Project Confirm

• Author: Dylan Conger,Timothy Ross
• DOI: 10.1177/1541204005282314
• Published date: 01 January 2006
• Date: 01 January 2006
• Subject Matter: Articles

10.1177/1541204005282314
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
Conger, Ross / PROJECT CONFIRM
PROJECT CONFIRM
An Outcome Evaluation of a Program for Children
in the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems
Dylan Conger
George Washington University
Timothy Ross
Vera Institute of Justice
When a foster care youth has been arrested, several child-serving agencies are required
to communicate effectively to ensure that a responsible guardian is present to take cus-
tody. Exploratory research suggests that, in some cases, judges detain children unnec-
essarily because their guardians fail to appear. This article presents the results of an
evaluation of Project Confirm, a program designed to reduce the unnecessary detention
of foster care youth. The evaluation reveals a disparity in pre-adjudication detention
rates between foster and nonfoster juveniles with similar characteristics both before and
after the introduction of the program. The lack of an average program effect on this dis-
parity is explained by the fact that the disparity decreased for juveniles with less serious
records but increased for those with more serious records. Finally, both the disparity in
detention prior to the program and the program effect differed according to juveniles’
gender, race, and court county.
Keywords: juvenile detention; foster care; interagency coordination; interagency col-
laboration; child welfare; juvenile justice
Background
Pre-Adjudication Juvenile Detention in New York City
Juvenile custody rates exploded during the 1990s, leaving many juvenile detention
facilities, especially those in large urban areas, vastly overcrowded. According to one esti-
mate, from 1985 to 1995, the number of children held in locked juvenile justice detention
Authors’ Note: The authors gratefully acknowledge the staff of Project Confirm, notably its director Molly
Armstrong, the former director of the Vera Institute, Christopher Stone, and two anonymous reviewers for their
invaluable insights. They also thank the New York City Department of Juvenile Justice and the Administration for
Children’s Services for providing and assisting us with the data. This research was supported by grants from the
New York State Office of Children and Family Services and the New York City Administration for Children’s Ser-
vices. The methodology, findings, and interpretation of findings, along with any errors, are the responsibility of the
authors and are not subject to the approval of the funding agencies or the program staff.
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, Vol. 4 No. 1, January 2006 97-115
DOI: 10.1177/1541204005282314
© 2006 Sage Publications
97

---

98
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
facilities increased fivefold (Wordes & Jones, 1998). In New York City, the average daily
population of youth in detention further swelled by 60% between 1993 and 2000. Such in-
creases have been attributed to the rise in the use of detention for nonviolent offenders and
probation violators (Faruqee, 2002; Orlando, 1999).
The practice of pre-adjudication detention for juveniles is intended to prevent them
from further offending and ensure their appearance in court. Those who are released while
their cases are pending are typically considered at low risk of these activities. Unlike adult
court, family court judges are also required to take the best interest of a juvenile into consid-
eration when making a detention decision—in other words, to act as a parent—yet detention
at the pre-adjudicatory phase is not to be used as punishment (Schall v. Martin, 1984).
There is an additional consideration that informs judges’ decisions to detain: whether a “re-
lease resource” is present in court, typically a guardian or parent who can take the child
home and who can be held responsible for his or her behavior. The presence of an adult is
imperative to ensuring the release of juveniles who pose no threat to the community or risk
of flight.
There are, in fact, several junctures in the arrest of a juvenile when the presence of a
guardian may be helpful in avoiding detention. In New York, when a juvenile (anyone
younger than 16) is arrested for a relatively serious offense, police take him to court, or if
court is closed, to a secure detention facility until court opens the following weekday.1 Once
in court, the juveniles meet with a probation intake officer who conducts an interview, ide-
ally with the guardian present, to determine whether to forward the case for prosecution or
adjustment. The cases that require prosecution are then referred to the adult equivalent of a
prosecutor (in New York City, the prosecuting agency is known as Corporation Counsel),
where the decision is made as to whether to file a petition to the court. If a petition is filed,
the juvenile has an initial court appearance when the judge assigns counsel and decides,
with a recommendation from Corporation Counsel, whether to further detain the juvenile in
a secure or nonsecure detention facility while awaiting adjudication. Anecdotal evidence
indicates that judges typically follow the Corporation Counsel recommendation to detain.
And a necessary condition for release is that a responsible guardian is present to take cus-
tody. In 2001, more than 5,000 juveniles were admitted to detention in New York City,
where they remained an average of 36 days (Faruqee, 2002).
For decades, advocates and researchers have criticized juvenile detention facilities in
New York City and other jurisdictions for their squalid conditions, violence, and abuse to-
ward youth in custody (e.g., Hubner & Wolfson, 1999; Orlando, 1999; Parent & Abt Asso-
ciates, 1994). In the early 1970s, reformers sued New York City, charging that conditions
in juvenile detention violated constitutional guarantees against cruel and unusual punish-
ment (Martarella v. Kelley, 1972).2 Under intense pressure from community groups in
1989, city officials vowed to shut down the sole secure detention center, Spofford, which
had “long been considered a symbol of overcrowded conditions and brutality against chil-
dren” (Faruqee, 2002, p. 3). After the city built two smaller secure facilities, Spofford
closed in 1997 as newspaper and magazine articles cited its history of violence, poor sani-
tation, and lack of services (e.g. Rein & Flynn, 1997; Thrush, 1997). In 1999, the city re-
opened the facility with a new name—the Bridges Juvenile Center—but reports of violence
and gang recruiting continued amid calls to shift resources away from detention and toward
a social service model (e.g., Kelly, 2004).
Aside from these conditions, other criticisms have been leveled at the use of pre-
adjudication detention. Some speculate that it may harm juvenile defendants’ educational
attainment and income if it keeps them from school and work (Faruqee, 2002; Sampson &

---

Conger, Ross / PROJECT CONFIRM
99
Laub, 1993). In addition, adolescents in detention cannot demonstrate their ability to obey
the law or display other positive behaviors that could lead judges to release juveniles prior
to disposition—the family court equivalent of sentences (e.g., Cohen & Kluegel, 1979).
Some argue that pre-adjudication detention may also result in more severe dispositions
(e.g., Bortner, 1982; Fagan & Guggenheim, 1996). In a study of all juvenile delinquency
cases in a single state, for instance, Frazier and Bishop (1985) found that juveniles who
were detained pre-adjudication were slightly more likely than those who were not detained
to have their cases result in a formal disposition (rather than an informal disposition, which
may result in more lenient sanctions).3
Child Welfare for Adolescents in New York City
The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), New York City’s child welfare
agency, has custody of approximately 20,000 foster children. ACS contracts with more than
60 private agencies that are responsible for finding foster families and operating congregate
care facilities, such as group homes or residential treatment centers. Approximately one
third of the youth in care are between 12 and 16 years old, and most of these adolescents re-
side in congregate care, particularly those who enter care during adolescence instead of
childhood. Adolescents enter care in a variety of ways. About a third of first-time adoles-
cent entries are because of abuse or neglect, another third are voluntary placements (e.g.,
when the parents die), and most of the remainder enter because of a remand or placement as
part of a status offense action (these are commonly known as Persons in Need of Super-
vision cases). Fewer than 3% are placed in foster care through the juvenile delinquency
system.
There are several front-line staff and caregivers involved in the care of a foster child,
and their respective responsibilities can sometimes be unclear. Caregivers typically include
foster parents, relatives, and/or group home counselors who provide basic subsistence and
who may also provide care outside of the home, such as taking the child to doctor visits, at-
tending teacher-parent conferences, and acting as the child’s guardian in a juvenile delin-
quency case. Each child is also assigned a caseworker who is responsible for monitoring the
case, such as scheduling meetings with biological parents, assessing the safety and quality
of the foster home, and monitoring progress toward adoption or reunification with the bio-
logical parent. Each case is overseen by a case manager who supervises the caseworker and
often makes important decisions regarding the case. Because of the challenging work con-
ditions and...