A 21st Century Developmentally Appropriate Juvenile Probation Approach

Principles of adolescent development have accelerated positive changes to the juvenile justice system. These changes have been most pronounced in reducing reliance on incarceration and in approaches to sentencing of youth tried as adults. While juvenile probation has made some developmentally friendly adjustments, it remains an area that is fertile for reform. Many of the principles and goals in this paper have been endorsed by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), which “supports and is committed to juvenile probation systems that conform to the latest knowledge of adolescent development and adolescent brain science,” and which “recommends that courts cease imposing ‘conditions of probation’ and instead support probation departments’ developing, with families and youth, individualized case plans that set expectations and goals.” 1 NCJFCJ's July, 2017 resolution in support of developmentally appropriate juvenile probation services built on earlier NCJFCJ policies. From the time NCJFCJ adopted Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines in 2005, those policies have grown increasingly robust. 2     

Teen Court: What Jurors Can Tell Us About the Process

Teen courts are on the increase throughout the United States. These courts provide an opportunity for youth offenders to receive sentences from their adolescent peers rather than from an adult panel or judge. Yet, we know t very little about the teen jurors' perspective or whether their sentences reflect restorative justice principles. In more than 100 youth juror surveys, t teens describe their experiences as they develop sentences consistent with restorative justice tenets. Through their participation, youth jurors gain practical knowledge about and respect for the judicial system. The efficacy of the sentences is validated by high offender sentence completion.     

Holistic Representation: A Randomized Pilot Study of Wraparound Services for First‐Time Juvenile Offenders to Improve Functioning,Decrease Motions for Review,and Lower Recidivism

Mental health diagnoses, substance abuse issues, and school problems are often cited as contributors to adolescents’ involvement with the juvenile justice system. Yet, few youth receive assessment, evaluation, or intervention prior to their involvement with the juvenile courts. This pilot study evaluated whether providing a randomized trial of wraparound forensic social work services in addition to court‐appointed legal services would improve functioning, decrease motions for review, and lower recidivism for first‐time juvenile offenders. Findings indicate statistically significant improvement for youth receiving wraparound services on six out of eight measures. A case study example is provided and implications for service provision are explored.     

PUBLIC OPINION AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE JUVENILE COURT*

Over 100 years ago, juvenile courts emerged out of the belief that juveniles are different from adults—less culpable and more rehabilitatable—and can be "saved" from a life of crime and disadvantage. Today, the juvenile justice system is under attack through increasing calls to eliminate it and enactment of statutes designed to place younger offenders in the adult justice system. However, little evidence exists that policy makers have taken the full range of public views into account. At the same time, scholarly accounts of calls to eliminate the juvenile justice system have neglected the role of public opinion. The current study addresses this situation by examining public views about 1) abolishing juvenile justice and 2) the proper upper age of original juvenile court jurisdiction. Particular attention is given to the notion that child‐saving and "get tough" orientations influence public views about juvenile justice. The analyses suggest support for the lingering appeal of juvenile justice among the public and the idea that youth can be “saved,” as well as arguments about the politicization and criminalization of juvenile justice. They also highlight that the public, like states, holds variable views about the appropriate age of juvenile court jurisdiction. We discuss the implications of the study and avenues for future research. Why is it not just and proper to treat these juvenile offenders, as we deal with the neglected children, as a wise and merciful father handles his own child whose errors are not discovered by the authorities? Why is it not the duty of the state, instead of asking merely whether a boy or a girl has committed a specific offense, to find out what he is, physically, mentally, morally, and then if it learns that he is treading the path that leads to criminality, to take him in charge, not so much to punish as to reform, not to degrade but to uplift, not to crush but to develop, to make him not a criminal but a worthy citizen.     

The King County (Washington) Systems Integration Initiative: A First Look at the Kent District Dual System Youth Pilot Program

King County is one of five counties in Washington State participating in the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation's Models for Change juvenile justice reform initiative. One key aspect of King County's Models for Change participation involves ongoing “systems integration” work intended to improve how youth who have cross‐over involvement in multiple systems—e.g., juvenile justice, child welfare, education, mental health, and/or others—are handled. These cross‐over cases often present a range of challenges to juvenile courts including substantial risk factors that increase their likelihood of continuing system involvement. This article provides a first look at an emerging pilot project in King County that is intended to improve how cross‐over cases are handled by child welfare and juvenile probation with the longer term goal of improving outcomes for these difficult cases.     

Diverting and Abdicating Judicial Discretion: Cultural, Political, and Procedural Dynamics in California Juvenile Justice

Although tensions between substantive and formal rationality in the adult criminal justice system have received a great deal of attention, the existence of these tensions in the juvenile justice system has received little scholarly consideration. I seek to remedy this gap by exploring how punitive policies associated with the war on crime impact the formal and informal process of justice, the court community and work group, and the exercise of discretion in the juvenile courts. Drawing on qualitative data collected in three juvenile courts in Southern California, I identify the mechanisms by which prosecutors divert judicial discretion from the traditional rehabilitation-oriented bench officers to bench officers who are more accepting of the criminalization of juveniles. In addition, I investigate how and why rehabilitation-oriented bench officers at times abdicate their decisionmaking authority and make rulings that contradict their own assessments. My findings suggest that as the war on crime is extended to youth, the juvenile courts increasingly share the criminal courts' emphasis on offense rather than offender, enhanced prosecutorial power, and adversarial relationships within the court.     

Preventing Homelessness for System‐Involved Youth

Too many youth and young adults find themselves on the streets, couch‐surfing with friends, in emergency shelters or worse, after exiting the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. In some circumstances, youth have had court hearings until their exit from the legal system, but those hearings have not focused on long‐range plans of youth and emergencies youth may encounter. In other circumstances, there has been little or no planning prior to discharge, especially for young people who leave the juvenile justice system. Courts can and should prevent, alleviate or end youth homelessness for youth who appear before them through strategies that are enumerated in the recently‐passed NCJFCJ resolution. This article expounds on three of these strategies – coordinating transition and re‐entry plans, insisting on effective legal representation of youth, and utilizing sound judicial leadership. It also describes the concurrent efforts of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice and the American Bar Association's Homeless Youth Legal Network to remove legal barriers and improve outcomes for youth and young adults experiencing homelessness.     

Youth In Prisons and Training Schools: Perceptions and Consequences of the Treatment-Custody Dichotomy

Transfer (or waiver) of juveniles to criminal court is one of the most extreme responses to serious youth crime. Although many states have recently revised their transfer statutes, and the number of juveniles prosecuted as adults increases each year, little research has been conducted to assess the correctional experiences of delinquent youth convicted in criminal court and sentenced to adult prison. Evaluations of such experiences are important to policymakers and juvenile justice officials who are considering juvenile transfers as a strategy for securing longer and harsher confinement for offenders. Based on interviews with 59 chronic juvenile offenders placed in state training schools, and 81 comparable youths sentenced to adult correctional facilities, this article presents a comparison of offenders' perceptions of their correctional experiences. Juveniles incarcerated in training schools give more positive evaluations of treatment and training programs, general services, and institutional personnel than do those youths in prison. Juveniles housed in institutions which emphasize security over treatment — i.e., prisons — are more often victimized during their confinement than youths in the treatment-oriented training schools. Once placed in prisons, adolescent inmates are more likely to be victims of prison violence and crime from both inmates and staff. These research results suggest some paradoxical effects of the treatment-custody distinction implicit in judicial waiver practices. The differential socialization into crime and violence for youths in adult prisons may increase the risks of having these types of behavior repeated by transferred youths once released.     

Sustained Outcomes? an Exploratory Study of Juvenile Drug Courts and Long-Term Recidivism

This exploratory study examined juvenile drug courts’ effect on adulthood recidivism. Utilizing a twelve-year average follow up time, adult recidivism rates were compared between previous juvenile drug court participants and a comparison group of juveniles who participated in traditional probation. Linear regression models indicated limited recidivism effects of drug court on arrests or convictions into adulthood. The findings suggest that gender and race may play a role in how justice-involved juveniles interact and experience juvenile drug court, highlighting the need for gender-responsive and culturally responsive policies, practices, and programs within juvenile drug courts. Recommendations are made regarding future research areas and ways to potentially improve long-term juvenile drug court outcomes.     

Juvenile Competency and Pretrial Due Process: A Call for Greater Protections in Massachusetts for Juveniles Residing in Procedural Purgatory

While juvenile courts continue to balance and reevaluate the dual goals of community safety and rehabilitation of youth, juveniles who are not competent to stand trial have been left without sufficient procedural protections. This paper examines Massachusetts’ approach to juvenile competency, due process, and pretrial procedure, within a national context. The inadequacies of the Massachusetts juvenile competency laws are not unique. Currently there are nineteen states that either entirely lack juvenile‐specific competency legislation or merely incorporate inapposite adult criminal statutes and standards into the juvenile context—making it difficult or impossible for those juvenile courts to dismiss or divert a delinquency petition following an incompetency finding. Massachusetts and states similarly situated should adopt explicit statutory language to delineate the basis for a juvenile incompetency finding and the grounds for dismissing delinquency complaints pretrial after an incompetency finding has been made. This paper proposes that Massachusetts adopt a timeline for effecting such dismissals based in part on the amount of time a juvenile could face if committed to the juvenile correctional authority following an adjudication of delinquency. The paper also recommends best practices of states that are pioneering juvenile legislative reforms like dismissal timelines and incompetency presumptions. Finally, we suggest a more stringent regulatory framework be put in place governing the pretrial detention of youths who have been found not competent to stand trial—a framework that recognizes and preserves the juvenile's substantive rights to education, mental health and rehabilitative services. Without legislation, juveniles found not competent to stand trial remain subject to the prospect of indefinite locked detention, often without access to the necessary services that contribute to future success as well as attainment of competency. This lack of due process runs counter to the foundational goals of the juvenile justice system.     

Changing How the System Responds to Status Offenders: Connecticut's Families with Service Needs Initiative

Concerned by the number of status offenders in secure detention and the processing of noncriminal behavior through the juvenile and family courts, Connecticut began efforts to reform their approach to troubled and troublesome youth in 2005 (Weithorn, 2005). Between 2005 and 2007, Connecticut enacted a series of legislative changes to both improve services for troubled youth and Families with Service Needs (FWSN), and achieve systematic reforms for processing status offenses. At a systems level, the reforms sought to divert non‐criminal behaviors from formal court processing and prevent secure confinement for status offenders who violated court orders related to their behavior. Connecticut's attempt at second‐order, or system change, is the focus of this outcome evaluation.     

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.     

The Court's Role in Promoting Comprehensive Justice for Pregnant Drug and Alcohol Users

Drug use during pregnancy is an important social and medical issue. Legislatures and courts have offered a variety of responses, ranging from imprisonment to comprehensive service programs that are rehabilitative in nature. This article discusses the prevalence and effects of prenatal drug use, followed by a presentation of the scope of legal responses and treatment options. Some courts do not provide outreach services for drug‐offending mothers, while others may offer a limited range of services. In contrast, a comprehensive justice approach would provide a wide range of health, employment, and social programs for the offender. This approach is based on philosophies of restorative justice, therapeutic jurisprudence, and procedural justice. Such a theory‐based comprehensive justice program ultimately benefits mothers, children, and the community. Considerations are offered for judges who seek to implement a comprehensive justice approach to address this important problem.     

THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADDRESSES THE NATIONAL PROBLEM OF YOUTH AT RISK

During the 2006–2007 American Bar Association (ABA) year, a special ABA Presidential Youth at Risk Initiative has addressed several important topics: addressing the needs of juvenile status offenders and their families; foster children aging out of the foster care system; increases in girls, especially girls of color, in the juvenile justice system; the need to better hear the voices of youth in court proceedings affecting them; and improving how laws can better address youth crossing over between juvenile justice and child welfare systems. Lawyers are encouraged to use their skills to improve the systems addressing at‐risk youth and their families and to help facilitate coordination of youth‐related community efforts. Learning how to effectively communicate with youth is an important skill attorneys must learn. Through the Youth at Risk Initiative, the ABA has held continuing legal education programs, hosted community roundtables among youth‐serving stakeholders, and developed projects on: juvenile status offenders; lawyer assistance to youth transitioning from foster care; educating young girls on violence prevention, conflict resolution, and careers in law and justice; and provision of useful information to youth awaiting juvenile court hearings. New ABA policy has addressed services and programs to at‐risk youth, assuring licensing, regulation, and monitoring of residential facilities serving at‐risk youth, enhanced support for sexual minority foster and homeless youth, juvenile status offenders, and improving laws and policies related to youth exiting the foster care system.     

Early Childhood Trauma Impact on Adolescent Brain Development,Decision Making Abilities,and Delinquent Behaviors: Policy Implications for Juveniles Tried in Adult Court Systems

By examining previous literature on the brain’s developmental process during adolescence, this paper aims to determine how early childhood trauma potentially effects decision making in adolescence through exploring self-regulation theory. Through a self-regulation framework, the hope is to determine the connection, if any, between early childhood trauma, delinquent behavior, and involvement in the juvenile justice system. The author insists that not only do adolescents have less culpability due to their brain developmental stage compared to adults, but also early childhood trauma puts adolescents at a greater risk of impaired self-regulation which allows for more probable delinquent behavior. This paper also considers implications for social policy makers and youth advocates concerned with juvenile offenders tried in adult courts and existing racial disparities in the system.     

JUVENILE CRIME AND WHY WAIVER IS NOT THE ANSWER

Many states deal with the issue of juvenile crime by charging juveniles as adults. This is done by a method of waiver. Waiver allows adult criminal courts to have the power to exercise jurisdiction over juveniles.¹ In effect, a juvenile is tried and sentenced as an adult when his or her case is waived (removed) from the juvenile court to the adult court. Waiver in juvenile (youths seventeen and younger) cases should never be allowed because juvenile offenders are too immature and incompetent to appreciate the nature of their crimes and because the juvenile justice system is a more appropriate place to rehabilitate juvenile offenders.     

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.     

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Passes a Set of Practice Reform Resolutions

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) recently passed resolutions and policy statements on how to improve the lives of youth and families involved with juvenile or family courts. These resolutions address the needs of homeless youth and their families, juvenile probation and adolescent development, and the need for independent oversight of youth confinement facilities.     

Youth justice conferencing and indigenous over-representation in the Queensland juvenile justice system: a micro-simulation case study

Restorative justice conferencing for young offenders is firmly established in Australian juvenile justice, and legislated conferencing schemes are operating in all Australian states and territories. While there is some variation in the terms used to describe restorative justice conferences (e.g., family group conferencing, family conferencing, or youth justice conferencing), there is much more consistency in how the conferencing process is managed across Australian jurisdictions. In Queensland youth justice conferencing is a process that brings together an offender, the victim and their supporters to discuss the harm caused by the offending behaviour and provide the young person with an opportunity to take responsibility for his or her behaviour and make amends. This paper begins by briefly sketching the development of restorative justice conferencing in Queensland and describes the Juvenile Justice Simulation Model (JJSM), a micro-simulation model developed for criminal justice policy analysis in Queensland, Australia. We use this micro-simulation model to conduct an experimental exploration of the effects that youth justice conferencing has on system-wide outcomes for indigenous young people. The model simulates the impact of interventions up until 2011 on the number of finalised youth justice court appearances. Our results indicate that youth justice conferencing is unlikely to reduce the over-representation of indigenous young people in the juvenile justice system. The simulations demonstrated that, by the 2011, youth justice conferencing would result in a 12.5% decrease in finalised court appearances. Unfortunately, this decrease was more apparent for non-indigenous young people (13.7% decrease in court appearances) than for indigenous young people, who had a 10.5% decrease in court appearances. This differential impact of conferencing is due to the different court appearance profiles between indigenous and non-indigenous young offenders, with indigenous young people initiating offending at an earlier age and offending more frequently than non-indigenous young offenders.     

DISRUPTING THE PATHWAY FROM FOSTER CARE TO THE JUSTICE SYSTEM—A FORMER PROSECUTOR'S PERSPECTIVES ON REFORM

Nearly half a million children are victims of abuse and neglect and part of our foster care system. Over time, many of these youth cross into our juvenile and then adult justice systems; some will end up as federal offenders, immersed in a process where mandated penalties provide little room for flexibility or consideration of the characteristics and needs of the individual. This article will offer the perspectives of a former prosecutor and child welfare advocate on: (i) the current conditions and challenges within our foster care system—the feeder for many youth into gangs and criminal activity; (ii) the misaligned priorities and disheartening patterns we currently see in our justice system; and (iii) the ill‐advised practices, that set our nation apart from the rest of the world, allowing juvenile offenders to receive life without parole sentences. The article will then discuss a series of recommendations in all of these areas that would enable us to turn the corner and chart an improved and more hopeful path for our nation's vulnerable and at‐risk children and youth.