The Effects of State Legislation Limiting Solitary Confinement for Youth: A Process and Outcome Analysis

Abstract Information: Youth are often detained in solitary confinement in juvenile justice treatment and rehabilitation centers. Recently, there has been a movement to limit both the amount of time and the frequency of these isolation periods. In conjunction with the Nebraska ACLU, evaluators from the University of Nebraska have collected data prior to and after passage of LB 230 in February, 2020. The data included frequency of use of solitary confinement, duration of confinement, and the use of confinement with youth of color as compared to their White peers (all under the age of majority). Quantitative data collected prior to the passage of the limiting legislation demonstrated the need for the new law and advocates used it to argue for policy change in the legislature. For example, the data showed that that the incidences of youth in solitary confinement ranged from 2426 in 2016 – 2017 fiscal year to 3631 in fiscal year 2018-2019. Furthermore, while 45% of youth in confinement were Black, only 5.2% of the youth population in Nebraska is African American. At the same time, while 35% of youth in confinement were White, 82.3% of youth in Nebraska are White. ACLU lobbyists used these data to argue for the legislature to limit the use of solitary confinement for youth.



Additionally, the evaluators collected data in the two years following the passage of LB 230 and showed a significant decrease in the number of confinements statewide following the policy change such that in fiscal year 2020 to 2021 there were 2129 instances and in fiscal year 2021-2022 there only 497 instances in the same sampled institutions. Furthermore, the proportional use of confinement in response to danger to self or others increased relative to the proportional use for administrative and disciplinary reasons. LB 230 limited the use of solitary confinement to instances in which there were dangers to the youth or others in the institution and outlawed its use for other purposes. The Bill also limited the time youth were allowed to remain in confinement. In the fiscal year 2016 – 2017 the mean duration of confinement was 40 hours while in fiscal year 2020-2021 it dropped to 28 hours. Despite these positive outcomes, there remain disparate rates of confinement for youth of color as compared to their White peers. The probability of confinement of Black youth as compared to White youth ranges from a low of .48 to a high of .65. Unfortunately, the probabilities do not diminish over time but instead increase and decrease in a near random pattern. The presentation discusses how the evaluation was successful in changing legislative policy, how the ACLU used the data to document the decrease in confinement of youths in Nebraska, and how the ACLU currently is using the data to address the racial disparities that we observed. The presenters will discuss the use of evaluation data to change policy at the state level and the challenges of collecting and analyzing data across a variety of institutions and across multiple fiscal years.

Relevance Statement: This proposal is relevant to the field of evaluation by demonstrating how a cycle of process and outcome data collection can serve as both a catapult for legislative change and a yardstick to measure the effectiveness of its implementation. The twin goals of our work were to document the need for policy change and to collect data that persuaded others of the need to limit solitary confinement of youth in the state of Nebraska. Our example of collaborating with a private advocacy organization will be instructive to others who work in the private and public spheres of policy making. This extends to both the advantages and challenges of such collaborations. The process and results of our work have important implications for evaluation practice, demonstrating the positive roles that evaluators can play in state level policy formation and implantation. We have learned a number of important lessons that we hope to share with the field that will assist others who work in public assessment, while collaborating with private advocacy organizations. Furthermore, this presentation will be of interest to the audience not only to learn about our findings but also to describe how we were able to collaborate with others who are more skilled at policy formation. Members of the audience who are interested in getting involved in public policy as well as those who already have experience in the area will find our process and outcomes instructive. Most importantly, our experience in conducting this work will add knowledge to the field of evaluation in three separate ways. First, our experience in communicating with a diverse set of legal professionals and policy makers highlights the importance of collaboration among individuals who speak different “languages”. In fact, our first challenge was to communicate important evaluation standards to the advocates unfamiliar with our discipline. Second, the challenges of conducting a rigorous analysis in the highly politicized environment were difficult to overcome. Many of the stakeholders had interests in controlling the ways in which we performed our tasks. We learned how to resist and deflect these political pressures that are inherent in a legislative policy agenda in order to conduct a highly rigorous study. Finally, we learned how to translate our technical findings into language that was familiar and persuasive to advocates and legislators. As with all evaluation work coordinating with multiple agencies in data collection across years can threaten the integrity of the analysis process. We were especially mindful during data analysis that agencies defined variables differently but that we needed to reach a consensus in data management that adhered to high quality standards of practice. The presentation discusses the compromises we made and did not make in order to maintain the highest standards of practice.