Why Closing SF Juvenile Hall is a change in the right direction - Opinion, by Hannah Stombler Levine.

In September of 2020, San Francisco closed the juvenile justice DJJ facility — becoming the first major city in the nation to take action following a large decrease in serious youth offenders; but there is more to the story than simply a decrease in crime. 

This decision was monumental because the closure of the juvenile hall in San Francisco marks a shift away from traditional punitive approaches, and instead shows a willingness to take a step in the right direction towards trauma-informed care and restorative justice. Instead of locking up young kids, many activists and experts have proven that implementing a more rehabilitative and restorative approach that focuses on addressing the root causes (usually childhood trauma, violence at home, etc.) is what is best for these youth, and society as a whole. 

While the closure of the juvenile hall in San Francisco was not without controversy and challenges, it underscored a broader trend toward rethinking juvenile justice systems in the United States and elsewhere, with a focus on rehabilitation, prevention, and community-based solutions over incarceration. It served as a catalyst for change and a model for reimagining how society deals with young offenders. Advocates for closing juvenile hall facilities have also argued that locking up young people, often in harsh conditions, was detrimental to their physical and psychological well-being. 

One youth that Hannah Stombler-Levine has worked with mentioned to her that after spending 72 hours in a traditional juvenile justice facility, they felt that they could now survive in the toughest of prisons. When asked if they felt it was an appropriate punishment for starting a fight at school, they said if anything it made them want to fight someone again. They stated that it felt like everyone now saw them as dangerous and bad, which meant they had little motivation to do good. Is this how we want our country’s youth to feel? It seems in many cases, this traditional model does more harm than good. 

So what does the future of juvenile justice programs look like moving forward?

Rehabilitation over punishment programs. Closing the juvenile hall was seen as an endorsement of a more rehabilitative model for addressing youth crime. This approach prioritizes counseling, education, and addressing the underlying issues that lead young people into the justice system in the first place, with the goal of preventing them from reoffending. 

A break in the school to prison pipeline. The closure of juvenile justice facilities is correlated to the school-to-prison pipeline by addressing many systemic issues, such as unnecessary youth incarceration for minor offenses. By shutting down these facilities, the focus shifts towards preventative measures within schools and communities, emphasizing education, rehabilitation, and community-based support. This approach aims to break the cycle that pushes students into the juvenile justice system and promotes more equitable, effective alternatives.

Increased opportunity for youth. Hannah once asked a youth in foster care what they wanted to be when they grew up. They stated ‘social worker’ or ‘attorney’ or ‘judge’. When she asked them why, they explained that those were the 3 jobs they knew the most about. Every family member of theirs had been involved in the welfare system or the juvenile justice system. Breaking the cycle early, for youth who are already familiar and integrated into these social programs, pushes students outside of the insular bubbles that they often were born into, and made to believe their lives were not bigger than that. 

So what comes next?

While closing this facility is a wonderful step in the right direction, it would be wrong to not mention that closing the juvenile hall in 2020 did not magically fix all of the problems. Three years after its closing, questions are still remaining about where these youth should go, and how to build a new detention center. Many advocates do not want the same facility to be used, because it was designed to look and feel like a prison, but others say it would be a waste of money to rebuild when they have a building that works perfectly well. 

According to SF Standard in April 2023, Mayor London Breed’s administration has allocated sufficient funding to hire an architect to do preliminary designs, but Miller said there’s not enough funding to construct an entirely new facility. To do that, the city would have to start at square one. 

Meanwhile, Lucero Herrera, a lead organizer at Youth Women’s Freedom Center (a key player in the advocacy to shut down the original facility), stated that ‘“There has been a critical lack of community input in this process. From the beginning of our campaign to shutter juvenile hall, we have been clear that it is impossible to do so meaningfully and transformatively, without the voices of young people who have been directly impacted.” 

Going forward the hope will be that a voice is given to those who have been directly impacted by the policies that were previously in place, so that the city can adequately address how to improve the conditions and the programs offered. 

While the specifics get sorted out, Hannah Stombler-Levine remains committed to advocating for the rights of disadvantaged youth, and aims to empower them with both resources and support to better their conditions, whatever that may look like.