Development and Pilot of the National Child Traumatic Stress Network Trauma‐Informed Juvenile Court Self‐Assessment

Trauma‐informed practices in the juvenile justice system are increasingly recognized as effective for promoting public safety through case management, rehabilitation, and treatment that is responsive to a traumatic event exposure and current trauma reactions. As court systems explore integration of trauma‐informed practices, tools for identifying best practices and strategically implementing trauma‐informed approaches are integral for judges and court administrators aiming to develop trauma‐informed courts. The current paper reviews the National Child Traumatic Stress Network's development of the Trauma‐Informed Juvenile Court Self‐Assessment (TI‐JCSA). Implications for self‐guided strategies to shift court practices and policies to align with trauma‐informed approaches will be discussed.     

Environmental Considerations for Trauma‐Responsive Juvenile and Family Courts: A Review of the Literature with Recommendations for Practice

Juvenile and family courts serve some of our most vulnerable populations, many of whom have experienced some traumatic event. People suffering with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are known to be more sensitive to environmental stimuli, and many of the environmental conditions within courts can be challenging for those suffering traumatic stress. Trauma‐responsive practices help foster conditions of healing, which can benefit both the court user and those who work within the court. Research reviewed in this article demonstrates the likelihood of negative behavioral and emotional responses to specific environmental factors for people suffering PTSD and other stress reactions, and offers recommendations to minimize environmental stressors.     

Children Exposed to Domestic Violence: Making Trauma‐Informed Custody and Visitation Decisions

This article explores the risks for young children and the challenges for courts that emerge when parents who are victims or perpetrators of intimate partner violence seek court decisions on child visitation or custody matters. We focus particularly on children age five and younger, a group that is disproportionately represented in families affected by intimate partner violence, and especially vulnerable to its traumatic impact. We examine the literature on children's response to violence between their parents and the literature on parental alienation, a counter‐charge that may arise when one parent alleges violence as a reason to limit the other parent's access to the children. We look at challenges faced by both mental health professionals and courts involved in custody determinations and make policy recommendations to help courts make trauma‐informed decisions that best serve children.     

Socializing Distrust of the Justice System through the Family in Juvenile Delinquency Court

Juvenile delinquency courts in the United States generally require parents to attend all court hearings, but little is known about how parents' experiences in the court process affect their discussions of the justice system with their court‐involved children. Using multiperspectival and longitudinal data combining observations with interviews of parents and youth in two courts, this research finds that many parents discuss the legal process in negative terms with their children when parents are outside the presence of legal authorities. This research adds to the literature on legal socialization by examining how parents' perceptions of law and their experiences with the court become part of the socializing content provided by parents to their court‐involved children. Creating a more meaningful role for parents in the juvenile justice process may potentially lead to more positive discussions of the court process between parents and juvenile defendants.     

Best Practices for Serving Traumatized Children and Families

This paper highlights the traumatic impact of child abuse and neglect upon children and adolescents who are commonly seen in court systems. In addition to describing prevalence rates of trauma exposure and psychological reactions among traumatized children, it addresses the need for judges and court personnel to work with children and families in a manner that is sensitive to their traumatic experiences and emphasizes the need for these children to receive the very best evidence‐based care available in order to help them more effectively cope and recover from trauma exposure. Cultural issues and model adaptations are covered in relation to the use of evidence‐based practices with children from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Specific recommendations are given to help judges and court personnel become better informed about the use of evidence‐based practices for treating child trauma, enabling them to respond more sensitively and appropriately in these cases.     

A Detailed Cost Evaluation of a Juvenile Drug Court that Follows the Juvenile Drug Court Model (16 Strategies)

Although juvenile drug courts (JDCs) have now been in operation for 17 years, there is still no definitive appraisal as to this model's cost effectiveness and in particular, no detailed cost analysis of a JDC program following the 16 strategies until this one. The cost data presented in this paper build on the process and outcome evaluations performed on the Clackamas County Juvenile Drug Court (CCJDC). The criminal justice costs incurred by participants in drug court are compared with the costs incurred by eligible non‐participants. CCJDC participants had far more positive outcomes than those who did not participate in the program. In the two years after drug court entry, CCJDC participants cost the taxpayers $961 less per participant than similar individuals who did not attend the drug court program.     

Reclaiming Futures: A Model for Judicial Leadership in Community Responses to Juvenile Substance Abuse

Juvenile courts across the country have become the leading service delivery system for youths with substance abuse problems, not by choice, but by necessity. At 10 communities around the nation, judges and project staff are in their fifth year of pioneering changes to the way the juvenile justice system helps teens in trouble with drugs, alcohol, and crime. These judges are part of Reclaiming Futures, an initiative of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and they are working with local leaders to re‐invent the way law enforcement, courts, probation, detention facilities, treatment providers, families, schools, and the community work together to help troubled youths succeed. Together, they have written a guide for judges, court administrators, government entities, community leaders, and interested citizens to share the knowledge and experience they have gained from the nationwide Reclaiming Futures initiative. Their goal is to encourage and motivate others to launch similar projects in their communities, and to provide a blueprint for judges and others striving to undertake this level of collaboration.     

ROMANCING THE COURT

Problem‐solving courts, created at the end of the twentieth century, make court‐based solutions central to addressing significant societal problems, such as substance abuse and its impact on criminal activity and family functioning. Yet, lessons gleaned from over 100 years of family court history suggest that court‐based solutions to intractable social problems have rarely been effective. This article asks three questions of the problem‐solving court movement: What problem are we trying to solve? Is the court the best place to solve the problem? What are the consequences of giving authority to a court for solving the problem? Answering those questions through the lens of specific examples from family court—the original problem‐solving court—leads to the conclusion that neither the structural issues that courts face, such as overwhelming numbers of cases, nor the momentous societal issues that problem‐solving courts have recently begun to shoulder can be adequately addressed through court‐based solutions. The factors that allegedly distinguish new problem‐solving courts from earlier exemplars, especially the family court, are both less unique and less successful than they have been portrayed by problem‐solving court enthusiasts. These factors alone fail to justify the expansion of problem‐solving courts without further evidence of their effectiveness. Moreover, the potential dangers inherent in problem‐solving courts are not theoretical. By examining illustrative examples from the history of the family court, the dangers become clearly apparent.     

Juvenile Shackling Reform: The Judicial Role in Ensuring Trauma‐Informed Courts and Why States Are Rethinking Restraints

In juvenile courts around the country, youth are routinely shackled, without any evidence that these young people are a danger to anyone or likely to attempt flight. A number of states are moving away from this practice. Shackling reform initiatives are motivated by constitutional issues, emerging science around adolescent development, and a growing recognition of the need for trauma‐informed, evidence‐based courts. Judges are ultimately responsible for safeguarding the rights of the young people who appear in court, and must uphold the dignity of the courtroom. A review of jurisdictions that have adopted limits on juvenile shackling shows that these policies have not resulted in breaches of safety.     

Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Juvenile Delinquency Cases SIXTEEN KEY PRINCIPLES

This article is excerpted from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges' landmark JUVENILE DELINQUENCY GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Juvenile Delinquency Cases, Chapter I, Foundations for Excellence, published in 2005. Beginning with a basic discussion of why separate courts for juveniles and adults continue to be necessary, the article describes the goals and key principles of a juvenile delinquency court of excellence.     

Why Juvenile Courts Should Address Family Violence: Promising Practices to Improve Intervention Outcomes

The prevalence of domestic violence in juvenile court cases justifies modifying our interventions to reflect this unfortunate reality. This article focuses primarily on juvenile victimization of parents and the model programs emerging in juvenile courts to address it. Part I examines family violence's prevalence in the juvenile court caseloads, despite its lack of consideration in most dispositions. Part II begins with a comparative analysis of the drug court trend and discusses the trend's applicability for specialized family violence applications in the Juvenile Court. The King County (Wash.) Juvenile Court's Step‐Up Program is introduced, which directly addresses family violence with intervention programs for youth perpetrators and abused parents, followed by the Santa Clara County (Calif.) Juvenile Court's Family Violence program, shown as a model worthy of replication. Part III details the process by which the Travis County (Texas) Juvenile Court is implementing a program similar to these models. Part IV concludes that juvenile courts must address family violence as an overt or underlying issue in many cases and must identify and address the danger to our troubled youths, whether offender or victim. I argue that the domestic violence community's treatment expertise must inform our juvenile courts' interventions with violent, often insular, families. In Travis County, we are committed to learning as much as possible about youth resilience–to identify and treat battered and battering teens to prevent the inter‐generational cycle from repeating itself while making our homes, communities, and schools safe.     

A Tale of Two Chinese Courts: Economic Development and Contract Enforcement

The way in which formal contract enforcement becomes effective is a critically important but understudied question for law and development studies. Primarily drawing on field investigations, this article compares the enforcement performance of two basic‐level courts in China, one in a more‐developed and the other in a less‐developed region. The level of economic development is found to be crucial in contributing to the courts' performance. Unlike the court users in the less developed area, those in the more developed area become more market‐oriented as the local economy diversifies, paving the way for more rigorous judgment enforcement; a developed local economy also allows the court to strengthen institutional building and staff professionalism. The comparison of the two Chinese courts provides empirical evidence with which to evaluate the relationship between formal contract enforcement and economic development.     

A Judicial‐Mental Health Partnership to Heal Young Children in Juvenile Court

In this article, we describe the background and issues to be addressed related to dependent children in juvenile court. In an important effort to systematically examine developmental functioning and treatment needs in maltreated and violence‐exposed young children, the Prevention and Evaluation of Early Neglect and Trauma (PREVENT) initiative of the Dependency Court Intervention Program for Family Violence, a national demonstration project in the Miami‐Dade Juvenile Court, developed a program to evaluate all infants, toddlers, and preschoolers who are adjudicated dependent by the court. The goal of the intervention is to raise awareness of the needs of infants and toddlers in juvenile court and to work toward healing the child. The PREVENT program involved the evolution of a judicial‐mental health partnership designed to assist the court in making more informed decisions about the best interest of the child by adding scientific knowledge about development, prevention, intervention, evaluation, and treatment. The outcome of the partnership and multidisciplinary approach is illustrated through presenting a case vignette of a mother and baby showing the challenges and strengths of intervention. Finally, we consider overall outcomes of the intervention and directions for the future.     

How to Maintain Emotional Health When Working with Trauma

Vicarious traumatization, compassion fatigue, or secondary traumatization refers to the cumulative effect of working with survivors of traumatic life events as part of everyday work. Although this issue has been acknowledged and addressed among professionals such as police officers and medical professionals, it has been discussed less among juvenile and family court judges who also experience secondary traumatic stress. In fact, in one recent study, a majority of judges reported one or more symptoms of secondary traumatization. This article describes the common signs and symptoms of secondary trauma, job‐related factors that contribute to secondary trauma among judges, and the potential negative impact on organizational performance. The authors conclude with specific recommendations tailored for juvenile and family court judges.     

Assessing the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency: An Evaluation of a Court‐Based Delinquency Prevention Program

In 2002, the State of Ohio mandated juvenile courts to provide prevention for at‐risk youth. This study examined official court records to evaluate the effectiveness of a prevention program administered by the Greene County Juvenile Court. A sample of 362 youth referred to the program for the years 2002 to 2009 by concerned caretakers, teachers, and police was analyzed. Consistent with intake goals, 81.7% of clients were referred for at‐risk but not actually delinquent behaviors. Completion of the prevention program did not predict future court referrals, but neither did seriousness of referral behavior. Children with two biological parents were significantly more likely to complete the program, whereas referrals to Strengthening Families Program and substance abuse screening significantly predicted program noncompletion. Implications for policy and research are discussed.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• This article highlights efforts by county juvenile court to implement a secondary prevention program for at‐risk but not officially court‐referred youth.
• Delinquency prevention research depends on good juvenile court data and adequate comparison groups.
• Evidence‐based predelinquent interventions with external process and outcome evaluations should be the standard.

     

A Phenomenological and Grounded Theory Study of Women’s Experiences in Drug Court: Informing Practice Through a Gendered Lens

Drug courts have been a growing part of the criminal justice system since 1989. This qualitative study adds to the existing literature by developing an in-depth understanding of drug court from a woman’s (N?=?25) perspective. Phenomenology and grounded theory guided the data collection and analysis, resulting in three themes. First, the women found the drug court team to be compassionate and empathetic, which they reported supported them in being successful in the program. Second, the majority of women reported histories of trauma and felt that the drug court could be improved by offering them more resources to treat their trauma. Third, the majority of women reported being single mothers and they shared examples of how being a single parent was a challenge to being successful in the drug court. Implications for drug court practice are discussed.     

Children Who Have Been Traumatized: One Court's Response

A court that is trauma‐informed can assist with the process of identifying children in need of trauma‐focused services and can provide education and direction to families frustrated by prior treatment failures. The unique role of the juvenile court judge as a community convener offers an opportunity to increase community awareness about the impact of trauma, and to promote the adoption of evidence‐based treatment for trauma victims. This article outlines the way that increased trauma awareness and trauma screening within a family court system mobilized the development of effective resources for children and families affected by trauma.     

Managing and Sustaining Your Juvenile Drug Court

Since the introduction and subsequent growth of the juvenile drug court movement in the mid‐1990s, practitioners have struggled to fully implement the Juvenile Drug Courts: Strategies in Practice. This struggle may lead to weaker outcomes for youth and a dysfunctional team atmosphere. Originally written as a two‐part technical assistance brief, this article will guide readers through the Juvenile Drug Court Development Cycle in order to help re‐direct practitioners to a more “back‐to‐basics” approach that focuses on collaboration, team dynamics, and decision making.     

Trauma‐Informed Approaches to Juvenile Justice: A Critical Race Perspective

Youth of color experience disproportionate juvenile justice contact and recidivism. Trauma‐informed approaches may provide important support to these youth and improve their future outcomes. This paper describes dynamics of the various levels of the juvenile justice system (i.e., police contact, courts, correctional placement, aftercare) that perpetuate psychological trauma among adjudicated youth of color. This paper explores trauma‐informed approaches from a critical race theory perspective to address issues of systemic racial injustice in the juvenile justice system. Current and emerging models for trauma‐informed juvenile justice and implications for practice, policy, and research are discussed.     

Transferring Pre‐Teens to Adult Criminal Courts: Searching for a Justification

This research examined the demographic and offense‐related characteristics of 1,488 children who were 12 years of age or younger when transferred by juvenile court judges to criminal courts in the United States from 1985 to 2009. Juvenile court statistics show a twofold increase in the number of these children transferred between 2005 and 2009, compared to the five‐year era between 1985 and 1989. Examination of the data revealed that the major offense that precipitated most of these transfers was a nonviolent act. Given these facts, a number of key questions emerged from this study: (1) Are these transfers desirable given the potential lifelong consequences of a criminal conviction for these youngsters; (2) Do these practices accomplish a legitimate crime control function; and (3) Are these transfers just and fair given the developmental status of these children?