Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:40 am
Time: 11:40 am
Results for juvenile court
32 results foundAuthor: Smith, Cindy J. Title: Profiles, Predictors, and Minority Overrepresentation in Jurisdictional Decisions for Maryland Youths: A Final Report Summary: This report discusses the implementation and effect of waiver laws on juveniles in Maryland. Details: Baltimore, MD: Schaefer Center for Public Policy, 2003 Source: National Institute of Justice Year: 2003 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 116549 Keywords: Juvenile CourtMinority Groups |
Author: Butts, Jeffrey A. Title: Delays in Youth Justice Summary: This report discusses court processing delays that affect the youth justice/juvenile system. Details: Chicago: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, 2009 Source: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117299 Keywords: Juvenile CourtJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Carroll, Jennifer Title: The Children Court: A National Study Summary: This report present data on the Children Courts in Ireland and the young people who face charges before these courts. The research provides quantitative data on the background and history of young people involved in the youth justice system in Ireland. Itis based on a detailed examination of court files and information from a range of agencies in relation to a sample of 400 young people with cases completed in the Children Court in 2004. This study if the first piece of empirical research which provides nationwide statistics on the circumstances of young offenders, their backgrounds, education, offending trends and passage through the court system. Details: Dublin: Association for Criminal Justice Research and Development Ltd., 2007. 92p. Source: Year: 2007 Country: Ireland URL: Shelf Number: 113304 Keywords: Juvenile CourtJuvenile DelinquencyJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Sturrock, Fiona Title: Effectiveness of Youth Court Supervision Orders: Measures of Re-offending Summary: This research reports on the effectiveness of Youth Court supervision orders in reducing the frequency and seriousness of re-offending. It was conducted to provide information on the outcomes for youth offenders following Youth Court supervision orders. This research involved the analysis of administrative data covering January 2002 to June 2007 from CYF and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Details: Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Social Development, Centre for Social Research and Evaluation, 2009. 24p. Source: Internet Resoruce: Accessed October 13, 2010 at: http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/youth-court-supervision/index.html Year: 2009 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/youth-court-supervision/index.html Shelf Number: 119946 Keywords: Juvenile CourtJuvenile OffendersRecidivism |
Author: Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behavior Title: Time for a New Hearing: A Comparative Study of Alternative Criminal Proceedings for Children and Young People Summary: Time for a new hearing is the report from a comparative examination of alternative youth justice hearings and systems in the United Kingdom and other parts of the world. It concludes that the mainstream use of restorative justice in England and Wales, based on the youth conferencing system in Northern Ireland, would be likely to reduce reoffending, improve victims’ confidence and result in considerable savings in court time and the costs of custody. Details: London: The Police Foundation, 2010. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 28, 2011 at: http://www.youthcrimecommission.org.uk/attachments/095_PF%20Time%20for%20a%20New%20Hearing%20Report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.youthcrimecommission.org.uk/attachments/095_PF%20Time%20for%20a%20New%20Hearing%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 120880 Keywords: Juvenile CourtJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Restorative Justice |
Author: Klima, T. Title: What Works? Targeted Truancy and Dropout Programs in Middle and High School Summary: In 2008, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy was directed by the Legislature to study various aspects of truancy. In the following report, we focus on findings regarding evidence-based practices for truancy reduction and dropout prevention among middle and high school students. Programs implemented by schools, courts, and law enforcement agencies were considered. Based on a national review of the literature, we conclude that: There are few rigorous studies evaluating the effects of targeted truancy and dropout programs on at-risk students. In this analysis, only 22 (out of 200) studies met our criteria for rigor. Overall, targeted programs for older student populations make small positive impacts on (1) dropping out, (2) achievement, and (3) presence at school (attendance/enrollment). When programs are divided based on their central focus or modality, alternative educational programs (e.g., schools -- within-schools) and mentoring programs are found to be effective. Specifically, Career Academies — an alternative program model that offers a strong career and technical focus — positively impact all three outcomes, as well as high school graduation. Alternative schools — separate buildings with specialized academic and other services for atrisk students — have a small negative effect on dropping out: more at-risk students drop out of alternative schools than other educational programs. Additional research is required to better understand this finding. Only one rigorous court-based program evaluation was located; thus, this analysis cannot inform court policy or practices. Because of the key role of the juvenile courts in addressing truancy in many states, additional well-designed studies are imperative. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2009. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 1, 2011 at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/09-06-2201.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/09-06-2201.pdf Shelf Number: 121213 Keywords: EducationJuvenile CourtJuvenile OffendersMentoringSchool DropoutsTruancy |
Author: Puritz, Patricia Title: Colorado: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings Summary: Despite the efforts of many talented and dedicated lawyers who practice in juvenile court, the juvenile indigent defense system in Colorado suffers from benign neglect. It is not that people willfully work against the system; there is just no concerted effort to work for it. The lack of statewide leadership, coupled with the lack of professional standards or a dedicated focus on juvenile defense, has left most defenders who practice in juvenile court without adequate support or in a system that largely depreciates their role. It is this type of neglect that fosters a constant minimization of juvenile court practice – the sentiment that it is just “kiddie court,” not a place for real lawyers. This lack of system accountability diminishes juvenile defense across the state and wreaks direct and collateral harm to youth who depend on it to protect their legal interests. There needs to be greater statewide leadership, vision, and uniformity in practice and policy. Without question, most lawyers who defend children—and many other professionals—share an authentic and abiding concern for the youth with whom they work. This concern, however, does not automatically translate into any genuine protection or realistic acknowledgement of a child’s due process rights. A signi!cant percentage of youth pass through the delinquency system without counsel, effective legal advocates, or adequate safeguards to protect their interests. The concern for the child’s perceived best interests often overshadows even the hint of due process, as the court and practitioners default to a pre-Gault, parens patriae style of system that has long been deemed unconstitutional. A strong juvenile defense system is critical to upholding constitutionally required due process protections for youth. Youth do not have uniform access to or appointment suf!ciently early in the process, and the quality of representation across the state is, at best, uneven. Indigence determinations and fees spur con"icts between parent and child that exacerbate widespread waivers of counsel. Despite the weaknesses in the juvenile defense system, the investigators routinely noted the high level of skill and professionalism exhibited in the courts, detention centers, institutions, and a range of programs and service centers visited across the state. Coloradans care deeply about their youth and about strong communities. To guarantee the fair and effective representation of youth through all phases of the delinquency process, the public defense system in Colorado must take serious steps to re-evaluate its commitment to the representation of youth, and then reallocate resources accordingly. Juvenile defenders must become more pro-active in ful!lling their duties and ethical obligations. Judges and other system professionals must embrace the role of the juvenile defender as vital in protecting the due process rights of children. Given geographical challenges and resource considerations, juvenile defenders will have to work with others to address and solve these problems – they cannot possibly be expected to solve these problems alone. Coloradans have an abiding interest in ensuring that the justice system is not the dumping ground for failing schools, mental health systems, or parents who want the state to control their children. The justice system should be reserved for those youth who must be there. When youth do have the misfortune of coming into contact with the justice system, the system must ensure the protection of their legal rights. As the United States Supreme Court indicated long ago, good intentions alone are not a substitute for a proper system of juvenile defense and due process.1 The judicial, legislative, and executive branches of government must work together with the public defense system, juvenile defense experts, and the community to build a modern and true juvenile defense system in Colorado. The time is now to improve this system and give it the attention it sorely lacks. Details: Washington, DC: National Juvenile Defender Center; Colorado Juvenile Defender Coalition, 2012. 96p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 29, 2013 at: http://www.njdc.info/pdf/Colorado_Assessement.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.njdc.info/pdf/Colorado_Assessement.pdf Shelf Number: 127430 Keywords: Juvenile CourtJuvenile Justice System (Colorado, U.S.)Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Scali, Mary Ann Title: Missouri: Justice Rationed: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in Juvenile Delinquency Court Summary: While Missouri stands out for its innovation in providing small, regionalized juvenile corrections programs, an effective juvenile justice system is not built solely upon the corrections options available to youth after they have navigated their way through a complex legal process. An effective juvenile justice system must encompass the foundational elements of fundamental fairness and due process. The system must include legal advocacy and zealous representation by competent and well-trained attorneys who uphold the rights of children at all critical stages. The 1967 United States Supreme Court decision In re Gault extended the principles of due process to delinquency proceedings.1 It held that accused youth facing the awesome prospect of incarceration have the right to counsel.2 Due process is violated when children’s legal interests are not protected. This assessment is designed to provide policy makers and juvenile defense leaders with relevant baseline information about whether youth have timely and meaningful access to qualified counsel in delinquency proceedings, identify systemic barriers to quality representation, highlight best practices, and provide recommendations and implementation strategies for improving Missouri’s juvenile indigent defense delivery system. The report begins with a summary of the evolution of due process and the right to counsel for youth in delinquency proceedings. It then provides an overview of this right as it pertains to youth in Missouri, and gives a snapshot of the state’s judicial system, the juvenile justice system, and the indigent defense system. A synopsis of Missouri juvenile law and the various stages of delinquency proceedings are then described to facilitate an understanding of how youth navigate through the system. Details: Washington, DC: National Juvenile Defender Center, 2013. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 4, 2013 at: http://www.njdc.info/pdf/Missouri_Assessement.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.njdc.info/pdf/Missouri_Assessement.pdf Shelf Number: 128256 Keywords: Juvenile CourtJuvenile Indigent Defense SystemsJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Missouri, U.S.)Public Defenders |
Author: Hickert, Audrey O. Title: Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Diversion Assessment: Fiscal Year 2009 Juvenile Court Referrals Summary: The Utah Criminal Justice Center (UCJC) has assisted the Utah Board of Juvenile Justice’s (UBJJ) Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Advisory Committee with calculating the DMC Relative Rate Index (RRI) since Fiscal Year (FY) 2003. The RRI has consistently shown DMC at the point of diversion in the juvenile justice system. Minority youth have a lower rate of diversion than White youth after being referred to juvenile court. Because of this ongoing disparity, the UBJJ DMC Advisory Committee asked UCJC to study the factors that may influence the disproportionately lower rate of diversion for minority youth. This assessment seeks to answer the following questions: 1. What are diversion criteria? 2. How many episodes meet diversion criteria? 3. How many of diversion-qualified episodes are diverted by RRI categories? How many of diversion-qualified episodes are not diverted by RRI categories? 4. How do those that are not diverted differ from those that are? a. By delinquency history b. By presenting offense severity & type c. By risk (pending availability of PSRA & PRA on this group) d. Stratified by age 5. What is the failure rate of diverted/not-diverted (but qualified) episodes by RRI categories? a. Failure rate = diverted cases turned to petitioned (pending availability of data) b. Failure rate = any new referral within 12 months of diversion. This assessment was comprised of two main research tasks: 1) the compilation of diversion policy and practices, and 2) the analysis of juvenile court CARE data to examine diversion rates in relation to diversion policies and practices, youth and case factors, and minority status. Details: Salt Lake City: University of Utah, Utah Criminal Justice Center, 2011. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2013 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/DMC_Diversion_082311.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/DMC_Diversion_082311.pdf Shelf Number: 129528 Keywords: Disproportionate Minority ContactJuvenile CourtJuvenile DiversionJuvenile Offenders (Utah, U.S.)Minority Groups |
Author: Magistrates Court Tasmania Title: Hobart Specialised Youth Justice Court Pilot: Evaluation Report Summary: The Specialised Youth Justice Court Pilot commenced operation in the Hobart registry of the Magistrates Court of Tasmania in January 2011. The evaluation period ranges from commencement until September 2012. The Pilot will formally end with the Magistrates Court's acceptance of this report in October 2013. If the recommendations of this report are accepted, the SYJC will continue in the Hobart registry of the Magistrates Court, and be adopted in Launceston in 2014. The Specialised Youth Justice Court operates as a specialist list in Hobart, but it is not a separate or distinct court. Over the course of its operation it has been presided over by a designated or 'specialist' youth justice magistrate, with a relief magistrate presiding over a small youth justice case load and available to cover situations where the primary magistrate has not been available. The Pilot has operated without any specific or additional budgetary allocation to the Court or any of the agencies involved in its development and implementation. Rather, the operational arrangements were absorbed by existing budgets and integrated into established business practices. The Hobart Specialised Youth Justice Court consists of two related streams. Firstly, there is a general stream in which all youth justice matters triable summarily are listed. This is, in effect the Youth Justice Division of the Magistrates Court, a court constituted by a magistrate to hear and determine criminal charges against people under the age of 18. The Pilot altered the legal landscape in Hobart by allocating a primary and a relief magistrate to the Youth Justice Division, as distinct from the eight magistrates who presided prior to the Pilot. Secondly, the Pilot introduced a 'Special List' as a subset of the general youth justice list that would hear and determine complex matters assessed as needing a therapeutic jurisprudence approach. The Special List is concerned with vulnerable young offenders, such as those with drug and alcohol and/or mental health problems or other serious vulnerability. The Special List uses regular judicial case supervision to try to improve the circumstances of the offender, and support them to develop the skills and resilience needed to escape cycles of disadvantage and offending behaviour. The specific aims of the Pilot were to achieve: - Improved timeliness to finalisation of youth justice matters - Encouragement of more consistency in the court's decisions - Greater development and application of expertise in youth justice matters - Better coordination of youth justice support services to the court - Increased collaborative approaches between the agencies involved in youth. Details: Hobart: Magistrates Court Tasmania, 2013. 117p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 10, 2014 at: http://www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/269718/Hobart_Specialised_Youth_Justice_Court_Pilot_-_Evaluation_Report_Sept_2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/269718/Hobart_Specialised_Youth_Justice_Court_Pilot_-_Evaluation_Report_Sept_2013.pdf Shelf Number: 132318 Keywords: Juvenile CourtJuvenile Offenders (Tasmania) |
Author: Bellas, Marcia L. Title: Disproportionate Minority Contact Assessment: Court and Diversion Referral Decisions in Vermont's Juvenile Justice System Summary: In 2002, the State of Vermont began to monitor the contact of minority youth relative to white youth at various points in the Juvenile Justice system. In addition to compiling a statewide matrix annually, Vermont's juvenile justice specialist also gathers aggregate-level data for Chittenden, Rutland and Bennington Counties. The Vermont Center for Justice Research (VCJR) conducted three prior DMC assessments using individual-level data to determine the mechanisms responsible for the DMC reflected in aggregate-level data. These assessments examined DMC in admissions to Vermont's juvenile detention facility, DMC in arrests in four municipalities, and DMC in arrests in Burlington, Vermont's largest municipality. The primary goal of the current assessment was to explore whether there were indicators of DMC during at three-year period at three decision points in the juvenile justice system - referrals to juvenile court, referrals to adult court, and referrals to diversion, including to the extent possible pre-charge referrals to Community Justice Centers (CJCs). The assessment used individual-level court, juvenile/criminal history and CJC data for youth in Chittenden, Rutland and Bennington Counties for fiscal years 2009-2011 to determine whether individual-level differences between white and minority youth explain any disproportionate minority representation at the decision points of interest. Details: Northfield Falls, VT: Vermont Center for Justice Research, 2014. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 6, 2014 at: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/dmcrpt_files/DMC%20Assessment%202014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.vcjr.org/reports/reportscrimjust/reports/dmcrpt_files/DMC%20Assessment%202014.pdf Shelf Number: 133558 Keywords: Disproportionate Minority ContactJuvenile CourtJuvenile Court TransferJuvenile Justice Systems (Vermont)Juvenile OffendersWaiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction |
Author: McDowell Group, Inc. Title: Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Anchorage Youth Court Summary: This analysis examines the extent to which the benefits of the Anchorage Youth Court may be quantified and how those benefits compare to the costs of operating the program. It also addresses less quantifiable benefits. The study draws on a review of national literature, analysis of AYC program data, analysis of Alaska Department of Health and Social Services Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) data on juvenile offenses, and interviews with experts on AYC and Alaska juvenile justice. Major Findings The Anchorage Youth Court (AYC) creates a complex set of benefits for participating defendants, youth volunteers, and the larger community. In addition to producing economic benefits significantly in excess of its cost, AYC conducts substantial education and life-skills training, and its structure and processes contribute to social-emotional growth for both defendants and volunteers. The practice of peer justicewith youth volunteers exercising maximum responsibility for, and control over, the court process and sentencingcontributes to AYCs success. This approach requires more intensive volunteer training and participation than more adult-dominated youth courts typical of many other states. AYCs one-year re-referral rate (a proxy for recidivism) was 16 percent, while that of a comparison group of juvenile defendants who committed offenses similar to those of youth court participants and received informal probation was 39 percent. A re-referral occurs when law enforcement refers a youth to the Alaska Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for a new offense. 1 The percentage of youths who complete AYC and are subsequently re-referred to DJJ for another offense also compares favorably with re-referral rates for other youth courts as reported in a recent study published by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Based on the premise that the AYC and informal-probation comparison groups are fundamentally similar, AYCs lower re-referral rate means the Anchorage community experienced an average of 40 fewer crimes per year between 2009 and 2012 than it would have if all of AYCs defendants had simply received informal probation Each of the 40 crimes averted saved an estimated $3,900 in victim, criminal justice, and law enforcement costs for a total of $156,000 saved annually. The largest economic benefit of AYC is the value to young offenders of not having a criminal record. The net present value of this additional income over a working lifetime is approximately $116,000 for each defendant who avoids the stigma of a criminal record as a result of his or her AYC experience. The number of AYC defendants who benefit each year in this way is estimated to be between 2 and 4, for a total annual benefit of between $232,000 and $464,000. AYC produces other benefits to the Anchorage community in addition to less crime. In 2013, the quantifiable portion of these benefits was worth an estimated $80,450 and included: Nearly 3,750 hours of community service by offenders, worth, at minimum wage, approximately $29,000. 1,470 hours of youth volunteer time to conduct court proceedings, worth an estimated $16,000. More than 400 hours of legal education worth $21,000 plus another $12,000 in pro-bono legal services donated by adult attorneys and judges for a total of $33,000 in services donated by adult volunteers. $2,450 in donated classroom facilities. Details: Juneau: McDowell Group, Inc., 2014. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 25, 2015 at: http://www.anchorageyouthcourt.org/uploads/MCDOWELL_GROUP_STUDY.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.anchorageyouthcourt.org/uploads/MCDOWELL_GROUP_STUDY.pdf Shelf Number: 136576 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisJuvenile CourtJuvenile OffendersYouth CourtYouthful Offenders |
Author: Clairmont, Don Title: Crime Prevention and Youth Case Processing: Where and How to Invest and Intervene Summary: The evaluation assessment has been fully summarized in seventeen points on pages 57 to 59 of this report. Essentially the John Howard Society and its restorative justice agency initially had a broad set of objectives for the project wherein the YCLW would play both a liaison role to the CJS for youth and an outreach role vis-a-vis the accused youths and their families. Government specification centered strongly on the liaison role - getting the youth engaged more quickly in the court process via legal aid, to their own and to the justice system's benefit. The governmental emphasis reflected clearly that the project was largely a response to the recommendations of the Nunn Inquiry concerning processing youth cases. As it turned out the project's emphasis was indeed on the contacting the young offenders and encouraging them to make arrangements with Legal Aid if they had not already done so. There was little further contact if the youth was lawyered up or readily indicated an intention to do so or simply did not want any assistance from the YCLW. Lack of adequate contact coordinates and significant transiency among the youth meant that a large proportion of the youth who were referred to the YCLW, or appeared on the court dockets subsequently made available to the YCLW, were never contacted. Few youths were referred by the police agencies which of course largely eliminated the possibility of their being contacted by the YCLW worker prior to first court appearance. There was little emphasis on a more active and continuing outreach role for the YCLW for several basic reasons - narrow interpretation of the role's formal mandate and a strict adherence to that in practice, such that linking the youth to NSLA, and / or making them aware of the need and value to obtain such counsel, became the almost exclusive objective; lack of effective 'buy-in' to the project by many CJS officials which limited police collaboration and led few other court role players to utilize the services of the YCLW; turnover among the YCLW workers which limited the build-up of rapport with officials and familiarity with the young accuseds; no compellability for youths to meet with or talk to the YCLW worker. The contact of the YCLW with the young accused usually occurred over the telephone when such information was provided by police officials or by attendance at youth court but for various reasons the contact was quite limited and only in the last months of the project were they beginning to become more than a single short encounter. The YCLW in concert with the RJ agency staff did develop a YCLW manual, job description, information cards, and promoted and explained the initiative to CJS officials in both Truro and New Glasgow, especially in Truro where the worker had an office. There was a modest input into NSLA practices (i.e., suggestions for simplifying the process of certification for youth). Few services were provided other than encouraging the youths to link up with NSLA and only in last month or so, were a few significant contacts established with youth and/or parent/ guardians. There were also significant lessons and insights that could be drawn from this largely unsuccessful project, in large measure because the competent project management and staff did their best to carry out their mandate and thus, analyses of shortcomings has to focus not on them but on the major structural and problem specification issues such as effectively reaching the small number of multiple repeat offenders - a grouping we have labeled "the 15" since in so many jurisdiction in Nova Scotia roughly that number generate much of the youth crime and a much larger proportion of "secondary" crime (i.e., administration of justice crime). The project perhaps inadvertently highlighted the central query for crime prevention, namely where to put the emphasis, where to make more investment. The overall policy relevance of the YCLW project may well have been to sharply underline that the pivotal policy problem issue for crime prevention and for youth court administration is not the average length of time in processing youth cases. Rather, it is the fact that a small number of multiple repeat offenders - "the 15" as we have labeled them - cause a disproportionate amount of court time and account not only for much crime but also for perhaps as much as 75% of all the administration of justice or "secondary" criminalization which does take court time and limit effective court action. They constitute the proverbial "elephant in the room" for crime prevention and case processing. The YCLW project was not focused on this central problem and did not have the mandate or the tools to deal with it. A different model would appear to be required, a youth intervention outreach model, a model that does not exist in Nova Scotia but does have some modest commonality with the NSLA approach in HRM and the MLSN court worker approach in the Aboriginal community. In this evaluator's viewpoint such a multi-tasked youth intervention approach pinpointing the central youth crime problem highlighted by the YCLW project could be a major step forward for the justice system in Nova Scotia. Details: Dalhousie, Nova Scotia: Atlantic Institute of Criminology, Dalhousie University, 2010. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2015 at: http://ns.johnhoward.ca/images/YCLWFinalEvaluationReport.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Canada URL: http://ns.johnhoward.ca/images/YCLWFinalEvaluationReport.pdf Shelf Number: 136635 Keywords: Case ProcessingJuvenile CourtJuvenile OffendersLegal AidYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: Washburn, Jason J. Title: Detained Youth Processed in Juvenile and Adult Court: Psychiatric Disorders and Mental Health Needs Summary: This bulletin presents results of a study of the prevalence of psychiatric disorders among youth transferred to adult criminal court compared with those processed in juvenile court. Key observations, findings, and recommendations include: - Many youth are being transferred to adult criminal court, with males, African Americans, Hispanics, and older youth significantly more likely to be processed in adult criminal court than females, non-Hispanic whites, and younger youth (even after controlling for the current charge). - The prevalence of one or more disorders among youth transferred to adult criminal court does not significantly differ from that among youth processed in juvenile court. - Among youth processed in adult criminal court, those sentenced to prison had significantly greater odds than those who received a less severe sentence of having a disruptive behavior disorder, a substance use disorder, or co-occurring affective and anxiety disorders. - Community and correctional systems must collaborate to identify and treat youth with psychiatric disorders who are transferred to adult criminal court. Youth who are transferred to adult criminal court and receive prison sentences should be considered a particularly high-risk group who are likely to require additional services. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2015. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Bulletin: Accessed September 11, 2015 at: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248283.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248283.pdf Shelf Number: 136722 Keywords: Co-concurring DisordersJuvenile CourtJuvenile Court TransfersJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersMental Health ServicesMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Merry, Sheila Title: Cook County Juvenile Court: The Juvenile Court in the 21st Century Summary: As part of Cook County Justice for Children's predecessor's legacy to the field, Director of Strategic Partnerships, and former Jane Addams Juvenile Court Foundation Executive Director, Sheila Merry, created this written history of the progress achieved at the Cook County Juvenile Court over the last quarter century. This report describes the current structure of the Cook County Juvenile Court and Juvenile Temporary Detention Center (JTDC); outlines major changes in the court divisions and the JTDC over the last few decades, including statistical information regarding court processing over time; describes key elements of the evolving political and social contexts influencing the court; and concludes with a summary of the role and accomplishments of the Jane Addams Juvenile Court Foundation and its recommendations for ongoing court reform. Details: Chicago: Jane Addams Juvenile Court Foundation. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 17, 2015 at: http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/491e5b_21647ede91af4e1fa7d78910b54e1c8a.pdf Year: 0 Country: United States URL: http://www.cookcountyjustice.org/sites/www.cookcountyjustice.org/files/assets/21st%20Century%20Report_Final_110812-1.pdf Shelf Number: 136795 Keywords: Juvenile CffendersJuvenile CourtJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice System |
Author: Colorado Juvenile Defender Coalition Title: Justice Redirected: The Impact of Reducing the Prosecution of Children as Adults in Colorado and the Continuing Need for Sentencing Reform Summary: In 2012, Colorado reformed the way children can be prosecuted as adults by changing the law that previously allowed prosecutors to press charges in adult court without judicial review. The changes to the law reduced the number of children who could be "direct filed," - or charged - in adult court by the prosecutor, and put in place a system of oversight by allowing a judge to review the prosecutor's decision to prosecute a juvenile in adult court. - 100 cases were prosecuted in adult court in Colorado from April 20, 2012-April 20, 2015 - 98% of Children Prosecuted in Adult Court are Male - Nationally, in 2013, there were still 1,200 youth in adult prisons and approximately 3,400 youth in adult jails on any given day - 60% of Children Prosecuted in Adult Court are Youth of Color - Adams, Douglas, Denver & El Paso county account for 75% cases in which youth are prosecuted in adult court. - Homicide cases account for 37% of Cases prosecuted in adult court - The average length of a transfer or reverse transfer hearing is 2 days - Nationally, Between 2009 and 2013, the rate of youth violence was cut almost in half to 160 arrests per 100,000 juveniles Details: Denver: Colorado Juvenile Defender Coalition, 2015. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 2, 2015 at: http://cjdc.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/CJDC-Report2015_FINAL_bug.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://cjdc.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/CJDC-Report2015_FINAL_bug.pdf Shelf Number: 137419 Keywords: Juvenile CourtJuvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Reimer, J.K. Title: A System Just for Children: Voices of child victims and witnesses about their experiences Summary: Over the past two decades, Cambodia's justice system has improved markedly. More people are being processed through the system, with greater fairness and speed than ever before. More complaints are being investigated and perpetrators are more likely to be convicted and serve at least part of their sentence. Solid protocols and procedural documents governing the rights of children are firmly in place and frequently cited by high-ranking officials. However, implementation of "child-friendly justice" remains limited. This research is one of the first conducted in Cambodia to look in detail at the experience of child witnesses and victims who go through the Cambodian criminal justice system. It particularly aims to give voice to children's views in order to contribute to the development of criminal court procedures that more fully reflect the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), especially Article 12. Details: Hagar, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, UNICEF, 2015. 164p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 10, 2016 at: http://www.unicef.org/cambodia/A-System-Just-for-Children_FINAL_Jan-2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Cambodia URL: http://www.unicef.org/cambodia/A-System-Just-for-Children_FINAL_Jan-2015.pdf Shelf Number: 137839 Keywords: Child ProtectionChild VictimsChild WitnessesCriminal Justice SystemsJuvenile CourtJuvenile Justice Systems |
Author: Depew, Briggs Title: Judges, Juveniles and In-Group Bias Summary: We investigate the existence of in-group bias (preferential treatment of one's own group) in court decisions. Using the universe of juvenile court cases in a U.S. state between 1996 and 2012 and exploiting random assignment of juvenile defendants to judges, we find evidence for negative racial in-group bias in judicial decisions. All else the same, black (white) juveniles who are randomly assigned to black (white) judges are more likely to get incarcerated (as opposed to being placed on probation), and they receive longer sentences. Although observed in experimental settings, this is the first empirical evidence of negative in-group bias, based on a randomization design outside of the lab. Explanations for this finding are provided. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2016. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper 22003: Accessed February 24, 2016 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w22003.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w22003.pdf Shelf Number: 137952 Keywords: JudgesJudicial Decision-MakingJuvenile CourtJuvenile DefendantsJuvenile OffendersRacial BiasRacial Discrimination |
Author: Fernandez, Elizabeth Title: A Study of the Children's Court of New South Wales Summary: Australia's child welfare system can be traced to the period of white settlement. Significant child welfare problems emerged in this period when mortality rates and levels of neglect and deprivation were high (Liddell 1993). From the earliest days of the New South Wales colony, concern was expressed about the care and protection of convict children who roamed the streets and who were thought to be responsible for petty crime. A charity set up by Governor King's wife was to provide schooling for these vulnerable children. As early as the mid nineteenth century state involvement in children and families is evident through the establishment of universal schooling and industrial schools (Van Krieken 1991). Later in the nineteenth century child labour laws and compulsory education were established, along with policies to board out children rather than accommodate them in institutions (Picton and Boss 1981, Tomison, 2001). Unsurprisingly, child care and juvenile justice were seen hand-in-hand both to protect children and to protect the wider society from crime. This report is concerned with reviewing this complex system for the twenty-first century. Details: Sydney: University of New South Wales, 2014. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 30, 2016 at: http://www.childrenscourt.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/chcourt%20assessment.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: http://www.childrenscourt.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/chcourt%20assessment.pdf Shelf Number: 138498 Keywords: Child ProtectionChild WelfareJuvenile CourtJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Hopkins, Ziyad Title: Diverted from Counsel: Filling the Rights Gap in New Zealands Youth Justice Model Summary: This report provides observation and commentary on the following question: What are the merits of increasing access to Youth Advocates, specialised lawyers for young people facing criminal allegations, within the youth justice sector? The release of the Youth Crime Action Plan 2013-2023 (YCAP) marks a period of reflection and focus on New Zealand's youth justice sector and the landmark Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 (CYPFA). This policy analysis reviews CYPFA, and the implementation of youth justice, from a rights-based perspective. Despite the well-earned positive international reputation of New Zealand's youth justice model, many young New Zealanders miss out on legal advice. Approximately 80 per cent of youth charges are addressed informally, before court proceedings and the appointment of a lawyer. Drawing on interviews and observations from all phases of youth justice - from apprehension through sentencing - the report argues that increasing young people's meaningful access to trained Youth Advocates can ensure their individual rights when faced with state intervention whilst also promoting youth development. Mindful of budgetary restraints, but also with the need to promote equity, the report recommends five specific actions that can align New Zealand's youth justice sector with principles expressed in CYPFA; the UN Convention on the Rights of Children; and positive youth development: - Appoint a Youth Advocate to each child or young person within twenty four hours of arrest - Require the presence of a Youth Advocate for all police interviews with young people - Provide a legal-advice scheme for young people offered alternatives to prosecution as well as independent oversight of the alternative action programme - Invite Youth Advocates to each "intention to charge" family group conference - Update and promulgate practice standards for Youth Advocates For Massachusetts, the New Zealand experience - with the protections of access to legal advice - offers three important opportunities to adapt practice: - In lieu of lawyer-driven courtroom based plea bargaining, use family group conferencing to reach dispositional agreements - Upon the successful completion of a state intervention plan, empower judges to deem that the charges had never been filed - Develop state-wide principles that encourage and govern pre-court resolution of charges Details: Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Social Development and Ministry of Justice, 2015. 112p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 3, 2016 at : http://www.fulbright.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Ziyad-Hopkins-report-abstract.pdf Year: 2015 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.fulbright.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Ziyad-Hopkins-report-abstract.pdf Shelf Number: 138903 Keywords: Family Group CounselingJuvenile CourtJuvenile Justice ReformJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Eren, Ozkan Title: Emotional Judges and Unlucky Juveniles Summary: Employing the universe of juvenile court decisions in a U.S. state between 1996 and 2012, we analyze the effects of emotional shocks associated with unexpected outcomes of football games played by a prominent college team in the state. We investigate the behavior of judges, the conduct of whom should, by law, be free of personal biases and emotions. We find that unexpected losses increase disposition (sentence) lengths assigned by judges during the week following the game. Unexpected wins, or losses that were expected to be close contests ex-ante, have no impact. The effects of these emotional shocks are asymmetrically borne by black defendants. We present evidence that the results are not influenced by defendant or attorney behavior or by defendants' economic background. Importantly, the results are driven by judges who have received their bachelor's degrees from the university with which the football team is affiliated. Different falsification tests and a number of auxiliary analyses demonstrate the robustness of the findings. These results provide evidence for the impact of emotions in one domain on a behavior in a completely unrelated domain among a uniformly highly-educated group of individuals (judges), with decisions involving high stakes (sentence lengths). They also point to the existence of a subtle and previously-unnoticed capricious application of sentencing. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2016. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper 22611: Accessed September 7, 2016 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w22611.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w22611.pdf Shelf Number: 147856 Keywords: JudgesJudicial SentencingJuvenile CourtJuvenile OffendersJuvenile SentencingSports |
Author: Coker, Elizabeth Title: Truancy in Washington State: Filing Trends, Juvenile Court Responses, and the Educational Outcomes of Petitioned Truant Youth Summary: Truancy and its correlates, school disengagement and failure, negatively impact life chances for children, the well-being of communities where they live, and the vitality of the state as a whole. The Washington State legislature passed the 1995 "Becca Laws" in response to the case of Becca Hedman, whose chronic truancy and running away from home led to her tragic murder at the age of 12. The Becca Laws are intended to empower families, schools and students to jointly address and overcome barriers to attendance with support from the juvenile courts as necessary1. Since that time, local juvenile courts and school districts across Washington have implemented a variety of programs and practices designed to fulfill the requirements of the Becca Laws while respecting the unique strengths and challenges present in their own communities. Some of these attempts have failed while others have survived and even shown promise over time. All are potentially instructive. Twenty years later, it is time to capitalize on these experiences in order to develop effective truancy intervention programs that reach the students they are meant to serve. Research has demonstrated the effectiveness of Community Truancy Boards (CTBs), and yet these model programs are available in only a handful of Washington State juvenile courts. The truancy petition process is meant to provide families, schools and communities with the legal backing needed to enforce school attendance by identifying and removing barriers to attendance, yet barely one-third of eligible students receive truancy petitions. Of those who do receive truancy petitions, few attend school districts that have quality court-school truancy intervention programs in place. The truancy petition process represents the letter of Washington's truancy laws, but ignores their spirit and intent. The intent of the Becca Laws is to unite schools, courts, communities and families in an effort to provide the services needed to help students to overcome their own personal barriers to school attendance. Truancy petitions are a means to this end, if used in that spirit. This is the second in a series of WSCCR reports describing statewide trends in truancy petition filings, school performance and outcomes for petitioned youth, and current truancy prevention and intervention programs in juvenile courts across the state. This report describes the current condition of truancy practices in Washington State from the perspective of the juvenile courts; outlines recent and historical trends in truancy petition filings; and reports on the educational progress and 3-year outcomes of students who were petitioned truant during the 2010/11 academic year (AY). Drawing from a statewide survey of juvenile courts, linked juvenile court and education data, and other sources, the two studies reported herein describe the common educational pathways of truant youths, both before and after court contact, and provide an overview of the current range of juvenile court responses to truancy in Washington State Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Center for Court Research, 2015. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 22, 2016 at: https://www.courts.wa.gov/wsccr/docs/WSCCRTruancyUpdate2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.courts.wa.gov/wsccr/docs/WSCCRTruancyUpdate2015.pdf Shelf Number: 140422 Keywords: Juvenile CourtSchool AttendanceStatus OffensesTruancyTruancy Court |
Author: George, Thomas Title: Truancy in Washington State: Trends, Student Characteristics, and the Impact of Receiving a Truancy Petition Summary: Using multiple research methods, this study examined recent trends, student characteristics, and the impact of receiving a truancy petition on youth outcomes over the past several years and from a variety of perspectives. It draws on numerous published reports, a newly created educational research database containing nearly one million student records, over 1,000 responses on a recently developed risk and needs assessment administered to youths and their parents, and a comprehensive court contact and recidivism database detailing youths' court histories Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Center for Court Research, 2011. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 22, 2016 at: https://www.courts.wa.gov/wsccr/docs/TruancyEvalReport.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.courts.wa.gov/wsccr/docs/TruancyEvalReport.pdf Shelf Number: 145576 Keywords: Juvenile CourtSchool AttendanceStatus OffensesTruancyTruancy Court |
Author: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc. Title: Pima County Juvenile Court Evaluation of Probation Services: Executive Summary Summary: The provision of juvenile probation services is a complex endeavor that involves the various components of the criminal justice system and social service provider community, as well as the general community at large. In Fiscal Year 2001, 13,588 juveniles were on probation in Arizona, and of these 2,271 or 16.7% of this number were in Pima County. In addition, in 2001, a total 22,305 youth were diverted from the juvenile courts in Arizona, with 4,891 or 22% of this total from Pima County (Administrative Office of the Courts, 2002). With this number of youth comes a diverse array of needs and requirements that the juvenile court must respond to in its mission of preventing further crime and making the youth accountable for their actions. This may involve the provision of different levels and types of probation supervision, various modes of treatment services for a juvenile's mental health and substance abuse problems, as well as providing services to victims and the community. Understanding this complexity, the Pima County Juvenile Court contracted with LeCroy & Milligan Associates to evaluate the provision of juvenile probation within the court. Specifically, LeCroy & Milligan Associates were asked to conduct four separate efforts: Complete a literature review of best practices in juvenile probation; Conduct a survey of key stakeholders in the juvenile justice system; Perform a single-system design study; and Complete a recidivism study. Each of these was completed during the period Jun 2002 to May 2003. This report has five sections, including this executive summary. Details: Tucson, AZ: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, 2003. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 12, 2016 at: http://www.lecroymilligan.com/data/resources/pima-co-probation-report-exec-summary-2003.pdf Year: 2003 Country: United States URL: http://www.lecroymilligan.com/data/resources/pima-co-probation-report-exec-summary-2003.pdf Shelf Number: 145407 Keywords: Juvenile CourtJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationRecidivism |
Author: Phillips, Michael R. Title: Intermediate Sanctions for Juvenile Offenders: A Utah Juvenile Court Case Study Summary: In an effort to reduce juvenile recidivism - the return to criminal behavior after leaving the juvenile court - authorities in Utah adopted a new statewide intermediate sanction system in which each district could choose a treatment component. Noting the high rate of substance abuse among juvenile offenders, the Fourth District Juvenile Court chose to implement the Narconon drug rehabilitation program through a Utah licensed not-for-profit called NewLife, integrating it within court-directed probation services. The Narconon program, an outpatient service based on secular materials developed by L. Ron Hubbard, consists of a series of modules to address physical aspects of substance abuse as well as underlying social and life skills that may be deficient in young abusers. Participants complete a detoxification program designed to eliminate drug cravings by improving nutritional status and reducing body stores of drug residues. The detoxification regimen includes exercise, sauna and vitamin-mineral supplementation. The Narconon program also includes self-paced training in study habits and communication (oral and written). Additional training materials address the subjects of moral and ethical standards, how to set and achieve goals, and personal responsibility. This program was implemented in partnership with court officials and probation officers in the Fourth District Juvenile Court, in the context of implementing new juvenile sentencing guidelines for State Supervision. The court hoped to reduce the rate at which these youths penetrated deeper into the justice system, and to achieve a reduction in placement costs. It should be noted that the District had saved "the worst of the worst" for this trial program (knowing in advance it was coming several months prior to its implementation). More than half were candidates for confinement or community placement (removal from their homes) rather than state supervision, the new sentencing guideline's last-chance sanction. This tracking report examines the extent to which the court's goals were achieved. It does not attempt to identify or explore positive or negative factors outside of the Narconon program that might have contributed to the outcome. Participants in the Narconon program, whether they completed the program or not, showed a 77.7 percent reduction in criminal activity. Program completion intensified the desired change of behavior. Seventy-four of the 100 juveniles completed the intervention. Of these, 63.5 percent remained completely misdemeanor and felony free for the remainder of their juvenile history. Based on a combined analysis of juvenile and adult records, 32.4 percent retained this crime-free state for four years post-treatment. A placement analysis revealed that the goal of reducing placement and related costs was also achieved. The success of this partnership suggests new possibilities for treatment and intervention and for reducing costs associated with juvenile crime. Details: Los Angeles: Foundation for Advancement, 2015. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed october 15, 2016 at: http://www.criminon.org/studies/fase.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.criminon.org/studies/fase.pdf Shelf Number: 147288 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationIntermediate SanctionsJuvenile CourtJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Kruh, Ivan Title: Developing Service Delivery Systems for Evaluations of Juveniles' Competence to Stand Trial: A Guide for States and Counties Summary: The purpose of this Guide is to help states or counties develop a "forensic evaluation system" (FES) for providing courts evaluations of juveniles' competence to stand trial (JCST). An FES for JCST evaluations has three components that are described in the three modules in this Guide: Module 1: Developing a JCST Evaluation Service Delivery System (SDS)-An organizational structure and procedures within which JCST evaluations are provided to the courts Module 2: Creating Evaluation Standards-Criteria that JCST examiners should meet when performing JCST evaluations and writing reports Module 3: Quality Control: Developing a Process to Apply the Standards-Ways to ensure that the evaluation standards for examinations are actually implemented properly by examiners Why the Guide Is Needed The requirement that juvenile court defendants must be competent to stand trial is fairly new, not being in evidence much before the 1990s. When attorneys and juvenile advocates began to claim that competence to stand trial (CST) should apply to delinquency proceedings, there was some doubt about the need for it, as the juvenile court had existed for almost 100 years without the requirement. But in the past fifteen years, appellate courts examining the issue decided that CST was a fundamental due process right in juvenile delinquency cases. This created new demands and challenges for juvenile courts. What exactly was required to be a competent juvenile defendant? How would evaluations be done, and who would do them? What should the evaluations look like? Some states simply tried to use their definitions of CST and process for getting CST evaluations that had been in place for adult criminal defendants. But other states recognized that CST in juvenile court required its own definitions and procedures. As a consequence, many states began developing new, specialized statutes for the application of CST in juvenile court, 20 of them by 2010. In 2011, the need for guidance in development of JCST legislation prompted the publication of a guide for lawmakers. Between 2010 and 2015, eleven more states passed specialized JCST statutes, bringing the current total to 31 states with juvenile-specific statutes that guide JCST. The remaining 19 states and the District of Columbia recognize CST in juvenile court, and it is likely that many of them will develop legislation to codify its application before long. Once juvenile-specific statutes are passed and enacted, the job is far from done. States must then tackle the complex task of implementation - that is, putting the new laws into practice. How will the new laws be applied? How will the legal and mental health systems manage the new demands for obtaining JCST evaluations? This Guide, then, aims to assist states in one part of this implementation phase assuring that courts and attorneys can obtain reliable forensic evaluations to assist the juvenile court in reaching decisions about CST in juvenile cases. JCST evaluations require a specialized process that is similar to such evaluations in criminal court in some ways yet dissimilar in others. On average, children and adolescents do not have adult capacities. The complex contours of child development, developmental psychopathology and the juvenile court system call for different rules, examiners with different skills, and different considerations in JCST cases than in adult CST cases. Those differences were outlined in an earlier clinical guide devoted to conducting JCST evaluations. In addition, Kruh and Grisso offered a best-practices manual for conducting JCST evaluations that was published soon after. Those documents offer a background for the present Guide, in that they describe the task of the examiner in JCST evaluations. Details: Delmar, NY: National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, 2017. 91p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 27, 2017 at: https://www.ncmhjj.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Juvenile_Competency_to_Stand_Trial_FINAL_508.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncmhjj.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Juvenile_Competency_to_Stand_Trial_FINAL_508.pdf Shelf Number: 145825 Keywords: Competence to Stand TrialForensic EvaluationJuvenile CourtJuvenile DefendantsJuvenile OffendersMental Health |
Author: Haight, Konrad Title: An Examination of Ethnic Disparities in Arizona's Juvenile Justice System: Final Technical Report Summary: Research on disproportionate minority contact in the juvenile justice system has generally concluded that Black youth are subject to disparate treatment such that they typically are more likely than White youth to face more formal and more punitive treatment at the various decision points in the juvenile court process. Research on disparate treatment for Latino youth in the juvenile justice system has been relatively rare, and the results of those studies have provided inconsistent evidence on the nature of disparities between Latino and White youth. This study sought to address such gaps in the research with a comprehensive assessment of juvenile justice case processing for a two-year period in the state of Arizona. Using a data set particularly well-suited for this examination, we believe the results of this study contribute meaningfully to the literature on ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system. Using data from the state of Arizona that included 75,316 referrals to the juvenile justice system over the two-year period from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014, we applied five research questions to data on eight distinct decision points. We controlled for key legal factors such as the referral offense, the number of prior referrals, and whether the youth was involved in dependency court in addition to juvenile court. The level of detail in the data allowed us to investigate whether disparity varied depending on the type of referral offense and the county in which the youth was referred. Does disparity affecting Latino youth exist statewide in Arizona? If we look at rates of referral to juvenile court, we find that White youth are actually more likely to be referred to juvenile court than Latino youth. This is in contrast to the patterns of referral rates for Black and Native American youth-both groups are more likely than White youth to be referred to juvenile court, with Black youth referred more than twice as often as White youth. Once they are referred to juvenile court, however, there are a number of ways that Latino youth experience their processing in the juvenile justice system disproportionately more punitive than White youth. Latino youth are underrepresented in diversions from formal court processing, and overrepresented in direct filings to adult court, in pre-adjudicatory secure detention, in petitions filed for formal juvenile court processing, and in commitments to correctional facilities at disposition. Does observed disparity affecting Latino youth remain when we control for other factors that might impact juvenile justice decision making? Based on multivariate analyses that controlled for the influence of age, gender, number of priors, most serious current offense, and dependency status, we find that the disparities identified above remain even after taking into account these other factors. Across the state, if they were referred to juvenile court, Latino youth were less likely than White youth to receive an opportunity to avoid formal court processing and more likely to experience more punitive treatment at the various decision points. Does disparity affecting Latino youth vary by county? We did find a pattern of results that was generally consistent across the different counties. This pattern is that Latino youth are less likely than White youth to be referred to juvenile court and to be diverted from formal court processing, but more likely to be securely detained prior to adjudication, have a petition filed for formal court processing, and be committed to a correctional facility after disposition. We did find some counties where this pattern was not detected, and those were the counties in which the Latino youth were the largest racial/ethnic group in the general population. Does disparity affecting Latino youth vary based on the type of offense for which the youth was referred? By considering each decision point broken down by the type of offense, we find there are complexities to the patterns of disparities for Latino youth in juvenile courts in Arizona. For example, Latino youth are overall less likely to be referred to juvenile court than White youth, except in the case of violent felonies, status offenses, and violations, for which we find Latino youth to be more likely than White youth to be referred to court. Also, Latino youth are overrepresented in secure detention placements, except when the offense was a violation or a violent misdemeanor. In addition, the biggest disparities for Latino youth with regard to the filing of petitions for formal court processing are in the case of property misdemeanors and for drug felonies. Finally, while we find that Latino youth are more likely to be committed to correctional placements after disposition, the disparities are greatest for violent misdemeanors and felonies and for drug felonies. Does disparity affecting Latino youth differ depending on whether the county of referral is participating in JDAI? We find that at several of the decision points, the disparities between Latino and White youth in the JDAI counties are smaller than what we find in the non-JDAI counties, particularly at the decision points of direct file, diversion, petition, and probation. There are other decision points where the differences between JDAI and non-JDAI counties are rather small, namely secure detention and adjudication. Placement in correctional facilities is one decision point where Latino youth in the JDAI counties fare worse than in non-JDAI counties. Key findings from this study include: - Latino youth are not overrepresented in referrals to juvenile court, but they do experience disparate treatment once they are in the system. - Latino youth are more likely than White youth to experience the most severe and restrictive punishments that the juvenile justice system has to offer. This includes direct filings in adult court, placement in pre-adjudicatory secure detention, and placement in confinement following disposition. - When it comes to severe and restrictive punishments, Black youth experience greater levels of disparity than Latino youth. - In most cases, legal factors that we controlled for do not account for the observed disparities. - Patterns of disparity are consistent across counties for Black youth, but this is not true of Latino youth, where disparity appears to vary with the proportion of the population that are Latino. - Disparity varies depending on the type of offense and this is consistent across racial and ethnic groups. The data used for this study are particularly well-suited for examining the extent to which Latino youth experience disparate treatment in the juvenile justice system. As such, the results can help guide future research and help policy makers in their efforts to address ethnic disparities. Implications for policy and practice include: - Ongoing assessment of disparity should move beyond a statewide only approach, focusing on areas with the greatest levels of disparity to ensure more efficient use of resources while generating greater reductions in disparity. - In counties where one race/ethnicity experiences greater disparity than other, it may make sense to work with those communities to determine the root of the problem. Where disparity is experienced across race/ethnicity groups, it may make more sense to look at official policies and procedures that might contribute to disparity across the board. - Future studies should augment their focus on county-level relative rates of risk with a county-level understanding of the juvenile justice system. Policies and practices at the county level can impact disparity and are vital to not only understanding why disparity exists, but also how to address it. - Future studies should incorporate a more complete understanding of previous offense histories, risk assessment scores, and include data collected over a longer period of time. - Whenever possible, it is important to consider ways that responses to particular offenses may introduce disparities in processing of youth through the court progression. Details: Indianapolis, IN: American Institutes for Research, 2016. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 26, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250803.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250803.pdf Shelf Number: 146384 Keywords: Disproportionate Minority ContactJuvenile CourtJuvenile Justice SystemsLatino YouthMinority YouthRacial BiasRacial Disparities |
Author: National Juvenile Defender Center Title: Delaware: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings Summary: Fifty years ago, the United States Supreme Court affirmed children's constitutional right to due process and to the assistance of counsel in delinquency court. The historic decision, known as In re Gault, set forth a new status quo for the country: the pursuit of justice in juvenile court was no longer an abstract ideal but a necessary function of law requiring protections under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Threaded into the Supreme Court's opinion were simple and yet, at the time, radical notions that children who face charges in juvenile court deserve a legal advocate to safeguard their rights and interests; and that the good intentions of government, when left unchecked, cause injury to children, their families, and their future opportunities. Today, states are still working to fulfill this vision - central to which is an effective system of appointing high-quality defense counsel at all stages of a young person's case. Over the last two decades, the National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC) has evaluated juvenile defense delivery systems in 21 states; Delaware is now the 22nd. The purpose of a state assessment is to provide policymakers, legislators, and defense leadership, among other stakeholders, with a comprehensive understanding of children's access to counsel in the state, to identify structural and systemic barriers to ensuring effective representation for young people, and to offer best-practices recommendations to improve access to and quality of juvenile defense. The First State - as Delaware is proudly known - provides legal representation for youth charged in delinquency court through the Office of Defense Services (ODS). NJDC's expert investigators visited Delaware's three counties, where they conducted interviews with ODS staff and other juvenile court stakeholders, observed delinquency proceedings, and obtained information and reports from the Delaware Family Courts. Investigators also completed a statutory review of the state's court rules, laws, and proposed legislation. It was readily apparent that those responsible for dispensing justice in Delaware's juvenile court system are firmly committed to fairness and helping youth access opportunities. However, there was no shared agreement among stakeholders of what effective juvenile public defense should look like, nor a clear articulation of how strong representation for youth supports the goals of the juvenile justice system. Investigators concluded the quality of representation falls short of fulfilling the constitutional guarantees of due process for children in court. Delaware is one of a few states in the nation that imposes monetary bail on children, and one of the only states that allows for bail and detention hearings to be conducted via videoconference. And Delaware Family Courts persist in applying mandatory minimum sentences to some youth, despite research supporting developmentally informed, individualized justice for children. Serious racial inequities exist at all stages of delinquency proceedings across the state, with Black and brown children receiving harsher treatment at every decision point. Punitive practices like these make the need for zealous defenders essential. The shortcomings identified in the Assessment are not because of negligent lawyering; on the contrary, most juvenile defenders are fiercely dedicated to their clients and to ensuring the best possible case outcomes. However, the juvenile court system overall lacks an awareness of the direct and collateral harms youth experience when adjudicated delinquent - especially when children are unnecessarily processed through court as a means to access court-based interventions. Rather than serve as advocates for children's expressed interests, lawyers are encouraged to move clients quickly through adjudication with the goal of obtaining services, whether they are necessary or not. The net this perspective casts over children, and particularly children of color, results in young people being tangled deeper in court and for longer periods of time when less-restrictive alternatives are appropriate. Moreover, systemic deficiencies limit children's access to counsel and inhibit juvenile defenders' ability to advocate for dispositions that are better-suited for a child's interests and success. While there is cause for concern in Delaware's juvenile court system, the investigators also found notable strengths and promising practices that have been implemented with broad support. Building on the success of these reforms will keep the state on track to address and overcome the system's shortfalls. The Assessment's core recommendations call for collaborative action to remedy gaps in juvenile defense delivery at the state, county, and local levels. The report concludes with a set of strategies to guide stakeholders through the implementation process and at last ensure that Delaware's youth receive the constitutional protections guaranteed to them over five decades ago. Details: National Juvenile Defender Center, 2017. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 4, 2017 at: http://njdc.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Delaware-Assessment_NJDC.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://njdc.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Delaware-Assessment_NJDC.pdf Shelf Number: 146717 Keywords: Defense CounselJuvenile CourtJuvenile OffendersLegal Defense |
Author: Nochajski, Thomas H. Title: Hillside Children's Center: Livingston County Youth Court and Community Services Evaluation Summary: From 2008 to 2010, State University of New York at Buffalo, School of Social Work conducted an evaluation of the Hillside Children's Center - Community Service Livingston County Youth Court (LCYC) program. Analyses focused on the recidivism (readmission) rates of children ages 12-17 who participated in their program. A particular strength of this evaluation is the use of a mixed method design, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative data elements. Additionally, the ability to integrate research and clinical practice with client outcomes provides an added strength to this evaluation, ultimately building the knowledge base in an effort to more appropriately meet the needs of the children and adolescents that Hillside Children's Center serves. Based on the initial goals and the interest in having enough allotted time to track follow-up recidivism rates, prospective data was not collected for this evaluation. Beginning in the year 2006, participants entered the LCYC and continued receiving services until 2008. Following discharge, the year of 2009 serves as the follow-up period for this evaluation. With a vast amount of rich data, pretest information utilized for this evaluation was collected by Hillside Children's Center which included program participant information. Additionally, information was collected from Livingston County Probation (Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument [YASI] Recidivism information) and Livingston County Department of Social Services (LC-DSS) (Placement information). The qualitative data collection component of this evaluation consisted of either a face-to-face or a telephone interview, and included multiple sources: LCYC participants and their parents, LCYC volunteers and their parents, LC Probation, and Hillside Children's Center staff. Due to constraints based on the relatively low rates of recidivism and placement, the available size of the sample was quite small, which perhaps reduces the power to detect significant differences between the groups, essentially elevating the risk for Type I errors. As a result, information on marginal trends (p<.25) is also presented. Because of limited power and the increased chance of causality related to a random occurrence, evaluators considered nearly all other potential elements or variables that may help improve existing Hillside Children's Center programs, with the understanding that these factors will need to be evaluated further. This information could perhaps point to areas of future investigation, in addition to potentially saving time, effort, and monetary costs associated with future data collection. The current evaluation utilized data from 120 participants, of which 55 were LCYC participants and 65 were Community Service Only (CSO) participants. To increase the accuracy of comparisons and results, the two groups were matched on age and gender. Although evaluators were unable to locate a true control group of juvenile offenders who did not experience LCYC or community services in Livingston County, which is the reason for use of the CSO as the comparison, information was found for comparison groups from various other states that were included in an evaluation of teen courts from 2002. While not ideal, the addition of these comparison groups in this evaluation does provide some useful information concerning recidivism among youth. Lastly, evaluators also considered cost-effectiveness of the LCYC program using recidivism and placement rates as the results or outcomes of interest. For purposes of this executive summary, the Livingston County Youth Court group will be referred to as LCYC, and the Community Services Program Only group will be referred to as CSO. Details: Buffalo, NY: State University of New York at Buffalo, 2010. 69p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 4, 2017 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54231470e4b00cb5c6464dc7/t/547d4e82e4b0756a4a5d2c35/1417498242299/Youth+court+evaluation+_1110.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54231470e4b00cb5c6464dc7/t/547d4e82e4b0756a4a5d2c35/1417498242299/Youth+court+evaluation+_1110.pdf Shelf Number: 147547 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity ServicesJuvenile CourtJuvenile DiversionJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationRecidivismYouth Court |
Author: National Juvenile Defender Center Title: Access Denied: A National Snapshot of States' Failure to Protect Children's Right to Counsel Summary: Based on statutory analysis and interviews with juvenile defenders in every state , the Snapshot exposes gaps in procedural protections for children - gaps that perpetuate the over-criminalization of youth, racial and economic disparities, and the fracturing of families and communities. The Snapshot explores five fundamental barriers to access to counsel for children: Eligibility procedures that prevent appointment of a publicly funded attorney; fees charged to children for what should be a free public defender; appointment that happens too late in the process for children to receive strong representation; permissive waiver of counsel; and the stripping of young people's right to an attorney after sentencing. Released on the 50th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision In re Gault, the Snapshot proposes achievable solutions to ensure access to justice for young people. Access Denied Key Findings: Children in the United States Are Not Guaranteed Lawyers: Only 11 states provide every child accused of an offense with a lawyer, regardless of financial status. Children Do Not Get Attorneys Until It Is Too Late: No state guarantees lawyers for every child during interrogation, and only one state requires it under limited circumstances. Children Must Pay for Their Constitutional Right to Counsel: Thirty-six states allow children to be charged fees for a "free" lawyer. Children's Rights Are Not Safeguarded by the States: Forty-three states allow children to waive their right to a lawyer without first consulting with a lawyer. Children's Access to Counsel Ends Too Early: Only 11 states provide for meaningful access to a lawyer after sentencing, while every state keeps children under its authority during this time. Details: Washington, DC: NJDC, 2017. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 30, 2018 at: http://njdc.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Snapshot-Final_single-4.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://njdc.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Snapshot-Final_single-4.pdf Shelf Number: 151306 Keywords: Juvenile CourtJuvenile DefenseJuvenile OffendersRight to Counsel |
Author: Powell, Amanda Title: Bringing Gault Home: An Assessment of Access to and Quality of Juvenile Defense Council Summary: The Court outlined the vital role of counsel for children: "to cope with problems of law, to make skilled inquiry into the facts, to insist upon regularity of the proceedings, and to ascertain whether (the child) has a defense and to prepare and submit it.:" In short, the Court found that children need "the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against (them). But, to this day, "though every state has a basic structure to provide attorneys for children, few states or territories adequately satisfy access to counsel for young people." This Assessment of access to counsel and quality of representation for Arizona's youth is part of a nationwide effort to provide comprehensive information about defense counsel in delinquency proceedings. Over the last two decades, the National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC) has evaluated juvenile defense delivery systems in 24 states. The purpose of a state assessment is to provide policymakers, legislators, defense leadership, and other stakeholders with a comprehensive understanding of children's access to counsel in the state; to identify structural and systemic barriers that impede effective representation of children; to highlight best practices where found; and to make recommendations that will serve as a guide for improving juvenile defender services for children in the state. Among the most pressing needs relayed to assessment investigators in Arizona was the need for specialized representation for children. In response to investigators' questions about what could improve juvenile defense, one juvenile defender responded: "What I would like to see, what we don't have, is a specialization. While other states have juvenile specialization, Arizona does not. Arizona has specialization for family law, bankruptcy, and other obscure areas of the law, but not juvenile delinquency. I would like to pursue that if it ever came about." Just as courts have long recognized that children are different from adults and deserve special protections when facing the prospect of prosecution, the legal profession has come to recognize that juvenile defense is a highly specialized area of practice. In many places across the country, "juvenile defense specialization" means there are systems in place to encourage and support attorneys to devote their practice exclusively to the representation of children facing delinquency or criminal prosecution. Where practicable, this is the gold standard. But, even where exclusive practice is not possible, juvenile defense should be recognized as an area of legal practice requiring expertise. As in the defense of an adult, a juvenile defender is charged with presenting the voice of the client and representing their stated interests throughout the case. In order to fulfill this role, a juvenile defender must understand child and adolescent development, be able to evaluate a client's maturity and competency, and be able to communicate effectively not only with young clients, but also with parents and guardians without compromising their ethical duties to the child. Juvenile defenders must become versed in the specialized arguments critical to effective representation in the unique stages of juvenile court, and be informed as to the complexities that arise in mental health and special education settings and how they might impact the course of a delinquency case. Juvenile defenders must also inform the client of all collateral consequences of a delinquency adjudication, and be knowledgeable of community based programs for young people. Although some defenders in Arizona have been able to exclusively practice in juvenile delinquency court, many divide their time between juvenile and adult criminal dockets, or between juvenile delinquency and dependency dockets. Another area of concern is the need for statewide standards of representation of children facing delinquency prosecution. Juvenile defenders in a few jurisdictions reported that they or their offices informally or formally aspire to adhere to the National Juvenile Defense Standards or American Bar Association (ABA) Standards of representing youth in delinquency proceedings, but that there are no statewide standards in place. Many stakeholders - including defenders and judges -mentioned to investigators that Arizona Juvenile Court Rule 40.1 ("Duties and Responsibilities of Appointed Counsel and Guardians Ad Litem") sets forth the ethical and practical duties, as well as minimum training requirements, for attorneys and guardians ad litem who are appointed to represent children in dependency cases. Some suggested the rule should be expanded to include delinquency representation; others explained to investigators the need for a separate, similar rule to codify and clarify the unique role of the juvenile delinquency defender. This Assessment revealed that Arizona has no statutorily required or recommended training guidelines or standards for attorneys representing youth in delinquency proceedings. While investigators found that funds exist for juvenile defender training in some areas of the state, most stakeholders and defenders relayed that more specialized training is needed so that juvenile defenders can better advocate for their clients. In addition to juvenile defenders, many county attorneys and jurists admitted to being "self-taught" in the intricacies of juvenile court, and most believed that juvenile-specific training for all stakeholders would improve the system dramatically. Arizona is a large state geographically, but with only 15 counties, a transformation of the defense system for children is well within reach. With a renewed commitment to implementing the full panoply of rights established by Gault, including the right to the ardent representation by counsel for children, Arizona can realize the guarantees of justice and fairness for its youth. In the state that incubated the Supreme Court's declaration of youth rights in Gault, every young person facing the legal system should be defended by an attorney who thoroughly prepares their defense, aggressively investigates their case, and advocates for their expressed interests through regular motions practice and use of experts. Arizona youth should experience the full protections of due process any time they touch the legal system. The legacy of Gault demands it. Details: Washington, DC: National Juvenile Defender Center, 2018. 99p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 25, 2018 at: http://njdc.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Arizona-Assessment-NJDC.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://njdc.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Arizona-Assessment-NJDC.pdf Shelf Number: 153533 Keywords: Arizona Juvenile CourtDefense CouncilGaultJuvenile CourtJuvenile DefenseJuvenile JusticeNational Juvenile Defense StandardsPublic DefenderYouth Court |
Author: National Juvenile Defender Center Title: Juvenile Defense Policy and Practice Career Resource Guide Summary: NDJC has created this electronic guide to raise the profile of juvenile-specific defense as a career. It is intended for law students interested in pursuing juvenile defense as a career and includes information for on coursework and externships that will help strengthen a candidate's application in the juvenile defense field; resources to guide in the search for juvenile defense jobs, fellowships, and funding opportunities; and a list of offices around the country that provide employment and internship opportunities specific to juvenile defense. Details: Washington, DC: The Author, 2019. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 28, 2019 at: https://njdc.info/juvenile-defense-policy-and-practice-resource-guide-2018-2019-2/ Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://njdc.info/juvenile-defense-policy-and-practice-resource-guide-2018-2019-2/ Shelf Number: 154407 Keywords: Juvenile CourtJuvenile Defense Juvenile Offenders |