Past, Present, and Future of Juvenile Justice: Assessing the Policy Options (APO)

Abstract

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. research for safer communities We wish to thank Katherine Browning, Senior Social Science Analyst, at the National Institute of Justice, for her support and guidance throughout the study, and we gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Janet Chiancone, Research Coordinator, in the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in advancing the study's objectives, as well as the continuous support, feedback, and guidance of researchers and staff within the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Several current and former employees of the Urban Institute played critical roles in the APO project. Dr. Christy Visher, Principal Research Associate, provided invaluable guidance throughout the project and important criticisms of the survey instrument as it was being developed. Shannon Courtney constructed the web-interface for the online survey and assisted in managing key aspects of online data collection. David D'Oro provided critical technology support, and Benjamin Clark, Elizabeth Davies, and Sara Debus played other key roles. Many scholars also were consulted for the study. The project is especially indebted to the practitioners, researchers, and advocates who generously gave of their time and shared their insights regarding the policies and practices governing juvenile justice-involved youth. Although we appreciate the contribution of those noted above, and any others inadvertently omitted, the authors acknowledge their responsibility for any errors herein.

Juvenile Court and Contemporary Diversion

“…It continues to be a persistent and pervasive feature of contemporary juvenile justice. For example, in 2006, diversion was one of the “most prominent [juvenile justice] issues to be legislated” (Willison et al., : 39; see also Brown, : 7). Some types of diversion programs, such as youth courts, of which 1,000 are estimated to exist, are central to court operations (Pearson and Jurich, ).…”

“…and treatment-have proliferated (Ezell, 1989;Kretschmar, Butcher, Flannery, and Singer, 2016;Mears, 2012;Pearson and Jurich, 2005;Ray and Childs, 2015;Sullivan, Dollard, Sellers, and John Mayo, 2010;Willison, Mears, Shollenberger, Owens, and Butts, 2010).…”

“…This consensus is unique among juvenile justice reforms; other policies, such as the transfer of juveniles to adult court, engender divides that tend to fall along ideological lines (Butts and Mears, ; Fagan and Zimring, ; Kupchik, ; Loeber and Farrington, ). Perhaps for this reason, diversion programs and policies—such as teen or youth courts; drug courts; mentoring; family therapy; community service; arbitration; and programs that emphasize restorative justice, education, counseling, and treatment—have proliferated (Ezell, ; Kretschmar, Butcher, Flannery, and Singer, ; Mears, ; Pearson and Jurich, ; Ray and Childs, ; Sullivan, Dollard, Sellers, and John Mayo, ; Willison, Mears, Shollenberger, Owens, and Butts, ).…”

Drawing, and Redrawing, the Line Between Juvenile and Adult Court Jurisdiction

“…In those states, the criminal court had original jurisdiction over juveniles who were older than those ages at the time of their offense. Most of these states implemented their statutes many decades ago, but two—New Hampshire and Wisconsin—lowered their boundary ages to 16 in 1996, amidst a nationwide trend toward “get‐tough” policies (Willison, Mears, Shollenberger, Owens, and Butts, ; Zang, ).…”

“…More broadly, we would only expect different outcomes from the two systems if they were meaningfully different from each other in ways that are likely to impact crime. As other authors have noted, some other get‐tough‐era policies changed the juvenile justice system in ways that increased its resemblance to the adult criminal justice system (Butts and Mitchell, ; Willison et al., ). In 2010, was actual juvenile court processing in Connecticut different enough to have an observable effect on juvenile offending?…”