Examining Juvenile Justice System Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Policy Scan

Abstract

We conducted a comprehensive policy scan across 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico to document how juvenile justice systems responded to the COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented disruption to institutional operations affecting confined youth. Our policy scan included coding across six overarching topics: emergency preparedness, visitation, intakes, transfers and waivers, releases, education and probation. We coded 32 variables related to juvenile justice system responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. We placed special emphasis on (1) policies related to statewide efforts to reduce the juvenile justice population during the pandemic, and (2) policies related to mitigating spread of infection (by implementing screening and social distancing measures). This study documents efforts to reduce the juvenile justice population (through intakes and releases), to protect the health and wellbeing of young people and staff, and to balance the needs for youth development with physical safety in domains such as visitation and education within juvenile detention and confinement facilities.

Our findings offer important insights into the structure and resilience of juvenile justice systems during emergencies. Across jurisdictions, we identify three key themes: (1) widespread, but uneven, efforts to reduce detention populations through changes in intake and release practices; (2) rapid, and often improvised, adoption of technology to maintain services such as education, court access, and family contact; and (3) significant variation in the documentation and public availability of policy changes. Notably, we observed gaps in documentation across politically diverse states, suggesting that transparency during crisis response is shaped less by ideology and more by administrative capacity and infrastructure.

By highlighting disparities not only in policy responses but also in their visibility, this study contributes a critical evidence base for understanding how juvenile justice systems function under stress. These findings underscore the need for stronger documentation practices, greater institutional preparedness, and more equitable transparency to ensure accountability and informed decision-making in future public health or system-wide crises.

Keywords

Juvenile Justice, COVID-19, Policy, Public Health

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically interrupted the full spectrum of juvenile justice system activities, from intakes to reentry. Juvenile justice system practitioners quickly responded to this public health threat by implementing emergency policies to mitigate disease spread. As the spread of COVID-19 subsided and the country “returned to normal,” many industries embraced policy changes that resulted from the exogenous shock of the pandemic, such as remote work (Valdez et al., 2023). Such policies were widely accepted to improve workplace efficiency and employee satisfaction. When it comes to the juvenile justice field, it is less clear the extent to which policy changes resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic supported youth rehabilitation and public safety or undermined these goals. In many cases, for example, states implemented policies that reduced both intakes and releases to juvenile justice facilities, accelerating seemingly overnight what decades of advocacy and initiatives like the juvenile detention alternatives initiative aimed to accomplish for years (Petrosino et al., 2021). On the other hand, experts raised concerns about other policies such as moving to only virtual visitation for detained youth. While scholars often theorize that crises can be catalysts for social change (Almond et al., 1973), research finds that crisis is a catalyst only for crisis-related policies (Hogan et al., 2022). In this paper, we conducted an important analysis about the policies juvenile justice systems implemented as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic; setting the stage for future discussions about which policies should (and should not) be sustained long term.

Admissions to and Transfers Between Juvenile Residential Placement Facilities

One of the most urgent issues introduced by the COVID-19 pandemic was the risk of infection for youth and staff in juvenile detention facilities. Although early research indicated that young people are less vulnerable to severe outcomes from COVID-19, it was unclear how this applied to juveniles in detention centers. The physical environment of a juvenile detention center presents challenges to mitigating disease spread, as young people must interact in confined spaces with other detained youth. Additionally, employees travel to and from work each day, thus increasing potential exposure to the virus within facilities. Overcrowding, poor ventilation in older juvenile detention facilities, regular intakes of new individuals, and internal healthcare systems that were unprepared for disease mitigation of this scale exacerbate health care risks (Pyrooz et al., 2020). Indeed, within the first six months of the pandemic, 41 states and three US territories reported COVID-19 infections among detained youth, and 43 states reported COVID-19 infections among detention facility staff (Rovner, 2020). Adult incarcerated populations had COVID-19 infection rates five times higher than the general population, and COVID-19 related mortality rates three times higher than the general population (Committee on the Best Practices for Implementing Decarceration as a Strategy to Mitigate the Spread of COVID-19 in Correctional Facilities et al., 2020).

Some jurisdictions attempted to reduce the detained juvenile population by diverting youth from formal processing and reducing arrests. A survey conducted by the Annie E. Casey Foundation (AECF) found that some jurisdictions experienced more than 25 percent declines in total intakes in the first months of the pandemic, due in large part to school closures (Kelly, 2020). Declines in intakes were also driven by policies related to arrests; for example, a few states told police to arrest youth for only the most serious and violent charges (Youth Correctional Leaders for Justice, 2020). Other states requested diverting and deferring charges for low-risk youth until the pandemic ended. Research has not associated diverting youth with increased recidivism; even so, some states only began this practice as a response to the pandemic (Schwalbe, Gearing, MacKenzie, Brewer, & Ibrahim, 2012).

Juvenile courts were also forced to adapt to the pandemic. Notably, juvenile courts adopted virtual juvenile hearings, and this transition to a remote environment may have increased accessibility to justice, particularly in rural jurisdictions (NCJFCJ, 2020a). Virtual court hearings also introduced challenges related to equitable access to technology and internet needed for a virtual connection and brought up important questions about whether virtual hearings are appropriate for all case types. Qualitative research documented juvenile court judges’ concerns about being able to assess child welfare. Judges also expressed concerns about not knowing whether there were others present off screen pressuring a young person’s response (Russel, Hickman, Kanewske, Zeiler, Siegel, Decker, & Lafferty, 2023).

Some jurisdictions also enacted policies to prevent transmission during transfers between residential placement facilities. For example, some facilities implemented 14-day quarantines in cohorts before and after transfer, in line with guidance from public health officials (CDC, 2020). Others implemented more strict quarantining procedures, keeping youth in situations similar to solitary isolation (Kelly, 2020). Traditional isolation methods for virus containment, however, may not be appropriate for confined youth. Indeed, public health officials spoke against this practice because prior research indicates that solitary confinement is a damaging and unnecessary response to controlling COVID-19 (Cloud et al., 2020). Additionally, many jurisdictions also halted in-person family visits, which may have negatively affected youth. However, virtual visitation may have been better than no visitation for families who could not access their child’s facility or who were not allowed access to their child’s facility. Virtual visitation, then, may be an important long-term option for juvenile facilities. The decision about whether to isolate young people, and whether to broadly embrace virtual visitation are just two examples highlighting how juvenile justice systems had to contend with the balance between youth wellbeing and the physical safety of youth and staff.

Another challenge facing juvenile detention facilities was the implementation of educational and other wraparound services. Preliminary reports from program staff found that socially distanced educational programming was not an adequate substitute for pre- pandemic instruction (Council of Juvenile Justice Administrators, 2020). Indeed, pedagogical best practices for working with youth like active learning, hands-on exercises, differentiated instruction, and even building trusting relationships with students can be hampered by virtual only instruction. On the other hand, access to virtual or online classes may benefit youth in confinement by expanding access to additional subjects or topics of interest.

Releases From Juvenile Residential Placement Facilities

To help overcome the risks to youth associated with being held in residential placements, some juvenile justice practitioners enacted policies to release low-risk youth early (Kelly, 2020). For example, a 2020 AECF study found that Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative populations dropped by one-third between March 1, 2020 and June 1, 2020, largely due to early releases at the onset of the pandemic (Kelly, 2020). COVID-19 also introduced unique challenges for probation and parole, which are critical to assess. Increases in diversions and early releases from residential placement facilities resulted in an increased number of youths on community supervision (National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2020). In response, probation and parole officers used video technology for regular check-ins and, in some instances, released youth from community supervision early. Many jurisdictions also provided youth with technology to facilitate virtual supervision and to attend virtual hearings (NCJFCJ, 2020b). However, virtual community supervision has limitations. For example, probation and parole officers expressed concerns that shifts to self-reporting (versus clinical testing) for substance use may yield inaccurate results.

Trauma and Youth Safety, Health, and Long-term Success

COVID-19 also impacted the needs of justice system involved youth. Many jurisdictions use evidence-based risk assessments to assess youths’ needs on a regular basis (Schwalbe, 2007). Preliminary research found increases in mental health needs, likely due to trauma associated with the pandemic (Lee & Taxman, 2020; Vivrette et al., 2020). A more thorough assessment is needed to identify whether these changes were associated with or exacerbated by policy changes such as halted family visitation, solitary isolation, reduction in services, or poor quality of services delivered in a remote environment.

To better understand both the challenges faced and responses by the juvenile justice system and the nearly 28,000 youth it serves (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2024), we conducted a nationwide scan of publicly available resources regarding juvenile justice responses to COVID-19, which is the focus of this paper. We believe that understanding how divergent jurisdictions learned about COVID-19, developed policies and practices to deal with it, and refined their responses over time has implications for both the specific aspects of COVID-19 and the general policy process in juvenile justice. The importance of documenting and learning from these responses is captured in the work of Lockwood, Viglione, and Peck (2023), who concluded their study by noting: “Overall, the COVID-19 pandemic has altered the nature of juvenile community supervision and in turn has forced juvenile probation agencies to adjust to unprecedented challenge” (p. 73). During the pandemic, for example, juvenile community supervisors described having less contact with low-risk clients and had increased difficulty monitoring high-risk clients because they were not permitted to meet face-to-face. Many overcame this challenge through drive by visits and increased reliance on technologies to facilitate check-ins (Lockwood et al., 2024). Another study found that juvenile probation officers had difficulty holding youth accountable and responding to noncompliance during the pandemic (Alward, et. al., 2024).

COVID-19 is not the only time the juvenile justice field has been forced to respond to unprecedented change. We can turn to other historical events to examine the conditions under which governments have been able to launch juvenile justice reforms that may otherwise have been unachievable in the absence of a significant shock (Keller, 1993). In 1967, the in re Gault Supreme Court decision granted due process rights to minors, forcing the juvenile justice system to restructure legal procedures to ensure fairness (387 U.S. 1). Additionally, in 1974, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act introduced a nationwide framework that shifted juvenile justice systems to focus on rehabilitation and deinstitutionalization (42 U.S.C. § 5601 et seq.). As a result, juvenile justice systems had to make rapid changes to continue receiving federal funding. Some of the larger changes included not incar-cerating youth for status offenses and incarcerating youth separately from adults. As with these other historical changes to the juvenile justice system, COVID-19 introduced a unique set of circumstances where policy change was possible. However, unlike the other policies which were codified in legislation, COVID-19 public emergency ended, and the country faced significant pressure to return to normal.

Amid this return, it is important to document which policies are worth keeping and which should be left behind. Moule and colleagues (2022) offer suggestions about how lasting policy change may be accomplished, arguing that overcoming institutional cynicism is a key to successful policies and practices. Based on the strong findings from procedural justice research, they posit that policies and practices that are perceived to be procedurally legitimate by staff (e.g., staff input in development and implementation, holistic approaches, paying attention to staff needs, adding flexibility to new practices) are more likely to be implemented and supported.

Many policies enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic were exaggerated implementations of policies that were already underway, such as diversion for non-violent and technical offenses, de-incarceration of youth in general, reductions in the school-to-prison pipeline, and increased accessibility to justice for youth in rural areas through virtual court hearings and visitation. Other policies were implemented in the absence of research into potential outcomes or despite research indicating that the resulting practices could harm youth. The field needs a better understanding of how policy changes in response to COVID-19 affect youths’ mental and physical wellbeing as well as their progress toward educational and career goals. Documenting what, exactly, juvenile justice systems did during this time is an important foundational step to accomplish that goal.

STUDY METHODS

To continue reading, download the full open access article.