Some of the effects of the "get tough on crime" policies of the 1990's are
revealed in the number of juveniles incarcerated in public institutions
(Moon, Applegate, and Latessa, 1997; DeComo et al., 1995; Krisberg, DeComo,
and Herrera, 1992). From 1987 to 1996, the number of delinquency cases
including detention increased by 38 percent. The largest increase was registered in
the number of person offense cases involving detention. Their number
increased by 97 percent (Stahl, 1999). Changes in State juvenile statutes in the
1980's and 1990's have played a role in this trend to incarcerate more juveniles.
To appropriately address juvenile crime in a jurisdiction,
prosecutors need to have access to information and resources that provide for
a broad range of response mechanisms. While few would argue against
holding juveniles accountable for criminal misconduct, there is also almost
universal agreement that the "punishment should fit the crime." Even
for the most serious offenders, a range of juvenile justice system
response mechanisms needs to be available to
address underlying causes and to
reduce the likelihood of reoffending.
Legislators and juvenile justice professionals recognize the need for
a continuum-of-response approach to juvenile crime, including
education, prevention, early intervention, strong enforcement, and a range of
graduated sanctions. The JAIBG program offers funding to advance such a
system in State and local jurisdictions.
What an individual jurisdiction needs to do to enhance the prosecutor's
ability to process juvenile cases and hold youthful offenders accountable
will differ from one jurisdiction to another. JAIBG stresses that
coordination among the key juvenile justice
players in a jurisdiction is essential. Developing such a system requires initial
coordinated assessment of the jurisdiction's needs, planning for change
implementation, resources to support programs and procedures, and training for
those who must carry out the new procedures or programs.
Spending time and effort in the planning stage is essential to
ensuring that JAIBG funds are spent productively. There are dangers in
relying solely on innovative programs and practices as the basis for reform.
In recent years, the juvenile justice system has also been vulnerable to
panaceas and "quick fix" solutions to
complex problems (e.g., boot camps, "Scared Straight") (Bazemore
and Umbreit, 1995; Finckenauer, 1982). Like Goldstein's (1979) profile
of police departments that focus on tactics rather than outcomes and
emphasize means over ends, systems adopting a program-driven approach
to reform typically fail to consider the fit between new programs and
existing values, policies, and bureaucratic constraints of criminal justice
agencies (McShane and Williams, 1992). Reform needs to be based on
coherent, theoretical, and philosophical principles; fit the jurisdiction;
and consider both existing and future resource needs.
Applicants, especially those
seeking to add more prosecutors, also need to consider that JAIBG grants, in
most cases, provide only seed money to spark the process of system
improvement. The agency or jurisdiction needs to be prepared to assume
the additional costs of a new program beyond the JAIBG funding cycle.
If this long-term outlook is combined with a coordinated, well-planned
assessment and implementation process, State and local jurisdictions
have the potential to significantly improve and change the juvenile justice
system in their States and communities.
