The juvenile court: Analysis and recommendations

Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 4-28

  Stevenson, Carol S ^a   Larson, Carol S ^a   Carter, Lucy S ^a   Gomby, Deanna S ^a   Terman, Donna L ^a   Behrman, Richard E ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; CHILD WELFARE; CRIMINAL LAW; HUMAN; JUVENILE DELINQUENCY; LEGAL ASPECT; REVIEW; SOCIAL JUSTICE; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; CHILD WELFARE; CRIMINAL LAW; HUMANS; JUVENILE DELINQUENCY; SOCIAL JUSTICE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0030340004     PISSN: 10492089     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (117)

1. Section 3 of the Act to Regulate the Treatment and Control of Dependent, Neglected and Delinquent Children. Reprinted in Hurley, T. Origin of the Illinois Juvenile Court Law. 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: Visitation and Aid Society, 1907, p. 28.
2. Section 22 of the act. See note no. 1, Hurley, p. 39.
3. See note no. 1, Hurley, p. 143.
4. "Prior to the 1899 statute, the law viewed mankind, its varied distinctions as to sex, age, environment and mental equipment notwithstanding, as a single class. Before the bar of a criminal court there was no difference from the viewpoint of the law between the adult and the family." See note no. 1, Hurley, pp. 9-10.
5. See note no. 1, Hurley, p. 56.
6. See note no. 1, Hurley, p. 24.
7. See note no. 1, Hurley, pp. 10-11.
8. Sections 14 and 15 of the act. See note no. 1, Hurley, pp. 35-36.
9. Ostrom, B.J., and Kauder, N.B. Examining the work of state courts. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1996, p. 46.
10. Empsey, L.T., and Stafford, M.C. American delinquency: Its meaning and construction. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1991;
11. Regnery, A.S. Getting away with murder: Why the juvenile justice system needs an overhaul. Policy Review (1985) 34:65-68.
12. Jones, M.A., and Krisberg, B. Images and reality: Juvenile crime, youth violence and public policy. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1994.
13. Szymanski, L. Juvenile code purpose clauses 1991. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice, 1991. Updated August 30, 1996, through personal correspondence with L. Szymanski.
14. Torbet, P., Gable, R., Hurst IV, H., et al. State responses to serious and violent juvenile crime. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1996.
15. Butts, J.A., Snyder, H., Finnegan, T., et al. Juvenile court statistics 1992: Statistics report. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice, 1995, p. 5.
16. See note no. 11, Jones and Krisberg, p. 14; Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. Juvenile offenders and victims: A national report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1995, p. 101.
17. A crime is considered cleared once someone is charged with that crime. Clearance and arrest statistics answer different questions and give very different pictures of the juvenile contribution to crime. Arrest statistics show the number of individual arrests that were made. Because juveniles, more than adults, tend to commit crimes in groups, arrest statistics tend to attribute a greater percentage of crime to juveniles. Clearance data give a better indication of how much crime was committed by juveniles because they count crimes, not arrestees. See note no. 15, Snyder and Sickmund, pp. 48, 99, 101.
18. See note no. 14, Butts, Snyder, Finnegan, et al., p. 20, Table 30.
19. See note no. 15, Snyder and Sickmund, pp. 166-67.
20. See 42 U.S.C. § 5633(a) (23).
21. Howell, J.C., Krisberg, B., Hawkins, J.D., and Wilson, J.J. Sourcebook on serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995, p. 12.
22. See note no. 15, Snyder and Sickmund, p. 125.
23. As a result, some juvenile justice systems have adopted more formal procedures for decision making, including sentencing guidelines, standardized risk and needs assessment instruments, and classification systems which identify the needed level of supervision and help determine appropriate placement. When properly implemented, such procedures can provide greater structure and consistency to the juvenile justice system's decision-making process and can be used to allocate limited resources more efficiently by directing the most intensive interventions to the most serious offenders. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Guide for implementing the comprehensive strategy for serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1995, pp. 189-230.
24. The questions related to changes in juvenile confidentiality laws are not discussed in this issue or the analysis. This important trend is complex. It calls into question traditional notions of protecting juvenile delinquents in hopes of reducing the stigmatizing effects of publicity and also raises important questions about the use of juvenile records for treatment-related purposes and in criminal court proceedings. For discussion, see Martin, G.A. Open the doors: A judicial call to end confidentiality in delinquency proceedings. New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement (1995) 21,2:393-410.
25. California Welfare and Institutions Code § 707 (b) and (c).
26. Bishop, D.M., Frazier, C.E., Lanza-Kaduce, L., et al. The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: Does it make a difference? Crime & Delinquency (April 1996) 42, 2:17-91.
27. Feld, B.C. The transformation of the juvenile court. Minnesota Law Review (1991) 75:691-725.
28. U.S. General Accounting Office. Juvenile justice: Juveniles processed, criminal court and case dispositions. Report to congressional requesters. GAO/GAD-95-170. Washington, DC: GAO, August 1995, p. 10.
29. See note no. 27, U.S. General Accounting Office, p. 15.
30. See note no. 27, U.S. General Accounting Office, p. 11.
31. Two studies, one in Florida using data from 1985-1988 and one comparing cases from New York (which requires all cases involving 16-year-olds to be filed in adult criminal court) with cases from neighboring counties in New Jersey, found that transferring large numbers of juveniles to adult courts did not result in reduced recidivism rates for this population of offenders. The New York and New Jersey study found that, while the likelihood of a severe sanction was higher in criminal court, for those actually sentenced to incarceration, the length of sentences was nearly identical. Criminal cases took months longer to resolve than juvenile court cases, often leaving the accused free on bail pending the trial. What is more important, recidivism rates were higher for criminal court cases. The researcher concluded that public safety was actually compromised by adjudication in criminal court. Similarly, in the Florida study of 2,738 matched pairs of transferred and nontransferred youths, the transfer group had a higher recidivism rate than nontransfers. See Fagan, J. The comparative advantage of juvenile versus criminal court sanctions on recidivism among adolescent felony offenders. In Sourcebook on senior, violent and chronic juvenile offenders. Howell, J.C., Krisberg, B., Hawkins, J.D., and Wilson, J.J. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995;
32. Bishop, D.M., Frazier, C.E., Lanza-Kaduce, L., and Winner, L. The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: Does it make a difference? Crime & Delinquency (April 1996) 42,2:171-91.
33. See note no. 27, U.S. General Accounting Office, p. 8.
34. These factors typically include the seriousness of the offense; whether the offense was willful, violent, or premeditated; the danger of the individual offender to the community; whether the offense was against a person or property; the maturity of the juvenile and his prior record; and whether the juvenile is likely to be rehabilitated utilizing the services and dispositions available to the juvenile court.
35. Rendleman, D.R. Parens patriae: From chancery to juvenile court. South Carolina Law Review (1971) 23:205-59.
36. Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045 (1966).
37. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1425 (1967).
38. Springer, C. Rehabilitating the juvenile court. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy (1991) 5:404-05.
39. Puritz, P., Burrell, S., Schwartz, R., et al. A call for justice: An assessment of access to counsel and quality of representation in delinquency proceedings. Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 1995, p. 25.
40. U.S. General Accounting Office. Juvenile justice: Representation rates varied as did counsel's impact on court outcomes. GAO/GCD-95-139. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, June 1995, p. 12.
41. See note no. 37, Puritz, Burrell, Schwartz, et al., p. 44; and Feld, B.C. The right to counsel in juvenile court: An empirical study of when lawyers appear and the difference they make. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1989) 79,4:1185-1347.
42. See note no. 37, Puritz, Burrell, Schwartz, et al., p. 44.
43. Lipsey, M.W. Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In Meta-Analysis for Explanation. T Cook, H. Cooper, D.S. Cordray, et al., eds. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1992.
44. MacKenzie, D.L., Brame, R., McDowall, D., and Siouryal, C. Boot camp prisons and recidivism in eight states. Criminology (1995) 33,2:327-57.
45. See note no. 13. Torbet, Gable, Hurst, et al., pp. 19-23 and Figure 6.
46. Minn. Stat. § 260.126(1) (1994).
47. Feld, B. Violent youth and public policy: A case study of juvenile justice law reform. Minnesota Law Review (1995) 79:965-1128.
48. Bazemore, G. On mission statements and reform in juvenile justice: The case of the "balanced approach." Federal Probation (September 1992) 56,3:64-70.
49. Rubin, H.T Fulfilling juvenile restitution requirements in community correctional programs. Federal Probation (September 1988) 52,3:32-42.
50. See, for example, Pickett, R. House of Refuge: Origins of juvenile reform in New York State 1815-1857. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1969, p. 191.
51. See Edwards, L. The juvenile court and the role of the juvenile court judge. Juvenile and Family Court Journal (1992) 43,2:1-45.
52. Estimates of numbers of runaways each year vary from half a million to more than two million. See Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., and Sedlak, A. Missing, abducted, runaway and throwaway children in America. First report: Numbers and characteristics, national incidence studies (NIS-MART). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, May 1990;
53. and National Network, 1985, as quoted in Paradise, E. and Horowitz, R. Runaway and homeless youth: A survey of state law. Washington, DC: ABA Center on Children and the Law, 1994, p. 2.
54. See note no. 15, Snyder and Sickmund, p. 138.
55. See note no. 15, Snyder and Sickmund, p. 139.
56. See note no. 49, Edwards, pp. 11-12.
57. See note no. 15, Snyder and Sickmund, p. 147.
58. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Deinstitutionalizing status offenders: A record of progress. Juvenile Justice (Fall/Winter 1995) 2,2:5.
59. Dodge, L. Noncriminal juveniles: Detentions have been reduced but better monitoring is needed. GAO/T-GGD-91-30. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1991. The compliance start dates varied from state to state; therefore, there was no uniform start date for measuring the state-by-state reductions.
60. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, 1980 amendments, Public Law 96-509, § 11 (a) (13). The JJDPA was amended again in 1984 to define a valid court order (Public Law 98-473 § 613 [b]).
61. Revised Code of Washington 13.32 A. 060 (1996).
62. These cover a wide range of cities including Biloxi, Mississippi; Carson City, Nevada; Hampton, Virginia; Flint, Michigan; Wailuku, Maui, Hawaii; and Hutchinson, Iowa; Pionke, J. Mayors moving toward implementation of daytime curfews. U.S. Mayor (May 28, 1996), p. 15.
63. Ruefle, W., and Reynolds, K. Curfews and delinquency in major American cities. Crime & Delinquency (July 1995) 41,3:347-63.
64. See note no. 60, Ruefle and Reynolds, p. 349.
65. See note no. 60, Ruefle and Reynolds, p. 357.
66. See, for example, Johnson v. Opelousas, LA. 658 F.2d 1065 (1981). Most curfew ordinances have been held to be constitutional, however. For a more complete discussion of the constitutional issues regarding curfew, see Federle, K. Children, curfews, and the Constitution. Washington University Law Quarterly (Fall 1995) 73,3:1315-68.
67. Gaura, M.A. San Jose report says crime less since curfew. San Francisco Chronicle. November 22, 1995, at A23.
68. See note no. 60, Ruefle and Reynolds, p. 361.
69. See, for example, Metropolitan Court Judges Committee. A new approach to runaway, truant, substance abusing and beyond control children. Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Metropolitan Court Judges Committee, 1990, pp. 7, 13.
70. See note no. 66, Metropolitan Court Judges Committee, p. 5.
71. Powers, J., Eckenrode, J., and Jaklitsch, B. Maltreatment among runaway and homeless youth. Child Abuse & Neglect (1990) 14:87-98.
72. Farber, E., McCoard, D., Kinast, C., and Baum-Falkner, D. Violence in families of adolescent runaways. Child Abuse & Neglect (1984) 8:295-99.
73. See note no. 66, Metropolitan Court Judges Committee, pp. 25-26, Appendix A.
74. Schorr, L. Within our reach: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage. New York: Doubleday, 1988, as quoted in note no. 66, Metropolitan Court Judges Committee, p. 12.
75. Some juvenile courts are working with local community agencies to develop effective programs for certain groups of status offenders. Truancy programs that include truancy courts are examples of this effort. The Hamilton County (Ohio) Juvenile Court, in conjunction with the Cincinnati Public Schools, has developed a truancy program that uses community resources initially and turns to court involvement only when necessary. It includes investigations by teachers or social workers who visit the child's home and work with parents to develop plans to ensure that their children attend school. If the child continues to miss school, the juvenile court holds a truancy hearing at the school to discuss methods for encouraging the child's attendance. An evaluation of the first five years of the Hamilton County Truancy Program did not show improvements in overall attendance at the program schools. However, a survey of program participants revealed general approval of the program because it was a source of services to families for whom truancy was the sign of more serious underlying problems. See note no. 49, Edwards, p. 21; and note no. 66, Metropolitan Court Judges Committee, pp. 27-49, Appendix B; see also Yux, F. Truancy program evaluation: Comparison 1989-90 through first semester of 1994-95. Cincinnati, OH: Hamilton County Juvenile Court, 1995.
76. In the late 1970s, about 50% of all court cases resulted in removal of children from their homes. Over 500,000 children were in foster care and would remain there for three years or more, with many of them subjected to frequent changes in placement. Wald, M.S. State intervention on behalf of "neglected" children: Standards for removal of children from their homes, monitoring the status of children in foster care, and termination of parental rights. Stanford Law Review (1976) 28:623-700;
77. Horn, W. Testimony to U.S. Congress. Senate Committee on Finance. Child Welfare Programs: Hearings. 104th Cong., 1st sess., 1995, pp. 6-8.
78. Goldstein, J., Freud, A., and Solnit, A. Beyond the best interests of the child. New York: Free Press, 1973;
79. Goldstein, J., Freud, A., and Solnit, A. Before the best interests of the child. New York: Free Press, 1979.
80. Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, Public Law 96-272, 42 U.S.C. §§ 670-679 (a).
81. Edwards, L.P. Improving implementation of the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. Juvenile and Family Court Journal (1994) 45,3:3-28.
82. See Figure 1 in the article by Hardin in this journal issue.
83. For a good discussion of the major national data sources and the difficulties in collecting child abuse data, see Lewit, E.M. Child indicators: Reported child abuse and neglect. The Future of Children (1994) 4,2:233-42. The most promising advance in the development of child welfare data is that data can now be analyzed on the individual level in at least five large states (California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Texas) as part of the multistate data archive effort led by the Chapin Hall Center for Children in Chicago, Illinois. In the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-66), Congress appropriated funding to assist states in implementing statewide automated child welfare information systems. With this incentive, most states are building systems to provide comprehensive automated data about child abuse and neglect cases.
84. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. Child maltreatment 1994: Reports from the states to the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996. Because some states report more than one type of abuse per victim, the total does not equal 100%.
85. The Administrative Practices Improvement Project in Santa Clara County, California, found that, in 1993, of 24,454 reports received, 22,437 (91.8%) were closed at intake, 1,142 (4.7%) resulted in voluntary services to the families, and 875 (3.6%) resulted in a petition to the juvenile court to take jurisdiction. For further information about this project, call John Oppenheim, chief deputy director, Social Services Administration, Santa Clara County, at (408) 441-5666.
86. Tjaden, P.G., and Thoennes, N. Predictors of legal intervention in child maltreatment cases. Child Abuse & Neglect (1992) 16:807-21.
87. See Figure 2 in the article by Barth in this journal issue; see also note no. 79, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect; and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995.
88. Goerge, R.M., Wulczyn, F.H., and Harden, A.W. Foster care dynamics (1983-1993): An update from the multistate foster care data archive. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago, 1995.
89. Berrick, J.D., Needell, B., Barth, R.P., and Johnson-Reid, M. The tender years: Toward developmentally sensitive child welfare services for very young children. New York: Oxford University Press, in press, 1996.
90. Pear, R. Many states fail to meet mandates on child welfare. New York Times. March 17, 1996, at A1.
91. In 1993, Congress passed the Family Preservation and Family Support Act as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-66). A description of this act and its provisions can be found in Yoshikawa, H. Long-term effects of early childhood programs on social outcomes and delinquency. The Future of Children (Winter 1995) 5,3:51-75.
92. For example, the Healthy Start Program in Hawaii seeks to identify those children who are at most risk for abuse and neglect and provide home visiting and other services to them. This program is being replicated and evaluated at many sites throughout the country. Gomby, D.S., and Larson, C.S., eds. Appendix: Brief descriptions of selected home visiting programs. The Future of Children (1993) 3,3:206-14;
93. Minow, M. Revisiting the issues: Home visiting. The Future of Children (1994) 4,2:243-46.
94. A number of private foundations, including Annie E. Casey in Baltimore, Maryland, and Edna McConnell Clark in New York, have initiatives focusing on communitywide mobilization to prevent child abuse and neglect.
95. Gable, RJ. Court improvement program: Report to the nations survey. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice, August 1996. For more information on various state court improvement programs, contact Lou Ethel Smith at the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (202) 401-9215.
96. See note no. 78, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (Public Law 103-66).
97. Fora comprehensive discussion of the attachment and psychological parent theories underlying this belief that children need safe, stable, and permanent placements, see note no. 84, Berrick, Needell, Barth, and Johnson-Reid, Chapter 1.
98. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Resource guidelines: Improving court practice in child abuse and neglect cases. Reno, NV: NCJFCJ, 1995, pp. 10-14.
99. Hardin, M. Judicial implementation of permanency planning reforms: One court that works. Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 1992.
100. See the article by Hardin in this journal issue. See also Boyer, B. Jurisdictional conflicts between juvenile courts and child welfare agencies: The uneasy relationship between institutional co-parents. Maryland Law Review (1995) 54,2:377-431.
101. See, for example, Colorado Rev. Stat. §§ 19-1-102 to 19-3-100.5; 19-3-505; 19-3-604; and 19-3-703 and 19-3-704 (1995). See also note no. 84, Berrick, Needell, Barth, and Johnson-Reid, Chapter 9.
102. For example, the death of Eliza Izquierdo in New York City was the catalyst for numerous actions to understand child abuse and improve the city's response to it. See Firestone, D. Giuliani seeks tough laws to help abused children. New York Times. February 2, 1996, at B6.
103. Sanborn, J. The juvenile, the court, or the community: Whose best interests are currently being promoted in juvenile court? The Justice System Journal (1994) 17,2:249-63.
104. Riley, M. Corridors of agony. Time (January 27, 1992) 139,4:48.
105. Humes, E. No matter how loud shout: A year in the life of juvenile court. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.
106. Juvenile Court Matters, Appendix to California Rules of Court, Standards of Judicial Administration. St. Paul, MN: West, 1989, Section 24.
107. There are problems with this model. Courts hold power over parents in dependency cases because they can terminate parental rights if efforts at providing family reunification services are unsuccessful. Parents of delinquents or status offenders stand in a different relationship to the court. They may be seeking the help of the court because they have lost control over their child; conversely, they may be willing to walk away from their child and his or her problems without addressing their contribution to the situation. In addition, in a political arena in which the jurisdiction of the juvenile court over delinquency cases is being diminished by states' get tough on juvenile crime laws, it is unlikely that state legislatures will expand the court's powers to hold parents and agencies accountable in these cases. Furthermore, the expansion of the juvenile court's ability to evaluate agency performance does not address the limitations that decreasing financial resources put on agencies' abilities to provide adequate services.
108. Egan, T "Bad" parents get spanked by authorities: Oregon citations revolutionizing juvenile justice. San Jose Mercury News. June 2, 1995, at 25A.
109. Rubin, H.T., and Flango, V. How is court coordination of family cases working? The Judges' Journal (Fall 1994) 33:11-12.
110. Rubin, H.T., and Flango, V. Court coordination of family cases. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1992, p. 28.
111. See note no. 15, Snyder and Sickmund, p. 111.
112. Edwards, L., and Baron, S. Alternatives to contested litigation in child abuse and neglect cases. In Resource guidelines: Improving court practice m child abuse and neglect cases. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Reno, NV: NCJFCJ, Spring 1995, Appendix B, pp. 132-35.
113. D'Amico, S. The development and evaluation of a court-connected juvenile mediation program. Juvenile and Family Court Journal (1986) 37,5:7-13.
114. Hardin, M., with Cole, E., Mickens, J., and Loncour, R. Family group conference in child abuse and neglect cases: Learning from the experience of New Zealand. Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 1996.
115. Carey, B. Oregon's Family Unity attracting attention. News Guard. Lincoln City, Oregon. February 23, 1994, at A4;
116. Carey, B. Strength in family can ease disputes. The Oregonian. January 12, 1994, at B9.
117. Twain, D., and Maiello, L. Juvenile conference committees: An evaluation of the administration of justice at the neighborhood level. Journal of Criminal Justice (November 1988) 16,6:451-61.