The Juvenile Court at 100 Years ◆ Putting Research to Work for Prevention from the Administrator

T O EN F J TM U R ST U.S. Department of Justice A I P C E E D

B O J C S F A V Office of Justice Programs F M O I N A C I R E J S BJ G O OJJ DP O F PR Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention JUSTICE

Volume VI • Number 2 100th Anniversary of the Juvenile Court 1899–1999

An Evolving Juvenile Court: On the Front Lines With Judge J. Dean Lewis Also ◆ The Juvenile Court at 100 Years ◆ Putting Research To Work for Prevention From the Administrator

On the centennial anniversary of the creation of the juvenile court, it is fitting to commemorate its diverse and distinguished accomplishments. In earlier centuries, youth were tried in the same courts, sentenced to the same prisons, and, on occasion, condemned to the same gallows as adults. The juvenile court’s recognition that the developmental differences between children and adults require distinctions in the way they are treated by the judicial system is worth honoring, as Judge J. Dean Lewis reminds us. The immediate past president of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Judge Lewis speaks with authority about the many reasons to celebrate the centennial of “An Evolving Juvenile Court.” Although the juvenile court’s fundamental focus remains on the individual youth who stands before it, we have come a long way since the Illinois legislature established the first children’s court in Chicago in 1899 with jurisdiction over dependent, neglected, and delinquent youth. Prof. Robert Shepherd summarizes and comments on that progress in “A Look Back” at the juvenile court’s impressive history. That history, however, should serve as a prologue. As Judge Cindy Lederman per- ceptively observes, the juvenile court’s 100th anniversary affords us an excellent opportunity not only to reflect on its historic accomplishments but to discuss how we can go about “Putting Research To Work for Prevention” and collaborate across disciplines to determine empirically “what works.” We have come a long way, but we still have a way to go. We must not retreat from the path of progress charted by those reform-minded pioneers 100 years ago. We will not abandon the individualized justice that lies at the heart of their legacy—or the youth whose future depends in large part on the wisdom and perspective of the juvenile court. To help inaugurate the court’s second century, OJJDP has launched its Juvenile Court Centennial Education Initiative, whose theme is “Delivering on the Promise of the Juvenile Court.” By highlighting new insights and advances, the initiative will help to revitalize the court and restore public confidence in the work of the juvenile justice system.

Shay Bilchik Administrator Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 810 Seventh Street NW. Washington, DC 20531 (202) 307–5911

Shay Bilchik, Administrator Volume VI • Number 2 December 1999 Editorial Advisory Board

FEATURES Shay Bilchik, Chair An Evolving Juvenile Court: On the Front Lines John J. Wilson, Deputy Administrator With Judge J. Dean Lewis ...... 3 State and Local Programs “The first juvenile court was established with the belief that youth are everyone’s Betty Chemers, Director responsibility. Courts and communities need to become partners to ensure that the Research and Program court has the resources necessary to deal effectively with the problems of youth and Development Division their families.” Donn Davis, Acting Director Special Emphasis Division The Juvenile Court at 100 Years: A Look Back Roberta Dorn, Director by Robert E. Shepherd, Jr...... 13 State Relations and Assistance Division Prior to 1900, at least 10 children were executed in the United States for crimes com- Eileen M. Garry, Director mitted before their 14th birthdays. Other children died in adult prisons. These deaths Information Dissemination Unit shocked the public conscience, and Americans began to seek pervasive reform. Ronald Laney, Director Missing and Exploited The Juvenile Court: Putting Research To Work for Prevention Children’s Program by Cindy S. Lederman ...... 22 Emily Martin, Director The juvenile court has the potential to be the most effective prevention tool in the Training and Technical juvenile justice system. However, this cannot occur unless judges take the lead in Assistance Division revitalizing and professionalizing America’s juvenile courts. Executive Editor Eileen M. Garry IN BRIEF Managing Editor Catherine Doyle Justice Matters Senior Editor Delivering on the Promise of the Juvenile Court ...... 32 Earl E. Appleby, Jr. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report ...... 32 Production Editor OJJDP Online Ellen Grogan Court-Focused URL’s...... 34 Juvenile Justice (ISSN 1524–6647) is published by the Office of Juve- ORDER FORM ...... 35 nile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to advance its mandate to disseminate information regarding juvenile delinquency and prevention programs (42 U.S.C. 5652). Points of view or opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime. An Evolving Juvenile Court: On the Front Lines With Judge J. Dean Lewis

An Evolving Juvenile Court: On the Front Lines With Judge J. Dean Lewis

The journal’s On the Front Lines series features interviews with leading authorities on juvenile justice and related youth issues. These experts have earned their credentials on the front lines in the struggle for a better tomorrow for today’s youth and their families.

JUVENILE JUSTICE: Judge Lewis, as we ◆ Establishment of paternity. mark the 100th anniversary of the estab- ◆ Divorce. lishment of the juvenile court, what do you believe are its lasting achievements? ◆ Child abuse and neglect—both civil and criminal cases. HON. J. DEAN LEWIS: When people mention the juvenile court, they often ◆ Foster care, termination of parental refer only to the court’s jurisdiction over rights, and adoption. delinquency cases. It is important to un- ◆ Truancy. The Honorable J. Dean Lewis derstand that our jurisdiction has ex- serves as judge of the Juvenile and ◆ Runaway youth. Domestic Relations Court for the panded considerably since the creation of 15th Judicial District of the State the first juvenile court in Chicago 100 ◆ Children in need of services. of Virginia and is immediate past years ago. president of the National Council ◆ Youth with mental illness and other of Juvenile and Family Court The Illinois statute created a court, disabilities. Judges (National Council). In known as the children’s court, with juris- 1997, Judge Lewis received the ◆ Crimes committed by family members National CASA Judge of the Year diction over dependent, neglected, and award. She has been invited by delinquent youth. Although jurisdiction and partners against one another. President Clinton to participate in varies from State to State, judges are gen- ◆ The White House Leadership Con- Civil orders of protection for family ference on Youth, Drug Use, and erally vested with broad jurisdiction over members and youth. Violence and in Safe From the problems involving children and their Start: The National Summit on ◆ families. These problems include: Crimes committed by and against youth. Children Exposed to Violence. This interview was conducted for ◆ Child custody and visitation. The continuing expansion of the jurisdic- Juvenile Justice by Earl E. tion of juvenile courts has led legislatures Appleby, Jr., Senior Editor. ◆ Child and spousal support. Volume VI • Number 2 3 Juvenile Justice

to rename these courts “juvenile and do- and provide “friendly supervision” of mestic relations courts,” “family courts,” or the youth before the court. “juvenile and family courts,” titles that The Act prescribed no particular formal describe their evolving function and phi- procedures but gave the court broad pow- losophy more accurately than “children’s ers to order commitments, rearrange court.” families, and compel adult cooperation Youth are developmentally different from on pain of contempt. adults, and these differences make them The institution caught on quickly. more amenable to intervention and treat- Within a generation, similar courts had ment. Few youth are beyond reform. From been set up in nearly every State in the its inception, the juvenile court has fo- Union. cused on rehabilitating youth rather than punishing them. The first juvenile court JUVENILE JUSTICE: How do you account was established with the belief that youth for the swift acceptance of the juvenile are everyone’s responsibility. Courts and court? What do we celebrate in its communities need to become partners to centennial? ensure that the court has the resources HON. J. DEAN LEWIS: The reason is necessary to deal effectively with the linked to what I regard as the first and problems of youth and their families. most fundamental triumph of the juvenile If we, as juvenile and family court judges, court: its recognition of the separate sta- do not intervene early and effectively, tus of youth. The rapid acceptance of the the child who first comes before the juvenile court was in effect a popular re- court as a victim has a great likelihood of pudiation of the legal treatment of youth returning as an offender. To help youth, that had preceded it. For centuries, com- we must intervene effectively with the mon law held youth and adults to the entire family. same legal standards, subjected them to the same procedures in the same court- Technically, we are commemorating the rooms, sentenced them to the same passage of a piece of Illinois legislation en- institutions—even, on occasion, to the titled “An act to regulate the treatment and control of dependent, neglected and delinquent children.” The work of turn- of-the-century progressives, it bears their brisk, businesslike, confident, and humane stamp. The Act provided for the designation of a Cook County Circuit Court judge to hear petitions asserting that a child was destitute, homeless, abandoned, un- cared for, begging in the streets, being mistreated, or breaking the law. It au- thorized the court to enlist probation officers, “discreet persons of good char- acter,” who served without compen- sation, to investigate the basis for Judge Lewis addresses an OJJDP National petitions filed in the juvenile court Conference on court issues.

4 An Evolving Juvenile Court: On the Front Lines With Judge J. Dean Lewis

same gallows—as if there were no differ- previously provided. Court officials began ences between them. Thus, we must first to approach troubled youth in a spirit of celebrate the establishment of a separate humane empiricism—common in medi- court for children that recognizes their cine but new to law. Not only were their developmental distinctions from adults. aims therapeutic, their means and outlook were essentially scientific. They attempted Second, we celebrate the evolution of to bring to bear on their cases the insights the children’s court to the family court. of medical, social, and behavioral sciences The Chicago statute of 1899 gave the and made a place in their courtrooms for court jurisdiction over “dependent, ne- the data and findings of research and ex- glected, and delinquent children.” This perimentation. Thus, we celebrate the recognition of the link between child fourth great achievement of the juvenile victimization, family disorder, and the courts: the introduction of the “medical potential for child victims to become of- model,” which focuses on the need for fenders unless early and effective inter- diagnosis and treatment in dealing with vention is provided was the beginning the disposition of a court case. The colla- of the vision that became the modern boration of juvenile courts with mental family court—a single court responsible health and substance abuse workers, social for both delinquency and child abuse and workers, health officials, school officials, neglect, for children in need of supervi- and other professionals who deal with diag- sion and those in need of correction, and nosis and treatment has been integral to for family dissolution and other matters their success. With the development of affecting the welfare of children. specialized courts such as drug courts and Over the past 100 years, legislatures have the use of evolving rehabilitative ap- seen that children are best served when proaches to sentencing, the criminal court the court dealing with their situation has is now incorporating the medical model jurisdiction over all legal issues involving into its system. that child’s family. In 1914, the first full- fledged family court was established in Cincinnati, OH. Family courts are now Court officials began to approach troubled operating or are being developed in 20 States, and other States are considering youth in a spirit of humane empiricism— the idea and are likely to follow suit. The common in medicine but new to law. creation of a single forum within which all matters relating to children can be resolved, regardless of the legal or equi- Fifth, we celebrate the development in table categories in which they fall, seems the juvenile and family courts of alterna- like a simple and inevitable step. In fact, tive methods for resolving legal proceed- it was neither. It was a breakthrough and ings. The early juvenile court judges did is an ongoing historic achievement. not act like other judges, and their courts Third, we celebrate the juvenile court’s did not operate like other courts. In time, treatment of each youth as a unique human these discrepancies came to be regarded being. The purpose of this process of indi- as detrimental. The story of how judges vidualized justice was not to determine the came to be restrained and their courts’ appropriate degree of punishment, but to procedures formalized as a result of U.S. determine how to help. The newly created Supreme Court decisions is a familiar juvenile courts introduced a more flexible one. The juvenile courts adapted them- and constructive judicial approach to the selves to the due process requirements problems of children than the law had of Kent v. United States [383 U.S. 541 Volume VI • Number 2 5 Juvenile Justice

(1966)], In re Gault [387 U.S. 1 (1967)], a youth, whether a victim or an offender, and In re Winship [397 U.S. 358 (1970)] to remain in the community rather than more easily than most critics—and most be sent to an orphanage or correctional supporters, for that matter—thought pos- facility. sible. However, that does not mean that Seventh, we celebrate the leadership of these courts have become just like their the first judges who served in these courts, adult counterparts. whose vision lives on today. Much of what Nonetheless, a valuable legacy of the ju- has been achieved on behalf of youth in venile courts is the alternative they have the 20th century has been achieved as a always offered to adversarial methods of result of the influence and leadership of arriving at truth and settling disputes. juvenile and family court judges and court In a sense, the juvenile courts pioneered officials who were not only well educated what is now called alternative dispute in the law, but well versed in other matters resolution, and juvenile court profession- that affect children and families. These als are still among the most active experi- matters include child development, alcohol menters in this field. Among responsible, and substance abuse, mental health and compassionate professionals meeting in learning disabilities, child abuse and ne- a forum in which the welfare of youth is glect, linguistics and child victim testi- involved, we find a flexible spirit, col- mony, family violence, and rehabilitative laborative process, regard for candor and programs. plain speaking, and common desire for Judges know that we cannot succeed in consensus. helping youth and families alone. We know that it takes multidisciplinary, multiagency collaboration involving the The problems of youth can be best solved courts and communities. Those who created the juvenile court took their respon- in the home and through the family. sibility seriously, which is one of the reasons that this equitable, humane, and Sixth, we celebrate the innovation of the pragmatic alternative to the traditional juvenile and family courts in turning legal treatment of youth was so warmly away from institutions and toward fami- embraced by this country. lies, a development that constituted a JUVENILE JUSTICE: As you have noted, decisive reversal of the preference for Judge Lewis, there have been a number institutional care that had dominated of developments since those early years. 19th-century thinking. Although com- A number of specialized courts—drug mitments to reformatories did not end, courts, gun courts, even youth and teen the juvenile courts recognized that the courts—have come to play a role in the problems of youth can be best solved in juvenile justice system. How do you see the home and through the family. their impact?

The dispositional orders of juvenile and HON. J. DEAN LEWIS: Judicial leader- family courts are characterized by the rec- ship has been critical to the develop- ognition of the sanctity of the family ment of specialized courts for youth. unit, the need for placement of a youth The key philosophy that has guided the with extended family rather than with development of juvenile drug courts, strangers, the option of family foster care family drug courts in dependency cases, in lieu of institutional placement, and and gun courts has been the use of indi- the establishment of programs that allow vidualized treatment with close judicial

6 An Evolving Juvenile Court: On the Front Lines With Judge J. Dean Lewis

oversight. The availability of adequate JUVENILE JUSTICE: The number of juve- community-based resources for treat- nile offenders waived to criminal court ment plans that involve youth and their appears to have increased over recent families has also been crucial. years. What are your thoughts on this trend? Judges who sit in specialized courts at- tribute their success to the low caseload HON. J. DEAN LEWIS: Widespread fear of assigned to each judge, frequent review juvenile crime and the suspicion that the hearings to monitor progress with imme- juvenile court is unable or unwilling to diate sanctions if the youth fails to abide deal effectively with youthful offenders by the court’s order, involvement of the have generated a number of critics. The youth’s family in the rehabilitative pro- juvenile court’s perspective, methods, cess, and prompt availability of treatment results, and even the basic concept that resources. Specialized courts are a hu- led to its creation—the belief in the dif- mane development in keeping with the ference between youth and adults—have traditions of the juvenile court. One type all been called into question. of specialized court—the teen court—is an important diversion program. This court enables volunteer youth in the Some critics question whether a distinct community to serve, depending on the program model used, as judge, jurors, juvenile court should exist. prosecutor, and defense attorney in adjudication and disposition processes, providing them a powerful learning These criticisms have prompted legisla- experience. As to its effect on the juve- tures in virtually every State to take ac- nile offender who is offered this alterna- tion to curtail the court’s jurisdiction, tive, anecdotal evidence from judges restrict its discretionary powers, relax its indicates that teen courts often hold confidentiality, or increase the severity youth to a higher level of accountability of its sanctioning. Some critics have than traditional courts. questioned whether we should even continue to have a distinct juvenile court. The National Council recommends that juvenile drug courts—another type of I believe this outlook arises from the gap specialized court—be based on principles between public perception and reality and practices that are developmentally, with regard to juvenile crime trends, the culturally, and gender appropriate for juvenile share of overall crime, the pro- each youth. Juvenile drug courts should portion of juvenile delinquents to the not be developed as carbon copies of juvenile population as a whole, and the adult drug courts for the same reason that threat posed by juvenile violence. For the juvenile court was created in the first example, we know that although juvenile place—children are developmentally dif- violent crime increased between 1985 ferent from adults. The problems that and 1994, it has consistently decreased lead youth to substance abuse often in- since 1994. We also know that in 1994, volve learning disabilities, mental illness, when juvenile crime was at its highest, and family dysfunction. Our challenge is 94 percent of the approximately 69 mil- to develop a clear framework and tools lion youth under the age of 18 had never that judges can use to fashion programs been arrested. Less than 10 percent of tailored to meet local needs and the indi- delinquents commit violent crimes. vidual needs of youth and families. Adult, not juvenile, violence is our

Volume VI • Number 2 7 Juvenile Justice

Nation’s number one crime problem. focused, community based, multiagency, Adults are responsible for three-fourths and multidisciplinary. They should of the recent increases in violent crime include prescreening of youth and care- in the United States and commit seven givers for substance abuse and mental out of eight crimes. When juvenile courts illness; any required followup assess- are given adequate resources, they can be ment and treatment services for the effective in curtailing juvenile crime. youth and caregivers; learning assess- Five out of six youth referred to juvenile ment of youth, with prescreening for court for violent crime do not commit a developmental delay; and public-private subsequent violent offense. partnerships in the development of resources, including volunteer services such as advocacy, mentoring, and tutor- Adult, not juvenile, violence is our ing. Interventions should incorporate graduated sanctions and accountability Nation’s number one crime problem. for individuals subject to the court and ensure safety for family and community members while holding juvenile offend- By following the principles enunciated in ers accountable. the National Council’s The Juvenile Court and Serious Offenders: 38 Recommenda- That being said, alternative dispositions tions and the Office of Juvenile Justice that do not require incarceration are and Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP’s) most effective when the youth has a Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Vio- functioning nuclear family or substitute lent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders and family support network. The individual- making use of rehabilitative resources ized family services and treatment plan and sanctions programs, juvenile courts developed by the court in the disposi- have been able to reduce juvenile crime, tional order should include the family. even among serious and violent offenders. Recidivism rates have proven to be much higher among juveniles tried in criminal courts and placed in adult prisons than among those retained in juvenile court. Juveniles transferred to criminal court are more likely to commit new offenses, commit them sooner, and at a higher rate.

JUVENILE JUSTICE: Alternatives to incarceration, ranging from alternative schools to home detention, are being advocated for some juvenile offenders. How do you view the role of alternative sentencing and for which types of offenders is it most effective?

HON. J. DEAN LEWIS: To be effective, interventions—whether addressing child abuse or neglect, family violence, delinquency, or any other jurisdictional issue—need to be child centered, family Copyright © 1999 Nicole Katano c/o Artville. 8 An Evolving Juvenile Court: On the Front Lines With Judge J. Dean Lewis

Success requires intensive court monitor- JUVENILE JUSTICE: The disproportionate ing and supervision and prompt availabil- confinement of minority juveniles raises ity of treatment and sanctions resources. a number of questions. Is the juvenile A significant number of youth have sub- court in a position to affect this problem? stance abuse, learning disability, and If so, how? mental health problems that require HON. J. DEAN LEWIS: Judges are in a prompt and appropriate screening, assess- prime position to have an impact on dis- ment, and therapeutic intervention. It is proportionate minority confinement by critical to remember that every youth following the recommendations in the and family is unique; therefore, programs National Council’s policy statement cannot be “one size fits all.” A well- Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice Sys- qualified probation staff with access to tem: A Judicial Response. They should professional staff who can assess youth discuss the problem openly and should immediately after adjudication is essen- lead court-related agencies to identify tial to matching the youth and his or her the practices and procedures of the jus- family with the programs and services tice system that cause minority youth to that can ensure a safe outcome. be at greater risk of removal from their A principal triumph of the juvenile families than other youth. court has been its turn away from insti- We need to remember, however, that the tutions and toward families. Juvenile overrepresentation of minorities in the courts have always favored community- court system exists in the dependency sys- based sentencing over institutional care. tem (e.g., cases involving child abuse and We must remember, however, that some neglect and foster care) in addition to the youth have problems of such magnitude delinquency system. The intake mecha- and have exhibited these problems for nisms for all systems should be reassessed, such a long duration that they pose a and ethnic and cultural sensitivity training threat to the community. For these should be put in place for all who deal with youth, institutional care is necessary youth and their families. and appropriate to deliver treatment and establish accountability before a JUVENILE JUSTICE: It seems the challenge step-down program to community care facing juvenile court judges has never can be realized with any success. We been greater. What do you believe are must also be sensitive to the fears of vic- the most significant challenges facing the tims. Restorative justice models have juvenile court today, and what are the been effective in this area. tools the court needs to surmount them?

The public must be able to feel confidence HON. J. DEAN LEWIS: The National Coun- in alternative dispositions in order to ac- cil, in partnership with OJJDP and the cept them in lieu of incarceration. When State Justice Institute, sponsored The people begin to look beyond the myth of Janiculum Project, a national symposium the “superpredator” to understand the to address this issue, in the fall of 1997. In connection between family dysfunction, essence, juvenile courts need to build on child victimization, and juvenile delin- the triumphs they have achieved and must quency, they will become more favorably enhance due process, court-community disposed to alternative dispositions. Suc- collaboration, and availability of rehabilita- cess stories describing the youth who have tive resources and graduated sanction op- benefitted from court interventions must tions. Government needs to ensure that be publicized in the media as widely as are the juvenile courts have sufficient profes- the horror stories. sional staff to monitor cases. The courts

Volume VI • Number 2 9 Juvenile Justice

need to integrate the child welfare and de- vention for at-risk youth in their commu- linquency intervention services in communities. There are successful programs nities. The approach to delinquency must across the country that can be replicated. be a multidisciplinary one. If we really want to make a difference, the tools are there. Judges can play a The juvenile courts of the future need to leadership role in making communities be involved in prevention and early in- aware of the problem and the solutions. tervention. The Federal grants available for the Safe Start Initiative (a project of JUVENILE JUSTICE: What role can judges the U.S. Departments of Justice and play in improving the juvenile court sys- Health and Human Services) are a step tem in the coming years? in the right direction. The judiciary and HON. J. DEAN LEWIS: The National the citizens of this country must become Council of Juvenile and Family Court partners in preventing abuse, neglect, Judges encourages all judges who serve in and family violence in order to prevent these courts to follow in the footsteps of delinquency. This focus will benefit fu- our founding fathers and: ture generations and improve quality of life as we empower more youth and fami- ◆ Step out from behind the bench and lies with the skills to ensure a successful be involved in the community. future. ◆ Be conveners and educators in their communities. ◆ Advocate for the development of The approach to delinquency must be resources and ensure their availability. a multidisciplinary one. ◆ Recruit and train attorneys and court- appointed special advocates willing to serve as counsel and guardians ad litem Court Improvement of Foster Care and for children in the court. Adoption programs have proven to be an important focus in the prevention of ◆ Ensure that all who advocate for chil- delinquency. These State projects have dren and families are well educated in the given needed guidance to judges and so- law, court procedures, and local resources cial workers in methods to use in reduc- for children and families. Judges should ing the time dependent youth linger in hold these important court participants foster care. Because we now recognize to a high level of accountability. from the research publicized by President ◆ Administer an effective and efficient Clinton that exposure to child abuse and court system that implements good busi- neglect and family violence and later de- ness practices in serving both a reha- linquency are linked, there should be a bilitative and protective function for commitment to effective intervention children and their families. when the child is a victim. Because of this linkage, courts and communities ◆ Involve the citizens and the govern- need to implement the recommendations ing body of the community in the process of the National Council’s recent publica- of change. tion Effective Intervention In Domestic Working together, courts and communi- Violence and Child Maltreatment Cases: ties can shape the personality of the Guidelines for Policy and Practice. court to suit the needs of the community Courts should encourage citizens to get that the court serves. The work of the involved in identifying and seeking inter- juvenile court has always been, in the

10 An Evolving Juvenile Court: On the Front Lines With Judge J. Dean Lewis

The Janiculum Project: Reviewing the Past To Look Toward the Juvenile Court’s Future Taking its name from Janiculum Hill, the highest ◆ Jurisdictional and structural recommendations, point in Rome, which became a 19th-century watch- including the recommendation that juvenile and tower for invasions from any direction, the Janiculum family courts have broad jurisdiction over the Project was initiated by the National Council of Juve- entire range of legal concerns of youth and fami- nile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), with support lies, including delinquency prevention functions. from OJJDP and the State Justice Institute. The ◆ Procedural recommendations, including the rec- project is tasked with examining the past, present, ommendation that youth have an unwaivable and future of the juvenile and family court. right to effective and well-compensated counsel To inaugurate the project, juvenile court judges, pros- in juvenile court cases involving criminal and ecutors, defense counsel, court managers, probation noncriminal misbehavior and in cases of abuse or officials, victims’ advocates, and scholars convened in neglect. 1997 to review the early history of the court; analyze ◆ Programmatic recommendations, including the current practices, trends, strengths, and weaknesses; recommendation that the juvenile and family and discuss the expectations of and challenges for the court should use a continuum of program options court of the future. The group’s recommendations in the provision of services for dependent, ne- were set forth in The Janiculum Report: Reviewing the glected, abused, and delinquent youth and their Past and Looking Toward the Future of the Juvenile families. Court, a blueprint for juvenile court reform. ◆ System accountability recommendations, Symposium participants recognized that the role of including the recommendation that juvenile the juvenile and family court is in reducing factors and family court service providers use the best that could lead to a juvenile’s court involvement available technology to enhance operational and strengthening those that promote successful effectiveness. community reintegration. The court should address delinquent behavior through a balanced approach. In this centennial year of the juvenile court, This approach includes community protection, con- juvenile justice practitioners will do well to re- structive sanctions, juvenile accountability, and the flect on its status, considering where it has been, development of skills to change the behavior that where it is now, and, most important, where it led to the juvenile’s involvement in the system and should go. Only consistent and ongoing review which will enable him or her to become a contribut- can ensure that the court will continue to meet ing member of society. The project’s recommenda- the needs of youth, on whom the Nation’s future tions address the ways that courts can accomplish relies. this mission most effectively. For further information regarding the Janiculum The Janiculum Report envisions a juvenile and family Project, contact NCJFCJ, P.O. Box 8970, Reno, court that is more open, user friendly, and sensitive NV 89507, 702–784–6012. The full text of the to crime victims. The recommendations it contains report is available on the NCJFCJ Web site are organized in four sections: (ncjfcj.unr.edu/homepage/online.html).

Volume VI • Number 2 11 Juvenile Justice

words of one of my predecessors as Na- Juvenile courts have long been evolving tional Council President, the Honorable in the direction of the comprehensive Gustav Schramm, “to draw together and family court—that is, toward dealing to focus upon the problems of a child the with the family, whose members may be best the community has developed.” before the court over different issues, as a functioning unit rather than a collec- JUVENILE JUSTICE: Judge Lewis, as our tion of disconnected individuals. No discussion has illustrated, the juvenile doubt, that movement will continue. court has adjusted to many societal The National Council has promoted a changes—both in behaviors and atti- model of “one family-one judge” in the tudes—over the past century. How do dependency court system. This concept you see the court evolving to meet the needs to be applied to all juvenile and needs of the 21st century? family court cases. HON. J. DEAN LEWIS: Probably the single Unquestionably, as a court, we need to greatest societal change we have encoun- become more efficient—swifter and tered is the breakdown of the nuclear and surer. We need to achieve a better under- extended family. As young families relo- standing of our successes. We need to cate seeking jobs and housing, many of face our failures more squarely. And we them, including single parents, feel iso- need to continue to enlist the energy and lated due to this movement away from support of the communities we serve. recognized support systems. We need to build community support systems to re- JUVENILE JUSTICE: Thank you, Judge place traditional family support systems Lewis. for those single-parent families at high risk because of their isolation. Again, judicial leadership can be key in informing communities of the problem and of potential solutions. In my own jurisdiction, the population doubled in a 10-year period. Many of the new residents have been single parents looking for affordable housing but commuting to work each day to Washington, DC, or Richmond, VA, sometimes traveling 2 hours each way. These newcomers have no extended family in the area and spend so much time commuting that they often do not have the time to get to know their neighbors. They are at high risk due to their isolation and the unavailability of both the nuclear family and extended family support systems we have relied on in the past. Courts can partner with communities as the first juvenile courts did to identify families at risk and assist them

12 The Juvenile Court at 100 Years: A Look Back

The Juvenile Court at 100 Years: A Look Back by Robert E. Shepherd, Jr.

One hundred years ago, the Illinois legislature enacted the Illinois Juvenile Court Act (1899 Ill. Laws 132 et seq.), creating the first separate juvenile court. The policy debates raging around the country in this centennial year, however, make it uncertain whether the traditional juvenile court will prevail. To put these debates in a proper historical perspective, it may be useful to review the evolution of the court.

Early in the 19th century, juveniles were mock trial seemed the same as it had tried along with adults in criminal courts. been all during his imprisonment, that of In common law, children under age 7 not really comprehending the situation. were conclusively presumed immune from On execution day several thousand prosecution because they lacked moral persons came to . . . witness Guild’s responsibility (the infancy defense). Chil- hanging. To accommodate the dren between ages 7 and 14 were pre- crowds, the gallows was erected sumed not to be criminally responsible, in a large field just outside town. and prosecutors had to prove that an in- The procedure followed its solemn dividual juvenile was culpable. Youth age course, complete with black hood 14 and older were deemed as responsible and noose around the neck. But for their criminal acts as adults. Guild shook off the hood as the trap- Despite the law’s effort to temper the se- door was sprung, and . . . balanced verity of trying and punishing children as precariously on his toes at the edge adults, young children were sometimes of the drop. The sheriff rushed back sentenced to prison and occasionally to up the steps and pushed Little Jim’s Robert E. Shepherd, Jr., is Profes- death. James “Little Jim” Guild, a black toes off the edge and into thin air. sor of Law at the T.C. Williams servant, was 12 years old when he was Guild was thirteen years seven and School of Law, University of convicted of murder after a 2-day trial one-half months old (Streib, 1987). Richmond. He is a member of the and less than 3 hours of jury delibera- Board of Fellows, National Cen- Prior to 1900, at least 10 children were ter for Juvenile Justice; chair of the tions. A sentence of death was automatic executed in the United States for crimes Virginia Bar Association Commis- at the time. While awaiting execution, sion on the Needs of Children; committed before their 14th birthdays Guild conducted a mock trial with mice and former chair of the Juvenile (Streib, 1987). Other children died in Justice Committee, American Bar he had captured in his cell. Newspapers adult prisons. Virginia penitentiary Association. reported that Guild’s attitude toward this Volume VI • Number 2 13 Juvenile Justice

records from 1876 reflect that a 10-year- In an early legal assault on the involun- old prisoner died from being scalded acci- tary incarceration of children in such dentally in a tub of boiling coffee. These institutions, a father sought a writ of deaths shocked the public conscience. habeas corpus from the Pennsylvania Accordingly, Americans in the 19th cen- Supreme Court declaring the commit- tury sought more pervasive reform than ment illegal. The court denied the writ the infancy defense to address the dis- and concluded that “it would be an act of tinctive nature of children and youth. extreme cruelty to release” the girl from the facility and refused to inquire into the procedures for commitment, the du- Jury nullification began to play a ration of her incarceration, or the conditions within the school.1 This decision is significant role in the acquittal of often credited with originating the use of the doctrine of parens patriae to justify children charged with crime. informality and paternalism in dealing with children in the courts. The term, meaning literally the “father of the coun- Early Responses try,” was a doctrine used by English equity courts to provide judicial protection Houses of Refuge for orphans, widows, and others. In the early part of the 19th century, to the chagrin of prosecutors, jury nullification— Reformatories the process by which jurors acquit an ap- The House of Refuge movement evolved parently guilty criminal defendant rather into the slightly more punitive reform than impose a disproportionately severe school, or reformatory, approach. The sanction—began to play a significant role reformatory was created in the middle of in the acquittal of children charged with the century to do the following (Platt, crime. By creating the Society for the Pre- 1977): vention of Pauperism, Quakers in New York City sought to establish a balance ◆ Segregate young offenders from adult between those concerned about jury nullifi- criminals. cation and those repelled by imprisoning ◆ Imprison the young “for their own juvenile defendants in adult institutions or good” by removing them from adverse exposing them to the possibility of capital home environments. punishment. The society, which later evolved into the Society for the Reforma- ◆ Minimize court proceedings. tion of Juvenile Delinquents, founded the ◆ Provide indeterminate sentences to first House of Refuge in New York in 1825 last until the youth was reformed. to “receive and take . . . all such children as ◆ shall be taken up or committed as vagrants, Be used as punishment if other alter- or convicted of criminal offenses” (Pickett, natives proved futile. 1969). The children worked an 8-hour day ◆ Help youth avoid idleness through at trades such as tailoring, brass-nail manu- military drills, physical exercise, and facturing, and silver plating in addition to supervision. attending school for another 4 hours. Many ◆ of them had not committed any criminal Be used as a cottage approach within act, and a number were probably status larger institutions in rural areas. offenders.

14 The Juvenile Court at 100 Years: A Look Back

◆ Reform youth by focusing on growing incidence of jury nullification, education—preferably vocational concerns about the dominance of sectar- and religious. ian industrial schools in a Chicago filling with immigrants, and reform-based oppo- ◆ Teach sobriety, thrift, industry, and sition to confining youth with adults. prudence. While the Act did not fundamentally Later in the 19th century, an occasional change procedures in the existing courts legal attack on the incarceration of chil- that now were sitting as juvenile courts dren in such youth prisons was successful. to adjudicate cases involving children, In an 1870 case, the Illinois Supreme it did reintroduce the parens patriae phi- Court held it unconstitutional to confine losophy to govern such cases. In addition in a Chicago reform school a youth who to giving the courts jurisdiction over had not been convicted of criminal con- children charged with crimes, the Act duct or afforded legal due process.2 Two gave them jurisdiction over a variety of years later, the school closed, and juve- behaviors and conditions, including: niles convicted of crimes were sent to adult prisons or to a reformatory after criminal conviction. It was against this The Act defined a rehabilitative rather backdrop in the last quarter of the 19th century that the juvenile court move- than punishment purpose for the court. ment began.

[A]ny child who for any reason is The Illinois Juvenile destitute or homeless or abandoned; Court Act or dependent on the public for support; or has not proper parental care The 1899 Illinois Juvenile Court Act or guardianship; or who habitually was, in part, yet another response to the begs or receives alms; or who is liv- ing in any house of ill fame or with any vicious or disreputable person; or whose home, by reason of neglect, cruelty or depravity on the part of its parents, guardian or other person in whose care it may be, is an unfit place for such a child; and any child under the age of 8 who is found peddling or selling any article or singing or playing a musical in- strument upon the street or giving any public entertainment.3 The Act was unique in that it created a special court, or jurisdiction for an existing court, for neglected, dependent, or delinquent children under age 16; defined a rehabilitative rather than punishment purpose for that court; established the confidentiality of juveniles’ court records to minimize stigma; required that juveniles be separated from adults when Copyright © 1999 SIMIJI c/o Artville. Volume VI • Number 2 15 Juvenile Justice

placed in the same institution in addition The Juvenile Court’s to barring altogether the detention of children under age 12 in jails; and pro- Evolution vided for the informality of procedures The juvenile court idea spread rapidly within the court. across the country, having been adopted by 46 States, 3 territories, and the Dis- trict of Columbia by 1925. In Colorado, The juvenile court idea spread rapidly a parallel movement occurred under the across the country. leadership of the Honorable Benjamin B. Lindsey, who sat on the county court bench in Denver from 1901 until 1927 The court’s procedures in Illinois were, (Larsen, 1972). He exercised a type of indeed, quite brief and simple, often con- juvenile jurisdiction under the authority sisting of the judge gaining the trust of the of an obscure part of Colorado’s compul- youth through informal conversation and sory school attendance law. He used the then asking about the offenses charged. In jurisdiction of the court not only to re- its initial year, the Chicago judge presid- form youth who appeared before the ing over the first juvenile court, the Hon- court, but to reform the city of Denver. orable Richard S. Tuthill, sent 37 boys to His reforms ranged from addressing po- the grand jury for adult handling, deeming lice corruption to ordering the creation them unsuitable for the juvenile court’s of more playgrounds. treatment orientation. His successor, the An incident that took place after Judge Honorable Julian Mack, described the Lindsey left the juvenile court bench af- court’s goals as follows: ter his electoral defeat illustrates his zeal. The child who must be brought into He removed the court records, stored court should, of course, be made to them in his home to keep them from his know that he is face to face with the more punitive successors, and finally— power of the state, but he should at accompanied by his wife, friends, and the same time, and more emphati- reporters—went to a vacant lot and cally, be made to feel that he is the burned them. object of its care and solicitude. The ordinary trappings of the courtroom The Professionalization of are out of place in such hearings. Court Staff The judge on a bench, looking down upon the boy standing at the bar, In the early days of the juvenile court, can never evoke a proper sympa- volunteers on the court’s own probation thetic spirit. Seated at a desk, with staff, who were largely untrained, per- the child at his side, where he can formed many of the service functions in on occasion put his arm around his support of the judge. It soon became shoulder and draw the lad to him, clear that professional staff were needed the judge, while losing none of to serve the court and its clientele (Fox, his judicial dignity, will gain im- 1970). As these professional services be- mensely in the effectiveness of his came more common, the role of volun- work (Mack, 1909). teers diminished.

16 The Juvenile Court at 100 Years: A Look Back

The Challenge of the Juvenile Court1 by Dean Roscoe Pound

Roscoe Pound, Dean of Harvard Law School from a spouse, actions over a child’s wages, and habeas 1916 to 1936, was known as the dean of American corpus proceedings to obtain the custody of chil- jurisprudence. The following excerpt, taken from The dren before them, criminal courts with prosecu- Juvenile Court Judges Journal, reveals his belief tions for abandoning wife or child or both before nearly five decades ago that although the juvenile court them, juvenile courts entertaining proceedings had done much to further justice and prevent delin- for contributing to the delinquency of a child, quency, much more work lay ahead. special courts under one name or another, entertaining guardianship proceedings, and very likely Since the first setting up of the juvenile court great also juvenile courts determining what to do about progress has been made in building upon it toward specific delinquencies of a child—as like as not integration of the activities of law enforcement, of all arising out of a single household. extralegal social control, of government and church and school and civic societies, of social workers, Already there is a movement to substitute healing and of philanthropic individuals in anticipating de- procedures, devised to save households, for the linquency, in reaching for its causes, and in rational combative proceedings operating to make disrup- treatment of its beginnings. tion permanent; and this movement is the result of experience gained in the juvenile courts and In particular, out of the juvenile court and experi- wisely directed activities of judges of juvenile ence of its possibilities there has grown awareness courts. Not only in what it has done in its own of the futility of dealing with the troubles of a sphere but in indicating to us a larger sphere in household in detached fragments after damage has which there is much to be done and in showing been done. We have been learning better methods us something of the way to do it, the juvenile than to have four separate courts in eight separate court has made lasting contributions to the ad- and unrelated proceedings trying unsystematically ministration of justice. and not infrequently at cross purposes to adjust the relations and order the conduct of a family which But while we may well be proud of what that has ceased to function as such and is bringing or court has been able to do in its relatively short threatening to bring up delinquent instead of up- history, we must realize that its usefulness has right citizens contributing to the productive work little more than begun and that difficult tasks still of the people. lie before it. It is not the least of the fruits of the juvenile court You who sit in American juvenile courts and that we are ceasing and shall more and more cease their outgrowths are called to do a great work. to see a court of equity with a suit for divorce and You are called to carry on an outstanding forward alimony before it, courts of law with actions by step in the development of human powers to tradesmen for necessaries furnished deserted wives their highest unfolding—in the maintaining, fur- and children, actions for alienation of affections of thering and transmitting of civilization.

1 R. Pound. 1950. Future challenges judges. The Juvenile Court Judges Journal 1(4):21–23, 28 (the journal of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges).

Volume VI • Number 2 17 Juvenile Justice

Status Offenses Washington, DC.4 Because the trial judge (1) failed to hold a hearing prior The juvenile court movement’s expansion to transferring Morris Kent, a 16-year- beyond urban areas was slower than the old, to criminal court for trial and (2) did court’s initial growth during the first two not give Kent’s lawyer access to the so- decades of the 20th century. The post- cial information relied on by the trial World War II period witnessed further court, the Court concluded that Kent development, however, as the “status of- had been denied due process. The fender,” a concept derived from statutory Court also concluded that there must definitions of delinquency, became a sepa- be a meaningful right to representation rate jurisdictional category. New York cre- by counsel and a hearing on the issue ated a new jurisdictional category for of transfers to criminal court. Counsel Persons in Need of Supervision (PINS): also must have access to the social runaways, truants, and other youth who records considered by the juvenile committed acts that would not be crimi- court in making its decision, and the nal if committed by an adult. Other States court must accompany its waiver order followed New York’s lead. With the en- with a statement of the reasons for actment of the Juvenile Justice and Delin- transfer. The Court’s reliance on the quency Prevention Act of 1974 (Pub. L. District of Columbia Code for its deci- 93–415, 42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.), the sion in Kent, however, left doubt about States’ approach to these new categories the significance of the holding for of offenders changed dramatically, as other jurisdictions. Justice Abe Fortas young people subject to juvenile court sounded the following warning: jurisdiction for noncriminal misbehavior were removed from juvenile detention While there can be no doubt of the and correctional facilities. (The Act is original laudable purpose of juve- discussed in more detail on page 20.) nile courts, studies and critiques in recent years raise serious questions as to whether actual performance measures well enough against theo- Society began to question the validity and retical purpose to make tolerable vitality of the juvenile court’s informality. the immunity of the process from the reach of constitutional guaran- ties applicable to adults. There Kent v. United States is much evidence that some juvenile courts, including that of the In the 1960’s, society began to question District of Columbia, lack the per- the validity and vitality of the juvenile sonnel, facilities and techniques to court’s informality and its focus on treat- perform adequately as representa- ment without sufficient regard for due tives of the State in a parens patriae process. Critics from the right com- capacity, at least with respect to plained that the court was incapable of children charged with law viola- dealing with delinquent youth, while tion. There is evidence, in fact, that their counterparts from the left urged there may be grounds for concern that the court was ignoring the rights of that the child receives the worst of those young people who were coming both worlds: that he gets neither before it. Finally, in 1966, the U.S. Su- the protections accorded to adults preme Court addressed the fundamental nor the solicitous care and regen- fairness of the juvenile court process erative treatment postulated for in Kent v. United States, a case from children.5 18 The Juvenile Court at 100 Years: A Look Back

In re Gault the parameter of the rights prescribed. Justice Fortas said that “it would be ex- In 1967, the President’s Commission on traordinary if our Constitution did not Law Enforcement and Administration of require the procedural regularity and the Justice, appointed by President Lyndon exercise of care implied in the phrase Johnson, issued its Task Force Report: ‘due process.’ Under our Constitution, Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime, the condition of being a boy does not which expressed serious reservations justify a kangaroo court.”7 Gault marked about many of the fundamental premises the constitutional domestication of the of the juvenile justice system, its effec- parens patriae juvenile court, and a new tiveness, and its lack of procedural safe- era dawned based on a more criminal guards (President’s Commission on Law due process model contrasted with the Enforcement and Administration of historic informality of juvenile court Justice, 1967). That same year, many proceedings. Gerald Gault later spoke of the questions raised by Kent and the at an American Bar Association cer- President’s Commission were addressed emony honoring Amelia Lewis, the law- by the U.S. Supreme Court in the his- yer who initiated his suit. He observed toric decision of In re Gault.6 that, without a lawyer, he had no idea Gerald Gault was a 15-year-old charged what was happening to him in court un- with making an obscene telephone call til the judge said he was committed to a female neighbor. He was convicted until he was 21. by a juvenile court in Arizona and committed to a juvenile correctional facility Later Cases for an indeterminate period not to ex- tend beyond his 21st birthday. Justice In subsequent cases, the U.S. Supreme Fortas again wrote the opinion for the Court concluded that juveniles must be Court and ruled that youth are also pro- proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt tected under the 14th amendment. He during the adjudicatory stage of delin- 8 also stated that Gault’s constitutional quency cases; the right to a jury trial is rights had been violated and that Gault not required by the Constitution in de- was entitled to: linquency cases, although a State could provide a jury if it wished;9 and the ◆ Adequate notice of the precise nature Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause of the charges brought against him. prevents a juvenile court from transfer- ◆ Notice of the right to counsel and, ring a youth to criminal court after previ- 10 if indigent, the right to have counsel ously finding him or her delinquent. appointed. The Court also decided that a youth’s Miranda rights regarding self-incrimination ◆ The right to confront witnesses and are not invoked by his or her request to see have them cross-examined. a probation officer during custodial inter- ◆ The privilege against self-incrimination, rogation by the police11 and that a youth which applies to juvenile and adult can be subjected to “preventive detention” proceedings. awaiting trial.12 Thus, there is a somewhat schizophrenic quality to the juvenile The Court also concluded that, because court’s direction after almost two decades the noncriminal label attached to juve- of seemingly conflicting U.S. Supreme nile proceedings did not dictate the Court decisions about due process. Dean scope of the juvenile’s rights, calling Roscoe Pound of the Harvard Law School such matters “civil” would not dictate stated that the juvenile court has become

Volume VI • Number 2 19 Juvenile Justice

like “the illegitimate issue of an illicit re- ◆ It recognized the immense value in lationship between the legal profession placing the primary responsibility for and the social work profession, and now implementing those goals and policies no one wants to claim the little bastard” at the State and local community level (Reader, 1996). through a Formula Grants program conducted under the policy guidance of State Advisory Groups, a majority of The Act introduced a strong Federal whose members are not government presence to the juvenile justice arena. employees. ◆ It created OJJDP to institutionalize the Federal presence in juvenile justice. Juvenile Justice and ◆ It established a discretionary grant process through the Special Emphasis Delinquency Prevention Prevention and Treatment Program to Act of 1974 make awards directly to public and private nonprofit agencies to help develop In addition to committing the Federal and replicate creative techniques and Government to removing status offend- strategies for realizing the Act’s purposes. ers and nonoffenders from secure facili- ◆ It established a National Institute ties and separating juvenile offenders for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency from adults in institutional settings (as Prevention to conduct research, evalu- described on page 18), the Juvenile Jus- ation, and statistics activities; gather tice and Delinquency Prevention Act and disseminate information to the had other important features: field; and provide training and techni- ◆ It introduced a strong Federal pres- cal assistance. ence to the juvenile justice arena by ◆ It encouraged the development of na- committing resources and establishing tional standards to assist in reforming the a legislative commitment to certain goals juvenile justice system. and policies. ◆ It embodied the goal of coordinating Federal programs in the areas of delinquency prevention and juvenile justice. Obviously, the Act constituted a great deal more than the characteristics high- lighted above, but it was built largely upon these pillars, with the most important ones being the identification of national goals for the rehabilitation and reform of juvenile justice and the designation of a Federal-State partnership for the implementation of those goals. The Formula Grants program placed the implementation emphasis on the States and, through the State Advisory Groups,

20 The Juvenile Court at 100 Years: A Look Back

Conclusion Supplemental Reading Today, the future of the juvenile court is in Coalition for Juvenile Justice. 1998. A question. This uniquely American institu- Celebration or a Wake: The Juvenile Court tion has been duplicated throughout the After 100 Years. Washington, DC: Coali- world as the best model for the humane tion for Juvenile Justice. and innovative handling of juveniles who Fitzpatrick, J.L., and Keenan, B.M. 1999. commit crimes. Many countries with new The juvenile justice system—a circle democracies have recruited American juve- closed. Virginia Lawyer 47(1):24–30. nile justice experts to replicate the juvenile court born on U.S. shores a century ago. The juvenile court system’s contributions References to the just handling of children and fami- Fox, S. 1970. Juvenile justice reform: An historical lies in the legal system should be cel- perspective. Stanford Law Review 22:1187–1239. ebrated, and the court should be provided Larsen, C. 1972. The Good Fight: The Life and with the support and resources that it needs Times of Ben B. Lindsey. Chicago, IL: Quadrangle. to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Mack, J.W. 1909. The juvenile court. Harvard Law Review 23:104–122. Notes Pickett, R. 1969. House of Refuge: Origins of Juvenile Reform in New York State 1815–1857. 1. Ex parte Crouse, 4 Wharton 9, 11 (Pa. 1838). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. 2. People ex rel O’Connell v. Turner, 55 Ill. 280, Platt, A.M. 1977 (Revised from 1969). The Child 283–84, 287 (1870). Savers: The Invention of Delinquency, 2d ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 3. Illinois Juvenile Court Act, 1899 Ill. Laws 132 et seq. President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. 1967. Task Force 4. Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966). Report: Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime. 5. Id. at 555–556. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents. 6. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). Reader, W.D. 1996. The laws of unintended 7. Id. at 27–28. results. Akron Law Review 29:477–489. 8. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 385 (1970). Simonsen, C.E. 1991. Juvenile Justice in America, 9. McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 3d ed. New York City, NY: MacMillan. (1971). Streib, V. 1987. Death Penalty for Juveniles. 10. Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (1975); Swisher v. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Brady, 438 U.S. 204 (1978). 11. Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979). 12. Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253 (1984).

Volume VI • Number 2 21 Juvenile Justice

The Juvenile Court: Putting Research To Work for Prevention by Cindy S. Lederman

The juvenile court is a noble institution—a noble, underfunded, often unappreciated institution charged with the most important duty imaginable, protecting and reforming our children when all else has failed.

The scrutiny the 100th anniversary of the (e.g., those involving physical and mental juvenile court has brought to bear on the health), but this advantage wanes with institution is welcome. It provides an op- length of residence and from one genera- portunity to examine the court’s record in tion to the next (National Research attempting to achieve its virtually impos- Council and Institute of Medicine, 1998). sible charge. More important, it provides The juvenile court is one of the few a forum to discuss the modifications that places in society where the needs of need to be made to design a juvenile court children are paramount and where a that can meet the challenges of the next passion for helping children defines its century. This discussion, involving legal work. In the juvenile court, children are scholars, researchers, judges, lawyers, his- the absolute priority. The juvenile court torians, social scientists, and others, is tak- is doing a creditable job under adverse ing place at a time in history when society circumstances toward achieving these is scared of its own children (Klein, 1998). goals—however, a better job is needed Society is permeated with rhetoric about and, fortunately, it can be achieved. how children are its most precious re- Most citizens see the juvenile court as an source, but too often those words ring hol- institution designed to deal with young low. In reality, the needs of children are offenders who commit crimes. Although not a national priority. One in five chil- this may be its most public function, the dren lives in poverty, more than 11 mil- juvenile court is much more. The disposi- lion (1 in 7) have no health insurance, tions of child abuse and neglect cases and The Honorable Cindy S. and among industrialized countries, the Lederman is presiding judge of cases involving the termination of paren- United States ranks 18th in infant mortal- the Miami-Dade Juvenile Court, tal rights are equally and increasingly im- FL. Judge Lederman is a mem- ity (Children’s Defense Fund, 1998). portant functions that are essential to ber of the Board on Children, Some children who have recently immi- understanding the relationship between Youth, and Families of the Na- grated to the United States appear to be tional Research Council and dependency and delinquency.1 There are Institute of Medicine. protected from these and other risk factors 22 The Juvenile Court: Putting Research To Work for Prevention

more than 3 million reports of child abuse Despite these facts, virtually every State and neglect each year, almost half of has enacted legislation during this de- which are substantiated (Children’s De- cade to significantly alter the philoso- fense Fund, 1998). These children, who phy of juvenile justice and promote the have been beaten, raped, starved, burned, view that the juvenile justice system maimed, neglected, and abandoned, are at should mirror the criminal justice sys- increased risk for delinquent behavior. tem. Increasingly, judicial authority Many of the children who are arrested for and discretion have been taken away committing offenses are already familiar despite the belief that properly con- with the juvenile court as dependent chil- strained judicial discretion in charging dren. Data indicate that 75 percent of vio- and sentencing is more effective than lent juvenile offenders suffered serious prosecutorial or legislative control abuse by a family member, 80 percent wit- (Yellen, 1996). Limitations on juvenile nessed physical violence, and more than jurisdiction, mandatory sentencing, and 25 percent had a parent who abused drugs the creation of more punitive program- or alcohol (Trask, 1997). ming have seriously affected the ability of the juvenile judge to dispense justice From Rehabilitation to in a therapeutic environment. Punishment In the past decade, the juvenile court has The juvenile court has undergone a major undergone a major shift toward a more punitive and less therapeutic institution. shift toward a more punitive and less There have been significant changes in State juvenile codes based not on data or therapeutic institution. research, but on the misconception that America is in the midst of a violent juve- The social reformers who created the ju- nile crime epidemic. Contrary to such per- venile court 100 years ago believed that ceptions, the record shows: children’s culpability for their actions ◆ The juvenile crime rate, while cycli- was limited and that delinquency was cal in nature, is declining (see Snyder closely related to poor parenting, neglect, and Sickmund, 1999). poverty, and lack of moral values. They believed that children were malleable ◆ Adults—not youth—are responsible and that rehabilitation could occur under for most violent crime. Seven out of the jurisdiction of a benevolent juvenile eight violent crimes are committed by court through which the State adopted adults (Torbet and Szymanski, 1998). the philosophy of parens patriae. ◆ Although juvenile violence remains Since that time, the juvenile court has at a higher level than a decade ago, it is undergone significant change, from being declining (Torbet and Szymanski, 1998). an institution focused on social welfare ◆ Today’s youth do not commit more and acting in a child’s best interest to acts of violence with greater regularity one, after In re Gault,2 focused on than their predecessors, but more juve- children’s due process rights, and, in niles are being arrested for violent acts the 1990’s, to one focused on account- (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999; Torbet and ability and punishment. None of these, Szymanski, 1998). This means that the alone, is enough. Today, the court must “superpredator epidemic” does not exist. somehow simultaneously afford children

Volume VI • Number 2 23 Juvenile Justice

due process, deliver swift and appropriate punishment should be swift, measured, punishment, and endeavor to rehabilitate and well reasoned. In some cases, secure and meet the therapeutic needs of juve- confinement is appropriate. Juveniles nile offenders and their families. must learn that delinquent behavior is intolerable and that they will be held ac- Juvenile or Criminal Justice? countable for their actions. Tough sentencing laws for crimes involving firearms, The “adultification” of the juvenile justice often involving mandatory confinement, system continues to this day. Increasing have proven effective (Loeber and numbers of youth—some 17,000 per Farrington, 1998). While there are chil- year—are transferred to the criminal jus- dren in the juvenile justice system who tice system, often without benefit of judi- can be classified as serious, violent, and cial intervention in the decisionmaking chronic offenders, they constitute a small process. Florida researchers, led by Donna minority of the juvenile offender popula- Bishop, compared 3,000 transferred tion (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999). These Florida youth with 3,000 nontransferred offenders may need to be confined to re- Florida youth and found that the former ceive long-term treatment and to ensure group was more likely to be incarcerated the safety of the community. and for longer periods of time. When re- leased, transferred youth were more likely At the same time, the juvenile justice to reoffend and reoffend earlier than those system should not be redesigned to re- who were not transferred (Altschuler, spond disproportionately to the behav- 1999). ior of a small number of offenders who are uncharacteristic of the population as a whole. Juveniles often stop committing crimes as they mature and be- Increasing numbers of youth are come employed (see Hamilton and transferred to the criminal justice system. McKinney, 1999). Increasingly punitive in nature, juvenile justice legislation must not abandon the critical goal There is no question that some juveniles of rehabilitation. The juvenile court merit transfer. Serious, violent, and needs to adopt a rational, measured, chronic juvenile offenders may demon- and scientific approach to the continu- strate by the nature of their offenses or ing problem of violent juvenile crime offense history, their failure to benefit (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- from treatment programs in a manner quency Prevention, 1996). Such an indicating a lack of amenability to treat- approach should include balancing ac- ment, and in other ways that transfer to countability and rehabilitation. Educa- the criminal justice system is appropriate. tion, counseling, and training of youth However, the wholesale transfer of juve- increase the chances that those adjudi- niles on the basis of factors other than cated for delinquent acts, whether con- individual characteristics and without fined or not, will be helped to avoid lives judicial intervention is imprudent. It is of crime (Yellen, 1996). It is essential to crucial that juvenile courts be allowed avoid creating a one-dimensional juve- to make carefully defined, individual de- nile justice system with rules, laws, terminations regarding transfer (Klein, practices, and goals designed to adjudi- 1998). cate Billy the Kid when most of the juveniles in the system more closely Accountability is a crucial goal of the resemble Dennis the Menace (Klein, juvenile justice system. When necessary, 1998). 24 The Juvenile Court: Putting Research To Work for Prevention

Intervention Working collaboratively, juvenile justice officials and researchers can develop Reliance on scientific research is key study designs and outcome measures that to realizing the promise of the juvenile more accurately assess the effectiveness court. Decades of research in juvenile of treatment programs. Measures of suc- and criminal justice, developmental cess should embrace more than the cus- psychology, epidemiology, and other dis- tomary outcome measures of efficient ciplines, including evaluations of promis- case management and reduced recidi- ing program interventions, should inform vism. Intermediate outcomes also should policymaking, decisionmaking, and the be measured, and evaluators should de- development of programs and treatments. termine whether participating children Working as a multidisciplinary team, ju- received other benefits from the program venile justice and child welfare system such as academic success, conflict resolu- practitioners, researchers, and experts in tion skills, and reduced use of alcohol the community should combine their and drugs. clinical experience with this growing body of knowledge. Some argue that the juvenile justice and Some argue that the juvenile justice child welfare systems have been one huge and child welfare systems have been experiment (Courtney, in press). Children are assigned to a variety of treatments or one huge experiment. programs, and child welfare and juvenile justice practitioners have little to say about the comparative benefits of these interven- Risk and Protective Factors tions or the quality of decisionmaking by those who operate the system. For decades, juvenile justice researchers and social scientists have been studying Most practitioners believe—as does the the causes and correlates of delinquent public—that a well-meaning interven- behavior and identifying a variety of tion designed by competent people will risk factors for delinquent behavior that have a positive effect. Whether a pro- could assist the court in designing and gram could have unintended negative adopting earlier and more effective effects—or no effect at all—is seldom considered. Initial progress may be short lived (Altschuler, 1999). These factors underscore the need for rigorous program evaluations across the entire spectrum of child welfare and juvenile justice services to ensure that interventions benefit children and society and do not produce unintended effects that may even increase the risks of delinquent behavior. The juvenile justice system must be vigilant about the quality of its programs, services, and service providers and must work with researchers to design an agenda that will make a positive contribution to the body

Volume VI • Number 2 25 Juvenile Justice

interventions. A major risk factor for de- Developmental experts have identified a linquent behavior is family dysfunction; variety of protective factors that counter other risk factors include negative peer risk factors and thus reduce the likeli- influences, parental neglect, low aca- hood of delinquency. Protective factors demic achievement, early onset of anti- range from a strong and involved grand- social behavior, substance abuse, and mother to parental involvement, a exposure to violence (Loeber and commitment to school, and personal Farrington, 1998). The risk factors for self-esteem (Smith and Dabiri, 1995). maladaptive behavior are all too preva- The research on risk and protective fac- lent in dependent children and are often tors can be used by practitioners to de- seen well before they begin to engage in velop risk assessment instruments that acts of delinquency. Early childhood vic- measure exposure to risks and to design timization has demonstrable long-term interventions that reduce the impact of consequences for delinquency, adult risk factors and strengthen protective fac- criminality, and violent criminal behav- tors. It is important to note that protec- ior, providing strong support for the tive factors can change over time. Being “cycle of violence” hypothesis (Widom, a female was once considered a significant 1989). Research enables us to identify protective factor against delinquency, but those juveniles most in need of inter- today girls make up 26 percent of all juve- vention (Catalano and Hawkins, 1996; nile arrests (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999). Loeber and Farrington, 1998; and see Learning more about the needs of these Howell, 1995). girls should be a priority of the juvenile justice research agenda. With knowledge delivered from research, courts can ex- Early victimization has long-term pand their influence over children and their environment and not be limited to consequences for delinquency, criminality, merely adjudicating cases and making and violent criminal behavior. educated guesses about their appropriate disposition. There are several clearly defined develop- From a developmental perspective, it mental pathways to delinquent behavior, is now possible to identify risk factors and every child responds differently to risk facing children before birth. The po- and protective factors. Sound intervention tential for offending is higher among by the juvenile court requires specific in- individuals with multiple perinatal quiry into a particular child’s family, school complications (American Society of performance, social activities, and other Criminology, 1997; Coordinating circumstances to identify risk and protec- Council on Juvenile Justice and De- tive factors present in the child’s life. The linquency Prevention, 1996; Howell, factors that cause youth to commit delin- 1995), particularly when coupled with quent offenses do not disappear when they other risk factors. Examination of risk return home from the juvenile system factors for delinquency leads to the (Treiber, 1998), and rehabilitation will fail conclusion that if delinquent behavior if a youth returns to the same environment is to be prevented, the juvenile justice without the support and services needed to system must work at the earliest pos- succeed (effective aftercare services involve sible opportunity not only with the the family, school, and community and child but with the child’s family, peers, take into account the child’s therapeutic school, and neighborhood. and academic needs).

26 The Juvenile Court: Putting Research To Work for Prevention

Early Intervention and the dependent and delinquent youth at risk Dependency Court is essential, and the knowledge gained from this research should be used to re- In addressing delinquent behavior, it is form practice, guide policy, and influence important to consider its developmental the design of interventions. origins and intervene at the earliest opportunity to prevent it. Prevention efforts should include intensive, individualized Society should devote significant intervention in the lives of dependent children so that the dichotomy between attention and resources to abused interventions with delinquent and dependent youth, and between the way their and neglected children. cases are handled, can be dissolved. Such efforts would ensure that the juvenile The Dependency Court Intervention court may act to prevent delinquency be- Program for Family Violence, a national fore it takes root rather than simply pre- demonstration project in Miami, FL, vent recidivism, a traditional outcome provides an example of interdisciplinary measure of the juvenile and criminal jus- work in jurisprudence. Funded by the tice systems. Simply preventing another Violence Against Women Office, Office offense is inadequate. of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Unless society devotes significant attention Justice, this demonstration project seeks and resources to abused and neglected chil- to address the co-occurrence of child dren, the juvenile court will not realize its maltreatment and family violence in a potential. More than half the children who juvenile court setting (Lecklitner et al., enter the child welfare system as a result of 1999). Advocates are provided to bat- child maltreatment are under 7 years old tered mothers of dependent children, as- (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999). For these sessment instruments have been designed young victims, the juvenile court needs to to measure the extent and impact of vio- consider their developmental and mental lence on children, and collaboration be- health needs. With a comprehensive pic- tween the child welfare and domestic ture of the child in mind, the juvenile violence community has been fostered as court has its best opportunity to provide the foundation of a communitywide ap- needed services. proach to handling child abuse cases in which other forms of family violence are Comprehensive and also present. Interdisciplinary Interventions Because infants and toddlers can tell the court about their development through The response of the juvenile system must their actions, an assessment for use with be collaborative and interdisciplinary be- children from 1 to 5 years old has been cause children at risk are often the vic- developed through this program, with tims of cumulative disadvantage. Juvenile assistance from Joy Osofsky, Ph.D., Profes- justice system professionals, in particular sor of Pediatrics and Psychiatry at Louisi- service providers, need to take into ac- ana State University Medical Center. count the relationships between child Parents and dependent children are video- maltreatment and other problems, in- taped in a number of structured and cluding violence, substance abuse, and unstructured interactions. The develop- other high-risk behaviors. More research mental and cognitive functioning of the on how these factors combine to place young child and his or her bonding and

Volume VI • Number 2 27 Juvenile Justice

attachment with a caregiver are assessed. ciplinary teamwork, intensive judicial Preliminary data indicate that, while supervision, close monitoring of drug use, many of these dependent children are rewards, and sanctions. Long-term evalua- developmentally delayed, the develop- tions of juvenile drug court programs are mental delays often go undetected. The under way. Miami court is now able to reach these Every person or institution that touches children earlier, enhancing their ability a child’s life and interacts with his or to develop in a healthy, age-appropriate her family can contribute positively to manner. that child’s development (Smith and The program is undergoing a rigorous pro- Dabiri, 1995). The juvenile judge’s role cess and outcome evaluation. A quasi- should be expanded to include leading experimental research design is being used the community in responding to the to develop data on the needs of children needs of its children. The California and their families when multiple forms of Rules of Court, for example, encourage family violence are present. The demon- juvenile judges to provide community stration project already has resulted in in- leadership in determining the needs of stitutional reform intended to enhance at-risk children and families and obtain- child safety. ing and developing resources and services to address them.3 The larger society that contributed to the problem Every person or institution that touches should also be part of the solution (Treiber, 1998). It is essential to learn a child’s life and interacts with his or her more about collective efficacy and how neighborhoods can organize to protect family can contribute positively to that and supervise their children. The heart child’s development. of any institutional reform must begin with a community partnership for child protection (Executive Session on Child Other innovative interventions have been Protection, 1997) and a collective real- developed to address the comorbidity of ization that every citizen is responsible substance abuse and child maltreatment. for the well-being of all children, a re- By 1995, dependency and delinquency sponsibility that cannot be delegated to courts, building on the success of adult the juvenile justice and child welfare drug courts, had begun to experiment with systems. similar collaborative processes that focus School and community interventions are on a juvenile’s recovery from drug depen- key to serving children’s needs. The fol- dency rather than on punishment. In ad- lowing types of interventions have dem- dition to drug treatment, a variety of onstrated positive effects on reducing risk psychosocial interventions were mar- factors and enhancing protective factors shaled to encourage recovery. The juve- (Loeber and Farrington, 1998): nile drug court team could look beyond the individual to the family and seek to ◆ School organization interventions. change behavior by attacking problems ◆ Comprehensive community inter- that permeate the juvenile’s environment: ventions incorporating community drug use, mental health needs, poverty, mobilization. and poor parenting skills. There is hope that a youth’s behavior can be modified ◆ Parental involvement and parental by relying on some of the same processes education. used in adult drug courts, such as interdis- 28 The Juvenile Court: Putting Research To Work for Prevention

◆ Classroom-based social and behav- sophisticated, less confrontational manner ioral skills curriculum. of adjudication (Schaller, 1997). The juvenile justice system should avoid dupli- ◆ Intensive police patrolling, targeting cating the criminal court model, while hotspots in particular. protecting the fundamental rights of juve- ◆ Media campaigns to influence public niles. A one-dimensional system dealing attitudes. exclusively with adjudication would limit Aftercare programs, specific to each child the juvenile court’s potential to promote and each treatment program, are also im- rehabilitation and the well-being of youth portant. The progress made by program while protecting the community and serv- participants will be limited unless it is ing victims. Adjudication culminating in followed up, reinforced, and monitored individualized dispositions and based on in the community (Altschuler, 1999). the need for accountability and the best interest of youth and society should be the cornerstone of the juvenile court’s work. Tomorrow’s Juvenile Court There should be no need to wonder Modernizing and professionalizing the juvenile court requires that interdiscipli- whether the juvenile court’s work nary training be provided to court staff— makes a difference. judges in particular. Knowing the law is not enough. Judges should be aware of available diagnostic tools, sensitive to Despite the lack of resources and respect the developmental needs of children and accorded juvenile courts, their over- possible risks that they face, and proac- whelming caseloads, and the many other tive in efforts to prevent youth crime and violence (Smith and Dabiri, 1995). There should be no need to wonder whether the juvenile court’s work makes a difference. Juvenile court judges need to take the lead in promoting program evaluation as an integral part of each new intervention by demanding that services have been proven effective or are based on sound principles of proven effectiveness before more children and families are sent to participate in them. With the resources to conduct evaluations of promising and innovative programs, dedication, and a willingness to collaborate across disciplines, juvenile court and juvenile justice practitioners can answer the question of what works empirically. The juvenile court should also stress its nonadversarial nature, keeping the child’s best interest in mind by promoting a more Copyright © 1997 PhotoDisc, Inc. Volume VI • Number 2 29 Juvenile Justice

challenges that confront them, they are Catalano, R.F., and Hawkins, J.D. 1996. The so- staffed with professionals who reflect cial development model: A theory of antisocial behavior. In Delinquency and Crime. Cambridge 4 talent, dedication, and commitment. A Criminology Series. Cambridge, United Kingdom: fully functioning professional juvenile Cambridge University Press. court has the potential to be the most Children’s Defense Fund. 1998. The State of effective prevention tool in the juvenile America’s Children. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. justice system. However, this cannot Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and De- occur unless judges take the lead in revi- linquency Prevention. 1996. Combating Violence talizing and professionalizing America’s and Delinquency: The National Juvenile Justice Ac- tion Plan. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- juvenile courts, using the results of scien- ment of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office tific research, the promise of creative of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. innovation, and the resources of the Courtney, M. In press. Research Needed to Improve community. The Nation’s societal pledge the Prospects for Children in Out-of-Home Place- that “children come first” must not be ment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. allowed to ring hollow in, of all places, Executive Session on Child Protection. 1997. the halls of justice.5 Child Protection: Building Community Partnerships. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Hamilton, R., and McKinney, K. 1999. Job Train- ing for Juveniles: Project CRAFT. Fact Sheet #116. The juvenile court has the potential to Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Jus- be the most effective prevention tool in tice and Delinquency Prevention. Howell, J.C., ed. 1995. Guide for Implementing the the juvenile justice system. Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- Notes quency Prevention. 1. “Dependency” and “dependent children” refer Klein, E. 1998. Dennis the Menace or Billy the to children involved in dependency cases related Kid: An analysis of the role of transfer to criminal to abuse, neglect, and abandonment. court in juvenile justice. American Criminal Law Review 35:371–408. 2. 387 U.S. 1 (1967). Lecklitner, G., Malik, N., Aaron S., and 3. California Rules of Court, § 24(e) (1999). Lederman, C.S. 1999. Dependency Court Inter- 4. In 1998, each juvenile court judge in Florida vention Program for Family Violence. Child Mal- managed 3,273 cases, compared with 1,270 cases treatment 4(2):175–182. per judge in the criminal division and 1,357 cases Loeber, R., and Farrington, D. 1998. Never too per judge in the civil division. Amendment to early never too late: Risk factors and successful Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.100(a), No. interventions for serious and violent juvenile of- 84,021, at fn.3 (Fla. April 29, 1999). fenders. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention 5. See Amendment to Florida Rule of Juvenile 7(1):16. Procedure 8.100(a), at 11. National Research Council and Institute of Medi- cine. 1998. From Generation to Generation: The Health and Well-Being of Children of Immigrant References Families. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Altschuler, D.M. 1999. Trends and issues in the adultification of juvenile justice. In Research to Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre- Results: Effective Community Correction, edited by vention. 1996. State Responses to Serious and P. Harris. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Violent Juvenile Crime. Report. Washington, DC: Association. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Pro- grams, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency American Society of Criminology. 1997. Critical Prevention. Criminal Justice Issues. Task Force Report. Wash- ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Schaller, B. 1997. A Vision of American Law. Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

30 The Juvenile Court: Putting Research To Work for Prevention

Smith, G.B., and Dabiri, G. 1995. The judicial Trask, G. 1997. Diffusing the teenage time bomb. role in the treatment of juvenile delinquents. Jour- The Prosecutor 31(2):29–31. nal of Law and Policy 3:347–365. Treiber H. 1998. Juvenile justice: Rehabilitating Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 1999. Juvenile the system after the introduction of mandatory Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report. Re- minimum sentences. Suffolk Journal of Trial and port. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Jus- Appellate Advocacy 3:175–189. tice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Widom, C.S. 1989. The cycle of violence. Science Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 244:160. Torbet, P., and Szymanski, L. 1998. State Legisla- Yellen, D. 1996. What juvenile court abolitionists tive Responses to Violent Juvenile Crime: 1996–97 can learn from the failures of sentencing reform. Update. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- Wisconsin Law Review 1996:577–600. ment of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Volume VI • Number 2 31 IN BRIEF JUSTICE MATTERS Delivering on the Promise of the Juvenile Court

The juvenile Center developed the Juvenile Court ◆ Conduct communications and court’s 100th Centennial Education Initiative to training activities on successful ju- anniversary focus attention on these issues. venile justice strategies. offers an op- The initiative’s objectives are to: ◆ Use the media to focus public portunity to attention on juvenile justice issues. centralize the ◆ Sharpen and stimulate debate new insights and advances in the among juvenile justice practitioners A national juvenile justice summit field, thereby helping to revitalize and policymakers. will be held soon in Washington, DC, to reaffirm the role of the juve- the court and restore the public’s ◆ Expand the juvenile justice nile justice system in addressing the confidence in the juvenile justice network and improve collabora- needs of troubled and neglected system. Through OJJDP funding, a tion among local and national youth. Stay tuned to OJJDP’s Web consortium comprising Bright Future organizations. Ventures, the Center on Juvenile site, www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org, for more and Criminal Justice, the Children ◆ Amplify existing and developing details on the initiative, or send an and Family Justice Center, Commu- revitalization efforts by local and e-mail to [email protected]. nication Works, and the Youth Law national organizations.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report

The problems of policymakers, the media, and con- data on arrest rates, antisocial be- juvenile crime, cerned citizens. havior, and juveniles in custody; violence, and and the structure, procedures, and This OJJDP Report brings together victimization activities of the juvenile justice the latest available statistics from a together con- system, including law enforcement variety of sources and includes nu- stitute one agencies, courts, and corrections. merous tables, graphs, and maps, of the most accompanied by analyses in clear, The 1999 National Report includes crucial nontechnical language. Readers will the most recent updates of informa- challenges find baseline information on juve- tion originally presented in Juvenile of the new nile population growth trends; pat- Offenders and Victims: A National millennium. To meet terns of juvenile victimization, Report (the benchmark publication that challenge, Juvenile Offenders including homicide, suicide, and issued in 1995) and also includes and Victims: 1999 National Report maltreatment; the nature and ex- findings from important new answers questions frequently asked tent of juvenile offending, including sources, including the Bureau of by juvenile justice professionals,

32 IN BRIEF JUSTICE MATTERS Labor Statistics’ 1997 National ◆ What are the characteristics of ◆ One in every three delinquents Longitudinal Survey of Youth and juveniles in custody? with a history of violent offenses the Office of Juvenile Justice and has a juvenile court record before Delinquency Prevention’s new na- New Facts turning 14. tional Census of Juveniles in Resi- ◆ After peaking in 1993, the rate ◆ Preventing one youth from leav- dential Placement. As new data of serious violent crime committed ing school and turning to a life of become available, updates will be by juveniles declined dramatically crime and drugs saves society made available online through the through 1997 to its lowest level approximately $2 million. OJJDP Web site’s Statistical Brief- since 1986. ing Book. ◆ In one-third of all sexual assaults How To Obtain Your Copy Questions Answered by reported to police, the victim was Juvenile Offenders and Victims: the Report under age 12. 1999 National Report is available online from the OJJDP Web site ◆ The juvenile violent crime ◆ How much crime are juveniles (www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org) through the arrest rate for females nearly involved in, and what kinds of JJ Facts & Figures section and the doubled between 1981 and 1997, crimes do they commit? Publications section or can be or- while the rate for males increased dered from OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice ◆ How often are juveniles the 20 percent. victims of crime, and what is the Clearinghouse (see the order form). nature of their victimization? ◆ What are the recent trends in This is a clear overview of the facts about juvenile crime and juvenile violence, and can future victimization—an essential resource for juvenile justice profes- trends be predicted? sionals and all citizens concerned with our Nation’s youth. ◆ How common is school crime, —Attorney General and how many juveniles carry guns Janet Reno and other weapons to school? 1999 National Report Bulletin Series

To give readers quick, focused access to some of most critical data contained in the 222-page 1999 National Report, OJJDP has developed a series of Bulletins derived from the Report. Each of these Bulletins highlights selected themes at the forefront of juvenile justice policymaking and extracts relevant sections from the Report (including selected graphs and tables). See the order form for the first installment of the series.

Volume VI • Number 2 33 IN BRIEF ON DP LIN JJ E O Court-Focused URL’s

Following is a select list of Web ad- National American Indian Court National Criminal Justice dresses that link to additional re- Judges Association Reference Service sources related to youth and courts. www.naicja.org www.ncjrs.org These links represent Federal agen- National Association of Counsel National District Attorneys cies, clearinghouses, and national for Children Association organizations and associations. naccchildlaw.org www.ndaa.org Administrative Office of U.S. National Association for Court National Indian Justice Center Courts Management nijc.indian.com/ www.uscourts.gov nacm.ncsc.dni.us/ National Judicial College American Bar Association National Association of Drug www.judges.org www.abanet.org Court Professionals Office of Juvenile Justice and ABA Center on Children and www.drugcourt.org Delinquency Prevention the Law National Association of Pretrial www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org www.abanet.org/child/ Services Agencies OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse American Judges Association napsa.org and Technical Assistance Project aja.ncsc.dni.us National Association of State www.american.edu/academic.depts/ American Probation and Parole Judicial Educators spa/justice/dcclear.htm Association www.nasje.org Pretrial Services Resource Center www.appa-net.org National Center for State Courts www.pretrial.org American Prosecutors Research www.ncsc.dni.us Sentencing Project Institute National Center for Youth Law www.sentencingproject.org www.ndaa.org/apri/Index.html www.youthlaw.org State Justice Institute Center for Civic Education National Clearinghouse for www.statejustice.org www.civiced.org Judicial Education Information Street Law, Inc. Constitutional Rights Foundation jeritt.msu.edu www.streetlaw.org Chicago National Council of Juvenile and www.crfc.org Tribal Court Clearinghouse Family Court Judges www.tribal-institute.org Drug Courts Program Office www.ncjfcj.unr.edu www.ojp.usdoj.gov/dcpo.htm U.S. Sentencing Commission National Court Appointed Special www.ussc.gov Federal Judicial Center Advocate Association www.fjc.gov www.nationalcasa.org Vera Institute of Justice broadway.vera.org

34 ✄

Juvenile Justice Order Form Volume VI • Number 2 December 1999

PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FREE. To order other publications listed on the inside back cover, please complete the following: Single copies are available free. There is a nominal fee for bulk orders to cover postage and handling. Contact the Qty. NCJ No. Title Price Clearinghouse for specific information. ______❑ Delinquency Cases in Juvenile Courts, 1996 (Fact ______Sheet). FS 99109. ______❑ Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, 1987– ______1996 (Fact Sheet). FS 9999. ______❑ NEW Detention in Delinquency Cases, 1987–1996 (Fact Sheet). FS 99115. ❑ Drug Offense Cases in Juvenile Court, 1986–1995 (Fact International Subscribers Sheet). FS 9881. Airmail Postage Schedule All documents ordered by Canadian and other international users ❑ NEW Focus on Accountability: Best Practices for the are sent airmail. Postage is included in the cost of fee items but Juvenile Court and Probation (Bulletin). NCJ 177611. must be paid separately for free items. Use the schedule below to compute the postage cost for your free items. ❑ Innovative Approaches to Juvenile Indigent Defense No. of free items Canada Other countries (Bulletin). NCJ 171151. 1–2 $ 6.30 $ 5.75 3–4 6.85 11.50 ❑ NEW Juvenile Court Statistics 1996 (Report). 5–6 7.40 17.25 NCJ 168963. 7–8 7.95 23.00 9–10 8.50 28.75 ❑ 11–12 9.05 34.50 NEW Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National 13–14 9.60 40.25 Report (Report). NCJ 178257. 15–16 10.20 46.00 17–18 10.80 51.75 ❑ Model Courts Serve Abused and Neglected Children (Fact 19–20 11.30 57.50 Sheet). FS 9990. For more than 20 items, write JJC, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD ❑ NEW Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1996 (Bulletin). 20849–6000, or call 301–519–5500. NCJ 175719. ❑ Person Offenses in Juvenile Court, 1986–1995 (Fact Total $ ______Sheet). FS 9877. Enclose payment or provide account number. ❑ NEW Teen Courts in the United States: A Profile of Current Programs (Fact Sheet). FS 99118. All payments must be in U.S. dollars and drawn on a U.S. bank. ❑ NEW Violence After School (Bulletin, 1999 National Report Series). NCJ 178992. ❑ Check or money order enclosed, payable to Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. ❑ Deduct the total from my NCJRS Deposit Account. PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FOR A FEE. Acct. No. ______❑ Juveniles in the Criminal Justice System (Video, VHS Charge my ❑ MasterCard ❑ VISA format), NCJ 173944. Card No. ______❑ Youth Courts: A National Movement (Video, VHS format), NCJ 171149. Exp. Date ______Signature______Allow 6 to 9 weeks for delivery. You will be notified by mail within 30 days if your paid order cannot be filled.

Fee orders are shipped UPS. Because UPS cannot deliver to post office boxes, please provide a street address for shipment of orders requiring payment.

Please print your name and mailing address or affix your mailing label here. ❑ Check this box if the information on Name ______your address label is Address ______incorrect and make corrections on your City ______State ______ZIP ______mailing label. Phone ( ) ______

FOLD, TAPE, BUT DO NOT STAPLE

______PLACE ______FIRST CLASS STAMP ______HERE

Juvenile Justice Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse P.O. Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849–6000 Publications From OJJDP

OJJDP produces a variety of publications—Fact Juvenile Arrests 1997. 1999, NCJ 173938 A Juvenile Justice System for the 21st Century. Sheets, Bulletins, Summaries, Reports, and the (12 pp.). 1998, NCJ 169726 (8 pp.). Juvenile Justice journal—along with video- Reintegration, Supervised Release, and Inten- Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National tapes, including broadcasts from the juvenile sive Aftercare. 1999, NCJ 175715 (24 pp.). Report. 1999, NCJ 178257 (232 pp.). justice telecommunications initiative. Through OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC), Courts OJJDP Research: Making a Difference for Juveniles. 1999, NCJ 177602 (52 pp.). these publications and other resources are as Guide for Implementing the Balanced and Re- close as your phone, fax, computer, or mailbox. storative Justice Model. 1998, NCJ 167887 Promising Strategies To Reduce Gun Violence. Phone: (112 pp.). 1999, NCJ 173950 (253 pp.). 800–638–8736 Innovative Approaches to Juvenile Indigent Sharing Information: A Guide to the Family (Monday–Friday, 8:30 a.m.–7 p.m. ET) Defense. 1998, NCJ 171151 (8 pp.). Educational Rights and Privacy Act and Participation in Juvenile Justice Programs. Juvenile Court Statistics 1996. 1999, Fax: 1997, NCJ 163705 (52 pp.). NCJ 168963 (113 pp.). 301–519–5212 Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1996. 1999, Missing and Exploited Children Online: NCJ 175719 (12 pp.). Portable Guides to Investigating Child Abuse OJJDP Home Page: RESTTA National Directory of Restitution (13-title series). www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org and Community Service Programs. 1998, Protecting Children Online Teleconference E-Mail: NCJ 166365 (500 pp.), $33.50. (Video). 1998, NCJ 170023 (120 min.), $17. [email protected] (to order materials) Trying Juveniles as Adults in Criminal Court: When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival [email protected] (to ask questions An Analysis of State Transfer Provisions. 1998, Guide. 1998, NCJ 170022 (96 pp.). NCJ 172836 (112 pp.). about materials) Substance Abuse Youth Courts: A National Movement Teleconfer- Mail: The Coach’s Playbook Against Drugs. 1998, ence (Video). 1998, NCJ 171149 (120 min.), $17. Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse/NCJRS NCJ 173393 (20 pp.). P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000 Delinquency Prevention Drug Identification and Testing in the Juvenile Fact Sheets and Bulletins are also available 1998 Report to Congress: Juvenile Mentoring Justice System. 1998, NCJ 167889 (92 pp.). through fax on demand. Program (JUMP). 1999, NCJ 173424 (65 pp.). Preparing for the Drug Free Years. 1999, Fax on Demand: 1998 Report to Congress: Title V Incentive NCJ 173408 (12 pp.). Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Pro- 800–638–8736, select option 1, select option 2, Violence and Victimization and listen for instructions. grams. 1999, NCJ 176342 (58 pp.). Combating Fear and Restoring Safety in Combating Violence and Delinquency: The To ensure timely notice of new publications, Schools. 1998, NCJ 167888 (16 pp.). subscribe to JUVJUST, OJJDP’s electronic National Juvenile Justice Action Plan (Report). mailing list. 1996, NCJ 157106 (200 pp.). Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Combating Violence and Delinquency: JUVJUST Mailing List: Juvenile Offenders. 1995, NCJ 153681 The National Juvenile Justice Action Plan e-mail to [email protected] (255 pp.). (Summary). 1996, NCJ 157105 (36 pp.). leave the subject line blank Report to Congress on Juvenile Violence Effective Family Strengthening Interventions. type subscribe juvjust your name Research. 1999, NCJ 176976 (44 pp.) 1998, NCJ 171121 (16 pp.). In addition, JJC, through the National Criminal Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders. 1998, Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), is the re- NCJ 170027 (8 pp.). pository for tens of thousands of criminal and Strategic Planning Guide. 1999, NCJ 172846 juvenile justice publications and resources (62 pp.). Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions Teleconfer- from around the world. They are abstracted Parents Anonymous: Strengthening America’s ence (Video). 1998, NCJ 171286 (120 min.), $17. and placed in a database, which is searchable Families. 1999, NCJ 171120 (12 pp.). State Legislative Responses to Violent Juvenile online (www.ncjrs.org/database.htm). You are Prenatal and Early Childhood Nurse Home Crime: 1996–97 Update. 1998, NCJ 172835 also welcome to submit materials to JJC for Visitation. 1998, NCJ 172875 (8 pp.). inclusion in the database. (16 pp.). Treatment Foster Care. 1999, NCJ 173421 White House Conference on School Safety: The following list highlights popular and re- (12 pp.). cently published OJJDP documents and video- Causes and Prevention of Youth Violence tapes, grouped by topical areas. Gangs Teleconference (Video). 1998, NCJ 173399 The OJJDP Publications List (BC000115) offers 1996 National Youth Gang Survey. 1999, (240 min.), $17. a complete list of OJJDP publications and is NCJ 173964 (96 pp.). Youth in Action also available online. Gang Members on the Move. 1998, Community Cleanup. 1999, NCJ 171690 (6 pp.). NCJ 171153 (12 pp.). In addition, the OJJDP Fact Sheet Flier Cross-Age Teaching. 1999, NCJ 171688 (8 pp.). (LT000333) offers a complete list of OJJDP Youth Gangs: An Overview. 1998, NCJ 167249 Make a Friend—Be a Peer Mentor. 1999, Fact Sheets and is available online. (20 pp.). NCJ 171691 (8 pp.). OJJDP also sponsors a teleconference initia- The Youth Gangs, Drugs, and Violence Con- Plan a Special Event. 1999, NCJ 171689 tive, and a flier (LT116) offers a complete list of nection. 1999, NCJ 171152 (12 pp.). (8 pp.). videos available from these broadcasts. Youth Gangs in America Teleconference Planning a Successful Crime Prevention (Video). 1997, NCJ 164937 (120 min.), $17. Corrections and Detention Project. 1998, NCJ 170024 (28 pp.). Beyond the Walls: Improving Conditions of General Juvenile Justice Stand Up and Start a School Crime Watch. Confinement for Youth in Custody. 1998, Comprehensive Juvenile Justice in State 1998, NCJ 171123 (8 pp.) NCJ 164727 (116 pp.). Legislatures Teleconference (Video). 1998, Two Generations—Partners in Prevention. Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 1997 NCJ 169593 (120 min.), $17. 1999, NCJ 171687 (8 pp.). Update. 1998, NCJ 170606 (12 pp.). Guidelines for the Screening of Persons Work- Wipe Out Vandalism and Graffiti. 1998, Disproportionate Minority Confinement: ing With Children, the Elderly, and Individuals NCJ 171122 (8 pp.). Lessons Learned From Five States. 1998, With Disabilities in Need of Support. 1998, NCJ 173420 (12 pp.). NCJ 167248 (52 pp.). Youth Preventing Drug Abuse. 1998, NCJ 171124 (8 pp.). Juvenile Justice, Volume V, Number 1. 1998, NCJ 170025 (32 pp.). OJJDP announces the availability of Reducing Youth Violence: A Comprehensive Approach, a multimedia CD–ROM that provides juvenile justice practitioners, researchers, and policymakers with information on successful programs, publications, and technical assistance resources. A pool of practitioners and policymakers tested the initial release, and this updated CD–ROM reflects their input.

To order, contact OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800–638–8736 or visit OJJDP’s Web site, www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org.

U.S. Department of Justice PRESORTED STANDARD Office of Justice Programs POSTAGE & FEES PAID Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention DOJ/OJJDP PERMIT NO. G–91 Washington, DC 20531 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

NCJ 178255