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.     

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.     

The Juvenile Drug Court Judge and Lawyer: Four Common Mistakes in Treating Drug Court Adolescents

This article will present information gleaned from anecdotal experience of existing juvenile drug treatment courts regarding several common mistakes often made by those new to the drug court. The mistakes discussed include: 1) Believing the work and role responsibilities in a traditional juvenile court will not change significantly when entering a juvenile drug court; 2) Citing the elimination of drug and alcohol use as a final outcome goal when developing the mission statement for a juvenile drug court; 3) Believing that a juvenile drug court ensures accountability by keeping a close eye on participants and setting immediate consequences for any break in program rules; 4) Using vicarious learning to “teach a lesson”–making an example of an individual participant who has broken program rules in front of the large group. The goal of this article is not only to raise caution to these pitfalls, but also to help incoming judges and lawyers become aware of the changes that working in a juvenile drug court will demand.     

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.     

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 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.     

Policies Regarding the Prosecution of Juvenile Murderers: Which System and Who Should Decide?

The fate awaiting the juvenile charged with murder varies considerably from state to state. In some jurisdictions the youth (depending on age) would have to be prosecuted in juvenile court and receive at worst the most severe sanction available in that forum. In other locations the juvenile could have to be tried in adult court or could be sent there by either a judge or a prosecutor, and would be eligible for an adult sentence, including possibly the death penalty. This study examines the country's various policies regarding the prosecution of juvenile murderers, as well as the implications behind both using the juvenile versus the adult court for these prosecutions and extending the transfer power to the prosecutor versus the judge.     

A Community‐Based Model for Remediating Juveniles Adjudicated Incompetent to Stand Trial: Feedback from Youth,Attorneys, and Judges

This study examined client satisfaction with a community‐based restoration services program for youth adjudicated incompetent to stand trial in Virginia. The sample consisted of 130 youth (ages 8‐21 years), 80 attorneys, and 43 juvenile court judges. Youth overwhelming found restoration services helpful to them, although some concepts were harder to learn than others. Both judges and attorneys were generally knowledgeable about juvenile competency law, although both were less knowledgeable about competency evaluators and the services provided to youth. Results will be used to improve teaching tools, training of Restoration Counselors, and communication between program providers and the legal community.     

“YOUTH IS ENMESHED IN A HIGHLY DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILY SYSTEM”: EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILIES,PARENTAL INCARCERATION,AND JUVENILE COURT DECISION MAKING*

Although prior work has substantiated the role of external attributes in juvenile court decision making, no study to date has examined how family situational factors as well as maternal and paternal incarceration affect juvenile court officials' responses to troubled youth. Using quantitative and qualitative juvenile court data from a large urban county in the southwest, this study draws on attribution theory to examine how family structure, perceptions of family dysfunction, and parental incarceration influence out‐of‐home placement decisions. Findings reveal that juvenile court officials' perceptions of good and bad families inform their decision making. This study emphasizes the need to unravel the intricate effects of maternal and paternal incarceration and officials' attributions about families and family structure on juvenile court decision making.     

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.     

An Evaluation of Teen Court as a Juvenile Crime Diversion Program

Theories of procedural justice support the American legal system's search for a fair and effective means of diverting offenders from the juvenile court system. Teen Court programs, in which juvenile offenders are tried and sentenced by a jury of peers, are one of the latest developments in attempts to positively influence offenders and direct them free of crime. The present research found that participation in Teen Court increased offenders' legal knowledge and enhanced their attitudes toward some authority figures (i.e., the judge) and themselves to a greater extent than non‐offending juveniles. In addition, only 12.6 percent of juvenile offenders re‐offended within five months of their initial Teen Court involvement. Improved attitudes toward authority and self were associated with a lower incidence of recidivism. Overall, these results contribute to the growing literature indicating that Teen Court can be an effective juvenile crime diversion program. This article also discusses methodological issues for future program evaluations.     

WHEN IT HAPPENS IN A FAMILY: AIDING PARENTS OF SUBSTANCE‐ABUSING ADOLESCENTS*

This article first summarizes key data on the scope of teen substance abuse and the lack of teen access to needed treatment services. It then describes how and why attorneys may be helpful to parents who discover their teen's drug or alcohol problem and seek advice and counsel about the legal implications of various actions that can or may be taken. The article explores such issues as parents finding illegal drugs in the house or on their teen's person, various modalities of treatment and how family members are involved, how parents might secure residential evaluations for their youth without the necessity of juvenile court involvement (and why this is important), concerns about placing youth in unlicensed residential treatment facilities, health insurance coverage issues, home drug testing, and how past American Bar Association (ABA) policy on youth drug and alcohol abuse is being followed up with a new ABA project to aid parents of substance‐abusing teenagers and their families.     

Maybe He's Depressed: Mental Illness as a Mitigating Factor for Drug Offender Accountability

Given the often perplexing relationship between mental illness and substance abuse among offenders, this article looks at how a juvenile drug court staff's presumptions of a youth's mental illness affect its decision-making process. Based on thirteen months of ethnographic fieldwork at a Southern California juvenile drug court, this article uses Manzo and Travers's "law in action" approach to analyze how the staff readjusts its application of normal remedies (a concept developed by Robert Emerson) designed to respond to a youth's noncompliance when it suspects mental illness may be influencing the youth's actions. In doing so, it highlights how court staff's considerations of youth mental disorders arise out of its everyday work practices. Furthermore, the article discusses how staff negotiations around a youth's mental illness create tensions for the juvenile drug court's accountability-based model of therapeutic jurisprudence, because assessments of mental illness tend to mitigate responsibility for a youth's behavior.     

Do juvenile drug courts reduce recidivism?: Outcomes of drug court and an adolescent substance abuse program

Juvenile drug courts have emerged as “innovative” responses to juvenile drug offenders, but comparatively little is known about their operations. This paper presents results of a retrospective comparison of drug court participants to an adolescent substance abuse program (ASAP) to examine which participants fared better in terms of future recidivism. Using data collected from official case files, we compared recidivism levels for all juveniles (n = 150) terminated from drug court between 1996 and 1999 with those of a random sample of juveniles (n = 158) terminated from ASAP during 1994 and 1995. Biand multivariate analyses were conducted to identify whether significant differences existed between the groups concerning re-arrest (recidivism) over a 24-month post-release observation period. Study results highlighted by logistic regression analyses suggesting that juveniles in drug court were no more likely to recidivate than were juveniles in ASAP is a positive finding for the drug court program and is an indication that the program is working, especially given the serious nature of this juvenile offender population.     

Juvenile Drug Court Program Admission,Demeanor and Cherry-Picking: A Research Note

The influence of demeanor in criminal justice research has predominantly centered on arrest and sanctioning outcomes. This study examines demeanor at the juncture of juvenile drug court admission by attributing behavior perceived to be favorable or unfavorable to program compliance and success to either juveniles or their parents/guardians. Analysis of 76 juvenile drug court case files enabled examination of how parent and child demeanor impacts specialty court admission. Findings suggest that program admittance (i.e., system leniency through diversion) is largely a function of projected attitude and behavior during screening interviews, but selection decisions are made irrespective of demeanor source. Implications of the findings for drug court processes and continued system involvement are discussed.     

The application of social impact assessment to the study of criminal and juvenile justice programs: A case study

This article focuses on the utility of social impact assessment as a method for the study of criminal and juvenile justice programs. Social impact assessment is a relatively new research approach which has most often been used not in the field of criminal and juvenile justice, but to predict the many possible impacts of public construction programs on individuals, organizations, and the community. To illustrate the method of social impact assessment, a case study of one of the few applications of social impact assessment in a juvenile or criminal justice setting is provided. The case study is of a nationally acclaimed program model, the Community Arbitration Project (CAP), which was designed to improve the screening of juvenile delinquency cases before court. The case study compares CAP with a traditional screening program. It shows the procedure used to identify many types of possible impacts that may differ between the two programs, including those which are desired and not desired, and those which are intended and unintended. Furthermore, the case study demonstrates the process used to document selected impacts throughout the social system, in the case of CAP and traditional screening, on offenders, victims, police, the juvenile court, and the local community. The article concludes with a discussion of the feasibility of using the results of a social impact assessment as input into the modification of innovative model programs during their formative stage, and as input into the decision making that leads up to the choice of a model program for replication.     

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.     

An Evaluation of a Delaware Teen Court

The Kent County Teen Court Program (teen court) provides sanctions for juvenile delinquency from a panel of a juvenile's peers rather than from a Family Court Judge. Part of the concept behind teen peer courts is that the sanction from one's peers carries more weight than sanctions from adults. The Delaware Criminal Justice Council (CJC) awarded a grant to Delaware ‐ Teen Courts, Inc. to support the operation of the Kent County Teen Court Program. The teen court program was designed to provide participants with hands‐on education in the judicial process, to create a sanction pro‐ gram that will not create a permanent record for a juvenile, and to foster, a sense of community responsibility in the program participants. The teen court program is an adult model teen court in which all of the judicial actors are juveniles with the exception of the judge. This article reflects the results of an evaluation on the Kent County Teen Court program's first two years of operation (Garrison, 2001).     

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST AWARD ADDRESS

The William H. Rehnquist Award is one of the most celebrated judicial honors in the country. ¹ It is given each year to a state court judge who demonstrates the "highest level of judicial excellence, integrity, fairness, and professional ethics." ² The 2004 recipient, Judge Leonard Edwards, is the Supervising Judge of the Santa Clara County, California juvenile dependency court. ³ He is the first juvenile court judge to receive this prestigious award. During the 24 years he has held his position, Judge Edwards has worked extremely hard to improve how the juvenile court system serves troubled families. He has founded two organizations to achieve this end, the Juvenile Court Judges of California and the Santa Clara County Domestic Violence Council. ⁴ Judge Edwards serves as a lead judge in San Jose's Model Court, which is one of twenty-five jurisdictions in the country which utilizes new ideas and techniques to improve adoption rates for children in foster care. ⁵ Moreover, he has worked as president of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. ⁶ Below is the speech he gave after accepting the award from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. The speech notes the importance of the award to everyone working in America's juvenile courts.     

Analytic methods for examining race and ethnic disparity in the juvenile courts

Prior studies of juvenile court decision making and racial disparity are often criticized for their lack of methodological rigor. These studies are criticized for focusing their analyses on separate decision-making stages and not taking into account issues that are related to sample selection. This research attempted to address these issues through an analysis of juvenile court case records from the state of Hawaii. Different limited dependent variable models were used to estimate ethnic disparity in juvenile court outcomes. Comparisons of models according to the Bayesian Information Criteria (BICs) are used to assess the overall fit of these models. The findings indicate few substantive differences across models and a general leniency of the court in favor of White youth. The findings do reveal that there are differences in the accuracy with which these models predicted juvenile court outcomes. The usefulness of this method of model comparison for disparity research is discussed.