Sharing Data and Information in Juvenile Justice: Legal, Ethical, and Practical Considerations

Abstract

Decision‐makers in juvenile justice systems often complain they can not get information they need from other juvenile justice agencies to make decisions. This can lead to resentment between juvenile justice agency workers, duplication of data collections efforts, and a breakdown in communication and functioning of the juvenile justice system. This paper reviews the legal, ethical, and practical barriers to information sharing among juvenile justice agencies and suggests practical steps to overcome these barriers. This report reviews documents by private and/or public organizations with an interest in information sharing, state and federal Supreme Court decisions, state and federal statutes, government documents, and law review and journal articles. The report indicates there are few legal barriers to information sharing between parties with “legitimate interests,” there are ethical issues to both sharing and withholding information, and that practical constraints are the primary reasons why agencies within many jurisdictions don't share information. Namely, information territorialism most often is rooted in habit and long‐standing practice, and/or a lack of established policies and procedures regarding information sharing. The article concludes with a 20 step prescription which could assist a jurisdiction in developing an integrated information system built on information sharing.

Legal, Psychological, and Behavioral Outcomes

“…Legal and social histories on a juvenile often are maintained by police, courts, attorneys, state agencies, schools, and social welfare, medical, and mental health service providers. Yet such information often is unavailable to the juvenile or criminal courts and correctional systems due to intra-agency, interagency, and systems barriers (Etten & Petrone, 1994). These barriers include, for example, mistrust between agencies and uncertainty about how information is used, misused, or interpreted by other agencies; concern about whether sharing information is in the juvenile's best interest, fear of lawsuits, lack of standard agency policies for information sharing, and poor and spotty recordkeeping (Etten & Petrone, 1994).…”

“…Yet such information often is unavailable to the juvenile or criminal courts and correctional systems due to intra-agency, interagency, and systems barriers (Etten & Petrone, 1994). These barriers include, for example, mistrust between agencies and uncertainty about how information is used, misused, or interpreted by other agencies; concern about whether sharing information is in the juvenile's best interest, fear of lawsuits, lack of standard agency policies for information sharing, and poor and spotty recordkeeping (Etten & Petrone, 1994). Most states also have strict confidentiality laws limiting access to agency information (Etten & Petrone, 1994).…”

“…These barriers include, for example, mistrust between agencies and uncertainty about how information is used, misused, or interpreted by other agencies; concern about whether sharing information is in the juvenile's best interest, fear of lawsuits, lack of standard agency policies for information sharing, and poor and spotty recordkeeping (Etten & Petrone, 1994). Most states also have strict confidentiality laws limiting access to agency information (Etten & Petrone, 1994). Also, federal law prohibits access to alcohol and substance abuse diagnosis and treatment records even to prosecutors and court officials, except in emergencies or by court order (Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records Act, 1987J2 However, Etten and Petrone (1994) found that because of the exceptions built into such laws, state and federal confidentiality laws rarely limited information sharing.…”

“…Most states also have strict confidentiality laws limiting access to agency information (Etten & Petrone, 1994). Also, federal law prohibits access to alcohol and substance abuse diagnosis and treatment records even to prosecutors and court officials, except in emergencies or by court order (Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records Act, 1987J2 However, Etten and Petrone (1994) found that because of the exceptions built into such laws, state and federal confidentiality laws rarely limited information sharing. Rather, information sharing was limited by the "information temtoriality" practiced by various agencies and the kinds of agency and systems barriers listed above.…”

“…Rather, information sharing was limited by the "information temtoriality" practiced by various agencies and the kinds of agency and systems barriers listed above. Etten and Petrone (1994) recommend establishment of statewide computerized information management systems with confidentiality protections, on-line access, and real-time update and accuracy checking mechanisms. Accurate and available juvenile court records are particularly important in making informed sentencing decisions in criminal court; offending history is one of the best predictors of future criminality (Gottfredson, 1997, Wolfgang, Thornberry & Figlio, 1987.…”