Reforming
Juvenile Justice

A DEVELOPMENTAL APPROACH

Committee on Assessing Juvenile Justice Reform

Richard J. Bonnie, Robert L. Johnson,
Betty M. Chemers, and Julie A. Schuck, Editors

Committee on Law and Justice
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
                   OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Committee on Assessing Juvenile Justice Reform Richard J. Bonnie, Robert L. Johnson, Betty M. Chemers, and Julie A. Schuck, Editors Committee on Law and Justice Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS  500 Fifth Street, NW  Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Govern- ing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineer- ing, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropri- ate balance. This study was supported by Contract/Grant No. 2009-JF-FX-0102 between the National Academy of Sciences and Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre- vention. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. Library of Congress Control Number: 2013939486 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2013 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: National Research Council. (2013). Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach. Committee on Assessing Juvenile Justice Reform, Richard J. Bonnie, Robert L. Johnson, Betty M. Chemers, and Julie A. Schuck, Eds. Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Acad- emy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineer- ing programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is presi- dent of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Insti- tute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sci- ences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON ASSESSING JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM ROBERT L. JOHNSON (Chair), University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Jersey Medical School RICHARD J. BONNIE (Vice Chair), IOM member, University of Virginia CARL C. BELL, Community Mental Health Council, Inc. LAWRENCE D. BOBO, Harvard University JEFFREY A. BUTTS, John Jay College of Criminal Justice GLADYS CARRIÓN, New York State Office of Children & Family Services B.J. CASEY, Weill Medical College of Cornell University KENNETH A. DODGE, Duke University SANDRA A. GRAHAM, University of California, Los Angeles ERNESTINE GRAY, Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, New Orleans, LA EDWARD P. MULVEY, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine ROBERT D. PLOTNICK, University of Washington ELIZABETH S. SCOTT, Columbia University TERENCE P. THORNBERRY, University of Maryland, College Park CHERIE TOWNSEND, Texas Juvenile Justice Department BETTY M. CHEMERS, Study Director JULIE A. SCHUCK, Senior Program Associate BARBARA BOYD, Administrative Coordinator v

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE 2012-2013 JEREMY TRAVIS (Chair), John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York CARL C. BELL, Community Mental Health Council, Inc., Chicago, IL JOHN J. DONOHUE III, Stanford Law School MARK A.R. KLEIMAN, Department of Public Policy, University of California, Los Angeles GARY LAFREE, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, College Park JANET L. LAURITSEN, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri GLENN C. LOURY, Department of Economics, Brown University CHARLES F. MANSKI, Department of Economics, Northwestern University TERRIE E. MOFFITT, Department of Psychology, Duke University DANIEL S. NAGIN, Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University RUTH D. PETERSON, Department of Sociology, Ohio State University ANNE MORRISON PIEHL, Department of Economics and Program in Criminal Justice, Rutgers University DANIEL B. PRIETO, Public Sector Strategy & Innovation, IBM Global Business Services, Washington, DC ROBERT J. SAMPSON, Department of Sociology, Harvard University DAVID WEISBURD, Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, George Mason University CATHY SPATZ WIDOM, Psychology Department, John Jay College of Criminal Justice PAUL K. WORMELI, Integrated Justice Information Systems, Ashburn, VA JANE L. ROSS, Director vi

OCR for page R1
Preface Recent findings from research on adolescent development, and particu- larly increasing knowledge about the adolescent brain, have led to deep and growing concerns about the treatment of juveniles in the nation’s justice system. There is a fundamental disconnect between what is now known about the characteristic features of adolescents and the apparent assump- tions of that system. One reflection of that disconnect is a recent series of decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court forbidding the most severe penalties for adolescent offenders, especially the death penalty. There has also been a wide range of reforms in the administration of juvenile justice over the past 15 years, some of which reflect the emerging knowledge about adolescents and some of which do not. The committee’s charge was to take stock of the juvenile justice reforms undertaken over the past 15 years in light of current knowledge about adolescent development. The study was requested by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), an agency of the U.S. Depart- ment of Justice. In an austere fiscal environment with so many pressing priorities, OJJDP naturally wants to ensure that it supports the research and programs that best harness the available scientific evidence. During the two years of our study, we have been struck by the energy and dedication of all the stakeholders and participants in the juvenile jus- tice system who took the time to appear before the committee and to help us to carry out our charge. A diverse array of the nation’s institutions and leaders, both private and public, are playing key roles in the movement for vii

OCR for page R1
viii PREFACE juvenile justice reform, including elected officials in the states and localities, judges, foundations, advocacy organizations, and research organizations. The central premise of this report is that the goals, design, and opera- tion of the juvenile justice system should be informed by the growing body of knowledge about adolescent development. If designed and implemented in a developmentally informed way, procedures for holding adolescents accountable for their offending, and the services provided to them, can pro- mote positive legal socialization, reinforce a prosocial identity, and reduce reoffending. However, if the goals, design, and operation of the juvenile justice system are not informed by this growing body of knowledge, the outcome is likely to be negative interactions between youth and justice sys- tem officials, increased disrespect for the law and legal authority, and the reinforcement of a deviant identity and social disaffection. Scientists commonly complain that policy makers are not paying atten- tion to the scientific evidence. Our experience in studying juvenile justice has been quite the reverse. We have detected an impressive consensus among stakeholder groups and public officials regarding the goals of the juvenile justice system, a genuine hunger for evidence about what works, and a willingness to embrace evidence-based policies and programs. This report aims to consolidate the progress that has been made in both science and policy making and to establish a strong platform for a 21st century juvenile justice system. Advancing knowledge has helped to foster a climate of optimism. However, this energizing spirit of change has not taken root in all parts of the country, and it could dissipate if institutional structures are not put in place to sustain it and to assure a continuing partnership among practitio- ners, researchers, and policy makers. The locus of reform lies at the state, local, and tribal levels, and most of this report focuses on the opportunities and challenges facing the courts, law enforcement agencies, schools, social service agencies, and mental health agencies in communities throughout the nation. However, OJJDP support and leadership are critically important if the reform process is to succeed, and the report urges Congress to embrace the cause of juvenile justice reform by clarifying and reaffirming the mis- sion of OJJDP. Many people may argue that the lives of nation’s youth most deeply ensnared by the juvenile justice system will not be substantially improved simply by reforming the juvenile justice system. We do not claim that juve- nile justice reform can carry the burden of overcoming the many causes of juvenile crime. Also needed are stronger families, better schools, truly equal opportunity, and safe and healthy communities for the nation’s youth. However, this report shows that a harsh system of punishing troubled

OCR for page R1
PREFACE ix youth can make things worse, while a scientifically based juvenile justice system can make an enduring difference in the lives of many youth who most need the structure and services it can provide. Robert L. Johnson, Chair Richard J. Bonnie, Vice Chair Committee on Assessing Juvenile Justice Reform

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgments This report would not have been possible without the efforts of many people, each of whom has contributed time and expertise. The commit- tee had the assistance and close cooperation of the staff of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), the report’s sponsor. The committee benefited greatly from briefings received from senior staff such as Andrea Coleman, disproportionate minority coordinator; Melodee Hanes, deputy administrator for policy; Elissa Rumsey, compliance moni- tor coordinator; Jeff Slowikowski, acting deputy administrator; and Greg Thompson, associate administrator, State Relations and Assistance Divi- sion. The committee also appreciates the assistance and insight of other OJJDP staff that briefed National Research Council (NRC) staff, including Janet Chiancone, associate administrator, Budget and Planning Division; Brecht Donahue, research coordinator; and Kathi Grasso, senior juvenile justice policy and legal advisor. Robin Delany-Shabazz, director, Concen- tration of Federal Efforts Program, and Anita Butler, program analyst, also provided information. Kellie Dressler-Tetrick, acting associate administra- tor, Demonstration Programs, and Marilyn Roberts, deputy administrator for programs, helped coordinate the committee’s activities and assure that all funding requirements were met. The committee drew on the expertise of many people during the course of its information gathering. The committee extends its thanks to Kristin N. Henning, J.D., LL.M., of Georgetown University Law School for her thoughtful analysis of procedural justice and adolescent’s percep- tions of law and legal authority that has been incorporated into Chapter 7; Alex R. Piquero, Ph.D., of the University of Texas at Dallas, for a review xi

OCR for page R1
xii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS of research on racial disparities for Chapter 8; Simon Singer, Ph.D., of Northeastern University, for assisting committee member Jeff Butts with a paper on current juvenile justice practices; Beth Huebner, Ph.D., of the University of Missouri at St. Louis, for her paper on the Missouri Model that appears in Appendix B of this report; Jessica Kostelnik, Ph.D., a post- doctoral fellow at the Institute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy at the University of Virginia, for a background paper on socializing agents and unique characteristics of adolescents relevant to their sense of account- ability; Kyle Frankiewich, M.P.A., and Daniel J. Evans, School of Public Affairs, University of Washington, for developing material used in Appen- ­ dix A on costs and benefits of juvenile justice interventions. The committee also relied on a paper prepared for the NRC/Institute of Medicine Board on Children, Youth, and Families by a member of the committee, Kenneth A. Dodge, Ph.D., of Duke University, and Nancy Gonzales, Ph.D., of the University of Arizona, for a portion of the material on parental and peer influences on adolescent behavior in Chapter 4. The committee would also like to acknowledge the following p­ ople e for giving presentations at committee meetings: Neelum Arya, Campaign for Youth Justice; James Bell, W. Haywood Burns Institute; Shay ­ ilchik, B Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown University Public Policy ­ ­ Institute; Marcia I. Cohen, Development Services Group, Inc.; Susan Davis, Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department of Public Safety; Lindsey Draper, Office of Justice Assistance, State of Wisconsin; William Feyerherm, Hatfield School of Government, Portland State University; L ­ aurie Garduque, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; Amy Holmes Hehn, District Attorney’s Office, Multnomah County, Oregon; ­ Nancy Gannon Hornberger, Coalition for Juvenile Justice; James C. Howell, National Gang Center, Institute for Intergovernmental Research; Lisa Hutchinson, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Arkansas at Little Rock; Candice Jones, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foun- dation; Valerie LaMotte, Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division, Connecticut Office of Policy and Management; Akiva Liberman, Urban Institute; Mark W. Lipsey, Peabody Research Institute, Vanderbilt Univer- sity; Daniel J. Losen, Civil Rights Project, University of California, Los Angeles; Bart Lubow, Annie E. Casey Foundation; Katyoon Majid, Public Welfare Foundation; Ashley Nellis, The Sentencing Project; Laura Nissen, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; Judy Preston, Special Litigation Unit, Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Justice; Patricia Puritz, National Juvenile Defender Center; Brad ­ ichardson, University of Iowa School of R Social Work, National Resource Center for Family Centered Practice; Pili Robinson, Missouri Youth Services Institute; John Ryals, Department of Juvenile Services, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; Vincent N. Schiraldi, New ­ York City Department of Probation; Dana Shoenberg, Center for Children’s

OCR for page R1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xiii Law and Policy; Mark Soler, Center for Children’s Law and Policy; Thomas Stickrath, Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation; Joe Vignati, Governor’s Office for Children and Families, State of Georgia; John Wilson, Institute for Intergovernmental Research; and Jennifer Woolard, Department of Psychology, Georgetown University. Special thanks goes to Dwayne Betts who graciously appeared before the committee and shared his experiences as an adolescent offender confined in adult institutions and the obstacles he overcame on his way to achieving academic and profes- sional success. Thanks and acknowledgments are due to the members of the com- mittee, all of whom gave generously of their time. Several members took primary responsibility for drafting sections of the report. We wish to thank Terence Thornberry for Chapter 1; Elisabeth Scott for Chapters 2 and 5; Jeff Butts for Chapter 3; B.J. Casey, Kenneth Dodge, Sandra Graham, and Edward Mulvey for Chapter 4; Edward Mulvey and Robert Plotnick for Chapter 6; and Richard Bonnie for Chapter 7. Finally, we would like to thank the NRC staff for valuable assistance with this project: project coor- dinator Barbara Boyd, for facilitating the panel’s meetings; senior research associate Julie A. Schuck, for providing critical budgetary and program- matic information on OJJDP and pulling together other research materials for the committee; study director Betty M. Chemers, for filling in numer- ous gaps and turning the report into a coherent whole; Kirsten Sampson Snyder for help guiding the report through reviews, Christine McShane and Eugenia Grohman for skillful editing, and Yvonne Wise for managing the production process. This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with pro- cedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that assist the institution in making its report as sound as possible, and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manu- script remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: Shay Bilchik, Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown ­ University Public Policy Institute; Barry C. Feld, Centennial Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School; Anne Holton, AECF Child Welfare Strategy Group Consultant, Richmond, Virginia; Antoinette Kavanaugh, ­ ­ Forensic Clinical Psychologist, Chicago, Illinois; Mark W. Lipsey, Peabody Research Institute, Vanderbilt University; Diane Nunn, Center for Families, Children and the Courts, Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts; Alex R. Piquero, Program in Criminology, University of Texas at Dallas; Steven Raphael, Richard and Rhoda Goldman School

OCR for page R1
xiv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley; Carol Wilson Spigner (emerita), University of Pennsylvania, and Child Welfare Services and Policy Consultant, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; and Laurence Steinberg, Department of Psychology, Temple University. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive com- ments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions and recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Alfred Blumstein, The H. John Heinz III College of Public Policy and Information Systems, C ­ arnegie Mellon University, and Ellen Wright Clayton, Center for Bio­ medical Ethics and Society, Vanderbilt University. Appointed by the NRC, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all of the review comments were carefully considered. Responsi- bility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

OCR for page R1
Contents Acronyms xvii Summary 1 1 Introduction 15 2 Historical Context 31 3 Current Practice in the Juvenile Justice System 49 4 Adolescent Development 89 5 A Framework for Reform 119 6 Preventing Reoffending 139 7 Accountability and Fairness 183 8 Reducing Racial/Ethnic Disparities 211 9 Achieving Reform 241 10 The Federal Role 281 11 Moving Forward 321 xv

OCR for page R1
xvi CONTENTS References 333 Appendixes A Costs and Benefits of Juvenile Justice Interventions 393 B The Missouri Model: A Critical State of Knowledge 411 C Mentoring 431 D Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff 435

OCR for page R1
Acronyms AAG Assistant Attorney General Act4JJ Act 4 Juvenile Justice Campaign Archive National Juvenile Court Data Archive ART aggression replacement therapy BCA benefit-cost analysis BJS Bureau of Justice Statistics CEA cost-effectiveness analysis Centers Community Learning Centers CIUS Crime in the United States CJRP Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement CPC Correctional Program Checklist CRIPA Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980 CV contingent valuation DMC disproportionate minority contact DOJ U.S. Department of Justice DSO deinstitutionalization of status offenders DTI diffusion tensor imaging DYS Department of Youth Services EUDL Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Program xvii

OCR for page R1
xviii ACRONYMS FACJJ Federal Advisory Committee for Juvenile Justice FASD fetal alcohol spectrum disorder FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation FFLIC Family and Friends of Louisiana’s Incarcerated Children FFT functional family therapy fMRI functional magnetic resonance imaging GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office GGI guided group interaction IAP Intensive Aftercare Program IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act IOM Institute of Medicine JABG Juvenile Accountability Block Grant JAIBG Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant JDAI Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative JJDPA Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 JJPL Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana JRFC Juvenile Residential Facility Census JUMP Juvenile Mentoring Program MCAA Missing Children’s Assistance Act MIP minor in possession MRI magnetic resonance imaging MST multisystemic therapy MTFC multidimensional treatment foster care MVPP Multisite Violence Prevention Project NCJJ National Center for Juvenile Justice NCLB No Child Left Behind Act NCVS National Crime Victimization Survey NIJ National Institute of Justice NLSY97 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 NRC National Research Council NREPP National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices NTTAC National Training and Technical Assistance Center ODYS Ohio Department of Youth Services OJJDP Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention OJP Office of Justice Programs OMB U.S. Office of Management and Budget

OCR for page R1
ACRONYMS xix PbS Performance-based Standards Program PEP Parent Empowerment Program PLRA Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 PPC Positive Peer Culture Program RNR risk-need-responsivity RRI Relative Rate Index SACWIS Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System SAGs State Advisory Groups SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration SFY Strategies for Youth SYRP Survey of Youth in Residential Placement TTA training and technical assistance TYP Tribal Youth Program UCR Uniform Crime Report VCO valid court order VOCA Victims of Child Abuse Act WSIPP Washington State Institute for Public Policy

OCR for page R1