Which young people are being brought into the system and which young people are being diverted from the system (disaggregated by age, gender, race and ethnicity, community, offense charges, prior history)?

• Youth justice system leaders should ensure policymakers are educated about the population of young people impacted by the system and break down data by race, ethnicity, gender, geography, sexual orientation, and disability status to illustrate any disparities in how young people are treated within their jurisdiction.
  
  

Which young people penetrate to the deeper end of the system, including removal from home and/or commitment to a youth prison or other restrictive placement, and why?

• Policymakers in many jurisdictions assume only youth with chronic, serious, and violent offenses are admitted to youth prisons or other congregate care. In many jurisdictions, however, over half of restrictive setting placements have been a result of sentencing relatively minor offenses or revocation of probation due to a technical violation.
• It is crucial for system leaders to understand and dig deeper into the conditions that can lead to out-of-home placement, such as a parent’s unavailability to bring their child home or their home and work responsibilities which might result in technical violations or status offenses.
  
  

How long are young people involved with the correctional system, and why?

• States and counties differ widely on the length of time young people are held in out-of-home placement, as well as the length of time they remain under supervision by formal probation or aftercare programs. Jurisdictions with overly long terms of commitment and supervision increase the risk of the negative effects of incarceration and other coercive interventions, including recidivism.
• Here again, system leaders must work to understand why young people might be in out-of-home placement for longer than needed, whether it is because of specific statutes, lack of community-based services, or a need for communication between agencies.
  
  

How is the state or county spending the money allocated to the youth justice system?

• While policymakers may be broadly familiar with the major line items, they are rarely provided fiscal analyses that document how much money is being spent on which services for which young people. For example, they may be aware that the budget for a youth prison is $15 million, but unaware that the average daily population for the prison is less than 10 youth, resulting in an annualized cost of $1.5 million per bed. Understanding staffing needs and ratios may also help to get a picture of high costs of incarceration.
  
  

What results are achieved by the current system?

• Youth justice leaders should provide data on recidivism, youth well-being (educational attainment, health, mental health, job readiness as an adult, homelessness, etc.) and safety (reports of abuse, neglect or other mistreatment of young people in custody of the system).

When considering how to address the opposition, leaders should build on the common desire across stakeholders to see young people succeed, and frame changes in ways that speak to their concerns. For instance, engaging with correctional staff to listen to their insights and suggestions for reform, including their roles within it, might assuage fears of job loss, and therefore reduce the likelihood of pushback from unions. Similarly, gaining support from a district attorney or judge and understanding their concerns might increase their use of programs and decrease pushback. Engaging with diverse stakeholders can also help to align reform goals and their vested interests, leading to a range of messages that might appeal to different audiences and address various concerns.

‍

Leaders can help partners serve as spokespeople for reform, including by preparing them to respond to concerns and opposition. For example: 

Directly impacted young people and their families can share their experiences with the existing system to further emphasize the need for reform. They can be important spokespeople for the vision of transformation, including at town halls, legislative hearings, and advocacy events. Young people and their families can also speak credibly about what has worked for them, how they can best be engaged, programs that have helped, and what a relevant and successful community-based continuum requires.

• Directly impacted young people and their families can share their experiences with the existing system to further emphasize the need for reform. They can be important spokespeople for the vision of transformation, including at town halls, legislative hearings, and advocacy events. Young people and their families can also speak credibly about what has worked for them, how they can best be engaged, programs that have helped, and what a relevant and successful community-based continuum requires.
• System actors will have strong credibility with some key audiences. They can share their professional experiences and rationale for supporting reform by meeting with their colleagues and drafting op-eds.
• State and local officials can amplify the public safety and fiscal benefits of reform, including during press conferences as well as in policy agendas.
• Community activists and other residents can lift up the many ways that investing in young people creates healthier communities for all, including via infographics and media they can share with their networks

‍

Using the communications infrastructure that they have developed, system leaders can both proactively and reactively address different narratives as they emerge. This means crafting the tools and structure to address and ameliorate resistance, which includes: 

• Anticipating and preparing for episodic negative events that may lead to strong push-back. These events may include a young person committing an extremely harmful act, such as rape or murder, an uptick in drug-related violence and retaliation, a disturbance at one of the community programs, or a youth absconding from a limited security residential program. Critics are likely to tie these events to the efforts to reform the system, even when the overall trends and experience are headed in a positive direction. 
• Preparing talking points that underscore the improvements in the new approach, while also responding directly to the concerns and challenges of the specific negative event. Youth system leaders should prepare to address the negative event directly, noting how it occurred and ways it will be addressed. It is particularly important to put the negative event in context, including reminders about how crises occur within the current system, that youth incarceration fails to meaningfully address or prevent harm (and is likely exacerbating it), and that a community-based, collaborative approach to transformation offers an opportunity for the public to work together in response to challenges. 
• Continually reinforcing core messages. Youth justice systems are accountable for reducing the odds that young people impacted by the system will commit harm in the future, and for increasing the odds that young people will be on a path to opportunity and success. Both outcomes depend on investing in the well-being and success of all young people, their families and their communities. These investments will not only reduce harm but help communities thrive.

‍

Strategies for proactively and reactively addressing opposition might include talking points that:

• Point to the simultaneous drop in crime and incarceration rates, and strategies that have contributed to these trends;
• Emphasize the many negative effects of youth prisons, including high recidivism, physical and sexual abuse and other mistreatment of youth, and terrible long-term developmental outcomes, all of which contribute to negative societal impact at extraordinarily high cost to taxpayers
• Uplift community-based, family-focused alternatives to incarceration, including local examples and models from other jurisdictions;
• Draw on personal and professional expertise as rationale for reform.