Get documents about "Ct Juvenile Court Forms - DOC
Description
Ct Juvenile Court Forms document sample
Document Sample
REPORT
Juvenile Justice Implementation Team
February 2004
Table of Contents
Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Projected Impact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Fiscal Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Appendix D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Appendix E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Appendix F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
BACKGROUND
Section 1 of Public Act 03-257, An Act Concerning Youths in Crisis and the Age
of a Child for Purposes of Jurisdiction in Juvenile Matters, established an
Implementation Team to review all matters, including funding, necessary to implement
an increase of not more than two years in the age limit for juvenile matters jurisdiction.
Specifically, the act states:
The Chief Court Administrator, the Commissioner of Children and
Families, the Commissioner of Correction, the Chief State's Attorney, the Chief
Public Defender, the Child Advocate and the executive director of the
Commission on Children, or their designees, shall form an implementation team
that shall review all matters, including funding, necessary to implement an
increase, by not more than two years, in the age limit for purposes of jurisdiction
in juvenile matters. Not later than January 15, 2004, the implementation team
shall submit a report concerning the team's findings, any impediments and any
recommendations with respect to such implementation to the joint standing
committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to the
judiciary and the select committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of
matters relating to children. The report required by this section shall be submitted
in accordance with §11-4a of the general statutes.
This report is submitted to the General Assembly pursuant to that act. The report
addresses the relative narrow charge specified in the public act, and does not address the
larger issue of whether a large-scale reform of the juvenile justice system is warranted.1
The members of the Implementation Team specified in the public act are as
follows:
The Chief Court Administrator, or designee
The Commissioner of Children and Families, or designee
The Commissioner of Correction, or designee
The Chief State's Attorney, or designee
The Chief Public Defender, or designee
The Chief Advocate, or designee
The Executive Director of the Commission on Children, or designee.
1
A significant number of the participants in the Implementation Team advocated for a comprehensive
study of the current juvenile justice system to evaluate whether reform is needed. They agreed, however,
that such a study was not the charge of P.A. 03-257. Some recommendations for future action are
contained in Appendix E.
1
The Chief Court Administrator appointed Judge Michael A. Mack, Chief
Administrative Judge for Juvenile Matters, as his designee. Although the public act did
not specify who would act as the chairperson of the Team, Judge Mack consented to
serve in that capacity and the other members of the Implementation Team agreed. The
other named members all appointed at least one designee. In addition, a number of
interested parties not specified in the Public Act were invited to participate in the process.
A list of all participants, both members and non-members, is included as Appendix A.
At the first meeting, the Team determined that it should break down into two
subcommittees -- one on Facilities and Personnel; the other on Programs and Services.
This report includes the recommendations of both subcommittees.
2
INTRODUCTION
Raising the age of jurisdiction of Juvenile Matters to include sixteen and
seventeen year olds (currently known and hereinafter referred to as "youth") will change
the face of Connecticut’s juvenile justice system in a number of ways, some of which can
be anticipated, and others of which are unpredictable. In FY 02-03, 10,242 youth2 were
arrested and presented in the adult criminal court, while approximately 13,537 children3
age fifteen years and younger were referred to juvenile court. Connecticut’s handling of
youth in the adult criminal court is the exception in the United States. Connecticut is one
of only three states to end juvenile jurisdiction at age fifteen.
The philosophy of the juvenile justice system differs significantly from that of the
adult system – the juvenile system has a rehabilitative, rather than punitive, focus and
philosophy. The goals of the juvenile justice system are set out in § 46b-121h of the
Connecticut General Statutes, and include such goals as individualized supervision,
preventive efforts and accountability.4 As the result of this difference in philosophy the
2
For the purposes of this report, ―youth‖ is defined by CGS §46b-120(2) and refers to any person sixteen
or seventeen years of age.
3
For the purposes of this report, ―child‖ is defined by CGS §46b-120(1) and refers to any person fifteen
years of age or younger.
4
Sec. 46b-121h. Goals of juvenile justice system. It is the intent of the General Assembly that the
juvenile justice system provide individualized supervision, care, accountability and treatment in a manner
consistent with public safety to those juveniles who violate the law.
The juvenile justice system shall also promote prevention efforts through the support of programs and
services designed to meet the needs of juveniles charged with the commission of a delinquent act. The
goals of the juvenile justice system shall be to:
(1) Hold juveniles accountable for their unlawful behavior;
(2) Provide secure and therapeutic confinement to those juveniles who present a danger to the community;
(3) Adequately protect the community and juveniles;
(4) Provide programs and services that are community-based and are provided in close proximity to the
juvenile's community;
(5) Retain and support juveniles within their homes whenever possible and appropriate;
(6) Base probation treatment planning upon individual case management plans;
(7) Include the juvenile's family in the case management plan;
(8) Provide supervision and service coordination where appropriate and implement and monitor the case
management plan in order to discourage re-offending;
(9) Provide follow-up and nonresidential post-release services to juveniles who are returned to their
families or communities;
(10) Promote the development and implementation of community-based programs including, but not
limited to, mental health services, designed to prevent unlawful behavior and to effectively minimize the
depth and duration of the juvenile's involvement in the juvenile justice system; and
(11) Create and maintain programs for juvenile offenders that are gender specific in that they
comprehensively address the unique needs of a targeted gender group.
3
juvenile justice system emphasizes treatment and services that are geared to assisting
adolescents in the transition to adulthood.5
Many juvenile justice professionals throughout the country believe that
transferring jurisdiction over Connecticut’s sixteen and seventeen year-olds to the
juvenile justice system would benefit that age group. On the other hand, there is
significant concern that adding a large number of youth to the existing juvenile justice
system would overwhelm it and therefore have a detrimental impact on the population it
currently serves. The Implementation Team was unanimous in its position that this could
not be allowed to occur.
If youth are to benefit from a change of jurisdiction to juvenile matters, they must
be treated in the same manner as juveniles are, with access to the same types of
assessments, evaluations, individualized attention and services. Therefore, in order for
the state to successfully serve both children and youth who are referred to court, the
appropriate level and types of services must be added and implemented. This report
considers the personnel, facilities, programs and services required to appropriately
accommodate the needs of sixteen and seventeen year-olds in the juvenile justice system,
as well as associated costs.
Issues that presented unique challenges for the Implementation Team include:
The differing goals of the juvenile and criminal justice systems, and the
resulting increased call for treatment that will be expected for sixteen and
seventeen year old youth if handled in the juvenile justice system;
The difficulties that youth currently experience in attempting to access
services because they are not eligible for juvenile programs, yet the adult
offender programs are not developmentally appropriate and usually are not
accessible due to age requirements (e.g., sex offender treatment programs and
the jail diversion program currently offered by the Department of Mental and
Addiction Services (DMHAS) in adult court does not serve sixteen and
seventeen year old youth because their age makes them ineligible);
5
See Appendix B for an overview of the Connecticut Juvenile Justice System.
4
The different ways that the criminal justice and the juvenile justice systems
handle particular offenses; specifically the severity of handling for particular
types of crimes (e.g., a charge of possession of drugs with the intent of sell
typically holds a more severe consequence in juvenile court than in adult
court);
Different practices of clinical assessment for mental health, substance abuse,
and co-occurring disorders, for which the juvenile justice system universally
screens, where as the criminal justice system does not. Providing youth with
universal screening will create increased competition for already over-
burdened community-based treatment programs in the juvenile system; and
Different practices and standards for educating young people in the criminal
justice system versus the juvenile justice system.
Developmental Issues of Children and Youth
The unique developmental nature of adolescence can be seen as a mitigating
condition that requires judicial handling that is different from adults. The most reliable
method of grouping offenders, particularly adolescent offenders, is by age. This is not to
say that all individuals reach a similar plateau of cognitive or moral maturity, but the
tasks, expectations, and experiences of adolescents are quite different at different times.
During the adolescent years, the family remains critical while the child’s world
expands to a broader community. At this time, the child's peer group has considerable
influence on the child's behavior. Frequently, gender dictates adolescent behavior. The
problematic behaviors of boys tend to emerge in early to mid-adolescence, while girls’
problem behaviors become more evident in late adolescence and early adulthood and are
frequently evidenced by depression and mood disorders rather than conduct disturbances.
While cognitive development continues throughout adolescence it is quite distinct
during different periods of adolescence. Just as one views adults and adolescents as
persons who tend to think quite differently, adolescents in various stages of development
can display quite divergent thinking. Moral development, like cognitive development,
grows over time and matures throughout adolescence. As the adolescent matures, the
5
need to establish vocational interests and plans becomes an important part of separation
from the family.
All of these issues impact decision-making and therefore culpability for actions
and conduct. Ultimately, the factors that create change in adolescence can be
manipulated in a beneficial way to create change in problematic adolescent conduct,
particularly if attention is paid to the very distinct stages of adolescence -- early, middle,
and late. The consideration and manipulation of these factors is the focus of the
philosophy and culture of the juvenile justice system; therefore, the inclusion of youth in
the juvenile justice system would provide them the benefit of judicial handling that more
appropriately meets their developmental needs while protecting public safety.
Due to the developmental needs of youth, program and service areas that must be
considered are:
Different service needs for early, middle and late adolescents; and the
potential problems of mixing older and younger adolescents, versus the
current practice of mixing adolescents and adults in treatment settings;
The impact that different service standards (staffing, programming, licensing,
physical plant) required through federal consent decrees will have on
providing services to the sixteen and seventeen year old youth population in
the juvenile justice system;
Increased demand for inpatient and outpatient psychiatric services for court-
involved youth (e.g., Riverview Hospital, Juvenile Justice Intermediate
Evaluations, Intensive In-Home Psychiatric Services (IICAPS)).
The need for substance abuse services which offer treatment strategies based
on the developmental age of the individual, including a different approach to
maintaining sobriety beyond the age of eighteen; and
The need for transition and habilitative services to assist adolescents with the
task of preparing for and adjusting to adulthood (e.g., job development skills,
education, independent living skills, and social skills).
6
METHODOLOGY
When the Implementation Team commenced its work, it quickly became
apparent that a two-phase analysis was needed: First, to determine the increase in
numbers of cases and the number of youth who would be involved in those cases, and the
impact that those numbers would have on personnel, and, second, to determine what
impact that increase in numbers would have on juvenile justice facilities and how
additional space requirements would be accommodated. This section of the report
presents the analysis that was done to determine the impact on personnel; facility costs
are outlined later in this report.
Impact of Volume: The Number of Cases
The volume of cases referred to court, whether it is the juvenile or the adult court
system, has a significant impact on the personnel and court facilities needed to process
cases. In FY 02-03, the Connecticut juvenile court system processed 21,379 cases for 13,
537 unique children exclusive of child protection cases, while the adult court system
processed 11,435 criminal cases for 10,242 unique sixteen and seventeen year old youth,
exclusive of motor vehicle infractions.
A person, regardless of age, may be referred to court on more than one occasion;
each occasion of arrest or complaint requires the same amount of processing. Thus the
number of cases, not the number of individuals referred to court, is the critical factor for a
staffing analysis of court operations, prosecutors, public defenders, and judges. The
transfer of sixteen and seventeen year old youth to juvenile court represents the removal
of a small percentage (4 percent) of cases from the adult system and the addition of a
very large percentage (53.5 percent) of cases to the juvenile system.
Court Operations staff includes the clerks and clerical assistants who handle the
cases referred to court, processing the paperwork, preparing the files, and docketing the
matters. The volume of cases is the significant factor for Court Operations, not the
volume of children or youth referred. Any person can have more than one case pending
before the court, and each case (not each person) requires multiple tasks for a case to be
prepared, presented and filed with the court. Based on the current authorized number of
7
juvenile court operations staff positions (89), each staff member processes approximately
240 cases per year. The removal of the estimated 11,435 cases from the adult
geographical area (GA) courthouses will provide only a 4 percent reduction in the GA
case volume.
Currently, the Offices of the State's Attorney located in the courthouses are
comprised of prosecutors, investigators and clerical assistants. There are currently
thirteen juvenile prosecutors, four supervisory prosecutors, ten investigators, and four
secretaries. As with Court Operations staff, the number of cases rather than the number
of children or youth referred, is the significant factor to determine staffing needs. Given
that Connecticut General Statutes §46b-1206 allows for the non-judicial handling of
minor offenses, it is assumed7 that about 50 percent or 10,690 cases of youth referred to
Juvenile Court would not be handled by the Office of the Chief State Attorney.
Therefore, it is estimated that there would be an approximate increase of 5,718 cases to
be prosecuted if youth were referred to the Juvenile Court.
In 1995 the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union (CCLU) and the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) brought a class action lawsuit against Governor John Rowland
and the Public Defender Services Commission. One of the primary objectives of the suit
was to reduce the high caseloads that individual public defender attorneys were assigned
per year. In response to the suit, the Public Defender Commission adopted Caseload
Goals in June 1999 for the purpose of requesting and maintaining adequate resources and
rendering effective assistance of counsel to clients. ―Caseload‖ was defined as ―new
cases assigned per year.‖ The specific caseload goals recommend substantially fewer
cases per attorney per year in juvenile offices, (average 350), than in the G.A. offices
(average 500). It is necessary that the Division remain in substantial compliance with
these goals in order to avoid renewed litigation.
The number of reported arrests of 16 and 17 year olds in 2002-03 was 11,435. It
is expected that about 50 percent of the additional 11,435 cases would be assigned to
Juvenile Public Defender offices, i.e. approximately 5,718 cases. The Annual Report of
the Public Defender Commission 2002-03 reported that Juvenile Public Defender offices
6
Connecticut Practice Book Sec. 27-4A allows for certain non-serious offenses to be handled and disposed
by probation officer.
7
This assumption may be inaccurate because an older population of referred youth might not meet the
eligibility requirements for non-judicial handling because of prior court involvement.
8
represented a record high of 47 percent of the juvenile courts’ new cases. Additionally,
and not included in this figure, are approximately 500 additional children represented by
the Public Defender Juvenile Post Conviction and Reentry Unit. This Unit represents
delinquent children committed to DCF and in residential placement in Connecticut and
out-of state, as well as boys at the Connecticut Juvenile Training School during the entire
term of their commitment. All these additional cases would approximately double the
current Juvenile Public Defender caseload – in 2002-2003 the total Juvenile Public
Defender caseload was 7,300 new delinquency cases statewide.
G.A. Public Defender caseloads for 2002-03 totaled 61,913. G.A. attorneys were
assigned, on average, 506 cases over the course of the year, a figure slightly above the
caseload goals. Moreover, 32 percent of the cases handled by G.A. public defenders and
24 percent of juvenile matters cases were felonies. By virtue of the increased penalties
and more complex nature of these cases, greater time demands per case are placed on
public defender staff. Furthermore, last year, the caseload goals established by the
Commission were exceeded in some G.A. and juvenile offices. It is not anticipated at this
time that G.A. staff would be transferred to juvenile venues.
Additionally, at the end of 2002-03, 10 federally funded positions exhausted their
four-year eligibility for funding and were not included for state pick-up in the
Commission’s budget for 2003-04. This represented a net reduction in the Agency’s
overall staffing. At the end of FY 2003-04, nine Byrne grant positions, including eight
staff assigned to juvenile and G.A. offices, will exhaust their eligibility for federal
funding. These positions are not currently provided for state pick-up in the
Commission’s biennial budget. This would cause further net reduction in the Public
Defender workforce in 2004-05, necessitating the number of positions outlined in the
attachment.
9
The following chart sets out the categories of personnel directly involved with the
cases processed in the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, and the anticipated increase in
volume that will occur if jurisdiction over youth is transferred to Juvenile Matters.
.
Projected Impact of Increased Caseload on Juvenile Court Staff
Current Number of Staff Projected Number of
Division handling Cases of Children Additional Cases involving
Age 15 & Younger * Youth Age 16 & 17 **
Court Operations Staff 89 11,435 cases (53.5% increase)
(process 100% of 21,379 cases)***
Office of the Chief 31 5,718 cases (53.5% increase)
State’s Attorney Staff *(handle 50% of total cases = 10,690)
Office of the Chief 50 5,718 cases (53.5% increase)
Public Defender Staff *(handle 50% of total cases = 10,690)
* Based on Superior Court for Juvenile Matters FY 02-03 Volume of 21,379 cases.
** Based on Superior Court FY 02-03 volume of cases involving 16 and 17 year olds: 11,435
***CGS §46b-120 allows for non-judicial handling of minor offenses in juvenile court. Based on the case
percentage of such handling in Juvenile Court, it is assumed that 50% of referrals to Juvenile Court for
sixteen and seventeen year old youth would be eligible for non-judicial handling, and thus would not
require handling by prosecutors, public defenders, and judges.
Impact of Volume: The Number of Clients
In contrast to court processing, the volume of probation staff, pretrial detention
staff and facilities, post-adjudicatory staff and facilities, and program and services for
court-involved individuals is based on the number of unique persons referred, not the
number of cases referred to court. Thus, in order to achieve the intended benefits of age-
and developmentally-appropriate services that youth may find in the juvenile court
system, the volume of clients, as opposed to the volume of cases, is the critical factor for
analysis.
In FY 02-03, 10,242 youth were presented in the Connecticut adult court system
for criminal matters, exclusive of motor vehicle infractions. If it is assumed that these
10
10,242 youth would be referred to Juvenile Matters, the number of probation officers,
detention staff, and post-adjudicatory staff (training school and parole staff) needed to
supervise and care for these youth in facilities, as well as provide supervision and
community protection while they are in the community increases proportionally as
outlined in the following chart.
Projected Juvenile Services Staffing Impact
based on Current Client Volume
Current Number of Staff Projected Number of
Division (for 13,537 Unique Children Additional Unique Youth **
Age 15 & Younger)*
Court Support Services: 151 10,242 (76% increase)
Juvenile Probation (13,537 children assigned a
JPO)***
Court Support Services: 250 1,331 (76% increase)
Juvenile Detention (1,761children detained)
Dept. of Children & 398 76% client increase
Families: Training (approx. 350 children committed (266 additional youth would require
School to Training School) training school)
Dept. of Children & 60 76% client increase
Families: (approx. 350 children committed to (266 additional youth
Parole Services residential care or discharged home) would require care or community
supervision)
* In FY 02-03, the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters handled 13,537 unique children.
** In FY 02-03, the Superior Court handled cases involving 10,242 unique youth.
*** A small number of Adult Probation Officers (approximately 14), representing the percentage of
change in the volume of clients if youth from the adult probation system were supervised by the
juvenile probation system, could be transferred to Juvenile Probation. However, due to the intense
nature of supervision in the juvenile system, additional Juvenile Probation Officers would be required
to accommodate the volume increase in clients.
Operating as it does, the juvenile justice system, including juvenile probation
officers and juvenile parole officers, invests a great deal of time and energy at the front
end of the system to produce long term savings to the state. The savings are not only in
terms of money spent on incarceration, but also are in other human costs such as victim
11
impact and the juveniles’ future productivity. By focusing its attention on the early
treatment and rehabilitation of juveniles, the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters is able
to prevent the future involvement of many juveniles with the criminal justice system. In
order to realize this benefit for youth, it is imperative that additional Probation and Parole
staff are funded to meet the demands of maturing youth and provide the level of
intervention and supervision that is the hallmark of Juvenile Court.
Juvenile Probation staff will need to increase by 76 percent (112 people) to
accommodate the increased volume of clients. Fourteen (14) officers could be
transferred from adult probation to juvenile probation along with the percentage change
in clients. However, additional juvenile probation staff still would be required as a
juvenile probation officer is assigned to every referral to juvenile court, unlike the adult
system where only a small percentage of defendants receive a probation officer. In
juvenile court, each case is monitored by a probation officer from the time the case
commences (intake) until it concludes (disposition). Juvenile court cases are quite labor
intensive and require much attention from probation officers, who must coordinate
matters for the court between the child, family, school and service providers. Juvenile
probation officers provide significant pretrial supervision services to the court. A
probation officer follows a case through the court process, which includes attending court
hearings, coordinating communication between the family and the court, attending
pretrial conferences, investigating the child’s social history, arranging for evaluations and
possibly interim services. Many children awaiting disposition of their case may be
placed on ―interim court orders‖ or ―suspended detention orders‖. A probation officer
spends much time supervising the child in the community, making home visits, school
visits, and coordinating services. In addition, in many of the cases probation is a part of
the sentence, so upon disposition many juveniles are placed under the supervision of a
probation officer.
By contrast, in adult court, a probation officer is assigned only upon disposition
and only for those offenders who are sentenced to a period of probation. In addition, an
adult probation officer’s supervision of a client does not necessarily involve the same
intensity of coordination of communication between interested parties and services.
12
Of the 13,537 children referred to juvenile court, approximately 3,920 (29
percent) were placed under the supervision of a juvenile probation officer at disposition.
In contrast, of the 10,242 youth referred to the adult court in FY 02-03, approximately
3,940 (38 percent) were sentenced to some form of probation/supervision and therefore
assigned a probation officer (see chart below).
Projected Increase/Decrease for Probation
in Number of Cases/Clients
Number of Clients Referred
Unit Current Proposed
Juvenile Probation 13,537 23,779
Adult Probation 51,829 47,889
Number of Clients Under Supervision
Unit Current Proposed
Juvenile Probation 3,920 7,860
Adult Probation 51,829 47,889
Federal regulations require that youth needing pretrial detention or post-
adjudicatory placement (e.g., incarceration, residential treatment) receive separate
housing and services from adult offenders. The Department of Correction (DOC) does
not have the space necessary to provide sight and sound separation for the approximate
140 beds (110 males and 30 females) required for pretrial detention services. Due to the
relatively small number of youth on any given day (approximately 140) needing pretrial
detention, the removal of these youth from the DOC population would not provide a
significant reduction in the overall population, and therefore could not justify a reduction
in the space and staff necessary to house and care for the remaining DOC daily
population, approximately 18,860 inmates. At the same time, the juvenile pretrial
detention centers are currently over capacity (and thus under federal court monitoring due
to overcrowded conditions) and will be unable to serve the additional youth.
Based on the current percentage of children being referred to the Connecticut
Juvenile Training School (CJTS), it is estimated that approximately 266 youth would be
committed to the Department of Children and Families as delinquent for placement in a
facility that can provide for secure confinement, education and rehabilitation. Though the
13
CJTS is currently not at capacity, the number of youth needing such confinement would
outnumber the available capacity. If the current standard for placement in CJTS is
followed in the future for youths, it is estimated that an additional 150-bed facility would
be required to serve this population post-adjudication. This estimate presumes no
increase in the percentage of children and youth being referred to alternative placements
in lieu of a secure facility.
In addition, for youth who require residential treatment but not secure
confinement, it is estimated that approximately 266 youth would require supervision by a
Juvenile Parole Officer while at a residential facility and upon the youth’s return to the
community after discharge from the facility. It is estimated that 38 additional Parole staff
would be needed to supervise this additional population in the juvenile justice system.
Impact of Volume: Programs and Services
In addition to requiring more staff, the referral of youth to the juvenile court
system requires an increase in programs and services for this population in order to build
competency, reduce recidivism and provide for community safety. Without the
availability of age and developmentally appropriate programs and services, in
conjunction with sufficient capacity, there will be no benefit achieved by handling youth
in the juvenile justice system. In fact, harm will be done to the juveniles in the current
system by increasing competition for a treatment services that already have insufficient
capacity to meet the demand.
Projections of services and programming are based on data available for the
number of children currently served through the juvenile justice system, and the number
of youths referred to the criminal justice system, and are based on the following
assumptions:
Older and younger adolescents have different developmental issues, and
therefore need different services;
All youths entering the juvenile system would receive the same type of mental
health and substance abuse screening and educational testing that juveniles
entering the system currently receive; and
14
No significant change in the transfer law would be made, and the transfer
provisions that currently apply to juveniles who are 14 and 15 would be
extended to youths referred on felonies8.
There is well-documented evidence that mental health issues, learning disabilities,
substance abuse problems, and family dysfunction are contributing factors to disruptive
behavior and court involvement. For example, the mental health needs of court-involved
children and youth has been documented to be 60-70 percent9. Between 30-50 percent of
children involved in the juvenile justice system are reported to have educational
difficulties, and 50 percent have substance abuse problems that require treatment. The
study of these needs is generally based on children and youth age seventeen and younger,
and therefore is useful in understanding the needs of those youth who present before
either the juvenile or adult court.
The program and services impact is estimated by applying the percentages of
juveniles who currently receive services to the number of youth who are projected to
enter the system. Recommended programs and services are discussed in Appendix C; the
costs of these programs is contained in the Fiscal Impact.
8
A significant number of Implementation Team members felt that the current transfer law should be
amended to expand the concept of discretionary transfer to A felonies; however, it was determined that this
topic did not fall under the Team's mandate and therefore would not be addressed in this report.
9
Teplin, L., et. al., Archives of General Psychiatry. 2002;59:1133-1143.
15
PROJECTED IMPACT
The proposed handling of sixteen and seventeen year old youth in the juvenile
justice system yields a significant cost estimate. The youth who are currently handled in
the adult criminal justice system are not provided with the same level of attention and
opportunities for intervention as children in the juvenile justice system. Currently, youth
have tremendous difficulty accessing the services they need.10 They cannot access the
juvenile justice services because they did not come through the juvenile justice system,
yet the services offered through the adult system are not age or developmentally
appropriate. Under the current system, there is a severe shortage of services targetted to
this age group. Many necessary services do not exist, and the limited numbers that do are
so severely under-funded that they cannot possibly meet the need that exists. Even if
jurisdiction for youth is not transferred to the juvenile justice system, additional funding
must be provided in order to provide services to this population.
Projected Programs and Services Costs
The provision of age and developmentally appropriate programs and services for
the treatment and rehabilitation of children and youth in the juvenile justice system is
critical if the system is to provide a meaningful impact on individual behavior. Without
funding to develop and implement the necessary programs for youth, the ability of the
juvenile justice system to assist these youths would clearly be undermined. The projected
costs for programs and services is estimated on the percentage increase in volume of
clients resulting from the including youth in the juvenile justice system, multiplied by the
current funding level for programs and services for juveniles.
Categories of current programs and services are as follows:
10
This refers to youth who are not incarcerated; youth who are incarcerated in the adult system at the
Manson Youth Institute are provided with a variety of age-appropriate services.
16
Electronic Monitoring: No new funding would be needed for the electronic
monitoring services that are available in both the adult and juvenile justice systems.
A percentage of funds based on client volume can be transferred from adult services
to juvenile services.
Urinalysis: No new funding would be needed for the urinalysis services that are
available in both the adult and juvenile justice systems. A percentage of funds based
on client volume can be transferred from adult services to juvenile services.
Evaluations: In the juvenile system, youth would be eligible for court-based
assessments (e.g., psychological, psychiatric, substance abuse and sex offender
evaluations) and Juvenile Justice Intermediate Evaluations (10-day outpatient
multidisciplinary evaluations). It is estimated that approximately 1,672 youth would
receive such court-based assessments, at a cost of $450 each, which would cost
approximately $755,000 per year. It is estimated that approximately 228 youth would
receive intermediate evaluations at a cost of $3,900 each, for a total of $889,200. It is
not anticipated that funds would be transferred from the adult system to the juvenile
system to offset evaluation costs. The cost of Riverview Hospital evaluations are not
included as sixteen and seventeen-year-old youth are currently eligible for hospital
admission.
Residential Treatment: Youth in the juvenile justice system with complex needs
would be eligible for commitment to the Department of Children and Families for
placement at private residential treatment facilities. Currently, approximately 350
juveniles are placed in residential treatment at an annual cost of $25,550,000 (not
including CJTS and Riverview Hospital). It is estimated that approximately 266
youth would need residential treatment, which would cost $19,418,000. Of the
$10,634,288 budgeted to the Judicial Branch for contracted residential services for
adult offenders, 9 percent or $957,086 could be transferred to the juvenile justice
system for residential treatment purposes. In addition, the Judicial Branch spends an
17
additional $140,000 for placement of youth in juvenile facilities by order of the Adult
Court.
Outpatient Treatment: Youth in the adult or juvenile justice system can avail
themselves of community-based services in their home communities. Unfortunately,
not all needed services are available in every community, and the majority of services
that are have waiting lists that prohibit access. Together, CSSD and DCF contract for
approximately $10 million to meet the treatment needs of court-involved juveniles.
Youth in the juvenile system would require approximately $7.6 million outpatient
treatment dollars. Approximately 9 percent or $226,905 of adult services outpatient
contract dollars could be transferred to the juvenile justice system for these youth.
Transition and Habilitative Services: Youth need supplemental services to assist them
with the transition from adolescence to adulthood in order master the tasks of
obtaining an education, developing job skills, social skills, and independent living
skills. DCF currently spends approximately $1,934,865 for contracted services for
juvenile justice clients in the community. Approximately $1,470,497 would be
needed to provide a similar level of service to youth in the juvenile justice system
committed to DCF as delinquent. It is not anticipated that funds would be transferred
from DOC or the Board of Parole for this purpose.
Projected Facilities Costs
Transferring jurisdiction for youth to the juvenile justice system would have a
significant impact on all of the facilities that currently house juvenile justice functions.
Primary among these are the court facilities that provide courtroom space, as well as
office space for the judges, court staff, state’s attorneys and public defenders. All the
staff necessary to handle the processing of cases involving youth in the juvenile system
would require additional facility space. None of the thirteen existing juvenile court
locations would be able to accommodate the additional staff and space required to handle
the projected increase in cases.
18
The Implementation Team considered the following three options to address the
juvenile court facilities needs resulting from a transfer of jurisdiction and concluded that
the best option would be to create regional youth courts, as detailed in number 3, below.
1. Renovate or relocate the existing juvenile courts in order to handle the
entire juvenile caseload at thirteen locations.
Process: Determine the number and types of staff positions required to handle
the projected caseloads at each of the 13 current juvenile court locations, then
determine whether current space could be renovated or expanded to
accommodate that level of staffing. Most courts would need to be relocated
using the state leasing process.
Problems: Six of the existing juvenile courts are located in state-owned space
(Bridgeport, Danbury, Hartford, New Britain, New Haven, & Stamford).
Moving from state-owned space that has no associated leasing cost to leased
space would add approximately $2 million in costs just to house existing
employees. In addition, two locations, Waterford and Willimantic, have
recently moved into state-of-the-art Juvenile Courts that each has a 10-year
lease. Vacating those buildings would be cost-prohibitive.
Cost: Increased leasing costs of $6.5 million per year. 11
2. Utilize existing adult (G.A.) court space to the extent possible and limit
leased space to that required for staff that cannot be accommodated
within the existing courts.
Process: A review of existing G.A. courts would be conducted to determine
the extent of reconfiguration that is feasible at each location. Leases would be
sought to house all staff that could not be accommodated within the existing
G.A. courts.
Benefits: The existing Juvenile Matters facilities would not be impacted. No
one would be moved from state-owned space into leased space. Judicial
11
Costing variables include: the design and age of buildings being renovated, the number of courtrooms
required in each leased location, leasing cost that range from $28 to $30 per square foot, and the nature of
the buildings being leased.
19
would not have to abandon the Waterford or Willimantic leases. Since the
Judges, Public Defenders, States Attorneys, court reporters, and interpreters
are already handling these cases within the G.A. courts, leased space would
not be required for those functions.
Problems: Depending on the court location, creating separate holding areas
within the G.A. courts for juveniles would be difficult at best and impossible
in some locations. The juvenile probation staff, which is integral to the court
process, would most likely be housed in leased space outside of the G.A.
courts. This would require additional probation staffing and negatively
impact case flow.
Cost: Capital expenditures of $2 million to complete renovations
required for reconfiguring the space in the GA courts, and increased
leasing costs of $2 million to $2.5 million per year. 12
3. Establish a limited number of regional juvenile courts to accommodate
only cases involving youth.
Process: Determine the number and types of staff positions required to handle
only the 16 and 17 year olds on a statewide basis, then determine the number
of staff required at each regional juvenile court and pursue space through the
leasing process.
Benefits: No one would be moved from state-owned space into leased space,
and Judicial would not have to abandon the Waterford or Willimantic leases.
Due to economies of scale, creating regional courts would be much less
expensive than renovating or relocating all 13 juvenile courts.
Problems: Transportation.
Cost: Increased leasing costs of $4 million to $4.5 million per year.13
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
20
CONCLUSION
This report addresses the question that the Legislature put forward: [to] review
all matters, including funding, necessary to implement an increase, by not more than two
years, in the age limit for purposes of jurisdiction in juvenile matters. Not later than
January 15, 2004, the implementation team shall submit a report concerning the team's
findings, any impediments and any recommendations with respect to such implementation
to the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters
relating to the judiciary and the select committee of the General Assembly having
cognizance of matters relating to children. It does not address any broader issues,
although many issues did arise during the Implementation Team’s meetings. These
included:
Possible changes to the transfer laws;
Addressing the problems with the Youth in Crisis laws;
The use of secure placements; and
Lack of services.
Many participants felt that these issues should be addressed. However, since they were
not part of the charge contained in the public act, examination of these issues would
require further legislation.
The Juvenile Jurisdiction Implementation Team made a decision at its first
meeting that it would conduct its study without regard to cost. That is, it would look at
the cost of the current juvenile justice system and analyze what it would cost to extend
that system to youths. Members of the Team felt strongly that a grave disservice would
be done to children and youth if a transition was effectuated without the necessary
resources in place. Early on, it became apparent that the cost would be significant. In
light of this, the Team realized that the cost analysis had to be conducted with a great deal
of care and attention, so that its result would be defensible. This is what has been done.
In addition, the Team made a decision that any recommendations it adopted
would not have an adverse effect on the current juvenile justice system – that its plan for
including youth would not dilute the system for juveniles. This is a critical consideration.
A plan to extend juvenile jurisdiction that simply spreads existing resources over a larger
21
population would harm those juveniles who are served by the current system, and would
be far worse than doing nothing at all.
This report fulfills both of these goals, while addressing the question posed by the
legislation. It is the sincere hope of all the Team members that, whether or not a transfer
of jurisdiction is effectuated, youth in Connecticut be given the attention and services
they need so that they those who become involved in the criminal justice system have an
opportunity to rehabilitate.
22
Estimated Operating Cost Estimates- 16 & 17 yr old transfer
I Court Facilities and Security
- Based on 5 regional courts being established
30 Judicial Marshals 939,630
Other Expenses 37,585
Equip/Furniture/PC 90,000
Lease costs (including all building expenses) 4,500,000
30 NET COST 5,567,215
II Judicial – Court Operations
- Additional juvenile matters court staff
5 Courtroom Clerks 199,605
10 Data Terminals Operators 332,190
5 Department Chief Clerks 312,095
5 Department Juvenile Matters Clerks 261,030
10 Office Clerks 292,900
5 Court Recording Monitors 166,095
5 Interpreters 190,180
45 NET COST 1,754,095
Other Expenses 70,164
Equip/Furniture 135,000
1,959,259
Transfer: 8 staff from GA locations:
2 Courtroom Clerks (79,842)
3 Data Terminal Operators (99,657)
3 Office Clerks (87,870)
8 (267,369)
Other Expenses (10,695)
Equip/Furniture/PC (24,000)
(302,064)
NET COST 1,657,195
23
III Judicial- Court Operations
-Additional Judges and Administrative Support
5 Judges 625,000
Other Expenses 25,000
Equip/Furniture/PC 25,000
5 NET COST 675,000
IV Division of Criminal Justice
-Additional Prosecutors and Support
8 Juvenile Prosecutors 372,864
2 Supervisory Prosecutors 128,170
5 Investigators 210,460
5 Secretaries 38,195
20 749,689
Other Expenses 29,988
Equip/Furniture/PC 60,000
NET COST 839,677
V Office of the Public Defender
-Additional Public Defenders and Support
19 Attorneys 885,552
12 Social Workers 491,640
10 Investigators 390,430
10 Clerical 265,290
51 2,032,912
Other Expenses 81,316
Equip/Furniture/PC 153,000
NET COST 2,267,228
24
VI Judicial- CSSD Juvenile Probation
-Additional Officers and Support
99 Probation Officers 4,040,511
13 Clerical Staff 379,314
112 4,419,825
Other Expenses 176,793
Equip/Furniture/PC 336,000
4,932,617
Transfer of 14 staff:
10 Probation Officers (408,132)
4 Clerical Staff (116,712)
14 (524,844)
Other Expenses (20,994)
Equip/Furniture/PC (42,000)
(587,838)
NET COST 4,344,779
VII Department of Children and Families
-Parole Services
30 Social Workers 1,723,710
5 Social Worker Supervisors 315,240
1 Program Supervisor 71,614
2 Office Assistants 69,566
38 2,180,130
Other Expenses 87,205
Equip/Furniture/PC 114,000
NET COST 2,381,335
25
VIII Judicial- CSSD Detention
-150 Bed Facility-Pre-Adjudicatory
1 Supervisor 65,164
8 Assistant Supervisors 479,008
3 Program and Services Coordinators 160,338
14 Class and Program Officers 713,412
10 Shift Supervisors 409,250
105 Detention Officers 3,645,285
10 Transportation Officers 319,760
10 Food Service Coordinators 347,170
2 Maintenance 234,720
170 6,374,107
Other Expenses-program based 3,130,409
physical plant 872,795
Equipment- program based presumed bonded
physical plant presumed bonded
NET COST 10,377,311
IX Department of Children and Families
-150 Bed Facility–Post Adjudicatory
Personal Services 23,719,000
Other Expenses-program-physical/plant based 3,000,000
Equipment- program based presumed bonded
physical based presumed bonded
NET COST 26,719,000
26
X Judicial/DCF – contracted services
Residential Services 19,418,000
Outpatient Treatment 7,974,388
Electronic Monitoring 255,360
Urinalysis 51,072
Evaluations 1,644,200
Transitional and Habilitative 1,470,497
30,513,517
Transferable costs:
Residential (1,097,086)
Outpatient Treatment (226,905)
Electronic Monitoring (255,360)
Urinalysis (51,072)
Evaluations 0
Transitional and Habilitative 0
(1,630,423)
NET COST 28,883,094
Estimated Gross Operating Expenses: 86,232,160
Transferable Costs: (2,520,325)
Estimated Net Operating Expenses: 83,711,835
Estimated Construction Costs:
(would require bonding)
For Pre-Adjudicatory Detention Facility $28,400,000
For Post Adjudicatory DCF Facility $52,600,000
27
APPENDIX A
MEMBERS & PARTICIPANTS
(Alphabetical)
Sheila Amdur Bob Lichenstein
National Association for the Mentally Ill Department of Education
Louis Ando, Ph.D Judge Michael Mack (chair)
Bureau Chief
Bureau of Behavioral Health, Medicine and Anne McIntyre-Lahner
Education Department of Children and Families
Department of Children and Families
Jeanne Milstein
Leo Arnone Child Advocate
Administrator
Juvenile Detention Services Stephen Ment, Esq.
Deputy Director
Lynn Bishop External Affairs
North American Family Institute
Julia O’Leary
Sheryl Breetz Deputy Director
N. Central Regional Mental Health Board Juvenile Probation Services
Liz Brown Nancy Porter, Esq.
Legislative Director Counsel
Commission on Children Legal Services
Bill Carbone Christine Rapillo, Esq.
Executive Director Public Defender
Court Support Services Superior Court-Juvenile Matters
Fran Carino, Esq. Brett Rayford Psy.D., MBA
Office of the Chief State’s Attorney Bureau Chief
Bureau of Juvenile Justice Services
Jim Carr Connecticut Juvenile Training School
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Children and Families
Lisa Samuelson, Esq.
Lora Castronova Office of the Chief Public Defender
Department of Corrections
28
John Chapman, Psy.D. Alan Slobodien
Coordinator of Clinical Services Youth Service Bureau
Court Support Services Division Town of Vernon
Judicial Branch
Gerald Smyth, Esq.
James Connolly, Esq. Chief Public Defender
Office of the Chief Public Defender
Tammy Sneed
Jack Cronan, Esq. North American Family Institute
Office of the Chief State’s Attorney
Susan Storey, Esq.
Cynthia Cunningham, Esq. Deputy Chief Public Defender
Chief Clerk Juvenile Matters
Judicial Branch Ellen Weber
Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Serv.
Ann-Marie DeGraffenreidt
Center for Children’s Advocacy Michael Whalen
Chief of Police
Paul DiLeo Town of Farmington
Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Serv.
Larry D’Orsi
Deputy Director, Criminal Matters
Judicial Branch
Cathy Foley-Geib
Manager of Detention Programs
Court Support Services Division
Judicial Branch
Robert Francis
RYASAP
Deborah Fuller, Esq.
Director, External Affairs
Judicial Branch
Moises Gonzalez
Warden
Manson Youth Institute
Debra Korta
Legislative Program Manager
Department of Children and Families
29
APPENDIX B:
OVERVIEW OF THE CONNECTICUT JUVENILE COURT
SYSTEM
I. CHILD PROTECTION
In Connecticut, juvenile matters include all cases involving child protection
issues, (neglect, uncared for, termination of parental rights, emancipation). These cases
typically involve the filing of an action or a petition at the Superior Court for Juvenile
Matters. Usually, the petition is filed by the Department of Children and Families (DCF),
the agency responsible for investigating allegations of child abuse and neglect. Other
parties may file the petition. For example, occasionally lawyers representing a child in a
criminal case will file a neglect petition that alleges that child has special needs that
cannot be met in the home by the parents. In these cases, DCF can adopt the petition and
take over the case or leave the prosecution of the petition to the person doing the filing.
When DCF files the petition, a representative from the Attorney General’s Office handles
the case. If a parent contests the allegations in the petition, the Assistant Attorneys
Generals act as prosecutors and try to prove the ―charges‖ against the parent. Before a
case gets to trial however, investigation is done and conferences are held to determine if
there are services that can be offered to a family to address the problems. If the family
agrees to engage in services, a range of options exists. The family could be subject to
―protective supervision‖ which would involve a somewhat higher level of scrutiny and
services. Finally, if the appropriate services cannot be provided in the home or if the
family will not agree to needed services, a child can be ordered committed to DCF. In
this situation guardianship of the child transfers to the state and the child is generally
placed outside the home, either in foster care or some type of appropriate facility.
II. FAMILY WITH SERVICE NEEDS
DCF can also get custody of a child if he or she is found to be a child from a
Family with Service Needs. Family with Service Needs (FWSN) cases originate on the
30
delinquency side of the court but do not begin as criminal cases. The FWSN
classification covers traditional status offenses: runaway, beyond control of parent,
engaging in indecent or immoral conduct, truant or defiant of school rules or being
thirteen or older and having sexual relations with another person age thirteen or older
(C.G.S. §46b-120(8)). The school, the police, the parents or DCF may file FWSN cases.
FWSN cases resemble delinquency matters, as the children are accorded some
basic due process rights. They are appointed lawyers and read their rights at the initial
presentment hearing. If the allegations are contested, they are entitled to an evidentiary
hearing where the charges must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Upon
adjudication, a child can be discharged, placed on supervision or committed to DCF for
therapeutic placement or other services.
FWSN adjudications are not considered to be convictions and children are placed
under supervision, not probation. While the main difference is semantic, children charged
with a FWSN offense are not subject to detention unless they violate an interim order or a
condition of supervision. This cannot happen until after they are adjudicated or found
guilty. Under FWSN supervision, children can be ordered to remain in the home, attend
school and attend counseling. They are supervised by the same probation officers that
supervise delinquent children and the FWSN children attend most of the same programs
as the delinquent children. If a child is alleged to have violated any court order after an
FWSN adjudication, they are charged as a delinquent and are subject to being placed in
any of the pretrial detention facilities. Similarly, they are subject to the maximum
penalty for a non-serious delinquency offense, which is 18 months commitment to a
secure facility.
One anomaly in juvenile court is the Youth in Crisis cases. These are 16 and 17
year olds who are referred to the juvenile court for FWSN types of offenses-truancy,
runaway and beyond control behavior. While the court has jurisdiction to hear these
cases and to enter orders if the youth are adjudicated as in crisis, there is little
enforcement power and few services. The youth are not eligible to attend the few
criminal court programs that take 16 and 17 year olds and the services available for the
under 16 population generally do not accept ―adults‖ as the 16 years olds are legally
classified. If a youth ignores the Courts’ orders, there is little consequence other than
license suspension.
31
III. DELINQUENCY
Delinquency cases come to the juvenile court much like criminal cases are
referred to the Geographical Area courts. When police detain a person under the age of
16, and determine there is cause to file charges they have several options. In many towns,
the police may divert the case to a juvenile review board. These are generally limited to
misdemeanor cases and situations that the police feel can be resolved with mediation or
short term intervention. Not every town has such an entity.
If there is no diversionary program or if, in the opinion of the officer, the case
does not qualify for such treatment, the case is referred to the juvenile court. If the child
is not detained a summons is issued to the guardian or other responsible adult and the
child is given a court date. Prior to that date, the file is reviewed by a probation
supervisor and a juvenile prosecutor to determine if the case can be diverted for non-
judicial handling. Such treatment allows children with little or no prior court
involvement to meet informally with a probation officer to discuss the case. If the child
admits the charges, he can be given informal consequences by the probation department
in exchange for a non-judicial discharge. All children who agree to admit a charge non-
judicially are subject to a risk assessment and a mental health screening, administered by
a probation officer. Consequences can include counseling, community service, or
supervision by a probation officer. If they are placed in a program, it is usually the same
program utilized by the children who are convicted delinquent after formal judicial
process. If the child fails to comply with the consequences the case can be sent to court
for formal judicial treatment. Some cases that begin judicially are eventually withdrawn
and diverted to non-judicial treatment as part of a dispositional agreement.
If the juvenile probation officer determines that a case shall be handled judicially,
a delinquency petition is filed, formally charging the child with an offense. If the child is
fourteen or older and charged with an A or B felony, the case will be automatically
transferred to the adult court. The juvenile prosecutor has discretion to transfer all other
felony cases of juveniles 14 years or older to the adult court upon a finding of probable
cause to maintain the charges. If a case is transferred, the child appears in juvenile court
32
to have his or her rights read and is then sent to adult court for an arraignment. The adult
court can decide to return the case to juvenile court.
For cases that remain under juvenile jurisdiction, the child appears in court and is
generally processed as in regular adult court. The families apply for counsel and are
advised of their Miranda rights by the judge. Formal not guilty pleas are taken and the
matters are set for pretrial discussion. One major difference between the arraignment of
an adult and juvenile is the way a child finds his or her way into the detention facility. In
adult court, if you post bond you are pretty much assured of remaining free. In juvenile
court, children are often detained or placed on suspended detention orders at arraignment.
After a judicial finding that probable cause exists to justify the charges, the state may
make an oral argument to the judge requesting either detention or suspended orders.
While the defendant has a right to present testimony, a judge may detain a child based on
hearsay if he or she concludes that the child is a risk to himself or others, may commit
new offenses or is a flight risk.14 A child can either be detained for up to 15 days or
released with orders and supervised by a probation officer. Violation of the orders results
in the child being placed in the detention center.
The police can have a child detained upon arrest if he or she is charged with a
serious charge classified as a Serious Juvenile Offense (SJO). If there is not cause to
charge a Serious Juvenile Offense at arrest, the police cannot have a child detained
without a judge's order to detain. To find grounds for such an order, the court must
conclude that there is probable cause for the charges, and that the child presents a risk to
himself or others if allowed to remain free. Often, these orders are issued in domestic
violence cases, where the parent will not take the child home the DCF either cannot or
will not take temporary custody of the child. The child is entitled to a hearing on the next
business day. Prior to being presented in court, the child is screened for suicide risk and
other mental health and medical issues. In all cases where detention is ordered, the case
must be reviewed every 15 days. Currently a child spends an average of about 15 days in
detention. Some wait much longer if they have no appropriate home to go to and must
wait for a therapeutic placement.
14
See subsection (d) of §46b-133 of the Connecticut General Statutes.
33
Prior to or after the initial arraignment, the child meets with counsel and a pretrial
conference is held. At a subsequent pretrial, the child’s lawyer will discuss the charges
with the juvenile prosecutor. In addition to the basic facts, the child’s background and
status are usually discussed, in an effort to have the punishment fit both the crime and the
offender. If an agreement is reached at the pretrial conference, the case is referred to an
intake probation officer who conducts a predispositional study. That study will include
information on the child’s family history, school performance, community resources and
criminal history. The process also includes a mental health screening and a risk
assessment. In appropriate cases, the child may have undergone a court ordered
psychological evaluation. This information would also be included in the study.
It is the probation officer’s job to recommend a disposition of the case that meets
the statutory goals of the juvenile court. Pursuant to C.G.S. §46b-121h, the first goal of
the juvenile justice system in Connecticut is to ―hold juveniles accountable for their
unlawful behavior‖. The statute also provides that a goal is to provide secure and
therapeutic confinement to juveniles who present a risk to the community. Prior to 1995,
the main goal of the system had been to provide therapy and rehabilitation. In keeping
with these stated goals, probation can recommend a broad range of consequences.
Children can be ordered to complete community service, participate with counseling,
attend school and obey house rules. Currently the court can order children on probation
to participate in Multi Systemic Therapy programs and some suburban town have juvenile
justice centers that serve probationary youth. In situations where the court determines
that a child cannot return home, either because of the serious nature of the offense or
instability in the home, a child can be committed as a delinquent and have custody turned
over to DCF. Under such a commitment a child can be sent to a residential facility or to
the Connecticut Juvenile Training School for up to four years if the charge is an SJO or
18 months for non-SJO charges.
34
APPENDIX C:
RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS AND SERVICES FOR YOUTH
There are numerous services and program models available across the state for
court involved children. However, the demand for these services significantly outweighs
the capacity of the service system. In order to meet the demand, service capacity must be
increased by making services more readily available not only to youth, but to children as
well. Meaningful access to services is essential in order to maximize the juvenile justice
system’s potential to provide a meaningful intervention that diverts a young person from
further court involvement. All services serving court-involved children and youth must
be gender-specific, culturally competent, and trauma-sensitive.
It is critically important to provide evidence-based programs, whenever possible,
and to monitor and evaluate programs for effectiveness. The funding of programs
requires that outcomes are monitored to insure that quality and effective services are
provided. Additionally, the more that community partners (e.g., parents, education,
health, social service, and police) work together to develop programs, like juvenile
review boards, the more responsive the programs will be to the community’s needs.
Community-based services that court-involved youth require for successful
transition into adulthood include:
educational assessment and programs;
vocational training and job placement services;
mental health and substance abuse assessment and treatment, including
trauma treatment, anger management, and domestic violence education and
counseling;
alternative housing, independent living skills and social skills development,
including parenting education if applicable; and
recreation and support programs.
35
The following programs currently exist for juveniles on a limited slot and
location basis, but could be expanded to serve court-involved youth:
Educational: PREP, JobCorps
Vocational: PREP, JobCorps, Our Piece of the Pie
Assessment and Treatment: Juvenile Justice Intermediate Evaluation Program,
Court-based Assessment Services, Hartford Youth Project, Multisystemic
Therapy (MST), Intensive In-Home Psychiatric Services (IICAPS), New
Choices (short-term residential substance abuse treatment), Community Child
Guidance Clinics, Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MDTFC),
Functional Family Therapy (FFT), Sex Offender Treatment
Alternative Housing: DCF Independent Living Programs (CHAP, TLAP); and
Recreation and Support Services: Mentoring, Care Coordination, Youth
Services Bureaus, Outreach-Tracking-Reunification Programs, Boys and Girls
Clubs.
An adequate facility-based program, such as a pretrial detention center or post-
conviction training school, requires the following services for youth:
Medical, dental, psychiatric, substance abuse, and nursing services, including
screening, assessment, treatment, and prenatal care;
Vocational and educational programs, including assessment services, skill and
interest inventories, vocational training, non-traditional skills training for
girls, and marketable skills training;
Active and passive recreation services;
Life skills education;
Parenting education and parenting skills development;
Domestic violence education, including counseling for perpetrators and
counseling for victims;
Sex offender counseling;
Mentoring services; and
Transitional education, employment and housing services for release.
36
APPENDIX D:
CONSIDERATION OF NEEDED PRACTICE AND REGULATORY
CHANGES
Contractual Issues:
If the age of juvenile jurisdiction is raised to include youth, a review of all
programs and services currently servicing juveniles would need to be reviewed to see if
they could incorporate this new population. More specifically, contracts with community
based service providers and residential facilities will need to be reviewed to determine
whether existing language permits the inclusion of individuals aged sixteen or seventeen.
If it does not, it may be necessary to amend the current language of the contract, and
perhaps contract with new providers if the existing providers do not want to offer services
to this new population. Contracting with new providers may also be necessary if the
existing providers do not have the space in their programs to accommodate sixteen or
seventeen year olds.
Statutes and Regulations:
All statutes and regulations will need to be reviewed and modified to reflect the
age change in juvenile justice jurisdiction (applies broadly, not specific to services and
programming).
Statutes, including, but not limited to:
Education (USD I and USD II)
Special Education
Department of Children and Family statutes and regulations including but not
limited to: (1) the parole of delinquent minors (17a-7); (2) standard leave and
release policies for delinquent minors committed to department (17a-7a); (3)
authorized leave for delinquent minors committed to department (17a-8a); (4)
transfer to correctional facilities (17a-12); (5) home based treatment programs
(17a-38); (6) child care facilities (17a-145-155).
37
Review of 46b-120 et.seq. to ensure consistency of change in age (juvenile
matters as it pertains to the Judicial Branch).
Interstate Compact on Juveniles (46b-151)
Transfer provisions (46b-145, 46b-127, 46b-133c(f))
Regulations (specifically related to juvenile justice programs):
Department of Children and Families general authorization regulations
Administration of medication in day programs and residential facilities by
trained persons
Standard leave and release policies for juvenile offenders
Rights of children and youth under the supervision of the commissioner of
children and families
Operation of child caring agencies and facilities
38
APPENDIX E
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION
An extension of juvenile matters jurisdiction to include youths requires substantial
consideration of not only the development and implementation of quality services, but
also of the funding of such services. Connecticut statutes15, juvenile justice system
administrators and community advocates are aligned in the belief that community-based
services, whenever possible and consistent with public safety, should be offered for the
rehabilitation of court-involved children and youth. The development of sufficient
community resources can minimize the use of locked facilities. Therefore, the expansion
of community-based services is critical to successful intervention with these youth.
Fortunately, there are funding opportunities that Connecticut can maximize if it wishes to
do so.
In recent years the concept of blended funding between agencies for mutual
populations and purposes has gained momentum. Additional flexible programming may
be developed by pooling the resources of Judicial, DCF, DMHAS, and DMR to better
meet the needs of court-involved youth. Development should begin with the
implementation of the Behavioral Health Partnership and Connecticut’s use of the
Medicaid Rehabilitation Option under Title XIX of the federal Social Security Act to
effectuate of a comprehensive continuum of services for court-involved children and
youth.
Because a number of the participants in the Implementation Team process
recommend the following future steps, it is suggested that the Juvenile Justice
Implementation Team be directed to study the following recommendations in detail and
report back to the Legislature:
15
Conn. Gen. Statute §46b-121i(3) requires the Judicial Branch to access ―Title IV-E funds of the Social
Security Act, as amended, new Medicaid funds and other funding sources to support eligible community-
based services‖ and Conn. Gen. Statute §46b-121j(2) states that ―It is the intent of the General Assembly
that these funding sources [Title XIX and Title IV-E of the federal Social Security Act, and the Special
Education Act] shall be utilized to support service needs of eligible juveniles‖.
39
Adopt more cost effective models: States like Illinois are spending $90-$130 per
day, per youth, on non-secure residential facilities that detain offenders similar to the
population of CJTS. After shifting to community based facilities, Missouri spent only
$103 per day, per youth over age 10 in 2002. Contrastingly, Connecticut’s secure
CJTS facility costs $891 per day, per youth to operate ($325,215 per year per youth).
Prioritize community based services: Recidivism decreases when states opt for
community-based, rather than large-scale institutional, juvenile justice:
Juveniles in Missouri’s community-based system are re-incarcerated at a low rate of 9
percent (as a juvenile or an adult within 3 years of juvenile incarceration), compared
to re-incarceration rates as high as 30 percent in typical institutional systems.
Continue the work of the Task Force: Previous juvenile justice reorganization
was implemented through comprehensive plans: For example, the Juvenile Justice
Reorganization Plan published by the ―Policy Group‖ implementing PA-225, An Act
Concerning Juvenile Justice, in 1995 underscored a ―multi-year approach,‖ provided
for ―three years of implementation of recommendations,‖ and recommended a
legislative Act to implement the Plan.
Explore funding opportunities: Funding for innovative programs was readily
available at other eras of juvenile jurisdiction implementation in CT and may be
currently available: Various U.S. Dept. of Justice (DOJ) subdivisions, the DOJ
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, private foundations, and
federal benefits programs (Workforce Investment Act funds, Medicaid
reimbursements) can all fund programs that could reform Connecticut’s current
juvenile justice system, to best integrate 16 and 17-year-olds.
Evaluate programs that work: Programs implemented at other eras of juvenile
jurisdiction changes in Connecticut include: Status offender diversion, Parolee
Crisis Intervention, employment of sub-professional personnel in prosecutors’ offices,
police training programs, Bridgeport’s BRIDGE Center for drug information &
40
counseling, a youth police cadet program, new group homes, Community Youth
Council grant programs, a Waterbury Community Service Officer Program, and a
FWSN Network to assist families & youth.
Address minority overrepresentation: Minority overrepresentation in juvenile
justice is a national concern, and Connecticut has a high rate of minorities
incarcerated in secure facilities: This issue needs to be explored and addressed.
Prioritize alternative programs: There is a growing national trend to adopt and
federally fund alternative, innovative models of juvenile justice: Diversion
programs, juvenile drug and gun courts, teen courts or youth courts, and systems of
graduated sanctions have all recently been introduced and are listed among the Best
Practices in Juvenile Accountability by the DOJ Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
Examine the feasibility of handling status offenders non-judicially: New York
recently raised to 18 the age at which a person can be a ―Person in Need of
Supervision‖ (status offender). New York is contracting with the Vera Institute of
Justice to create youth courts, graduated sanctions, and community respite centers to
keep status offenders out of foster care and detention.
Implement the Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) model in Connecticut:
The Connecticut Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee believes that Connecticut’s
juvenile justice system’s philosophy is ―grounded in the concepts of restorative
justice.‖ BARJ has proven highly successful in places including Cook County,
Illinois, New York and Texas. BARJ balances the concerns of victims’ justice,
community safety, accountability, and re-integration of offenders back into society.
BARJ programs include ―blended sentencing‖ (serious offenders receive a juvenile
sentence with specific terms, and a pending adult sentence depends on the youth’s
reform), community-wide probation supervision, jail tours, victim impact panels,
evening reporting, community youth programs, & mediation.
41
APPENDIX F
RESEARCH BY THE YALE LAW SCHOOL LEGISLATIVE
ADVOCACY CLINIC
At the Juvenile Justice Implementation Team’s request, The Yale Law school
Legislative Advocacy Clinic—a part of the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization—
researched several issues in contemporary juvenile and criminal justice. The Clinic presented
its research at Juvenile Justice Implementation Team meetings through five reports that were
created as memoranda, in response to specific inquiries that arose during the course of the
Team’s work. In addition, the Clinic has begun some cost-effectiveness analysis on the
current system, and possible alternatives. A sixth report showing those preliminary findings is
also included.
The reports are entitled:
REPORT 1: COST SAVINGS IN NATIONAL JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM REFORM
(NOT CIRCULATED AS A MEMORANDUM. COMPOSED JAN. 8, 2004)
REPORT 2: OVERVIEW ON 16 AND 17-YEAR OLDS & ASSOCIATED COSTS;
PREVIOUS JUVENILE JURISDICTION IMPLEMENTATION IN CONNECTICUT;
JUVENILE JURISDICTION IMPLEMENTATION IN OTHER STATES; RESOURCES FOR
HELPING FUND CONNECTICUT’S JUVENILE JURISDICTION IMPLEMENTATION
(NOV. 6, 2003)
REPORT 3: MINORITY OVERREPRESENTATION, TRANSFER PROCESSES,
ALTERNATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE MODELS & THE COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
MODEL (NOV. 6, 2003)
REPORT 4: LEGAL TREATMENT AND SERVICES FOR STATUS OFFENDERS IN
SELECTED STATES; BRIEF OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL STATUS OFFENDER
TREATMENT AND ENFORCEMENT; AND RECENT INNOVATIONS IN THE
TREATMENT OF STATUS OFFENDERS (DEC. 18, 2003)
REPORT 5: JUVENILE JURISDICTION AGE CHANGE IN OTHER STATES
(DEC. 18, 2003)
REPORT 6: JUVENILE RIGHTS TO JURY TRIAL AND BAIL IN OTHER STATES
(NOV. 6, 2003)
(BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RESEARCH RESOURCES)
The following six reports of The Yale Law School Legislative Advocacy Clinic sketch
the landscape of juvenile justice law and reform throughout the country.
42
REPORT 1: COST SAVINGS IN
NATIONAL JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM REFORM
I. Cost savings due to alternatives to incarceration16
- Costs of secure short-term detention are as high as $150-200 per bed per
day in most states. Connecticut’s secure, long-term incarceration facility
CJTS costs $891 per day per youth to operate ($325,215 per year per
youth).
This compares to:
House Arrest – $10/day
Example: Cook County IL
Electronic monitoring – $15-30/day
Example: Sacramento, CA
Community-based advocate supervision – $30-44/day
Example: Philadelphia, PA
Evening Reporting Center – $32-35/day
Example: Cook County IL
Non-secure residential – $90-130/day
Example: Cook County IL
II. Cost savings in specific states
A. Louisiana17
Closing of one detention facility in 2003 (350 beds) with transfer
into residential facilities projected to save $6-10 million per
year.
Closing of facility combined with increase in 350 slots in day
treatment projected to save $10-14 million per year.
Closing of facility combined with increase in 350 slots in tracker
program projected to save $14-18 million per year.
18
B. Missouri
Shift from large facilities to small, community-based model
resulted in total state expenditures of $94 per juvenile over age
10 in 2000 and $103 per juvenile over age 10 in 2002.
The eight states surrounding Missouri averaged approximately
$140 per juvenile in 2000. In 2002, Louisiana spent $270 per
juvenile, Maryland spent $192, and Florida spent $271.
19
C. Texas
16
Paul DeMuro, Consider the Alternatives: Planning and Implementing Detention Alternatives 15-24 at
http://www.aecf.org/initiatives/jdai/download.htm.
17
Anne E. Casey Foundation, Reducing Juvenile Incarceration in Louisiana, available at
http://www.jjc.legis.state.la.us.
18
Richard A. Mendel, Small is Beautiful: The Missouri division of Youth Services, ADVOCASEY, Spring
2003, at 35-38 available at http://www.aecf.org/publications/advocasey/spring2003/index.htm; Richard A.
Mendel, Less Cost, More Safety: Guiding Lights for Reform in Juvenile Justice (2002) at
http://www.aypf.org/lesscost/index.html.
19
Mendel, Less Cost, More Safety: Guiding Lights for Reform in Juvenile Justice, supra note 3.
43
In Terrant County, a focus on smaller detention center and more
community involvement resulted in corrections budget of $105
per youth versus $195 per youth in neighboring Dallas County.
D. Washington20
King County (Seattle) increased screening and electronic
monitoring along with other alternatives to incarceration and
eliminated the need for an 80-bed unit, saving $11 million in
construction and $5.8 million per year in operating costs.
III. Cost savings due to reduced recidivism
Re-arrest rates for up to one year after teen court programs – 3-8 percent21
Missouri22
Reincarceration as an adult within 3 years of juvenile incarceration –
8 percent (Similar rate in Maryland is 30 percent)
Reincarceration as a juvenile or adult within 3 years of juvenile
incarceration – 9 percent (similar rate in Florida is 29 percent)
IV. Development of a Connecticut savings model –
The Juvenile Justice Implementation Team tasked the Legislative Advocacy
Clinic at Yale Law School to develop a model that showed some of the
cost savings associated with Juvenile Justice reform. Using the Missouri
data on recidivism as a guide, the Clinic began formulating a model that
examined the savings due to a decrease in recidivism.
Over the next year, the model could be developed more fully to incorporate
other savings and provide much needed information of the true costs to
Connecticut of a failure to reform its juvenile justice system.
20
Id.
21
Jefferey A. Butts & Janeen Buck, The Sudden Popularity of Teen Courts, 41 THE JUDGE’S JOURNAL,
Winter 2002, available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=1000262.
22
Mendel, Small is Beautiful: The Missouri Division of Youth Services, supra note 3, at 38.
44
REPORT 2
OVERVIEW ON 16 AND 17-YEAR OLDS & ASSOCIATED COSTS;
PREVIOUS JUVENILE JURISDICTION IMPLEMENTATION IN
CONNECTICUT; JUVENILE JURISDICTION IMPLEMENTATION IN OTHER
STATES; RESOURCES FOR HELPING FUND CONNECTICUT’S JUVENILE
JURISDICTION IMPLEMENTATION
OVERVIEW ON 16 AND 17-YEAR OLDS & ASSOCIATED COSTS
(response to a few questions raised at last Implementation Team meeting)
THE DEMOGRAPHICS: As of August 1, 2003, the Dept. of Corrections (DOC)
housed 277 offenders aged 16 and 17. This figure is down compared to the 340 youth of those
ages in CT prisons on July 1, 2002. Of the 82 youth aged 16 housed by DOC on August 1, 2003,
26 were charged with Class A/B Felonies or Capitol Felonies; 41 with Class C/D Felonies &
Unclassified Felonies; and 15 with Misdemeanors. Of the 195 youth aged 17, 35 were charged
with Class A/B Felonies & Capitol Felonies; 131 with Class C/D Felonies & Unclassified
Felonies; and 29 with Misdemeanors.23 A more current statistic is that on October 1, 2003, 282
DOC inmates were aged 16 or 17. 109 such youth were sentenced, and 173 were un-sentenced.
19 DOC inmates aged 16 and 17 in Connecticut’s correctional system were sentenced as
youthful offenders as of October 1, 2003. Of all 298 of the offenders aged 17 and under being
housed by DOC on August 1, 2003, there were 121 at Manson Youth Institution, 23 at York
Correctional Institution, 148 in various jails, 2 at MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution,
and 4 at Northern Correctional Institution). In Connecticut, 65 percent of all incarcerated
persons who are under 18 are 17 years of age. Ninety-two percent (92 percent) are black, 57
percent are sentenced, and 30 percent have a Mental Health Treatment Need score.24 The DOC
supervised only 21 youth who were under age 16 on August 1, 2003.25,26
COSTS: As of August 1, 2003, the total DOC supervised offender population was
20,567 and the average daily cost per inmate was $73.85 ($11.38 ―indirect administrative‖ costs
like ―personal service,‖ $11.03 for inmate medical, $43.58 for ―direct expenditures‖ like staff
pay, meals, & overtime, and $7.86 for ―other direct expenditures‖ like food, clothing,
maintenance, & inmate pay). These figures include individuals under electronic monitoring as
well as those in residential and pretrial facilities.27 The FY 2003-2005 Governor’s Budget
23
“Summary Statement,‖ (from informational packet distributed to Juvenile Jurisdiction Implementation Team, dated Sept. 9,
2003), p. 2-10.
24
―Summary Statement,‖ (from informational packet distributed to Juvenile Jurisdiction Implementation Team, dated Sept. 9,
2003), p. 2-10; G. Coppolo, Chief Attorney. Juvenile Court and Juvenile Offenders, OLR RESEARCH REPORT NO.
2002-R-0701, (Sept. 12, 2002), p. 1.
25
Annual Report: 2001-02, CT Dept. of Corrections: Professionalism, Respect, Integrity, Dignity, Excellence. (JOHN G.
ROWLAND – GOVERNOR, JOHN J. ARMSTRONG - COMMISSIONER), p. 2, 27. Available at
http://www.doc.state.ct.us/report/annualreport2002.pdf
26
Law School Clinic students attempted to obtain the number of 16 and 17-year-olds on parole and probation to provide a
separate statistic, but were unable to receive a response from the relevant agency before this date.
27
Ibid at p. 2, 27.
45
Summary for the DOC projected that custody costs would be $27,750 per year per inmate in FY
2003-04.28
Contrastingly, the network of Alternative Incarceration Programs (AIP) not operated by
the DOC incurs a much lower average cost of $11,000 per year per inmate. The Judicial Branch
contracts out to private non-profit agencies to provide such AIP, which supervise over 5,000
offenders daily. Alternative Incarceration Programs include a Youthful Offender Residence, the
Jail Re-interview Program, residential treatment facilities, and other facilities that provide
electronic monitoring, counseling, vocational training, and community service programs for
offenders. Community courts also come under the category of Alternative Incarceration
Programs.29
COMPARISON WITH CURRENT JUVENILE DEMOGRAPHICS & COSTS:
As of September 12, 2003, 581 delinquent youth were committed to the Department of
Children and Families (DCF). 306 received ―direct placement,‖ and 275 were committed to
Long Lane School (which is no longer Long Lane School but Connecticut Juvenile Training
School). In calendar year 2001-2002, 16,403 juvenile cases (regarding youth aged 15 and under)
were referred to Connecticut juvenile courts. The most current percentage breakdown of the
juvenile caseload available on the Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee website is for 1998. In
1998, a total of 9,169 juvenile cases were referred to Connecticut juvenile courts. 56.7 percent
of those cases were handled judicially, and 66.2 percent of the judicially handled youth were
either adjudicated delinquent or transferred to adult court. Of the 3,385 youth found delinquent,
only the aforementioned 581 were committed to DCF (others were discharged or put on
probation). Juvenile correctional facilities such as the Connecticut Juvenile Training School,
which houses youth under age 16, have typically spent around $325,215 per child annually. 30
The per diem cost of several juvenile residential facilities are estimated as follows: CCP - $891,
High Meadows - $1,251, Riverview Hospital $1,348. Comparatively, a Virginia residential
treatment program like Crawford Cooperative Living or Kenbridge costs $445.71 per day per
youth. Costs of both juvenile corrections and juvenile treatment are higher than the costs for
adult corrections partly due to juvenile facilities’ distinct legal mandate to educate all young
offenders at a child–specific educational level. Additionally, the aforementioned per diem
figures did not originate from DCF, but estimate the total operational costs to the state, including
payroll expenses for state employees working with those facilities.31
PREVIOUS JUVENILE JURISDICTION IMPLEMENTATION IN CONNECTICUT:
Since this is the third time Connecticut has decided to change the age of a child for
juvenile court jurisdiction, there is considerable institutional memory about how state agencies,
28
Connecticut FY 2003-FY 2005 Biennium Governor’s Budget Summary, (JOHN G. ROWLAND, GOVERNOR), p. 476,
(Feb. 2003).
29
A Report to the Governor and Legislature, THE PRISON AND JAIL OVERCROWDING COMMISSION, STATE OF
CONNECTICUT, p. 14-18, Available at http://www.doc.state.ct.us/report/pjoc.pdf (Jan. 15, 2003).
30
Overview of the Connecticut Juvenile Justice System JUVENILE JUSTICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE STATE
OF CONNECTICUT. Available at http://www.opm.state.ct.us/pdpd1/grants/jjac/JJSystem.htm (Last modified Sept. 12,
2003).
31
Estimates provided by correspondence from Office of The Child Advocate of the State of Connecticut (September, 2003).
46
courts, attorneys, public officials, service providers & communities could make such a transition
now. While information about the transition in 1935 is extremely difficult to obtain, information
about the 1971 transition (as well as the 1995 reorganization of the juvenile justice system) is
readily available to assist this Team.
ADMINISTRATIVE & FISCAL IMPACT OF 1971 JURISDICTION
IMPLEMENTATION: An ad hoc team called the Coles Commission (―The Commission
to Study the Connecticut Juvenile Court System and Procedures‖) appears to have been a strong
force recommending lowering the age of juvenile jurisdiction to age 16 in the late 1960s and
early 1970s. By October 1, 1971 a law numbered Public Act 72 (PA 71-72), ―The Youthful
Offender Act,‖ had passed in the General Assembly. This Act lowered the age of a ―child‖ while
establishing ―youthful offender‖ statutes for non-dangerous 16 and 17-year-olds. An on-point
―implementation report‖ or fiscal document by the Coles Commission, any state agency, the
legislature, or another such team regarding implementation of PA 71-72 hasn’t been found yet
but may be obtainable.
So far, an ongoing survey of government documents from around the time of PA 71-
72 reveals that neither state agencies nor the courts reported unwieldy administrative or
fiscal concerns resulting from new jurisdiction implementation. Though 16 and 17-year-olds
had gained adult criminal status, the Report of the Chief Court Administrator for the Court
Biennium 1972-1974 noted that ―criminal case dispositions dropped significantly‖ since the
previous year! Similarly, the Report noted ―no material increase in. . .the. . .delinquency
caseload, a circumstance contrary to general surmise.‖ Interestingly, this same Report described
court staff’s plans to ―improve[e] the quality and efficacy‖ of the juvenile justice system which
had just been limited to younger offenders. Planed-for improvements included increased
assessments of the effectiveness of various dispositions, intake studies, and experimental
dispositional options like ―Vocational Probation‖ and ―Early Intervention.‖32
Similarly, The Judicial Council of Connecticut’s Twenty-Fourth Report revealed no
outright overburdening or change in either the adult or juvenile docket after PA 71-72, while
revealing extensive use of ―youthful offender‖ case handling of 16 and 17-year-olds (provided
through PA 71-72). This same Twenty-Fourth Report touted the adoption of a proposal for
reforming juvenile court rules made effective July 1, 1974. Figures in this report show that only
6 cases from the Circuit Court were formally referred to the Juvenile Court in accordance with
custom before PA 71-72. The report attributed this change to PA 71-72’s ―youthful offender‖
statutes.
Funding for innovative corrections, diversion & treatment for both adults and
juveniles was readily available around the time of PA 71-72’s implementation. This may
explain why the jurisdiction implementation didn’t appear to be a huge conundrum. Much
of the funding available to Connecticut at that time was attributable to the Department of
Justice’s new disbursements for state crime prevention and control. Some of the federal funding
used at this time was a continuation of previous funding, as well. Clinic students attempted to
obtain information on the trends in Connecticut’s receipt and use of federal funding for juvenile
32
No page #’s are in this report..
47
and criminal justice, and on in-state funding arrangements, but have been unable to obtain that
information from the Office of Policy Management thus far. The Office of the Child Advocate
has confirmed that it received $88,000 per year for the past 3 years from the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the U.S Department of Justice.
In 1968, the U.S. Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
(amended in 1970) to create revenue sharing between the federal government, the states, and the
District of Columbia, for crime reduction. Between 1968 – 1971, the Connecticut Planning
Committee on Criminal Administration therefore ―distributed nearly $11,000,000 in federal bloc
grant funds to Connecticut’s police, courts and correctional agencies.‖ (That total amounts to
$50.3 million in 2003 dollars, adjusted for inflation). On June 23, 1972, the same Committee
―awarded an additional $5.2 million to state criminal justice agencies and local municipalities.‖ 33
(That figure amounts to $23.04 million in 2003 dollars, adjusted for inflation). All such fund
administration complied with a Comprehensive Plan approved by the Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration (LEAA) of the Department of Justice.
The following is a sampling of programs funded through the above scheme. This list
may assist the 2003-04 Juvenile Jurisdiction Implementation Team in conceptualizing
grants to request from the D.O.J. or other funders in their next funding cycle. More details
on these programs are available: $50,934 for New Haven status offender diversion, $27,609
for a Families With Service Needs (FWSN) Network (counseling and assistance to juveniles and
their families), $74,494 for a Traveling Diagnostic Center evaluating short term jail inmates and
directing them to community resources, $115,000 for the Hartford Pre-Trial Diversion Project,
$136,003 for Parolee Crisis Intervention, $30,000 for a Waterbury Community Service Officer
Program, $49,123 for the Judicial Department’s use of Sub-professional Personnel including law
students to assist prosecutors in screening ―trivial or unwarranted prosecutions and. . .unique
cases that require special prosecutive attention,‖ $28,103 for municipal police training system
development, $100,000 for Bridgeport’s Investigative Information and Records System, $24,540
for the Bridgeport BRIDGE Center for drug information and counseling, $10,686 for the Youth
Council of the Greater New Britain Community Council, $13,080 for a youth police cadet
program in Trumbull, $28,000 to continue operation of the E.T.A. Group Home in New Haven,
$24,900 to continue operation of Barnard House for multi-recidivist delinquents, $85,000 to the
Department of Children and Youth Services (DCYS) for group home building, $29,401 to DCYS
for diagnostics for committed youth, $70,000 to DCYS for delinquent outpatient services,
$30,000 to Judicial for a New Haven Court Clinic, and $22,000 to Judicial to hire an Executive
Secretary for handling juvenile and youthful offenders.34
INNOVATIVE LEGISLATIVE COUNTER-PROPOSALS TO 1971 JUVENILE
JURISDICTION IMPLEMENTATION: While courts and state agencies received
additional federal funding to implement PA 71-72, the General Assembly took action to
counteract this juvenile jurisdiction change. The Committee on the Legal Rights of Children (a
Judiciary Sub-committee) published a document revealing its doubts about Connecticut’s
handling of delinquents and 16 and 17-year-olds. In 1974, this Committee published The Legal
Rights of Children in Connecticut: A Report in Fulfillment of House Joint Resolution No. 144.
This document was written after House Joint Resolution No. 144, ―A Resolution Providing For
33
Press Release, CT PLANNING COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL ADMIN. (GOV. THOMAS J. MESKILL) (June 23,
1972).
34
Ibid. various pages.
48
A Study of the Statutes Relative to the Legal Rights of Children,‖ resolved that the General
Assembly’s Judiciary Committee would
―. . .study all provisions of the general statutes relating to the legal
rights of children to protection, recognizing the state’s fundamental
responsibility to ensure such protection, and report to the General
Assembly, on or before February 1, 1974, with such
recommendations for legislation as it deems necessary.‖
Utilizing a human rights framework, the Committee argued that a Child and Youth Act
(CYA) presented in an article in the Columbia Human Rights Review should be a model for all
Connecticut law on youth (p.6).
Some radical changes were recommended by the Committee in The Legal Rights of
Children in Connecticut: A Report in Fulfillment of House Joint Resolution No. 144, as ways of
ensuring protection of youth’s human rights. Such recommendations were entitled the Children
and Youth Court Act, which included: mandated juvenile jury trials (p. 9); public juvenile
trials and records (p. 9-10); the requirement that delinquency adjudication not be
considered a criminal conviction (p. 25); standards for psychiatric, educational & medical
treatment of incarcerated and committed youth as a Constitutional guarantee (p. 10-11);
the creation of a Youth Services Board composed of each jurisdiction’s Chief Judge, the
DCYS Commissioner, representatives of “various professions involved with children,” and
children themselves (p. 11, 26-27); the creation of a 3-division Children and Youth Court to
handle all the criminal matters, habeas proceedings, child welfare concerns, and child-
initiated civil actions of citizens below age 18 (p. 11-15); offense-driven youth detention /
confinement rather than age-driven detention/ confinement (p. 13); establishment of a right
to juvenile sentence review, subsequent appeals, and potential expungement of all crime-
related records (p. 25); and precise standards for transferring only mentally stable, serious
offenders over age 15 to adult court (p. 28-29).
The Committee’s proposed Children and Youth Court has one particularly interesting
feature: its Criminal Division has jurisdiction over ―all adults alleged to have contributed to the
delinquency of a minor‖ (p. 15). The Legal Rights of Children in Connecticut: A Report in
Fulfillment of House Joint Resolution No. 144 also requires that court delinquency records not be
released without consent of a child or her representative (p. 25). A notable feature of the Civil
Division is the ―concurrent jurisdiction with the Probate Court for. . .appointment of a guardian
of the estate or property of a child and of proceedings in which a child claims a right, interest or
entitlement in such party‖ (p. 15).
The Committee on the Legal Rights of Children closed The Legal Rights of Children in
Connecticut: A Report in Fulfillment of House Joint Resolution No. 144 by advising the creation
of a Commission to Study the Advisability of a New Children & Youth Court. The progress &
records of this Commission, if it was ever established, have not been examined yet. The
Legal Rights of Children in Connecticut: A Report in Fulfillment of House Joint Resolution No.
144 also includes a ―Declaration of the Rights of the Child in Connecticut‖ (p. 46). NOTE: This
document neither mentions PA 71-72 nor comments on that law’s implementation in a specific
manner.
49
SMOOTH IMPLEMENTATION OF JURISDICTION IMPLEMENTATION AFTER
1971?: It appears that the transfer of 16 and 17 year olds out of juvenile court
jurisdiction in 1971 was implemented with no significant administrative or fiscal problems. No
mention of any marked overload either in adult or juvenile dockets, nor any specific mention of
PA 71-72 implementation, was made in public defenders’ reports in the late 1970s. Such Annual
Reports did express an increasing need for resources, staff, and specialists for both adult and
juvenile defense, however.35
Government documents simply reveal that the 1971 jurisdiction implementation lent
itself to gradual amending like any other public policy, due to the changing times. By 1978,
there were efforts to mix elements of the adult and juvenile system further, treating even younger
offenders like adults. The Connecticut Justice Commission published Juvenile Justice:
Selections from the CT Justice Commission’s 1978 Plan. This document stated that increased
reporting of delinquency warranted changes in the juvenile system. It recommended multiple
improvements, such as increased police training, analysis of arrests & processing, better
management by Judicial, increased court staffing & training, interagency coordination within the
juvenile system, and better delivery of treatment. A fiscal impact chart was included in that
document.
By 1978, a Task Force on Serious Juvenile Offenders was publishing reports due to
increased public attention to serious crimes by youth. While both the Executive Summary and
Final Report of this Task Force (June 1978 – January 1979) admitted that ―there is no indication
that there has been an increase in the number of juveniles arrested for serious crimes in recent
years,‖ the Task Force nevertheless promoted transfer laws for 14 and 15-year olds to adult
court, as well as “serious juvenile offender designation” for some juveniles. Their
recommendations led to PA 79-567 (―AAC Families With Service Needs‖) and PA 79-581 (―AA
To Provide for the Responsible & Expeditious Handling of Juveniles and Young Adults Involved
in the Commission of Serious Crimes‖).
ADMINISTRATIVE AND FISCAL IMPACT, & PLANNING STRATEGIES, FOR 1995
JUVENILE JUSTICE REORGANIZATION: With the passage of PA 95-225 (―AAC
Juvenile Justice‖) state agencies, courts, and the community needed guidance in restructuring the
juvenile justice system. Examining the plans made around PA 95-225 can assist this
Implementation Team in drafting a plan to implement PA 03-257 now. The Juvenile Justice
Reorganization Plan published by the ―Policy Group‖ comprised of the Chief Court
Administrator, The DCF Commissioner, the OPM Under Secretary of the Planning Division, and
their staffs, has been photocopied for your review (see list of documents, below). Highlights
include the underscoring of a ―multi-year approach‖ to juvenile justice restructuring
implementation. The Juvenile Justice Reorganization Plan emphasizes 1) financial feasibility
and 2) programmatic feasibility, while providing for a ―three year implementation of
recommendations‖ (p. 20). Funding for new placements, computerized tracking systems, and
broadening of existing services and programs were all necessary in 1995. The Juvenile Justice
Reorganization Plan also recommended that the General Assembly pass An Act Concerning the
Implementation of the Juvenile Justice Reorganization Plan to implement all changes by the
Policy Group. This Implementation Team may need to recommend some legislative changes to
implement its policies as well.
35
Annual Report of the Chief Public Defender. (HON. ELLA GRASSO, GOVERNOR) (Oct. 15, 1976); Annual Report of
the Chief Public Defender. (HON. ELLA GRASSO, GOVERNOR) (Dec. 1, 1978).
50
Following juvenile justice reorganization, in 1996, the Chief Public Defender’s Annual
Report reported a huge increase in the juvenile docket due to the reorganization (p. 5-6) but
noted that federal funding was assisting with their needs, and that the quality in public defense of
juveniles was better than it had been ―at any time in the past‖ (p. 21).
DOCUMENTS NOW AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW ON THIS TOPIC:
Photocopied for distribution at Thursday 11/6/03 Implementation Team meting:
o Juvenile Justice Reorganization Plan, (JUDICIAL BRANCH, DEPT. CHILDREN &
FAMILIES, AND THE OFFICE OF POLICY AND MANAGEMENT), (February 1,
1996).
o Iredale, Nancy & Joffe, Paul L. Report to the Connecticut Commission to Revise the
Criminal Statute: Courts, Corrections and the Young Offender in Connecticut. (YALE
LEGISLATIVE SERVICES, YALE LAW SCHOOL, 1970)—Surveys U.S. juvenile
justice administrative and court schemes. Gives sample Connecticut statutory scheme for
treating 16 & 17-year-olds as juveniles while providing Constitutional protections &
public safety through youth jury trials and transfer laws. Simultaneously recommends an
administrative agency for juvenile justice, youth services and mental health
administration (comparable with KidCare).
o The Legal Rights of Children in Connecticut: A Report in Fulfillment of House Joint
Resolution No. 144. THE COMMITTEE ON THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN (a
Judiciary Sub-committee) (February 1974).
o Press Release, CONNECTICUT PLANNING COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL
ADMINISTRATION. (GOV. THOMAS J. MESKILL) (June 23, 1972).
o Fiscal impact chart from Juvenile Justice: Selections from the CT Justice Commission’s
1978 Plan. (THE CT. JUSTICE COMMISSION).
POTENTIAL DOCUMENTS TO REVIEW (WITH PERMISSION AND / OR F.O.I.A.
REQUESTS, WHERE NECESSARY):
Additional reports, records, correspondence and fiscal data from the Coles Commission
(―The Commission to Study the Connecticut Juvenile Court System and Procedures‖), from the
Committee on the Legal Rights of Children, from the ―Policy Group‖ and 5 ad hoc Committees
responsible for the 1995 Juvenile Justice Reorganization Plan; from the Planning Commission
on Criminal Data, from the Connecticut Justice Commission, from the Committee on the Legal
Rights of Children (a Judiciary Sub-committee), from the Commission and Division of Defender
Services, from the Dept. of Children and Youth Services (DCYS), from the Serious Juvenile
Offender Task Force, and from other relevant task forces, agencies, and officials involved in
previous jurisdiction implementation circa 1965-1980 and circa 1990-99. (NOTE: Coles
51
Commission materials, and most materials by these entities aren’t publicly listed as part of the
State Library Catalogue of government documents. Perhaps they are stored in the archives of
particular state agencies or other offices.)
Block, Ira. Memo to Hon. Robert Satter, Counsel to Democratic Majority, State Senate
Connecticut, Re: the Establishment of a Youth Authority for the State of Connecticut. (YALE
LEGISLATIVE SERVICES, YALE LAW SCHOOL, 1969)
A Plan to Improve the Criminal Justice System, Vol. II (1978). (CONNECTICUT
JUSTICE COMMISSION)- Strategies for better handling of 16 and 17-year-olds within adult
system.
The Child and Youth Act (CYA) presented in an article in the Columbia Human Rights
Review, which The Committee on the Legal Rights of Children (a Judiciary Sub-committee)
thought should be a model for all Connecticut law on youth, and which was cited in The Legal
Rights of Children in Connecticut: A Report in Fulfillment of House Joint Resolution No. 144.
Fiscal notes, legislative hearing transcripts, debates, committee reports, & related
documents regarding previous juvenile jurisdiction age-change bills (PA 71-72), juvenile justice
reorganization bills (PA 95-225) and H.J.R. 144.
Press clips from previous eras of juvenile jurisdiction implementation
Reports, studies & articles by private institutions, organizations & legal scholars
regarding or evaluating previous Connecticut juvenile jurisdiction implementation (and such
implementation in other states).
JUVENILE JURISDICTION IMPLEMENTATION IN OTHER STATES
Other states have decided to change the age of a ―child‖ for purposes of juvenile court
jurisdiction at various times throughout history. Their legal, administrative and fiscal transitions
might be helpful to this group, and might be examined through law review articles, publications
by public & non-profit organizations, and through comparative review of state governmental
documents. Information about the states that have most recently increased the age at which
juvenile court jurisdiction ends, and about other states’ juvenile jurisdiction
implementations, could be provided at the next Team meeting by Yale Law School
Legislative Advocacy Clinic students, if this Juvenile Jurisdiction Implementation Team
desires.
Five Yale Law School Legislative Advocacy Clinic students will be meeting with
Judge Michael Corriero of Manhattan’s Youth Part on Friday, November 14, 2003 to learn
about progress New York has made with its most serious & violent 13-15-year-old
offenders. These youth are currently prosecuted as adults pursuant to New York’s
“Juvenile Offender” law.
52
Yale Law School Legislative Advocacy Clinic students will also attempt to
correspond with juvenile justice officials in Cook County, IL to begin a dialogue on
juvenile jurisdiction, processing, treatment & funding options.
The Vera Institute is a consultant for states engaging in both criminal and juvenile justice
reforms. Their website showcases implementation programs elsewhere. It can be explored at
www.vera.org. Yale Clinic alumni hold several high administrative positions at Vera and
would most likely be available to assist, as the Juvenile Jurisdiction Implementation Team
deems most helpful.
RESOURCES FOR HELPING FUND CONNECTICUT’S
JUVENILE JURISDICTION IMPLEMENTATION
NOTE: Yale Law School Legislative Advocacy Clinic students have just begun to look at
potential funding sources. These are some early thoughts on that topic. In-state
funding schemes have not been examined. Clinic students would be happy to do
more research about funding if the Team requests it.
The Department of Justice has traditionally funded much of Connecticut’s reorganization of
juvenile and criminal justice. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP) is particularly valuable. However, clinic students were told that no grants are currently
available because Congress has not passed an Appropriations Bill for this fiscal year. Grants will
roll through on the OJJDP website weekly after Congress passes such a bill. A contact person
regarding these grants is Jeffrey Felton Green at 202-514-8874. The OJJDP web address is
ncjrs.org.
Staff at the Department of Justice’s various other divisions mentioned that federal grants may be
available for reforms in Connecticut and its municipalities if those reforms don’t deal strictly
with juvenile issues, but with broader criminal justice reform (like drug courts, etc.). The Office
of Justice Programs oversees funds for the OJJDP and other Department of Justice subdivisions.
Their web address is http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/. The Department of Justice Response Center is
a Department of Justice subdivision that also handles grants. This office can be reached by
calling 888-549-9901 or 800-421-6770 (for general information). The National Institute of
Justice is a Department of Justice subdivision that establishes timelines for grant disbursement.
This office can be reached at 202-307-2942.
Department of Justice staff emphasized that Libby Graham of Connecticut’s Office of Policy
Management would be the best individual to contact about Connecticut’s receipt of Department
of Justice funds for juvenile jurisdiction implementation. Her number is 860-418-6279.
Private foundation funding may be available, as well.
Other possible funding sources may potentially become available if Connecticut emphasizes
treatment rather than punishment. (Workforce Investment Act funds, Medicaid reimbursements,
etc.).
53
The Vera Institute may have information on how Connecticut can obtain funding for
juvenile jurisdiction implementation, as they consult for various states. Their website
and contact information can be explored at www.vera.org
54
REPORT 3
MINORITY OVERREPRESENTATION, TRANSFER PROCESSES,
ALTERNATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE MODELS & THE COOK COUNTY,
ILLINOIS MODEL
Is there minority overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system?
36
Data available for most jurisdictions across the country show that minority
(especially black) youth are overrepresented within the juvenile justice system,
particularly in secure facilities. These data further suggest that minority youth are
more likely to be placed in public secure facilities, while white youth are more
likely to be housed in private facilities or diverted from the juvenile justice
system. Research also suggests that differences in the offending rates of white and
36
See National Criminal Justice Reference Service, 1999 National Report Series, Juvenile Justice Bulletin:
Minorities in the Juvenile Justice System. Available at http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/9912_1/min1.html
(last accessed on January 9, 2004).
55
minority youth cannot fully explain the minority overrepresentation in arrest,
conviction, and incarceration counts.37
Connecticut has the most striking disproportionate minority confinement figures
in New England. 24 percent of white youth are committed and 22 percent are
detained, while 76 percent of minority youth are committed and 78 percent are
detained.38
In a review by Pope and Feyerherm of existing research literature, approximately
two-thirds of the studies examined showed that racial and/or ethnic status did
influence decision-making within the juvenile justice system.39
The greatest disparity between majority and minority youth court processing
outcomes occurs at intake and detention decision points.
What is the process of transferring juveniles to adult court?
Today, all 50 States and the District of Columbia allow for juveniles to be
prosecuted in criminal court by one or more transfer mechanisms. According to
study, the most common mechanism is judicial waiver, which gives juvenile court
judges discretion to waive juvenile cases to adult criminal court. Other widely
used transfer mechanisms include direct file, which provides prosecutorial
discretion to file criminal charges against juveniles directly in criminal court, and
statutory exclusion, which mandates juvenile prosecution in adult court.
Judicial waiver is the most popular method; 47 States and the District of
Columbia provide judicial discretion to waive certain juveniles to criminal court.
Thirty-seven States and the District of Columbia have one or more statutory
exclusion provisions, and 10 States and the District of Columbia have direct file
provisions.40
Another mechanism to provide juvenile transfers to adult criminal court is
presumptive waiver, which mandates juvenile transfer unless the juvenile offender
can prove he or she is suited to juvenile justice system rehabilitation. Usually the
State bears the burden of proof to show that a juvenile should be transferred to
adult court. Presumptive waiver shifts the burden of proof to the juvenile to show
that he or she should not be transferred. Twelve States and the District of
Columbia provide for presumptive waiver in certain instances, such as serious
felonies.41
Juvenile court judges may weigh a variety of factors in determining whether to
waive juveniles under their jurisdiction to adult court. All States have
incorporated the constitutionally required factors enumerated by the U.S.
Supreme Court. These factors include the seriousness of the alleged offense and
the need to protect the community; whether the alleged offense was committed in
an aggressive, violent, premeditated, or willful manner; whether the alleged
offense was against a person or property; the likelihood of prosecution; whether
37
Ibid.
38
See New England Juvenile Defender Center Project of the JJC of Suffolk University Law School,
―DMC: 1999 New England State Comparison Chart,‖ Connecticut Fact Sheet, p. 11 (2002).
39
Ibid.
40
See National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Juvenile Justice Reform Initiatives in the States: 1994-
1996. Available at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/reform/ch2_j.html (last accessed on January 9, 2004).
41
Ibid.
56
the juvenile's associates will be tried in adult criminal court; the juvenile's
sophistication, maturity, record, and previous history; and the reasonable
likelihood of rehabilitation.
Less than 2 percent of all formal juvenile delinquency cases were judicially
waived each year from 1988 to 1992. In 1988, only 1.2 percent of all cases were
waived to adult criminal court (7,005 of 569,596 cases). The number of judicially
waived cases steadily climbed (to 11,748 of 743,673 cases) in 1992, comprising
1.6 percent of all juvenile delinquency cases.42
Regardless of the statute, prosecutors play a critical role in determining the forum
of prosecution. In addition to direct file legislation, prosecutors may charge a
youth with an offense mandating statutory exclusion and transfer to adult court.
The current data, including results from studies in Idaho, New Jersey, and New
York, indicate that expanded transfer provisions over the past 20 years have not
deterred juvenile crime. Separate studies in Florida and Minnesota confirm that
juveniles transferred to adult criminal court have higher recidivism rates than
juvenile offenders retained in juvenile court.43
What offenses?
Nonviolent offenders comprised 66 percent -- the clear majority -- of all juveniles
waived to adult criminal court in 1992, according to GAO's transfer study.
Nonviolent offenders included property offenders, who constituted the largest
proportion of all waived cases at 45 percent; drug offenders, who made up 12
percent of waived cases; and other offenders, at 9 percent. In contrast, 34 percent
of cases waived involved were offenses against the person.44
According to OJJDP, another study reported that nonviolent offenders in 1993
continued to make up the majority of waived cases, representing 57 percent of all
cases waived (38 percent of cases waived were property offenders, 10 percent
were drug offenders, and 9 percent committed offenses against the public order).
On the other hand, that study reported that offenses against the person rose to 42
percent of all waived cases.45
Many of these State provisions mandate or allow transfer of those juveniles
charged with any conduct that would constitute a felony if committed by an adult.
Thirteen States mandate and four States permit this type of transfer for juveniles
16 and older. Mandatory transfer provisions also apply to certain offenders age 14
and older in Connecticut, Idaho, the Virgin Islands, and West Virginia, and age 13
and older in New York. Discretionary transfers apply to offenders as young as age
10 in South Dakota and Vermont.46
What is the process to return the case to a juvenile court?
Eighteen States have enacted "once waived, always waived" legislation, under
which a juvenile once waived to adult court subsequently must be charged in
criminal court regardless of the offense. For example, in Virginia, any juvenile
previously convicted as an adult is excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction. In
42
Ibid.
43
Ibid.
44
Ibid.
45
Ibid.
46
Ibid.
57
addition, 10 States permit and 12 States mandate a judge to order waiver in
circumstances in which the offender previously has been adjudicated delinquent.47
Florida: Innovative programs, such as the Miami-Dade Juvenile Sentencing
Advocacy Project, implemented between 1999 and 2000, encourage judges to use
the "sentence-back" option: sentencing youth found guilty in criminal court back
to the juvenile system for sanctions there.
o Some evaluative studies have found this to be a successful program. An
analysis from the Miami-Dade’s Public Defender’s Office observes the
following about the program:48
The JSAP is an innovation in its structure and its focus; it presents
the whole child to the court and takes a proactive approach to
develop sentencing plans that create the opportunity for positive,
long-term change.
In the first 15 months of operation, 357 youth received JSAP
services, although 102 cases were ultimately transferred outside
the Public Defender’s Office (e.g., a private attorney was hired).
Of the remaining 255 cases, 36 percent received juvenile sanctions,
56 percent received adult sentences, 4 percent were nolle
prosse/dismissed, 3 percent were closed by the Public Defender’s
request, and 2 percent had no action or were otherwise closed. The
91 youth receiving juvenile sanctions represents a 350 percent
increase in the number of similarly-transferred youth sanctioned to
the juvenile system as compared to a similar 15-month period.
The JSAP project, through its strength-based approach to
sentencing, represents one of the most promising approaches to
dealing with the negative consequences associated with juvenile
transfer.
What are the rights to appeal?
In addition to discretionary judicial waivers, some jurisdictions now allow for
prosecutorial waivers in which the prosecutors themselves have the power to send
certain youths directly to adult court without a judicial hearing on the issue. The
decision to exercise this option is unreviewable and final. In contrast, a judicial
waiver in which the judge decides to waive juvenile court jurisdiction can, at least
in theory, be appealed. As a practical matter, however, the judge's ruling is final,
since an appeal can seldom be heard before the offender "ages out" of the juvenile
court system.
Which facilities do they stay in when they are detained and once they are transferred?
A South Dakota enactment allows juveniles convicted as adults to be detained in
adult facilities. Virginia legislation permits courts to consider a juvenile's age, the
seriousness of the offense, prior history and estimated length of stay when
47
Ibid.
48
Kelly Johnson, The Miami-Dade Public Defender’s Office Juvenile Sentencing Advocacy Project,
available at http://www.pdmiami.com/Analysis%20of%20JSAPs%20Multi-
disciplinary%20Approach%20in%20Defending%20Youth.pdf (last accessed on January 9, 2004).
58
determining whether to commit a juvenile transferred to adult court to the
Department of Juvenile Justice.49
What programs are available to them?
Youthful Offender Programs across the Nation
o Examples of programs include: Education and Career Counseling, Life
Skills Management and Peer Counseling, Job Search Skills and
Employment, Employment Retention, Work Based Learning and Limited
Instruction, Leadership Development Training, Recreational and Cultural
Programs, Gender-Based Focus Groups, Volunteer and Community
Service Programs.
What are alternative models of juvenile justice?
Diversion: A diversion agreement is a contract voluntarily entered into by the
juvenile offender and the State. The agreement requires the offender to fulfill
specific requirements such as making restitution to the victim or attending a
substance abuse program. If the offender fails to fulfill the terms of the
agreement, charges are filed against him/her. To make diversion more cost
efficient, entities other than the courts should monitor diversion agreements. This
could help alleviate crowded dockets
frequently experienced by judges.
o Pre-filing diversion programs allow for the processing of first time, less
serious offenders prior to charges being filed in a less costly and expedited
fashion.
o Restorative justice boards should be authorized to provide another option
for pre-filing diversion programs.
Juvenile Gun Courts: Juvenile gun courts strive to make youth aware of the
dangers of firearms and reduce their reliance on guns as a means of dispute
resolution. The hallmarks of gun courts are immediate intervention in response to
gun possession, attendance as a condition of release or probation, and required
parental involvement.
o An expanded role for the judge as educator, not just adjudicator, and the
involvement of victims, older youth formerly involved with guns, and
other community members.
o Gun court youth spent less time on probation (but with strict curfews, drug
testing, and nighttime home visits by trackers or probation officers) than
youth who did not participate fully in the program. In addition, the rates
for parental involvement and youth participation in educational programs
were higher (82 percent and 90 percent, respectively) and the rate for
recidivism was lower (17 percent) among gun court youth than among
youth who did not receive the full benefits of the program.50
49
Sarah A. Brown, Juvenile Justice State Legislation in 2002: Analysis of State Actions on Important
Issues, National Conference of State Legislatures, available at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cj/slr282.htm
(last accessed on January 9, 2004) (January 2003).
50
Juvenile Gun Courts: Promoting Accountability and Providing Treatment, JAIBG Bulletin, available at
http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/jaibg_2002_5_1/page2.html (last accessed on January 9, 2004) (May
2002).
59
Juvenile Drug Court Programs: Juvenile drug court teams supervise frequent
drug testing and coordinated services. Emphasizes strong assessment; intensive
family, treatment, and skills-building services; parental involvement; and a
constructive relationship with local schools. The Bulletin notes retention rates of
56 to 77 percent for seven exemplary juvenile drug courts nationwide. The author
concludes, ―Measured by indicators such as recidivism, drug use, and educational
achievement, juvenile drug courts appear to hold significant promise.‖51
Teen Courts/Youth Courts/Peer Courts
o Most teen courts require defendants to plead guilty prior to participation in
the program; however, a small number of these courts are structured to
determine guilt or innocence. In a teen court, juvenile offenders are held
accountable for substance use and other misdemeanor offenses and
sentenced by a jury of their peers to community service, counseling,
restitution, and/or an apology to the victim.
o Teen courts also present communities with opportunities to teach young
people valuable life and coping skills and promote positive peer influence
for youth who are defendants and for volunteer youth who play a variety
of roles in the teen court process. These volunteers serve not only as jurors
but also as defense or prosecuting attorneys, court clerks, bailiffs, and
even--in some cases--judges.
o In the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's (OJJDP)
Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent,
and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, teen court is included as a graduated
sanction with multiple purposes that jurisdictions can use when youth are
charged with misdemeanor offenses.52
o As of October 1995, approximately 190 teen court programs were
operating in 25 States. Nationwide, teen courts share many of the same
fundamental principles; however, the manner in which they function in
their day-to-day operations can vary significantly from program to
program. Developing and implementing teen courts on a local level
requires a coordinated and collaborative effort among various sectors of
the community, including the justice system, schools, and families. Teen
court programs are currently operated by juvenile courts, juvenile
probation departments, law enforcement agencies, private nonprofit
organizations, and schools.53
Balanced and Restorative Justice Project
o The BARJ is a model that gives equal weight to (1) ensuring community
safety, (2) holding offenders accountable to victims, and (3) providing
competency development for offenders in the system so they can pursue
legitimate endeavors after release.
51
Best Practices in Juvenile Accountability, JAIBG Bulletin, available at
http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/184745/page5.html (last accessed on January 9, 2004) (April 2003).
52
A Guide for Implementing Teen Court Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
available at http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/fs9645.txt (last accessed on January 9, 2004) (August 1996).
53
Ibid.
60
o Unlike other models, BARJ underscores the importance of the victim
(individual or community) in the justice process and requires the offender
to actively pursue restoration of the victim by paying restitution,
performing community service, or both.
o The BARJ model also restructures juvenile justice staff roles from largely
office-based functions to community involvement work and supervision of
offenders in competency development endeavors. In addition,
appropriately trained staff can involve the offenders in victim-offender
mediation as part of the restoration process.
o An example of the BARJ model in action is the Cook County initiative
(See below).
Graduated Sanctions
o Combines treatment, rehabilitation, and appropriate sanctions; continuum
of care through diversity of services
o Immediate sanctions for first-time offenders, intermediate sanctions for
more serious offenses, secure care program for most violent offenders,
aftercare that provide social control and treatment options
Juvenile Boot Camp: currently operated in 10 states, including California,
Florida, Illinois, New York, Texas, and Virginia. Mixed reviews. Rigorous
physical conditioning and focus on discipline. For mid-level offenders who have
usually committed juvenile offenses before and haven’t successfully been
deterred by probation, etc. Has rehabilitation focus and incorporates counseling
and other forms of treatment. More than half the day is spent on education and
counseling activities; at least 3 hours a day are dedicated to academic work.
Substance abuse treatment, rehabilitative counseling, and intense community
supervision are usually part of the boot camp program upon release of the
juvenile. However, the aftercare program has been largely unsuccessful where
implemented due to high noncompliance rates.
The Cook County, Illinois Model
The new statute took effect on January 1, 1999, and adopts the Balanced and
Restorative Justice Model. Under the new law, the victim and the community in
which they live are viewed as "clients of the system" as well as the offender.54
Juveniles with felony convictions or pending felony cases are not eligible for
diversion programs under the Balanced and Restorative Justice Model in the new
law. One innovation in the new law is a tool known as "blended sentencing"
which allows a judge to impose both a juvenile and an adult, more severe,
sentence on a minor, staying the adult sentence. If the youth violates the terms of
the juvenile sentence, the adult sentence kicks in, which should work as a forceful
deterrent to repeat offenders.55
The process requires the community and advocates to identify not only what a
young offender needs to do to accept responsibility for committing a crime, but
54
Balanced and Restorative Justice, Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, available at
http://www.statesattorney.org/aweb/balance.htm (last accessed on January 9, 2004).
55
Ibid.
61
also what can be provided to the youth as a sentencing option that will meet the
goals of balanced and restorative justice.56
Under the new law, a juvenile offender who has "five station adjustments" (visits
to a police station that do not result in criminal charges being filed) may be
required to go before a neighborhood or church organization along with the victim
to encourage the young person to take responsibility for the crime committed,
make restitution, perform community service, attend school and even seek
employment.57
Summary of the Program as of 2003:58
o Station Adjustment Collaboration – Early Intervention Program59
This program facilitates collaboration with the Chicago Police
Department’s Youth Division in coordinating services for youth
receiving station adjustments in the 8th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 25th
Chicago Police Districts. Services provided through this program
address delinquency prevention and early intervention strategies by
incorporating the BARJ principles of accountability, competency
development and public safety. While the minor is not under a
formal court order, he or she must adhere to certain requirements
to avoid a formal court referral.
A probation officer from the Community Liaison Unit is assigned
to supervise the minor and assess the minor’s home, school and
community activities. Community agencies provide needed follow-
up services. Station adjusted youth in this program are held
accountable through a number of interventions including
restitution to the victim, apology letters, victim impact panels and
classes, community service, violence prevention programs and
retail theft programs.
o Community Liaison Program60
This program coordinates networking with community agencies
and groups to identify local delinquency issues. The program
facilitates community participation in a variety of programs
including victim impact panels, mediation programs, community
panels for youth and teen courts. A resource directory and library
relating to balanced and restorative justice issues is maintained,
and representatives are available to speak at community meetings.
o Diversion Compliance Program61
56
Ibid.
57
Ibid.
58
Summary of Juvenile Probation and Court Services Programs and Initiatives 2003, Circuit Court of Cook
County, available at
http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:KXw9R42FrugJ:www.cookcountycourt.org/publications/pdf/juvenil
e_book.pdf+%22Jump+Start+Truancy+Reduction+Program%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (last accessed on
January 9, 2004) (2003).
59
Ibid.
60
Ibid.
61
Ibid.
62
Youth referred to juvenile court for less serious and non-violent
offenses can be diverted by the Cook County State’s Attorney’s
Office to a number of specialized intervention diversion programs.
Programs such as victim-offender mediation operated by the
Center for Conflict Resolution and the Community Panels for
Youth Programs operated by the Northwestern University Child
and Family Justice Center directly involve victims and community
members in the process.
Other diversion programs include Vehicle for Change, Scholarship
and Guidance, Youth Net, Chicago Area Project, TASC Drug
School, Elijah Thurston Organization, Juvenile Sex Offender Unit,
Youth Outreach Services and A.L.E.R.T.
o Victim Impact Panels62
Victim impact panels provide opportunities for crime victims to
talk about their experiences and to educate young offenders about
the harmful consequences of their behavior in the community.
Panelists may spend 15 or 20 minutes telling their stories in a non-
judgmental and non-blaming manner. Telling their stories helps
promote healing for the victim and helps the offender learn
empathy and take responsibility for his or her actions. All minors
currently placed on probation are expected to participate in a
victim impact panel or victim awareness session.
o Probation Victim Service Unit63
The goal of the Victim Service Unit is to help reduce the
immediate and long-term impact of being a victim and provide
interventions, which promote offender accountability. This unit
operates in partnership with the Cook County State’s Attorney’s
Victim Witness Assistance Program.
The unit assists probation officers by facilitating victim impact
panels and victim awareness classes. These programs are designed
to encourage offenders to accept greater responsibility for their
actions and promote victim empathy.
o Jump Start Truancy Reduction Program64
Developed for high-risk chronic truants, aged 16 and 17, this
innovative initiative provides both a structured curriculum and
community-based aftercare services to develop competencies and
self-esteem. The program emphasizes highly individualized
assessments that facilitate re-enrollment and/or placement with an
alternative school and GED certification.
o Cook County Jail Tour Programs65
62
Ibid.
63
Ibid.
64
Ibid.
65
Ibid.
63
Two jail tour programs, the No Freedom House: Right Decisions
for the Future for boys and the Second Chance Program for girls
expose minors to the realities of adult incarcerations as a means of
promoting positive decision making and behavioral change.
o Girls Evening Reporting Center66
A special evening reporting center was established for girls. This
center includes a gender responsive curriculum and specially
designed activities delivered between the hours of 3:00 p.m. to
9:00 p.m. as an alternative to secure detention.
66
Ibid.
64
REPORT 4
LEGAL TREATMENT AND SERVICES FOR STATUS OFFENDERS IN
SELECTED STATES; BRIEF OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL STATUS
OFFENDER TREATMENT AND ENFORCEMENT; AND RECENT
INNOVATIONS IN THE TREATMENT OF STATUS OFFENDERS
LEGAL TREATMENT AND SERVICES FOR 16 AND 17-YEAR OLD STATUS
OFFENDERS IN SELECTED STATES
States vary in their legal treatment of status offenders, and the services offered to them.
Provisions for status offenders in states with juvenile justice jurisdiction most similar to
Connecticut’s current system are first examined here. (Connecticut, New York, and North
Carolina are the only 3 states in the U.S. that still consider 16 and 17-year-olds as ―adults‖ for all
criminal justice purposes.)
New York and Persons in Need of Supervision (PINS)
In December 2000, NY’s Governor Pataki signed legislation to increase the age of
possible designation as a status offender or ―person in need of supervision‖ (PIN) in New York.
The age of possible designation was changed from age 16 and younger to age 18 and younger.
This legislation was passed to increase parents’ resources for handling teens who ―d[o] not attend
school, or behave[e] in a way that is dangerous or out of control, or often disobeys his or her
parents, guardians or other authorities.‖67 Various changes are being made in the treatment and
handling of PINS with the assistance of a federal grant being administered by the New York
State Division of Criminal Justice Services. As New York has a county-based juvenile justice
system, the state is also helping fund reform for PINS handling by reimbursing counties for their
programs (the state pays 65 percent and the county pays 35 percent).68
Diversion of PINS: PINS can be handled in various ways, depending on the county.
Probation first meets with a child and the complaining party before a PINS case is filed in
Family Court. Probation attempts to "divert" the case and may refer to various community or
governmental programs. One avenue for diverted PINS cases is that they get directed to Youth
Courts. Youth Courts are sometimes called peer or teen courts, and they are an alternative to the
formal juvenile justice system. Youth courts provide community-based punishments and are
aimed at both status offenders and other non-violent offenders. Over 85 Youth Courts operate in
New York, representing more than 10 percent of all United States Youth Courts. Over forty have
received grant funding through the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services'
Bureau of Justice Funding to establish or enhance their programs. New York Youth Courts are
operated by government agencies such as youth bureaus and law enforcement agencies, and the
government also encourages juvenile probation offices, nonprofits and schools to sponsor such
courts. Sanctions typically include community service, victim restitution, and service in future
youth courts. Delaware County officials determined that the Youth Court saved the county over
$75,000 in probation and court costs. The Onondaga County Youth Court started in 1993, and
67
Website of New York State Unified Court System, Third Judicial District.
http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/3jd/family/pins/pins.htm and http://www.nycourts.gov/4jd/essex/pins_.html.
68
October 27, 2003 phone interview with Sarah Mogulescu, Consultant with the Vera Institute of Justice.
65
officials estimate that the savings over the course of the decade from their program is over
$780,000.69
Formal case handling: If diversion is unsuccessful, the complaining party can file a
PINS petition. PINS either have a private attorney or court-appointed "law guardian.‖ If a child
has run away, the court may issue a warrant. If the court finds that a child should not be released
to a guardian, the child might be sent to a relative or a non-secure facility. A Family Court trial
or fact-finding hearing is sometimes held to determine if the statements in the PINS petition are
true. If the statements are found true, a dispositional hearing is held to determine if the child
needs supervision or treatment. If a child is placed by the court in foster care, the Department of
Social Services may file a petition for child support against the parent as a result of a PINS
proceeding. 70
The new law changing the age of PINS took effect July 1, 2002 and allows parents or
other complainants to recommend detention, social services, or foster care placement. It
increased the need for comprehensive services and programs for troubled youngsters.71 In 2001,
New York’s Unified Family Court judges proposed legislation recommending that the Family
Court be authorized to place any PINS who otherwise would face placement in a residential
program into an intensive probation supervision program for all or part of a probation term. The
judges asserted that this would help ―the system. . .meet the needs of juveniles requiring close
supervision without displacing them from their homes and at a fraction of the cost of placement
in a residential facility.‖72 Internet difficulties prevented further inquiry, but law student
interns would investigate the outcome of this proposal, if requested.
Innovating services and diversion for PINS: To improve handling of PINS, in 2002,
the Vera Institute of Justice contracted with the New York State Office of Children and Family
Services (through a federal grant administered by the New York State Division of Criminal
Justice Services) to deliver a program of peer-to-peer assistance to help New York State and its
counties handle the influx of older youth entering the PINS system. Shortly before the new
law’s passage, about 1/2 of all PINS cases ended in family court, while 1/3 of PINS ended up in
foster care group homes. The average stay of a PIN in foster care was 4 months, and most PINS
returned home. Yet, most PINS returned home without having received the services that would
alter their behavior. Additionally, when parents filed a second PINS petition, their child was
more likely to be remanded to detention. Several projects are being implemented to remedy
these problems.
Erie County, New York has recently innovated its system for handling 16 and 17 year old
status offenders. Instead of adjudicating the youth, the county refers the family to a program of
early intervention and mediation that has prevented many older youth from actually being
adjudicated PINS at all.73 New York’s Division of Criminal Justice Services is also working
collaboratively with the Division of Probation to fund a ―wraparound service intervention
model‖ to avoid the use of detention and out-of-home placement for status offenders. This new
model would be an enhancement to New York’s PINS Adjustment Services Program, which has
69
New York State Youth Court Program Fact Sheet. New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, George Pataki,
Governor & Chauncey Parker, Director. http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/ofpa/ycfactsheet.htm (Spring 2002).
70
Website of New York State Unified Court System, Third Judicial District.
http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/3jd/family/pins/pins.htm and http://www.nycourts.gov/4jd/essex/pins_.html.
71
The Oct./Nov. 2001 edition of Vera’s Youth Justice Program newsletter contains a brief article regarding NY’s
change in the age for PINS on p. 3 at http://www.vera.org/publication_pdf/just_cause_oct_nov_2001.pdf.
72
New York State Unified Court System Website, supra footnote 1, at ―2001 Juvenile Delinquency and PINS.‖
73
December 16, 2003 phone interview with Sarah Mogulescu, Consultant with the Vera Institute of Justice.
66
already mandated interagency review of PINS cases so that PINS may be diverted from court
and given community-based services whenever possible.74 The PINS Adjustment Services
Program exists in 38 jurisdictions with state certification to offer an alternative legal processing
to Family Court. Participating agencies in the new ―wraparound‖ model would receive funding
called ―PINS Wrap Around Service Dollars‖ to provide comprehensive, community-based
services that focus on the strengths of a youth and family and use interagency service teams to
deliver highly individualized services. This ―wraparound‖ approach is contrasted with the
traditional juvenile justice "categorical" model where youth are usually referred to appropriate
pre-existing programs.75
Orange County, New York has developed a system in which status offenders and their
families are fully diverted from the courts and referred to Family Keys, a privately contracted
service agency that provides intensive family intervention, treatment and other services. The
goal of the Family Keys program is to release families from their involvement with the program
in between 2 and 3 weeks. Orange County has discovered that most PINS don’t require
adjudication at all when working with trained staff at Family Keys.76
Vera staff are consulting with many other New York counties about changing the
treatment of PINS. Vera has educated these counties about a ―respite center” model--- a less
expensive, more sound alternative to foster care for PINS. In respite care, parents maintain
custody while youth enter a facility that involves the whole family in mediation aimed at quick
reunification, placement with relatives, or independent living. Following a respite stay of 21
days or less, families will receive follow-up services to help resolve the underlying problems.
[NOTE: Please see the last section of this memo for details about “respite care.”]77
New York is also considering replacing family court jurisdiction for status offenders with
an array of community-based services and police authority over runaways, which could require
legislative and procedural changes and a redistribution of state agency funds. This change was
recently made in Illinois and would save an estimated $9 to $12 million in court costs, even
though preventive services would cost approximately $5 to $6 million. New York has also been
advised by its consultants at the Vera Institute of Justice to discourage case flow through
additional diversion and adjustment programs. Vera staff note that while requiring changes in
probation and assessments, this proposal would require additional resources, and any
reductions in costs for the existing population would likely be offset by the increase in
cases. Other possible courses of action include expanding court jurisdiction to PINS, at high
costs to the state and with the possibility of eroding parental authority, and maintaining the
current system while supporting new needs. Vera estimates that this last option would cost at
least $29 to $44 million, as a conservative estimate, and that the need for resources for
74
Emerging Strategies and Models, Juvenile Justice Journal, Vol 7, No. 1 (April 2000) (available at
www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/jjjnl_2000_4/youth_3.html)
75
Program Abstract: PINS Wraparound Services. New York Division of Criminal Justice Services website,
http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/ofpa/pdfdocs/wasd2.pdf.
76
December 16, 2003 phone interview with Sarah Mogulescu, Consultant with the Vera Institute of Justice.
77
Vera’s 2002 study of the PINS system (A Study of the PINS System in New York City: Results and Implications,
by Eric Weingartner, Andrea Weitz, Ajay Khashu, Robert Hope, and Megan Golden) can be found at
http://www.vera.org/publication_pdf/159_243.pdf; An earlier comprehensive study of the PINS system and its
capabilities for change, entitled Changing the PINS System in New York: A Study of the Implications of Raising
the Age Limit for Persons in Need of Supervision (PINS), by Jesse Souweine and Ajay Khashu, can be found at
http://www.vera.org/publication_pdf/pins_report.pdf.
67
detention and placement might detract from the possibility of saving money through
family-based adjustment and preventative services, which could be cheaper. (For example,
it costs $64,000 per year to place one youth in NYC in foster care, but preventive services to 10
families could be provided at $6,200 per family78).
North Carolina and “Undisciplined” Juveniles
North Carolina’s treatment of status offenders is notably harsher than New York’s. The
North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention administers most
status offender services, overseeing some detention facilities, intake screening, probation,
commitment, and aftercare. Before 1998, the Administrative Office of the Courts' Juvenile
Services Division and the Department of Health and Human Services' Division of Youth
Services handled such matters. North Carolina status offenders are called ―undisciplined
juveniles.‖ They are habitual truants, runaways, or unruly youth between 6 (six) and 17 years
old. 16 and 17 year olds only qualify if they are ―regularly disobedient. . .beyond the
disciplinary control of‖ a guardian, if they have run away for over 24 hours, or if they are
―regularly found in places where it is unlawful for a juvenile to be.‖ They also must not have
been convicted of other offenses. Juvenile courts of each Judicial District have jurisdiction over
undisciplined youth, and their jurisdiction continues until it is terminated by a court order, until
the youth reaches age 18 years, or at the youth’s emancipation. The juvenile court also has
jurisdiction over guardians of undisciplined juveniles [N.C.G.S.A. §7B- Subchapter 2, Article
15-16].
Combined screening and processing of status offenders and delinquents: A
―juvenile court counselor‖ is assigned to screen all youth in a district when there is a complaint
that may potentially render the youth a delinquent or undisciplined juvenile. The same court
counselor handles both delinquency and undisciplined juvenile petitions, and the steps for
inquiry into complaints are the same for both types of offenders. A juvenile court counselor
conducts an ―intake‖ and a ―preliminary inquiry‖ to determine if a complaint will be filed as a
petition, whether diversion is appropriate, or whether there should be no further action. The
counselor must gather information through interviews with the complainant, the victim, the
youth, the youth’s guardian, and others who know the youth and her family. However, the
counselor is forbidden from engaging in ―field investigations
. . .to produce supplementary evidence‖ [N.C.G.S.A. §7B-1702 through 1706].
Diversion options, and services: When a juvenile counselor deems that
diversion is best for a youth about whom a complaint is filed, she may direct the youth to an
array of services and programs, such as public or private community-based programs,79
―restitution, community service, victim-offender mediation, regimented physical training,
counseling,‖ or a ―teen court program.‖ If the youth and counselor choose, they may also enter
into a ―diversion contract‖ upon the youth’s diversion. A ―diversion contract‖ states specific
courses of action that youth and parents will take, is valid for no longer than 6 months, and states
that any violation by the youth will result in the filing of the complaint as a formal
―undisciplined juvenile‖ petition [N.C.G.S.A. §7B-1702 through 1706].
78
Ibid, page 35-38.
79
For more information on the numerous services for North Carolina ―undisciplined youth,‖ go to the Website of North
Carolina Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (available at
http://www.juvjus.state.nc.us/interprev_services/ip_index.htm).
68
North Carolina Teen Courts serve diverted status offenders and other minor offenders.
Adult volunteers train youth volunteers to act as court officials and determine appropriate
sanctions (usually community service or restitution). If the youth agrees, the juvenile court
counselor may enter into a ―diversion contract‖ with the youth and his or her guardian. Teen
Courts were first funded in 1990 through a $30,000 appropriation from the North Carolina
General Assembly and later expanded by a Juvenile Crime Prevention Council grant of $11,286.
80
The Governor’s One on One Program also serves diverted status offenders. It receives both
state and federal grants and provides technical assistance, training, monitoring and funding for
local program coordinators who recruit, screen and match adult volunteers who spend at least
four hours a week for one year in a one to one relationship with a troubled youth. 52 such
programs exist among North Carolina’s 62 counties, and the 669 youth who completed the
program in the 1999-00 school year had some notably favorable outcomes: They were
suspended from school 67 percent less than in the previous year, and were referred to juvenile
court 89 percent less than in the previous year. In addition, only 1.49 percent were committed to
the training school, and 93 percent were actively enrolled in school.81
Enforcement: If diversion is deemed inappropriate and an ―undisciplined
juvenile‖ petition has been formally filed, the court summonses the juvenile and their guardian,
requiring them to appear for a hearing. The summons notifies all parties that if the adjudicatory
hearing reveals that the petition’s allegations are true, a dispositional hearing will follow. At
dispositional hearings, the court can affect guardianship; require medical, psychiatric,
psychological, or other treatment for the youth and can also require the guardian to participate in
treatment. The court may also order the parent to pay attorney’s fees and the cost of the
juvenile’s stay in any residence outside of their home [N.C.G.S.A. §7B- Subchapter 2, Article
17-18].
Detention and Confinement: North Carolina’s status offenders may
be taken into temporary custody without a court order by ―a law enforcement officer or a
juvenile court counselor‖ if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the juvenile is an
undisciplined juvenile. Additionally, court-ordered secure custody may be chosen for a status
offender when he has run away and is ―inappropriate for non-secure custody placement or
refuses non-secure custody.‖ Such youth can be in secure custody ―for up to 24 hours, excluding
Saturdays, Sundays, and State holidays, or where circumstances require, for a period not to
exceed 72 hours to evaluate‖ their medical or psychiatric needs, and to facilitate family
reunification. Allegedly undisciplined juveniles can also be detained when failing ―to appear in
court after proper notice,‖ but they must be ―brought to court as soon as possible‖ and ―in no
event. . .held more than 24 hours, excluding [the aforementioned days]‖ and never for more than
72 hours [N.C.G.S.A. §7B- Subchapter 2, Article 19].
A Multipurpose Juvenile Home Program provides secure non-institutional alternatives to
secure detention and Youth Development Centers (formerly training schools) in North Carolina.
The program was included in the juvenile justice portion of the 1990 Prison Bond Referendum
providing capital construction funding for the first six homes. Funding for four new homes was
authorized by the 1998 General Assembly as part of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act. A
Methodist organization has most recently ―won the competitive bidding process for five of the
80
Teen Court, Website of North Carolina Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (available at
http://www.juvjus.state.nc.us/interprev_services/programs/teen_court.htm, viewed on Dec. 13, 2003).
81
Governor’s One on One, Website of North Carolina Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (available at
http://www.juvjus.state.nc.us/interprev_services/ip_index.htm).
69
original homes.‖ Of youth in the 6 homes operated between 1999-00, 94 percent enrolled in
school upon program completion. State officials note that the program reduced referrals to
juvenile court by 94 percent, reduced out of school suspensions by 68 percent, and reduced
runaway behavior by 96 percent‖82.
Assuring quality treatment and services: Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils in each
North Carolina county partner with the larger juvenile justice administration. These Councils’
board members are appointed by the county Board of Commissioners and their monthly
meetings are open to the public. The state Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Administration allocates $23 million dollars to these councils annually, to subsidize local
programs. Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils must: review the needs of youth at risk of
delinquency or who have been adjudicated undisciplined or delinquent, review the resources
available to address those needs, prioritize community risk factors, determine the services needed
to address those problems areas, develop a request for proposal for needed services, submit a
funding plan to county commissioners, evaluate program performance, increase public awareness
of the causes of delinquency and strategies to reduce the problem, develop strategies to
intervene, respond to and treat the needs of juveniles at risk of delinquency, provide funds for
treatment, counseling, or rehabilitation services.83
Prevention as crime fighting: North Carolina is one of many states funding prevention
programs as a way of reducing juvenile crime. In February 1994 Governor Hunt included a
special initiative entitled "Support Our Students" (SOS) in the Crime Package he proposed to the
Special Legislative Session on Crime. The initial appropriation of $5 million was followed by
―expansion funding‖ the next year. Between 1999 and 2000, 202 ―Support Our Students‖ (SOS)
sites were initiated with over 700 paid staff and 1,000 volunteers serving over 11,300 students.
The goals of the SOS Initiative are reducing juvenile crime, reducing the number of youth
unsupervised after school, utilizing community volunteers as role models, improving academic
performance, and coordinating existing resources to youth. This after-school initiative provides
activities through grants to public and private community-based organizations. Services like
homework help, organized clubs and athletic activities are included. The SOS Program’s
success is touted by North Carolina officials. An ―analysis of End of Grade test scores
documented that low-performing students made the greatest academic gains,‖ and ―the mean
core Grade Point Average for SOS participants increased from 2.58 in 1998-99 to 2.63 in 1999-
00,‖ and as ―about 50 percent of the SOS participants who read at level 1. . .improved by at least
one level . . .‖84
82
Multipurpose Juvenile Home, Website of North Carolina Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
(available at http://www.juvjus.state.nc.us/interprev_services/programs/multipurpose.htm).
83
JCPC Overview, Website of North Carolina Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (available
at http://www.juvjus.state.nc.us/Crime_Prevention/jcpc_overview.htm, Viewed Dec. 10, 2003).
84
Support Our Students, ,Website of the NC Juvenile Justice and Delinq. Prevention Administration,
http://www.juvjus.state.nc.us/interprev_services/programs/sos.htm (Dec. 2003)
70
Several unique systems for handling status offenders in states where 16 and 17 year olds
are “juveniles” are examined briefly here:
Illinois, New Mexico, Louisiana, Montana and Nevada –
Diversion as the default rule
New York is contemplating the implementation of changes similar to those recently made
in Illinois. The National Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention notes that
Illinois’ system of status offender handling is a model for other states. Illinois calls its status
offenders ―Minors Requiring Authoritative Intervention.‖ The first time Illinois juveniles are
taken into limited custody, they begin a 21-day family reconciliation period, with crisis
intervention and emergency, voluntary residential placement services provided by the
Department of Children and Family Services through community service providers. The second
through fourth time a status offender is taken into limited custody, 5 days must elapse before the
child can be adjudicated. The fifth or subsequent time, the youth can be adjudicated as requiring
authoritative intervention without any waiting period or services being offered.85 New Mexico,
Louisiana, Montana and Nevada have similar programs, wherein diversion is the default
whenever a status offender is referred to the court.
Pennsylvania and Washington – no adjudication for status offenders
Respondents to a Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention survey in Pennsylvania and Washington State asserted that children are no longer
adjudicated for status offenses in those states.86
In April, 2004, the Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance will be holding a forum
that will feature Judge Jim Street of Seattle’s Reinvesting in Youth Initiative and Judge
Emmanuel Cassimatis of Pennsylvania’s Balanced and Restorative Justice Program. These
speakers can provide more information about the thoroughly non-judicial handling of
status offenders in Washington and Pennsylvania. The forum is entitled “Our Broken
Home: Mending Connecticut’s Juvenile Justice System” and it will be held at the
Legislative Office Building. Following the forum, law student interns can further research
changes made in these states at the Implementation Team’s request.
California – formal diversion assessments for all status offenders
In California, status offenders are within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and may be
made a ward of the court [Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 601]. They may be detained only briefly in
secure institutions and must be segregated from delinquent youths. If directed by the court, they
must be placed in a non-secure setting. Minors 6-16 years old are required to attend school full
time [Cal. Educ. Code §§ 48200-48224], and those 16-18 years old must attend school part time,
four hours per week if employed and 15 hours per week if not employed, where continuation
programs are available [Cal. Educ. Code §§ 48400 & 48402].
85
Challenge Activities Program Areas, Challenge Activity G, U.S. DEPT. OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE
AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION (1994).
86
Children in Custody Questionnaire Redesign Project.. U.S. DEPT. OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND
DELINQUENCY PREVENTION. Available at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/custody/vi.html. (1994 was the most recent data
available)
71
A key feature of California’s system for handling status offenders is the requirement that
all status offenders receive the option of diversion from juvenile court (to community programs).
Notably, diversion may occur only after a systematic evaluation process. A status offender’s
age, maturity, personal and family attitudes, and the availability of community resources must all
be considered for each status offender to determine whether diversion is appropriate [Cal. Rules
of Court, Rule 1405].
New Hampshire and Louisiana – “least restrictive” disposition requirement
These two states require that courts impose ―the least restrictive‖ disposition consistent
with the circumstances of the case, the needs of the child, and the best interest of society. [LSA-
Ch.C. Art. 781 and N.H. Rev. Stat. §169-D:17]
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL STATUS OFFENDER
TREATMENT AND ENFORCEMENT
Federal limits on status offender detention and confinement
The Federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) was originally enacted in
1974. The 2002 version of the JJDPA mandates that status offenders, non-offenders, and civil-type juvenile
offenders must not be detained or confined in secure detention or correctional facilities except in ―rare
situations. . .prior to formal juvenile court action for investigative purposes, for identification purposes, or for
the purpose of allowing return to the juvenile’s. . .guardian. . .[or]. . .to arrange for appropriate shelter care
placement.‖ However, the JJDPA states that status offenders can only be held ―up to 24 hours, exclusive of
weekends and legal holidays, prior to an initial court appearance and for an additional 24 hours, exclusive of
[the same days] immediately following an initial court appearance.‖
Status offenders failing to appear in court ―cannot be upgraded to delinquent[s] . . .for
their failure to appear [and]. . .cannot be securely detained after adjudication unless. . .[they]
have violated a valid court order. . .given. . .to a juvenile. . .brought before the court. . .who
received, before the issuance of the order, the full due process rights guaranteed to such juvenile
by the Constitution. . .” Additionally, even ―status offenders who violate a. . .court order cannot
be held securely in an adult jail or lockup for any length of time.‖ The Act requires that upon a
status offender’s violation of a court order, detention is only permissible when ―an appropriate
public agency [was] promptly notified that the juvenile is held in custody,‖ when ―an authorized
representative of the agency. . . interviews. . .the juvenile. . .not later than 24 hours during which
the juvenile is held,‖ and when the agency ―representative submits an assessment to the court that
issued the order regarding the immediate needs of the juvenile; and the court conduct[s] a
[probable cause] hearing [regarding] violat[ion of] the order and . . .appropriate placement. .
.pending disposition of the alleged violation
. . .not later than 48 hours during which the juvenile is held.‖ 87
Furthermore, while ―some status offenses, such as alcohol possession or use and restrictions on
possession of firearms, may be illegal acts for a narrow class of young adults, e.g., 18- to 21-year-olds,” the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) notes that that ―does not change their
87
Guidance Manual for Monitoring Facilities Under the JJDPA of 2002, U.S. DEPT. OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION, page 20-23, available at
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/compliance/ (viewed on Dec. 11, 2003).
72
character as status offenses.‖ However, ―the 1992 Amendments [to the JJDPA] exclude handgun possession
violations from the statutory restriction on detention of status offender juveniles.‖88
What do the states use secure detention for?
Citation: Griffin, Patrick and Bozynski, Melanie. 2003. "National Overviews." State Juvenile Justice Profiles.
Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. Online. Available: http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/.
(Updated: February 12, 2003)
States that use secure detention as a sanction for probation violations (33):
Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,
Wisconsin, Wyoming
States that use secure detention as a disposition option (32):
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New
Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
States that use secure detention solely for temporary holding purposes (14):
Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York,
North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas
Is “informal adjustment” typical? In such cases, do status offenders receive
public defenders?
While several of the states previously highlighted use full diversion as a default rule,
informal adjustment is another option. Informal adjustment of status offender cases keeps the
case within the court’s supervision but there is no formal adjudication of the youth as a ―YIC‖ or
any other such nominal designation. States such as Georgia, California, North Dakota, and
Texas all allow for informal adjustment. With informal adjustment, youth and families receive
counsel, advice, and other needed services, and the court can supervise the family’s progress.
88
Challenge Activities Program Areas: Challenge Activity G, U.S. DEPT. OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF JUVENILE
JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION STATE RELATIONS AND ASSISTANCE DIVISION, page 1-
3 (viewed on Dec. 8, 2003).
73
Due process concerns may arise, as youth have no attorneys and court treatment is informal.
Yet, most states with this option require youth to admit their involvement in the relevant offense,
and some allow informal adjustment or ―informal probation‖ as an option available to intake
officers or prosecutors who receive referrals.
Georgia has a remarkably informal system of law enforcement regarding status offenses
and low-level delinquency, and a juvenile may have ―10 or more non-serious offenses. . .handled
by warnings, but on the next offense, have the entire dossier presented to the prosecutor.‖
Additionally, in Georgia, school officials are less likely to report non-serious school offenses to
juvenile courts than serious school offenses. The state prefers to handle non-serious school
offenses informally with families.89
Texas’ First Offender Program implements informal adjustment combined with a
balanced and restorative justice philosophy. This program is available to both status offenders
and some delinquents [V.T.C.A., Family Code §52.031]. The First Offender Program allows
dispositional alternatives like voluntary restitution by the child or his family to the victim of the
child’s conduct, community service, rehabilitation, and periodic reporting to law enforcement. 90
Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Illinois also incorporate victim restitution into their juvenile
justice and status offender programs.
[See relevant state laws: A.C.A.§9-27-323; GA Code, 15-11-69; I.C. §20-511; I.C.A. §232.29;
NDCC, 27-20-10; T.C.A. §37-1-110; W.Va. Code s 49-5-3a.]. While Connecticut allows a
judge to continue a case prior to adjudication, informal adjustment is not an option very early in
the court process.
RECENT INNOVATIONS IN THE TREATMENT OF STATUS OFFENDERS
Respite care
Long stays in detention or group homes and the high cost per bed make traditional
placements the most expensive, and often the clinically least-appropriate, way for government to
respond to status offenders and their families. ―Respite care” is gaining popularity as a way of
providing less expensive, rehabilitative services designed to prevent future crises. Respite
programs involve a cooling-off period when the status offenders and families live apart for a few
days to two weeks, depending on the nature of the crisis and the program’s policies. Some
programs function through host families, while others are small centers. Even centers with just a
few beds can serve many youth annually because average stays are brief.
One program may have several entry routes depending on local laws. A program can be a
voluntary walk-in or police drop-off center for runaways, a court diversion program, or an
alternative to non-secure detention for offenders already involved in family court. One Boston
program accepts drop-ins and canvasses the city to inform runaways about shelter and services.
A San Francisco program accepts walk-ins by both youth and parents while accepting runaways
picked up by police who choose not to detain them. Washington and New York programs also
accept clients referred by child welfare agencies, school officials, and probation. Some programs
residentially separate such distinct youth populations while others do not.
89
Traveling the Ocmulgee Judicial Circuit: Juvenile Justice in Rural Georgia, by H. Ted Rubin, JUVENILE
JUSTICE UPDATE, Vol. 9, No. 5 (Oct./Nov. 2003), page 14.
90
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/implementing/contents.html.
74
Youth receive a physical exam and psychological assessment within hours after entering.
Trained counselors, families and youth meet and negotiate the terms of a unification plan will
enable children to return home on a specific a date. They schedule follow-up family meetings
and counseling sessions, defining interim goals. Any family participation must be voluntary, and
counselors meet separately with the youth and his family to discuss sources of conflict and
potential resources to manage conflict (relatives or friends willing to help care for the youth
when problems arise, and community-based programs). Youth receive individual counseling all
through the respite period.
Respite programs realize family reunification is not always optimal. In these cases,
the goal shifts to keeping youth out of a juvenile institution. If no relative will care for a younger
youth, the program contacts the local child welfare agency or refers the family to court. For
older youths, respite programs explore placing the teen in a program that prepares adolescents
for independent living. Such respite programs begin to cultivate basic life skills and a locate
places that can further develop such skills when respite ends. All respite programs are willing to
re-admit youth if another crisis occurs. The program then intensifies mediation and looks for
additional support services.
Most respite agencies typically will not admit teenagers with past histories of violence,
current involvement with the juvenile justice system, or, with the exception of Kids Oneida in
New York State, teenagers with serious mental health problems. Respite programs provide or
connect families with follow-up services to maintain and build on gains that occur during the
respite period.
Success: Most respite programs measure their success based on how many families
reunify following respite and how long kids stay before they return home or to other placements.
Most programs reported to the Vera Institute of Justice that in 70 to 80 percent of their cases,
families were reunified or youth found independent living placements in the allotted respite
period. In 2001, Huckleberry House (in San Francisco) reported that 28 percent returned at least
once. Huckleberry House may have a higher return rate because they highly encourage families
to seek repeat services. There are few comprehensive evaluations of respite programs, but
proponents note that practice shows that such programs improve family relations while
separating families for shorter time periods.
Costs: A 10-bed respite center with an average length of stay of 10 days can serve
between 300 and 350 children per year. In measuring the comparative cost it is more accurate to
focus on the cost per youth rather than the cost per day. For status offenders, or ―PINS,‖
remanded to non-secure detention in Oneida County, New York the average length of stay is 24
days and the average cost per night is $213, making the detention cost around $5,000. In
contrast, respite care at Kids Oneida costs an average of just $825 total. Kids remain in the host
home for an average of 11 days, at a cost of $75 per day. Group home respite care is more
intensive and expensive but is not nearly as costly as detention (average 11 days at $180 per day,
with average total cost per youth under $2,000). The annual cost of operating Huckleberry
House is about $775,000 (administrative costs, 24-hour supervision, and counseling. A single
night costs about $350. With an average length of stay of 7 days, the total cost per youth
averages less than $2,500). 91
91
Respite Care: A Promising Response to Status Offenders at Risk of Court-Ordered Placements, by Fiza Quraishi,
Heidi J. Segal, and Jennifer Trone, THE VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE,
http://www.vera.org/publication_pdf/196_376.pdf. (Dec. 2002)
75
Costs of Respite Care Programs Versus Detention
Type of Care Average LOS Average Daily Cost Total Cost
Respite with host 11 days $75 $825
homes
Group home respite 11 days $180 <$2000
Huckleberry House 7 days $350 <$2,500
Detention 24 days $213 $5,000
The 4 respite programs in effect nationally are:
BOSTON: Bridge Over Troubled Waters - encourages a family to meet at home
for respite counseling sessions. Tracks families for six weeks to three months following
reunification.
SAN FRANCISCO: Huckleberry House - 199 youth. Kids never left
unsupervised. Individual and group therapy, health care, sports and other recreational activities,
classroom education for youth not enrolled in school. Three to five mediation sessions during
the weeks following reunification.
SPOKANE, WA: YFA Connections – strict schedule. Daily activities include all
those listed above for Huckleberry House plus supervised peer discussions about AIDS,
substance use, peer pressure, and parenting. Provides bus tokens for youth enrolled in school
and monitors their attendance.
NEW YORK STATE: Kids Oneida – all families have an open child welfare case
& thus get access to slots in agency programs under contract with the county department of
social services (parenting classes, in-home therapy and counseling, mentoring and recreational
programs, and substance abuse treatment).
Heavily Funded Diversion Efforts – Missouri and Tennessee
Missouri’s Juvenile Court Diversion Program (JCD) is designed to encourage
development of local youth services while diverting youth from commitment to the Division of
Youth Services (DYS). JCD is a grant-in-aid program. It sends an annual announcement to
Juvenile Courts encouraging them to submit a project proposal, which is then ranked based on
various factors. Typical projects include: intensive probation, community group counseling,
individual and family counseling, purchase of group and foster care, alternative educational
services, family preservation services, and day treatment programming. Status offenders are
commonly matched with day treatment programs. JCD allow local juvenile courts to create
specific solutions to problems unique to their communities. The annual costs to divert a youth
through services provided by JCD programs in fiscal 1997 was $1,395. This compares to annual
cost of $33,402 to place a juvenile offender in a DYS community-based residential program.
Tennessee implements a similar program as part of "Continuum of Care" contracts, which its
Department of Children’s Services uses to focus on timely family reunification and youth
development.92
92
State Juvenile Justice Expenditures and Innovations, The National Assoc. of State Budget Officers, (Available at
http://www.nasbo.org/Publications/information_briefs/juvenile_expend_1999.html) (1999).
76
Prevention
Overview of prevention programs: Prevention programs perceive that creative
community services, a stable home support system, safe communities, proper educational
opportunities, and youth recreational activities can eliminate juvenile crime. Most states have
implemented prevention programs, often with remarkable success. Many such programs receive
annual funding from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. For more information on successful prevention programs, including drug education,
youth development, mentoring, and innovative therapies, go to the website of the Center for the
Study and Prevention of Violence at the University of Colorado, Boulder, at
http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/index.html. This site examines 600 youth crime
prevention programs. The website of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention also highlights successful prevention programs. The ―Programs‖
link to this site can be found at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/programs/programs.html.
Truancy and prevention: Prevention programs also often emphasize the fact that
parents are responsible for a youth’s failure to regularly attend school. Approaches to Truancy
Prevention was written by the Vera Institute of Justice to advise New York on how to prevent
youth from becoming PINS, how to use truancy-related diversion programs as alternatives to
formal PINS petition filing, and how to utilize truancy-related programs once a PINS petition is
filed. The report examines successful truancy-related programs for status offenders at various
stages of adjudication in Ohio, Florida, Minnesota, California, Arizona, Georgia, and Colorado.93
93
Approaches to Truancy Prevention (by Sara Mogulescu and Heidi J. Segal)
http://www.vera.org/publication_pdf/197_377.pdf. (Oct. 2002)
77
REPORT 5: JUVENILE JURISDICTION AGE CHANGE
IN OTHER STATES
By statute, juveniles can be tried and sentenced as adults in all 50 states. Along
with the federal government, states have responded to the public's outrage at
juvenile crime by revising their transfer statutes to make it easier to transfer,
waive, refer, remand, or certify (collectively hereafter "transfer") juveniles for
trial and sentencing in criminal court. Real or perceived increases in juvenile
crime have triggered statutory changes in state transfer laws that are designed to
satisfy societal concerns, increase the efficiency and impact of the juvenile justice
system, and curb further growth in juvenile crime rates.i
The changes in state transfer laws have increased the pool of eligible juveniles by
lowering the age requirement and expanding the list of transferable crimes, or by
eliminating some factors judges must consider before transferring. For example,
many states no longer require that to be transferred, the juvenile must first be
found "unamenable to treatment" in the juvenile system. Virtually all states have
set the minimum transfer age at 14 or younger, and many states now require
transfer for juveniles who commit violent felonies such as murder, rape, or armed
robbery. Several states now allow children of any age to be transferred for most
crimes, and nationwide, the number of younger juveniles being transferred has
increased.ii
In states like Virginia, if the criminal court imposes a juvenile disposition, the
finding of guilt is not a criminal conviction but is considered an adjudication of
delinquency and that none of the "civil disabilities ordinarily resulting from a
conviction" operate VA CODE § 16.1-308. See also, Florida Statutes Annotated,
§ 985.233(4)(b) (1997); Minnesota Statutes Annotated, § 260.211(1)(a)(19).
Thus, in these states, the criminal court effectively functions as the juvenile court
when it exercises its discretion to impose a juvenile sentence.iii
As of the end of the 2002 legislative sessions, 23 states have at least one provision
for transferring juveniles to criminal court for which no minimum age is
specified. (Note that other statutory provisions in these states may specify a
minimum age for delinquency jurisdiction, below which a child cannot even be
treated as a delinquent in juvenile court, and/or a minimum age for criminal
responsibility, below which no one is considered capable of committing a crime.)
Of the remainder, minimum ages ranging from 10 to 15 are specified.iv
o No minimum age (23 states)
Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,
Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin
o Age 10 (2 states)
Kansas and Vermont
78
o Age 12 (3 states)
Colorado, Missouri, Montana
o Age 13 (6 states)
Illinois, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina,
Wyoming
o Age 14 (16 states)
Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey,
North Dakota, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Virginia
o Age 15 (1 state)
New Mexico
All states allow adult criminal prosecution of juveniles under some circumstances.
The most common mechanism for transferring juveniles to adult criminal court is
the judicial waiver: as of the end of the 2002 legislative sessions, there are 46
states that authorize or require juvenile court judges to waive jurisdiction over
individual cases involving minors, so as to allow prosecution in adult criminal
courts. Statutes in 15 states give prosecutors discretion to file certain kinds of
cases in juvenile or criminal court. And 29 states have laws that exclude certain
kinds of cases from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and require that they be
tried in criminal court.v
A total of 31 states made substantive changes to their laws governing the criminal
prosecution and sentencing of juveniles during the five-year period from 1998 to
2002. In general, the changes tended to expand the reach of these laws. But
legislative activity was less frequent and less dramatic during the 1998-2002
period (especially during the latter years of the period) than in the years 1992
through 1997, when nearly all states took significant steps to toughen up their
laws in this area, and many rewrote them completely.vi
Eighteen states expanded their transfer laws in some way from 1998 through
2002. By far the most comprehensive movement in this direction took place in
California, where Proposition 21, approved by voters in March of 2000, not only
added a number of broad new categories of juveniles eligible for prosecution in
criminal courts, but also established entirely new direct file and exclusion
mechanisms for initiating such prosecutions.vii
By comparison, expansions in most other states were minor, usually consisting of
the addition of new items to the lists of transfer-eligible offenses. But New Jersey
created a new mandatory waiver mechanism for some 16-year-olds, in addition to
greatly expanding its existing discretionary and presumptive waiver provisions
applicable to juveniles of at least 14. Likewise, Maine created a new category of
presumptive waiver offenses. Three states (Illinois, Maryland, and North
Carolina) added "once an adult, always an adult" provisions, under which
juveniles who have previously been tried as adults are automatically excluded
from juvenile court jurisdiction thereafter.viii
79
On the other hand, an amendment to Iowa law designated one offense-animal
torture, at least when committed by a juvenile under 17-that cannot be judicially
waived, effectively (if only slightly) narrowing the scope of the state's otherwise
broad discretionary waiver provision. Iowa was among the six states that took
steps in this direction. Most were small steps. For instance, Louisiana removed
aggravated oral sexual battery from the list of offenses subject to (depending on
the juvenile's age at commission) discretionary waiver or direct file. But Arkansas
and Wyoming, in amending their direct file laws, went somewhat further. The
Arkansas amendment cut back the number of crimes that had been subject to
criminal prosecution at the prosecutor's option-for instance, removing all
attempts, solicitations, and conspiracies to commit covered crimes. And Wyoming
narrowed the coverage of its direct file law where 17-year-olds are concerned,
removing all non-felony cases.ix
Arkansas
Legislative changes in 1999x
o Children convicted under extended juvenile jurisdiction (EJJ), or blended
sentencing, would first be confined to a juvenile facility until six months
before their 18th birthday or until they violated the terms of their juvenile
sentence. At that point the judge would hold a hearing to determine if an
adult sentence should be imposed or, if the child was rehabilitated, a lesser
sentence could be imposed or the child could be released from custody.
Youth under fourteen years of age are subject to blended sentences for
capital and first degree murder only. Youth 14 and 15 years of age are
eligible for blended sentencing for capital murder, murder in the first
degree, kidnapping, aggravated robbery, rape, battery in the first degree,
and Terroristic acts. This law also allows for children convicted of first
degree or capital murder to receive a sentence of up to life in prison.
o This new law states that children 14 and older would be presumed
competent to stand trial for capital and first degree murder. Youth under
13 would be presumed incompetent to stand trial for these two offenses,
and the burden to prove competence would be placed on the state. For
youth 13 years of age the burden would be on the defense to prove
incompetence. An important standard of competency has been established
under this new law. Unlike previous competency requirements, this new
law requires an in-depth and thorough assessment of mental and judicial
competency. This includes social, clinical and developmental history and
the sources from which this information was obtained. Competency also
includes mental status data, psychological testing, comprehensive
intelligence tests, a reliable episodic memory, logical decision making
abilities and multi-factored problem solving. These are among the most
comprehensive competency requirements in the county and will assure
that only those youth with full adult-like capacities will be found
competent.
80
o Act 1030 requires that juveniles committed to DYS to be segregated by
age and the seriousness of the offense.
o Act 1272 requires DYS to establish a facility for juvenile offenders
between the ages of 18 to 21, if funding is available.
Kansas
From the Office of the Johnson County District Attorney (available at
http://courts.jocoks.com/da_juv_jjp.htm (last accessed on December 17, 2003)).
o In 1997, the laws were effectively changed in Kansas so as to raise
juvenile court jurisdiction from age 21 to age 23.
o More juveniles were made subject to waiver to adult status. In some cases,
juveniles are presumed waived to adult status and must convince the court
to treat them as juveniles.
Minnesota
From the Minnesota Department of Corrections: An adult constitutes any
individual age 18 or older not classified as an Extended Jurisdiction Juvenile (EJJ)
or Certified Adult (CA). A CA is a juvenile who was certified by the court to
stand trial as an adult. CAs, when incarcerated, serve their sentence in an adult
correctional facility. An EJJ is a juvenile 14 to 17 years old who receives both a
juvenile and adult sentence. If the juvenile violates the conditions of the juvenile
sentence, the adult sentence may be imposed. A juvenile is an offender who was
at least 12 but less than 18 years old at the time of offense. However, juvenile
jurisdiction continues until age 19.
New Hampshire
July 2003: A task force report submitted to the governor and state legislators
recommends raising the age at which teens are treated as adults in the criminal
justice system from 17 to 18. Besides raising the age of criminal responsibility to
18, the task force also recommends: extending jurisdiction in the juvenile justice
system until one year past age 18; asking the Department of Juvenile Justice
Services to expand or realign services and resources; and asking the courts to
review the certification process to address the concerns of law enforcement. The
task force report suggests that 17-year-olds are not developed enough emotionally
or psychologically to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system. Other
officials who work in the trenches of the juvenile justice system say the threat of
adult consequences doesn’t deter young offenders. In fact, judges overall are
hesitant to send 17-year-olds to adult jails except for the most serious of crimes.xi
Director of the state Division for Juvenile Justice Services and head of the Youth
Development Center, Joe Diament projected that if the recommendation to treat
17-year-olds as juveniles is approved, it would be 2006 before it would become
law, which coincides with the date of a proposed expansion at the Youth
Development Center’s Manchester facility.xii
House Bill 25 is a package of funding for the $33 million expansion, which
includes $13.4 million in federal funds. Implementing the suggested age change
would have minimal impact on the physical resources, Diament said.xiii
81
Ohio
Juvenile Justice Plan Summary Prepared by Ohio Criminal Sentencing Staff in
August 2000 has made these proposals, which were to have been incorporated
into the state’s legislation through the committee process. (See
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Communications_Office/Press_Releases/1999/jjpla
n.htm (last accessed on December 17, 2003).)
o The Commission favors expanding the law's purposes to cover protecting
the public interest and safety, restoring the victim, and holding the
offender accountable, as well as rehabilitating the juvenile.
o Today when a juvenile commits a felony, a judge has two options: keep
the offender in the juvenile system, possibly until age 21, or transfer
(bindover) the individual to the adult system if he or she is older than 14
and not "amenable" to the juvenile system. Transfer is mandatory for
certain serious crimes, often tying judges' hands. The proposal would
reduce the number of crimes that carry mandatory bindovers to adult
court. However, it would substitute three ideas new to Ohio law: blended
(serious youthful offender) sentencing, extended jurisdiction, under which
certain serious offenders could be held in juvenile facilities and programs
until age 25 (rather than being released by age 21, as present law requires),
and presumed bindover, which reverses the current discretionary bindover
procedure (juvenile would be automatically transferred to adult court,
unless there is a good reason not to).
o The minimum age for commitment to a Department of Youth Services
facility would drop from 12 years (at admission) to 10 years (at the time of
the offense).
o The Sentencing Commission staff estimates that the package would add
292 juveniles in DYS facilities over a two-year period. To cover the costs,
the Commission recommends that an additional $14.2 million be added to
the next state budget.
Wisconsin
July 1996: Juvenile code applies to children from age 10 to 17. Previous age
limits: 12 to 18. Children as young as 10 can be prosecuted in adult court for
murder.xiv
No waiver necessary for juvenile accused of attempting or committing murder.
Adult court takes original jurisdiction. Juvenile can be waived for any offense at
age 15 instead of 16. Under "once waived, always waived," adult court retains
jurisdiction over any youth who was previously waived from juvenile court and
has committed a new offense. However, judge can return a youth to juvenile court
under so-called reverse waiver provision.xv
82
Jury trials eliminated and judicial substitution severely restricted. Courts granted
many dispositional alternatives, including home detention or placement in a
secure detention facility for 30 days, if a county board approves sentencing
option.xvi
New York (Youth Offender Status)
A youthful offender (YO) is an individual between the ages of 16 and 18 who is
charged with a misdemeanor or felony, or one who is 13, 14, or 15 years old and
is charged as a juvenile offender (Criminal Procedure Law, Article 720).
However, such an individual is ineligible for YO treatment if he/she:
o is charged with a Class A-I or Class A-II felony, or with an armed
felony offense, first-degree rape, first-degree sodomy, or aggravated
sexual abuse (unless certain mitigating factors exist);
o was previously convicted and sentenced for a felony; or
o was previously adjudicated as a YO for a felony or as a juvenile
delinquent who committed a designated felony act.xvii
YO status is granted to minimize damage to a youth's reputation caused by the
stigma of having a criminal record. YOs are tried in adult criminal court and are
subject to less severe sanctions, including shorter prison terms, than those
imposed on adults. Records in YO cases are considered confidential, and a YO
conviction cannot be considered by the courts in subsequent cases for sentencing
purposes. The YO status is substituted for the conviction charges, thus sealing the
accusatory instrument brought against the youth and allowing the youth to say
he/she has not been convicted of a crime. It does not, however, preclude the court
from imposing a sentence authorized for the offense, including imprisonment.
The determination to impose YO status is at the discretion of the court, unless the
youth is convicted in a local criminal court and has no prior convictions or YO
adjudication, in which case YO treatment is mandatory. According to the most
recent figures from the State Division of Criminal Justice Services, there were
11,189 YO adjudications in 1996.xviii
In an effort to stem violent juvenile crime, a 1998 bill was passed by the Senate
to restrict eligibility for YO treatment for youths who are convicted of any Class
B violent felony offense (S. 539, Passed Senate). In 1996, a measure was
enacted to include orders of protection issued in YO cases in the statewide
registry of orders of protection (Chapter 217, L. 1996). This measure provides
law enforcement with confidential information necessary for the adjudication and
enforcement of such orders of protection or temporary orders of protection.xix
83
REPORT 6
JUVENILE RIGHTS TO JURY TRIAL AND BAIL
IN OTHER STATES
I. Right to Jury Trial
The following states (18 total) provide juveniles with some right to a jury trial in
juvenile proceedings (either in juvenile court or a trial court sitting in juvenile
session). This concept is distinct from transfer provisions, which are not included
for the purposes of this list. I have grouped the states in terms of maximum age of
juvenile court jurisdiction. Sources include Janet E. Ainsworth, The Court’s
Effectiveness in Protecting the Rights of Juveniles in Delinquency Cases, The
Future of Children: The Juvenile Court, Winter 1996, at 64; Jeffrey K. Day,
Comment, Juvenile Justice in Washington: A Punitive System in Need of
Rehabilitation, 16 Puget Sound L. Rev. 399 (1992); Due to the age of these
sources, I have augmented this research with verification of current state statutes.
o States with a maximum age of 17 (14 states)
Alaska (Alaska Stat. § 47.12.110)
Arkansas (Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-501)
Colorado (Colo Rev. Stat. Ann. § 19-2-516)
Kansas (Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-1636)
Massachusetts (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 119 § 54)
Minnesota (Minn. Stat. § 260B.130)
Montana (Montana Rev. Code Ann § 41-5-1607)
New Mexico (N.M. Children's Ct. Rule 10-228)
Ohio (Oh. Rev. Code § 2152.13)
Oklahoma (Okla. St. tit. 10 § 7303-4.1)
South Dakota (S.D. Codified Laws § 15-6-38(a))
Tennessee (Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-129)
West Virginia (W. Va. Code § 49-5-6)
Wyoming (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-6-223)
o States with a maximum age of 16 (4 states):
Illinois (705 Ill. Comp. Stat. 405/5-810)
Michigan (Mich. Comp. Laws § 712A.17)
Texas (Tex. Fam. Code § 54.03)
Wisconsin (Limited situations only. See In re Hezzie R., 219 Wis.
2d 849, 580 N.W.2d 660 (1998)).
Six of these eighteen states permit jury trial in cases of ―extended jurisdiction
juveniles‖ – a term that gained popularity after the Jonesboro, Arkansas school
shootings. These statutes allow a juvenile court to try juveniles in a similar
manner to an adult court (including harsher penalties) without invoking transfer
84
provisions. For example, the Arkansas statute permits the juvenile court to try
juveniles under 13 for capital murder or murder in the first degree. Ark. Stat. § 9-
27-501 (2003). In 2003, the Arkansas statute was amended to allow the
procedure to apply to 16 and 17 year olds for any crime transferable to adult
court. The ―extended jurisdiction‖ states are:
o Arkansas
o Illinois
o Kansas
o Minnesota
o Montana
o Ohio (calls it ―youthful offender dispositional sentence‖)
The addition of some states to this list (such as Ohio) has been accompanied by an
increase in sentencing power of the juvenile court. In Ohio, the legislature
empowered the juvenile court to sentence children to a youth facility until the age
of 21 and an adult prison term that is stayed pending successful completion of the
juvenile disposition imposed. Oh. Rev. Code § 2152.13 (2003). The first two
trials resulted in an acquittal and a hung jury. See Marie McCain, New Juvenile
Trials Defended, Cincinnati Enquirer, Jun. 11, 2002, available at
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2002/06/11/loc_new_juvenile_trials.html.
States such as Texas and West Virginia have traditionally afforded juveniles the
right to a jury trial, due to the harshness of some of the penalties imposed by their
juvenile courts.
Massachusetts’ system is similar to the extended jurisdiction system in basically
empowering the juvenile court to conduct a full adversarial trial for a juvenile.
Charges may be brought by complaint or indictment. Mass. Gen. L. ch. 119 § 54.
Pennsylvania law permits the juvenile court to conduct hearings for acts that
would constitute specific crimes if the juvenile were an adult, but specifically
forbids trial by jury in juvenile court. Pa. Cons. Stat § 6336.
In 1996, the American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Standards for
Adjudication recommended that juveniles in ―contested adjudication proceedings‖
be afforded the right to trial by jury. This represents a change from the previous
standards.
85
II. Posting of Bail
States that do not afford juveniles the right to trial by jury generally do not permit
them to post bail. I have yet to find an example of a state where bail is permitted
without a right to a jury trial.
In the extended jurisdiction states, posting of bail, along with the other rights
extended to adult criminal defendants, is extended to designated juveniles.
Classification varies greatly by age and offense from state to state.
In states such as West Virginia and Alaska, where juveniles 17 and under are
entitled to the same rights as other criminal defendants, they are permitted to post
bail.
III. Summary
State by state variance on trial by jury and bail provisions seems to be explainable by
the particular state’s "vision" of the juvenile justice system. States which view
their role as one of "early intervention" or "rehabilitative" tend to not have a right
to trial by jury or bail, while those states that see the juvenile courts as alternate
versions of adult courts are permitting them to punish juveniles as a regular court
would, with all of the protections available in adult court. The latter "vision"
appears to be gaining increasing acceptance, particularly with the passage of the
―extended juvenile jurisdiction‖ statutes (Arkansas (1999); Illinois (2001);
Minnesota (1999); Montana (1995); Ohio (2002)).
86
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RESEARCH RESOURCES:
REPORT 1: COST SAVINGS IN NATIONAL JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM REFORM
Paul DeMuro, Consider the Alternatives: Planning and Implementing Detention Alternatives.
(http://www.aecf.org/initiatives/jdai/download.htm).
Anne E. Casey Foundation, Reducing Juvenile Incarceration in Louisiana.
(http://www.jjc.legis.state.la.us).
Richard A. Mendel, Small is Beautiful: The Missouri division of Youth Services, ADVOCACY, Spring
2003, at 35-38 (http://www.aecf.org/publications/advocasey/spring2003/index.htm).
Richard A. Mendel, Less Cost, More Safety: Guiding Lights for Reform in Juvenile Justice (2002).
(http://www.aypf.org/lesscost/index.html).
Jeffrey A. Butts & Janeen Buck, The Sudden Popularity of Teen Courts, 41 THE JUDGE’S JOURNAL,
Winter 2002. (http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=1000262).
REPORT 2: OVERVIEW ON 16 AND 17-YEAR OLDS & ASSOCIATED COSTS; PREVIOUS
JUVENILE JURISDICTION IMPLEMENTATION IN CONNECTICUT; JUVENILE JURISDICTION
IMPLEMENTATION IN OTHER STATES; RESOURCES FOR HELPING FUND CONNECTICUT’S
JUVENILE JURISDICTION IMPLEMENTATION
―Summary Statement,‖ (from informational packet distributed amongst Juvenile Jurisdiction
Implementation Team, dated Sept. 9, 2003).
Fax from DOC dated October 29, 2003. Entitled ―Connecticut Department of Correction – Research.
Department-Wide Offense Distribution.‖
G. Coppolo, Chief Attorney. Juvenile Court and Juvenile Offenders, OLR RESEARCH REPORT
NO. 2002-R-0701, (Sept. 12, 2002).
Annual Report: 2001-02, CT Dept. of Corrections: Professionalism, Respect, Integrity, Dignity,
Excellence. (JOHN G. ROWLAND – GOVERNOR, JOHN J. ARMSTRONG - COMMISSIONER).
(http://www.doc.state.ct.us/report/annualreport2002.pdf)
Connecticut FY 2003-FY 2005 Biennium Governor’s Budget Summary, (JOHN G. ROWLAND,
GOVERNOR), (Feb. 2003).
A Report to the Governor and Legislature, THE PRISON AND JAIL OVERCROWDING
COMMISSION, STATE OF CONNECTICUT. (Jan. 15, 2003).
(http://www.doc.state.ct.us/report/pjoc.pdf).
Overview of the Connecticut Juvenile Justice System JUVENILE JUSTICE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT.
(http://www.opm.state.ct.us/pdpd1/grants/jjac/JJSystem.htm - Last modified Sept. 12, 2003).
87
Press Release, CT PLANNING COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL ADMIN. (GOV. THOMAS J.
MESKILL). (June 23, 1972).
Annual Report of the Chief Public Defender. (HON. ELLA GRASSO, GOVERNOR). (Oct. 15,
1976).
Annual Report of the Chief Public Defender. (HON. ELLA GRASSO, GOVERNOR). (Dec. 1,
1978).
Juvenile Justice Reorganization Plan, (JUDICIAL BRANCH, DEPT. CHILDREN & FAMILIES,
AND THE OFFICE OF POLICY AND MANAGEMENT). (February 1, 1996).
Nancy Iredale & Paul L. Joffe, Report to the Connecticut Commission to Revise the Criminal Statute:
Courts, Corrections and the Young Offender in Connecticut. (YALE LEGISLATIVE SERVICES,
YALE LAW SCHOOL, 1970).
The Legal Rights of Children in Connecticut: A Report in Fulfillment of House Joint Resolution No.
144. THE COMMITTEE ON THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN (a Judiciary Sub-committee).
(February 1974).
Fiscal impact chart from Juvenile Justice: Selections from the CT Justice Commission’s 1978 Plan.
(THE CT. JUSTICE COMMISSION).
Ira Block, Memo to Hon. Robert Satter, Counsel to Democratic Majority, State Senate Connecticut,
Re: the Establishment of a Youth Authority for the State of Connecticut. (YALE LEGISLATIVE
SERVICES, YALE LAW SCHOOL, 1969).
A Plan to Improve the Criminal Justice System, Vol. II (1978). (CONNECTICUT JUSTICE
COMMISSION).
REPORT 3: MINORITY OVERREPRESENTATION, TRANSFER PROCESSES, ALTERNATIVE
JUVENILE JUSTICE MODELS & THE COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS MODEL
National Criminal Justice Reference Service, 1999 National Report Series, Juvenile Justice Bulletin:
Minorities in the Juvenile Justice System. (http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/9912_1/min1.html - last
accessed on January 9, 2004).
New England Juvenile Defender Center Project of the JJC of Suffolk University Law School, ―DMC:
1999 New England State Comparison Chart,‖ Connecticut Fact Sheet, (2002).
National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Juvenile Justice Reform Initiatives in the States: 1994-
1996. (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/reform/ch2_j.html - last accessed on January 9, 2004).
Kelly Johnson, The Miami-Dade Public Defender’s Office Juvenile Sentencing Advocacy Project,
(http://www.pdmiami.com/Analysis%20of%20JSAPs%20Multi-
disciplinary%20Approach%20in%20Defending%20Youth.pdf - last accessed on January 9, 2004).
Sarah A. Brown, Juvenile Justice State Legislation in 2002: Analysis of State Actions on Important
Issues, National Conference of State Legislatures (http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cj/slr282.htm - last
accessed on January 9, 2004). (January 2003).
88
Juvenile Gun Courts: Promoting Accountability and Providing Treatment, JAIBG Bulletin (May
2002) (http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/jaibg_2002_5_1/page2.html - last accessed on January 9,
2004).
Best Practices in Juvenile Accountability, JAIBG Bulletin, (April 2003)
(http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/184745/page5.html - last accessed on January 9, 2004).
A Guide for Implementing Teen Court Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, (August 1996). (http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/fs9645.txt - last accessed on January 9,
2004)
Balanced and Restorative Justice, Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, available at
http://www.statesattorney.org/aweb/balance.htm (last accessed on January 9, 2004).
Summary of Juvenile Probation and Court Services Programs and Initiatives 2003, Circuit Court of
Cook County,
(http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:KXw9R42FrugJ:www.cookcountycourt.org/publications/pdf/j
uvenile_book.pdf+%22Jump+Start+Truancy+Reduction+Program%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 - last
accessed on January 9, 2004) (2003).
REPORT 4: LEGAL TREATMENT AND SERVICES FOR STATUS OFFENDERS IN SELECTED
STATES; BRIEF OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL STATUS OFFENDER TREATMENT AND
ENFORCEMENT; AND RECENT INNOVATIONS IN THE TREATMENT OF STATUS
OFFENDERS
Website of New York State Unified Court System, Third Judicial District.
(http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/3jd/family/pins/pins.htm and
http://www.nycourts.gov/4jd/essex/pins_.html).
October 27, 2003 Phone Interview with Sarah Mogulescu, Consultant with the Vera Institute of
Justice.
New York State Youth Court Program Fact Sheet, New York State Division of Criminal Justice
Services, George Pataki, Governor & Chauncey Parker, Director. (Spring 2002).
(http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/ofpa/ycfactsheet.htm).
Youth Justice Program Newsletter, Oct./Nov. 2001, The Vera Institute of Justice.
(http://www.vera.org/publication_pdf/just_cause_oct_nov_2001.pdf).
December 16, 2003 Phone Interview with Sarah Mogulescu, Consultant with the Vera Institute of
Justice.
Emerging Strategies and Models, Juvenile Justice Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1 (April 2000)
(www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/jjjnl_2000_4/youth_3.html)
Program Abstract: PINS Wraparound Services. New York Division of Criminal Justice Services
website, (http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/ofpa/pdfdocs/wasd2.pdf).
Eric Weingartner, Andrea Weitz, Ajay Khashu, Robert Hope, and Megan Golden, A Study of the
PINS System in New York City: Results and Implications.
(http://www.vera.org/publication_pdf/159_243.pdf).
89
Jesse Souweine and Ajay Khashu, Changing the PINS System in New York: A Study of the
Implications of Raising the Age Limit for Persons in Need of Supervision (PINS).
(http://www.vera.org/publication_pdf/pins_report.pdf).
Website of North Carolina Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
(http://www.juvjus.state.nc.us/interprev_services/ip_index.htm).
Teen Court, Website of North Carolina Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
(http://www.juvjus.state.nc.us/interprev_services/programs/teen_court.htm - last viewed on Dec. 13,
2003).
Governor’s One on One, Website of North Carolina Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. (http://www.juvjus.state.nc.us/interprev_services/ip_index.htm).
Multipurpose Juvenile Home, Website of North Carolina Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. (http://www.juvjus.state.nc.us/interprev_services/programs/multipurpose.htm).
JCPC Overview, Website of North Carolina Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
(http://www.juvjus.state.nc.us/Crime_Prevention/jcpc_overview.htm - last viewed Dec. 10, 2003).
Support Our Students, Website of the NC Juvenile Justice and Delinq. Prevention Administration.
(Dec. 2003). (http://www.juvjus.state.nc.us/interprev_services/programs/sos.htm).
Patrick Griffin and Melanie Bozynski, "National Overviews." State Juvenile Justice Profiles.
Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. (http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/ - updated:
February 12, 2003)
Challenge Activities Program Areas, Challenge Activity G, U.S. Dept. of Justice Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1994).
Children in Custody Questionnaire Redesign Project.. U.S. Dept. of Justice Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/custody/vi.html).
Guidance Manual for Monitoring Facilities Under the JJDPA of 2002, U.S. DEPT. OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION.
(http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/compliance/ - viewed on Dec. 11, 2003).
H. Ted Rubin, Traveling the Ocmulgee Judicial Circuit: Juvenile Justice in Rural Georgia,
JUVENILE JUSTICE UPDATE, Vol. 9, No. 5 (Oct./Nov. 2003).
F. Quraishi, Heidi J. Segal, and Jennifer Trone, Respite Care: A Promising Response to Status
Offenders at Risk of Court-Ordered Placements, THE VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, (Dec.
2002), (http://www.vera.org/publication_pdf/196_376.pdf).
State Juvenile Justice Expenditures and Innovations, The National Assoc. of State Budget Officers,
(1999). (http://www.nasbo.org/Publications/information_briefs/juvenile_expend_1999.html).
Sara Mogulescu and Heidi J. Segal, Approaches to Truancy Prevention, Oct. 2002).
(http://www.vera.org/publication_pdf/197_377.pdf.
90
REPORT 5: JUVENILE JURISDICTION AGE CHANGE IN OTHER STATES
Richard E. Redding, Legal Consequences of Criminal Court Adjudication, Juvenile Forensic
Evaluation Resource Center. 2000.
(http://www.ilppp.virginia.edu/Publications_and_Reports/TransJuvCrim.html -last accessed on
December 17, 2003).
State Juvenile Justice Profiles, National Center for Juvenile Justice..
(http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/overviews/transfer5t.asp - last accessed on December 17, 2003).
How have state laws governing criminal prosecution of juveniles changed in recent years?
NATIONAL OVERVIEWS, National Center for Juvenile Justice. (As amended through the 2002
legislative session). (http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/overviews/transfer9.asp - last accessed on
December 17, 2003).
Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare 1999 Legislative Summary,
(http://www.aradvocates.org/juvjus/legsummary99.asp - last accessed December 17, 2003).
Larissa Mulker, Changes may be in the work for juvenile justice, HAMPTON UNION. Hampton,
NH, July 13, 2003. (http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/hampton/07132003/news/39330.htm -last
accessed on December 17, 2003).
State gets tough on juvenile crime, THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL. June 24, 1996.
(http://www.waukesha.tec.wi.us/busocc/law/juvcrm.html - last accessed on December 17, 2003).
Youthful Offenders Narrative N92304, NEW YORK STATE SENATE, May 27, 1999.
(http://www.senate.state.ny.us/Docs/sofl/JVJ/JVJ017.html - last accessed on December 17, 2003).
REPORT 6: JUVENILE RIGHTS TO JURY TRIAL AND BAIL IN OTHER STATES
Janet E. Ainsworth, The Court’s Effectiveness in Protecting the Rights of Juveniles in Delinquency
Cases, THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN: THE JUVENILE COURT, Winter 1996.
Jeffrey K. Day, Comment, Juvenile Justice in Washington: A Punitive System in Need of
Rehabilitation, 16 PUGET SOUND L. REV. 399 (1992)
In re Hezzie R., 219 Wis. 2d 849, 580 N.W.2d 660 (1998)).
Marie McCain, New Juvenile Trials Defended, CINCINNATI ENQUIRER, June 11, 2002,
(http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2002/06/11/loc_new_juvenile_trials.html).
i
Redding, Richard E. ―Legal Consequences of Criminal Court Adjudication.‖ Juvenile Forensic Evaluation
Resource Center. 2000. Available at http://www.ilppp.virginia.edu/Publications_and_Reports/TransJuvCrim.html
(last accessed on December 17, 2003).
ii
Ibid.
iii
Ibid.
91
iv
State Juvenile Justice Profiles. National Center for Juvenile Justice. Last amended in 2003. Available at
http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/overviews/transfer5t.asp (last accessed on December 17, 2003).
v
Ibid.
vi
―How have state laws governing criminal prosecution of juveniles changed in recent years?‖ National Overviews,
National Center for Juvenile Justice. As amended through the 2002 legislative session. Available at
http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/overviews/transfer9.asp (last accessed on December 17, 2003).
vii
Ibid.
viii
Ibid.
ix
Ibid.
x
Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare 1999 Legislative Summary, available at
http://www.aradvocates.org/juvjus/legsummary99.asp (last accessed December 17, 2003
xi
Mulker, Larissa. ―Changes may be in the work for juvenile justice.‖ Hampton Union. Hampton, NH, July 13,
2003. Available at http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/hampton/07132003/news/39330.htm (last accessed on
December 17, 2003).
xii
Ibid.
xiii
Ibid.
xiv
―State gets tough on juvenile crime.‖ The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. June 24, 1996. Available at
http://www.waukesha.tec.wi.us/busocc/law/juvcrm.html (last accessed on December 17, 2003).
xv
Ibid.
xvi
Ibid.
xvii
―Youthful Offenders Narrative N92304.‖ New York State Senate, May 27, 1999. Available at
http://www.senate.state.ny.us/Docs/sofl/JVJ/JVJ017.html (last accessed on December 17, 2003).
xviii
Ibid.
xix
Ibid.
92
93
Other docs by sbl12066
Cuales Son Los Terminos Legales Mas Eficientes Para Las Disputa Al Credito - PowerPoint
Views: 22 | Downloads: 0
