Assembly Judiciary hearing spotlights youth justice reforms, gaps in services and funding shortfalls

Trenton — Lawmakers heard a broad set of proposals and warnings about New Jersey’s youth justice system at an Assembly Judiciary Committee hearing that centered on funding for community‑based programs, capacity gaps for youth with mental‑health needs, and the harms of prosecutorial waiver to adult court.

Chairwoman Park convened the committee and introduced the hearing’s witnesses, including Dr. Jennifer LeBaron of the Youth Justice Commission (YJC), public defenders, court administrators, prosecutors, researchers and community advocates. "More than two decades of youth justice reform in New Jersey has led to a profound decrease in the number of youth involved in the system," Dr. LeBaron told the committee, saying the state has seen "substantial reductions of more than 80% in the number of youth incarcerated" and arguing those gains make it possible to focus on the quality of care for the smaller cohort now in custody.

Why it matters: Witnesses said community‑based diversion and reentry supports—programs that keep young people connected to family, school and services—both improve outcomes and are more cost‑effective than detention. Several speakers warned that shortfalls in funding and clinical capacity threaten recent progress and could push more youth back into incarceration.

What witnesses said and asked for

- Youth Justice Commission: Dr. LeBaron outlined YJC initiatives—college courses delivered through a county partnership, career training and new housing programs for youth transitioning back to community—and said the legislature and governor provide "more than $20,000,000 in funding to the YJC annually" for county youth services commissions. She urged preserving or expanding funding for the state’s restorative and transformative justice (RTJ) pilot hubs in Camden, Newark, Paterson and Trenton, noting that their current funding runs out June 30.

- Public Defender’s office: Michelle Colari of the New Jersey Office of the Public Defender described a "holistic representation" model that would add client service specialists with social‑work backgrounds to multidisciplinary defense teams to link youth and families to services and to recommend individualized dispositional plans; she said diversion programs reduce reoffending and called for more consistent statewide investment in diversion.

- Courts and probation: Amelia Wachter Smith of the Administrative Office of the Courts reported that juvenile delinquency filings fell from 26,412 in court year 2015 to 11,796 in court year 2025 (a 55% decline) and that backlog cases rose during the pandemic (1,447 in 2020) and had fallen to 423 by June 30, 2025. She and Stacy Gerard of probation flagged delay drivers: juvenile waiver cases often require timely evaluations and records that are hard to obtain because of a shortage of qualified evaluators and secure juvenile psychiatric beds.

- Local prosecutor perspective: Assistant Prosecutor Lisa Ledoux urged stronger early‑intervention work in schools and described a Hudson County "educational advocate" program that serves about 30 youth per year with a $90,000 level of service; she called attention to gaps in placements and residential beds, which can delay dispositions and lead to re‑involvement.

- Researchers and advocates: Liana Irizarry of Rutgers and Ashanti Jones of the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice urged statutory changes to reduce prosecutorial discretion to waive youth into the adult system, proposing a minimum age of prosecution and stronger due‑process protections. Multiple witnesses cited stark racial disparities in waiver outcomes and custody.

Conflicting points and follow‑up items

Committee members asked for county‑level data on waiver practices and on numbers of youth represented by the public defender, and they pressed officials for precise detention cost figures; witnesses said some of those data points could be provided in follow‑up. Several advocates urged codifying and expanding RTJ hubs and other community programs and said a systematic analysis of existing evidence‑based programs is needed to inform investments.

What did not happen

There were no formal votes or motions during the hearing. The session concluded with Chairwoman Park thanking witnesses and noting the committee will consider the testimony as it examines possible legislative responses.

Next steps noted on the record: several presenters offered to provide county breakdowns, program evaluations and staffing/cost data to the committee for follow‑up consideration.