for Juvenile Justice,’ an article written by Governors Rod R. Blagojevich, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, Edward G. Rendell and Chris Gregoireon, which outlines how their four states; Illinois, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and Washington have created better juvenile justice models that blunt the cycle of recidivism.

In Illinois:

Illinois launched the nation’s first juvenile justice system more than a century ago. But, like many other states in the 1990s, it turned away from its historic rehabilitative mission, transferring a growing number of youths to adult court. The result was a sharp rise in recidivism rates and a growing racial disparity in incarceration rates.

Illinois is now renewing its commitment to juvenile justice by enacting a new law to separate the juvenile and adult systems to better protect young people. Redeploy Illinois, a model demonstration in four counties, provides incentives to place nonviolent juvenile offenders in community-based programs. As a result of this program, Illinois has reduced commitments of nonviolent juveniles by 44 percent at its pilot sites since 2004.

In Louisiana:

In the 1990s, Louisiana had the highest juvenile incarceration rate in the nation and some of the worst juvenile prisons. A lawsuit brought by the US Department of Justice spurred major reforms, including the closing of a large juvenile correction facility. Louisiana also separated juvenile from adult corrections, first by executive order and then by statute.

In less than a decade, the state has reduced the number of incarcerated youths by more than 70 percent while also lowering crime rates. Now Louisiana is developing alternatives to the court system that will hold youths accountable while engaging their families and communities.

In Pennsylvania:

Pennsylvania has long had fiscal incentives to encourage community-based programs. The state introduced “balanced and restorative justice,” an individualized approach that considers the goals of accountability, community protection, and youth development at the same time. Pennsylvania is now establishing high-quality aftercare programs to help young offenders acquire life skills and become productive citizens. It is also one of the first states to mandate that counties report race and ethnicity data at key points in case processing, a critical step in reducing disparities.

In Washington:

Washington has a long history of using research to inform juvenile justice policy-making. Ongoing evaluation of its programs and services has demonstrated which ones effectively reduce juvenile crime and recidivism.

Now the state is expanding these evidence-based programs throughout the state to reach youths before they become deeply involved in the juvenile justice system. The state’s functional family therapy program has reduced recidivism rates by 38 percent and saved taxpayers $10.69 for every $1 invested.

Let’s spread the word. I urge you to read the entire article. Then forward it on (via email) to the office responsible for handling juvenile justice in your state.