The effect of transfer mechanism from juvenile court on conviction on a target offense in criminal court

The question of whether juvenile offenders should be handled in criminal court has been addressed by a number of studies. However, few have examined the effectiveness of the type of transfer mechanism and how it relates to protecting the public. Whether the mechanism used to transfer juvenile offenders to criminal court has any effect on the likelihood of being convicted of a target offense criminal court is examined here. It was found that the juveniles sampled in this study had a greater chance of being convicted on their target offense in criminal court if they were sent there via judicial waiver than if they were excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction by statute.     

THE JUVENILE PENALTY: A COMPARISON OF JUVENILE AND YOUNG ADULT SENTENCING OUTCOMES IN CRIMINAL COURT*

This study uses criminal court data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS) to investigate the sentencing of juvenile offenders processed in adult criminal court by comparing their sentencing outcomes to those of young adult offenders in similar situations. Because the expanded juvenile exclusion and transfer policies of the 1990s have led to an increase in the number of juveniles convicted in adult courts, we argue that it is critical to better understand the judicial decision making processes involved. We introduce competitive hypotheses on the relative leniency or severity of sentencing outcomes for transferred juveniles and interpret our results with the focal concerns theoretical perspective on sentencing. Our findings indicate that juvenile offenders in adult court are sentenced more severely than their young adult counterparts. Moreover, findings suggest that juvenile status interacts with and conditions the effects of other important sentencing factors including offense type, offense severity and prior criminal record. We discuss these results as they relate to immediate outcomes for transferred juveniles, criminal court processes in general and the broader social implications for juvenile justice policy concerning the transfer of juveniles to criminal court.     

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.     

The effectiveness of reintegrative shaming and restorative justice conferences: focusing on juvenile offenders' perceptions in Australian reintegrative shaming experiments

This article examines the effectiveness of diversionary restorative justice (RJ) conferences through the eyes of juvenile offenders. In Australia, Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) are based on Braithwaite's theory of reintegrative shaming. Previous studies, although showing that RISE reported high levels of victim satisfaction and positive changes in the attitudes of offenders, also demonstrated that it has different outcomes for juvenile offenders depending on the type of offense with which they were charged. However, the effectiveness of RISE in terms of the offenders' perceptions has not been addressed, and the impact of the offenders' perceptions about RISE still remains under investigation. Using Australian data from RISE between 1995 and 1999, this article examines juvenile offenders' perceptions on preventing reoffending, repaying the victim and society, and the degree of repentance. The data were taken from interviews with juvenile offenders to measure their perceptions after the court or RISE processing. A comparison of standard court processing effects and RISE on juvenile offending, including property crime, shoplifting, and violent offenses, was undertaken. The results from this study were somewhat inconsistent with previous research. In this study, there was no significant relationship between RJ conference and the offenders' own perceptions on the prevention of future offending. However, it was found that there were treatment effects on repaying the victim, repaying society, and the degree of feeling repentance, and that younger offenders wanted to repay the victim/society and feel repentance.     

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.     

COMPARING DELINQUENCY CAREERS IN COURT RECORDS AND SELF‐REPORTS*

Most knowledge about delinquency careers is derived from official records. The main aim of this paper is to compare conclusions about delinquency careers derived from court referrals with conclusions derived from self‐reports. Data are analyzed from the Seattle Social Development Project, which is a prospective longitudinal survey of 808 youths. Annual court and self‐report data were available from age 11 to age 17 for eight offenses. The prevalence of offending increased with age, in both court referrals and self‐reports. There was a sharp increase in the prevalence of court referrals between ages 12 and 13, probably because of the reluctance of the juvenile justice system to deal with very young offenders. The individual offending frequency increased with age in self‐reports, but it stayed constant in court referrals, probably because of limitations on the annual number of referrals per offender. There was significant continuity in offending in both court referrals and self‐reports, but continuity was greater in court referrals. The concentration of offending (and the importance of chronic offenders) was greater in self‐reports. An early age of onset predicted a large number of offenses in both self‐reports and court referrals. However, an early onset predicted a high rate of offending in court referrals but not in self‐reports, possibly because very young offenders who were referred to court were an extreme group. About 37% of offenders and 3% of offenses led to a court referral. The more frequent offenders were less likely to be referred to court after each offense, but most of them were referred to court sooner or later. There was a sharp increase between ages 12 and 13 in the probability of an offender and an offense leading to a court referral. It is concluded that criminal career research based on self‐reports sometimes yields different conclusions compared with research based on official records.     

Individualization,criminalization, or problem resolution: A factorial survey of juvenile court judges' decisions to incarcerate youthful felony offenders

Existing research on the criteria used by juvenile court judges in choosing dispositions is limited in two respects. First, the predictor variables included in most investigations have been limited either in number or in the quality of their measurement. Second, research has not focused on sentencing decisions for serious offenders. Using a factorial survey of juvenile court judges, the present study seeks to determine what factors shape disposition decisions for juvenile felony offenders. The results suggest that judges focus primarily on offense characteristics, and are influenced only marginally by the offender's social characteristics. These findings are more consistent with the view that juvenile courts are becoming “criminalized” than with the view that individualized treatment is the goal. An alternative interpretation—that judges may be problem solvers, trying to dispose of cases efficiently—also is proposed.     

GENDER BIAS IN THE DISPOSITION OF JUVENILE COURT REFERRALS: THE EFFECTS OF TIME AND LOCATION*

Theory based on sex role traditionalism predicts a more punishing decision for female than for male offenders, while theory based on chivalry (paternalism) predicts greater leniency by the courts for female offenders. This paper tests these two models using a large sample (36,680) of juvenile court referrals in metropolitan, urban, and rural locations spanning a nine-year period. Nonparametric analysis of covariance is used to control for differences in offense, previous contact with the court system, and other background variables. Evidence of gender bias in dispositions was found. The patterns of bias across time, location, offense committed, and previous referral to the court system supports the persistence of chivalry and a decline in sex role traditionalism in court decisions. Greater punishment for girls than boys was found only for repeat offenders committing more serious offenses. Even in those cases, girls were more likely to be taken out of the home environment by the courts through a custody transfer while boys were more likely to be sent to a lock-up facility.     

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.     

Significant Gender Differences in Factors Related to the Detention of Youthful Offenders

An important priority of the U.S. juvenile justice system is to reduce the number of youthful offenders who are placed into secure detention placement. Though significant research examining these predictors exists, there is limited analysis of gender-specific predictors. Using existing juvenile court and mental health assessment case records of 433 youthful offenders from two Midwestern U.S. counties, this study sought to identify separately for males and females the legal (including number of delinquency adjudications, age at first delinquency adjudication, number of court offenses, and type of offense) and extralegal (including demographic, maltreatment, mental health, and school-related disabilities) factors that impact recidivism to detention placement. Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that the predictors of recidivism leading to repeat secure detention placement were indeed different for males and females, although there were some shared predictors. For both genders, the number of court offenses and having a previous suicide attempt were significant predictors. In addition, for females, having a diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and a misdemeanor offense were protective against recidivism. For males, three other variables significantly predicted recidivism: age, race, and a conduct disorder diagnosis.     

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.     

JUVENILE OFFENDERS MEET THEIR VICTIMS

The process of allowing certain victims of crime to confront their juvenile offender in the presence of a trained mediator to both talkabout the event andnegotiate aplan for compensating the victim is developing in a growing number of communities throughout the United States. This article reports on the impact of the victim offender mediation program in Albuquerque, New Mexico. It is based on interviews with 206 victims and juvenile offenders in Albuquerque, as well as interviews with court officials andprogram stas This program represenisa strong court and community partnership. victims and offenders whoparticipated in mediation indicated high levels of satisfaction with both the processand outcomes of mediation. Wctims who were involved in mediation, particularly, were considerably more likely to indicate satisfaction with the manner in which the juvenile justice system handled their case than were those victims who were referred to mediation but did nut participate or similar victims who were never even referred to the mediation program. Offenders who negotiated their restitution obligation with the victim were far more likely to actually complete restitution, when compared to offenders whose restitution was ordered by the court with no mediation program involvement.     

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.

     

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.     

Predicting successful outcomes for serious and chronic juveniles in residential placement

In the past decade, juvenile justice agencies have become more reliant on objective risk scales based on an actuarial approach to assessing risk. Risk assessment scales are used as decision-making guides at multiple points in the juvenile justice system. However, little research has focused on assessment of more serious offenders facing removal from the community. Enormous benefits can be derived, both in public safety and cost savings, from successful interventions with these offenders. Identifying offenders most amenable to intervention and at lowest risk for offending upon leaving placement represents a significant challenge. In this study, a placement risk screen was developed that assesses amenability to treatment in a residential treatment program and later risk for adult criminality. The relationship between suspected risk factors, success in a residential treatment program, and adult offending was assessed in a population of 81 male delinquent youths. Many factors are believed to have a bearing on success in treatment and later offending behavior, but only a small number of these were statistically significant. The results suggest that success in residential placement can reduce future offending, but that youth should first be screened for amenability to the program so scarce resources can be conserved. The proposed placement risk screen can assist juvenile court judges, officers, and residential treatment staff in identifying youth most suitable for treatment and who represent a lower risk to the community.     

Ethnicity, gender, and global risk indicators in the lives of status offenders coming to the attention of the juvenile court

The present study examined the risks and needs of status offenders in comparison to an at-large juvenile court sample, with specific attention paid to factors related to gender and ethnicity. Status offenders displayed significantly higher risk scores than the comparison sample in domains associated with both family and parenting concerns and educational concerns. In addition, females displayed higher risk levels than males and White youth displayed significantly higher risk levels than minority youth across a wide variety of risk domains. Further analyses were conducted regarding the participation of African American males and females in a program designed as an alternative to detention. For both groups, successful program completion was accompanied by little or no further court involvement, whereas failure to complete the program was related to a variety of negative outcomes. However, African American females and males successfully completing program requirements displayed different risks and needs at the outset of their participation.     

Violent Youth in Juvenile and Adult Court: An Assessment of Sentencing Strategies in Texas

This paper examines the effectiveness of two sentencing strategies for managing serious and violent juvenile offenders: judicial waiver to adult court and determinate sentencing in juvenile court. Corrections data were analyzed and it was found that both groups consistently receive longer terms of incarceration than are available through normal juvenile justice processing. However, this finding changed when actual time served was taken into consideration. A discriminant analysis showed that juveniles determin-ately sentenced in juvenile court are more likely to be younger and receive and serve shorter sentences than juveniles waived to adult court and sentenced to prison.     

Societal views of justice for adolescents accused of murder

Examines citizens' views about when juveniles accused of homicide should be tried and punished as adults. Responses from two randomly selected samples of adult Georgia residents suggest that these views are strongly influenced by whether adolescent defendants have been victims of abuse. Laypersons prefer juvenile court for juveniles who kill abusive parents (76% for first time offenders. 77% for those with one prior adjudication). Respondents are split concerning how to punish abused juveniles who have two prior adjudications (49% recommend juvenile court) and abused juveniles with one prior offense who kill a neighbor (48% recommend juvenile court). Most respondents, however, prefer adult court for repeat offenders who kill and have no history of child abuse. These findings suggest that legislative automatic transfers are overly simplistic compared to the contextual sensitivity of community sentiment. Policymakers may have serious misconceptions of societal views of fairness in this area.     

JUVENILE COURT DISPOSITIONS:

The research question precipitated by the concern for “just sanctions” and effective treatment for future juvenile programs is: What have been the criterion used by juvenile court decision makers in disposition sentencing. Disposition is analyzed for both nonstatus and status offense groups. The method of analysis is a stepwise discriminant function. The findings indicate the importance of legalistic variables and a social class bias in the dispositions of both offense groups. The social class bias is much stronger in the case of status offenders and increases at subsequent court disposition levels. These data support the labeling-conflict contention of class bias in the application of sanctions and suggest a policy directive for future delinquency prevention programs.     

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.