Juvenile Justice Policy Research Articles

Maturity in adolescent and young adult offenders: The role of cognitive control.

This study examined the role of cognitive control in explaining the psychosocial maturity of adolescent (n = 43) and young adult male (n = 40) offenders. We separated psychosocial maturity into prosocial and criminal components, which were statistically unrelated and were explained by different variables. Individuals with higher levels of prosocial maturity were older, had better proactive cognitive control, and had better short-term memory than those with lower levels of prosocial maturity. Individuals with higher levels of criminal maturity were older and had better reactive cognitive control than those with lower levels of criminal maturity. We discuss the implications of these findings with regard to juvenile justice policy and practice.

Psychiatric Symptoms Among Juveniles Incarcerated in Adult Prison

Although studies reveal substantial mental health treatment needs among youths in the juvenile justice system, far less is known about young offenders transferred to adult criminal court. This statewide study examined the mental health needs of young offenders who committed serious crimes and were transferred to adult court and subsequently incarcerated in a prison for adults. Sixty-four boys aged 16 and 17 years who were incarcerated in the Texas adult correctional system completed the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Version 2 (MAYSI-2), a mental health screening measure widely used in the juvenile justice system. Scores from the youths in adult prison were compared with those of a matched sample of youths in juvenile correctional facilities, drawn from the MAYSI-2 normative data. Youths in adult prison reported substantial symptoms of mental health problems. Most youths surveyed (51%) scored above the highest clinical cutoff (the "warning" range) on at least one MAYSI-2 subscale. For every clinical subscale except suicide ideation, the majority of youths (54% to 70%, depending on the subscale) scored above the "caution" range. Juveniles in adult prison reported higher rates of symptoms than did those in juvenile correctional facilities (effect sizes ranged from d=.18 to d=.65, depending on the subscale). Although the mental health needs of youths in the juvenile justice system are well documented, this study reveals that mental health treatment needs appear to be even more pronounced in the small subgroup of youths transferred to the adult criminal justice system and incarcerated in adult prison.

ESTIMATING A DOSE‐RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LENGTH OF STAY AND FUTURE RECIDIVISM IN SERIOUS JUVENILE OFFENDERS*

The effect of sanctions on subsequent criminal activity is of central theoretical importance in criminology. A key question for juvenile justice policy is the degree to which serious juvenile offenders respond to sanctions and/or treatment administered by the juvenile court. The policy question germane to this debate is finding the level of confinement within the juvenile justice system that maximizes the public safety and therapeutic benefits of institutional confinement. Unfortunately, research on this issue has been limited with regard to serious juvenile offenders. We use longitudinal data from a large sample of serious juvenile offenders from two large cities to 1) estimate a causal treatment effect of institutional placement, as opposed to probation, on future rate of rearrest and 2) investigate the existence of a marginal effect (i.e., benefit) for longer length of stay once the institutional placement decision had been made. We accomplish the latter by determining a dose-response relationship between the length of stay and future rates of rearrest and self-reported offending. The results suggest that an overall null effect of placement exists on future rates of rearrest or self-reported offending for serious juvenile offenders. We also find that, for the group placed out of the community, it is apparent that little or no marginal benefit exists for longer lengths of stay. Theoretical, empirical, and policy issues are outlined.

Manipulating Public Opinion About Trying Juveniles as Adults: An Experimental Study

Public attitudes about juvenile crime play a significant role in fashioning juvenile justice policy; variations in the wording of public opinion surveys can produce very different responses and can result in inaccurate and unreliable assessments of public sentiment. Surveys that ask about policy alternatives in vague terms are especially problematic. The authors conducted an experiment in which a large sample of respondents were presented with a crime scenario in which the offender’s age and prior record, the type of crime, and the inclusiveness of the policy in question were varied. Respondents were asked about the extent to which they support trying juveniles in adult court. Responses varied significantly as a function of the offender’s age, criminal record, and offense but not as a function of inclusiveness. For legislators using public opinion polls to guide their decisions, blanket statements describing the results of vaguely worded surveys items can be misleading and can lead to poorly informed policy making.

Adolescent Development and the Regulation of Youth Crime

Elizabeth Scott and Laurence Steinberg explore the dramatic changes in the law's conception of young offenders between the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twenty-first. At the dawn of the juvenile court era, they note, most youths were tried and punished as if they were adults. Early juvenile court reformers argued strongly against such a view, believing that the justice system should offer young offenders treatment that would cure them of their antisocial ways. That rehabilitative model of juvenile justice held sway until a sharp upswing in youth violence at the end of the twentieth century led both public opinion and public policy toward a view that youths should be held to the same standard of criminal accountability as adults. Lawmakers seemed to lose sight of developmental differences between adolescents and adults. But Scott and Steinberg note that lawmakers and the public appear now to be rethinking their views once more. A justice system that operates on the principle of "adult time for adult crime" now seems to many to take too little note of age and immaturity in calculating criminal punishment. In 2005 the United States Supreme Court abolished the juvenile death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment, emphasizing that the immaturity of adolescents made them less culpable than adult criminals. In addition, state legislatures recently have repealed or moderated some of the punitive laws they recently enacted. Meanwhile, observe the authors, public anger has abated and attitudes toward young offenders have softened somewhat. In response to these changes, Scott and Steinberg argue that it is appropriate to reexamine juvenile justice policy and to devise a new model for the twenty-first century. In this article, they propose what they call a developmental model. They observe that substantial new scientific evidence about adolescence and criminal activity by adolescents provides the building blocks for a new legal regime superior to today's policy. They put adolescent offenders into an intermediate legal category-neither children, as they were seen in the early juvenile court era, nor adults, as they often are seen today. They observe that such an approach is not only more compatible than the current regime with basic principles of fairness at the heart of the criminal law, but also more likely to promote social welfare by reducing the social cost of juvenile crime.

Introducing the Issue

Introducing the Issue Laurence Steinberg (bio) American juvenile justice policy is in a period of transition. After a decade of declining juvenile crime rates, the moral panic that fueled the "get-tough" reforms of the 1990s and early 2000s—reforms that eroded the boundaries between juvenile and criminal court and exposed juvenile offenders to increasingly harsh punishments —has waned. State legislatures across the country have reconsidered punitive statutes they enacted with enthusiasm not so many years ago. What we may be seeing now is a pendulum that has reached its apex and is slowly beginning to swing back toward more moderate policies, as politicians and the public come to regret the high economic costs and ineffectiveness of the punitive reforms and the harshness of the sanctions. Several concrete indicators of this shift are noteworthy. First, in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2005 Roper v. Simmons opinion abolishing the juvenile death penalty, several state legislatures have repealed, or are considering repealing, statutes imposing sentences of life without parole on juvenile murderers.1 Other states have scaled back, often in response to mounting economic costs, automatic transfer laws that send youth to the adult criminal system by statutory exclusion. 2 Many states have increased funding for community-based treatment programs as alternatives to institutional placement.3 In a few states where youth under eighteen are prosecuted in adult criminal court instead of juvenile court, promising efforts are under way to increase the age to eighteen, as it is in most states.4 Finally, several states have expanded procedural protection for juveniles in criminal court by enacting statutory provisions authorizing findings of incompetence to stand trial on the basis of developmental immaturity.5 Although many of the punitive reforms of the 1990s still remain in place, a policy shift appears to have taken place. Several developments have converged to change the direction of the nation's youth crime policy. Among the most important was the steady decline in juvenile crime beginning in 1994. In the same way that the upward trend in juvenile violence during the 1980s set the stage for the spate of punitive legislation during the 1990s, this downward trend has opened the door to discussions about returning to more moderate policies. Advocates for reform also have been successful in focusing media and political attention on a broad range of emerging social science evidence about [End Page 3] adolescent development and juvenile crime. Editorials and op-eds in local and national newspapers have pointed to this evidence in arguing that adolescents lack the emotional and mental maturity of adults, that juvenile offenders should be given a second chance, that the public supports rehabilitative efforts, and, perhaps most important, that trying juveniles as adults is simply not cost-effective. Evidence of the high economic cost to the government of the wholesale incarceration of juveniles with adults.together with studies finding that adolescents released from adult correctional facilities are more likely to re-offend than those sentenced to juvenile facilities.have influenced the public debate.6 Those who applaud the trend toward justice policies that recognize the differences between adolescents and adults may be heartened by these developments, but they should not naively assume that this trend will proceed unabated. Juvenile crime rates, which have risen and fallen cyclically for four decades, will likely rise again, though perhaps not to the extremes of the early 1990s. Indeed, although rates continue to be low, they have crept up recently; in the past year or two, violent crime by juveniles has edged above the 2004 rates, which were the lowest in nearly two decades.7 It is too early to tell whether recent reports of an uptick in juvenile crime indicate a reversal of the downward trend that the United States enjoyed for well over a decade, or, instead, a transient fluctuation. But stories about rising juvenile crime rates have begun to appear with increasing frequency in newspapers around the country, and publicity about juvenile crime quite often triggers swings in policy. If the current upturn in juvenile offending is indeed the beginning of a worrisome trend, it will take only a couple of widely publicized juvenile crimes and a few outspoken pundits...

Alternatives for Youth's Advocacy Program: Reducing Minority Youth Incarceration Placements in Cleveland, Ohio

ABSTRACTDetaining and incarcerating juvenile delinquents is ineffective and costly juvenile justice policy. These placements, indicative of the “tough on crime” approach, become problematic for many of these youths who do not have the advantage of legal counsel because they waive this right. In addition, a majority of these youths have a mental health or special education disability that does not get addressed in correctional facilities. Alternatives for Youth's Advocacy Program (AFY) in Cleveland, Ohio (Cuyahoga County) is addressing these issues using a holistic approach that includes the provision of civil legal representation to assist youths in accessing disability services and defense attorney support in dispositional planning to reduce juvenile offender placements. This article reports the results of an experimental design pilot study evaluation of AFY that randomly referred and evaluated 82 felony‐offending youths over 21 months. This initial review of the AFY program found it reduced detention center placement days by 47% and decreased state facility incarceration days by 74% (total cost savings $625,898). With 3,000 youths detained in the Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Detention Center and 1,800 incarcerated in Ohio state facilities annually, policy implications and recommendations are set forth.

What Drives Juvenile Probation Officers?

Data from surveys of juvenile court probation officers in four states are analyzed to understand professional orientations toward two seemingly contrasting goals of contemporary juvenile justice systems: punishment and treatment. These self-reported juvenile probation officer orientations are considered in relation to three clusters of variables representing somewhat distinct hypothetical bases of professional orientation: court context, decision-maker status characteristics, and resonance with legal, victim’s rights, and character issues. Although court context and status characteristics distinguish attitudes toward treatment and punishment, attitudinal resonance is an especially strong predictor of these orientations. Rather than mutually exclusive or static ideologies, treatment and punishment appear to be flexible, overlapping goals that appeal to officers according to their congruence with other personal convictions. Younger probation officers are also found to be more punitive, net of other influences, suggesting cohort replacement may accelerate the displacement of juvenile rehabilitative ideals. Implications for juvenile justice research and policy are considered.

In-Home or Out-of-Home?: Predicting Long-Term Placement Recommendations for Juvenile Offenders

An important role served by mental health professionals in the juvenile court system involves the provision of recommendations regarding the long-term placement of youthful offenders. However, research on the factors used by clinicians in making these decisions is scarce. The present study examines the use of demographic, historical, and clinical variables, as well as an actuarial risk assessment instrument, the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI; Hoge & Andrews, 1994, 2002), in the courtordered placement recommendations of 220 juvenile offenders. Univariate analyses revealed strong relationships between factors common in the risk assessment literature and level of placement recommendation. In fact, youth recommended for out-of-home placements scored significantly higher on seven out of eight subscales of the YLS/CMI. Additionally, multivariate analyses found that the strongest predictors of placement recommendation were two YLS/CMI subscales (family circumstances/parenting and attitudes/orientation) and the presence of mood disorder. These findings suggest that clinical decisionmaking regarding placement recommendations incorporates the assessment of a hybrid of risk-related and treatment amenability issues. Implications of these results in regards to clinical decision-making and juvenile justice policy are discussed.

Juvenile Justice

Although the future of juvenile justice policy is uncertain, the impact of policies from the 1990s is clear: Despite declining juvenile crime rates, the adultification of youth continues to include punitive and exclusionary sanctions. Attitudes toward offenders are ambivalent, but there is evidence that legislators and the public are reluctant to abandon the punitive policies of the 1990s. Simultaneously, there are indications of more enlightened approaches to juvenile justice. In this context, the authors review the state of juvenile justice policy and review trends in waiver and sentencing.

Juvenile Justice

An increasing public focus on the effects of juvenile crime on society has dramatically impacted juvenile justice policy decisions in recent years. Historically, juvenile justice policy makers have attempted to address juvenile crime by promoting policies that address the rehabilitative needs of the offender. However, throughout the last 20 years of the 20th century, policy makers have advocated more punitive offense-based policies to address juvenile crime. This article examines the differences between these two approaches and the implications associated with the continued emergence of a more offense-based approach compared to the offender-based approach, which historically has been the foundation of the American juvenile justice system. The authors hope to stimulate discussion among stakeholders in the juvenile justice system to promote sound policy decisions based on scientific evidence.

PUBLIC PREFERENCES FOR REHABILITATION VERSUS INCARCERATION OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS: EVIDENCE FROM A CONTINGENT VALUATION SURVEY*

Research Summary:Accurately gauging the public's support for alternative responses to juvenile offending is important, because policy makers often justify expenditures for punitive juvenile justice reforms on the basis of popular demand for tougher policies. In this study, we assess public support for both punitively and nonpunitively oriented juvenile justice policies by measuring respondents' willingness to pay for various policy proposals. We employ a methodology known as “contingent valuation” (CV) that permits the comparison of respondents' willingness to pay (WTP) for competing policy alternatives. Specifically, we compare CV‐based estimates for the public's WTP for two distinctively different responses to serious juvenile crime: incarceration and rehabilitation. An additional focus of our analysis is an examination of the public's WTP for an early childhood prevention program. The analysis indicates that the public is at least as willing to pay for rehabilitation as punishment for juvenile offenders and that WTP for early childhood prevention is also substantial. Implications and future research directions are outlined.Policy Implications:The findings suggest that lawmakers should more actively consider policies grounded in rehabilitation, and, perhaps, be slower to advocate for punitive reforms in response to public concern over high‐profile juvenile crimes. Additionally, our willingness to pay findings offer encouragement to lawmakers who are uncomfortable with the recent trend toward punitive juvenile justice policies and would like to initiate more moderate reforms. Such lawmakers may be reassured that the public response to such initiatives will not be hostile. Just as importantly, reforms that emphasize leniency and rehabilitation can be justified economically as welfare‐enhancing expenditures of public funds. The evidence that the public values rehabilitation more than increased incarceration should be important information to cost‐conscious legislators considering how to allocate public funds. Cost‐conscious legislatures may become disenchanted with punitive juvenile justice policies on economic grounds and pursue policies that place greater emphasis on rehabilitation. They may be reassured, on the basis of our findings, that the public will support this move.

Public attitudes about the culpability and punishment of young offenders

Opinions of 789 community adults were individually assessed, using a video-clip of an actual armed robbery and other measures, to determine whether attitudes toward the culpability and appropriate punishment of young offenders were linked to offenders' age, race, and physical appearance. Three major findings emerged: (1) community adults endorse the view that criminal choices of young offenders are influenced by their developmental immaturity and attribute more responsibility for the criminal act as the actor gets older; (2) the public has a relatively strong preference for differential treatment of juvenile and adult offenders; and (3) attitudes about culpability and punishment are not influenced by the culprit's race, physical maturity, or appearance of "toughness." Indications that punitive public opinion toward youth crime may be changing and implications for juvenile justice policy of the study's findings are discussed.

Juvenile justice reform and the courtroom workgroup: Issues of perception and workload

Criminal justice policies may be enacted, but the actual implementation of those policies depends upon those working on the frontline. Policies that affect how cases are processed in the courtroom can be thwarted by the efforts of courtroom workgroup members. The present study analyzed how courtroom workgroups adjusted to a new juvenile justice policy. Qualitative interviews demonstrated that while there was widespread agreement on the basic tenets of the reform, perceptions of the reform varied by confidence in workgroup membership. Further, the reform inherently increased the workload for some and decreased the workload for others. Those whose workload increased discussed subverting the reform effort in order to continue with business as usual. These findings demonstrated that effective policies must consider the needs of workgroups as adaptation of policies in actual practice depend upon workgroup members' support.

Towards Good Practice in Juvenile Justice Policy in the Commonwealth

The purpose of this article is to examine juvenile justice policy in different Commonwealth countries to help to identify what might constitute good practice. Traditionally, juvenile justice system...

Juvenile Offenders and the Death Penalty

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that because they are less culpable and less able to deliberate about their behaviors, the execution of mentally retarded offenders exceeded the prevailing standards of decency (Atkins v. Virginia). Based on this rationale, and with increasing concerns over wrongful convictions and the execution of innocent defendants, some questioned whether the Court’s decision could also apply to juvenile offenders. In March 2005, the majority of the justices determined that executing adolescent offenders violated the Eighth Amendment (Roper v. Simmons). This article reviews (a) recent court decisions on the death penalty, (b) citizen and student opinions on juvenile executions, and (c) comparative policies on juvenile executions. The authors also discuss the politics of the death penalty and the consequences of Roper on juvenile justice policy.

Native American Ethnicity and Childhood Maltreatment as Variables in Perceptions and Adjustments to Boot Camp vs. “Traditional” Correctional Settings

A sample of 302 juveniles confined in two separate correctional facilities in a Western plains state was assessed to examine the relationship between child maltreatment and other delinquency risk factors, and Native American ethnicity on perceptions of the institutional environments and psychological adjustment in a boot camp and traditional facility. The results indicate few differences between Native and non-Native American youth's perceptions of institutional environments. Youth institutionalized in the boot camp, however, differed significantly from those in the traditional facility in their perceptions of institutional activity, control, justice, and freedom. Child maltreatment and other risk factors were related to psychological adjustment for all youth. In addition, the boot camp facility significantly reduced anxiety for Native American youth. The implications of this research for boot camps and juvenile justice policy are discussed.

THE JUVENILE PENALTY: A COMPARISON OF JUVENILE AND YOUNG ADULT SENTENCING OUTCOMES IN CRIMINAL COURT*

This study uses criminal court data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS) to investigate the sentencing of juvenile offenders processed in adult criminal court by comparing their sentencing outcomes to those of young adult offenders in similar situations. Because the expanded juvenile exclusion and transfer policies of the 1990s have led to an increase in the number of juveniles convicted in adult courts, we argue that it is critical to better understand the judicial decision making processes involved. We introduce competitive hypotheses on the relative leniency or severity of sentencing outcomes for transferred juveniles and interpret our results with the focal concerns theoretical perspective on sentencing. Our findings indicate that juvenile offenders in adult court are sentenced more severely than their young adult counterparts. Moreover, findings suggest that juvenile status interacts with and conditions the effects of other important sentencing factors including offense type, offense severity and prior criminal record. We discuss these results as they relate to immediate outcomes for transferred juveniles, criminal court processes in general and the broader social implications for juvenile justice policy concerning the transfer of juveniles to criminal court.

Drug and Alcohol Involvement among Minority and Female Juvenile Offenders: Treatment and Policy Issues

Substance abuse and its consequences have had an important impact on the juvenile justice system, but relatively little attention has been paid to assessing and treating juvenile offenders for substance-related problems. Female and minority youth have been particularly affected: Most young female offenders have some substance involvement, yet juvenile justice–based treatment interventions are scarce. Second, minority overrepresentation occurs at all stages of the juvenile justice system; minority youth are treated more severely, and minority drug offenders in particular are at increased risk of formal handling, detention, and custody placement. Increased attention is needed to implement effective treatment and prevention programs that are gender and culturally specific and that target known risk factors. The authors describe some of the key elements and policies needed to reduce the impact of current juvenile justice policies on substance-involved girls and minorities and to overcome barriers to providing more effective treatment and related services for these populations.

Danger of strong causal reasoning in juvenile justice policy and practice

Policy responses to social problems are shaped, among other things, by understandings of their causes. Strong causal reasoning, however, poses the danger of unsuccessful program outcomes where ‘weak’ theories are uncritically adopted to inform program design. This article describes this danger in the field of juvenile crime and corrections where theory development remains wanting. It also focuses on the findings of meta-analyses of juvenile correctional programs as providing scope for strengthening explanations for juvenile crime by inductive means of theory building.