1.What is the role of federalism in framing youth issues?
2.What are the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative's five objectives for reform in the
juvenile justice system?
3.How can fragmentation and tunneling be overcome?
4.What is important to consider when using a data-driven approach to decision making?
Chapter 17
How American Government Frames Youth
Problems
Timothy Ross and Joel Miller
For purposes of assigning children into a system we label them as Bad, Sad, Mad or Can't
Add. It is like attaching a mailing label the Bad child gets sent to juvenile justice system. The —
Sad child goes into the child welfare system. The Mad child enters the mental health system.
Can't Add goes to special education. Sorting often depends upon issues of race and class.
Minority and poor children are more likely to be labeled Bad.
—Robert Schwartz, 2005
Across the country, mayors, commis- sioners, superintendents, governors, and state policy makers
are innovating to address the needs of vulnerable youth. These efforts take many forms:
restructuring high schools to improve graduation rates, creating developmentally appropriate
interventions to reduce juvenile delinquency, and revamping child welfare practices to keep more
youth safely in their homes are just a few of these strategies. Many initiatives, however, are
plagued by “crosscutting problems”—issues that cut across the different agencies that serve youth.
Unless crosscutting issues are addressed proactively, they may undermine reform initiatives.
This chapter examines how government in the United States frames youth problems. The
chapter starts by describing how the structure of American government, combined with
bureaucratic service delivery systems, leads to fragmented and at times inconsistent policies
concerning youth, including youth caught up in the juvenile justice system. The chapter then
describes the types of issues this fragmentation creates for youth involved in multiple youth-
serving systems. The chapter uses several illustrations, such as how youth in foster care who
become involved in the juvenile justice system are sent to detention facilities at higher rates than
their nonfoster peers, as examples of how fragmentation can contribute to negative outcomes for
youth. The chapter contains several examples of solutions to these problems and concludes that
efforts to solve fragmentation issues are making a difference in the lives of youth.
The Role of Federalism in Framing Youth
Issues
The structure of American government creates a patchwork of policy and responsibility in youth
services. This section describes h the division of responsibilities and authority ow federalism—
between national and state governments and among the executive, legislative, and judicial
branches of government influences juvenile justice policy. While juvenile justice is the example —
used here, the same description of the role of federalism in framing youth issues applies to other
youth-serving systems, such as education and child welfare, and to other social services (see Farrell
& Myers, Chapter 21, this volume).
Juvenile justice authorities have an awesome power the right to authorize the monitoring of —
