Princeton University

The Juvenile Court: Analysis and Recommendations

Author(s): Richard E. Behrman, Carol S. Stevenson, Carol S. Larson, Lucy S. Carter, Deanna S.
Gomby, Donna L. Terman
Source: The Future of Children, Vol. 6, No. 3, The Juvenile Court (Winter, 1996), pp. 4-28
Published by: Princeton University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1602590 .
Accessed: 11/01/2011 02:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=princetonu. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Princeton University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Future of
Children.

http://www.jstor.org
4

The Juvenile Court:

Analysisand
Recommendations
counties having over 500,000 population, thejudges of the circuit
I ncourt
shall,at such times as shall
they one or
determine, designate
more of their number,whose duty it shall be to hear all cases com-
ing under this act. A special court room to be designated as the juvenile
court room, shall be provided for the hearing of such cases, and the find-
ings of the court shall be entered in a book or books, to be kept for that pur-
pose, and known as the 'JuvenileRecord,' and the court may for conve-
nience be called the 'JuvenileCourt."''
With these words, the Illinois legislaturecreated the firstjuvenile court
in 1899. The legislation contained a comprehensive set of definitions and
rules "to regulate the treatment and control of dependent, neglected,
and delinquent children."The Illinois legislaturefurther directed that the
legislation was to be "liberallyconstrued,"with the goal that the "care,cus-
tody, and discipline"of these children "shallapproximate as nearly as may
be that which should be given by [its] parents."2
The concept of a special court, or division of a court, to handle matters
related tojuveniles spread rapidlythroughout the country.By 1907,juvenile
court laws had been enacted in 26 states and the District of Columbia.3
Today,some version of a juvenile court or juvenile division exists in all 50
states.These courts are products of state law and varyfrom state to state in
terms of their status and placement within the state's court hierarchy,the
typesof cases they hear, how they are staffed,their relationshipto child wel-
fare and juvenile probation agencies, and the level of resources appropri-
ated to them. (See the article by Rubin in thisjournal issue.)
Over the past century,the court has been shaped and challenged by a
number of factors. First and foremost, juvenile court practice has been
formed by state statute.U.S. Supreme Court and state appellate court deci-
sions and federal legislation have had an influence on the court's practice.
Social science has also shaped the court: understanding of parent-child
bonding has shifted the prioritiesand the procedures of the court's work
with abusive and neglectful families. Knowledge about the effectivenessof

The Futureof Children THEJUVENILE

COURTVol. 6 * No. 3 - Winter 1996
 5

various forms of intervention with juvenile offenders has shaped correc-

tional programs and other approaches to addressing the behavior of delin-
quent youth. As with any institution dealing with human behavior, the juve-
nile court has been greatlyinfluenced by larger social trends and problems.
The violence in American society--on the streets and in the homes--the
persistence of child poverty,and the increase in single-parenthouseholds all
impact the court's day-to-daywork.
As the 100th anniversaryof the juvenile court approaches,it provides an
opportunityto examine the strengthsand weaknessesof this special court and
to identify opportunitiesfor improvement.The goal of thisjournal issue is to
present a clear description of the court today and to address challenges for
the future. It is importantto note, however,that this is not a publicationabout
juvenile crime or child abuse; it is about the court's relationship to these
importantissues.No articlein thisjournal issue questions the need to contin-
ue some version of a specializedcourt to handle some child-relatedissues.
Although there have been calls to eliminate or greatlycurtail the court's
jurisdiction over criminal acts committed byjuveniles (these proposals are
discussed in the article by Ainsworth in thisjournal issue), there is a wide-
spread consensus that a specialized court for some set of child-related mat-
ters is necessary. The greatest difference of opinion lies in defining the
scope and describing the specifics of the court'sjurisdiction.
This analysishas four sections. The first provides an overviewof the his-
torical mission of the juvenile court. In the second section, more detail
about the court's role in handling delinquency, statusoffenses (noncriminal
misbehavior of juveniles), and child abuse and neglect cases is presented.
The third section examines the current status of the court as an institution,
and the fourth section discusses the future of the juvenile court.

one another. If children are abused or

TheMissionof the Juvenile
Court
The proponents of the Illinois statute quot-
ed above believed that children differed
from adultsin significantwaysand that these
differences led to the need for a specialized
court to handle legal issues involving chil-
dren.4Acknowledgment of these differences
continues to support the mission of the
court today.
neglected by their parents,not only must the
abusive action be addressed, but the state
through its courts must step"in to ensure
adequate care for the child. As one Illinois
advocate wrote, "The fundamental idea of
the juvenile court is so simple it seems any-
one ought to understand it.... It is the
acknowledgment by the state of its relation-
ship as the parent to every child within its
borders."5

First, children are dependent on adults Second, proponents of thejuvenile court

in a way that adults are not dependent on recognized that children are developing
6 THEFUTURE - WINTER
OFCHILDREN 1996

emotionallyand cognitively;they are impres- children in need and to provide services to

sionable and can be influenced, for good or
for evil. The entire purpose of the juvenile
court was to avoid treating the child as the
system treated an adult criminal and,
instead, to shape and mold the child as a
parent would. Young offenders were not
convicted as criminals but adjudicated as
delinquents; they were not sentenced to
prison or reformatorybut committed to the
care of a probation officer or an institution.
A subjectivedetermination of the needs of
the offender replaced strict rules of evi-
dence: "Itwill be seen at once that this pro-
cedure contemplated a complete change;
instead of punishment and reformation, it
wasformation."6
these children and their families. The
Illinois statute formalized the relationship
between the court and public and private
child welfareassociationsby requiringcerti-
fication of associationscaring for neglected
or delinquent children, requiring regular
inspection of these associations,and autho-
rizingjudges to require from these associa-
tions such information and statisticsabout
the children in their care as the judges
deemed necessary.8The need for close,
workingrelationshipsbetween the court and
agencies caring for children is greater than
ever today; this theme echoes throughout
thisjournal issue.

Third, children have different levels of

TheJurisdiction
of the
understanding than adults. Thus, although JuvenileCourtToday
courts in Illinois in the late 1800s were cog- Since 1899, the juvenile court has primarily
nizant of due process requirements for handled three types of cases: delinquency,
adults, the procedures in place in adult statusoffenses, and child abuse and neglect.
courts simply were not comprehensible to Juvenile delinquencycases are lawviolations
children. In describing the need for ajuve- by minors which, if committed by an adult,
nile court, the chief probation officer for would be crimes. By contrast,statusoffenses
Cook County wrote, "Imagine the solemn are noncriminalmisbehaviorswhich are ille-
farce of proceedings where the child rarely gal only for minors. Common examples
understood a scintillaof their nature or pur- include truancyand running away.Until the
pose."7 Proponents of the Illinois statute early 1960s, both criminal and noncriminal
believed that children needed a special behavior were considered to be forms of
forum in which they could understand and delinquency; the law did not distinguish
be understood. Indeed, such varyinglevels between status offenders and delinquents.
of children'sunderstandingrelatedirectlyto In child abuse and neglect cases, the court
their ability to take responsibilityfor their provides protection to children who are
actions. allegedlyabused or neglected. During 1994,
delinquency cases comprised 64% of the
Although there have been significant total nationaljuvenile court caseload while
changes in the mission and function of the statusoffenses made up 15%,and abuse and
juvenile court since 1899, these basic differ- neglect cases, 16%.9
ences between children and adults remain
and continue to support the need for a spe- Each of these case types is discussed
cialized court. However, the goals of the below,with descriptionsof the children and
court have also evolvedover time. For exam- court processes involved and the current
ple, the goals of the juvenile court in delin- practicesand policy issues. However,before
quency cases continue to include formation turning to this jurisdiction-specificdiscus-
or rehabilitationof the individualchild, but sion, it is important to note that, although
they also include providingproceduralpro- each of these types of cases is very different
tections of the law guaranteed by the U.S. from the others, there are some common
Constitution as well as meeting society's themes. The most obvious, of course, is the
interests in protection and punishment. need for judges handling these cases to
Such changes are discussedin more detail in understand the development of children
thisjournal. and to make legal decisionswith attention to
the needs of children and their families.
Finally,since 1899, thejuvenile court has
had to workvery closelywith a wide arrayof Second, even though the court is only
public and privateagencies both to identify one of many institutionsworking with chil-
TheJuvenileCourt:Analysisand Recommendations 7

dren and their families, it wields unique and Today, the juvenile court has become a
quite awesome power in delinquency, status focal point for public concern about the
offense, and child abuse cases.Juvenilecourt country'shigh rate of crime and the increas-
judges can separate children from their par- ing violence of juvenile crime. In recent
ents; they can order children to live in con- years,there has been continuing criticismof
fined settings; they can terminate the rights the juvenile court's perceived leniency
of biological families and create new towardjuvenile delinquents.10The inability
parental rights. of the juvenile court in manyjurisdictions to
impose a sentence that continues beyond
Because these decisions are so serious the age of 21 is a common example. High-
and fundamental, ensuring that the court visibilityserious and violent crimes commit-
has adequate resources is very important as ted by juveniles have captured the public's
it handles each type of case. Judges need attention and drawn the treatment of juve-
training, information, and workable facili- nile offenders into the larger efforts to "get
ties. Adequate representation must be avail- tough" on crime that have been politically
able for the parties in court proceedings. popular for the past 20 years.'1
Communities need to have sufficient, safe,
and effective programs and placements Public fear ofjuvenile crime has resulted
availablefor the children who come before in changes in the delinquencyjurisdictionof
the court. thejuvenile court. Since 1992, legislativeand
executive branch activityin 41 stateshas lim-
As will be clear from the following discus- ited the juvenile court's jurisdiction over
sion, the juvenile court'swork is verydifficult cases involving serious, violent, and chronic
and involvessome of the most emotion-laden offenders, and shifted the court'sphilosophy
and controversial issues in our society. As from the rehabilitativetradition of address-
such, its decisions often find disagreement. ing the offender rather than the offense
The extent to which the court'sdiscretionary toward a more punitive system focused on
authority in individual cases should be the offense itself. For example, since 1990,
expanded or restrained continues to be de- 14 states have amended their codes to
bated for all types of cases before the court. explicitlylist public safetyas a purpose of the
juvenilejustice system;28 statesnow list pun-
Finally,because these courts make deci- ishment of offenders as either the primary
sions regarding so many difficult societal or one of severalpurposes of thejuvenilejus-
problems, they are often the subjects of tice system.12More significantly,since 1992,
intense media attention and political all but 10 states have adopted or modified
firestorms.An important theme in thisjour- laws to make it easier to prosecute juveniles
nal is the need forjudges to play a leadership in adult criminal court.13In most instances,
role, both among child-servingagencies and conviction of a minor in adult court exposes
within the broader community, to encour- the minor to the possibilityof a state prison
age deliberativeand thoughtful approaches sentence instead of placement in a juvenile
to these problems, rather than ones that are facilityoffering rehabilitativeprograms.
hastilyreached.
Although violent juvenile crimes grab
Delinquency headlines and tend to have a great influence
The handling of delinquency cases is the on the juvenile justice system, most juvenile
work of the juvenile court that is best known court cases involve far less serious crimes. In
to the general public. When minors commit fact, the bulk of the court's delinquency
law violations, typically their cases are work is in the handling of a large volume of
brought (petitioned) as delinquency cases crimes against property such as larceny,van-
in juvenile court. These cases include misde- dalism, and motor vehicle theft. In 1992,
meanors such as petty theft and vandalismas police made 2.3 million arrestsof juveniles
well as felonies such as robbery and aggra- nationally. Of these, approximately two-
vated assault. The maximum age of the thirds, or 1,471,200, resulted in a referralto
court'sdelinquencyjurisdictionis set by state juvenile court. Contrary to public percep-
law;in 37 statesand the Districtof Columbia, tion, the most serious charge was a prop-
it is 17 years old; in 10 states, it is 16; and in erty offense in 57% of the cases; an
3 states,it is 15. offense against a person, such as robberyor
8 THEFUTURE
OFCHILDREN
- WINTER
1996

aggravatedassault, in 21% of the cases; a to court, the odds that he will be in court
public order offense, such as disorderlycon- again increase.Forty-onepercent of alljuve-
duct, in 17%of the cases;and a drug lawvio- niles with one referralwill have a second re-
lation in the remaining 5% of the cases.'4 ferral to court, 59% of those with a second
referralwill returnfor a third time, and 67%
Although young people are not dispro- of those willbe back a fourth time. The small
portionately responsible for violent crime, group of juveniles referred to court four or
they do commit more than their share of more times--16% of alljuveniles referredto
propertycrimes.15 In 1992, for example, 10- court-is responsiblefor nearlytwo-thirdsof
to 17-year-oldscomprised 13% of the U.S. all violent crimes and half of all property
population and were responsiblefor 13%of crimes handled in juvenile court.2o
all violent crimes cleared by arrestbut a full
23% of all propertycrimes.16 JuvenileCourtProcess
The juvenile justice system includes law
YouthsReferredto JuvenileCourt enforcement, thejuvenile court, thejuvenile
Juvenile court statisticsshow that a large per- probation department, and juvenile correc-
centage of juvenile crime is committed by a tions. The juvenile court process varies
small percentage of thejuvenile population. across states and communities but can best
In 1993,80%of thejuvenilesreferredtojuve- be conceptualized as a series of decision
nile courton delinquencymattersweremale,'7 points, each of which directs the case along
61% were under age 15, 65% were white a particularpath.
(which includes Latinos), 32%were African
American,and approximately4%were other Eighty-fivepercent of delinquency case
races.Juveniles in urban areas had a 30% referrals come from law enforcement; the
higher delinquency case rate than those in remaindercome from socialserviceagencies,
ruralareasof the country,and the caseshan- schools, parents,probation officers,and vic-
dled in large counties involvedmore crimes tims.21Followingarrest,approximatelyone-
againstpeople and drug offenses than those third of alljuvenile arrestsare divertedfrom
of less populated counties. thejuvenilecourtsysteminto alternativecom-
munity programssuch as communityservice
African-American minors are dispropor- and restitution,and no formal charges are
tionately involved injuvenile court processes made. The remaining cases are referred to
relativeto their representationin the popu- juvenile court intake, which is generallythe
lation at large. The articleby Snyder in this responsibility of the juvenile probation
journal issue providesdetailsabout the over- departmentor the prosecutor'soffice. Of the
representationof African-Americanminors cases that continue in the system, approxi-
at every stage of the juvenile court process. matelyhalf are handled formallythroughfil-
For example, in 1991, while only 15%of the ing of a petition in the juvenile court. The
juvenile population was African American, other half are dismissed,divertedto juvenile
66% of the youths confined in long-term justice or communityprogramsat intake,or
public juvenile correctional facilities were handled informallythrough such means as
African American.'18Federal law requires voluntaryagreementsor informalprobation,
statesthat have disproportionaterepresenta- in which the voluntaryagreementsare moni-
tion to make efforts to reduce the propor- tored by a probation officer.The cases that
tion of minorityjuveniles detained or con- are handled formallyby the juvenile court
fined in all secure facilities.'9Juvenile court alwaysinclude those involvingthe most seri-
judges can play a role in addressingthe dis- ous and chronicjuvenile offenders.
paratetreatmentof minorityyouths through
their decisions regardingpretrialdetention At each of these decision points, a set of
and final dispositionand their leadershipin highly subjectivefactorscan come into play.
the community in the development of pro- Nonlegal factorssuch as the juvenile'sties to
gramsfor minorityyouth. family, school, and community influence
whetheran arrestis made, whetherdiversion
Fifty-ninepercent of the young people occurs,and the natureof placementordered.
coming into juvenile court never return a This decision-makingprocess has been criti-
second time. However,as Snyderpoints out, cized because it can lead to erroneous,
each subsequent time a juvenile is referred inequitable,and inconsistentdecisions.22
TheJuvenileCourt:Analysisand Recommendations 9

Policyand PracticeIssues
Current the adult system is worthwhile for its sym-
The sweeping changes in public policy bolic value alone; transfer is a statement
affecting the juvenile court's delinquency that juvenile crime is taken seriously.Others
jurisdiction have been the responses to con- believe that the fear of being transferredto
cerns about serious, violent, and chronic adult court will deterjuveniles from criminal
offenders and the perceived leniency ofjuve- behavior.25Stillothers support the transferof
nile court sanctions towardthesejuveniles. A more cases to adult court to provide the addi-
survey of recent state legislativeaction sum- tional due process protections required in
marizes the types of changes in five broad adult court, such as the right to ajury trial.26
categories:removing more serious offenders
from the juvenile justice system in favor of Nationwide, the number of formal delin-
criminal court; experimenting with new dis- quency cases transferredbyjudicialwaiverto
position and sentencing options; changing criminal court increased from 7,005 cases in
correctional programming in light of a new 1988 to 11,798 cases in 1992.27However,the
population of young criminals in adult pris- total number of delinquency cases waivedby
ons; modifying confidentiality laws in favor all transfer methods cannot be tabulated
of more open proceedings; and including because there are no national data on the
victims of juvenile crime in the juvenile jus- numbers of juvenile cases filed directly in
tice process.'3 This discussion focuses on criminal court by prosecutors or the num-
three critical issues facing the court today: bers of juveniles who are in adult court
(1) transfer, (2) legal representation, and because of a statutory exclusion. Reported
(3) dispositional alternatives.23 data from selected jurisdictions show that
the rates of direct filing by prosecutorsvary:
a TransferringJuveniles to Adult Court. in some jurisdictions, the number of such
Juveniles can end up in adult court through cases is as high as 10% of all formally
one of three methods. First,juvenile court processedjuvenile court cases;in others, it is
judges can transfer cases to adult court fol- as low as 1%.28
lowing a hearing, a process known asjudicial
waiver. Second, prosecutors in some states Transfer is not being used only to send
can directly file certain cases in either juve- violent offenders to adult court. While there
nile or adult court. Finally, some state is a higher likelihood of a juvenile's being
statutes exclude certain types of crimes or transferred when charged with an offense
chronic offenders from juvenile court juris- against a person or a drug offense, in 1992,
diction; this is known as statutoryexclusion property offenses made up the largest pro-
or legislativewaiver. portion ofjuvenile cases transferredto adult
court byjuvenile courtjudges.29
Between 1992 and 1995, 40 states and
the District of Columbia changed their laws While the stated purpose of moving
to restrictjuvenilecourtjurisdictionin a vari- more cases to adult court is increased public
ety of ways. Some states lowered the age of safety,research findings do not substantiate
jurisdiction for adult criminal court for all the claim that transfer of increasing num-
offenses or for serious offenses; others bers of juveniles to adult criminal court
expanded the types of offenses eligible for reduces the rate of reoffending by thisjuve-
transfer to criminal courts or allowed or nile population.20,30
mandated transferofjuveniles to adult court
through statutoryexclusions; and a number a WhoBestMakesthe Transfer Decision? The
gave prosecutors the discretion to file cer- option of transferring cases to adult court
tain cases in criminal court.'3 In addition, is available to juvenile court judges in 46
state statutes have changed the criteria for states and the District of Columbia. Legisla-
judicial determination of transfer decisions tive waivers make transfers automatic in
so that youths are presumed to be unfit for certain cases in 37 states and the District
juvenile court in serious cases.24 of Columbia. Ten states and the District of
Columbia give the prosecutor the option to
Getting tough onjuvenile crime is the pri- file a case directlyin either adult orjuvenile
mary motivation for moving more cases to court.31There are several dangers in each
the adult criminaljustice system.Some com- approach. A prosecutor's decision to file a
mentatorsargue that transferringjuveniles to case directlyin adult criminal court is made
10
unilaterallywithout the benefit of a hearing
where defense counsel and probation offi-
cials can provide important information
about thejuvenile in question. Prosecutorial
discretion to determine where a juvenile is
tried is potentially subject to political pres-
sure. State statutes mandating transfer if
there is a specified combination of age and
the number and seriousnessof the offenses
preclude the consideration of the individ-
ual circumstancesthat apply in each case.
Moreover, such legislative changes can be
driven by a single, high-visibilitycase rather
than a comprehensive assessment of the
cases before the court.
Transfer decisions are best made by
judges who are given explicit directionsas to
the factorsthat must be considered.32This is
not becauseindividualjudgesare immune to
biasesand pressures,but because,unlike the
prosecutor, the judge makes this decision
only after hearing from a varietyof perspec-
tives in a judicial proceeding: the prosecu-
tor, defense counsel, and probationofficials.
This more deliberative decision-making
process retainssome of the benefits ofjuve-
nile courtjurisdictionwhile addressingpub-
lic safetyand accountabilityconcerns regard-
ing serious and violentjuvenile offenders.
RECOMMENDATION
m The determinationas to whether a minor
charged with a serious crime should be
transferredto the criminal court for trialas
an adult is best made byjudicial hearing.
The varied circumstances of each case
and the distinct characteristics of each
minor require close examination by an
experienced judicial officer who can hear
from all partiesto the case and evaluatethe
important personal and community factors
related to the choice ofjurisdiction.
M Repmsentation. In the past, the juvenile
court'srole in interveningwith waywardand
criminalyouthswasjustified by the theoryof
parenspatriae,that the state stands in the
place of parents and substitutesits authority
for that of the family.33Because of an inter-
est in individualizing responses to cases,
THEFUTURE - WINTER
OFCHILDREN 1996
earlycourt decisionswere left largelytojudi-
cial discretion, often at the expense of the
juveniles' due process rights.However,land-
markU.S. Supreme Courtcasesof the 1960s
rejected the parens patriae rationale and
early court practices, and required that
the basic constitutional safeguards of due
process of the law apply in juvenile court
proceedings. Since the U.S. Supreme Court
cases of Kent v. United States34and In re
-Gault35 juveniles in delinquency proceed-
ings have had the right to counsel, the
right to notice of the charges against them,
the right to cross-examine the witnesses
against them, and the privilegeagainstself-
incrimination. For example, in the Gault
case, the U.S. Supreme Courtfound that the
benefits of more informal, individualized
justice in the juvenile court systemwere not
a substitute for due process protections
guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.In the
intervening 30 years,juvenile courts have
struggled, with varyingsuccess, to meet the
Supreme Court'srequirements.
Unfortunately,as the articlebyAinsworth
in thisjournal issue describes, considerable
researchshowsthat thejuvenile court system
today has failed to fulfill the promise of pro-
cedural fairnessenvisioned by the Supreme
Court. Some critics argue that the changes
necessitated by the Gaultdecision have led
only to a more formalized, legalistic, and
adversarialcourt.6 Others cite the juvenile
court's inability to fulfill the due process
guarantees as a reason for moving all juve-
nile offenders into adult criminalcourt.26
Injuvenile court, as in any legal forum, a
juvenile's key to knowingand exercising his
or her rightsis the effectiveassistanceof legal
counsel. Today,asjuvenilesface the potential
for longer sentences and transfer to adult
court, the role of legal counsel is criticalto
ensure that minorsare not held unnecessari-
ly in secure detention, improperly trans-
ferred to adult criminalcourt,or inappropri-
atelycommittedto institutionalconfinement
As Mitchell points out in this journal
issue, and other court insidersand observers
have confirmed, the sheer volume of cases
heard byjuvenile court makes it difficultfor
each alleged delinquent to receiveadequate
and fair treatment.A recent report on the
quality of legal representation in juvenile
delinquency matters cited examples of
TheJuvenileCourt:Analysisand Recommendations 11

defense attorneys handling more than 450
cases per year when national standards for
juvenile cases call for caseloadsnot to exceed
200 annually.Lawyersmay have as many as
40 to 50 cases on calendar for a single day.37
implications of waiving their right to coun-
sel, this right should not be waivableat any
phase of the juvenile court process for juve-
niles who are facing the possibilityof out-of-
home placement.

Not only are underrepresentedjuveniles i Dispositional Alternatives.Once a juve-

and those represented by unprepared attor-
neys deprived of their constitutional rights,
but their inadequate legal representation
may also preclude informed judicial deci-
sion making about appropriate dispositions
of the case. When defense counsel is unpre-
pared to provide information about a delin-
quent's home or school life, or to investigate
and recommend dispositional alternatives,
the judge is more likely to act on the basis of
the probation official's report, the prosecu-
tor's input, or personal biases.
In some large jurisdictions, the rate of
petitioned cases represented by counsel is as
high as 97%; in other, predominantly rural,
jurisdictions, as few as 65% of all juvenile
cases are represented.38Given the serious-
ness of potential sentencing outcomes in
juvenile cases, the fact that in certain juris-
dictions a substantialpercentage ofjuveniles
waive their right to counsel altogether is a
cause for concern.39The circumstancessur-
rounding these waivers--suggestions from
the bench and prosecutors that counsel is
not needed because the case is not serious,
parents' fears about the potential cost of rep-
resentation, and the typicallyhuge caseloads
of defense attorneys--when combined with
the youthfulness and inexperience of defen-
dants, raise the possibility that juvenile
waiversof counsel are not alwaysmade with
the full understanding by the minors or
their parents of the implications of such a
decision.40
nile has been found to be delinquent, the
task of the juvenile court is to order and
oversee the appropriate disposition or
sentence in the case. A hallmark of juve-
nile court has been the abilityof thejuvenile
court judge to order sanctions that can
potentially address the individualized
needs of the juvenile delinquent before
him, all the while balancing goals of reha-
bilitation of the juvenile, accountability
for the delinquent's actions, and safety of
the community. The availabilityof a range
of effective alternative dispositions is key
to the fulfillment of these multiple goals
of the juvenile court.
As the article by Greenwood describes, a
few exceptional communities have devel-
oped a wide array of programs that offer
varying degrees of supervision and security.
A large review of a number of studies that
evaluated such programs found that com-
munity-based programs were significantly
more effective than institutional placements
in reducing recidivism (the percentage of
youths who reoffend within a particular
time period after their first conviction).
Highly structuredprogramswith education,
vocational training, and life skills develop-
ment components had better outcomes
than less structured interventions such as
counseling or general supervision. While
less structuredinterventions produced rates
of 50%, the highly structured community-
based programshad recidivismrates of 30%
to 40%.41

Ideally, all types of correctional pro-

RECOMMENDATION grams serving large numbers of juveniles
would be evaluated, and those found to
m Every youth who is referred to juvenile be ineffective would be discontinued. In
court for formal processing in delinquency reality, a number of factors-including
matters should be represented by trained available resources and political will-may
counsel from the time of the detention hear- have a greater effect on which dispositions
ing throughout the court process. or programs are available than does reli-
able research. A good example cited by
Greenwood is the rapid proliferation of
boot camps for juveniles which have been
Because of the possible inability of juve- instituted in 29 states since 1983 without any
niles and their parents to understand the evidence as to their effectiveness. A 1995
12 THEFUTURE
OFCHILDREN
- WINTER
1996

evaluation of these programs in eight cases.43A more comprehensive approach

states found that four had no effect on that includes blended sentencing was estab-
recidivism,one resulted in higher rates,and lished by Minnesota's 1994 Juvenile Crime
three were effectiveon some recidivismmea- Act44 It creates a new category of serious
sures. The programs with the best results offenders, extended jurisdiction juveniles
had therapeutic components characteristic (EJJs),who are tried asjuveniles but receive
of some of the effective programs men- full adult due processprotections,including
tioned above.42 ajury trial,if they wish. EJJminors are given
an adult criminalsentence which is applied
only if the juvenile does not complete the
juvenile court disposition.The lawgivesseri-
RECOMMENDATION ous offenders a final chance to benefit from
the rehabilitativedispositionaloptions of the
m Communitiesshould ensure that a range juvenile court while limiting transfers to
of dispositionalalternatives,providinga con- adult court by creatingan intermediatecate-
tinuum of sanctions from community ser- gory ofjuvenile offenders.
vice and supervisedprobation to incarcera-
tion of juvenile offenders, is available to Because this law is new, little is known
to
respond juvenile crime; particularatten- about its implementation in the courts.
tion should be given to those models that Ironically,it may be used byjuvenile judges
have shown, through evaluation,success in to place certain offenders in the EMJ catego-
reducing recidivism. ry who would not have been likely to be
transferredto adult criminal court. If these
juveniles violate theirjuvenile court disposi-
tions (probation, for example), they may
To develop such a continuum of sanc- end up servingadult sentences.45
tions, the court must work closely with the
probation department and community ser- 0 Restitutionand the Balanced Approach.
vice providersand must enlist the coopera- Another reform strategyis the balancedand
tion of other public agencies including restorative justice approach, which com-
schools, health, and mental health depart- bines community protection with efforts to
ments. For qualitycontrol, the court should hold juveniles accountable for their actions
have access to accurate,ongoing data about and to assistthem in becoming more com-
the effectivenessof the programs to which petent young adults. Some state statutes
juveniles are referred. have adopted the balanced approach as
their juvenile court philosophy. In a proba-
FutureDirections tion departmentusing this approach,youths
If present trends continue, the juvenile work under adult supervision on a project
courtwillcontinue to be subjectto changing that creates something positive for the
legislation regarding its jurisdiction over community and providesskill trainingwhile
delinquency cases. Policymakersinterested they earn money to repay the victims of
in addressing the underlying problems of their offenses. In contrast,in the traditional
violent juvenile crime are seeking innova- probation program, the youths are poorly
tions that can addressconcerns about public supervised, receive no skill training, and
safety and accountability while retaining have only minimal contact with their pro-
some alternativesto adult prison sentences. bation officers. Probation departments
One approach is to strike a midground throughout the country have been tryingto
between adult and juvenile jurisdiction, by implement this approach, often by reorga-
combining the stricter due process protec- nizing old methods to fit into the model's
tions and potential for more severe sanc- goals of protection, accountability,and skills
tions of adult court with the potential for competency.General institutionalresistance
rehabilitativedispositions availablethrough and limits in funding make the true reform
juvenile court. necessaryto implement this approach diffi-
cult to attain.."
N BlendedSentencing.Sixteen states have
recentlypassed legislationto create blended Restitutionis an increasinglypopularway
sentencing options for certain delinquency to hold juvenile offenders accountable for
TheJuvenileCourt:Analysisand Recommendations 13

their actions by obliging them to "make 1992: roughly 17,000 of those were runaway
amends" by paying their victims directly or cases, 26,000 were truancycases, 11,000were
performing community service. This prac- ungovernabilitycases, 30,000 were liquor law
tice is likely to grow in the future.47 violations, and 13,000 were other cases
including violations of curfew and of valid
StatusOffenses court orders (VCOs)involvingthejuvenile.51
The juvenile court in particularand society
generally have long struggled with how best Overall, African Americans were only
to respondto statusoffenses,actsthatare slightly more likely than whites to appear
unlawful when committed by a minor but before the court for status offenses. How-
are not illegal if committed by an adult such ever, the rate for runaway cases was 50%
as truancy,running away,and ungovernabil- greater for African Americans than for
ity. The continuing needs of young people whites;the truancyand ungovernabilityrates
for protection, supervision,and guidance by for African-Americanjuveniles were twice
adults and the belief that antisocial adoles- those of whites; and liquor law violations
cent behavior can be shaped and changed were four times higher for white juveniles
have been, and continue to be, justifications than for AfricanAmericans.51These data do
forjuvenile court intervention in these cases. not include numbers of curfewviolations by
racial group, nor do they reflect recent
Court jurisdiction over noncriminal increases in the enforcement of municipal
youths predatesthe official arrivalof the curfew ordinances.
juvenile court in Illinois. As Fox describes in
his article in this journal issue, nineteenth- Forty-two percent of all status offense
century beliefs regarding the moral dangers cases in 1992 involved females. This is in
in
of povertyled to intervention the lives of sharp contrast to the percentage of delin-
poor children who were perceived to be in quency charges that were brought against
danger of becoming criminalsif left in their females in 1992 (only 15%). Of all runaways
"depraved"homes.4s Little distinction was brought into juvenile court that year, 62%
made between these noncriminal youths were female and 38% were male. Females
and young criminal offenders in terms of were involved in approximatelyone-third of
intervention and treatment.Statusoffending all liquor lawviolations.52
continued to be treated as a type of delin-
quency until the 1960s and 1970s, when crit- JuvenileCourtProcess
ics argued for servicesrather than incarcera- Today the juvenile court still retainsjurisdic-
tion for status offending youth, and states tion over status offenses in every state,
passed laws distinguishing status offenses although processing of these cases varies
from delinquency cases.49 The federal from virtually no intervention in some
JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention locales to highly developed intervention pro-
Act of 1974, described below and in the arti- gramsin others. Most statusoffense cases are
cle by Steinhart in thisjournal issue, further not formally processed by the court. As
solidified the distinction between status many as 80% of all cases are divertedto com-
offense and delinquency cases. munity service programs or handled in
other forums without the filing of case peti-
A Profileof StatusOffenders tions.52Truancycases,for example, are often
The number of status offense cases nation- processed through the local school system,
wide is unknown. As Steinhartpoints out in without the involvement of the court.53
his article, data are availableonly on the sta-
tus offense cases formally brought (peti- Statusoffenders are brought to the atten-
tioned) tojuvenile court, but there is no doc- tion of the court through a varietyof means.
umentation of the cases that are handled Schools may report extended truancyto tru-
informally.In addition, many cases that fit in ancy officerswho, if they fail to get the truant
the status offense category,such as running juveniles to attend school, petition the court
away,never come to the attention of author- to handle the cases. Some juveniles come
ities at all.5? before the court after being apprehended
by law enforcement officials for violating
Status offense cases formally processed curfews or local liquor laws. Parents who
by the court totaled approximately97,000 in are unable to manage their children may
14
themselves turn their children over to the
court under statestatuteswhich give thejuve-
nile courtjurisdictionoveryoung people who
are "ungovernable" or "beyondcontrol."
TheJuvenileJusticeand Delinquency
Act of 1974
Prevention
Status offenders whose cases are processed
by the juvenile court have essentially the
same due process rightsin court as do delin-
quents,49but dispositionsare very different.
Federal law now discourages,except under
verylimited circumstances,the placement of
statusoffenders in secure detention facilities
(jails).TheJuvenileJustice and Delinquency
PreventionAct (JJDPA)of 1974, a response
to criticismsagainst state practices of pun-
ishing rather than treating noncriminal
minors, conditioned the receipt of federal
funds on state efforts to deinstitutionalize
noncriminalyouth. It pronounced thatjuve-
niles "chargedwith or who have committed
offenses that would not be criminal if com-
mitted by an adult ... shall not be placed in
secure detention facilitiesor secure correc-
tional facilities."MThe act also encouraged
states to develop service programsfor status
offendersas alternativesto secure detention.
According to the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, in
December 1992, 34 states and three terito-
ries participatingunder the JJDPAwere in
full compliance with deinstitutionalization
mandates.55As Steinhartreports, detention
levels have declined since the passageof the
JJDPA.One studyshows that detention rates
for status offenders in the states participat-
ing in the JJDPAdropped by an averageof
95% between each state's compliance start
date and 1988.56
There are a number of indications that
policy toward status offenders is moving
toward.greater control and more punitive
responses.In 1980, theJJDPAwas amended
to allow the secure detention of status
offenders who had violated valid court
orders.57Some states have exercised this
detention authoritymore aggressivelythan
others. In an article in this journal issue,
Steinhart describes recent state challenges
to the overallfederal policy of deinstitution-
alization of status offenses. Washington
State, for example, changed its law in 1995
to permit secure detention of arrestedstatus
offenders,58contravening the requirements
THEFUTURE - WINTER
OFCHILDREN 1996
of the JJDPA.Reauthorizationof the JJDPA,
which expired October 1, 1996,wasdebated
in Congress.No decision was reached. The
shape of the legislation and whether it will
retain the statusoffender deinstitutionaliza-
tion mandate are unknown.
CurrentPolicyand PracticeIssues
In addition to changes in state laws with
regard to deinstitutionalization policies,
changes in local practiceswith regardto sta-
tus offenders reveal a trend towardgreater
regulation of this population. This is exem-
plified by the ever-increasingnumber of
cities that have passedand are enforcing cur-
few ordinances.In contrast,some communi-
ties are focusing their efforts on providing
better service programs and other alterna-
tive interventionsto statusoffenders.
U Curfews. According to a 1995 U.S.
Conference of Mayorssurvey,more than 250
cities nationwide have curfew ordinances.59
In 1992, of 77 American cities with popula-
tions of 200,000 or more, 59 had curfewlaws
in place.60 Local political leaders justify
municipal curfew ordinances as a way to
decrease the number of crimes committed
by youths and to protect children from
crime61by assistingparents to restricttheir
children's late-night activitiesand allowing
police to removejuveniles from the streets
during curfew hours. Some communities
that claim success in reducing nighttime
offenses with curfewsare implementing day-
time curfews as well. For instance, Austin,
Texas, has a curfew between 9:00 A.M.and
2:30 P.M.on school days;children who are
out on the streetsduring those hours can be
brought in by authorities.62
The use of curfewsis not withoutcontro-
versy. Some curfew ordinances have been
successfully challenged on constitutional
groundsfor being overlyvague or too broad-
ly applied. However,the majorityhave been
upheld."6In addition, there may be unequal
enforcement of curfew ordinances across
races. For example, nearly 60% of the juve-
niles detained under a new curfew ordi-
nance in San Jose, California,were Latino,
although less than 30% of the city's youth
population is Latino."
The effectiveness of curfew laws in
reducingjuvenile crime is unclear.In fact, a
1995 reviewof existing literatureon curfews
TheJuvenileCourt:Analysisand Recommendations 15

found that "there is so little existing offenders and their families.72Communities

research on the effects of curfews that poli- can develop programs that adequatelyserve
cymakers have next to nothing to guide most statusoffenders. Given that, communi-
them concerning the benefits and costs of a ty programs should be the first line of inter-
curfew."65 vention for status offenders. When initial
community effortsat providingservicefail in
0 DevelopingAlternativeInterventions.The these cases, the court--with its abilityto hold
violation of curfew laws or the commission parties accountable--may be able to elicit
of other status offenses is frequently a warn- positive action.
ing sign of problems in a youth'slife.66Some
status offenders, such as runaways,are, in
fact, victimsof abusivesituationsat home.67,68
A 1984 study of 199 runawaysindicated that RECOMMENDATION
75% had been severelymaltreated at home
in the year prior to running away.69 m The firstline of response to statusoffend-
ers should be community and public services
Status offenses seldom result in direct designed to help children and their families,
harm to anyone other than the statusoffend- with court intervention only after services
er. Placement of status offenders in secure have been offered but have not been suc-
detention is inappropriateboth because sta- cessful, or if the child's behavior continues
tus offenders are often victims and because to pose a threat to his or her own safety or
their acts are of minimal harm to society. well-being.
Furthermore, the placement of status
offenders in secure detention may expose
them to the negative peer influences ofjuve-
niles who have committed more serious Court-ordered incarceration of a status
offenses. More important, institutionaliza- offender is appropriate only in exceptional
tion separates minors from their families cases when an adjudicated status offender
and does not provide status offenders and repeatedly refuses to cooperate with the
their familieswith the opportunityto receive court or service providers, or when a status
appropriateservices. offender's behavior is proven to be of signif-
icant risk of harm.
Though the policy of deinstitutionaliza-
tion of statusoffenders reflected in the 1974 ChildAbuseand NeglectCases
JJDPA has reduced the number of such The juvenile court, working with law
youths incarceratedwith delinquent youths, enforcement and child protective service
in most communities the need for alterna- agencies, is responsible for protecting those
tive interventions through servicesand shel- children whose parents or other legal care-
ter has never been fully realized. The takers abuse or neglect them. Cases that
Metropolitan Court Committee of the come before the court are those involving
National Council of Juvenile and Family children who have been physicallyor sexual-
CourtJudges recommends a continuum of ly abused, abandoned, or so neglected by
community servicesfor statusoffenders, par- their parents that their care does not meet
ticularly truants, runaways, and substance- even minimal standards.
abusing and beyond-control children.70
Needed services may include counseling, The goal of the court in handling these
medical care, social services, alcohol or sub- cases has alwaysbeen to protect the children
stance abuse treatment, and both short-and by first determining the validity of child
long-term shelter. abuse and neglect allegations and then
deciding whether the children need to be
Successful programs for status offenders placed in foster care or can remain at home
are flexible and offer a wide variety of ser- with supervisionand servicesfrom public or
vices.7 Juvenile court judges, because of private agencies. However, as the article by
their abilityto convene community members Hardin in thisjournal issue discusses,several
and their role as advocatesfor children, are new roles were given to the court in the late
in strong positions to help communities 1970s. At that time, there was great dissatis-
develop successfulprogramsto handle status faction with the state intervention after child
16 THEFUTURE - WINTER
OFCHILDREN 1996

abuse and neglect had been identified. abuse and neglect case it handled.77
Many families were not receiving services Although courts have alwaysworked with
from child welfare agencies, and although child welfare agencies in handling these
children were most often physicallyprotect- cases, the oversight responsibilities given
ed, a large number of children who were to the court complicated that relationship
removed from home were being transferred with regard to the legal requirements and
from foster home to foster home with little the day-to-dayoperations of both entities.
or no effortmade to securea permanent Handling these cases now requiresmultiple
home for them.73Around the same time, hearings,notjust one or two. This increased
there was a growing belief that parent-child time demand in individualcases combined
bonding and attachmentare criticalfor chil- with an ever-greaternumber of cases reach-
dren and can best be providedthrough a sta- ing the court substantiallyincrease the per-
ble and permanent home.74 centage of time courts devote to child abuse
and neglect cases.
The Adoption Assistance and Child
WelfareAct of 1980 (PublicLaw96-272)75was Profileof ChildAbuseand Neglect
passed to addressthe widespreaddissatisfac- Cases
tion with child welfare practice and to pro- Comprehensive and reliable data about
mote permanencyfor children. The legisla- child abuse and neglect reports and result-
tion put in place federalstandardsthat states ing juvenile court cases are not currently
must implement to qualifyfor federal fund- available.78However, some estimates are
ing for out-of-homecare. In response, many available from developing national data-
state lawswere changed to adopt the follow- bases. In 1994, 4% of America'schildren, or
ing prioritiesin handling abuse and neglect 2.9 million youngsters, were reported as
cases:preventout-of-homeplacement;reuni- being abused or neglected.79 Nearly half
fy the familyafter a child is placed in foster of these reportswere of neglect;26%were of
care; or if reunificationis impossible,find a physical abuse; and 14% were of sexual
safe and permanent home for the child in abuse.79Reports were made to either law
a timely manner. Federal law specified that, enforcement (who then typicallyreferred
although this final step could be taken earli- them to child welfare) or to child welfare
er, it must occur within 18 months of place- agencies who either closed the case as
ment of a child in out-of-homecare. unfounded or inappropriatefor the agency
to investigate,or investigatedthe allegations.
To achieve these goals, the federal legis- Of the 2.9 million reports,about 1.6 million
lation greatly expanded the court's role in led to investigations.Approximatelyone mil-
handling these cases. Child welfareagencies lion reportswere found to be substantiated
would continue to plan and provide the ser- or indicated.79 Of these, most were han-
vices to familiesto keep them together or to dled informallyby the child welfareagency
reunifythem. However,the new lawgave the entering into agreementswith the familyfor
court many more responsibilities.Whenever services with no court oversight.There are
a child is involuntarily removed from no national data about the percentage of
parentalcustody,the court must make a spe- reports that result in court action. In some
cific finding that continued placement with localjurisdictions,it has been as low as 3% to
the familyis contraryto the child's welfare. 4% of all reports9 or 21% of all substanti-
In addition, the court must find that the ated cases.81
child welfare agency made "reasonable
efforts"to prevent out-of-home placement African Americans are overrepresented
of children or to reunify them if they haveat severalpoints in the child welfaresystem.
been removed. Federal funding for foster Twenty-sixpercent of the annual child abuse
care placements is conditioned on the and neglect reports concern African-
court's making the required finding of rea-American children, yet African Americans
sonable efforts.To make these decisions andcomprise only 21% of the general popula-
perform an ongoing monitoring role, the tion.82Overrepresentationis more striking
in out-of-home placement For example,
court is requiredto hold periodic hearings.76
approximately4% of all African-American
These statutorychanges greatlyincreased children are in foster care in New Yorkand
the workload of the court in each child California,whereas the rates for Caucasian
TheJuvenileCourt:Analysisand Recommendations 17

children in these same states range between have been ineffective in their role as moni-
0.5% and 2%.83,84 tors of the social service agencies' deliveryof
services to families, because of both lack
JuvenileCourtProcess of understanding of the law and disagree-
Once a petition is filed by the child welfare ment with its principles.76
agency alleging that the child has been
abused or neglected and is within the court's The juvenile court is not alone in strug-
jurisdiction, the court's work is substantial. gling to meet national goals of protecting
First,if an out-of-home placement to protect children and ensuring safe and permanent
the child's safetyis deemed necessaryby the homes for them in a timely manner. Other
child welfare agency, there is an emergency public and private agencies are working
hearing either immediately before or imme- hard to find better waysto serve abused and
diately after removal to determine whether neglected children and their families.There
the child can be returned home while the are many current initiativesto improve sup-
trialis pending. The next step is a hearing to port for families,86to identify early those
determine whether the child has been children who may be most at riskfor abuse,87
abused or neglected and whether the court and to mobilize entire communities to take
has a basis for jurisdiction over the child. If more responsibilityfor the problem of child
abuse or neglect is established, the court abuse and neglect and more initiative in
makes a dispositional decision. In this hear- finding solutions to this problem.88
ing, the court reviews the child welfare
agency's recommendations regarding cus- However, the focus of this journal is on
tody and services for the child and family the juvenile court. The court has a particu-
and makes a dispositional order. At that larly important role to play in meeting the
point, the child welfareagency typicallytakes goals of Public Law 96-272. Three current
over the day-to-daysupervision of the case. policy and practice issues are: (1) the court's
However,the court will hold reviewhearings need for data, (2) the court's responsibility
at least every six months. At each hearing, to ensure timely permanency decisions for
the court must determine if the child can children, and (3) the opportunity and need
remain in, or be returned to, the care of his forjudicial leadership on these issues.
parents. If the child is in out-of-home care,
the court must make a decision about the N Data.Juvenile courts, as well as child wel-
permanent placement of the child within 18 fare agencies, need comprehensive data
months. If there is no possibility of family about their effectiveness in responding to
reunification,a decision may be made to ter- child abuse and neglect cases. Currently,
minate the parental rights, freeing the child across the country, such data are missing at
for adoption. Depending on the state's law, national, state, and local levels. For example,
hearings on the termination of parental judges handling child abuse and neglect
rights may or may not be handled by the cases often do not know the answersto basic
juvenile court. questions such as: What percentage of the
children who are left in their homes after a
CurrentPolicyand PracticeIssues report of abuse or neglect were subsequently
Implementation of Public Law 96-272 and abused? What percentage of children reuni-
compliance with its monitoring and perma- fied with their families reentered the system?
nency planning requirements continue to How long do children remain in foster care,
be the biggest challenges for the juvenile and what is the number of placements?How
court in its work with child abuse and long does the court process take?How many
neglect cases. Unfortunately,it is not possi- hearings are rescheduled and why? What
ble to know in any comprehensive way to percentage of children whose parents'
what extent juvenile courts and the public parental rights have been terminated have
child welfare agencies they monitor are suc- been adopted and how quickly?
cessful in meeting the goals of this law.
Public child welfareagencies have been sued Such data are tools, not solutions, but
in at least 21 states on behalf of children they can show courts and child welfare agen-
who have not received the benefits of perma- cies where improvements and reforms are
nency planning envisioned by this law.85 needed. Indeed, with recent federal funding
Likewise,in many instances,juvenile courts for state juvenile court needs assessments,
18 THEFUTURE - WINTER
OFCHILDREN 1996

over 33 state court systems have identified one year are children five years old and
better informationas a high-priorityneed.89 younger.From25% to 40%of these children
Separate federal funding is now providing will remain in out-of-homecare for at least
incentives for states to build comprehen- four years,and at least 30%of these children
sive, automated, child welfare data systems. will experience three or more foster care
These are importantopportunities to make placementsduring that time.84
real progresstowarddocumenting the effec-
tiveness of a jurisdiction in responding to There is much a court can do to improve
child abuse and neglect cases and how effec- this situation.First,the strong commitment
tive this response is.90 of each juvenile courtjudge to timely deci-
sion making is critical.The judge must play
tworoles.Next, thejudge can preventunnec-
essarydelay by such strategiesas implement-
RECOMMENDATION ing concurrent planning, handling a case
from beginning to end, and setting strict
In each state and locale, every effort rules regarding continuances. Such steps
I
should be made to assess the data system can yield great progress in resolving these
needs of juvenile courts and child welfare cases in a timelymanner.O2,9s
agencies and to address these needs in a
coordinated and complementarymanner. In addition to ensuring that its own
processes are expeditious, the court also
plays a very important role in monitoring
and ensuringthat child welfareagencies and
I Commitment to TimelyDecisions. Children others involved in these cases make deci-
need to grow up in safe and stable homes. It sions and meet their legal obligations (such
is harmfulfor them to grow up being moved as making reasonable efforts toward family
in and out of the custody of their families reunification) in a timely manner. As the
and/or from one foster placement to the article by Hardin in this journal issue dis-
next.91 This is particularly true for very cusses, this monitoring role, created by
young children, whose physical,emotional, Public Law96-272, is not without controver-
and cognitive development is so rapid and sy.94Although there is consensus that, for
so critical.91Two years pass quickly for an highly sensitivedecisions such as involuntar-
adult but are half of the lifetime of a four- ily removingchildren from their families or
year-old. The 1980 federal legislation was terminatingparental rights, courts must be
correct in affirming the importance of involved, there is controversyas to whether
achievingsafe, stable,and permanent place- courts should reviewcase plans of child wel-
ments for all children within at least 18 fare agencies and to what extent. This mon-
months. In addition, states should seriously itoring role continues to be critical,and the
consider more developmentally sensitive courts have made considerable progress in
child welfarepractices,with specialattention performing it. One of the main reasons for
to the needs of veryyoung children.91 the court to play this role is the interrelated
nature of court decisions and decisions of
Timely decision making by courts and child welfareagencies. In a sense, the court
child welfare agencies is criticalto meeting performs an important managerial func-
the developmentalneeds of childrenfor safe tion. Court reviewis criticalto identify gaps
and permanent homes. Although data are and dangers in selected serviceapproaches,
limited,a numberof studiesand speciallycre- to emphasize statutory timelines, and to
ated data archiveshave documented the dif- keep all partiesworkingtogether.92
ficultyof securingpermanentplacementsfor
children in a reasonableperiod of time. As
Barthdiscussesin his article,in Illinois,more
than half of the childrenare in fostercarefor RECOMMENDATION
35 months; in New York,for 25 months.83
This is true even for veryyoung children.A m Every juvenile court in the country
recentlyconducted studyin Californiashows should work with local child welfare agen-
that about two-thirdsof the approximately cies to improve their effectivenessin provid-
24,000 children entering foster care in any ing abused and neglected children with safe
TheJuvenileCourt:Analysisand Recommendations 19

and permanenthomes in a timelymanner dren. Judges should advocate for adequate

as specifiedbylaw. court resources and community systems to
respond promptlyand appropriatelyto child
abuse and neglect.

Some states have augmented such local

efforts with legislation mandating or other-
wise encouraging earlier permanency
TheCurrentStatusof the
decisions, especially for young children. JuvenileCourt
Colorado, for example, has adopted a new Judges are on the front line in dealing with
framework for child welfare decisions for some of society's most difficult problems.
children under the age of six. Except in very They need to be supported in their work,
special circumstances,they must have a per- and they, in turn, need to be highly trained
manent placement within 12 months of out- and motivatedfor their difficult responsibili-
of-home placement.95 ties. Yet, as detailed in the article by Rubin,
juvenile courts today varygreatlyin jurisdic-
SLeadership. As noted above, the court plays tion, organization, staffing, resources, and
a valuable role in ensuring the timeliness of facilities.For instance in some states,alljuve-
its own proceedings, as well as the decision nile court cases are heard by fully qualified
making of child welfare and other agencies. judges, while in others, quasi-judicialofficers
In addition, however,juvenile court judges known as referees or commissioners hear a
are in a position to play a greater leadership large part of the juvenile court caseload.
role in the broader community. In commu- Typically,there is no required experience or
nities across the country, individualjudges training forjuvenile courtjudges. This situa-
have been catalystsfor change. They have tion is particularly critical given that law
highlighted the importance of the problem school education and prior practice most
of abuse and neglect, and have convened often do not preparea lawyerto handle cases
communityagencies and interestedpartiesin involvingjuveniles. Mostjudges learn while
collaborativeefforts to improve community- on the job, but this valuable experience is
wide responses to the problem. Too often, lost in many jurisdictions where judges are
policy and practice changes occur in the assigned to the juvenile division for only a
handling of abuse and neglect cases only in short period of time, for example, six
response to particularlydisturbingincidents months to one year.The lack of trainingand
highlighted by media- attention.9 Courts, experience is particularlytroublesome given
given their stature and authorityin commu- the unique nature of juvenile court work.
nities, can help prevent this. As Judge Handling cases involving children requires
Edwardshas written,there is a public role for knowledge not only of statutoryand case law
judges which includes being open to the but also of child development and of a com-
public and working to ensure that the public munity'ssystemof social servicesand its edu-
understands the role and performance of cational and correctional institutions.
courts and child welfare agencies in han-
dling these reports. Sometimes, judges can Other professionalsworking in the juve-
also play important roles in helping to draft nile court, such as public defenders and
legislation that is necessary for the court to prosecutors,often also lack the training and
perform its work. In addition, a judge can experience needed to work with children
take action to rallythe community and help and their families. And even the experi-
garner resources to ensure that there is actu- enced professionals may find it difficult to
ally a system of servicesin place for children provide sufficient services because of the
and familieswho come before the court.49 huge caseloads and limited staff resources.
Newly hired prosecutors are frequently
given the juvenile court as their first assign-
ment. Defense attorneysoften carryso many
RECOMMENDATION cases at one time that they cannot adequate-
ly prepare for each. A 1990 study of three
* Juvenile court judges should be educa- courts found that districtattorneyshandled
tors and spokespersons in their communi- an averageof 377 delinquency cases per year
ties on behalf of abused and neglected chil- in one court and 725 delinquency cases per
20
year in each of the other two. Publicdefend-
ers in these same courtshandled an average
of only 115 cases annuallyin one court, but
1,015 per year in a second, and 616 per year
in the third.97Caseloads such as these can
render the legal representation of parties
before the juvenile court insufficient.
As the articleby Rubin discusses,juvenile
courts also vary in their stature, resources,
and organization. The juvenile court fre-
quently operates as the "poor sister"in the
local court system. Facilities,particularlyin
urban areas, are often grossly inadequate
and not designed to meet the varied needs
of the court and its clients.98
Of these distinctions,the most important
is the statureof the juvenile court within the
state court system. Although in most states
thejuvenile court is part of the court of gen-
eral trial courtjurisdiction, as are the adult
criminaland civil courts, in some states (for
example, Virginia) the juvenile court has a
lower status. In these states, if a partywho
appeared before the court disagreeswith its
ruling, that party is automaticallyentitled,
upon request, to a complete rehearing in a
court of generaljurisdiction.
Although many aspects of juvenile
court operations need attention, significant
progress could occur if state and localjuris-
dictions took action on the following three
recommendations:
RECOMMENDATION
m Juvenile courts should be at the level of
the highest trialcourt of generaljurisdiction
in each state.
Because nearlyalljuvenile courtsare cre-
ated by either state statute or judicial rule,
such a change would require either legisla-
tion or rule makingin a state.Judges, rather
than referees or commissioners,should be
the dominantjudicial officers in this court.
This is important to receive adequate fund-
ing and other resources for the court.
Heightened court statusalso makes it easier
to retainjudges and to encourage them to
be strong leaders in the community.49
THEFUTURE - WINTER
OFCHILDREN 1996
RECOMMENDATIONS
m Alljudges and otherjudicial officersserv-
ing in a juvenile division or juvenile court
should be required to have intensive and
ongoing training not only in the statutory
and case law governing delinquency, status
offense, and dependency matters but also
in child development, cultural factors,
resources for families, the court's relation-
ship with and duties toward social welfare
agencies, and research findings regarding
rehabilitativeinterventions.
m Juvenile courtjudges should serve in the
juvenile court division for at least two to
three years.
Judges need not make a lifetime com-
mitment to serving on the juvenile court.
However,rotationsof only six months to one
year unnecessarily prevent judges from
being able to develop the experience and
relationshipsnecessaryto make them effec-
tive injuvenile court.
Severalstateshave alreadytaken some of
these steps. California,for example, makes
judicialtrainingavailableto alljudges,includ-
ing those serving on the juvenile bench.
However,such training is not required. In
addition, the California Rules of Court
specify that "the presiding judge of the
Superior Court should assign judges to
the juvenile court to servefor a minimum of
threeyears,"a requirementthatis being com-
plied with in most counties in the state.9
TheFutureof the Juvenile
Court
The articlesby Moore and by Edwardsin this
journal issue discuss trends and models for
the juvenile court in the future. The article
by Moore suggeststhat the juvenile court of
the futureshould haveincreasedlegal power
to hold parents and community agencies
accountablefor the care of children. Under
this model, the court could bring parentsin
as parties in statusoffense and delinquency
cases,as it currentlydoes in child abusecases,
and compel them to be involvedin the reha-
bilitationof theirdelinquentor statusoffend-
TheJuvenileCourt:Analysisand Recommendations 21

ing children. In addition, the federallyman- tionate number of such cases.102The study's
dated power of the court to monitor the parallel three-site examination found court
efforts of social service agencies with regard records showing that 41% of families had
to servicesoffered to families in child abuse appeared in another family-related case
and neglect cases would extend to delin- within the previousfive years.103
quency and statusoffense cases as well.'00
Unfortunately, when the same family
Moore's approach may sound radical, appears in two or more courts, there can be
but some states have already taken steps in very negative consequences. It is logistically
this direction. Recently a number of state difficultfor the family.It is inefficient for sev-
legislatures have enacted parental responsi- eral judges to be trying to learn about the
bilitylawswhich give the courts the power to same people. It often results in a judge's
hold parents accountable for the acts of making a decision without benefit of long-
their delinquent or status-offending child. term or comprehensive knowledge of the
An Oregon law, for example, allowsjudges family.At its worst, the families can be sub-
to fine parents or require them to attend jected to conflicting court orders.
parenting classes if their children violate a
law.11oThe law'sproponents claim that poor The article by Rubin discusses efforts by
parenting is at the root ofjuvenile crime and severalstates to reorganize the processing of
that parental responsibilitylaws encourage all or most familymattersinto a unified fam-
better parenting. Criticsargue that Oregon's ily court system. Other jurisdictions, while
law,which holds the parents responsible for not changing the court structure, have
their children's acts regardlessof the degree improved coordination among the different
of parental supervision, penalizes parents court branches so that there is more consis-
for being parents.Though local law enforce- tent treatment of the families who appear
ment officers claim that juvenile crime has for multiple matters.
decreased since the passage of the Oregon
law,the effectivenessof parental responsibil-
ity laws in reducing juvenile crime has not
been evaluated. RECOMMENDATION

The court of the future must oversee a
juvenile justice system that provides a com-
prehensive response to each case, according
to the articleby Edwards.To do so successful-
ly, the court must better coordinate its han-
dling of family matters and increase the use
of alternativedispute resolution methods.
of Courts
Coordination
Edwards highlights the structural changes
some courts have made to improve court
coordination of case processing. Currently
in many statesnot all family-relatedcases are
handled by one branch of the court system.
Studies have found, however, that often it is
the same families who are appearing before
different branches of the court for family-
related matters. For example, a couple con-
testing custody in a divorce action may also
be involved in a child abuse and neglect pro-
ceeding where custody is also an issue. One
national survey of 150 courts conducted by
the National Center for State Courts found
that approximately 40% of families came
before the court more than once for family-
related matters and generated a dispropor-
m All courts should work to better coordi-
nate case processing by differentbranches of
the general court that handle family-related
mattersincluding the juvenile court.
DisputeResolution
Alternative
As seen from the statisticsabout the court's
formal caseload, the majority of situations
involving delinquency, status offenses, and
child abuse and neglect are already han-
dled outside the formal court process.
Nevertheless, the formal juvenile court
process in manyjurisdictionsfails to be time-
ly, allows inadequate time to hear each case,
and is marked by deficiencies in the repre-
sentation of the parties. Given the current
situation and projections that caseloads
will rise,10 the court needs help in devising
more effective ways to handle the disputes
that are brought before it.
Alternativemethods of resolvingdisputes
allow parties to settle a legal matter outside
the confines of formal court proceedings.
22
Advantagesto alternativedispute resolution
include reducing the court'scaseloadby cre-
ating opportunities for parties to resolve
their differences outside the courtroom set-
ting and directlyinvolvingthe partiesin the
craftingof the solutions.
Mediation
Mediationis one promisingform of alterna-
tive dispute resolution. Mediation is a non-
binding form of dispute resolutionin which
the resolutionmust be acceptableto all par-
tiesinvolvedin the process.Formalmediation
in child abuse and neglect cases involvesthe
use of a trainedmediatorto help parties(usu-
allythe parents,childwelfarecaseworker,and
the child'slegal advocate)reach a settlement
which will ideallyprotect the best interestsof
the child while acknowledgingthe concerns
of all involvedand using, to the extent possi-
ble, the resourcesof the family.Such media-
tion programsassistthe court by facilitating
quickersettlementsthat familymembersare
more likely to support. Mediation can pro-
vide participatingfamilieswithan example of
constructiveproblemsolving.105
Mediation is also being used as a diver-
sion alternative for status offender and
minor delinquencycases.For example, Con-
necticut established a statewide Juvenile
Mediation Program for minor delinquency
cases.Probationofficerswho were trainedto
maintain a neutral facilitatorrole served as
mediators to assist parents and children in
resolvingthe intrafamilyconflictsunderlying
the problematicbehavior.Communications
made during the mediation process were
strictlyconfidential, with only the terms of
the agreement being presented to the court.
An evaluationof the firstyearof the program
found that 85% of the minor delinquency
cases brought to this programwere resolved
through mediation.'10An evaluationof the
long-term effectivenessof the program has
not been conducted.
FamilyGroupConferences
Familygroup conferences, a new alternative
dispute model developed in New Zealand,
encourage family members, including RECOMMENDATION
extended family and close friends, to meet
together to solve the family matter that has m Juvenile courts should encourage the
been brought to the attentionof the court.107 development and use of more alternative
The solution craftedthrough the familycon- dispute resolution techniques.
ference process is subject to final court
approval.
THEFUTURE - WINTER
OFCHILDREN 1996
This approachis being used in Oregon's
FamilyUnity Meetings,which are convened
for familiesin crisis,in whichfamilymembers,
friends,and communitysupportpeople such
as neighbors or clergy,develop a plan for
improvingthe situation.1's A maintenet of this
model is buildingsolutionsto familyproblems
using the resourcesof the extended family
and the localcommunity.In a childabuseand
neglect case,for example,a childwho cannot
remainat home withparentscan be placedin
the home of a memberof the extended fami-
ly. Pilot Family Unity programs have been
creditedwith contributingto the decreasein
numbersof fostercareplacementsin Oregon.
The model is now being adopted throughout
Oregon,and variationsof the model arebeing
consideredin other partsof the country.'"
PeerCourts
As Edwards discusses in his article, some
states have establishedpeer courts in which
minor delinquency cases are heard by
trained youths with the assistanceof volun-
teer attorneysand judges. Another commu-
nity court model uses (adult) citizen tri-
bunals to handle minor delinquency cases
that have been diverted from the formal
court process.An evaluationof NewJersey's
network of citizen tribunals, the Juvenile
Conference Committee program, revealed
that some of the objectivesof the program
were met. However,the evaluationexposed
difficultiesin fact finding, lack of follow-up
case monitoring, and inadequacies in the
training of committee members. For exam-
ple, the standard training did not provide
adequate information about social service
resources. As a result, dispositions that
included referralsto social senrviceswere pri-
marily made by committee members who
were independently knowledgeable about
those resources.Finally,because these citizen
tribunalsare informalmechanisms,there are
limits to the types of dispositions they can
propose. For example, they cannot place a
juvenile in confinement or on probation.'"
TheJuvenileCourt:Analysisand Recommendations 23

However, because these methods occur Much from 1899 remains the same.
outside the formal juvenile court process Children are still different from adults.They
with its procedural protections, the court are stilldependent on havingsafe and nurtur-
must ensure that attention is given to the ing families and communities with agencies
structureand process of alternativemethods that support them in their education and
to assure fairness to all parties involved. development The coercivepower of the state
to order confinement of children, to remove
Conclusion them from theirhomes, and to terminatetheir
The need for qualityjuvenile courts contin- parents'rightsis equallyas awesomenow as it
ues today. The 100th anniversary of the wasthen. The argumentby the proponentsof
court should be a time of renewed dedica- thejuvenile courtin 1899 that these factors,in
tion to ensuring that these extremely impor- combination, necessitate a specialized court
tant legal decisions in children's lives are remainsrelevantand persuasivetoday.
handled with sensitivityto and understand-
ing of children and their development; with But much has also changed. Our country
good communication and coordination has 100 years of firsthand experience in
among the many people and institutionson identifying and responding to the many
whom children depend; and with full atten- challenges in the work of the juvenile court.
tion to procedural fairnessfor children, par- As discussedabove and throughout thisjour-
ents, and all parties. nal, there are many problems in policy and
practice that must be faced. It is our hope
The role of the judge remains critical. that the upcoming centennial will cause all
Judges are in the best position to ensure due citizens to look again at the juvenile court,
process of law and to use their authority to to affirm its critical role and value, and to
coordinate the effortsof the myriadagencies recommit to improving the court for the
involved in these cases to prevent unneces- benefit of children and their families.
sarydelay and to keep the focus on the child,
his habilitation, or his protection. As dis- Carol S. Stevenson,J.D.
cussed in this analysis and throughout this Carol S. Larson,J.D.
journal issue, these important tasks can be Lucy S. Carter,J.D.
if
accomplished only sufficient priority and Deanna S. Gomby,Ph.D.
resources are given to the work of the juve- Donna L. Terman,J.D.
nile court. RichardE. Behrman, M.D.

1. Section3 of the Act to Regulatethe Treatmentand Controlof Dependent,Neglectedand

Delinquent Children. Reprinted in Hurley, T. Originof theIllinoisJuvenileCourtLaw. 3rd ed.
Chicago,IL:VisitationandAid Society,1907,p. 28.
2. Section22 of the act. See note no. 1, Hurley,p. 39.
3. See note no. 1, Hurley, p. 143.
4. "Priorto the 1899 statute, the law viewed mankind, its varied distinctions as to sex, age, envi-
ronment and mental equipment notwithstanding, as a single class. Before the bar of a crimi-
nal court there was no difference from the viewpoint of the law between the adult and the
family."See note no. 1, Hurley, pp. 9-10.
5. See note no. 1, Hurley, p. 56.
6. See note no. 1, Hurley, p. 24.
7. See note no. 1, Hurley, pp. 10-11.
8. Sections 14 and 15 of the act. See note no. 1, Hurley, pp. 35-36.
9. Ostrom, B.J., and Kauder,N.B. Examiningtheworkof statecourts.Williamsburg,VA:National
Center for State Courts, 1996, p. 46.
10. Empsey, L.T, and Stafford, M.C. Americandelinquency: Its meaningand construction.
2nd ed.
Belmont, CA:Wadsworth,1991; Regnery,A.S. Getting awaywith murder: Why the juvenile
justice system needs an overhaul. PolicyReview(1985) 34:65-68.
11. Jones, M.A., and Krisberg,B. Imagesand reality:Juvenile
crime,youthviolenceand publicpolicy.
San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1994.
24 THEFUTURE - WINTER
OFCHILDREN 1996

12. Szymanski,L.Juvenilecodepurposeclauses1991. Pittsburgh,PA:National Center forJuvenile

Justice, 1991. Updated August 30, 1996, through personal correspondence with L. Szymanski.
13. Torbet, P., Gable, R., Hurst IV,H., et al. Stateresponses
to seriousand violentjuvenilecime.
Washington, DC; Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1996.
14. Butts,J.A., Snyder,H., Finnegan, T., et al.Juvenilecourtstatistics1992: Statisticsreport.
Pittsburgh,PA:National Center forJuvenileJustice, 1995, p. 5.
15. See note no. 11,Jones and Krisberg,p. 14; Snyder,H.N., and Sickmund, M.Juvenileoffenders
and victims:A nationalrport.Washington,DC: Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, 1995, p. 101.
16. A crime is considered cleared once someone is charged with that crime. Clearance and
arreststatisticsanswerdifferent questions and give very different pictures of thejuvenile con-
tribution to crime. Arreststatisticsshow the number of individualarreststhat were made.
Becausejuveniles, more than adults, tend to commit crimes in groups, arreststatisticstend to
attributea greater percentage of crime to juveniles. Clearance data give a better indication
of how much crime was committed byjuveniles because they count crimes, not arrestees. See
note no. 15, Snyder and Sickmund, pp. 48, 99, 101.
17. See note no. 14, Butts, Snyder,Finnegan, et al., p. 20, Table 30.
18. See note no. 15, Snyder and Sickmund, pp. 166-67.
19. See 42 U.S.C. ? 5633(a) (23).
on serious,violentand chron-
20. Howell,J.C., Krisberg,B., Hawkins,J.D., and Wilson,J.J.Sourcebook
Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage, 1995, p. 12.
icjuvenileoffenders.
21. See note no. 15, Snyder and Sickmund, p. 125.
22. As a result, some juvenile justice systemshave adopted more formal procedures for decision
making, including sentencing guidelines, standardizedrisk and needs assessmentinstru-
ments, and classificationsystemswhich identify the needed level of supervisionand help
determine appropriateplacement. When properlyimplemented, such procedures can pro-
vide greater structureand consistency to the juvenile justice system'sdecision-makingprocess
and can be used to allocate limited resources more efficientlyby directing the most intensive
interventions to the most serious offenders. U.S. Department ofJustice, Office ofJuvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Guidefor implementing thecomprehensive for serious,
strategy
violentand chronic juvenileoffenders.Washington,DC: Office ofJuvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, 1995, pp. 189-230.
23. The questions related to changes in juvenile confidentialitylawsare not discussed in this
issue or the analysis.This important trend is complex. It calls into question traditional
notions of protectingjuvenile delinquents in hopes of reducing the stigmatizingeffects of
publicity and also raisesimportant questions about the use ofjuvenile records for treatment-
related purposes and in criminal court proceedings. For discussion, see Martin,GA. Open
the doors:Ajudicial call to end confidentialityin delinquency proceedings. NewEngland
Journalon Criminaland CivilConfinement (1995) 21,2:393-410.
24. CaliforniaWelfareand InstitutionsCode ? 707(b) and (c).
25. Bishop, D.M., Frazier,C.E., Lanza-Kaduce,L., et al. The transferofjuveniles to criminal
court: Does it make a difference? Crime& Delinquency(April 1996) 42,2:17-91.
26. Feld, B.C. The transformationof the juvenile court. MinnesotaLaw Review(1991)
75:691-725.
27. U.S. General Accounting Office.Juvenilejustice:Juveniles criminalcourtand casedispo-
processed,
sitions.Report to congressional requesters. GAO/GAD-95-170.Washington,DC: GAO,
August 1995, p. 10.
28. See note no. 27, U.S. General Accounting Office, p. 15.
29. See note no. 27, U.S. General Accounting Office, p. 11.
30. Two studies, one in Floridausing data from 1985-1988 and one comparing cases from New
York (which requires all cases involving 16-year-oldsto be filed in adult criminal court) with
cases from neighboring counties in NewJersey,found that transferringlarge numbers ofjuve-
niles to adult courts did not result in reduced recidivismrates for this population of offend-
ers. The New Yorkand NewJersey study found that, while the likelihood of a severe sanction
was higher in criminal court, for those actuallysentenced to incarceration,the length of sen-
tences was nearly identical. Criminalcases took months longer to resolve thanjuvenile court
cases, often leaving the accused free on bail pending the trial.What is more important,
recidivismrates were higher for criminal court cases. The researcherconcluded that public
TheJuvenileCourt:Analysisand Recommendations 25

safetywas actuallycompromised by adjudication in criminal court. Similarly,in the Florida

study of 2,738 matched pairs of transferredand nontransferred youths, the transfergroup
had a higher recidivism rate than nontransfers. See Fagan,J. The comparative advantage of
juvenile versus crinminalcourt sanctions on recidivism among adolescent felony offenders. In
Sourcebookon senior,violentand chronicjuvenileoffenders.
Howell,J.C., Krisberg,B., Hawkins,J.D.,
and Wilson,J.J. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995; Bishop, D.M., Frazier,C.E., Lanza-Kaduce,
L., and Winner, L. The transfer ofjuveniles to criminal court: Does it make a difference?
Crime& Delinquency(April 1996) 42,2:171-91.
31. See note no. 27, U.S. General Accounting Office, p. 8.
32. These factors typicallyinclude the seriousness of the offense; whether the offense was willful,
violent, or premeditated; the danger of the individual offender to the community; whether
the offense was against a person or property; the maturityof the juvenile and his prior
record; and whether the juvenile is likely to be rehabilitated utilizing the services and disposi-
tions available to the juvenile court.
33. Rendleman, D.R. Parens patriae: From chancery to juvenile court. SouthCarolinaLaw Review
(1971) 23:205-59.
34. Kentv. UnitedStates,383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045 (1966).
35. In re Gault,387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1425 (1967).
36. Springer, C. Rehabilitating the juvenile court. NotreDameJournalof Law,Ethicsand Public
Policy(1991) 5:404-05.
37. Puritz, P., Burrell, S., Schwartz,R., et al. A callforjustice:An assessmentof accessto counseland
qualityof representation in delinquency
proceedings. Washington, DC: American Bar Association,
1995, p. 25.
38. U.S. General Accounting Office. Juvenilejustice:Representation
ratesvariedas did counsel'simpact
on courtoutcomes.GAO/GCD-95-139. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, June
1995, p. 12.
39. See note no. 37, Puritz, Burrell, Schwartz,et al., p. 44; and Feld, B.C. The right to counsel in
juvenile court: An empirical study of when lawyersappear and the difference they make.
Journalof CriminalLaw and Criminology (1989) 79,4:1185-1347.
40. See note no. 37, Puritz, Burrell, Schwartz,et al., p. 44.
41. Lipsey,M.W.Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analyticinquiry into the variabilityof
Explanation.T. Cook, H. Cooper, D.S. Cordray,et al., eds. New
effects. In Meta-Analysisfor
York:Russell Sage Foundation, 1992.
42. MacKenzie, D.L., Brame, R., McDowall, D., and Siouryal, C. Boot camp prisons and recidi-
vism in eight states. Criminology
(1995) 33,2:327-57.
43. See note no. 13. Torbet, Gable, Hurst, et al., pp. 19-23 and Figure 6.
44. Minn. Stat. ? 260.126(1) (1994).
45. Feld, B. Violent youth and public policy: A case study ofjuvenile justice law reform.
MinnesotaLaw Review(1995) 79:965-1128.
46. Bazemore, G. On mission statements and reform in juvenile justice: The case of the "bal-
anced approach."FederalProbation(September 1992) 56,3:64-70.
47. Rubin, H.T. Fulfillingjuvenile restitution requirements in community correctional programs.
FederalProbation(September 1988) 52,3:32-42.
48. See, for example, Pickett, R. Houseof Refuge:Originsofjuvenilenformin New YorkState
1815-1857. Syracuse,NY:SyracuseUniversityPress, 1969, p. 191.
49. See Edwards,L. The juvenile court and the role of the juvenile court judge.Juvenile and
FamilyCourtJournal(1992) 43,2:1-45.
50. Estimates of numbers of runawayseach year vary from half a million to more than two mil-
lion. See Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., and Sedlak, A. Missing, abducted,runawayand throw-
away childrenin America.Firstreport:Numbersand characteristics, national incidencestudies(NIS-
MART). Washington, DC: Office ofJuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention, May 1990;
and National Network, 1985, as quoted in Paradise, E. and Horowitz, R. Runawayand
homeless youth: A survey of state law. Washington, DC: ABA Center on Children and the
Law, 1994, p. 2.
51. See note no. 15, Snyder and Sickmund, p. 138.
52. See note no. 15, Snyder and Sickmund, p. 139.
26 THEFUTURE - WINTER
OFCHILDREN 1996

53. See note no. 49, Edwards,pp. 11-12.

54. See note no. 15, Snyder and Sickmund, p. 147.
55. Office ofJuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention. Deinstitutionklizingstatusoffenders:
A record of progress.JuvenileJustice(Fall/Winter 1995) 2,2:5.
56. Dodge, L. Noncriminal juveniles:Detentionshavebeenreducedbutbettermonitoringis needed
GAO/T-GGD-91-30.Washington,DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1991. The compli-
ance startdates varied from state to state; therefore, there was no uniform startdate for mea-
suring the state-by-statereductions.
57. JuvenileJustice and Delinquency PreventionAct, 1980 amendments, Public Law 96-509,
? 11(a) (13). The JDPAwas amended again in 1984 to define a valid court order (Public
Law98-473 ? 613 [b]).
58. Revised Code of Washington 13.32 A. 060 (1996).
59. These cover a wide range of cities including Biloxi, Mississippi;Carson City,Nevada;
Hampton, Virginia;Flint, Michigan;Wailuku,Maui, Hawaii;and Hutchinson, Iowa;Pionke,J.
Mayorsmoving towardimplementation of daytime curfews. U.S.Mayor(May28, 1996), p. 15.
60. Ruefle, W., and Reynolds, K. Curfewsand delinquency in majorAmerican cities. Crime&
Delinquency(July1995) 41,3:347-63.
61. See note no. 60, Ruefle and Reynolds, p. 349.
62. See note no. 60, Ruefle and Reynolds, p. 357.
63. See, for example,Johnsonv. Opelousas,LA. 658 E2d 1065 (1981). Most curfew ordinances
have been held to be constitutional, however.For a more complete discussion of the consti-
tutional issues regarding curfew,see Federle, K. Children, curfews,and the Constitution.
WashingtonUniversity Law Quarterly(Fall 1995) 73,3:1315-68.
64. Gaura,MA. SanJose report says crime less since curfew.SanFranciscoChronicle. November
22, 1995, at A23.
65. See note no. 60, Ruefle and Reynolds, p. 361.
66. See, for example, MetropolitanCourtJudges Committee. A newapproachto runaway,truant,
substanceabusingand beyondcontrolchildren.Reno, NV: National Council ofJuvenile and
FamilyCourtJudges, Metropolitan CourtJudges Committee, 1990, pp. 7, 13.
67. See note no. 66, Metropolitan CourtJudges Committee, p. 5.
68. Powers,J., Eckenrode,J., andJaklitsch, B. Maltreatmentamong runawayand homeless
youth. ChildAbuse& Neglect(1990) 14:87-98.
69. Farber,E., McCoard,D., Kinast,C., and Baum-Falkner,D. Violence in families of adolescent
runaways.ChildAbuse& Neglect(1984) 8:295-99.
70. See note no. 66, Metropolitan CourtJudges Committee, pp. 25-26, Appendix A.
71. Schorr,L. Withinourreach:Breakingthecycleof disadvantageNew York:Doubleday, 1988, as
quoted in note no. 66, Metropolitan CourtJudges Committee, p. 12.
72. Somejuvenile courts are workingwith local community agencies to develop effective pro-
gramsfor certain groups of statusoffenders. Truancyprogramsthat include truancycourts are
examples of this effort. The Hamilton County (Ohio) Juvenile Court, in conjunction with the
CincinnatiPublic Schools, has developed a truancyprogram that uses community resources
initiallyand turns to court involvementonly when necessary.It includes investigationsby
teachers or social workerswho visit the child's home and workwith parents to develop plans
to ensure that their children attend school. If the child continues to miss school, the juvenile
court holds a truancyhearing at the school to discuss methods for encouraging the child's
attendance. An evaluationof the firstfive yearsof the Hamilton CountyTruancyProgramdid
not show improvementsin overallattendance at the program schools. However,a surveyof
program participantsrevealed general approvalof the program because it was a source of ser-
vices to families for whom truancywas the sign of more serious underlyingproblems. See note
no. 49, Edwards,p. 21; and note no. 66, MetropolitanCourtJudges Committee, pp. 27-49,
Appendix B; see also Yux,F. Truancy programevaluation:Comparison 1989-90 thmugh firstsemester
of 1994-95. Cincinnati,OH: Hamilton CountyJuvenileCourt, 1995.
73. In the late 1970s, about 50% of all court cases resulted in removal of children from their
homes. Over 500,000 children were in foster care and would remain there for three years or
more, with many of them subjected to frequent changes in placement. Wald,M.S. State
intervention on behalf of "neglected"children: Standardsfor removal of children from their
homes, monitoring the status of children in foster care, and termination of parental rights.
TheJuvenileCourt:Analysisand Recommendations 27

StanfordLaw Review(1976) 28:623-700; Horn, W. Testimony to U.S. Congress. Senate

Committee on Finance. ChildWelfarePrograms:Hearings.104th Cong., 1st sess., 1995, pp. 6-8.
74. Goldstein, J., Freud, A., and Solnit, A. Beyondthebestinterestsof thechild New York:Free Press,
1973; Goldstein, J., Freud, A., and Solnit, A. Beforethebestinterestsof thechild New York:Free
Press, 1979.
75. Adoption Assistance and Child WelfareAct of 1980, Public Law 96-272, 42 U.S.C.
?? 670-679(a).
76. Edwards,L.P.Improving implementation of the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child
Welfare Act of 1980.Juvenileand FamilyCourtJournal(1994) 45,3:3-28.
77. See Figure 1 in the article by Hardin in thisjournal issue.
78. For a good discussion of the major national data sources and the difficulties in collecting
child abuse data, see Lewit, E.M. Child indicators: Reported child abuse and neglect. The
Futureof Children(1994) 4,2:233-42. The most promising advance in the development of
child welfare data is that data can now be analyzed on the individual level in at least five
large states (California, Illinois, Michigan, New York,and Texas) as part of the multistate
data archive effort led by the Chapin Hall Center for Children in Chicago, Illinois. In the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-66), Congress appropriated
funding to assist states in implementing statewide automated child welfare information sys-
tems. With this incentive, most states are building systems to provide comprehensive auto-
mated data about child abuse and neglect cases.
79. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center on Child Abuse and
Neglect. Childmaltreatment 1994: Reportsfrom thestatesto theNational Centeron ChildAbuseand
Neglect.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996. Because some states report
more than one type of abuse per victim, the total does not equal 100%.
80. The AdministrativePractices Improvement Project in Santa Clara County, California, found
that, in 1993, of 24,454 reports received, 22,437 (91.8%) were closed at intake, 1,142 (4.7%)
resulted in voluntary services to the families, and 875 (3.6%) resulted in a petition to the
juvenile court to takejurisdiction. For further information about this project, call John
Oppenheim, chief deputy director, Social Services Administration, Santa Clara County, at
(408) 441-5666.
81. Tjaden, PG., and Thoennes, N. Predictors of legal intervention in child maltreatment cases.
ChildAbuse& Neglect(1992) 16:807-21.
82. See Figure 2 in the article by Barth in thisjournal issue; see also note no. 79, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect;
and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Bureau of the Census, StatisticalAbstractof the United
States.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995.
83. Goerge, R.M., Wulczyn, FH., and Harden, A.W.Fostercaredynamics(1983-1993): An update
fromthemultistatefoster
caredata archive.Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the
Universityof Chicago, 1995.
84. Berrick,J.D., Needell, B., Barth, R.E, andJohnson-Reid, M. Thetenderyears:Towarddevelp-
mentallysensitivechildwelfareservices
for veryyoungchildren.New York:Oxford UniversityPress,
in press, 1996.
85. Pear, R. Many states fail to meet mandates on child welfare. New YorkTimes.March 17, 1996,
at Al.
86. In 1993, Congress passed the Family Preservation and FamilySupport Act as part of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-66). A description of this act
and its provisions can be found in Yoshikawa,H. Long-term effects of early childhood pro-
grams on social outcomes and delinquency. TheFutureof Children(Winter 1995) 5,3:51-75.
87. For example, the Healthy Start Program in Hawaii seeks to identify those children who are at
most risk for abuse and neglect and provide home visiting and other services to them. This
program is being replicated and evaluated at many sites throughout the country. Gomby,
D.S., and Larson, C.S., eds. Appendix: Brief descriptions of selected home visiting programs.
TheFutureof Children(1993) 3,3:206-14; Minow, M. Revisiting the issues: Home visiting. The
Futureof Children(1994) 4,2:243-46.
88. A number of private foundations, including Annie E. Casey in Baltimore, Maryland,and
Edna McConnell Clarkin New York,have initiativesfocusing on communitywide mobiliza-
tion to prevent child abuse and neglect.
89. Gable, R.J. Courtimprovement program:Reportto thenationssurvey.Pittsburgh, PA:National
Center forJuvenileJustice, August 1996. For more information on various state court
28 THEFUTURE - WINTER
OFCHILDREN 1996

improvement programs,contact Lou Ethel Smith at the Administrationfor Children and

Families,U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (202) 401-9215.
90. See note no. 78, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (Public Law 103-66).
91. For a comprehensive discussion of the attachment and psychological parent theories under-
lying this belief that children need safe, stable, and permanent placements, see note no. 84,
Berrick,Needell, Barth, and Johnson-Reid, Chapter 1.
92. National Council of Juvenile and FamilyCourtJudges. Resource guidelines:Improvingcourtprac-
ticein childabuseand neglectcases.Reno, NV: NCJFCJ,1995, pp. 10-14.
93. Hardin, M.Judicialimplementation ofpermanency planningreforms: Onecourtthatworks.
Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 1992.
94. See the article by Hardin in thisjournal issue. See also Boyer,B.Jurisdictionalconflicts
between juvenile courts and child welfare agencies: The uneasy relationship between institu-
tional co-parents.MarylandLawReview(1995) 54,2:377-431.
95. See, for example, Colorado Rev.Stat. ?? 19-1-102to 19-3-100.5;19-3-505;19-3-604;and 19-3-
703 and 19-3-704(1995). See also note no. 84, Berrick,Needell, Barth, andJohnson-Reid,
Chapter 9.
96. For example, the death of ElizaIzquierdo in New YorkCitywas the catalystfor numerous
actions to understand child abuse and improve the city'sresponse to it. See Firestone,D.
Giulianiseeks tough lawsto help abused children. New YorkTimes.February2, 1996, at B6.
97. Sanborn,J. The juvenile, the court, or the community:Whose best interests are currently
being promoted in juvenile court? TheJusticeSystem Journal(1994) 17,2:249-63.
98. Riley,M. Corridorsof agony. Time(January27, 1992) 139,4:48.Humes, E. No matterhowloudI
shout:A yearin thelifeofjuvenilecourt.New York:Simon and Schuster,1996.
99. Juvenile Court Matters,Appendix to CaliforniaRules of Court, StandardsofJudicial
Administration.St. Paul, MN:West, 1989, Section 24.
100. There are problemswith this model. Courtshold power over parents in dependency cases
because they can terminate parentalrights if effortsat providingfamilyreunificationservices
are unsuccessful.Parentsof delinquents or statusoffenders stand in a different relationshipto
the court. They may be seeking the help of the court because they have lost control over their
child; conversely,they may be willing to walkawayfrom their child and his or her problems
without addressingtheir contribution to the situation.In addition, in a politicalarena in which
the jurisdiction of the juvenile court over delinquency cases is being diminished by states'"get
tough on juvenile crime"laws,it is unlikelythat state legislatureswill expand the court'spow-
ers to hold parentsand agencies accountable in these cases. Furthermore,the expansion of
the juvenile court'sabilityto evaluateagency performance does not addressthe limitations
that decreasingfinancial resourcesput on agencies' abilitiesto provide adequate services.
101. Egan, T. "Bad"parents get spanked by authorities:Oregon citations revolutionizingjuvenile
justice. SanJoseMercuryNews.June 2, 1995, at 25A.
102. Rubin, H.T., and Flango, V. How is court coordination of family cases working? TheJudges'
Journal(Fall 1994) 33:11-12.
offamilycases.Williamsburg,VA:National
103. Rubin, H.T., and Flango, V. Courtcoordination
Center for State Courts, 1992, p. 28.
104. See note no. 15, Snyder and Sickmund, p. 111.
105. Edwards,L., and Baron, S. Alternativesto contested litigation in child abuse and neglect
guidelines:Improvingcourtpracticein childabuseand neglectcases.National
cases. In Resource
Council ofJuvenile and FamilyCourtJudges. Reno, NV: NCJFCJ,Spring 1995, Appendix B,
pp. 132-35.
106. D'Amico, S. The development and evaluation of a court-connectedjuvenile mediation pro-
gram.JuvenileandFamilyCourtJournal(1986) 37,5:7-13.
in childabuse
107. Hardin, M., with Cole, E., Mickens,J., and Loncour, R Familygroupconference
and neglectcases:Learningfromtheexperienceof NewZealand.Washington,DC: American Bar
Association, 1996.
108. Carey,B. Oregon's FamilyUnity attractingattention. NewsGuardL Lincoln City,Oregon.
February23, 1994, at A4; Carey,B. Strength in family can ease disputes. TheOregonian.
January 12, 1994, at B9.
109. Twain,D., and Maiello,L.Juvenile conference committees:An evaluationof the administration
ofjustice at the neighborhood level.Journalof CriminalJustice
(November 1988) 16,6:451-61.