View Research by Author - Jeffrey A. Butts

Publications

At least 40 states face swelling budget deficits. Likely targets for reductions include the discretionary social programs that protect public safety. Rather than jeopardize the public’s safety and well-being with imprudent cuts, a different and better way out of the financing crunch is explained by two criminologists: the social impact bond.

This report presents the results of research that examined changing trends in juvenile justice legislation and surveyed juvenile justice professionals across the nation to measure their impressions of recent juvenile justice policy reforms. Researchers learned there is considerable consensus among diverse practitioner groups, with survey respondents viewing rehabilitative programs as more effective than punitive ones - a perspective consistent with recent legislative trends. Together, these data suggest the policy pendulum is swinging toward more progressive measures after years of "get tough" reforms.

In this study, we report the costs and benefits of the Reclaiming Futures initiative. The national evaluation of Reclaiming Futures found strong evidence that the systems change initiative created a foundation for improving substance abuse interventions for youth. Results from the stakeholder surveys found improvements in the target communities in treatment delivery and effectiveness, cooperation and information-sharing among youth service providers, and family involvement in youth care.

To assess the Reclaiming Futures initiative's impact on agency relationships, social network questions were included in a series of expert informant surveys conducted bi-annually in each Reclaiming Futures community. Network analysis is a tool for investigating the complexity and strength of relationships and social interaction among individuals, groups, organizations, or states. The network analysis of Reclaiming Futures examined patterns of interaction among key agencies in eight communities working to implement system reform strategies and to improve services for drug-involved youthful offenders. Using measures such as network density, cohesion, and proximity, the analysis suggests that overall network strength increased in Reclaiming Futures communities.

Reclaiming Futures (RF) is an initiative of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) that seeks to improve outcomes for drug-involved youth in the juvenile justice system. The Urban Institute and Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago conducted biannual surveys in each of the ten communities participating in the initiative (December 2003 to June 2006) measuring the quality of juvenile justice and substance abuse treatment systems in each community. Positive and significant changes were reported in all ten communities. In several communities, most quality indicators measured by the evaluation improved significantly during the course of the initiative.

Commissioned by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice, this paper proposes methods for an economic analysis of the nation's separate system of juvenile laws and juvenile courts. Arguments about the value of juvenile justice versus criminal justice traditionally focus on legal principles, adolescent development, and the relative effects of prevention and punishment. This paper suggests adding a cost-benefit approach to the debate. Do the benefits of maintaining a separate legal system for young offenders outweigh the costs? What are those costs and benefits, and can they be measured?

[Daily Oklahoman] Sending juveniles to adult prison is not guaranteed to reduce crime. Research shows that an aggressive system of juvenile treatment may prevent more crime than prosecuting youths as adults and giving them lengthy prison sentences. Criminalizing juvenile offenses may make us feel better because it sounds tough, but it doesn't make us safer and could undermine the constitutional foundations of juvenile law.

Juvenile justice officials across the United States are embracing a new method of dealing with adolescent substance abuse. Importing a popular innovation from adult courts, state and local governments have started hundreds of specialized drug courts to provide judicial supervision and coordinate substance abuse treatment for drug-involved juveniles. The number of youth affected by these new courts is relatively small, but the programs are spreading rapidly and their presence is changing how practitioners and policymakers think about adolescent drug use. Despite the increasing popularity of juvenile drug courts, researchers have only begun to test whether they stop or reduce teen substance abuse more effectively than other programs. Juvenile Drug Courts and Teen Substance Abuse is the first book to examine the ideas behind juvenile drug courts and explore their history and popularity. The editors have assembled top justice policy experts to assess the evidence supporting juvenile drug courts and to guide the next generation of evaluation research. This book is a must-read for anyone interested in the role of the juvenile justice system in addressing teen drug problems. [View the corresponding press release.]

[Baltimore Sun] In its coming term, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether convicted criminals can be sentenced to die for crimes committed before age 18. The case before the court is widely described as a challenge to America's "juvenile death penalty." However, since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, all offenders sentenced to death by have been tried and convicted as adults--those under 18 were reclassified as adults and transferred to adult courts for prosecution. If the thought of executing 16-year-olds is inherently disturbing, we are debating the wrong policy. We should be re-evaluating our methods for denying youths their legal status as juveniles.

Legislative efforts related to juvenile crime typically focus on violence because crime issues are more compelling when they involve violence, but policies and programs to reduce violent crime may not help communities deal with less serious, nonviolent offenses. Efforts to reduce less serious offenses, however, are a sensible and cost-effective component in overall crime control.

Return to list of authors