Reforming Juvenile Justice in DC

Our work in D.C. provides these lessons:

• Bureaucracies resist change. Large, public institutions are built to preserve existing practices, authority, and routines. Court orders and internal mandates alone are rarely sufficient to produce meaningful reform. Independent, external actors are often necessary to ensure results.
• Independent organizations drive innovation. As a nonprofit organization operating outside government constraints, CJCJ introduces and tests bold, evidence-based strategies that traditional bureaucracies were unwilling or unable to implement.
• Population reduction fuels systemic reform. Reducing the number of people held in confinement weakens the institutional rationale for detention facilities. It also creates space for improved conditions, and accelerates broader system change.
• Individualized, intensive support is critical. Successful community-based alternatives depend on tailored case planning, frequent contact, and strong, trust-based relationships between people and advocates.

In 1994, CJCJ was asked to assist the District of Columbia in advancing compliance with a class-action lawsuit involving D.C.’s juvenile detention system. Originally filed in 1985, the Jerry M. consent decree was governed by a court-approved consent decree issued in 1986, which challenged inhumane conditions and overcrowding in D.C.’s Oak Hill and Cedar Knoll youth facilities. The decree required population reductions, improved conditions, and expanded community-based alternatives, but this progress largely stalled by the 1990s.

CJCJ brought a proven track record as an independent agency providing alternatives to youth confinement. We had previously worked nationally in similar situations, which illustrated how large bureaucratic systems resist change. CJCJ first implemented our model approach in Hawai‘i and later refined it in San Francisco. In D.C., CJCJ introduced this advocacy-driven, intensive case-management model that shows how youth, including many deemed high risk, can be safely supervised in the community. CJCJ significantly reduced detention populations, expanded community-based supervision, and promoted enduring reform in the District of Columbia.

The Jerry M. litigation (filed 1985; consent decree issued 1986) exposed systemic failures in the District’s juvenile detention system, including overcrowding, unsafe conditions, and an overreliance on confinement. Despite formal court oversight, substantial reform was stalled. Bureaucratic inefficiencies undermined and delayed the process. Detention populations remained high, and compliance with the consent decree lagged.

The District brought in CJCJ to facilitate reform by reducing confinement and fostering credible, community-based options.

Under contract with the District, CJCJ identified detained or at-risk youth who could safely return to their communities. We provided participants with an individualized release and supervision plan that was developed collaboratively with youth, families, and relevant agencies. Our case managers worked closely with the youth. We provided them with crisis intervention and advocated on their behalf with courts, schools, and service providers. Judges favored these safe and credible alternatives to incarceration. CJCJ’s approach reduced youth incarceration while showing that smaller systems are more capable of reform.

Building on earlier success, CJCJ developed our Supervised Independent Living Program (ILP) for older youth (ages 17 – 21) transitioning from secure facilities.ILP provided these youth with furnished apartments, stipends, 24-hour staff support, and individualized case management. Participants followed tailored plans emphasizing education, employment, health, life skills, and community integration. Our program showed how structured independence is a transformative alternative to incarceration for older youth. Similar independent living programs now operate in California amid the closure of its state youth prison system.

CJCJ’s work in D.C. produced lasting results for youth. We reduced youth confinement and recidivism, while increasing community supervision and court appearance rates. Dozens of young people successfully transitioned from confinement to stable housing, employment, and independence., Plus, CJCJ reinvigorated a stalled reform process. This showed that transformative justice often requires an outside catalyst willing to challenge entrenched systems.

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2009). A road map for juvenile detention reform.

Campaign for Youth Justice. (2018). Community-based alternatives to youth incarceration: National models and lessons learned.

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. (1995). Detention Diversion Advocacy Program (DDAP): Program overview and evaluation.

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. (2002). Independent Living Program description and case management guidelines.

District of Columbia Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services. (2020). Statement on the conclusion of court oversight in the Jerry M. case.

Jerry M. v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 1519 – 85 (D.C. Super. Ct. 1985 – 2020).

National Center for Youth Law. (1986). Jerry M. consent decree overview.

U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2014). Promising and proven programs for juvenile justice reform. U.S. Department of Justice.