Data

Juvenile Justice Overview

Extreme urbanization from high birth and immigration rates in the 1800s was a catalyst for what is now known as the "Child Saving Movement". Associations, started up by higher class individuals, typically women, developed in large cities in response to extreme impoverished conditions. There advocacy in state legislatures and fund raising gave rise to a juvenile justice system distinct from the adult system.

Evolution of Formal U.S. Juvenile Treatment

Juvenile facilities first appeared in Boston and New York in the mid 19th century and were formed by non-state societies and associations. Throughout the last half of the 19th century, states and courts gradually diminished unalienable rights of parents with the steady adoption of the parens patriae principle--the state has the responsibility of protection and shall have guardianship when situations warrant it. By the turn of the 20th century, Juvenile courts were established. The guiding principle that still holds today, "best interest of the child", started spreading throughout U.S. jurisdictions. Children would cease to simply be treated the same as criminals were, and they would no longer be left with "failing" parents.

Parens patriae advanced throughout judicial and legislative work in the first half of the 20th century. State juvenile facilities became common, and laws taking on a "guardian" role of children advanced. Laws made the court the de facto parent and guardian for wayward children. And the autonomous rights of the child and parents weakened over time.

It wasn't until the Supreme Court decision, In re Gault that this trend was slowed and somewhat reversed. The courts found that since juveniles are in jeopardy of incarceration, their due process rights must include Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. For the last 50 years, the courts have strived to balance the principles of "due process" and "best interest of the child".

Consider the following excerpt from the Department of Justice's 1997 report on Privacy and Juvenile records. (Privacy and Juvenile Justice Records: A Mid-Decade Status Report A Criminal Justice Information Policy Report May 1997, NCJ-161255). The report provides a historical background for the development of the "best interest of the child" approach to juveniles:

"The proper mix of social and law enforcement programs necessary to address juvenile crime remains hotly contested in Washington and in State capitols. But whatever the ultimate outcome, the effect of this debate on the maintenance of juvenile records already is considerable. A system initially designed to be a confidential social service record repository is under pressure to become a modern, interactive criminal history database. This is far from what the Illinois State legislature had in mind in 1899 when it established the Nation’s first independent juvenile court system, in which “children were not to be treated as criminals nor dealt with by the process used for criminals.”19 The juvenile court was one of the many products of the “Progressive Movement” of the late 1800s. To the Progressives, crime was the result of external forces, not of the exercise of an individual’s free will. Their goal was to reform the offender, not punish the offense. This concept of the “Rehabilitative Ideal” was the kernel of the Progressive justice reforms, including the formation of the juvenile court. 20 The Progressives saw children as “corruptible innocents” who needed “special attention, solicitude and instruction.”21 As this view gained currency, it seemed logical to establish a separate court system to apply the Rehabilitative Ideal to juveniles. This concept owed much of its existence to the Victorian ideal of childhood as a special period in life that requires extra protection from the harsh realities of the adult world. In some measure, however, the concept is also a reaction to the world of the early 19th century in which there was considerably less tolerance for the misdirection of youth. Stoking the wrath of reformist organizations such as the Society for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency were cases like State v. Guild, a New Jersey court opinion published in 1828. It tells of a 12-year-old boy named James Guild, on trial for killing a woman named Catherine Beakes. He was found guilty and subsequently executed by hanging.22 The Illinois juvenile court of 1899 embraced the British doctrine of parens patriae (the State as parent). States became overseers of children whose natural parents had failed to carry out their supervisory responsibilities. The juvenile court was there not to punish the child, but to serve a benevolent role.23 The U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 summarized it this way: “The early conception of the Juvenile Court proceeding was one in which a fatherly judge touches the heart and conscience of the erring youth by talking over his problems, by paternal advice and admonition and in which in extreme situations, benevolent and wise institutions of the State provided guidance and help, to save him from a downward career.”24 By 1910, a total of 32 States had followed Illinois’ lead in establishing either juvenile courts or juvenile probation services. By 1925, there were only two States that had not gone this route. 25 The reform-minded legal thinkers and courts of this era were guided by two bedrock principles. First, juveniles lack the mens rea (criminal intent) necessary under law to establish criminal culpability and, no matter how dastardly the crime they may have committed, juveniles can be treated, rehabilitated and reformed. The second principle flowed logically from the first: Impressionable, malleable children, not yet hardened to the criminal way of life, were not truly responsible for their actions in the same way adults would be had they committed the crimes at issue. Youthful wrongs, therefore, should not condemn a child to the same lengthy, numbing process of punishment that an adult in similar circumstances would face. 26

By 1945, every State had a juvenile court. Edmund F. McGarrell, Juvenile Correctional Reform, Two Decades of Policy and Procedural Change (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988) p. 6. Privacy and Juvenile Justice Records: A Mid- Decade Status Report Page 7 Juvenile judges were not to be tied down to some rigid formula of fitting punishment to crime. In a less formal way, the benevolent court could fashion a solution to a juvenile’s individual circumstances, combining legal and extra-legal methods of addressing the problems at hand. Since this was not an adversarial system, the constitutional guarantee of due process was thought to be out of place. Treatment plans could consist of differing mixes of probation and “training schools.” But first and foremost, dispositions were always to be tailored to “the best interests of the child.” A child eventually would either be reformed or lapse into the adult criminal justice system, where the clock essentially would be reset to zero. The juvenile justice recordkeeping system at this stage closely paralleled the predominant philosophy of shielding the child. Confidentiality became paramount precisely because nonculpable juveniles could not and should not be branded for life with crimes for which they were not truly guilty. Also, children had little chance of rehabilitation if their names and misdeeds were exposed to public ridicule. A law review commentary in 1909

stressed that the importance of confidentiality was, “To get away from the notion that the child is to be dealt with as a criminal; to save it from the brand of criminality, the brand that sticks to it for life; to take it in hand and instead of first stigmatizing and then reforming it, to protect it from the stigma — this is the work which is now being accomplished (by the juvenile court).” 27

An entire set of euphemisms grew up around the notion of protecting children, not prosecuting them. Police never arrest juveniles; they are “taken into custody.” Authorities “refer” juveniles to juvenile court, never book or arraign them. The treatment model as a concept of juvenile justice prevailed more or less through the 1950s. By then, a number of factors were combining to change the picture. News accounts of juvenile gangs and Hollywood’s spotlighting of “J.D.s” in films like “Rebel Without a Cause” and “Blackboard Jungle” left many people wondering whether all juveniles could be rehabilitated. “Gang-style ferocity — once the evil domain of hardened adult criminals — now enters chiefly in cliques of teen-age brigands. Their individual and gang exploits rival the savagery of veteran desperadoes of bygone days,” said no less an authority than FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover in 1957. 28 More importantly, the frequency and severity of juvenile crime eroded confidence in the belief that juveniles lacked the criminal culpability necessary to be judged “guilty” of crimes. At the same time, persistent and severe recidivism associated with the most serious juvenile offenders undermined faith in the belief that juveniles are promising candidates for rehabilitation. In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively abandoned the idea that juvenile courts were friendly and informal sources of counseling for wayward juveniles. In Kent v. United States, the Nation’s highest court said juveniles are entitled to much the same adversarial- type system of due process that is standard in adult criminal courts. This benchmark case involved a 16-year-old accused of forcible entry, robbery and rape. The juvenile judge issued a waiver to adult court without ruling on a jurisdictional motion by the 16- year-old’s lawyer. The Supreme Court said that, “While there can be no doubt of the original laudable purpose of juvenile courts, studies and critiques in recent years raise serious questions as to whether actual performance measures well enough against theoretical purpose to make tolerable the immunity of the process from the reach of the constitutional guaranties applicable to adults.” 29 One year later, in 1967, the Court, in In re Gault, took the Kent rationale a step further. The Court tossed out the doctrine of parens patriae, ruling its history murky and its constitutional underpinning doubtful. The Court said that juveniles are entitled to the four basic elements of due process: the right to notice, the right to counsel, the right to question witnesses and the right to protection against self incrimination. In re Gault also challenged the importance of juvenile record confidentiality. “[T]he summary procedures of Juvenile Courts are sometimes defended by a statement that it is the law’s policy ‘to hide youthful errors from the full gaze of the public and bury them in the graveyard of the forgotten past.’ This claim of secrecy, however, is more rhetoric than reality.” 30 "

19 Privacy and Juvenile Justice Records Report, p.11, supra note 1.

20 Barry C. Feld, Criminalizing Juvenile Justice: Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court, 69 MINN. L. REV. 141, 142-48 (1984).

21 Ibid., p. 144.

24 In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 25-26 (1967).

25 Janet E. Ainsworth, Re-imaging Childhood and Reconstructing the Legal Order: The Case for Abolishing the Juvenile Court, 69 N.C. L. REV. 1083, 1096-97 (1991).

26 Joseph J. Senna and Larry J. Siegel, Juvenile Law — Cases and Comments (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1976) pp. 2-3.

27 Mack, The Juvenile Court, 23 Harv. L. REV. 104, 109 (1909).

28 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, February 1957, 26, quoted in Privacy and Juvenile Justice Records Report, supra, note 1, p. 17 [hereafter FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin].

29 Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 555 (1966).

30 In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 24 (1967).

Justice Procedure

A juvenile usually enters the justice system through the police. Police have a large amount of latitude in how to handle juveniles. In most all but serious cases: police may warn, handle a case informally if small or trivial, or— if serious—detain. A decision to make arrest—“detain”—automatically triggers investigation by juvenile justice system to assist in the protection of children from policing or other threats.

Many police judgments are necessarily subjective and are based on factors other than the offense such as attitude and demeanor of juvenile. Leniency is often chosen because of the age. However, many officers will demand recognition of their authority even more because of the age. Attitude is the biggest factor other than the offense.

Police have long worked with juveniles to provide positive role models and guidance–far more than with adults. Police-school liaison programs aim to change students’ attitudes, reduce school violence, and provide positive adult-youth connections.

Juvenile courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They hear delinquency not criminal cases, in which a minor is accused of committing a criminal act. They can hear status offense cases, in which the offense is illegal only because the defendant is a child. They may also

hear dependency cases, in which a child’s parents cannot or will not care for him or her properly.

Age limits for the legal definition of a child vary from state to state. In most states, once the juvenile court hears a case, jurisdiction may extend beyond offender’s 18th birthday. All states have a maximum age for juvenile court jurisdiction, with most common 17. Most states have no minimum age for criminal court jurisdiction. Children as young as seven have been charged with crimes such as murder, attempted armed robbery, and arson.

Juvenile Court Waivers refers to the mechanisms to permit the juvenile court to waive jurisdiction and allow the transfer of these offenders to adult court. A judicial waiver refers to when a prosecutor or probation officer recommends a child be tried as an adult and the judge agrees. Statutory exclusion is a result of state laws categorically excluding certain ages and offenses from juvenile court jurisdiction. All states exclude juvenile court jurisdiction by age 18. Direct file or prosecutorial waivers are when the prosecutor can choose whether to bring the case to juvenile or adult court. Like with all discretion in the system, a criticism of waivers is that they perpetuate racial and ethnic biases. There is evidence that minority youths are disproportionately likely to be tried as adult. Waivers also send children to adult jails and prisons.

Historically, juvenile court functioned more informally than adult courts. In theory, youths traded due process rights for compassionate rehabilitation. In practice, youths received neither.

Not until In re Gault (1967) did the supreme court begin establishing due process for juveniles—recognizing that juveniles are in jeopardy of "incarceration". The decision entitled children to be notified of the charges against them, confront and cross-examine witnesses, remain silent, obtain a transcript of the proceedings, appeal the court’s decision, and have the assistance of an attorney.

In re Winship (1970) resulted in proof beyond a reasonable doubt for juveniles.

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971) the Court deciding no jury trials for juveniles. The majority of Justices believed this would alter system so as to become too much like adult adversarial trial system.

In Breed v. Jones (1975) the Court recognized double jeopardy in juvenile cases, ruling that a person cannot be tried in both juvenile and adult courts for the same offense.

In Schall v. Martin (1984) the Court held that minors may be subjected to preventive detention.

Roper v. Simmons (2005) had the Court decide against the death penalty finding it as cruel and unusual punishment for people younger than 18.

Fourth Amendment cases in general have held that school officials must respect students’ rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, but these rights are limited compared to those of adults recognizing a particular safety and protection element to children supervision.

Detention (Arrest)

As noted earlier, most juveniles enter system through arrest by law enforcement. When police choose to pursue a case against a child, child is usually taken to a juvenile detention center, known as a juvenile hall. The 1974 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act prohibited holding juveniles in adult facilities. Exceptions include housing with adults for up to 48 hours while preparations are made to transfer to juvenile facility. Juveniles may be housed in adult prison if they are separated from adult inmates or if they will be or have been tried as adults. Each state mandates that a detention hearing occur within a certain period: usually with 24 hours after detained.

Intake

The Intake process involves an official deciding whether to release the juvenile, refer the case to court, or put the juvenile under some other supervision. Government prosecutor are usually the final deciding official. If he or she decides to refer the case to juvenile court, the produce a document that initiates a juvenile case called a delinquency petition. In some states, the intake officer makes the initial decision about whether to proceed with a case. Intake officers are usually probation officers and may choose to handle the case informally by dropping it, placing the child on informal probation, require substance abuse treatment. Officers may recommend the case be heard in juvenile court or even transfer to adult criminal court. May also determine whether to release the child to guardians or detain the child while waiting for the case to go to court

•Diversion refers to informal options for correcting issues. Diversion is meant to rehabilitate children, provide more effective early intervention for troubled youths, and reduce juvenile court caseloads and to avoid the stigma and damage done to children by correctional systems. Teen courts are sometimes available as diversions where teenagers serve as jurors and often as judges, attorneys, and bailiffs as well so that children can avoid the negatives of formal process.

Preventive Detention

Preventive Detention occurs for about one in five arrested juveniles in which they are held in preventive detention in a juvenile facility while awaiting a court appearance. This is done either to ensure appearance at hearings or prevent the child from committing dangerous acts. Overall, children can be held under broader circumstances than adults. However, this has its problems. Detention is used unequally based on gender and race. Also, it is difficult to determine accurately whether a youth will be dangerous if released. Conditions within detention centers can be poor, scary, and can cause psychological harm. Risk assessment instruments attempt to standardize use of preventive detention and often are take worksheet form that records a list of factors.

Adjudication

Adjudication refers to the process of determining whether or not a juvenile is delinquent, or guilty. An increase in this formal handling of juvenile cases over last three decades because of “get tough on crime” policies. When the prosecutor files a delinquency petition in a juvenile case, juveniles may plea bargain. If no plea bargain is reached, an adjudication (or adjudicatory) hearing is held. Adjudication hearing is not a criminal trial but resembles it in many ways as juveniles have nearly all the rights as those in criminal trials. Note the Supreme Court decisions mentioned earlier. The most striking difference is lack of a jury. If prosecution meets its burden of beyond a reasonable doubt, the youth is adjudicated delinquent, the juvenile equivalent of being found guilty.

Disposition

Disposition is the term used for juvenile sentencing. Those adjudicated delinquent are given dispositions, often at a disposition hearing. Juvenile court judges have broad discretion over a wide variety of dispositions. The most common is probation. Before 1970s, juveniles were given indeterminate commitments not proportionate to the offense. It was not uncommon for juveniles to be sent away to stay in the custody of a facility until adult age for lesser offenses despite remaining under the jurisdiction of the courts.

Sealing and Expunging Juvenile Records are common practices of juvenile courts. Juvenile hearings are usually closed to the public to avoid placing long-term stigma of criminality on juveniles as well. So to are the records of the hearings. Juvenile records may be sealed so that most people will be denied access to it, and the person who committed the offense can claim to have no criminal record. Expunged records mean any record of adjudication may be destroyed entirely, or it may be accessible only by court order.

Cli

Policing and Courts

POLICING

General Policing Strategies Review

The Preventive Patrol Strategy of policing involves the random patrol of neighborhoods and areas with the assumption that the visible presence of officers serves as deterrent to street crimes. Studies have been conducted to test the efficacy of modern patrol techniques. Studies have shown that the level of patrol may have little to no effect on crime frequency.

Problem-Oriented Policing began in late 1970s. This strategy encourages departments to examine complexity of problems rather than focusing on the crimes. First step: conduct specific, detailed research into community’s problems to reveal the underlying dynamics of crime. Second step: examine ways in which police department currently deals with a particular problem to determine most effective responses. Third step: devise strategies to address the problem. Many police departments engage in some version of problem-oriented policing. Most common is the SARA model of problem-oriented policing: Scanning: department identifies the problem, consequences, and frequency. Analysis: identifies anything causing the problem. Response: participants think creatively about ways to solve the problem. Assessment: officers determine if program was effectively implemented and if goals were met.

Community-Oriented Policing focuses on reducing crime and disorder by involving residents in job of policing. It has four typical components: Police-community reciprocity: collaboration between police and community members to solve and prevent crime. Decentralization of command: creation of substations or police buildings in various areas so police maintain presence in community and focus on particular issues. Proactive foot patrol: officers walk beats to learn more about people in the community and develop relationships. Civilianization: assigning to civilians tasks previously performed by police officers–Non-dangerous tasks, such as filing reports and crimes not of a serious nature. Implementation of community-Oriented policing also requires change in police culture. Traditional police culture regards crime prevention as sole responsibility of police. Also, patrol officers were and remain reluctant to leave the safety, speed, and comfort of their cars and associated equipment. Overall, the impact of community-oriented policing has had little concrete evidence to support its efficacy for crime reduction. However, many argue that full implementation has been minimal due to reluctance and it remains popular in part because it has been shown to improve public confidence in and opinion of the police.

Aggressive Order Maintenance or Zero-tolerance policing focuses on minor public order offenses that affect residents’ quality of life. It involves an increase in arrests for minor offenses. It is supported by broken windows theory. Broken windows theory argues that there is a relationship between the deterioration of a neighborhood and higher crime rates. It views a single act as a potential slippery slope to a growing social acceptance. Much like a park bench, once one person etches words or names, others feel more free to join and do likewise; and so is all other single acts an invitation to do likewise or other bad acts.

As juvenile crime reached it's peak in the 1980s, police agencies were forced to adapt new structures. Juvenile units and juvenile specialists were added to large departments and resource allocations were directed to the problem. Although the roles of these special officers and units were like that of their counterparts, unique discretion and tactics were intended to be used during juvenile encounters. However, "tough on crime" sentiments and politics continue to influence overall strategies and discretion. Community policing, aggressive patrol, and zero-tolerance strategies were transferred over to juvenile policing.

Police encounters with juveniles have the same discretion pitfalls as those with adults. Discrimination, inequity, and excessive force remain a problem. Racial bias is apparent in data and research. Police encounters as well as formal actions are disproportionately higher for black and Hispanic youth. This bias appears to be both police and community driven as minority juveniles are more likely to elicit calls to the police.

Besides economic and racial profiling, community and political pressure and influence, and department policies, situational factors are typically the biggest influence on officer discretion.

The respect for police authority is often even more critical for juveniles than adults. The police need for authority is exacerbated by the expectation of "respect for elders" sentiment. Significant situational factors:

The attitude of the juvenile, self accountability, and respect for authority The attitude of the complainant The race, sex, and age of juvenile The offender's prior contacts with police The likelihood and willingness of parents to deal with the juvenile The location of the encounter

Overall, research finds support for fair and non adversarial interactions with juveniles, even when decisions to arrest are made. Adherence to general procedural law is both required and beneficial. Since In re Gault, courts continue to hold that juveniles have the same 4th and 5th amendment rights as adults. However, in public school settings, searches based on reasonable suspicion can be lawful if general safety or well-being is threatened. Additionally custodial interrogations must pass the same tests of voluntariness. Juveniles can waive their 5th amendment rights. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that the nature of interrogations is to be judged by a "reasonable child" perspective and not "person". Researchers and experts have found and argued that children typically have a lower threshold of resisting coercive tactics.

The biggest difference between adult and juvenile policing efforts is the amount and extent of prevention programs. Prevention programs focused on preventing juvenile offenders greatly outnumber those for adults. Education programs, recreation programs, parent-child relations programs, and peer relations programs work alongside non-police agencies. Public schools have facilitated with police programs like G.R.E.A.T (Gang Resistance Education and Training), and D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse and Resistance Education). Education programs typically show mixed results as any benefits of the programs "wear off" over time. Other community programs are discussed in later activities.

COURTS

Defense Attorneys. Like criminal courts, most juveniles cannot afford an attorney and court appointed attorneys or public defenders are required. Issues found with public defenders are sometimes more present in juvenile courts. Juveniles' appointed attorneys are paid even less than the criminal court counterparts and often have little training in order to navigate the juvenile court differences effectively.

Prosecutors too face additional challenges in juvenile cases. Community and political pressures are frequently heightened and decisions are more complex in juvenile offender cases. "Best interest of the Adult" is rarely a priority in criminal cases. "Best interest of the Child" can be very controversial for the public in certain juvenile cases. In the cases warranting prosecutorial waiver discretion, even more pressure and factors come into play. Additionally, prosecutors --and in some jurisdictions intake officers-- like in criminal court, must decide to formally petition for delinquency, utilize some form of diversion, our simply release the juvenile. Consent decrees, like plea bargains, can be sought by the juvenile and court to avoid the full adjudication process.

Court Appointed Special Advocates (volunteers, sometimes professionals) are used to reduce some of the issues of prosecution and defense adversarial goals and lack of expertise in juvenile needs. Best interest of the child often involves treatment for abuse,

addiction, and other issues that would not be of issue in criminal courts. Special advocates are there to assist and advocate for treatment needs and opportunities. They are to provide guidance through the judicial and welfare systems.

Judges. In those jurisdictions large enough to have juvenile specialty courts, judges are more prepared and competent to determine best interests and available prevention and correctional processes and programs. In some jurisdictions juvenile judges perform family court duties as well, custody adjudication experience is frequently advantageous in delinquency cases since many cases stem from family and guardian issues.

Detention is often the most difficult or complicated determination made by the courts. Even with minor status offenses, community and offender safety, guardian and supervision efficacy, treatment opportunities and necessity, and likelihood of reoffending may need to be addressed. In more serious offenses, the jurisdictions with judicial waiver discretion adds elements such as general deterrence into the equation.

Since adjudication does not involve juries, judges are charge with determining the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. This can be challenging as often "not guilty" may not be in the best interest of the child. With positive adjudications, the disposition offers other challenges. "Least detrimental to the child" is a general guiding principle. Appropriate dispositions may not be available if the "right" treatment facilities, programs, and so on maybe overcrowded or full, thus unavailable. Generally, just determining if the home environment will be sufficient for rehabilitation can be challenging. Often when it's clearly not, a residential placement is also not ideal for the particular juvenile and offense.

Overall, their is great discretion by police, intake officers, particularly prosecutors, and judges. Very little by way of standards exist for detention, intake, and diversion decisions. Like in the criminal system, discretion has shown to lead to discrimination on racial, gender, and economic bases.

Corrections and Community Programs

CORRECTIONS

Context

After the In re Gault decision, juvenile courts have become increasingly adversarial, legalistic, and less oriented toward social welfare. Many jurisdictions have moved from rehabilitation models of delinquency to more punishment-oriented models as part of “get tough on crime” policies. Like much of criminal justice processes, African Americans are disproportionately represented in juvenile correctional institutions. Native American boys have the greatest disproportional representation of all race, ethnic, and gender comparisons.

Facilities

Large state-run facilities house the majority of the juveniles and are used for longer incarcerations. Historically the facilities have had negative consequences where they have been accused of abuse of youth–committed sometimes by inmates but mostly by staff.

Juveniles in adult prisons studies have shown that juveniles tried as adults re-offended and were re-incarcerated at rates higher than those tried in juvenile court. Again there are large racial disparity among the youths admitted to state prisons.

Group homes are for minors who do not need a secure custodial setting but cannot return home or need structure for rehabilitation success. These homes may allow the juvenile to live in the community, attend school, and take advantage of resources there. Studies generally show group homes provide best chance at reducing recidivism. But again, the high risk offenders do not attend these facilities which may help in the overall success rates.

Boot camps are facilities that use a model of military basic training. Despite the notion that discipline, structure, and pride attained by military training, there has been no evidence of a better ability to reduce recidivism.

Female facilities parallel boy facilities and programs, but like the adult counterparts, girls develop unique subcultures compared to boys and create pseudo family relationships.

Alternatives to Incarceration

Probation is by far the most common juvenile disposition. Much the same as adults, juveniles on probation usually are required to report to a probation officer and attend school or may be required to attend a specific rehabilitation program. House arrest, restitution, and community service are quite common requirements of probation to ensure their is a punishment aspect of the probation.

Probation officers act as both enforcer and social worker and frequently have high case load limiting their ability to offer guidance. Like their criminal court counterparts, probation officers spend a significant amount of time completing "predisposition reports", like that of presentence investigations.

First time offenders may also be diverted to a youth service bureau, a community-based agency, a school or church program, or a counseling center. Day treatment facilities provide non-institutional sanctions that are structured and community-based. Drug rehab, life skill training, and group counseling are often in day treatment facilities.

Lastly, formal restorative justice approaches of restitution, service, and reconciliation with victims have grown in popularity.

COMMUNITY PREVENTION PROGRAMS

Community prevention programs consist of state, city, community, or volunteer private organizations and may often work jointly with various agencies and organizations. Community preventions try to reduce risk factors and introduce protective factors.

Trauma Prevention

Mandatory Reporting Laws are one of the basic prevention efforts. These laws require any professional who has regular contact with a child to report any reasonable suspicion of physical or sexual abuse or neglect to the proper authorities.

Child Protective Services (CPS) operate in some form in all 50 states. They consist of trained staff that investigates allegations of child abuse and neglect. The operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week . If CPS confirms abuse or neglect, they may remove the child from the home and petition the court to place him or her in foster care or with extended family.

Focus Redirection and Opportunity Development

Recreation programs are the most widespread efforts to curtail wayward behaviors. Athletic competition, arts, hobbies, boarding parks, and gaming are common in urban areas with available funding.

The most prevalent recreation and redirection programs are what is commonly referred to as afterschool programs. Cost benefit analyses of such programs generally find positive gains in resources spent. Occupying juveniles' leisure time with appropriate activities appears to be a good strategy. However, these programs are voluntary and tend to attract the participation of confident juveniles with social and material resources. There is some question, even though the programs may lower rates of delinquency among low risk youth, the higher risk nature of those juveniles limited confidence and resources may gain little from such programs.

Additionally, if focused on just opportunity, most delinquent acts occur evenly throughout the day and would require programs throughout the the day and night. However, considering theory orientations like that of bond theory, such programs do offer opportunities for youth to develop bonds. Programs that have a wide variety of choice for activity may be necessary to recruit the greatest number of juveniles as possible. Lastly, recreation programs can provide juveniles with additional sanctuary from traumatic or stressful home environments, as well as increase the likelihood of mandatory reporting personnel's detection of such homes.

For more discussion, see the below attachment of the National Recreation and Parks Association's 2014 literature review:

The Benefits of Recreational Programming on Juvenile Crime Reduction: A review of Literature and Data

National Recreation and Parks Association 2014

pdfnrpa-report_juvenile_crime_reduction.pdf Cli

Mentoring Programs

Mentoring programs refer to those organizational effort to provide youth with positive mentors, whether volunteer or employed. Big Brothers / Big Sisters of America is one of the most well known mentor programs (https://www.bbbs.org/). This national organization is both community and school based and has corporate, government, and foundation funding. Big Brothers Big Sisters’ mentoring program matches youths age 6-18, predominantly from low-income, single-parent households, with adult volunteer mentors who are typically young (20-34) and well-educated (the majority are college graduates).

The OJJDP sponsors a national mentoring resource center that supports and reviews various mentoring programs. The provide support, guidance, effectiveness ratings, and lessons learned. National Mentoring Resource Center website: https://nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/index.php/what-works-in-mentoring/reviews-of-mentoring-programs.html

For further study of mentorship effectiveness for offenders, see the National Criminal Justice Reference Services funded research attached.

Final Report

Mentoring Best Practices Research: Effectiveness of Juvenile Mentoring Programs on Recidivism

pdfNCJRS%20Mentoring%20Best%20Practices.pdf Cli

Social Conditions Improvement

The following excerpt from OJJDP's 1995 juvenile delinquency reduction action plans report, section 6, provide a look into the general community strategies deployed in the last 3 decades:

Overview

Communities play the primary role in preventing juvenile delinquency and the criminal victimization of juveniles. With Federal and State leadership and support, communities can successfully change local conditions to help youth become lawabiding, productive citizens.

All community members -- business leaders, media representatives, teachers, parents and grandparents, young people, policymakers, clergy, elected officials, and law enforcement -- are responsible for ensuring the health and well-being of children. When all members of the community work together to achieve common goals, everyone benefits from the strength of a working partnership. (See figure 21.)

Even medium- and small-scale community mobilization efforts can be effective. The Community Responses to Drug Abuse (CRDA) Initiative, a program researched by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and designed and implemented by the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC), found that modest neighborhoods with limited resources can make significant strides in reducing drug activity, protecting youth, and improving the physical environment.1

Figure 21: Influences on strong youth and strong communities

Cli

Source: OJJDP Internal Working Group, 1995.

The Subgroup on Violence and Place of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Violence summarized the advantage of using the community as a frame of reference to solve the problem of violence in the following manner:

Using community as a unit of analysis shifts attention from individual incidents of crime as such (the undifferentiated categories of murder, assault, drug trafficking, etc.), and generalized responses (law enforcement, gun control, drug interdiction, stiff sentences) to local dynamics, local impact, and local opportunities. [Community analysis] suggests that the fear caused by violence is as much a problem as violence itself; that local responses can successfully fight the drivers of violence (street gun and drug markets). It emphasizes the power and potential of local resources, local alliances, and local experiments in violence prevention.

This section describes why strong communities are critical to reducing delinquency and violence and provides fundamental elements essential to successful community change. It also presents examples of efforts that prove community mobilization strategies work.

Current Status and Analysis of the Problem

Community Deterioration

Earlier sections of this Action Plan describe categories of risk factors that research has shown can contribute to juvenile delinquency. They include individual, family, peer, school, and community factors. Community risk factors include the availability of drugs and firearms, community laws and norms favorable to drug use, the nature and extent of crime, media portrayals of violence, neighborhood transition and mobility, reduced interaction among residents causing community disassociation, and economic deprivation.

Community life has changed significantly in recent decades, resulting in a decline in essential youth nurturing, supervision, and guidance. In many instances, the deterioration of the community has isolated parents and their children from the network and support of extended families, and fear of children has replaced fear for children.3

Poverty exacerbates social disorganization and is both a source of stress and a risk factor for communities, individuals, and families. In 1992, 22 percent of youth lived below the poverty level, a 42 percent increase since 1976. Poverty rates are higher among children under age 6 (25 percent) than among older youth (19 percent). Poverty is also higher among

minority youth, particularly African Americans (47 percent) and Hispanics (40 percent), than among white youth (17 percent). Youth growing up in inner cities are most likely to live in poverty.4

Historically, government has responded to youth problems by providing services to address the symptoms, often resulting in inefficient use of scarce resources. Children labeled as delinquent enter the correctional system, which has been unable to pay attention to underlying family and other problems. Youth intervention agencies identify some children as abused, neglected, or dependent, remove them from their homes, and place them in foster care, but the agencies fail or are unable to provide preventive family support or mental health services. Some children with mental health needs are placed in secure psychiatric settings with little opportunity for treatment in community-based, family-oriented programs.5

This fragmented human services system does not serve anyone effectively -- youth, families, or communities. The system is expensive; it often fails to solve youth's problems; and youth are referred from agency to agency with little followup. Comprehensive and targeted collaborative efforts can more effectively assess the needs of at-risk youth, implement promising strategies, and maximize community resources.6

Effective and Promising Strategies and Programs

Although evaluation has not yet proved the effectiveness of efforts to produce positive and lasting community change, several community-building strategies appear to be promising. A communitywide approach to reducing violence and delinquency is promising for several reasons. First, it affects the entire social environment by focusing on community norms, values, and policies as well as on conditions that place children at risk for adolescent problems. Second, all members of the community can apply their expertise where it is most effective. Community mobilization holds the promise of investing every local resident in solving what is truly a shared goal -- to help young people grow up to maximize their potential and reduce their likelihood of involvement in violence and delinquency. Federal and State governments can assist communities by showing them the most effective ways to tap into fiscal and human resources.

Community planning teams that include a partnership of agency and lay participants can help create a consensus on priorities and services to be provided. They also build support for a comprehensive approach that draws on all sectors of the community for participation, such as the criminal justice and juvenile justice systems; other service systems such as health and mental health, child welfare, education, assisted housing providers, recreation, and law enforcement; business; media; religious institutions; and grassroots organizations, including parent groups, youth clubs, crime victim groups, and civic and social groups.

The Department of Justice's (DOJ's) Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) supports the concept of successful community policing through close, mutually beneficial ties between police and community members. COPS uses a long-term problemsolving approach that targets persistent or recurring problems in communities. One of the key COPS components is enhanced communications among police, the community, and other public and social service agencies. The community must be viewed as an active partner with law enforcement in identifying problems and determining appropriate tactics and measures of success.

In the Texas City Action Plan To Prevent Crime (T-CAP),7 NCPC worked with seven municipal governments, local leaders, private entities, and citizens to adopt and implement strategies to reduce violence. Through this partnership, the initiative has accomplished the following:

Violence reduction through environmental design, such as improved street lighting.

Job creation and training programs.

Mandated parent education and enhanced childcare.

Youth recreation and senior citizen safety projects.

Community oriented policing strategies aimed at community disorder.

Conflict resolution training.

Substance abuse reduction programs.

Improved juvenile justice processes.

Block teams and jurisdictionwide teams to address specific problems.

In 1989, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) provided funding to establish the CRDA National Demonstration Program in 10 sites across the country. The purpose of the program was to help communities develop and implement effective strategies to reduce drug abuse and improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods. A process and impact evaluation funded by NIJ identified a number of positive changes in target areas compared with control areas. The evaluation found that local organizations in these neighborhoods, assisted by NCPC and the National Training and Information Center, could successfully develop and implement a wide variety of anti-drug strategies.

Many of these strategies involved cooperative efforts with law enforcement workers who helped community organizations increase levels of citizen awareness and participation in anti-drug activities. These community interventions also resulted in increased social interaction among residents, favorable attitudes toward the police, and positive perceptions about their neighborhood as a safe place to live. The CRDA program also helped grassroots organizations develop partnerships with criminal justice agencies, fire and housing departments, city councils, school boards, and recreation departments.

One of the key CRDA projects was the Oakland (CA) Community Organization. Residents learned to work in partnership with law enforcement, which resulted in increased funding for the police department's Beat Health Unit. Beat Health has been directly responsible for mobilizing residents to take direct action in drug abuse prevention, organizing a neighborhood cleanup, and closing more than 300 drug houses.8

Community Assessment

The public health model of youth violence prevention encourages a partnership of community leaders to determine their community's readiness for a comprehensive risk-focused prevention effort and to identify or create a community prevention board. The board assesses the community's risks and existing resources by collecting data on risk indicators and analyzing existing programs. With this information, the community board prioritizes risk factors, identifies programming gaps, and reviews effective approaches to address high-priority risk factors.

With a complete community assessment, the board can develop a strategic plan to implement and evaluate a comprehensive risk-reduction strategy tailored to the unique risk and resource profile of its community. Such a strategy includes helping communities reduce critical risk factors; helping youth develop protective factors such as healthy beliefs, clear standards for behavior, and skills for economic self-sufficiency; or implementing a combination of both approaches.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's (OJJDP's) Title V Initiative, Local Incentive Grants for Delinquency Prevention Programs (Title V Initiative), provides an example of effective resource allocation combined with training. During 1994, the Title V Initiative distributed grants to 49 States and 6 Territories to promote local momentum and attract local financial and human resources. Nearly 2,500 local participants attended OJJDP-sponsored training sessions and learned how to implement an effective prevention planning framework, design new approaches to interagency collaboration, and conduct valuable risk and resource assessments.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has funded several promising pilot programs based on the public health model through its Maternal and Child Health Block Grants. The Communities That Care process formalizes the public health model into a tool for mobilizing communities to address issues of delinquency, violence, substance abuse, school dropout, and teen pregnancy.

Youth Involvement

Many young people feel a deep sense of alienation and disconnection from their own communities, contributing to a lack of self-esteem. Youth need opportunities to establish their self-worth and receive affirmation of their place and role within the community. Adult leaders often fail to tap into essential youth skills, such as problem solving and decision making, that can effectively change conditions and attitudes within a community.

Adults must recognize that youth have a stake in their communities and need to be substantially involved in addressing community problems, particularly juvenile violence and victimization.

Youth involvement has two beneficiaries: the community benefits from the high energy and creative talents of young people, and young people benefit from the critical realization that they can make positive differences in their community. Many community programs attribute their success to activities designed to help youth realize that they are valuable to their families and communities and to convey a sense of respect and pride in the positive contributions that youth can make.9

Communities should initiate activities and services that help youth resist violence and develop skills to mediate conflicts peacefully. They should take steps to help youth replace their mistrust toward the law and law enforcement with a sense of trust and a willingness to cooperate. The Youth as Resources Program, operated by NCPC, is an example of a program with strong youth and community involvement. Guided by a board of local leaders, including youth, young people take active roles in planning, implementing, and managing community service projects. The program, which began in 3 Indiana cities, has spread to more than 35 sites in 17 States and abroad.10

Neighborhood-Targeted and Place-Based Strategies

Strategies that benefit communities include those that foster a return to the informal social control once provided by stay- at-home neighbors and senior citizens, who would "watch over" their neighborhoods and their neighbors' children. Programs that encourage informal community involvement and emphasize community partnerships with law enforcement and social service agencies can strengthen a community's ability to serve as its own guardian. A good example is found in community oriented policing strategies, which seek to give law enforcement a highly visible presence in communities and build positive relationships with residents. These community-based programs, which promote police-community partnerships to solve problems that lead to crime, have proven to be successful in fostering this kind of neighborhood responsibility.

Private initiatives funded by foundations have taken the lead in supporting communitywide and neighborhood-based strategies. Over the years, national foundations such as Ford, Rockefeller, McArthur, Robert Wood Johnson, Clark, Casey, and Carnegie have supported these programs. These programs have reached out to the corporate and business sectors that have been supportive in enhancing their success.

The Administration's Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community initiative applies the principles of community mobilization to neighborhood economic development strategies. Other examples of place-based violence prevention strategies include the Office of Justice Programs' (OJP's) Operation Weed and Seed, the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention's (CSAP's) Community Partnerships, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) violence prevention projects.

Operation Weed and Seed "weeds out" violent crime, gang activity, drug use, and drug trafficking in targeted high-crime neighborhoods, and then "seeds" the area by restoring social and economic revitalization. In many areas, Operation Weed and Seed has reduced crime, fear, and violence, and helped communities develop innovative planning and organizational strategies to address neighborhood problems.

HUD's Public Housing Drug Elimination Program has encouraged cooperative working relationships among housing authorities, law enforcement, and tenants to enhance local resident control and accountability for buildings, conditions, and responsible tenancy.

Local/Federal Partnerships

Federal agencies can collaborate as partners in local efforts to improve communities. Key to the success of a Federal/local partnership is a willingness to compromise and sustain involvement over time. Agencies must be prepared to allow flexibility and leeway in decisionmaking and in framing local initiatives.

In the Pulling America's Communities Together (PACT) program, Federal representatives of the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Labor have worked with Atlanta, GA; Denver, CO; the District of Columbia; and the State of Nebraska to coordinate efforts to reduce community violence by building healthier communities. Through NCPC, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, and Developmental Research and Programs, Inc., BJA and OJJDP have provided technical assistance to the PACT program.

As a result of these partnerships, PACT has stimulated cooperation among many agencies that have no prior history of collaboration, providing a comprehensive framework for community leaders to address the problem of violence. It has also produced innovative local actions, often beyond traditional jurisdictional boundaries, to prevent and reduce violence.

Training and Resource Utilization

Community leaders need to know how and where to target and generate local resources. They also gain from establishing mechanisms that sustain linkages among local resources. A number of Federal agencies, ranging from HUD's Office of Public and Indian Housing to CSAP, have developed training programs and clearinghouses to support efforts to identify and sustain resources. AmeriCorps and other service-oriented initiatives provide information about human resource opportunities. OJJDP has established a Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Training and Technical Assistance Center. These agencies are complemented by a host of private nonprofit agencies that have strong records of success in supporting local mobilization efforts. (See Appendix C.)

OJJDP's Title V Initiative, described earlier, not only provides a sound strategy for assessing risk and protective factors but is an example of effective resource utilization combined with training. The program encourages communities to pool delinquency prevention resources and systems in several ways. First, by developing comprehensive needs assessments and objectives, grantees enable communities to make more effective use of local prevention funds. Second, grantees must match at least 50 percent of the Federal award with State or local funds or in-kind services, thus stimulating local public and private funding. Third, local leaders must develop and implement comprehensive, community-based Title V initiatives and gain support from key leaders from the public, nonprofit, and private sectors. Finally, the Title V Initiative encourages existing prevention coalitions and programs to expand to delinquency prevention programming, thereby enhancing the effectiveness and scope of community systems.

To support the effective use of Title V Initiative funds, OJJDP makes available a two-phase training program on risk- focused prevention to local leaders and community planning teams. During 1994, nearly 2,500 local participants attended OJJDP training sessions and learned how to implement an effective planning framework, design new approaches to interagency collaboration, and conduct valuable risk and resource assessments. These communities are joining forces to aggressively address their juvenile violence and delinquency problems.11

Promote Federal and Other Joint Funding

DOJ will publicize and promote funding efforts with other Federal agencies and other public-private funding sources and encourage joint funding of efforts to prevent juvenile delinquency.

Suggestions for State and Local Action

Consider innovative ways to mobilize communities that break out of traditional institutional practices.

Develop partnerships with community-based organizations, schools, businesses, parents, and others.

Assess and identify local needs, resources, and priorities to target high-risk youth and juvenile offenders.

Use the Federal communications infrastructure to gather information about successful prevention and intervention programs that can be adapted to local needs.

Develop and implement locally based strategies of integrated prevention and graduated sanctions to target youth violence.

Create a youth commission or task force that involves young people in designing and implementing community activities that affect them.

Develop a clearinghouse and information hotline and hire a youth services coordinator to evaluate programs and assist youth in finding services in their communities.

Coordinate activities in local communities by linking law enforcement efforts with economic empowerment, youth development, education reform, and an improved juvenile justice system.

Assist the private sector and local governments to form partnerships by identifying Federal resources that are committed to promoting public-private partnerships.

Foster neighborhood crime watches, cleanups, and public awareness events.

Enforce anti-noise ordinances, housing codes, health and fire codes, anti-nuisance laws, and drugfree rental clauses in residential and business environments.

Organize a hotline number for reporting criminal activity and information.

Education Programs and Campaigns

Education campaigns refer to promotional curriculums and public service announcement campaigns that educate youth about delinquent behaviors. Anti-drug, anti-gang, anti-sexual violence, and anti-bullying campaigns are the most common. Just Say No, G.R.E.A.T, S.A.D. (students against drugs), stopbullying.gov, are some of the larger scale efforts. These are typically based in the education setting but may involve police and other agencies providing personnel and resources.

Advertisement campaigns have generally focused on drugs. The Partnership for a Drug Free America famously launched its egg in a frying pan analogy in 1987, ultimately resulting in extensive mockery.

Cli

Home-based and Parental Improvement Programs

Parental improvement programs, consisting of training and counseling for parents, addresses the remaining factor of delinquency. Parental competency is considered by many experts to be the ultimate factor in delinquency. The Oregon Social Learning Center is perhaps the most referenced of these efforts. https://www.oslc.org/

The overall number and variation of prevention efforts is significant. Combinations of counseling, mentoring, training, education, PSA campaigns, community improvement, specialty courts, community policing, and treatment programs have been implemented. Both Youth.Gov and the National Institute of Justice provide a survey and review of the various programs and efforts.

https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/topics/juveniles#-1

https://youth.gov/youth-topics/