Because a major thrust of the JAIBG program is to enhance the ability of the juvenile justice system to respond to juvenile crime, resources other than staff are essential to improving the system. This includes support for identifying repeat offenders, particularly those who pose special problems to the community; tracking offenders, their activities, and intervention results; sharing this information within the juvenile justice system; and managing information. Few of these efforts can be carried out efficiently without automation. In many jurisdictions, prosecutors and others in the juvenile justice system still have insufficient access to computers and frequently lack training to realize the full potential of existing computerized systems. In a 1996 survey of local prosecutors' offices, only about one-third reported being connected to a computerized system with other criminal justice agencies (DeFrances and Steadman, 1998). Of those reporting computer connection, only 23 percent reported being integrated with the courts, 16 percent with law enforcement, and 9 percent with other district attorneys' offices statewide.

In addition, prosecutors require specialized training in the field of juvenile justice to be prepared to meet the challenges of the increasingly more demanding and complex issues involved in juvenile cases. The following section provides a brief overview of the major issues related to enhancing juvenile prosecution through technology and training and also offers specific examples for funding applications under Purpose Area 6.

Technology To Increase Efficiency in the Juvenile Justice System

A broad range of technology can be applied to make the juvenile justice system more efficient. Today's computer systems are affordable and flexible, and numerous software applications have been developed to assist justice system professionals in assigning caseloads, tracking cases, exchanging information, and identifying and tracking offenders. Many of these automated systems have been developed for the criminal justice system but can be easily adapted for use within the juvenile justice system. Several special requirements of the juvenile justice system, such as the privacy of the process and the strong rehabilitation focus, may require adjustments in individual systems' applications.

Juvenile record systems
Traditionally, juvenile court records are sealed or expunged when the youth reaches adulthood. Many argue, however, that it is in the interest of the public and the individual offender that criminal courts should have continuing access to useful information in juvenile records when an individual with a juvenile court record commits offenses as an adult. In recognition of the importance of keeping juvenile records confidential, it has been argued that if juvenile records remain sealed except in criminal cases involving serious and violent offenses, courts can get the information they need to deal with these cases while still protecting the privacy of individuals who do not reoffend (Blumstein, 1997).

Many States have opened access to juvenile records and court proceedings in response to rapidly rising violent crime rates among juveniles, blurring the line between how the justice system treats juveniles and adults. Although these new problems are based on legitimate public safety concerns, they are seen by many as a threat to nearly 100 years of juvenile justice system philosophy that stresses rehabilitation, treatment, and individual privacy (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997). Balancing the use of juvenile justice records with privacy protection presents an ongoing challenge to juvenile court administrators, public policymakers, and practitioners in the juvenile justice system.

The National District Attorneys Association's (NDAA's) Resource Manual and Policy Positions on Juvenile Crime Issues (1996) supports the establishment of a national uniform recordkeeping system for juvenile offenders. It also encourages prosecutors to take an active role in developing legislation that mandates the interagency sharing of information relating to juveniles because prosecutors need complete access to properly perform their prosecutorial duties.

While Federal laws and laws in most States make juvenile court records confidential, they also provide for some degree of access to these records. Criminal court access to juvenile records is permitted in every State, and access to juvenile law enforcement records is usually not regulated. Access to sealed records, while more difficult, is often still possible. Juvenile arrest and adjudication records, which historically have been maintained and disbursed on a local basis, are increasingly becoming centralized on a statewide basis -- much as criminal court records became centralized during the1960's and 1970's. As of 1988, only 13 out of the 50 States had repositories maintaining juvenile record information. At present, statutes in 27 States expressly authorize State central repositories to collect and maintain juvenile delinquency history data (juvenile arrest and any disposition arising from a juvenile court decision) (Miller, 1995).

Federal events parallel State developments. The Federal juvenile records confidentiality law requires that juveniles found guilty of an act that would be a violent felony if committed by an adult must be photographed and fingerprinted (18 U.S.C. 5038). If the juvenile has been adjudicated twice for a felony or if the juvenile is 13 or older and has been convicted of a felony crime of violence with a firearm, then the Federal court must transmit the juvenile court record along with the fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (18 U.S.C. 5038(d) and5038(f), as amended by Public Law103­322, September 13, 1994). The Federal Government has also implemented antigang prosecution initiatives, which include the development of a National Gang Trafficking Network, to help Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies exchange information on gangs. The Federal and State initiatives and the NDAA policy support accurate and consistent reporting of juvenile criminal offenses and permit information sharing to achieve the most effective prevention, investigation, prosecution, and rehabilitation efforts possible.

Any effort to provide access to up-to-date offender information requires automation. Individual jurisdictions often can build on statewide efforts to automate information sharing and case tracking for juvenile cases. For example, statewide juvenile court information systems were developed in Utah and Washington, linking all juvenile courts in each State. These systems allow the development of management reports, including integrated statistics on case activity, delinquency histories, and court action on dependencies. Courts also may request individual ad hoc reports or direct access to their own data (Curtis, 1997).

Automated case management systems
Developing a case management system is a task separate from, but related to, the development of an information sharing system. Case management systems are primarily designed to assist prosecutors and other juvenile justice professionals in tracking cases through the system, identifying where in the process a particular case is, and determining what actions need to be taken (e.g., motions and notification of victims and/or witnesses). Further, management decisions (e.g., staffing, caseload allocation, and budget allocation) may be supported by the type of information available from case management systems. However, to support policy decisions or decide what actions to take and how to respond in a specific case, both offender and case information are needed. If both systems -- case management and offender information -- are combined, this provides the most comprehensive information support for line operations and management.

Compatibility with the criminal court information system is one of the factors involved in successfully creating a juvenile system. Having two compatible and integrated systems limits the need for programming, provides direct access to both data sources, and generally requires a shorter startup time. Such comprehensive systems are in place in a few States, most notably in Colorado, where a statewide system links information from all system components. Experiences from these efforts show that developing a comprehensive information system can be a lengthy, costly, but well-justified effort. It has also become clear that developing such information systems alone is not enough. Ongoing, consistent training programs for staff to learn how to access, maintain, and apply the data are as essential.

Prosecutors' offices also need to be aware of the rapid development of computer technology. The two most important issues to watch for when investing in any equipment or software are compatibility with existing networks and user friendliness. A prosecutor's office should assess its needs, communicate with other agencies, and develop a long-term plan for the use of this technology. This plan should include staff training, system maintenance, and incremental system updates to alleviate the need to purchase a completely new system after the old one becomes outdated in 3 to 5 years.

Electronic communication devices
A 1996 Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) survey indicated that 46 percent of responding prosecutors' offices reported having e-mail, 36 percent reported having Internet access, 31 percent reported having online access to the National Crime Information Center, and 4 percent reported having a Web site (DeFrances and Steadman, 1998).

Although these numbers reflect a healthy start toward electronic communication access, they also show that many prosecutors still do not benefit from direct access to this communication and research medium. Many offices have only one or two terminals that offer e-mail or Internet access, and it is not unusual for an assistant district attorney to use a private account because the office does not provide for it. The software currently available, however, allows an increasing number of offices to have intranet and Internet access at a relatively affordable price.

Many communication tools and technology applications available today assist prosecutors in accessing information and in communicating. Offices might consider providing prosecutors with pagers or cellular phones, which are especially necessary if the prosecutor cannot be reached by his or her office telephone or e-mail. Laptop computers not only provide for word processing, calculation, and information retrieval "on-the-run," but support in-courtroom presentations, quick access to the Internet and databases, and receipt of faxes and e-mail. With increasingly smaller, lighter, and more powerful handheld devices, the paperless adjudication process may still be far away for many jurisdictions but is no longer unrealistic.

Hardware and software
To implement the various computer-based applications described above, a prosecutor's office needs to be equipped with the appropriate hardware and software. In addition to relying on computers for standard tasks, offices use computer equipment to access electronic research tools, track criminal histories and current involvement of juvenile offenders, and support case management, office management, planning, and decisionmaking. In addition, equipment for in-court presentations (e.g., color printers, laptops, projectors, and so forth) has become increasingly important for prosecutors to communicate and support their arguments to courts and juries.

Software should efficiently support a range of activities, be compatible with other applications within the office and other agencies, and be user friendly. Research software is a critical element. In 1996, 43 percent of prosecutors' offices reported having the capability to conduct electronic research (DeFrances and Steadman, 1998). JAIBG Program Purpose Area 6funds are an ideal means for prosecutors to subscribe to the Internet and other research services.

Fingerprinting and other identification mechanisms
Today, 40 States expressly authorize the fingerprinting of juveniles, while only 2 States prohibit it. That is almost the reverse from 20 years ago, when most juvenile codes prohibited the fingerprinting of juveniles except in extraordinary circumstances. Today, there are statewide systems designed to collect and maintain juvenile record information (including fingerprint records). In 1988, only 13 State repositories reported that they had legal authority to operate such a system; today, statutes in 27 States expressly authorize such systems. This does not mean that these States have juvenile record repositories that are up and running or that they include complete information, but the groundwork has been laid. In addition, the FBI now accepts juvenile record submissions from the States and treats those submissions in the same way as adult records.

The true value of collecting fingerprints lies in being able to use the prints to connect offenders to crimes and to provide an identification system. This can be fully achieved only through an automated system that stores and shares fingerprint information within and beyond a jurisdiction. In California, for example, all arrests, including those of juveniles, are to be reported to California's Department of Justice and entered into its automated criminal history system. When the arrest finger print card is received, the system creates or adds to that person's criminal history. When the disposition of that arrest is received, it also is added to the history. One problem encountered in California and other States, however, is that juvenile arrests and dispositions are not systematically entered into the automated system. In1997, for example, only 25 percent of juvenile felony arrests made in California were logged in. This is frequently due to the reluctance of local law enforcement and the courts to submit juvenile data as a result of conflicting views about how best to treat juveniles and whether juvenile records should be kept confidential (Sculy, 1997).

In addition to improved fingerprint collection methods, many other technologies, such as computer imaging and digital cameras, are available to identify and track juvenile offenders. For example, the Washington, DC, Pretrial Services Agency uses digital cameras to check the identity of juveniles ordered to submit regular urine samples for drug testing. The digital picture is part of the juvenile record that is called up each time the youth appears to submit the sample, making identification relatively easy and tamperproof.

Drug testing
The establishment of State and local drug testing policies is one of the requirements of JAIBG. The issues related to this topic are addressed in more detail in another Bulletin in this series, Implementing a Policy of Controlled Substance Testing for Appropriate Categories of Juveniles Within the Juvenile Justice System. In considering the use of drug tests, prosecutors need to balance available resources with the benefits of drug testing. A recent national survey of prosecutors, State prosecutor coordinators, and State alcohol and drug abuse directors showed that, even though only three States require drug testing of certain categories of juveniles at some point, drug testing of selected juvenile offenders occurs quite frequently at the local level (Gramckow and Walters, 1998). Testing is most often conducted at those points in the process where it can be used as a control tool (e.g., for juveniles on probation and within the corrections system), generally concentrates primarily on substance abuse offenders, and is frequently ordered on a case-by-case basis only.

Universal testing for juvenile offenders is cost prohibitive and would create many problems for the current system. This guarded involvement of the States allows each jurisdiction to develop a selective approach to testing juvenile offenders that reflects local needs and resources. In developing a drug-testing policy, a jurisdiction needs to consider that, overall, only 8 percent of juveniles handled by the courts in 1996 were charged with drug abuse offenses (Snyder, 1997). Mandatory drug testing of all juvenile arrestees may be useful in a jurisdiction with a high rate of addicted drug offenders, but not in others.

Drug testing is most useful in certain situations:

• To gain evidence required to prove that the juvenile was under the influence of an illegal substance.
• To serve as a case management tool for offenders in treatment or diversion or on probation (Harrell, Adams, and Gouvis, 1995).
• To help predict pretrial misconduct (Rhodes, Hyatt, and Scheiman, 1996).

With additional funding for technology through JAIBG Program Purpose Area 6, prosecutors will be better equipped to use and explore the drug testing methods that are most suitable for the case and offender type predominantly handled in their jurisdiction. If applied selectively, drug testing can be a positive part of the juvenile justice system process, but it may have limited usefulness and can become a logistical and financial nightmare if applied too broadly.

DNA testing in serious and violent cases
DNA testing permits the accurate identification of an individual from evidence samples (e.g., semen, skin, blood, hair, saliva) found at a crime scene. In a 1996 BJS survey of State prosecutors' offices, 49 percent reported using DNA evidence (DeFrances and Steadman, 1998). Of those reporting the use of DNA evidence, 41 percent use it in plea negotiations and 34 percent use it during felony trials.

Although the report does not specify the frequency of DNA use in juvenile cases, it is safe to assume that the percentage is low. This is primarily a result of the small percentage of juvenile cases that involve rape, homicide, and similar violent offenses for which DNA testing is used. DNA testing is still a slow and costly process (Weedn and Hicks, 1997), which prevents its application unless it is essential to prove the case. Still, with increasing caseloads of violent offenses, juvenile prosecutors should be equipped with the tools and skills necessary to aggressively prosecute cases of serious and violent offenders, which includes using DNA evidence. Specialized training for juvenile prosecutors in the use of DNA evidence, such as the courses provided by the American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI),⁷ should be considered when training budgets are reviewed.

Potential Implementation Difficulties

Today's prosecutors are exposed to an array of constantly improving technology applications. Although many quickly adopt these new tools, professional and support staff occasionally resist using new equipment and software and exploring its full potential. Training every staff member, providing periodic refresher courses, and involving staff in the development of office-specific software applications are the best ways to overcome this obstacle.

A more difficult hurdle is resistance to using technology for information sharing. A database is only as good as the information entered (or accessible). Again, training is essential to reduce database errors, but more important is educating staff about the need for correct record entry and database access. Offices should develop procedures and policies, preferably in a team effort, and conduct systematic checks to monitor the correctness and completeness of data entry and use. No policy or procedure is worth much if it is not enforced. If the leadership in an agency neither believes in nor enforces information sharing, the likelihood that this agency will provide incomplete data is high.

Another obstacle frequently encountered is that individual agencies too often purchase and develop systems without talking to the agencies with which they need to link. As a result, information sharing and communication may be possible only after expensive programming to overcome system incompatibilities. Developing a long-term purchase plan in conjunction with other agencies is the only way to avoid such an outcome.

Examples of Prosecutor Training Needs and Existing Training Opportunities

In too many jurisdictions, the prosecution of juveniles is left to attorneys who are relatively new to the profession. This is mainly a result of the outdated view of juvenile courts as "kiddie courts" and the wrongful assumption that these cases are less important than criminal cases. Young, inexperienced prosecutors often dominate the field, and because the handling of these cases may not be seen to rank high on the scale of prosecutorial achievement, turnover is disproportionately high. Each year, many new prosecutors are thrown into handling juvenile cases without adequate preparation to deal with the increasingly complex matters these cases present and without appropriate knowledge of the many alternatives available to respond to juvenile crime.

Comprehensive training is required not only to address the needs of newly assigned prosecutors, but also to respond to more experienced prosecutors' requirements for advanced training to handle the complex issues involved in serious juvenile crimes and to develop special programs to address juvenile crime in their own jurisdictions. Elected prosecutors can benefit from policy-level training sessions that outline how to make juvenile crime a priority, and teams of juvenile justice professionals need training in how to establish coordinated community responses. The following are a few training programs currently available to prosecutors to address these training needs.

Introductory training for new juvenile prosecutors
Considering that the majority of juvenile prosecutors are fairly new attorneys, a basic training course that introduces the underlying theoretical and philosophical concepts of the juvenile justice system, teaches trial advocacy skills, and outlines the applicability of various disposition options should be available on a continual basis. APRI received funding from OJJDP to develop core material to support a cost-effective training program that is adaptable to State statutes and reflects the needs of jurisdictions of all sizes. This core material, presented in a course entitled "Jumpstart," will include the basic elements for a basic training course as outlined above. It will be tested and available under the JAIBG program by the end of 1999.

Juvenile policy development courses
The priority the elected prosecutor assigns to juvenile cases will influence the extent and scope of resources (e.g., staff, program, equipment) allocated to address these cases. If the elected prosecutor assigns high priority to juvenile delinquency cases, the prosecutor's office is likely to process more juvenile cases, prepare stronger cases, and increase the resources devoted to juvenile programs. In addition to changing the impact of the prosecutor's office on juvenile crime, the elected prosecutor can also influence the priority that the juvenile justice system and the community overall assign to juvenile issues. To provide elected officials with the knowledge and skills they need to provide the leadership for policy changes in their jurisdiction, APRI developed special juvenile policy development courses for elected officials and/or juvenile unit chiefs. These courses, taught by elected officials and other experts, provide the information needed to establish juvenile justice as a priority and to develop jurisdiction-specific programs.

Specialized advanced prosecutor training courses
Prosecutors are increasingly challenged in handling juvenile cases involving serious and violent juvenile offenses. As mentioned above, to successfully prosecute complex juvenile cases, specialized training is needed.

For example, prosecutors responsible for handling the cases of youthful gang members need training devoted to the unique investigation and prosecution issues that arise in gang cases. The training should address the history and culture of gangs; the type of gangs that are encountered locally; the nature and pattern of youth gang crime; evidence collection techniques; intelligence and tracking data systems; victim/witness issues; avenues and methods of interagency collaboration and coordination; community programs focused on juvenile gang offenders; and case law, statutes, and legal issues pertaining to juvenile gang prosecution (Ehrensaft, 1991). Similarly, prosecutors who address juvenile drug crimes require not only trial advocacy skills, but also specific information about different program options such as treatment services and drug courts.

Because the prosecution of gang- and drug-related and other serious crime requires specialized skills and knowledge, it is crucial that the prosecutor(s) assigned to handle such cases be provided with intensive training. If the office uses a team approach, it would also be appropriate for police officers charged with investigating the crimes and other juvenile justice professionals to receive similar training, perhaps at the same time.