Comprehensive Juvenile Justice: A Legislator's Guide

Public fear of crime and concern that juveniles are disproportionally responsible for violent crime in this country has put juvenile justice high on state legislative agendas. At least a dozen states this decade have enacted broad juvenile justice system reforms or reorganizations; virtually all states have passed various laws to hold serious, chronic and violent juvenile offenders more accountable; and many have made new investments in juvenile crime prevention. Indeed, actions of state legislatures during the past decade are reinventing juvenile justice, often with a comprehensive view of the continuum of policy that begins in children's services and extends to adult criminal justice systems.

Crime statistics are encouraging. The juvenile arrest rate for violent crime fell by 23 percent from 1994 to 1997, according to an analysis of FBI data by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The juvenile arrest rate for each violent crime tracked by the FBI fell during that period, including a drop of more than 40 percent in the juvenile murder arrest rate and a 24 percent decline in weapons law violations.

"While no one is claiming victory, we are clearly moving in the right direction," U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno said of the recent drop in juvenile arrest rates. "Through efforts such as community policing, mentoring and holding youth accountable for every offense, we are making a difference."

Further declines in juvenile offending must follow, however, to offset the alarming 60 percent increase in serious juvenile crime that took place between 1988 and 1994, which elevated violent juvenile crime to a serious national problem. The decreases in juvenile arrests noted between 1994 and 1997 represent only half of the increase experienced between 1988 and 1994, leaving juvenile crime rates unacceptably high. In 1997, juveniles were involved in 14 percent of all murder and aggravated assault arrests, 37 percent of burglary arrests, 30 percent of robbery arrests and 24 percent of weapons arrests. Victimization studies also show that, although crime rates have declined in recent years for most age groups, teens continue as victims to experience the highest rates of violent crime. In addition, between 1993 and 1997, juvenile arrests for drug abuse violations increased 82 percent, underscoring that the nation's war on drugs has not been won either on the juvenile front or among adults.

Based heavily on "what works," a comprehensive strategy focuses both on stemming the threat of serious juvenile crime and on expanding options for handling juvenile offenders. Done well and with adequate resources, comprehensive juvenile justice can deal more effectively with the most serious offenders, provide immediate and intermediate interventions for other delinquent youths, and offer prevention services for youths who are at risk for crime and delinquency.

By including families, schools and community groups, the comprehensive strategy expands juvenile justice without simply relying on "big government." In doing so, it addresses known links between crime and poverty, child abuse, family violence, drugs and weapons, and exposure to media violence.

Prevention and early intervention strategies are key features of a broader approach to juvenile crime and justice. Sound research reveals that programs and policies exist that prevent juvenile crime and delinquency. The best ones are based on a continuum of care that starts early in a child's life and progresses through late adolescence.

The Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent and Chronic Juvenile Offenders developed by the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is a framework for juvenile justice that contains these key goals:

• Strengthen families;
• Support core institutions like schools and community organizations to reduce risk factors;
• Counter risk factors, or known predictors of crime, with "protective factors," which are changes in the environment;
• Intervene when delinquency first occurs;
• Establish graduated sanctions that hold offenders accountable while providing services; and
• Identify and control the small segment of serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders

At a time when much attention is focused on the small group of serious and violent juvenile offenders, a comprehensive, risk-focused model includes immediate and effective interventions when juveniles first commit delinquent acts as part of a planned continuum of sanctions for young offenders. First-time, non-violent juvenile offenders receive community sanctions that hold them accountable, while providing services aimed at risk reduction and resiliency skills. Progressively more punitive and restrictive sanctions are provided for more serious and violent offenders. Systemic juvenile justice reform also includes after care programs that provide supervision and support for juvenile offenders, especially those who have been in residential or secure-care placements.

Comprehensive juvenile justice cuts across health, education, social services, courts and corrections. As such, it calls for integration of policies that affect those agencies and their handling of children in contact with, or at risk of being in, the child welfare, mental health, juvenile justice or adult criminal justice systems. State legislative responsibility for updating juvenile justice includes creating a policy framework that provides for cross-jurisdictional, coordinated and effective responses for at-risk youths and those who commit delinquent or criminal acts. In states where major reforms have taken place or are in process, leadership in the legislature has brought together those involved at various levels, including state and local agencies, professions and others in the public and private sectors. Collaborative efforts have helped states move beyond crime publicity and narrow agendas to review and recommend more sophisticated responses to juvenile crime.

In North Carolina, recent law reorganized youth services, creating the Office of Juvenile Justice. Counties must establish juvenile crime prevention councils to assess and develop strategies to respond to and treat the needs of juveniles who are at risk for delinquency. As part of that strategy, the state office will lead planning efforts and coordinate with counties with regard to best practices for juvenile substance abuse prevention (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 147-33.30, 147.33.47, 48).

Kansas and Kentucky also have created new state agencies that have responsibility for developing prevention and early intervention programs, risk assessment tools, and expanding disposition options. The Kansas measure created dual jurisdiction for some youths who are prosecuted for serious violent crimes, and established community planning teams in judicial districts to expand and improve community-based juvenile justice services. The law also called for review of effective prevention programs (Kan. Stat. Ann. § 75-7001, 75-7008). Kentucky's reforms extended jurisdiction of the new Department of Juvenile Justice over some juvenile offenders to age 21 (Ky. Rev. Stat. § 15A). Reforms in both Kansas and Kentucky also addressed adult prosecution of certain serious offenders. A Virginia act combined transfer of serious offenders to adult court with assessment of and service planning for juveniles who commit delinquent acts (Va. Code § 16.1-248.2, 16.1-299.1, 16.1-302.1 and 53.1-63.1).

Other reform measures have been based on principles of "restorative justice," which seek to balance public safety, offender accountability and competency development. The purpose clause of a 1998 juvenile justice reform law in Illinois articulated these as cornerstones of the juvenile justice system. Other provisions support this intent with community-based planning for prevention and immediate interventions when youths commit delinquent acts. The comprehensive act incorporated a continuum that extends from delinquency prevention to measures for violent and habitual juvenile offenders. Community mediation programs and teen courts are included among dispositional options (Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 705 § 405/5-101 et. seq.).

Significant reforms in Maine, Maryland and Oregon also seek to hold offenders accountable, protect the public, and prevent future crime through programs and services that seek to balance victim and offender needs (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. 15 § 3301, 5-A; Md. Code Ann. § 3-802; Or. Rev. Stat. 801 § 142). The recent, broad reform act in North Carolina similarly included a statement that each disposition in a juvenile case should serve three purposes. It should promote public safety; hold accountable the juvenile and his parents; and provide "consequences, treatment, training, and rehabilitation to assist the juvenile toward becoming a nonoffending, responsible, and productive member of the community" (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2500).

Comprehensive juvenile justice shows up in state budget actions, as well. Legislatures in Colorado, Minnesota and Washington have sought to leverage juvenile crime prevention funds with corrections expenditures. The California Legislature has made a significant prevention investment in funding a variety of grant programs in recent years. Those include interventions for juveniles under age 10 who exhibit behavior problems (Cal. Welfare & Institutions Code § 601.5); for truancy prevention and other school-based programs (Cal. Education Code § 32230-32237); for pilot projects to identify and provide services to juveniles likely to become repeat, chronic offenders; and anti-gang efforts (Cal. Welfare & Institutions Code § 749.2). Other law in California speaks to the Legislature's mission for juvenile justice by establishing the requirement that juveniles under juvenile court jurisdiction receive guidance that enables them to become law-abiding and productive members of the family and community (Cal. Welfare & Institutions Code § 202, 742). A study by Rand of Santa Monica, Calif., has found that, dollar for dollar, certain programs targeted at high-risk youths prevent five times as many crimes as tough "three strikes you're out" sentencing measures. Other Rand research provides evidence that interventions very early in childhood might decrease justice system expenditures as well as costs of other government services. This and other research supports the idea that prevention is a cost-effective key to public safety as part of a broader, more comprehensive approach to juvenile justice.

Preventing Juvenile Crime and Delinquency discusses how early childhood risk factors-such as abuse and neglect, exposure to violence, and abnormal brain development-contribute to crime and delinquency. Home visitation programs and quality preschool experiences are described among protective factors that help offset risks. Risk factors that influence school-age and teen-age children also are discussed, along with appropriate interventions for those age groups. Throughout, many examples are given of how state legislation is creating a policy framework that involves homes, schools and communities in prevention of juvenile delinquency and crime.

Immediate Interventions and Graduated Sanctions explains the behavioral pathway to juvenile crime and delinquency, and how swift, sure interventions can hold juvenile offenders accountable and also involve their parents. The concept of "restorative justice" as a means of balancing juvenile justice is discussed, along with how risk and needs assessment and a system of progressive sanctions for juvenile offenders provide a cornerstone for comprehensive juvenile justice. Highlights include descriptions of how states like Connecticut, Kansas, Texas and Washington, are legislating, funding and benefiting from a range of sanctions for juvenile offenders.

Serious Offenders in the Juvenile Justice System describes juvenile detention and corrections systems, numbers and characteristics of incapacitated juveniles, and the challenges before states to meet standards for conditions and programming. This section also looks at options like boot camps and the role of after care in enhancing effectiveness of juvenile corrections, and highlights strategies to reduce juvenile gun crime. The significant movement in states to extend juvenile court jurisdiction beyond typical upper-age and to create blended juvenile and adult jurisdiction is explored. Examples are provided of how state legislation seeks to reserve corrections space for violent juveniles, and to strengthen juvenile justice systems as an appropriate option for serious, young offenders.

Treating Juveniles Like Adult Criminals explains the various means by which juvenile cases are sent to adult court; the number and types of offenders heard there; and what research is showing about case outcomes, including sentences for and time served by young offenders in adult systems. A discussion is included of how incarceration policy and adult corrections systems deal with juveniles in the criminal justice system. In addition, the momentous shift in state policies to put rights of victims of juvenile offenders on par with those in adult criminal justice and to open proceedings and records, including creating juvenile criminal histories, is explored. Policies to address violent juvenile gang crime are discussed. This section gives many state legislative examples of treating juvenile offenders like adult criminals, and discusses this trend in the context of comprehensive juvenile justice.

A final section, References/Glossary/Resources and NCSL Assistance, provides source documentation of research discussed in the text. In addition, a glossary section gives common meanings of many juvenile justice terms; and information on key groups as sources for additional research and information is provided. Importantly, this section also describes how NCSL's juvenile justice project is an ongoing resource that is available to assist state legislatures with information, training and technical assistance on juvenile justice reform.

• Between 1993 and 1997, juvenile arrests declined for murder, forcible rape, aggravated assault, robbery, weapons violations, burglary and motor vehicle theft.
• Juvenile homicide arrests have dropped 39 percent since 1993.
• Between 1993 and 1997, juvenile arrests increased for drug abuse, curfew and loitering violations.
• There were 2,100 juveniles murdered in 1997. Of juveniles age 13 or older, 84 percent were killed with a firearm. No other age group in 1997 had a higher proportion of firearm homicides; young adults 18 to 24 years of age were a close second.
• The nation saw a surge in violent juvenile crime between 1988 and 1994. Although rates of arrests for serious juvenile crime have declined since then, they still are 25 percent above the 1988 level.
• Proportionally, juveniles were responsible for less of the nation's violent crime in 1997 than in 1994, but still well above that of the mid-1980s.
• The proportion of reported forcible rapes cleared by arrest of a juvenile was 12 percent in 1997. Rates of juvenile forcible rape have not fluctuated since 1980 as much as the rates of other violent crimes have. The juvenile arrest rate in 1997 for forcible rape was lower than any year since 1983, and was 23 percent below the peak year of 1991.
• Property crime rates for juveniles have been relatively stable during the past two decades.
• Crimes like theft, non-serious assaults, vandalism, liquor law violations, disorderly conduct, curfew and loitering violations, and running away remain as the crimes for which juveniles are most often arrested.

 Sources: National Center for Juvenile Justice; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; Bureau of Justice Statistics; Uniform Crime Reports of the FBI.

Recidivism can be reduced, even for the most serious, chronic offenders, through interventions that build better interpersonal skills and improve the thought processes that contribute to appropriate behavior, according to researchers. For younger children, the most successful early intervention programs simultaneously involve both the home and the school. Community commitment to identifying youths who are subject to many risk factors and providing appropriate interventions is of key importance, the OJJDP panel said. Youths with multiple problems-a combination of school problems, abuse, neglect, family violence-are at greatest risk for continued and escalating offending. Adolescents who join gangs and those involved in drug dealing are at much greater risk for serious, violent offending.

Programs that work tend to be those that are the most intensive in terms of the amount and duration of concentrated attention to youths, according to "meta-analyses," which synthesize results of multiple program evaluations. This sort of analysis by Mark Lipsey and D.B. Wilson aided the OJJDP group in identifying 24 highly effective juvenile justice system programs. On average, these programs reduce recidivism by about 12 percent. Some of the best programs reduced future crimes by more than 40 percent, which translates into significant reductions in both crime and costs. Interestingly, the researchers found that many programs show their greatest success with the most serious offenders.

A congressionally mandated evaluation to determine the successful state and local crime prevention programs was funded by the U.S. Department of Justice and carried out by Lawrence Sherman and colleagues at the University of Maryland. The researchers defined crime prevention to include any practice that results in reduced crime, and analyzed more than 500 scientific evaluations of such practices. The 1998 report gave high marks to home visiting programs both for infants and preschoolers; family therapy and parent training; and school-based efforts that include rules, training in social competency and behavior modification-type thinking skills. Other successful efforts include vocational training for adult offenders, nuisance abatement, extra police patrols, and drug treatment and other risk-focused treatment for convicted offenders.

In Colorado, researchers at the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence have reviewed hundreds of prevention programs and thus far have flagged more than 20 programs as exemplary or promising efforts. Some of the programs-referred to as "Blueprints"-begin early in childhood, while others address interventions for adjudicated delinquent youths. (See "Blueprints for Violence Prevention," in the "Preventing Juvenile Crime and Delinquency" section of this guide.)

Crime prevention increasingly can be thought of as a science rather than an art, Sherman noted in the Maryland report. Although he cautioned that more impact analysis is needed to guide state and local crime prevention policy, the amount and kind of information becoming available today indeed suggests that there are programs that work for reducing crime and delinquency.

In San Diego County, one of the first comprehensive strategy demonstration sites, planners began by identifying both duplicate services and gaps in the system. Their objective was to create a seamless web of integrated supervision and services for youth. Programs and strategies being put in action include a "Breaking Cycles" effort in the probation department funded under a legislatively-created grant program (Cal. Welfare & Institutions Code 18.7 § 749.2). Intensive assessment and individual and family services seek to interrupt the potential slide of adjudicated youths into drugs, gangs and violence. Another family-focused intervention program created under one of the Legislature's grant programs is setting up neighborhood-based community assessment teams and centers (Cal. Welfare & Institutions Code § 601.5). Another state-funded program targets repeat offenders. It provides intensive probation supervision and social services for high-risk, repeat juvenile offenders. Assessment of and services to family members includes getting younger siblings involved in prevention programs. In addition, a "Critical Hours" program uses county funds to provide health, education, recreation and skill development to middle school-age youths. By keeping at-risk kids in positive peer activities during after-school hours, it seeks to reduce their opportunity for gang involvement, drug use and teen pregnancy.

The Jacksonville, Fla., comprehensive strategy task force is focused on the ambitious goal of reducing delinquency by 40 percent by the year 2015, through policy and strategic programming for prevention and graduated sanctions. The Jessie Ball duPont Fund has joined criminal justice officials at city, county and state levels in the effort there. Data collection and risk factors like economic deprivation, academic failure, and availability and use of drugs are being used to expand existing programs and design other strategies. "While the likelihood that the teen mother will be a candidate for the deep end of juvenile delinquency is remote (of a large cohort of serious habitual offenders tracked by Duval County, only 6.5 percent were female), her children are at very high risk," a recent report of the task force stated. The effort is building on promising programs that address key protective and risk factors, and is examining ideas like establishment of a truancy center.

Data collection is aided in Jacksonville by the Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program (SHOCAP), which identifies and tracks multiple-arrest juveniles. Services are being targeted to the relatively few young offenders who are responsible for the bulk of juvenile arrests. Planners in Jacksonville credit efforts like the Jailed Juvenile Program with a reduction in serious crime and the population of juveniles in the city's jail. The intensive mentoring program matches incarcerated juveniles with a mentor who continues to work with him or her after release. It is part of a broader effort of the state attorney's office to incorporate prevention and intervention efforts along with prosecution of serious, habitual juvenile offenders.

The efforts under way in the OJJDP comprehensive strategy pilot sites represent a saavy partnering of federal, state, local and private resources. Effective collaboration among agencies and service providers is a key approach that is being taken to produce sustainable and measurable results in reducing juvenile crime.