The study of policy and program implementation has advanced significantly in the past two decades, but relatively little attention has been paid to the complex issues involved in expanding promising local models for reforming justice agencies to other jurisdictions. This paper examines statewide implementation of a legislatively mandated reform intended to restrict and rationalize the use of juvenile detention based on a successful local model. Though statewide aggregate data indicate initial success in the use of formal intake criteria to reduce secure detention populations, early revisions of a risk assessment instrument used to objectively determine restrictiveness levels signify concern on the part of some decision makers to restore discretion over the use of secure detention. Detention intake data from one county facility are used to illustrate the potential impact of these changes on detention populations and to explore the role of informal processes, as well as that of formal criteria, as a key factor in expanding the implementation of local reforms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Auditor General
. (1991). Performance audit of the secure juvenile justice detention program. Tallahassee, FL: Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.
2.
Austin, J.
, & Krisberg, B. (1981). Wider, stronger and different nets: The dialectics of criminal justice reform. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 18, 165-196.
3.
Baird, C.
(1984). Classification of juveniles in corrections. Madison, WI: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
4.
Bard, M.
, & Berkowitz, B. (1969). A community's psychology consultation program in police and family crisis intervention. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 15, 209-215.
5.
Bazemore, G.
(1991). Work experience and employment programming for serious juvenile offenders: Prospects for a "productive engagement" model of intensive supervision for high risk youth. In T. Armstrong (Ed.), Intensive interventions for high risk youth (pp. 123-153). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
6.
Bazemore, G.
, & West, B. (1989). Conflict and change in a state correctional system: A case study in program implementation. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 3, 133-199.
7.
Berman, P.
(1978). The study of macro and micro-implementation. Public Policy, 26, 152-189.
8.
Bynum, T.
, & Massey, C. (1977). Implementing community based corrections: An exploration of competing goals of equity and efficiency. In C. R. Huff (Ed.), Contemporary corrections, social control, and conflict (pp. 140-148). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
9.
Criswell, J.
(1991, April). Juvenile justice reform. Paper presented to CYF Professional Development Centres District Trainers' Meeting, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
10.
Dale, M.
, & Sanniti, C. (1993). Litigation as an instrument for change in juvenile detention: A case study. Crime and Delinquency, 39, 49-69.
11.
Decker, S.
(1982). Value consensus among agencies in a juvenile justice program: A process evaluation. In M. Morash (Ed.), Implementing criminal justice policies (pp. 101-114). London, England: Sage.
12.
Downs, G.
, & Rocke, D. (1979, summer). Bureaucracy and juvenile corrections in the states. Policy Studies Journal, pp. 721-728.
13.
Elmore, R.
(1978). Organizational models of social program implementation. Public Policy, 26, 185-228.
14.
Frazier, C.
, & Bishop, D. (1985). The pretrial detention of juveniles and its impact on case dispositions. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 76, 1132-1152.
15.
Friday, P.
, & Elrod, P. (1986, November). Schools and delinquency: Strategies and conflicts in implementing delinquency prevention through organizational restructuring. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Meetings, Montreal, Canada.
16.
Goggin, M.
, Bowman, A., Lester, J., & O'Toole, L. (1990). Implementation, theory and practice: Toward a third generation. London, England: Scott, Foresman and Co.
17.
Goodstein, L.
, & Southeimer, H. (1991, November). The implementation of an intensive aftercare program for serious juvenile offenders: A case study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco, CA.
18.
Gruenwald, P.
, Lawrence, S., & West, B. R. (1978). National evaluation of the New Pride Replication Program: Final report. Walnut Creek, CA: Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation.
19.
Johnson, C. A.
, & Canon, B. C. (1984). Judicial policies: Implementation and impact. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
20.
Klein, M. W.
(1979). Deinstitutionalization and diversion of juvenile offenders: A litany of impediments. In N. Morris & M. Tonry (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (pp. 154-186). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
21.
Martin, T. K.
(1990, November). Determinants of juvenile detention rates. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Baltimore, MD.
22.
Mazmanian, D.
, & Sabatier, P. (1981). Effective policy implementation. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath & Co.
23.
McNeese, A. C.
, & Ezell, M. (1983). Political symbolism in juvenile justice-Reforming Florida's juvenile detention criteria. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 10, 242-258.
24.
Miller, A.
, & Ohlin, L. (1985). Delinquency and community: Creating opportunities and controls. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
25.
Morash, M.
(1982). Implementing criminal justice policies. London, England: Sage.
26.
National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD)
. (1981). Final report of the National Evaluation on Prevention. San Francisco, CA: Author.
27.
O'Toole, L. T.
(1986). Policy recommendations for multi-actor implementation: An assessment of the field. Journal of Public Policy, 6, 181-210.
28.
Palmer, T.
(1991). The effectiveness of interventions: Recent trends and current issues. Crime and Delinquency, 37, 330-347.
29.
Rubin, H. T.
(1988). Fulfilling juvenile restitution requirements in community correctional programs. Federal Probation, 53, 32-42.
30.
Schneider, A. L.
(Ed.). (1985). The guide to juvenile restitution. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
31.
Schwartz, I.
, Barton, W., & Orlando, F. (1991, spring). Keeping kids out of secure detention. Public Welfare, pp. 21-26.
32.
Schwartz, I.
, Fishman, G., Hatfield, R., Krisberg, B., & Eisikovitz, E. (1987). Juvenile detention: The hidden closets revisited. Justice Quarterly, 4, 219-235.
33.
Skelcher, C.
, Hinings, B., Leach, S., & Ransom, S. (1983). Centre-local linkages: The impact of policy planning systems. Journal of Public Policy, 3, 419-434.
34.
Steinhart, D.
(1990). Testing the public safety impact of juvenile detention criteria applied at San Francisco's Youth Guidance Center. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
35.
Van Horn, G. E.
, & Van Meter, D. S. (1977). The implementation of intergovernmental policy. In S. S. Nagel (Ed.), Policy studies review annual (Vol. 1, pp. 97-120). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
36.
Williams, W.
(1982). Implementation analysis and assessment. In W. Williams & R. Elmore (Eds.), Social program implementation (pp. 267-292). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
