AUSTIN, Texas -- Texas is one of only three states to automatically treat 17-year-olds as adults when they are arrested, and the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition said that can often lead to a lifetime of involvement with the justice system.

Since 2007, advocates to "Raise the Age" have encouraged state policymakers to change laws, so teens can go through the juvenile justice system instead.

Alycia Castillo, policy analyst for the Coalition, said in Texas, most 17-year-olds don't get rehabilitation services when they go into the adult system, because treatment can only be accessed by those 18 and older.

"So, we just have this huge gap," Castillo explained. "If you're a 17-year-old, and you are caught committing a crime, it's just a black hole of a lack of resources. But also, they're stuck with this adult record that follows them wherever they go."

A new report from The Sentencing Project looked at 11 states that have raised the age of criminal responsibility to 18. It found the change contributed to diverting more than 100,000 young adults into the juvenile system.

Many Texas lawmakers have argued raising the age would require building more detention facilities.

Marcy Mistrett, senior fellow at The Sentencing Project and the report's author, said the theory has largely been proven false.

"States that raised the age overall did not need to build new facilities," Mistrett reported. "And even those that initially built extra were able to close them down after a couple years."

Georgia and Wisconsin are the only other states to automatically prosecute 17-year-olds as adults.

Alabama has the eighth-highest youth incarceration rate in the nation and juvenile justice advocates said more diversion programs could be key to changing the trend.

A report from The Sentencing Project outlines how programs to help kids avoid jail can reduce their chances of committing crimes.

Richard Mendel, senior research fellow for the group, said when a young person is arrested, it has a lifelong negative impact, often leading to higher dropout rates, lower likelihood of attending college and reduced income by age 30.

"More and more, the research is making clear that expanding and improving diversion -- and reducing or hopefully eliminating disparities in diversion -- really has to be a top priority for reform," Mendel contended. "If we ever want to create a youth justice system that's fair and effective, and keeps communities safe, and that guides young people to success."

The report showed national disparities in who gets to be part of critical diversion programs, and access is especially challenging for youth of color. Mendel claimed a lack of leadership and weak policies are the primary problems.

Despite the challenges, Mendel emphasized there is hope for change and suggested using a data-driven approach to support diversion programs. He urged state and local justice systems to expand them and provide the needed funding, as other nations have done.

"These other countries have seen the evidence, they've heard the evidence and they started diverting more and more of their young people away from court; 75%, 80%, 83% of them, now diverted from court, not put into the court system," Mendel reported. "We've had our head in the sand, we're not improving on this at all, so far."

Youth in diversion programs are 45% less likely to reoffend than those who go through the court process. Yet more than half of juvenile cases are sent to the courts.

A new report is sounding the alarm on Pennsylvania's juvenile-detention capacity challenges, citing understaffing and long wait times for the young people awaiting placement.

The report says five of the 13 youth detention facilities are used by just five counties, and that 57 counties must vie for beds at only six facilities statewide.

Dr. Abigail Wilson, director of child welfare, juvenile justice and education services at the Pennsylvania Council of Children, Youth and Family Services, said some counties are forced to send kids hundreds of miles away to find detention space. She noted that more funding could help clear the waitlists and reduce disruption to families and communities.

"Funding impacts the workforce issues," she said, "and it's difficult to staff some of these facilities, because the pay doesn't quite match the need, and the higher level of risk that you take, when you work at a secure detention center."

Wilson added that it's also difficult to move a young person into a probation or "step-down" program, since these struggle with understaffing and underfunding. The report notes that detention is meant to provide "temporary, secure and safe custody," and is used only when less restrictive alternatives have been considered.

On the other hand, Wilson said she thinks Pennsylvania has done a good job identifying the needs of youths in trouble, with a big commitment to evidence-based assessments and services within the juvenile justice system.

"So currently, our system uses the youth level-of-service assessment to look at risk for recidivism, as well as appropriate level of service," she said. "They're able to very quickly see, while placing a youth in a family-like setting is the main priority."

The report reveals that almost 90% of all corrections agencies reported moderate or severe difficulties hiring and retaining front-line facility staff, with job vacancy rates as high as 30% to 40%.

Wilson said the report makes several recommendations, but tackling the workforce shortage through improved funding is the key to all of them "because we can't effectively run programs and serve youths without highly qualified staff.

"So, when we offer those pay increases, smaller youth-to-staff ratios, reformed onboarding training," she said, "we can continue to recruit these highly qualified staff."

Wilson said alternatives to detention are often community-based programs that offer supervision, mentoring and therapy for a young offender as they await their court date, and may include working with their family.

A lawsuit filed this month against the Illinois Departments of Corrections and Juvenile Justice might help tip the scales for legislation pending in Springfield.

Through the suit, 95 men and women shared their stories of abuse by some staffers while housed in juvenile detention at the Illinois Youth Centers between 1996 and 2017, when some were as young as 14.

Elizabeth Clarke, founder and interim director of the Juvenile Justice Initiative of Illinois, said an overhaul of the system is long overdue.

"Illinois has been trying to reform its youth justice system since 2005," Clarke pointed out. "This has been a very lengthy process, it has never been really wholeheartedly entered into, they've never had the complete autonomy from an adult correctional model. So, it's been bit by bit by bit."

She noted the institute is watching House Bill 4776, which would raise the minimum age for juvenile incarceration from 13 to 14. And House Bill 2347, now under consideration in the Senate, would raise the pretrial detention age from 10 to 13.

Clarke stressed she wants to see guarantees the Juvenile Justice Ombudsperson's office has access to all the resources it needs to process youth grievances against the department.

The lawsuit indicates officials were aware of the abuse, yet no action was taken to ensure the juveniles' protection. The Department of Juvenile Justice has said the alleged abuse took place under previous administrations.

Clarke believes the sexual abuse accusations reflect another layer of failure within the department. Her organization has long spoken out against solitary confinement for children.

"The fact is, we just have to make sure young children are not locked up in Illinois," Clarke asserted. "We have to do that. We have to protect our young children. And both the excessive use of solitary and this lawsuit documenting sexual abuse shows how important it is."

Last year, a U.S. Department of Justice report found the staff perpetrators of sexual harassment were either reprimanded or disciplined in 40% of incidents and discharged, terminated or denied contract renewal. The lawsuit seeks the maximum amount of $2 million for each defendant.