Legal,Psychological, and Behavioral Outcomes

States have responded to the public's outrage at rising juvenile crime by revising their transfer statutes to make it easier to transfer juvenile offenders for trial and sentencing in criminal court and possible incarceration in adult prisons. These changing trends in juvenile justice raise three questions about what actually happens to juveniles once they are in the adult criminal justice system. To what extent does trial in adult court and/or incarceration in adult prisons promote or retard community protection, juvenile offenders' accountability, and the development of competencies in juvenile offenders? This article discusses state transfer laws and the legal consequences of criminal court prosecution, and analyzes current research on deterrence effects of transfer laws, conviction and sentencing in juvenile versus criminal court, recidivism rates in juvenile versus criminal court, and conditions and programming in juvenile versus adult correctional facilities. The research findings have two important implications for juvenile justice policy: the number of juvenile cases transferred to criminal court should be minimized, and imprisonment of juveniles in adult facilities should be avoided whenever possible. These implications are discussed, and directions for future research are identified.     

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.     

A Systematic Observational Study of a Juvenile Drug Court Judge

The shift of the juvenile justice system from its initial rehabilitative ideal toward a more punitive orientation highlights the need to systematically document key elements of the juvenile drug court model. In particular, it is important to clearly document the role of the juvenile court judge because he or she is considered vital to this program model. The current study used participant observation as well as confidential questionnaires on which youth shared their perceptions of the judge. Findings show the judge‐participant interactions typically were brief, varied by the participants' level of compliance with the program, and that sanctions were given twice as often as rewards. Youth perceived the judge to be fair, respectful, and concerned about their lives. Discussion focuses on the significant opportunity that juvenile drug court judges have for positively influencing the lives of drug‐involved youth.     

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.     

THE “TRUE” JUVENILE OFFENDER: AGE EFFECTS AND JUVENILE COURT SANCTIONING

Age is the only factor used to demarcate the boundary between juvenile and adult justice. However, little research has examined how age guides the juvenile court in determining which youth within the juvenile justice system merit particular dispositions, especially those that reflect the court's emphasis on rehabilitation. Drawing on scholarship on the court's origins, attribution theory, and cognitive heuristics, we hypothesize that the court focuses on youth in the middle of the range of the court's age of jurisdiction—characterized in this article as “true” juveniles—who may be viewed as meriting more specialized intervention. We use data from Florida for court referrals in 2008 (N = 71,388) to examine the decision to proceed formally or informally and, in turn, to examine formally processed youth dispositions (dismissal, diversion, probation, commitment, and transfer) and informally processed youth dispositions (dismissal, diversion, and probation). The analyses provide partial support for the hypothesis. The very young were more likely to be informally processed; however, among the informally processed youth, the youngest, not “true” juveniles, were most likely to be diverted or placed on probation. By contrast, among formally processed youth, “true” juveniles were most likely to receive traditional juvenile court responses, such as diversion or probation.     

The Evolution of Balanced and Restorative Justice

Maloney, Armstrong, and Romig presented a portrait of “Joey,” who was the exemplar of what was wrong with the juvenile justice system, in 1988 when they published The Balanced Approach in this Journal. In response, they reimagined a juvenile justice system predicated on balancing three fundamental goals—protection of community, accountability to victims, and development of competencies to prepare juvenile court‐involved youth for productive roles in their communities. The authors examine the evolution of balanced and restorative justice and re‐imagine how Joey's life may have been different at critical junctures of his juvenile court involvement.     

THE CONCEPTUALIZATION OF DISCRIMINATION IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE PROCESS: THE IMPACT OF ADMINISTRATIVE FACTORS AND SCREENING DECISIONS ON JUVENILE COURT DISPOSITIONS

Research on race, sex, and social class discrimination in the juvenile justice process has yielded mixed results. These conflicting findings have been attributed to the use of diverse research strategies and various methodological shortcomings. There are, however, two potentially important issues that have not been previously addressed: the need to examine the juvenile justice system as a process, rather than as a series of separate and unrelated decision points, and the failure to control for the impact of administrative factors such as pretrial detention. The purpose of the research reported here is to examine the impact of race, sex, and social class on juvenile court dispositions while controlling for pretrial detention and appropriate legal factors. The analytical strategy employed permits an examination of the impact of these factors over three stages of the juvenile justice process: referral, adjudication, and disposition.
Findings indicate that while legal factors and pretrial detention decline in importance as predictors of disposition as one moves from an examination of all referred to adjudicated youth, race and social class become more important. These results are discussed in terms of their methodological significance and their implications for the conceptualization of discrimination in the juvenile justice process.     

Stereotypes influence beliefs about transfer and sentencing of juvenile offenders

Despite sharp drops in juvenile crime since the mid-1980s, punitive policies regarding juveniles who commit serious offenses still exist. We assessed beliefs about two such practices: transferring offenders from the juvenile justice to the criminal justice system, and subjecting them to sentences of life without parole (LWOP). We examined whether stereotypes about juvenile offenders – the extent to which people believe they are dispositionally violent superpredators versus economically and socially impoverished wayward youth – influence support for these policies. We measured 321 participants’ beliefs about the causes of juvenile crime and juveniles’ potential for recidivism and rehabilitation. Using vignette methodology and actual case facts, we described a 13-, 17-, or 21-year-old offender who murdered a stranger or abusive parent, and asked whether he should be transferred to criminal court and sentenced to LWOP. As endorsement of the superpredator stereotype increased, so did support for these practices. Offenders who murdered an abusive parent were shown more leniency. Older offenders were generally treated harsher, except by people with strong superpredator stereotypes who, on the issue of LWOP appropriateness, did not distinguish among juveniles of different ages. Findings suggest that stereotypes can influence judgments in cases involving juveniles and indirectly affect policy-making about juvenile offending.     

Diversion in the Canadian Juvenile Justice System: A Tale of Two Cities

Abstract The present study attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of diversion in the juvenile justice system by comparing two different communities. One community has a formalized, well-established diversion program whereas the other community utilizes the Family Court to a much greater extent. Preliminary data suggests no difference in recidivism for a matched sample of young offenders. The implications of the study are discussed in terms of future research on diversion and the need for appropriate comparison groups. In the past two decades, diversion programs have been one of the major innovations within the juvenile justice system. These programs have attempted to divert juveniles from the formal process involving court hearings by creating alternative interventions at the policy and community level. The basic premises underlying these programs is that the formal court system may do more harm than good by labeling youngsters as “delinquent” and rendering them more vulnerable by involvement in an adversary process (Reference numbers 4, 12, 14). Diversion programs that provide youngsters with an opportunity to make restitution or perform community services are compensation for their misbehavior are seen as more immediate and meaningful consequences than awaiting a formal adversarial court hearing (5, 13). However, diversion programs have not met with universal acceptance. Critics have pointed out that programs, in fact, “widen the justice net” by processing children who never would have gone to court anyway (3, 7). As well, concerns have been raised as to the protection of clients' legal rights in the diversion program and the dangers of “double jeopardy” in the event that failure in a program could lead to an even more severe disposition by the court (8, 9). The debate over the effectiveness of diversion programs has been fueled by the lack of research. Although there are many studies that suggest the success of this approach (1, 6, 10), the research has suffered in its credibility due to the absence of appropriate control groups. The present study attempted to fill this significant void in previous evaluations of diversion, by comparing two communities in southwestern Ontario with different approaches to juvenile justice. The cities of Windsor and London are approximately 200 km apart, with comparative populations (200,000 vs 250,000). Windsor has well established diversion programs with substantial support of community agencies, the police force and Crown Attorney's office. This program is described in detail elsewhere (2, 11) so will not be outlined here. London has no such program and consequently has an obviously greater number of youngsters handled through the formalized juvenile court. The authors hoped to capitalize on this “naturally occurring difference” in approach between the two cities by examining the rate of recidivism of young offenders as well as determine their attitudes (and that of their parents) toward the interventions they received. The hypotheses in the pilot studies outlined were that the diversion program youth in Windsor would have a more positive attitude about their intervention and would be less likely to recidivate than a matched sample of youth in London, based on the theoretical underpinning of diversion as well as the results of previous outcome studies.     

Toward “Safer” and “Better” Communities?: Canada’s Youth Criminal Justice Act,Aboriginal Youth and the Processes of Exclusion

After a decade of high incarceration rates, the Canadian Department of Justice has revised its approach to juvenile justice. Enshrined in the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), the renewed youth justice system stresses the importance and responsibility of community for crime control. While on the surface the state’s appeals to such programmes as restorative justice seem laudable, caution should be exercised in fully endorsing this approach. While community initiatives have been criticized for “widening the net of social control” and intruding state control deeper into social life, their exclusionary potential is perhaps more troubling. Following Derrida’s metaphysics of presence, I suggest that ‘community’ perpetually finds meaning in opposition to the other. In this environment, Aboriginal youth, who are among the most marginalized in Canadian society, will likely be the most unfavourably effected. This paper does not, however, entirely reject the Act’s appeal to community. Nevertheless, I argue that for meaningful challenges to contemporary constructions of community and youth justice to occur the discursive limits forced upon ‘community’ must be fractured and fashioned in ways that renounce homogeneity. We strongly believe the solution to youth crime is in the community. Give the community the ability to deal with it and they will (Canada 1997).     

Judges’ Perceptions of Screening,Assessment, Prevention,and Treatment for Substance Use, Mental Health,and HIV among Juveniles on Community Supervision: Results of a National Survey

Juvenile Justice‐Translational Research on Interventions for Adolescents in the Legal System (JJ‐TRIALS) National Survey was funded in part to describe the current status of screening, assessment, prevention and treatment for substance use, mental health, and HIV for youth on community supervision within the US juvenile justice system. Surveys were administered to community supervision agencies and their primary behavioral healthcare providers, as well as the juvenile or family court judge with the largest caseload of youth on community supervision. This article presents the findings from the judges’ survey. Survey results indicated juvenile and family court judges were open to innovations for improving the court's performance, rated their relationships with collaborators highly, and appreciated the impact of screening, assessment, prevention, and treatment on judicial practices.     

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.

     

Controlling School Crime: An Examination of Interorganizational Relations of School and Juvenile Justice Professionals

Abstract Crime in and around schools creates a climate of fear among students and teachers, and disrupts the learning environment. Effective control of school crime demands the cooperative efforts of school and juvenile justice officials. This paper examines the interorganizational relations between school principals, teachers, and juvenile probation officers by comparing survey results from three cities. Findings reveal significant differences onmethods for controlling school crime; and on due process and sharing of school and court records. School and court officials do cooperate in working with students who are under probation supervision; but the extent of their interaction is characterized by a low level of interorganizational relations.     

An At‐Risk Profile of Probation Supervised Youthful Offenders in a Rural,Midwest County: Significant Gender and Race Differences

There have been multiple risk factors identified that lead to youth delinquent behaviors and activities. These risks are family, school, peer, disability, and neighborhood related, though the studies to date have primarily focused on larger urban juvenile court jurisdictions. This exploratory study of one rural juvenile court (in Ashtabula County, Ohio) furthers these risk factor investigations through the evaluation of 91 randomly selected, adjudicated delinquent youth (supervised in 2008 and 2009). Data on 23 risk factors was collected, with further analysis of significant gender and race differences. Key results were that a majority of youth experienced poverty and lived in a one‐parent family; 40% had a mental health or substance abuse problem; 25% were in need of special education disability services; males were much more likely to have school‐related difficulties and to commit felony offenses; females had significantly more mental health and substance abuse problems; and minority youth successfully completed probation more often.     

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.     

The long-term impact of restorative justice programming for juvenile offenders

While extant research generally supports restorative justice as an alternative to traditional juvenile court processing, much of this research is limited to short-term follow-up periods examining only prevalence of reoffense. In addition, recent meta-analyses point to several study design characteristics, the impacts of which are not well understood. This study compared long-term outcomes of youth referred to restorative justice and traditional juvenile court processing using multiple outcome measures. Specifically, the authors examined the impact of restorative justice referral on prevalence of reoffense, number of later official contacts, and seriousness of later offending behavior over several follow-up periods up to four years post-referral.     

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.     

Long-term effects of the Moving to Opportunity residential mobility experiment on crime and delinquency

Objectives

Using data from a randomized experiment, to examine whether moving youth out of areas of concentrated poverty, where a disproportionate amount of crime occurs, prevents involvement in crime.

Methods

We draw on new administrative data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Moving to Opportunity (MTO) experiment. MTO families were randomized into an experimental group offered a housing voucher that could only be used to move to a low-poverty neighborhood, a Section 8 housing group offered a standard housing voucher, and a control group. This paper focuses on MTO youth ages 15–25 in 2001 (n = 4,643) and analyzes intention to treat effects on neighborhood characteristics and criminal behavior (number of violent- and property-crime arrests) through 10 years after randomization.

Results

We find the offer of a housing voucher generates large improvements in neighborhood conditions that attenuate over time and initially generates substantial reductions in violent-crime arrests and sizable increases in property-crime arrests for experimental group males. The crime effects attenuate over time along with differences in neighborhood conditions.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that criminal behavior is more strongly related to current neighborhood conditions (situational neighborhood effects) than to past neighborhood conditions (developmental neighborhood effects). The MTO design makes it difficult to determine which specific neighborhood characteristics are most important for criminal behavior. Our administrative data analyses could be affected by differences across areas in the likelihood that a crime results in an arrest.     

The Use of Citizen Review Boards with Juvenile Offender Cases: An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a Pilot Program

This study evaluates a Citizen Review Board (CRB) program designed to review juvenile offender cases. The sample includes 157 juvenile offenders that were first‐time adjudicated offenders. The youth were randomly assigned by the juvenile judge either to receive review by the CRB or go through the regular court process. Sixty‐eight of the youth were reviewed by the CRB and 89 made up the control group. Data were collected on both groups for more than three years. Program outcomes examined for the study included court processing time, placement and treatment facility changes, and re‐offense rates. Findings suggest that the youth served by the CRB program had statistically fewer out‐of‐home placements in treatment programs during the course of the study and more time had elapsed between the date of the original offense and the re‐offense for youth reviewed by the CRB. The rise in the number of juvenile offenders going through the nation's court systems, as well as a rise in the number of citizen review boards, indicate a need for further examination about how CRBs can best serve the juvenile court system and the youth served by that system.     

Juvenile detention: The hidden closets revisited

This is the first national study of juvenile detention in more than a decade. The findings indicate that these facilities are undergoing a fundamental and substantial change. The consensus of professional opinion as well as recommendations from national standard-setting bodies indicate that juvenile detention centers should be reserved for those youth who present a clear and substantial threat to the community and who need to be confined until they appear in court. Now these facilities are assuming an added function by serving as short-term commitment options for juvenile court judges. In addition, the study found that the excessive use of detention continues to be a major problem.