Pretrial Juvenile Detention
Uploaded by
Cato InstitutePretrial Juvenile Detention
Uploaded by
Cato InstituteRESEARCH
B R I E F S
I N E C O N O M I C P O L I C Y
F eb rua ry 22, 2023 N u m b e r 321
Pretrial Juvenile Detention
B y E. J a s o n B a ro n , D u k e U n i v e rs i t y ; B r i a n J aco b , G e ra l d R. F o r d S c h o o l o f P u b l i c
P o l i c y , U n i v e rs i t y o f M i c h i g a n ; a n d J o s ep h P. R ya n , S c h o o l o f S o c i a l W o r k ,
U n i v e rs i t y o f M i c h i g a n
P
retrial juvenile detention is a crucial phase early disengagement with school and furthering criminality.
in the juvenile justice process. It is the point Proponents argue that detention for certain offenses ensures
at which a court decides whether to confine a that youths will show up to their court dates and is neces-
youth pending a court hearing. Each year, more sary for public safety, because those awaiting trial and not
than 200,000 youths are admitted to detention facilities detained could commit other crimes before their court dates.
in the United States, and approximately 16,000 are held As with the adult criminal justice system, these debates are
in detention on any given night. Roughly one-fourth of currently taking place in several jurisdictions across the
individuals involved with the juvenile justice system in country, with many of them exploring alternatives to pre-
2019 spent time at a juvenile detention center (JDC) before trial detention, such as home detention, supervised evening
their court dates, with an average length of stay of 27 days. programs, shelters, and electronic monitoring.
The criteria for determining whether a juvenile should be Despite the prevalence of detention and the widespread
detained prior to his or her court hearing are at the discre- debates surrounding its practice, little is known about its
tion of individual court referees and vary widely. Although consequences. Although high-quality studies have exam-
many juveniles in detention were arrested for a violent ined the impact of pretrial detention in adult criminal
offense, a slight majority of them were arrested for other justice systems, to the best of our knowledge no study has
offenses, including drug and property crimes. examined the effects for juveniles. Most research involving
The high rate of detention and the racial disparities in juveniles has focused on the effects of posttrial incarcera-
its use have contributed to an ongoing debate regarding tion instead. However, incarceration and pretrial detention
its effectiveness. Critics argue that detention can disrupt are quite distinct practices. Juveniles in detention are
defendants’ education and community ties, fostering presumed innocent unless and until they are found guilty
Editor, JEFFREY MIRON, Harvard University and Cato Institute.
in court. Further, while the purpose of a detention center placement. We find that students placed in a JDC before
is to temporarily confine juveniles as their cases are being trial are more likely to remain enrolled in school in the year
handled in court, posttrial placements in correctional facil- following JDC placement than otherwise observationally
ities are substantially longer and are for youth who have equivalent peers who were not placed. However, we find
been convicted and sentenced to confinement. Also, the evidence that placement is clearly disruptive to students’
adult and juvenile criminal justice systems differ in that in schooling. In the years following detention, students who
the adult system, pretrial decisions are primarily made by were placed are more likely to switch schools during the
bail judges, whereas in the juvenile system, decisions are academic year, be retained in their grade level, receive
much less formal and are typically made by police officers special education services, and be chronically absent
and court referees. (defined as missing more than 10 percent of school days
Our research provides the first examination of how during the academic year). We suspect that such disrup-
pretrial juvenile detention influences youths’ outcomes tion to schooling is an important mechanism. We also rule
later in life. To examine that influence, we match public out other potential mechanisms. For instance, we find no
school records in Michigan to juvenile petition and deten- evidence that the negative effects of detention operate
tion records. The outcomes we examine include high through effects on case outcomes (e.g., whether the youth
school graduation as well as adult crime, which we obtain was found guilty).
through a match to data on adult arrests, convictions, and While a complete cost-benefit analysis of pretrial deten-
incarcerations in the state’s adult criminal justice system. tion is beyond the scope of our research, the large costs
Our research design compares the outcomes of individuals of detention due to reductions in high school graduation
who, in a given academic year, had a similar type of juvenile and increases in adult crime, as well as the monetary costs
offense, were in the same grade and school district, are of of detaining youth, suggest the benefits from detention
the same sex and race or ethnicity, and had a similar history would have to be quite large to justify its use. One purport-
of educational and juvenile justice outcomes, but one group ed benefit of detention is that it ensures juveniles show
was detained before the hearing while the other group was up to their court hearing. We find that detention reduces
either released to their parents or placed in home detention. the likelihood that youths miss their court hearings by 0.4
We show that pretrial detention has large, negative percentage points. However, the prevalence of this out-
effects on youths’ outcomes later in life. Specifically, we come is small (the average for nondetained juveniles is
find that pretrial juvenile detention leads to a decline of 2.2 percent), which suggests any benefit from this channel
11 percentage points (38 percent) in the probability of is likely to be small.
graduating from high school. We also find that detention The other potential benefit of pretrial detention is its
increases the probability that a youth will be arrested as an ability to increase public safety by preventing the juvenile
adult by 11 percentage points (27 percent). This probability from committing further offenses before the court hearing.
is larger for felony offenses (40 percent) than for misde- We are unable to explore this issue because of data limita-
meanor offenses (24 percent). Although we find increases tions. However, recent research in the adult criminal justice
in the probability of arrest for all major types of crime, our system has concluded that while pretrial detention neces-
results are largest for violent crimes. We also show that sarily reduces criminal activity during the time the person
detention leads to large increases in the probability of is detained, that effect is offset by increased criminal
being convicted and incarcerated as an adult. activity after the defendant is released and the case is dis-
To examine the potential mechanisms driving the large posed—which leads to no net effect of pretrial detention
negative impacts of pretrial juvenile detention, we take on criminal activity over a longer period. Compared with
advantage of detailed educational records that allow us to the adult system, the length of detention in the juvenile
observe how key educational inputs and outcomes change system is substantially shorter. Approximately one-third
before and after a juvenile detention spell. Interestingly, we of youths in our sample were detained for less than a week,
rule out that students drop out immediately following JDC whereas the average lengths of pretrial detention in the
2
adult system range from 50 to 250 days, depending on the NOTE
offense type. Although these facts are suggestive of poten- This research brief is based on E. Jason Baron, Brian Jacob,
tially small effects on public safety, we leave it to future and Joseph P. Ryan, “Pretrial Juvenile Detention,” Journal of
research to rigorously investigate this question. Public Economics 217 (January 2023): 104798.
The views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and should not be attributed to the Cato Institute, its trustees,
its Sponsors, or any other person or organization. Nothing in this paper should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder
the passage of any bill before Congress. Copyright © 2023 Cato Institute. This work by the Cato Institute is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.