Juvenile justice statutes vary significantly among States. Differences in age limits, jurisdictional control, and the extent of sanctions for specific offenses create confusion for those working with court-involved youth. In most States, the juvenile justice system is independent of the adult criminal justice system and is typically administered by a State social service agency (e.g., a human services agency in 23 States and a children and family services agency in 6 States). In 11 States, the adult corrections system administers juvenile justice.³ Services provided through the juvenile justice system have the dual purpose of rehabilitating court-involved youth and providing for public safety; the balance between the two goals varies by locality. Personnel involved in the juvenile justice process include law enforcement personnel (police and sheriff’s departments), intake and probation workers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, juvenile court judges, probation and social service workers, residential facility personnel, and aftercare workers. This chapter describes common elements of juvenile justice systems and those elements that may affect collaboration between the workforce and educational systems and those seeking job training and employment for court-involved youth.

Components of the Juvenile Justice System

Prevention/Early Intervention

Prevention or early intervention programs target youth who display certain risk factors. Most unsuccessful juvenile delinquency efforts have failed because of their negative approach—attempting to keep juveniles from misbehaving. Positive approaches that emphasize opportunities for healthy social, physical, and mental development have a much greater likelihood of success. Successful delinquency prevention strategies must be positive in their orientation and comprehensive in their scope.⁴

Diversion

A significant number of youth are diverted from the juvenile justice system, often into alternative programs. The programs can provide extra support, guidance, and positive experiences to youth who may be involved in status offending such as truancy, violation of curfews, or underage drinking or in minor delinquency such as vandalism.⁵ Other programs directly target at-risk youth.

Early intervention and diversion services are designed to prevent further involvement in the juvenile justice system. Youth receiving these front-end services are relatively young offenders, typically under 16 years old. These services attempt to involve young offenders in healthy, prosocial activities and relationships with peers and adults that will serve as protective factors and curb their involvement in further delinquent activity. Because these youth pose a minimal safety risk to the public, these early intervention services can be provided to youth in their communities while they live at home.

Balanced and Restorative Justice Many States have begun to develop and implement a new vision for juvenile justice: balanced and restorative justice (BARJ). The BARJ model seeks to balance offender accountability, public safety, and competency development by helping juvenile justice systems to become more responsive to the needs of victims, offenders, and the community. Recognizing both victim and offender restoration as critical goals, BARJ utilizes alternative sanctions such as community service and victim restitution to engage youth and involve victims in the justice process. Achieving these goals also leads to improved community safety and quality of life.1 1 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Guide for Implementing the Balanced and Restorative Justice Model, Report, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1998; P. Freivalds, Balanced and Restorative Justice Project (BARJ), Fact Sheet, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1996.

Intake

The court intake function is generally the responsibility of the juvenile probation department and/or the prosecutor’s office. The responsible agency decides whether to dismiss the case, to handle the matter informally, or to request formal intervention by the juvenile court. About half of all cases referred to juvenile court are handled informally. If the juvenile successfully complies with the informal disposition, the case is dismissed. If the case is to be handled formally in juvenile court, the agency responsible for intake files one of two types of petitions: a delinquency petition requesting an adjudicatory hearing or a waiver hearing to transfer the case to criminal court.⁶

Detention

Juveniles may be confined in a secure juvenile detention facility for their own or the community’s protection prior to a hearing. The initial decision about detention is made by juvenile probation officers or detention workers. Once a court hearing is held (usually within 24 hours of arrest), a judge determines whether to continue the detention or release the juvenile. The original detention may continue beyond the adjudicatory (trial) and dispositional (sentencing) hearings while a juvenile is awaiting placement.

Waiver

Waiver petitions may be filed by the prosecutor or intake worker when it appears that a case would be more appropriately handled in criminal court. In most cases, the juvenile court judge must make the final decision to waive juvenile jurisdiction and transfer the case to criminal court. In an increasing number of States, the laws permit prosecutors discretion to file in either juvenile or adult (criminal) court. As stated above, some States specify in statutes the conditions under which youth are to be processed through the adult (criminal) justice system.

Adjudication

Juvenile court proceedings are considered to be “quasi-civil” rather than criminal, and they may be confidential. Most often, juveniles enter pleas of guilt. However, when they do not, an adjudicatory hearing (similar to a trial in criminal court) is held to determine whether the youth is responsible for the offense(s) with which he or she is charged. This determination is almost always made by a judge. Only a few States allow juvenile cases to be decided by a jury. If guilt is established, the youth is adjudicated delinquent (similar to being convicted in criminal court), regardless of the offense. The youth has the right to appeal to a higher court.

Disposition

Prior to a final disposition (similar to sentencing in criminal court), the probation staff develops a disposition plan. The plan is based on an assessment of a youth’s needs, available support systems and programs, and community security. At the disposition hearing, recommendations are presented to the judge, who then decides the appropriate disposition (sentence).

Probation

Probation is a disposition under which the court conditionally releases the youth to the community in the care and custody of a parent, guardian, or custodian under prescribed rules and conditions. In most cases, the court’s rules and conditions are directed at the youth to ensure public safety, and they follow a course of treatment outlined in the probation officer’s disposition plan. Examples of rules include ordering a youth to complete drug counseling and family therapy, pay restitution, and perform community service. In most juvenile courts, the length of probation may be open-ended (indeterminate) or specified. Depending on the severity of the offense and other factors, probation officers have varying levels of contact with the youth. Caseloads for probation officers are generally very high. Courts often conduct review hearings to monitor the progress of youth on probation and may terminate the probation if all the conditions are met. An estimated 60 percent of all youth who are adjudicated delinquent are placed on formal probation.

Residential Placement

Approximately 30 percent of adjudicated delinquents are placed in residential facilities for specific or indeterminate time periods. These facilities may be publicly or privately operated (some States contract the operations to private vendors) and may have secure, prisonlike environments or more open, homelike settings. Youth may be confined at a distance from their home communities in larger State-owned facilities (publicly or privately operated) or in small residential facilities.

Depending on statutory provisions, the placement and release decisions may rest with the State department of juvenile corrections, once the disposition decision is made. In other instances, the judge retains jurisdiction and may make determinations about placement and duration of confinement.

Residential Programming

Residential facilities monitor the presence and activities of assigned youth at all times. These facilities serve delinquents who have been remanded by juvenile courts to the care of the State because of the risk they pose to public safety and the severity of their needs, and/or the nature and seriousness of their offenses. These facilities are self-contained and typically provide some level of rehabilitative services for youth, including health, education, counseling, recreation, and employment and training. The national average age of youth in residential facilities is 15.8, and the average length of stay is 157 days. Historically, these facilities have been large “reform schools” or “training schools,” housing up to 300 youth drawn from wide geographic regions of the State. Starting in the 1970’s, some States opted to eliminate or reduce their dependence on large facilities. Instead, they developed smaller, community-based facilities serving 10 to 50 youth. These smaller facilities typically allow youth to be placed closer to their homes and to the communities to which they will return upon release.

Community Corrections

With community corrections (including prerelease centers, halfway houses, residential drug and alcohol treatment facilities, restitution, and day reporting centers), juveniles are required to adhere to the disposition plan, receive services, and be monitored by a probation officer. In some settings, court-involved youth reside at home or with a designated guardian. In other community corrections models, youth are placed in a community-based residential setting that permits treatment flexibility consistent with the disposition plan (probation order). The disposition plan specifies the education, training, counseling, and support services required, in addition to restricting the juvenile’s freedom and certain forms of behavior. Some youth may be enrolled in prevention programs that also serve at-risk youth or that are designed for youth receiving aftercare services. Officers of the court (e.g., probation or parole officers) are responsible for monitoring the status of the youth and ensuring compliance with court-ordered mandates, including participation in education, vocational training, community service, and treatment.

The community corrections approach is not new; it has roots in the early social reform efforts in the United States. The approach has been promoted during the past 25 years in response to the ineffectiveness of traditional systems in reducing recidivism, in stemming progressive involvement of youth in delinquent behaviors, and in addressing the developmental needs of youth. Community corrections programs recognize the importance of youth’s reconnecting to their communities and developing consistent relationships with positive adult role models. These programs provide treatment interventions that reflect the expectations of the community and society. Current approaches to community corrections may apply the BARJ, Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP), and/or Integrated Social Control (ISC) models. For more information about these approaches, see Intensive Aftercare Program, Balanced and Restorative Justice, and Integrated Social Control.

Intensive Aftercare Program The IAP1 model assumes that any attempt to lower rates of recidivism among court-involved youth must include intensive intervention strategies that provide social control and services.2 The IAP model recommends five principles of programmatic action. Together, the principles establish a set of fundamental operational goals for IAP: Preparing youth for progressively increased responsibility and freedom in the community. Facilitating youth-community interaction and involvement. Working with the offender and targeted community support systems (e.g., families, peers, schools, and employers) to promote constructive interaction and successful reintegration of the youth into the community. Developing new resources and support systems where needed. Monitoring and testing the ability of the youth and the community to deal with each other productively.3 Data from IAP implementations demonstrate the importance of the following elements: Consistent approach to family, peer, school, work, and drug-involvement issues by all residential and community-based youth aftercare programs. Effective development and implementation of aftercare surveillance to reinforce youth participation in beneficial treatment activities. Diligent provision of overarching case management services, including:   Risk assessment and classification to establish youth eligibility. Individual case planning that incorporates family and community perspectives. A mix of intensive surveillance, enhanced services, and links to social networks. A balance of incentives, graduated consequences, and realistic, enforceable conditions. 1 For more information about IAP, contact The Johns Hopkins University, Institute for Policy Studies. See appendix H for contact information. 2 D.M. Altschuler and T.L. Armstrong, Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: A Community Care Model, Summary, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1994. 3 Altschuler and Armstrong, 1994.

Aftercare

Planning for community reintegration should begin as soon as the youth is committed to the system. Most States require youth to undergo supervision and treatment after release from an institution. This requirement combines surveillance and participation in reintegration activities consistent with the services provided in the institution. If the juvenile does not comply with the terms of aftercare, he or she may be recommitted either to the same facility from which he or she was released or to another facility.

Aftercare includes the services that are provided to youth in preparation for and following release from residential facilities. The youth remain the responsibility of the State juvenile justice agency and are still in need of support services. After being incarcerated for an extended period of time, it is often difficult for youth to make a positive transition back to their families and home communities. The structure and positive supports of the residential facility are no longer available to them, whereas the community conditions and factors that contributed to their initial delinquency remain intact. Ideally, aftercare services are designed to provide adequate supervision and to create a wide range of healthy supports in the youth’s home neighborhood that will enable the youth to sustain and develop the prosocial attitudes and behaviors acquired in the residential setting. In this way, aftercare, early intervention, and community corrections services are similar in their attempts to help youth become and remain involved in prosocial, developmentally healthy activities in their home communities.

Integrated Social Control The Integrated Social Control (ISC) model integrates the central components of control, strain, and social learning theories. It argues that the combined forces of inadequate socialization, strains between occupational and educational aspirations and expectations, and neighborhood social disorganization lead to weak bonding to conventional values and activities in the family, school, and community. Weak bonding can lead youth to a delinquent lifestyle through negative peer influences. The ISC model is a theory of delinquency among the general adolescent population and the applicability of its major factors to institution-bound youth should be considered carefully. For example, the model assumes that involvement with the family keeps adolescents from delinquent involvement.1 1 B. Krisberg, D. Neuenfeldt, R. Wiebush, and O. Rodriguez, Juvenile Intensive Supervision: Planning Guide, Summary, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1994, pp. 6 and 8./p>

Summary

While prevention, diversion, residential commitment, community corrections, and aftercare are often discussed separately, together they are intended to constitute a flexible continuum of sanctions and care. Ideally, this continuum enables State and local systems to provide the appropriate supervision and rehabilitative services in the least restrictive setting, while accounting for public safety.

Juvenile justice systems differ from State to State; however, the basic process from arrest to aftercare is similar. The varying age range of youth involved in the system and different jurisdictional schemes make it difficult to plan and implement workforce development programs. However, recent efforts to identify, evaluate, and promote program models that work for court-involved youth indicate that collaborative planning among the systems that serve these youth does make a difference. Disseminating these best practices throughout the juvenile justice system, workforce development system, and larger communities continues to be a challenge.