Statewide Responses to a Proposed Realignment of Juvenile Corrections in Arizona

• Author: Melanie Taylor,Scott Decker,Charles Katz
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016815604023
• Published date: 01 December 2015
• Date: 01 December 2015
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Statewide Responses to a

Proposed Realignment of

Juvenile Corrections in

Arizona

Melanie Taylor

1

, Scott Decker

2

, and Charles Katz

2

Abstract

As states face shrinking budgets, new options for correctional supervision are being sought. One

solution has been to shift the responsibility for custody from the state to county level through a

process of realignment. The current article uses a case study methodology to examine proposed

solutions and opinions of various stakeholders in juvenile justice following a 2010 announcement

that the Department of Juvenile Corrections would be closed in Arizona. The findings show that the

manner in which the realignment was proposed would have been a difficult model to adopt but that a

well-planned and adequately funded reform would benefit juveniles and counties across Arizona.

Keywords

realignment, juvenile corrections, reform, prison

Many states are experiencing a unique period of correctional reform. Following the prison boom in

the 1980s, states have devoted a significant amount of funding to the incapacitation and supervision

of millions of individuals (Schmitt, Warner, & Gupta, 2010). Over the past 5 years, as the resources

devoted to the criminal justice system have grown dramatically, all states have been faced with

reduced budgets during the economic recession. As the cost of corrections has begun to strain state

revenues, many states are now being forced to consider alternative options for confining prisoners

and juvenile delinquents (Gottschalk, 2010). In 2010, alternative solutions were developed for juve-

nile corrections when the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) was slated for clo-

sure. The current article examines challenges faced at state and county levels if the agency had

closed, opinions of juvenile justice officials across the state regarding the realignment, and proposed

solutions for the future of juvenile corrections in Arizona.

1

University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA

2

Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA

Corresponding Author:

Melanie Taylor, University of Nevada, 1664 N. Virginia St MS 214, Reno, NV 89557, USA.

Email: melanietaylor@unr.edu

Criminal Justice Review

2015, Vol. 40(4) 488-504

ª2015 Georgia State University

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0734016815604023

cjr.sagepub.com

Responding to Budgetary Constraints

The response to declining budgets has varied across states. While the solution to reduce operating

costs for some states has been to close adult and juvenile facilities (Porter, 2011), others have rein-

vested funds from prisons into community corrections or changed their mandatory minimum senten-

cing practices (Subramanian & Tublitz, 2012). A more drastic solution to address budgetary

constraints is to realign a state’s correctional system. In other words, some states have resorted to

releasing offenders back into their communities and shifting the burden of confinement from state

to local governments (Butts & Evans, 2011; Porter, 2011). Multiple states facing budget constraints

have either begun making steps to drastically reform their correctional systems or begun to consider

such moves.

One of the most notable correctional realignments has been the reform of California’s adult cor-

rectional system following Assembly Bill 109 (AB109). In an effort to reduce prison overcrowding

and respond to the budget crisis, AB109 shifted responsibility of certain drug and property offenders

from the state to county level (Owen & Mobley, 2012). The realignment has garnered criticism

because of the difficulties that counties have faced including devoting increased resources to hous-

ing offenders in jails, challenges in implementing adequate community alternatives, and maintaining

community safety (American Civil Liberties Union, 2012). Initial research suggests that the realign-

ment has been effective in attaining some of its goals—at least at the state level. Petersilia (2014), for

example, recently reported in her study of the California prison realignment that in 2005, about 20%

of prisoners were confined on drug charges compared to 8.7%today. She noted, however, that the

success of the realignment was largely dependent on how the problem is going to be addressed at the

local level. In Orange County, CA, 76%of police departments, for instance, reported increases in

violent and property crimes resulting from the realignment (Emery, 2013). In contrast, other reports

suggest that there is no direct link between a statewide increase in crime and the realignment (Males

& Goldstein, 2014). In fact, realignment may even have a positive impact on counties, as they are

now more focused on helping offenders find jobs and learn basic life skills (Moore, 2013). Because it

is still too early to determine the impact that the realignment has had on recidivism statewide, ques-

tions remain regarding the long-term repercussions of shifting the responsibility of confinement.

A growing number of states have been forced to make reforms to address the burgeoning prison

population, including closing entire prisons; restructuring sentencing guidelines so that offenders

will serve sentences in jail; and placing an increased number of offenders into community correc-

tions (Subramanian & Tublitz, 2012). For example, in the late 2000s, multiple prisons in Georgia

were closed as the Georgia Department of Corrections began the process of realignment, including

one prison with 1,700 beds (Georgia Department of Corrections, 2007, 2009). Other states like North

Carolina (Markham, 2014), West Virginia (Justice Center, 2013; Tomblin, 2014), and Nebraska

(‘‘Nebraska Lawmakers Move Bills to Ease Prison Crowding,’’ 2014) have recently engaged in a

reinvestment of resources from prisons to community corrections. Although statewide correctional

overhauls like the one witnessed in California are rare, it is clear that multiple states are reconsider-

ing correctional structures.

Similar strategies have been considered or adopted in multiple states for juvenile corrections,

including California, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Washington (National Juvenile Justice

Network & Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2013). For example, over the past decade, a variety

of strategies have been used to decrease reliance on state juvenile corrections in Illinois, many of

which have been statutory. Because the state had historically paid for confinement, counties had

grown reliant upon state corrections for programming and treatment for juveniles of all risk levels.

The result of the partial realignment, where low-risk juveniles were retained in the counties, was the

closure of state juvenile correctional facilities and reduced costs. Juvenile corrections in New York

similarly reformed following task force recommendations made to the Governor to shift resources

Taylor et al. 489