Weeke 3 Discussion: The Role of the Juvenile Courts
The Role of the Juvenile Courts [WLOs: 1, 2, 3, 4] [CLOs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6]
The separation of the juvenile court from the adult court for hearing juvenile delinquency cases is a major social justice statement. Prior to beginning work on this discussion, read Chapters 6 and 7 in your textbook. (PROVIDED IN ATTACHMENTS) In addition,
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Weeke 3 Discussion: The Role of the Juvenile Courts
Read Trauma-Informed Juvenile Justice Systems: A Systematic Review of Definitions and Core Components. (PROVIDED IN ATTACHMENTS)
Read Three Years of Teen Court Offender Outcomes. (PROVIDED IN ATTACHMENTS)
Read Restorative Sentencing: Exploring the Views of the Public.(PROVIDED IN ATTACHMENTS)
Watch Juvenile Prison: Interview and Court Hearing: https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=100753&xtid=150956
The textbook lays out five critical thinking questions at the end of Chapter 6. Select ONE for your initial post to the discussion:
Do you think the philosophy of the juvenile court system should be rehabilitative or punitive? Defend your position? Defend your position.
Do you think Child Protective Services has “run its course” like some critics suggest? Or should it be revamped? How would you revamp such a service?
Teen courts have become a popular option for diverting youth. What downsides might there be in involving the youth’s peers in the process? Support your case.
Although most states have retained their transfer laws, the rate of transfers to adult court has remained stable. Why do you think this is the case?
Do you agree with the U.S. Supreme Court in regards to the Roper v. Simmons and Miller v. Alabama cases? Why or why not?
Your initial post should be at least 350 words in length. You must use at least one APA 6th edition in-text citation. Support your claims with examples from the required materials and/or other scholarly resources, and properly cite any references.
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 1 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…content&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
6
The Juvenile Court
Model
Ashlee Culverhouse/Chattanooga Times Free Press/Associated Press
Learning Objectives
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 2 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…content&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
In the fall of 2002, two men terrorized the Washington, D.C., area by randomly killing 10 people over the
course of three weeks. The pair earned the name “Beltway Snipers” because of the shooting method used to
kill their victims. In most circumstances, the victims were shot sniper-style from a long distance without the
shooters being seen by the victims or others around them. The victims were chosen at random while they were
simply going about their everyday lives.
During the three-week period, the police had many leads but no real suspects. Then an anonymous tipster
directed police to a previous shooting in Alabama. In that case, the police found fingerprint evidence,
eventually linking the suspects and identifying the make and model of the car they were driving. Shortly
thereafter, the police apprehended the assailants sleeping in their car at a rest stop near where the crimes
were committed. After the assailants were caught, the police found the weapon used in many of the shootings
as well as a hole in the trunk apparently used to conceal the sniper’s gun. The two individuals eventually
convicted of the crimes were John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo. John Allen Muhammad, a 43-
year-old man, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. He was executed by lethal injection in
November 2009.
The public was shocked to learn that the second assailant, Lee Boyd Malvo, was only 17 at the time of the
shootings. He is currently serving six life sentences without the possibility of parole for his role in the crimes
(Horwitz & Ruane, 2004). Prosecutors in Virginia contemplated trying him for additional capital crimes,
which could have resulted in the death penalty. However, in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty
After studying this chapter, you should be able to
accomplish the following objectives:
Explain the purpose and primary features of the
juvenile court.
Summarize the jurisdiction of juvenile court,
especially with regard to cases of abuse and
neglect.
Describe the traditional juvenile court process.
Evaluate the different types of problem-solving
courts.
Summarize the laws used to transfer juveniles to
adult court.
Analyze the legal issues surrounding the death
penalty for juveniles and the recent Supreme Court
decision on mandatory sentences of life without the
possibility of parole.
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 3 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…content&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
is unconstitutional for juvenile defendants.
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 4 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…content&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
6.1 Introduction
The juvenile justice system has changed over time in many ways. By most accounts, the creation of the first
juvenile court is one of the most significant changes in the history of the juvenile justice system. The juvenile
court model, created in 1899, developed with the recognition that juveniles are different from adult offenders.
As such, the juvenile court concept adopted a less formal role of processing cases. In effect, the court
embraced a caretaking role toward juveniles. At the same time, however, we have seen political and social
forces shape the current juvenile court model.
There is a great deal of variation in how juvenile courts are organized throughout the United States. For
example, juvenile courts nationwide differ in terms of who they serve, the interactions among the courtroom
workgroup, and sentencing options available to judges. As noted by Bilchik (1999),
There is much variation in the way state statutes define the purposes of their juvenile courts. Some
declare their goals in exhaustive detail, even listing specific programs and sentencing options;
others mention only broad aims. Most states seek to protect the interests of the child, the family, the
community, or a combination of the three. (p. 3)
Although differences exist, the juvenile court model is organized around several core features:
The judge should act as a parent or advocate for the child rather than rely simply on punishment.
Juveniles and adults should be separated for all proceedings.
Juveniles and adults should be kept in separate institutions.
Probation officers should be appointed who will investigate the youth’s background and provide case
management services.
The first juvenile court was established in 1899. In 1999, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP) published a series of articles to commemorate the 100th anniversary of its establishment;
however, questions remain whether the core concepts of the juvenile court system have ever been fully
realized. In the late 1990s, Cindy Lederman (1999) concluded that the courts were more punitive and lacked
the resources needed to achieve their intended goal: the prevention of juvenile delinquency. She argued that
juvenile courts should not simply mirror the adult criminal court system. Rather, they should be organized
around the founding principles of rehabilitation and advocacy.
Political and social forces play an important role in shaping juvenile justice policy. The juvenile court model
is not immune to these types of influences. As the number of juvenile courts grew, several significant changes
occurred. For example, as more juveniles were subjected to the court system, reformers advocated for the
protection of juveniles’ due process rights. The focus on due process rights was advocated as a way to protect,
not punish, juveniles who were involved in the system. However, as the “get tough” movement of the 1980s
and 1990s spread through the country, reformers advocated for a punitive shift in the handling of juvenile
offenders. One example of this punitive shift is the increased number of youths treated as adults as shown by
the increased use of transfer waivers to the adult court. Many states broadened the criteria for transferring
juvenile offenders to the adult criminal court system based on deterrence theory—that is, harsher treatment
and punishments would discourage, or deter, would-be offenders in the future.
By the early 2000s, though, trends reversed, and juvenile courts began adopting more policies congruent with
the original goals of rehabilitation. For example, alternative courts such as juvenile drug courts, teen courts,
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 5 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…content&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
and even juvenile mental health courts have become popular options. These courts, which have spread
rapidly throughout the country, pair the court and the treatment provider to address juveniles’ various needs.
Raising the age of jurisdiction (the age at which youth convicted of certain crimes will be sent to adult
criminal court for processing) is a topic that has gained support in recent years. Finally, three major Supreme
Court rulings since 2005 have affected the juvenile justice system in terms of death penalty eligibility and
sentences of lifetime without parole. As we examine the current juvenile court system in this chapter, we
discuss these issues as well as many others.
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 6 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…content&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
6.2 Jurisdiction of the Court
Although many people may consider anyone under the age of 18 as a “youth,” courts vary in how they treat
16- and 17-year-old offenders. The majority of the states in this country set the age of original jurisdiction at
17 years of age; five states set it at 16 (see Figure 6.1). This issue continues to evolve because of research
calling into question the effectiveness of transferring youth to adult court.
Figure 6.1: Number of states by age of
original jurisdiction*
*South Carolina’s Act 268 raised the age through age 17, effective
7/1/19; Louisiana’s Act 501 raised the age through 17 for some youth
effective 7/1/18, and others effective 7/1/20; New York’s A3009C raised
the age through 16 effective 10/1/18, and through age 17 effective
10/1/19; North Carolina’s SL2017-57 raised the age through 17,
effective 12/1/19.
“Delinquency upper age, 2016,” from “OJJDP statistical briefing book,”
by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2017,
Retrieved from
h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 2 . ah t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 2 . a
s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 6 & t e x t = n o & m a p l i n k = l i n k 2s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 6 & t e x t = n o & m a p l i n k = l i n k 2
( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 2 . a s p ?( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 2 . a s p ?
q a D a t e = 2 0 1 6 & t e x t = n o & m a p l i n k = l i n k 2 ) q a D a t e = 2 0 1 6 & t e x t = n o & m a p l i n k = l i n k 2 ) and “Recent changes,” from
“Jurisdictional boundaries,” by Juvenile Justice Geography, Policy,
Practice, & Statistics, 2017, Retrieved from
h t t p : / / w w w. j j g p s . o rg / j u r i s d i c t i o n a l – b o u n d a r i e sh t t p : / / w w w. j j g p s . o rg / j u r i s d i c t i o n a l – b o u n d a r i e s
( h t t p : / / w w w. j j g p s . o rg / j u r i s d i c t i o n a l – b o u n d a r i e s )( h t t p : / / w w w. j j g p s . o rg / j u r i s d i c t i o n a l – b o u n d a r i e s )
Page 7 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…content&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
The juvenile court system intervenes in cases of
abuse and neglect and often must determine
custody of juveniles.
Axiom Photographic Limited/SuperStock
Certain charges influence when a juvenile is automatically transferred. For example, Georgia Senate Bill 440,
titled the Juvenile Justice Reform Act, gives the adult court exclusive jurisdiction over the trial of juveniles
13–17 years of age who have committed any offense categorized as the “seven deadly sins.” They are
Murder
Rape
Aggravated robbery with a firearm
Aggravated child molestation
Aggravated sodomy
Aggravated sexual batter
Voluntary manslaughter (Georgia Department of Corrections, 2016)
Age aside, the juvenile court also serves youth from various backgrounds and offense types. For example, in
addition to more serious criminal cases, the juvenile court is in charge of status offenders and abuse and
neglect cases. In some states, the juvenile court retains jurisdiction over child custody disputes, youth with
mental illnesses, protection orders, and child support.
It is the processing of abuse and neglect cases and status offenders, however, that continues to be the subject
of great debate in the field of juvenile justice. Both groups are considered vulnerable populations, and studies
suggest that, without careful consideration, the court’s involvement could exacerbate the problem.
Cases of Abuse and Neglect
Abuse and neglect cases can present a number of unique
challenges to the juvenile court system. For example, the
juvenile court must be mindful of how the court’s
involvement in the youth’s life could exacerbate existing
problems (e.g., negative labeling, exposure to
delinquents). In other circumstances, the youth’s family
may be involved in the criminal justice system and be
resistant to engage in the process. In still other
circumstances, the youth may be involved in the system
both in an abuse and neglect case and in a criminal case
on a different matter. The complexity of these situations
is illustrated in numerous studies that link exposure to
violence (including child abuse) to criminal behavior.
Consider the following facts:
Abused children are significantly more likely to
be involved in criminal behavior compared to
those who were not abused.
Abused children are more likely to be arrested
both as juveniles and adults.
Abused children are three times more likely to
use drugs and alcohol and to exhibit aggressive
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 8 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…content&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
behavior (Earle, 1995).
Studies show that abused and neglected youth
may also experience other forms of
victimization, making their trauma more
complex and the effects longer lasting
(Finkelhor, Turner, Hamby, & Ormrod, 2011).
The court’s responsibility for the child in an abuse and neglect case rests with the concept of inin loco loco
parentisparentis. In loco parentis means “in place of the parent” and implies that the juvenile court will maintain
responsibility for the care of the juvenile in cases where the parents’ rights are terminated. Juveniles in this
circumstance are referred to as wards of the state. In some circumstances, the juvenile court will decide
whether criminal prosecution of the parent is necessary.
However, in many abuse and neglect cases, the parental rights are not terminated. In these cases, the purpose
of the court’s involvement is to intervene and determine whether family reunification is possible. Regardless,
the court will examine the needs of the youth and decide placement and custody issues for the child’s safety.
Child Protective Services
Child Protective Services (CPS) is often involved in the disposition and investigation of abuse and neglect
cases. Many states created CPS agencies in response to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of
1974, which mandates that states provide services to investigate allegations of child maltreatment. The court’s
involvement in child abuse and neglect cases often results from the findings of a CPS investigation. A typical
investigation begins with a complaint to a CPS agency by a teacher, neighbor, police officer, or other
concerned citizen. The CPS worker will investigate the allegation and decide whether to invoke a court filing
on behalf of the youth. Although CPS agencies developed to investigate and care for the youth, these
agencies have been the subject of intense criticism and scrutiny (see Spotlight: Does Child Protective
Services Really Protect the Child? for further discussion).
Spotlight: Does Child Protective Services Really Protect the Child?
The news article was titled “Me and My Stick, We Gonna Have Some Fun.” Those were the alleged
words of an irate father who beat his sons, one of them to death. All of the children in the home were
regularly beaten, burned, and forced to live in filthy conditions in the basement. The family had been
under the investigation of Child Protective Services (CPS), which said they found nothing wrong even
when critics argued there were clear signs of abuse and neglect in the home (Stopczynski, 2012).
Child Protective Services agencies (sometimes known as the Department of Child and Family
Services or the Department of Social Services) are under continual scrutiny either for failing to
protect children, as in the example just noted, or for keeping children away from their families for too
long. These agencies have a difficult job to do and often lack the resources and staff training for
adequate intervention.
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 9 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…content&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Critics argue that CPS is unable to protect children and should be disbanded, because it has, in one
author’s words, “outlived its usefulness”; others argue that the system of investigation is broken
(Bergman, 2010). CPS workers are torn between being skeptical of the parents or caregivers who may
have something to hide and being mindful of keeping families intact for the benefit of the child. Still
others argue that we may need to revise our expectations of CPS, that CPS is simply an investigative
body and can do little to change the circumstances and risk factors in families. That change will come
only with a larger effort toward identifying and managing the underlying causes of child abuse and
neglect (Campbell, Cook, LaFleur, & Keenan, 2010).
Some effort to remedy these issues is being seen in the states. For example, the Texas legislature
recently passed four measures to help increase oversight, efficiency, and communication between
various departments. The state adopted a community-based care model that was developed in the city
of Fort Worth with positive results. The hope is that the program will prove just as effective on a
broader scale (Star-Telegram, 2017).
In most jurisdictions, the juvenile court judge will hold a hearing to examine the case, assess the child’s
safety, and determine whether the child needs alternative placements. In some jurisdictions, the case may be
mediated pretrial. In this circumstance, the parents, attorneys, and child protection advocate may be able to
establish an agreement prior to an adjudication hearing with the court. Youth may be appointed a guardian
ad litem as well. The guardian ad litem’s role is to provide another voice in the process to advocate for the
youth’s best interest.
The formal adjudication process often results in a specific course of action for the youth and sometimes for
the parents. For example, if the youth needs services, the judge will order those at this time. The judge may
also provide specific instructions or steps that the parents must follow in order to regain full custody of the
youth. The court will remain involved in the case and review the progress of the youth and the parents in
achieving reunification. In the end, the judge will decide permanent placement, whether with the biological
parents, another relative, a foster parent, or someone else (Jones, 2006).
Critics worry that the court could have a negative impact on youth by pulling kids away from protective
factors such as school, sports, and prosocial friends. As a result, some judges believe it is best to leave youth
out of the courtroom process. However, others argue that youth should play an active role in the process,
which includes notification of the court hearings, representation, and the opportunity to advocate for their
own behalf (Jones, 2006). These same concerns play out in cases where juveniles are adjudicated criminally.
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 10 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
6.3 Traditional Juvenile Court Process
The traditional juvenile court process is designed to be nonadversarial. In other words, the court system is
designed to serve the best interest of the child. As such, the system differs in many ways from the adult
criminal justice system. How the Miranda warning applies to juveniles is one example of how the systems
differ. For example, police are required to issue a Miranda warning for both adults and juveniles. In the case
of juveniles, however, the police are more likely to indulge youth by repeating the warning, rephrasing or
even simplifying the language of the warning, or asking youth probing questions to make sure they
understand their rights. At the same time, the juvenile justice system may choose to handle cases informally
through a variety of channels—diversion, alternative courts (e.g., teen courts), police diversionary programs,
etc.—rather than through formal processing.
Figure 6.2: The juvenile justice system process
“Figure: Case flow diagram,” by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, n.d., Retrieved from
h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / c a s e . h t m lh t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / c a s e . h t m l
( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / c a s e . h t m l )( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / c a s e . h t m l )
The majority of cases handled by the juvenile court are referred to law enforcement agencies after an arrest.
Note, however, that a juvenile’s delinquent behavior could come to the attention of the court from other
sources (e.g., probation officers, social service agencies, victims). The decision to arrest is complex, and the
youth may be released to his or her parents, diverted to an alternative agency (e.g., shelter), or referred for
prosecution.
More than 680,000 juveniles were arrested in 2016 (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2017). Of those
juveniles, just slightly over 41,000 were arrested for violent offenses (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter,
forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault), and more than 147,000 were arrested for property offenses
(burglary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson). We also see
some differences by age; the pattern suggests that older youth are
arrested more frequently than younger youth. For example, if we
focus on the crimes committed by youth under age 15, we see that
only 2.2% of all arrests in 2016 were committed by those in that age
category.
The juvenile courts, however, do not necessarily see all of these
cases. In 2010, for example, approximately 23% of the juveniles
who came into formal contact with the police were released to their
parents. The remaining would likely be sent to the juvenile court for
formal or informal processing (Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014).
Informal processing might include diverting the youth to an
alternative program (e.g., teen court) or might even result in a
dismissal of the case. Those who are sent to the juvenile court for
formal processing go through what is referred to as an intake
process.
Intake
The intake stage is considered a pivotal part of the process. At this
stage the youth can be processed formally, diverted to an alternative
agency or specialty court, or released from the system due to
insufficient evidence. Typically, the intake process includes a review
of the case and the youth’s history and suitability for the juvenile
court. The intake review may result in a number of outcomes. For example, intake agents may decide there is
insufficient evidence to proceed with the case and drop the charges. In other circumstances, the juvenile may
enter into a diversion program, where the case is handled informally. But in other situations, the case may be
transferred to the adult system for processing.
Who performs this intake review varies by jurisdiction. In some cases, the prosecutor’s office is responsible
for reviewing the legal merits of the case. In other areas, the court may have its own intake unit that reviews
the case. And in still other cases, the probation department may handle the review (Sickmund & Puzzanchera,
2014).
According to the latest statistics shown in Figure 6.2, approximately 55% of the cases referred to court will
be handled formally. In these cases, a petition (similar to an indictment in adult court) would be filed with the
court for formal processing. A petition is a court document detailing the charges against the youth. The
prosecutor examines the evidence against the youth at this stage and determines whether there is sufficient
evidence to proceed with the case.
Figure 6.3: Expected juvenile court case processing of every 1,000
cases in 2015
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 12 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
From “Juvenile court processing for a typical 1,000 delinquency cases, 2015,” in OJJDP statistical briefing
book, by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2018, Retrieved from
h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c o u r t / J C S C F _ D i s p l a y. a s p ?h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c o u r t / J C S C F _ D i s p l a y. a s p ?
I D = q a 0 6 6 0 1 & y e a r = 2 0 1 5 & g ro u p = 1 & e s t i m a t e = 1I D = q a 0 6 6 0 1 & y e a r = 2 0 1 5 & g ro u p = 1 & e s t i m a t e = 1
( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c o u r t / J C S C F _ D i s p l a y. a s p ?( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c o u r t / J C S C F _ D i s p l a y. a s p ?
I D = q a 0 6 6 0 1 & y e a r = 2 0 1 5 & g ro u p = 1 & e s t i m a t e = 1 )I D = q a 0 6 6 0 1 & y e a r = 2 0 1 5 & g ro u p = 1 & e s t i m a t e = 1 )
The youth’s background will be assessed to better inform the court of the various issues or problems the
youth faces. In some cases, the assessment process is very involved; other times the judge may simply
examine the youth’s criminal background. As discussed in Chapter 4, a number of factors are correlated with
criminal behavior. Those factors include education, peers, substance addiction, family, personality, and
criminal attitudes (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). If youth are skipping school, hanging around with antisocial
friends, and using drugs and alcohol, they have a greater likelihood of committing another crime in the future.
Investigating these factors at the intake stage is important, as what is learned about the youth’s situation can
give the judge a sense of what types of services the juvenile may need.
On average, 45% of the cases referred to juvenile court are handled informally or diverted from formal
processing (Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014). As mentioned earlier, informal processing can take several
different routes including referral to an alternative court (e.g., teen court), informal probation, community
service, restitution, or some other diversionary service. We discuss diversion later in this section, but let’s first
examine the use of pretrial detention.
Page 13 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Critics often argue whether the
benefits of detaining juveniles before
adjudication outweigh the costs.
iStockphoto/Thinkstock
Once youth are arrested and a petition has been filed, they may be
detained prior to their first court hearing. The benefits of detaining
youth can include ensuring that they will appear for their court
hearing or giving them some time for stabilization (e.g., to address
mental health issues or safety). Critics have argued against the
pretrial detention of juveniles on due process grounds; however, the
Supreme Court did not agree. In SchallSchall v. v. Martin Martin (1984), the
Court ruled that the detention of juveniles for preventive reasons
(i.e., to prevent them from committing more crimes while awaiting
adjudication) is justifiable in the interest of public safety.
Although detaining youth prior to trial does have some benefits (e.g.,
ensuring safety if the youth is in harm’s way at home), a number of
issues or problems have arisen with this sanction. For example,
studies suggest that detained youth are
At greater risk for suicide
At greater risk for physical and sexual victimization
More likely to be convicted of the offense
More likely to receive a more severe disposition (Hayes,
2004; McCord, Widom, & Crowell, 2001)
Another criticism of detention arises from concerns regarding the
racial and gender inequities in detention decisions. For example,
with regard to race, studies suggest that African American youth are
substantially more likely to be detained pretrial than are white youth,
even when arrested for the same charge type (Schiraldi & Ziedenberg, 2003). When we examine gender, we
see that boys are more likely to be detained than girls; however, girls are more likely to be detained for less
serious offenses. For example, studies find that, compared to boys, girls are more likely to be detained for
status offenses and more likely to be sent back to jail for minor technical offenses. Some girls are detained to
protect them from violence in their environment. We often see this in status offenses such as running away,
when the youth may be running away to escape abuse at home or school.
Concerns regarding the detention of girls for less serious crimes have led to several reforms. For example,
proponents of these reforms recommend that the system be more responsive to the needs of girls in the
system. That responsiveness includes educating those in the system that detention is not an appropriate
therapeutic option for girls. If the girl is struggling with compliance due to abuse or school issues, judges may
decide to use detention as a means of removing her from the negative environment. However, the detention
environment can simply exacerbate the problem. As such, advocates argue that gender-responsive approaches
for managing delinquent girls are needed, given the complexity of their situation (Sherman, 2005).
Efforts to reduce the problems associated with detention exist as well. For example, in the early 1990s the
Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI) created standards dictating the procedures and conditions
surrounding the detention of juveniles. The initiative set forth a number of goals for participating sites,
including ensuring that only high-risk youth would be detained, reducing the length of detention, and
reducing the number of minorities kept in detention facilities. An evaluation of the sites utilizing these
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 14 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
approaches found that “sites had reduced their reliance on secure detention [jails] without increasing arrest or
failure to appear rates” (Sherman, 2005, p. 9).
Adjudication and Disposition
The court hearing, which determines the juvenile’s guilt or innocence, is referred to as an adjudication
hearing. The adjudication hearing follows some of the same procedures found in the adult court system.
Juveniles are afforded certain due process rights at this hearing. For example, the standard of evidence
dictates that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict the youth of the crime. In addition,
there must be a written petition, juveniles have the right not to self-incriminate, and the attorneys may cross-
examine witnesses.
At this point in the process, both sides of the case will be presented to the judge. In many circumstances, the
parents may be asked to testify on the youth’s behalf. If a pretrial agency or probation officer conducted the
pretrial assessments, those results will be submitted to the judge for consideration. The charges against the
youth may be dismissed or the case may be continued to another time. If the evidence supports the charges,
the judge will typically set a date for the disposition hearing, which is also referred to as the sentencing
phase.
The judge typically sets the disposition hearing for a different time than the adjudication hearing. The
separation, also called the bifurcation, of the two hearings is beneficial for several reasons. Most notably, the
judge can consider factors not necessarily admissible in the determination of guilt. For example, the judge
may consider the youth’s living circumstances, school history, family supports, and other factors during the
sentencing process. If the youth is considered low risk for future delinquency, that could reduce the severity
of the sentence given.
The role of the defense attorney is important here as well. The defense attorney’s role as an advocate for the
juvenile came under intense scrutiny in the 1990s. The OJJDP created the Due Process Advocacy Project in
1993. The purpose of the project was to provide a national review of how well juvenile delinquents were
being served by their defense attorneys. On the one hand, the juvenile’s defense attorney needs to be a zealous
advocate for his or her client, which may lead to an adversarial relationship with the prosecutor. On the other
hand, the defense attorney must understand the needs of the client and maintain a helping role. The project
included surveys and interviews with juvenile justice professionals. The recommendations are as follows:
Juvenile defenders must: understand child and adolescent development to be able to communicate
effectively with their clients, and to evaluate the client’s level of maturity and competency and its
relevancy to the delinquency case; have knowledge of and contacts at community-based programs
to compose an individualized disposition plan; be able to enlist the client’s parent or guardian as an
ally without compromising the attorney-client relationship; know the intricacies of mental health
and special education law, as well as the network of schools that may or may not be appropriate
placements for the client; and communicate the long- and short-term collateral consequences of a
juvenile adjudication, including the possible impact on public housing, school and job applications,
eligibility or financial aid, and participation in the armed forces. (Sterling, 2009, p. 4)
In many circumstances, the juvenile’s case may be eligible for a diversion.
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 15 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Diversion Programs
Diversion programs are usually for first-time offenders
who have committed minor offenses.
1. How are diversion programs beneficial?
2. How do the police department’s diversion programs
work with the community?
Diversion
Diversion refers to moving or routing
a case from formal processing in the
juvenile justice system. The logic
behind diverting cases from the
juvenile justice system rests on several
grounds, most notably that processing
juveniles through a formal system
could potentially do more harm than
good (Lundman, 1993; Mears, 2017).
The concern surrounding the formal
processing of juveniles through the
court system is the impact that
exposure to the system might have on
future criminal behavior. Studies
emerged in the 1960s suggesting that
youth who were formally labeled as
criminals were more likely to have
worse outcomes. It was during this
time that labeling theory was
popularized.
A wide range of services fall under the
label “diversion program.” As a result,
assessing the features or effectiveness
of diversion programs is difficult.
Several issues come into play in this
regard. First, programs vary in terms
of types and intensity of the services
offered. For example, a diversion
program may consist of only community service for a few weekends in one jurisdiction, whereas another
diversionary program may be much more intensive and require the youth to attend treatment and complete
restitution over a series of months. Second, deciding which juveniles to target is a source of debate. For
example, in many circumstances, diversion programs are reserved for those who commit less serious offenses
(e.g., shoplifting, status offenses like truancy); however, studies have found that diversion programs could
work for those who commit more serious crimes and have targeted those juveniles as well (Davidson, Redner,
Blakely, Mitchell, & Emshoff, 1987). As such, some jurisdictions send youth from a variety of backgrounds
through diversion programs.
Given the difficulty in deciding whom to divert and what services to offer, it is not surprising that studies
have found mixed results in terms of effectiveness. Some studies showed that diverting youth from formal
processing is an effective way to reduce future criminal behavior (Wilson & Hodge, 2013), but others found
it has no effect or even increases the recidivism rates of juveniles (Lipsey, Cordray, & Berger, 1981;
Schwalbe, Gearing, MacKenzie, Brewer, and Ibrahim, 2012). However, a more recent meta-analysis of
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 16 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Katie Edwards/Ikon
Images/SuperStock
diversion programs found benefits, with those diverted from official processing experiencing lower
recidivism rates (Wong, Bouchard, Gravel, Bouchard, & Morselli, 2016).
In the 1990s,
problem-solving courts
for juveniles emerged as an intensive diversionary-type program.
Problem-solving courts, also referred to as specialty courts, developed more from an organizational crisis
created by an increase in court caseloads than from pure interest in diversion. However, these courts can
serve youth in some of the same ways as more traditional diversion programs. Several specialty or alternative
courts have developed for juveniles; however, the most common are teen/youth courts, drug courts, and
mental health courts (described in the next section). See the Featured Program box for a closer look at one of
these programs.
Featured Program: The Beat Within
209 Ninth St., San Francisco, CA 94103
http://beatwithin.org/ (http://beatwithin.org/)
Mission: The Beat Within’s mission is to provide incarcerated youth with
consistent opportunities to share their ideas and life experiences in a safe
space that encourages literacy, self-expression, critical thinking skills, and
healthy, supportive relationships with adults and their community.
Outside of the juvenile justice system, The Beat Within partners with
community organizations and individuals to bring resources to youth both
inside and outside of detention. We are committed to being an effective
bridge between youth who are locked up and the community that aims to
support their progress toward a healthy, nonviolent, and productive life.
My motivation is The Beat Within
It helps me through these rough days.
It’s a place where I can be myself and write
All the pain away.
—Pretty Kevy, Alameda, CA (Issue 17.39/40, Volume A/B)
David Inocencio knows how far a little respect can go. As a youth advocate, David worked in the
community, providing alternatives to incarceration. What he found was simple— when these youth
were treated like human beings worthy of respect they opened up. Their answers became less
guarded, and, perhaps for the first time in their lives, they felt heard. They felt like they had something
valuable to say.
It was this concept that motivated David to team up with Pacific News Service, a nonprofit
media/communications organization, to create The Beat Within—a series of writing work-shops for
youth detained in San Francisco’s Youth Guidance Center. The Beat’s first publication was created out
http://beatwithin.org/
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 17 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
of the exigency that followed the murder of rapper Tupac Shakur, when David noticed a need for the
teens he worked with to publicize their intense feelings of loss. Originally, their work was printed in a
six-page magazine, which was brought back to them the following week. From there, the workshops
have only grown, seeking to empower young people by affirming their unique voice.
At a Beat Within writing workshop, a volunteer facilitator meets with 10–20 youth who are given
several writing prompts and encouraged to tell their story. The writings and art composed in the
workshops are then transcribed by Beat staff to review for publication. Each entry selected to be
published receives a response from one of the Beat’s staff or volunteers. Responses like the following
examples offer the writers praise, encouragement, advice, or questions to prompt further thinking:
“It takes a lot of courage and independence to say what you did. What are some of your
sources for strength?”
“Truly great work. You have submitted some really lovely poems this week! We think you
are finding your strength as a writer and a poet.”
For the staff at the Beat, this is their chance to show writers that at least one person in the world sees
them and recognizes the situation they’re in. For some youth, being published is the first positive
recognition they have ever received. Many of these teens have been marginalized since they were old
enough to remember, living on the fringes of a society that judges them in one glance. For these teens,
the affirmation that they are worthy to be heard can be life changing. All writers are encouraged to
continue writing after they are out of detention, wherever life takes them.
Today, The Beat Within staff and volunteers serve more than 5,000 youth annually through workshops
in 12 California county juvenile halls: Alameda, Fresno, Los Angeles, Marin, Monterey, Riverside,
San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Solano. Outside of
California, Beat workshops occur in Arizona, Hawaii, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, and Washington,
D.C. The Beat Within has also partnered with education and criminal justice programs at the
University of California, Berkeley; Stanford University; the University of Hawaii; the University of
Redlands; and Portland State University. Currently, The Beat Within is 80 pages and is printed
biweekly.
For the latest issue of The Beat Within, check out the “Archives” link on their website. For more
information on The Beat Within, visit the following websites:
Watch the story of The Beat Within (received Honorable Mention at the BEA Festival of
Media Arts, 2011): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKrQ52SQQ1c&feature=play
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKrQ52SQQ1c&feature=play)
SF Gate article (“An underground railroad of artistry”):
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Release-The-Beat-is-a-magazine-newsletter-
2661082.php (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Release-The-Beat-is-a-magazine-newsletter-
2661082.php)
Juvenile Justice Information Exchange, “Healing Words: Creative Writing Programs for Kids
in Detention”: https://jjie.org/2012/11/29/healing-words-creative-writing -programs-as-
therapy-for-kids-detention/ (https://jjie.org/2012/11/29/healing-words-creative-writing-
programs-as-therapy-for-kids-detention/)
Page 18 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 19 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Diversion Program: Youth Court
Under the parens patria model, the juvenile court should
be designed to help youth. One way they do that is through
diversion programs.
1. Why is it important to have diversion programs for
first-time offenders?
2. Why is it important to involve the community and
parents in diversion programs?
6.4 Alternative Processes: Problem-Solving Courts
Alternative courts, often referred to as
problem-solving courts, are a fairly
recent and popular innovation.
Problem-solving courts are popular in
both the adult and juvenile justice
systems. In fact, as we will discuss in
this section, drug courts and mental
health courts for juveniles emerged
from the adult system. Teen courts are
an example of a problem-solving court
designed specifically for juvenile
delinquents.
Teen Courts
The rapid growth of teen courts
suggests that they are popular in many
jurisdictions. For example, in 1994
only 78 teen courts were in operation
(Butts & Buck, 2000; Herman, 2002).
Currently, approximately 1,400 youth
or teen courts are operating in the
United States (OJJDP, 2012).
Typically, teen courts are designed for
first-time nonviolent offenders. The
courts are considered diversionary
programs given their use of an
informal courtroom process. The
courts typically handle juveniles who
have committed status offenses, but
they can handle misdemeanor offenses including drug possession, assault, and disorderly conduct. One of the
core features of the teen court is the involvement of youth peers. Having juveniles’ peers involved in the
process rests on the logic that teens will respect their peers’ opinion of their behavior. It also provides a forum
for the community to become involved in addressing juvenile delinquency. According to Butts and Buck
(2000), there are five common teen court models:
Adult judge. In this model the judge is an adult; however, the other “courtroom” members (e.g.,
prosecutor, defense attorney, jury) are youth.
Youth judge. In this model the judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, and jury are youth. Adults would
typically oversee this court and assist with facilitating the dispositions (e.g. community service
options).
Peer jury. An adult is typically involved in a limited capacity as a judge in this model; however,
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 20 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
there are no attorneys, and the peer jury may ask the youth questions directly before deciding the
sanction.
Youth tribunal. Three youth act as a tribunal, or panel of judges, in this model. There are youth
attorneys; however, there is no jury. The panel of youth decides the
sanctions.
Mixed model. Some courts choose to utilize two or more of the court models discussed above.
As can be seen in Figure 6.4, a national survey of teen courts found that nearly half of the courts utilize an
adult judge model, and most are relatively small. More than half of the programs serve fewer than 100 clients
per year. Two-thirds (66%) served youth under the age of 16, and nearly all (98%) indicated that they rarely
or never accept youth with a prior felony record.
Figure 6.4: Typical features of teen courts
From “Teen courts: A focus on research,” by J. 05-11-2018 and J. Buck, 2000 (Washington, DC: Office of
Juvenile Delinquency and Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice).
Teen courts can utilize various consequences or sanctions. The sanctions are designed not only to punish the
youth for the misbehavior but also, in theory, to act as a learning tool to reduce future arrests. For example,
restitution or community service is often used to allow youth to “repair” the damage caused by their crimes.
However, other sanctions, including victim apology letters, essays, teen court duty, victim awareness classes,
or other relevant classes (drug and alcohol, driving/traffic, etc.), are commonly used.
The effectiveness of the teen courts is the subject of debate given that some studies suggest they do not lower
recidivism (Gase, Schooley, DeFosset, Stoll, & Kuo, 2016). Other studies, however, support their use. A
study of teen courts across four states found that, overall, teen court participants have lower recidivism rates
as compared to a similar group of juveniles who did not participate in a teen court. Butts, Buck, and
Coggeshall (2002) concluded that teen courts seem like a viable option for juveniles not only because of the
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 21 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
lower recidivism rates but also because they tend to operate at lower costs due to the involvement of
volunteers who work for the program. Other alternative courts have been developed to handle juveniles
convicted of more serious crimes. For example, the drug court model has become popular for juveniles who
are involved with drugs and alcohol.
Youth Court Success Stories
Youth courts have become a popular option for juveniles.
1. Why is important to showcase successful alumni to
promote a program?
2. Why might it also be important to focus on the failures?
Juvenile Drug Courts
More than 20 years after it began, the drug court model continues to enjoy tremendous support and
popularity. Although variations exist between courts, the basic drug court model relies on a treatment- and
accountability-oriented court approach used to relieve the backlogged judicial system created by the “war on
drugs” (see Irwin & Austin, 2011). Virtually every state has implemented an adult drug court, and most have
implemented a juvenile drug court. According to the National Association of Drug Court Professionals
(2015), as of June 2015, more than 3,100 drug courts were operating in the United States. Of those, 409
(13%) were juvenile drug courts.
As drug courts expanded, efforts were made to identify the essential strategies for effectively processing and
managing drug-abusing offenders. Although drug courts varied by location, common strategies set these
courts apart from traditional criminal case processing. These strategies included placing the client in
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 22 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
treatment near the point of arrest, providing ongoing assessment of clients’ needs, offering intensive treatment
services for longer periods of time, developing a continuum of rewards and consequences to reinforce desired
behavioral change, and offering aftercare and alumni options to sustain the impact of the primary treatment
phase(s). In addition, drug courts emphasized close monitoring of required drug and alcohol abstinence;
continuing and direct judicial interaction with each participant; and a multidisciplinary, coordinated team
approach to addressing participant noncompliance issues.
In the mid-1990s, juvenile drug courts emerged to specifically address juvenile delinquency involving
substance abuse issues or addiction. Juvenile drug courts emanated from the popularity of the adult model.
However, it quickly became apparent that involving juvenile offenders in treatment and services often
involves a more complex set of dynamics. The complexity includes a number of factors. First, juvenile drug
courts must involve the family. The family can be a tremendous resource and support system for the youth,
but they can also be a barrier if they are not invested in helping the youth or if they enable the youth’s
substance use. Moreover, the family may not be a traditional biological mother or father but can be other
relatives, others residing in the home, or foster parents. The courts need to integrate these individuals into the
youth’s treatment plan, which can be difficult. In some circumstances, this integration may mean working
with family members who are also in treatment for their own substance abuse issues. As a result, parents may
be involved in the adult drug court simultaneous to the juvenile’s involvement in the juvenile drug court.
Second, youth involved in juvenile court often lack the maturity of adults and may justify their drug or
alcohol use as being a normal ritual of adolescence. The notion of abstaining from drugs and alcohol forever
is nearly unfathomable for a 16-year-old. As such, drug courts need to do more than simply tell youth that
they may not have contact with their peers and must abstain from alcohol and drug use. Rather, the courts
must develop positive peer networks for youth and motivate them in alternative ways. Finally, the court must
also coordinate with the school system to ensure youth are attending and engaged.
The complexity of the juvenile court model led the National Drug Court Institute to gather a panel of experts
to develop the 16 core components for juvenile drug courts (see Table 6.1). As you can see, the components
are similar to the adult model but include important components such as family engagement, educational
linkages, and developmentally appropriate services (U.S. Department of Justice, 2003).
Table 6.1: Juvenile drug courts: Key components
1. Collaborative planning
2. Teamwork
3. Clearly-defined target population and eligibility criteria
4. Judicial involvement and supervision
5. Monitoring and evaluation
6. Community partnerships
7. Comprehensive treatment planning
8. Developmentally-appropriate services
9. Gender-appropriate services
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 23 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
10. Cultural competency
11. Strength focused
12. Family engagement
13. Educational linkages
14. Drug testing
15. Goal-oriented incentives and sanctions
16. Confidentiality
From Juvenile drug courts: Strategies in practice, by U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance,
Washington, DC, 2003.
As with teen courts, one of the biggest debates over these specialty courts is related to their effectiveness.
These types of programs are often fairly long and intensive. As such, they can be more time consuming and
sometimes more costly than other interventions. Supporters argue that the costs are neutralized by keeping
the youth out of the system in the future (e.g., reduction in recidivism); however, studies of juvenile drug
courts find mixed results (Tanner-Smith, Lipsey, & Wilson, 2016; van Wormer & Lutze, 2011). According to
Huddleston and Marlowe (2011), juvenile drug courts that rely on the following best practices are more likely
to show significant positive outcomes:
Requiring parents or guardians to attend status hearings
Holding status hearings in court in front of a judge
Avoiding overreliance on costly detention sanctions
Reducing youths’ associations with drug-using and delinquent peers
Enhancing parents’ or guardians’ supervision of their teens
Modeling consistent and effective disciplinary practices (p. 6)
Another variation on this drug court model is the family drug court. According to the Office of Justice
Programs (1998), the family drug court is
a drug court that deals with cases involving parental rights in which an adult is the party litigant,
which comes before the court through either the criminal or civil process, and which arise out of the
substance abuse of a parent, and include custody and visitation disputes; abuse, neglect and
dependency matters; petitions to terminate parental rights; guardianship proceedings; or other loss,
restriction or limitation of parental rights.
The goal of the family drug court is to treat the parent’s addiction and substance use in a holistic manner. The
treatment may focus primarily on the adult but will also take into account family issues (e.g., parenting skills,
coping, family reunification). As mentioned earlier, given the complexity of family drug use, the juvenile’s
drug use may also come to the attention of the court, and treatment referrals can be made.
Mental Health Courts
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 24 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Juvenile mental health courts are the newest of the specialty courts, originating in California in 2001
(Cocozza & Shufelt, 2006). They are designed to provide services similar to the juvenile drug court; however,
the target population includes those with significant mental illnesses, which typically include bipolar disorder,
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), clinical depression, anxiety, and so on. The courts may also
accept youth who have certain developmental disabilities or autism.
Juvenile drug courts may accept youth with minor forms of mental illness if the juvenile has co-occurring
disorders, in which case the individual has both a substance abuse problem and a mental health disorder. For
instance, a juvenile drug court may accept a youth with a substance addiction who exhibits what is considered
a more minor mental health issue such as depression or anxiety. Juvenile mental health courts, however, will
typically target youth with more significant mental health issues such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
The treatment services also have to take into consideration the youth’s mental illness. As such, the treatment
will often need to include medication management, support services for mental illness that include school-
based interventions, and family support that includes coping with youth who have mental illnesses.
Studies of juvenile mental health courts are more difficult to come by. Preliminary research on these courts
shows some improved outcomes among participants (Behnken, Arredondo, & Packman, 2009; Ramirez,
Andretta, Barnes, & Woodland, 2015); however, more research is needed before we can say for sure whether
this type of court is a good choice for juveniles. And as noted by Cocozza and Shufelt (2006),
Given that the juvenile justice system is treatment and rehabilitation oriented, there is some
question about the need for specialized courts in the juvenile justice system at all. Some have
suggested that the same mechanisms could be established and the same services provided within a
regular juvenile court setting. (p. 5)
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 25 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
6.5 Alternative Processes: Transferring Youth to Adult Court
Various sentencing options are available to the juvenile court judge. Examples include probation, community
service, residential treatment, and incarceration (see Chapter 7). The dispositions available to the judge vary
just as they do in the adult court. However, a unique disposition option in juvenile court is referred to as the
blended sentence. In this circumstance, the juvenile is given a disposition in both the juvenile and adult
systems. For example, a juvenile may be sentenced to intensive supervision with juvenile probation but also
receive a sentence of incarceration in the adult system. The judge will suspend the adult sentence based on
the juvenile’s behavior in the intensive supervision probation. In this example, if the juvenile fails to abide by
the conditions of probation, the adult sentence may be invoked. Another option is to transfer the case to the
adult criminal court. In some states, the transfer of the case is automatic; in others, the judge makes the
decision.
Transfer laws changed dramatically by the early 1990s. As noted earlier, the get-tough movement and the fear
that the juvenile crime rate would rapidly increase led to a number of tougher policies for juvenile justice.
One such get-tough approach was to make it easier to transfer juveniles to the adult criminal court.
An automatic transfer policy dictates that certain offenses will trigger a youth’s being sent to the adult system.
To give some perspective of how these policies were driven by the social and political climate of the 1980s
and 1990s, let’s consider their rapid expansion during this time. In the 1970s, only eight states had enacted
automatic transfer laws, and those were primarily for capital offenses or murder. However, as noted by
Griffin, Addie, Adams, and Firestine (2011), by the 1980s, 20 states had adopted automatic transfer laws, and
by the end of the 1990s, 30 states had adopted these types of laws. Today, nearly every state has laws
allowing for the transfer of juveniles to the adult court system for certain offenses. Although the juvenile
violent crime rate did not increase at the rate predicted, states have not reversed their transfer laws.
Transfer Laws
As we discussed earlier, states vary in terms of how they define the age of original jurisdiction for juvenile
court. However, all states have passed laws that allow for the adult court to handle juvenile cases in
exceptional circumstances. The decision to transfer typically takes into consideration the defendant’s age, the
seriousness of the crime, the defendant’s prior history, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. Some states also
have adopted laws requiring transfer for certain types of crimes.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (2017), transfer laws fall under three basic
categories:
Judicial waiver laws. The case starts in juvenile court, and the juvenile court judge decides to send
the case to adult court after weighing the evidence and a formal hearing. Sixteen states have some
form of judicial waiver laws.
Prosecutorial discretion or concurrent jurisdiction laws. The types of eligible cases or crimes are
identified, and the prosecutor is granted the discretion to transfer the case. No formal hearing is
necessary. Fifteen states have some form of prosecutorial discretion or concurrent jurisdiction laws.
Statutory exclusion laws. Here the adult court has automatic jurisdiction over a set of cases or
crimes. Twenty states have some form of statutory exclusion laws.
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 26 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Amanda Myers/Associated Press
Most states also set forth a minimum age for transfer decisions. For example, three states allow juveniles as
young as 10 years of age who are accused of murder to be transferred to the adult criminal court system (see
Table 6.2 for the minimum age by state). Twenty-four states also allow for a petition to reverse the waiver to
juvenile court. Thirty-four states have a provision referred to as “once an adult, always an adult,” which
means that if the juvenile has been convicted in adult criminal court before, he or she will continue to be
transferred to the adult system for processing in the event of future crimes. There are few exceptions to this
law, however, as a few states require only certain felonies or youth of a certain age (16 years or older in most
cases) to be eligible for the once an adult, always an adult law.
Table 6.2: Youngest age at which a juvenile can be transferred to the adult criminal court
system
Age State
10 Kansas, Vermont, Wisconsin
12 Missouri, Montana
13 Illinois, Mississippi, North Carolina, Georgia, Wyoming, New Hampshire
14 Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Virginia
15 New Mexico
From “Figure: Minimum transfer age specified in statute, 2009,” in OJJDP statistics briefing book, by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, 2011, Retrieved from h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 5 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 0 9h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 5 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 0 9
( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 5 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 0 9 )( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 5 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 0 9 )
A recent review of the rate of transfers to adult court showed some interesting findings. First, when we look
at judicial transfers, the number of transfers dropped significantly since the practice became popular in the
mid-1990s. Moreover, few cases are transferred to adult court, with less than 2% of cases being transferred
on average. Finally, not all of the transfers to adult court are for violent offenses (Bishop, Frazier, & Henretta,
1989). These issues as well as others have led to a number of criticisms of the transfer laws.
Criticisms of Transfer Laws
First, some observers argue the statutory exclusion laws
take the discretion away from the judge or prosecutor to
decide whether the juvenile may be better served in the
juvenile court. By examining the youth’s social history
and life circumstances, the judge or prosecutor may deem
the juvenile worthy of a rehabilitative approach more
commonly found in the juvenile justice system.
Second, research suggests that juveniles’ brains are not
fully developed until they are in their mid-20s (Steinberg
& Scott, 2003). The prefrontal cortex, which controls
Page 27 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Many criticisms challenge the effectiveness of
juvenile transfer laws.
rational thought and decision making, does not fully
develop until around age 25. Although juveniles may be
able to distinguish between right and wrong before this
age, their ability to make decisions may be considered a mitigating circumstance in deciding responsibility,
particularly in an adult court.
Third, studies have shown that disparities in transfer decisions sometimes exist. For example, a recent study
of 30,000 youth transferred to adult courts in Florida found that African American youth were more likely
than whites to be sent to prison posttransfer (Lehmann, Chiricos, & Bales, 2017). Moreover, although the
seriousness of the offense is important in nearly all transfer cases, Hispanic and African American youth were
more likely to be transferred for nearly all offense categories (Juszkiewicz, 2009).
Finally, another criticism against transfer laws is regarding their effectiveness. The logic behind transferring
juveniles to adult court rests with deterrence theory. If juveniles are transferred to the adult court, it sends a
message to both the juvenile in question as well as to other juveniles that they better not commit a crime. In
theory, we would expect that the juvenile who is given a more severe sanction would be less likely to commit
a crime in the future. However, some studies suggest that juveniles transferred to adult court are actually less
likely to receive prison time (Clarke, 1996; Kurlychek & Johnson, 2004). Perhaps more important is whether
the transferred juveniles are more likely to recidivate. Studies have found that juveniles transferred to adult
court are more likely to recidivate, less likely to have access to treatment services, and are at greater risk for
victimization (Applegate, King Davis, & Cullen, 2009; Bales & Piquero, 2012).
The movement away from the get-tough philosophy for juvenile justice has led to a reduction in transfers to
adult court, although this varies by offense. As seen in Figure 6.5, the number of youth transferred to adult
court peaked in 1994 and has declined substantially since then.
Figure 6.5: Number of delinquency cases judicially waived to adult
criminal court, by charge type
From “National estimates of court processing for delinquency cases, all cases,” in Easy access to juvenile
court statistics: 1985–2015, by M. Sickmund, A. Sladky, and W. Kang, 2018, Retrieved from
h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a j c s / a s p / p ro c e s s . a s ph t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a j c s / a s p / p ro c e s s . a s p
( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a j c s / a s p / p ro c e s s . a s p )( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a j c s / a s p / p ro c e s s . a s p )
Page 28 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 29 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
6.6 Death Penalty for Juveniles
The death penalty for juveniles is another controversial subject for the juvenile justice system. In the late
1960s, the death penalty was challenged for both juveniles and adults under the Eighth Amendment
protection against cruel and unusual punishment. At that time, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty
process violated the Eighth Amendment due to the level of discretion given to judges in handling these cases.
As a result, states began to revise their procedures and processes for handling death penalty cases, and by
1975 the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty in itself did not violate an individual’s rights under the
Eighth Amendment if states implemented safeguards for handling the cases. According to Lynn Cothern
(2000, p. 3), the following safeguards were developed to make sentencing more equitable:
In death penalty cases, the determination of guilt or innocence must be decided separately from
hearings in which sentences of life imprisonment or death are decided.
The court must consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances in relation to both the crime and
the offender.
The death sentence must be subject to review by the highest state court of appeals to ensure that the
penalty is in proportion to the gravity of the offense and is imposed even-handedly under state law.
For juveniles, the death penalty was an option if they were waived to adult court, although the Supreme Court
did not take up the issue specifically until the late 1980s in the case of ThompsonThompson v. v. Oklahoma Oklahoma (1988). The
Court ruled that youth under the age of 16 at the time of the crime could not be executed unless the state had
a minimum age specified.
In subsequent cases (Stanford v. Kentucky [1989] and Wilkins v. Missouri [1989]), the Supreme Court upheld
the ruling and argued that for a punishment to be considered cruel and unusual, it must offend society’s
standard of human decency. The justices in favor of the death penalty argued that executing 16- and 17-year-
olds did not offend this standard of decency. By 2000, 38 states allowed for punishment by death. Of these
38, however, 16 set the minimum age for a death-penalty punishment at 18 years of age, effectively removing
the death penalty option for juveniles.
In 2003, the Supreme Court reversed its previous decisions on the death penalty for juveniles. In RoperRoper v. v.
SimmonsSimmons (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty for youth under age 18 did violate the
individual’s Eighth Amendment rights. In the majority opinion, the justices outlined several basic points to
support their position. First, they felt society’s opinions on the death penalty had shifted and as a result
indicated that the public was not supportive of the death penalty for juveniles. Recent opinion polls combined
with the fact that many states did not allow for the death penalty for juveniles were noted. Second, it was the
opinion of the Court that youth are amenable to change, and to argue that their character is “irretrievably
depraved” would be inaccurate in many cases. Finally, data seemed to show that in many of the cases in
which juvenile offenders were sentenced to death, there were histories or circumstances that could have been
considered mitigating circumstances in their crimes.
Using similar logic as noted in the preceding examples, the Supreme Court ruled in MillerMiller v. v. Alabama Alabama
(2012) that a mandated sentence of life without the possibility of parole is also unconstitutional. In an earlier
decision, GrahamGraham v. v. Florida Florida (2010), the Court ruled that a disposition of life without the possibility of
parole was unconstitutional in cases except homicide. However, the Miller case took on the notion that there
can be a mandatory sentence of life without the possibly of parole for homicide cases. The justices in a 5–4
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 30 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Lee Boyd Malvo stands in court during his 2003
trial.
Davis Turner/Associated Press
decision ruled that, under the Eighth Amendment, a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole
is unconstitutional for juveniles. Justice Elena Kagan, writing the majority opinion, made the following
argument:
The mandatory penalty schemes at issue here, however, prevent the sentencer from considering
youth and from assessing whether the law’s harshest term of imprisonment proportionately
punishes a juvenile offender. This contravenes Graham’s (and also Roper’s) foundational principle:
that imposition of a State’s most severe penalties on juvenile offenders cannot proceed as though
they were not children. (p. 5)
This ruling further affirms the view that juveniles are not
simply young adults who possess the same set of
reasoning skills as adults.
Note, however, that this decision is a fairly narrow one.
As mentioned, the Supreme Court has simply ruled in
this case that a mandatory life sentence is
unconstitutional, meaning that juveniles can be sentenced
to life without the possibility of parole if a judge
considers the aggravating and mitigating circumstances
of the case. So, what does that mean for Lee Boyd
Malvo, whom we showcased at the beginning of the
chapter? He was 17 years old at the time of his offense
and received sentences of life without the possibility of
parole in both Maryland and Virginia. His Maryland
sentence will stand at this time because that state does not
have a mandatory life without the possibility of parole
sentencing structure. However, as of 2018, the sentence he received in a Virginia court has been declared
unconstitutional based on Miller v. Alabama. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will eventually
rule that all life without parole sentences are unconstitutional for juvenile defendants.
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 31 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Summary of Learning Objectives
Explain the purpose and primary features of the juvenile court.
There is a great deal of variation in how juvenile courts are organized, but there are some key
similarities: (1) The judge should act as a parent or advocate for the child rather than rely simply on
punishment; (2) juveniles and adults should be separated for all proceedings; (3) juveniles and adults
should be kept in separate institutions; and (4) a probation officer should be appointed who will
investigate the youth’s background and provide case management services.
Political and social forces play an important role in shaping juvenile justice policy. As a result, the
purpose of juvenile courts continues to evolve, sometimes more toward deterrence and other times,
rehabilitation.
Summarize the jurisdiction of juvenile court, especially with regard to cases of abuse and neglect.
The juvenile court serves both juvenile delinquency cases and cases of abuse and neglect. Abuse and
neglect cases can present a number of unique challenges to the juvenile court system. The
complexity of these situations is illustrated in numerous studies that link exposure to violence
(including child abuse) to criminal behavior.
Most states have the age of original jurisdiction set at 17 years old. A few states have the age set at
16.
Describe the traditional juvenile court process.
The traditional juvenile court process includes arrest, intake review, and adjudication and
disposition. Each one of these stages is a critical point in the process.
Diversionary programs are popular for juvenile delinquents.
Evaluate the different types of problem-solving courts.
Problem-solving courts have become a popular option for diverting youth from the traditional
courtroom process. The most notable such courts are teen courts, drug courts, and mental health
courts.
Problem-solving courts are designed to provide appropriate sanctions for youth misbehavior, with
the ultimate goal of reducing future arrests.
Research on the effectiveness of problem-solving courts is complicated and inconclusive, but
generally the results appear to be more positive than negative overall.
Summarize the laws used to transfer juveniles to adult court.
Although transferring juveniles to adult criminal court became more popular in the 1980s, support
for these policies appears to be waning.
The decision to transfer typically takes into consideration the defendant’s age, the seriousness of the
crime, the defendant’s prior history, the likelihood of rehabilitation, and, in some states, the type of
crime.
Transfers fall into three categories: judicial waiver laws, prosecutorial discretion laws, and statutory
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 32 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
exclusion laws
Criticisms of transfer laws focus on issues ranging from the disparities in who is transferred to adult
courts to claims that youth are biologically not able to reason as an adult.
Analyze the legal issues surrounding the death penalty for juveniles and the recent Supreme Court decision
on mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole.
The death penalty for juveniles was recently found unconstitutional. The decision noted that
juveniles are less cognitively developed than adults.
A recent court decision found that sentences of mandatory life in prison without parole for juveniles
are a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Critical Thinking Questions
1. Do you think the philosophy of the juvenile court system should be rehabilitative or punitive?
Defend your position.
2. Do you think that Child Protective Services has “run its course” like some critics suggest? Or should
it be revamped? How would you revamp such a service?
3. Teen courts have become a popular option for diverting youth. What downsides might there be in
involving the youth’s peers in the process?
4. Although most states have retained their transfer laws, the rate of transfers to adult court has
remained stable. Why do you think this is the case?
5. Do you agree with the Supreme Court regarding the Roper v. Simmons and Miller v. Alabama cases?
Why or why not?
Key Terms
Click on each key term to see the definition.
If evidence supports the charges against the youth, the judge will typically set a date for this hearing.
family drug court
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A variation on the drug court that aims to treat a parent’s addiction and substance use in a holistic manner.
GrahamGraham v. v. Florida Florida
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A 2010 Supreme Court case ruling that a disposition of life without the possibility of parole was
unconstitutional in cases except homicide.
guardian ad litem
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A person appointed in the adjudication process in order to provide another voice to advocate for the youth’s
best interest.
Intensive diversionary-type programs that can serve youth in some of the same ways as more traditional
diversion programs; also referred to as specialty courts.
RoperRoper v. v. Simmons Simmons
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A 2005 Supreme Court case that ruled the death penalty for youth under the age of 18 violates the
individual’s Eighth Amendment rights.
SchallSchall v. v. Martin Martin
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A 1984 Supreme Court case that ruled that the detention of juveniles for preventive reasons is justifiable in
the interest of public safety.
ThompsonThompson v. v. Oklahoma Oklahoma
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/secti
ons/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A 1988 Supreme Court case that ruled that youth under the age of 16 at the time of a crime could not be
executed unless the state had a minimum age specified.
Page 37 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
7
Juveniles and
Community
Corrections
PhotoAlto/SuperStock
Learning Objectives
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 38 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
The officers walk the hallways chatting with kids. They make informal contacts with youth throughout the day
and meet one on one with those who have been involved with the juvenile court. They may visit classrooms,
give students advice, or attend school events. These people aren’t police officers charged with keeping the
school safe. Rather these officers are probation officers. School-based probation has become a popular
option in many jurisdictions. It began to take hold in the 1990s in Pennsylvania and now exists in several
states nationwide. For example, more than one third of the school districts in Georgia now have a probation
officer in the school system (Badertscher & Tagamittagami, 2011).
The benefits of these programs range from decreased disciplinary infractions, decreased truancy, increased
academic achievement, and decreased school dropout rates. Moreover, an evaluation of Pennsylvania’s
school-based probation program found that youth exposed to probation officers in the schools were also more
likely to have lower rearrest rates (DeAngelo, 2005).
These programs are seen as an effective way to place probation officers into the community where the youth
spend most of their time. Noted as an intervention that moves the “courtroom to the classroom,” these
programs mirror many of the defining principles of the restorative justice movement. Specifically, repairing
and rebuilding relationships with the offender and community requires that the youth be served in the
community through a variety of avenues and approaches. School-based probation officers meet youth and
work with school officials to enhance the youth’s commitment to school. The officers are given access to
grades and classroom behavior reports and can often address problems before they start. Although some
observers are concerned that having probation officers in the schools can disrupt the learning environment,
others suggest this intervention can make a significant difference and should be expanded.
After studying this chapter, you should be able to
accomplish the following objectives:
Analyze the community-based corrections goals of
punishment, rehabilitation, and restorative justice.
Describe how probation is organized and the
population it serves.
Explain the two basic functions of a probation
officer.
Summarize the goals of probation supervision.
Outline the factors influencing the effectiveness of
probation.
Explain the circumstances in which probation can
be revoked.
Evaluate the effectiveness of intermediate
sanctions.
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 39 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 40 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
7.1 Introduction
In this chapter we discuss community corrections for juveniles. The correctional system is considered the
third component of the American criminal justice system. The term is really a label to describe the sanctions
used by the court system to punish or “correct” criminal behavior. At its core, the corrections system is the
agent or body that carries out the sentence given to individuals once they are adjudicated by the court system.
However, the correctional system can also serve those not yet convicted of a crime (e.g., those in jail awaiting
trial or in treatment as part of drug court requirements).
The sanctions available to judges vary widely across the country; however, common sanctions exist on a
continuum. At one end of the continuum is the least restrictive sanction (basic probation); at the other end is
the most restrictive (institutional or residential placement). Services along this continuum, also referred to as
intermediate sanctions, include community service, house arrest, day treatment, and a range of treatment
programs. The majority of juveniles adjudicated by the court system serve their sentences in the community
rather than in residential placement. In fact, according to Puzzanchera and Hockenberry (2018), “In 2015,
formal probation was the most severe disposition ordered in 63% of cases in which the juvenile was
adjudicated delinquent, and 26% of cases were ordered to residential placement as the most severe
disposition” (p. 3). Our focus begins with community-based corrections for juveniles.
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 41 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
7.2 The Goals of Community-Based Corrections
The social and political climate is always a factor in juvenile justice policy. For example, during the social
turmoil of the 1960s, the court system concerned itself with the due process rights of juveniles. When the
political climate changed in the 1980s, juvenile justice policies became more punitive, as evidenced by the
popularity of boot camps and the increased use of transfers to adult criminal court (Annie E. Casey
Foundation, 2012). The correctional system was not immune to these influences. Although the social climate
may be the driving force behind some of the policy developments, it would be too simplistic to assume the
system can be categorized so easily.
To Punish or to Rehabilitate?
Both the adult and juvenile correctional systems experience goal conflict. Goal conflict refers to the struggle
faced by many correctional agencies in deciding which philosophical path to choose: punishment or
rehabilitation (Urban, Cyr, & Decker, 2003). The struggle exists for several reasons.
First, it would be naïve to assume that every juvenile correctional system in the country could follow one
goal (e.g., rehabilitation versus punishment). For example, Florida may adopt a particular policy that supports
rehabilitation for juveniles in the community, whereas Texas may have a more punitive philosophy. Just as
likely, however, is that Austin, Texas, may be different than Dallas, Texas, or that two judges in Austin may
have very different ideas of what services or sanctions are most appropriate for juveniles. In addition, a
survey of juvenile court probation officers found that even an individual officer’s attitude can have a
significant impact on whether he or she uses rehabilitative or punitive approaches with their caseload (Ward
& Kupchik, 2010). Many officers did not hold an exclusively punishment or rehabilitative focus; instead
officers responded situationally.
Second, resource limitations inevitably influence what services (or rewards) the system can offer. It may be,
for example, that the judge in rural Ohio would like to offer community-based drug treatment to a juvenile;
however, those services may simply be unavailable in that county.
Third, the correctional system requires a significant degree of interagency coordination. The coordination
may need to include probation, day treatment staff, and the school system. How these agencies communicate
forms the basis for how any individual case is handled. For example, the probation officers may be most
concerned with public safety and see themselves in a law enforcement role. But the treatment agency may be
reluctant to work with probation because they do not want to interrupt their therapeutic relationship with the
client by telling probation that a client admitted to criminal behavior during the treatment session. In another
example, probation may require the youth to attend school, but the school system may find it easier to expel
the student because it lacks the resources to manage the juvenile in a traditional school setting. In short, many
variables affect the goals, methods, and resources of any single agency, which in turn are influenced by the
goals, methods, and resources of other agencies.
Fourth, punishment and rehabilitation are not always in conflict and can coexist in some circumstances. Both
rewards and consequences shape behavior. Behavior that is rewarded is more likely to be repeated. However,
consequences or punishment for behavior is a part of this equation. Removing rewards or privileges, while
perhaps seen as a punishment by the individual, is also a way to change behavior. People are less likely to
repeat behavior that has led to a perceived negative consequence (Spiegler, 2015). In other words, sometimes
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 42 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Substance abuse therapy is a risk reduction
strategy.
Laurence Mouton/ès/SuperStock
punishment can have rehabilitative effects.
Finally, some observers argue that the system’s
philosophy can be characterized in terms of the difference
between risk control and risk reduction (O’Leary & Clear,
1997). Risk control refers to a set of policies or
interventions designed to control a juvenile’s risk of
criminal behavior. Let’s take the example of a juvenile
who is at high risk for substance abuse. Being at high risk
for substance abuse means there is a high probability the
juvenile will continue to use drugs or alcohol unless the
system intervenes. The system must respond in this
circumstance in order to reduce the chance that high-risk
people will reoffend. In simple terms, the system can
respond to high-risk juveniles in two ways. The system
(e.g., probation) can monitor the client’s behavior through
random drug tests or frequent meetings. If clients know
they are being monitored, they may be less likely to use
drugs for fear of being caught and punished. At the same
time, O’Leary and Clear (1997) argue that once clients are no longer under the control of the system, they
may be likely to use again. They argue that controlling the individual is a short-term strategy because the
“control” model did little to address why the person began using drugs. Alternatively, a risk reduction
approach would focus on reducing the probability of reoffending by changing why the person began using
drugs. Risk reduction strategies address the underlying causes of the client’s addiction in an effort to reduce
future use. The most common risk reduction approach includes treatment services such as substance abuse
therapy.
The two methods of risk control and risk reduction need not be mutually exclusive. In other words, probation
would likely still engage in control strategies (e.g., drug testing); however, this would be in conjunction with
treatment strategies. Beyond the basic philosophy of punishment versus treatment, however, is a third goal
referred to as restorative justice.
Restorative Justice
The restorative justice approach became popular in the 1980s with critics arguing that the system focused
entirely on the juvenile delinquent with little to no attention paid to the victims of the crime (Braithwaite,
2002). The restorative justice approach argues that crime should be viewed not only from the juvenile
offender’s point of view (e.g., the offender needs punishment or treatment) but also from the perspective of
the victim or the community. If criminal behavior is viewed as harm inflicted on the victim or the community,
then the sanctions should have a purpose of repairing this damage. Bringing all three parties together is
beneficial for the victim and the community but also has restorative effects on the delinquent.
According to the restorative justice.org (https://www.justice.org/) website, the foundation of restorative justice
rests on the following principles:
Justice requires that we work to restore those who have been injured.
https://www.justice.org/
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 43 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Those most directly involved and affected by crime should have the opportunity to participate fully
in the response if they wish.
Government’s role is to preserve a just public order, and the community’s is to build and maintain a
just peace.
Restorative justice programs can vary; however, popular programs include victim-offender
mediation/meetings, community service, restitution, and circle sentencing.
Victim-offender mediation programs are popular in many jurisdictions. These programs bring together the
victim, the juvenile defendant, and a professional mediator to discuss the impact of the crime. The youth is
given the opportunity to apologize for the crime. The victim is given the opportunity to discuss the impact of
the crime on his or her life. In most circumstances, a restitution plan is developed during the mediation
session and agreed upon by both parties. The approach is meant to benefit both the juvenile and the victim.
Community service can include activities such as picking up trash alongside the road, removing graffiti from
buildings, or a variety of other service-type projects. Community service is seen as a way for juvenile
delinquents to give back to the community for the damage their criminal behavior inflicted on the community.
Restitution is typically a monetary fine the court will order to be paid to the victim. However, it may also
include services to the victim or the community. For example, if a youth vandalized a storefront, the judge
may require the youth to clean up the damage to the store. Of course, the restitution activity in this example
requires that the victim is willing to have the youth participate in this type of activity.
Circle sentencing, as its name implies, includes a circle of people who can give input into the type of sanction
the youth receives. The circle will typically include the juvenile, the victim, the family, and any interested or
impacted community members. The process is designed to provide people with the opportunity to speak
uninterrupted and share their opinions about or experiences with the crime. The judge then takes into account
all of the information provided by each of the members of the circle when deciding the appropriate sanction
for the youth.
Restorative justice practices have been implemented recently in the schools. School-based restorative justice
programs use conflict resolution strategies. For example, one school in Peoria, Illinois, implemented
peacemaking circles as a way to reduce conflict in school. Peacemaking circles bring teachers and students
together to talk through important issues, giving the students an opportunity to voice their concerns. The
same school system also implemented a peer/teen jury program. In this program, a youth who has broken a
rule appears before a jury of peers to discuss the situation and determine the course of action to repair the
harm. Results of both initiatives were positive, with an improvement in student-teacher relationships and a
reduced need for formal discipline (Brown, Synder, Hurst, & Berry, 2010).
As mentioned earlier, restorative justice policies became popular in the 1980s and have persisted in many
jurisdictions. The question, however, is whether these programs and services are effective. The problem with
answering this question rests with how effectiveness is measured. For example, measuring effectiveness by
how well an intervention or sanction reduces future criminal behavior is common. In the earlier example,
when we discussed reducing the risk level of a juvenile with a substance abuse problem, effectiveness might
be measured by the reduced probability that the juvenile will continue using drugs or alcohol. With
restorative justice programs, effectiveness might mean increasing community engagement, reducing the
psychological impact of crime on victims, or increasing the satisfaction level among community members,
victims, and juveniles. Studies find that juveniles who participate in restorative justice programs feel
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 44 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
connected to the process and are more likely to complete their restitution. Victims report feeling less fearful
of repeat victimization and experiencing greater levels of satisfaction with the process (Umbreit, 1994;
Umbreit, Coates, & Kalanji, 1994). A review of the research by Bouffard, Cooper, and Bergseth (2017) found
that, overall, juveniles who participated in these programs tended to do better on a variety of outcomes than
juveniles who were exposed to the traditional court process.
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 45 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
7.3 Probation: Organization and the Population Served
Probation began in the United States in the late 1800s; it became a popular option for juveniles in the mid-
1920s. Since that time, probation continues to be the most frequently used sanction. As noted by Patricia
Torbet (1996), “Juvenile probation is the oldest and most widely used vehicle through which a range of court-
ordered services is rendered” (p. 1). Probation is used at a rate similar to that found in 1985, which indicates
that the sanction remains popular (Sickmund, 2009). In fact, Torbet (1996) referred to probation as the
“workhorse of the juvenile justice system.” Probation is used frequently for a variety of reasons. Most
notably, probation is cost effective and considered a valuable community-based option, particularly when
compared with residential placement.
How Is Probation Organized?
As with most features of the juvenile justice system, how probation is organized varies by state. Juvenile
probation tends to be administered at the state level or local level. As shown in Figure 7.1, in the majority of
states, probation is operated by local officials rather than the state. The logic of placing probation at the local
level rests with the notion that the probation department should be under the authority of local officials,
including courts and planning boards. Judges in local courts tend to have the best view of the case and are
more effective when they can follow the case and make adjustments to supervision plans. Consider, for
example, the drug court model. In that model, both the judge and the probation officer are seen as important
team members in the rehabilitation of juveniles. Planning boards at the local level also have a better sense of
the needs of probation and often readily attend to those needs without having to work within the state
bureaucracy.
Figure 7.1: Administration of probation in the United States, 2017
From “Administration of community supervision (probation), 2017,” in “OJJDP statistical briefing book,” by
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 46 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2017, Retrieved from
h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 2 0 3 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 7h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 2 0 3 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 7
( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 2 0 3 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 7 )( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 2 0 3 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 7 )
Others argue that probation services are better provided at the state level, which often includes public
administrators. Public administrators may be more in tune with state budget issues and can create
standardized policies that create uniformity across the state. The situation can be even more complex given
that probation can be handled “mostly” at the state level but with some local authority. Only nine states place
juvenile probation “mostly” under state jurisdiction.
Who Is Served by Probation?
If we examine the profile of juveniles served by probation postadjudication, we can see some differences by
gender, age, and race. As illustrated by Figure 7.2, the majority of juveniles on probation are boys. This fact
is not necessarily surprising given that boys commit a greater proportion of crime. With regard to race, Figure
7.3 indicates that the majority of clients on probation are white; however, black youth make up 36% of the
clients served. Finally, with regard to age (Figure 7.4), the age groups are fairly evenly distributed, with the
greatest percentage (26%) among 16-year-olds.
Figure 7.2: Gender and probation,
2015
From “Table: Demographic characteristics of cases
handled by juvenile courts,” in “Easy access to juvenile
court statistics: 1985–2015,” by M. Sickmund, A. Sladky,
and W. Kang, 2018, Retrieved from
h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a j c s / a s p / d e m o .h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a j c s / a s p / d e m o .
a s pa s p
( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a j c s / a s p / d e m o . a s p )( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a j c s / a s p / d e m o . a s p )
Page 47 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Figure 7.3: Race and probation,
2015
From “Table: Demographic characteristics of cases
handled by juvenile courts,” in “Easy access to juvenile
court statistics: 1985–2015,” by M. Sickmund, A. Sladky,
and W. Kang, 2018, Retrieved from
h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a j c s / a s p / d e m o .h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a j c s / a s p / d e m o .
a s pa s p
( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a j c s / a s p / d e m o . a s p )( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a j c s / a s p / d e m o . a s p )
Page 48 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
From “Table: Year of disposition by age at referral,” in
“Easy access to juvenile court statistics: 1985–2015,” by
M. Sickmund, A. Sladky, and W. Kang, 2018, Retrieved
from
h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a j c s / a s p / d i s p l ah t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a j c s / a s p / d i s p l a
y. a s py. a s p
( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a j c s / a s p / d i s p l a y. a s p )( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a j c s / a s p / d i s p l a y. a s p )
It is a myth that the only youth placed on probation are those who have been adjudicated for minor crimes.
For example, as noted in Figure 7.5, 29% of the youth on probation are adjudicated for person-related
offenses (which includes violent crimes), compared to 25% for public-order offenses, and 12% for drug
offenses. Juveniles adjudicated for property offenses make up the greatest proportion of juvenile offenders on
probation.
Figure 7.5: Most serious offense and
probation, 2015
Page 49 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
From “Table: Analyze delinquency cases” in “Easy access
to juvenile court statistics: 1985–2015,” by M. Sickmund,
A. Sladky, and W. Kang, 2018, Retrieved from
h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a j c s / a s p / s e l e c th t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a j c s / a s p / s e l e c t
i o n . a s pi o n . a s p
( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a j c s / a s p / s e l e c t i o n . a s p( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a j c s / a s p / s e l e c t i o n . a s p
))
Finally, Figure 7.6 illustrates that there have been significant differences over time with regard to charge type
for those served on probation. For example, in 1990, the greatest proportion of cases served on probation
was, by far, property offenses. In contrast, the differences we see now are less distinct. Even though property
offenses make up the highest proportion of cases, they represent a smaller share of the overall cases. The
overall rate of delinquency has declined significantly in the past decade, and we see this same decline in the
number of youth on probation across all charge types.
Figure 7.6: Trends in those served on probation by charge type,
1985–2015
Property-related cases have had the highest number of individuals served on
probation over the 30-year span between 1985 and 2015 when compared to
person-, drug-, or public-order-related crime. However, after 1995, person-, drug-,
and public-order-offense probation rates rose while property offense probation
rates fell, making differences in charge type less distinct. Although property-
related offenses still have the highest number of offenders served probation, all of
the rates have declined significantly since 2005.
Page 50 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
From “Demographic characteristics of cases handled by juvenile courts,” in “Easy access to juvenile court
statistics: 1985–2015,” by M. Sickmund, A. Sladky, and W. Kang, 2018, Retrieved from
h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a j c s / a s p / d e m o . a s ph t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a j c s / a s p / d e m o . a s p
( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a j c s / a s p / d e m o . a s p )( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a j c s / a s p / d e m o . a s p )
Page 51 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Probation officers assess youths’ arrest records,
family relations, and other important
information during the presentence
investigation interview.
iStockphoto/Thinkstock
7.4 Probation Officer Functions
Probation officers serve the juvenile justice system in various ways, but their functions fall primarily into two
categories: investigation and supervision. For example, in some jurisdictions probation officers conduct
intake screenings to help decide whether the case should be formally processed. In this investigative function,
probation officers are often called upon to examine the case prior to adjudication. Their primary role,
however, is to supervise the juveniles who are formally adjudicated by the court. Let’s examine each of these
functions in detail.
Investigation
Investigating the juvenile’s record prior to sentencing is a
useful part of a probation officer’s job. The investigation
is commonly referred to as a presentence investigation
(PSI). The PSI is a summary report created by the
probation officer detailing the juvenile’s criminal history
and social situation (e.g., family, peers, school). The
report often concludes with a recommendation to be
given to the sentencing judge prior to the adjudication
hearing. In some jurisdictions, however, the PSI is not
completed until after the youth is adjudicated onto
probation. In this circumstance, the investigation is
completed for purposes of deciding supervision and
treatment services but will not be utilized during the
disposition phase. If conducted preadjudication, the
information contained in the PSI will assist the judge in
deciding what services or sanctions might be appropriate
for the juvenile. The judge has the discretion to decide
whether to adhere to the PSI recommendation. Although many studies find that judges do consider the
probation officer’s recommendation when sentencing, the recommendation is not the only factor considered
(Norman & Wadman, 2000).
The PSI is most often conducted in a face-to-face interview with the youth. The probation officer will often
collect as much information as possible from the youth in terms of criminal history, school
achievement/attendance, peers, substance use, family relations, mental illness, or other personal history. The
probation officer will likely collect what is referred to as collateral information as well. Collateral
information can include interviews with parents, reports from school, or results from any formal assessments
that may have been completed. All of the information is combined in the probation officer’s assessment of the
youth.
At this stage, the probation officer is simply gathering information. The type and breadth of information
varies considerably depending on the expectations of the judge and/or probation agencies. As such, the focus
of the PSI may be offender based or offense based. For example, if the judge or probation officer places more
weight on criminal history than on any other risk factor, then the PSI may be based on the offense and the
juvenile’s prior criminal history.
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 52 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Probation Supervisor
Juvenile probation officers have one of the toughest jobs in
corrections. They are expected to play the role of both the
social worker and the law enforcer.
Alternatively, if risk reduction is the focus, the PSI may be offender need based, and other sections such as
family, addictions, and school will be detailed in breadth and scope. If the focus is treatment and
rehabilitation, the probation officer must know detailed information about the client’s social situation. In
order to decide, for example, whether the youth needs family-based services, the probation officer may spend
considerable time uncovering issues such as abuse in the home, relationships with the mother and father,
supervision levels, discipline practices, and so on.
One of the other issues influencing the PSI is the probation officer’s skill as an interviewer. Arguably it is
fairly straightforward to assess the youth’s criminal history. The probation officer may interview the youth to
determine the context behind the youth’s arrest record or prior sanctions; however, the information itself is a
matter of public record. By contrast, examining the youth’s relationship with his or her family requires a more
elaborate set of interviewing skills. This task is made even more difficult given that the probation officer
conducting the PSI often has limited contact with the youth prior to the interview and has a finite amount of
time to complete the assessment, particularly when it is being conducted preadjudication.
Some jurisdictions assign probation officers to conduct PSIs as their primary job. They are sometimes
referred to as PSI writers. There are advantages and disadvantages to this approach. Dedicated PSI writers
may be better prepared in terms of interview skills. Additionally, these probation officers may feel less
pressure to rush a PSI because they don’t also have a full caseload to maintain. In terms of disadvantages, if
the supervising officer is not the one who completes the PSI, the supervising officer may feel the need to
reinterview the client to gather information that will assist in the supervision or treatment plan. The process
of reinterviewing the youth is inefficient and takes up more valuable time and resources.
Supervision and Control
The officer begins supervision once
the youth is placed on probation. An
individual can be placed on probation
preplea or preadjudication.
Preadjudication probation is part of
the diversionary court process.
Although the rules and processes vary
by state, pretrial probation allows the
youth to complete certain probationary
requirements in exchange for a
dismissal of charges. The level of
supervision required (such as the
number of times the youth is required
to meet with a probation officer or
judge) is decided on a case-by-case
basis (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera,
2017).
Probation supervision postadjudication
can vary and often ranges from
intensive (multiple meetings per week)
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 53 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
1. Which role, social worker or law enforcer, do you
think the probation officer should favor, and why?
2. What type of person is best suited to be a probation
officer?
to low-level supervision (one meeting
per month or less). The intensity of
supervision can be dictated by many
factors; for example, the offense or the
juvenile’s criminal history, whether the
juvenile is placed on a specialized
caseload, or whether the juvenile is
assessed as higher risk and in need of
services.
According to the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP), there are three types of
probation services: traditional
probation, intensive supervision
probation, and school-based probation.
First, traditional probation supervision
occurs at different levels depending on
the officer, the client’s needs, and
agency standards. The supervision
may include face-to-face visits with
the juvenile, during which the
probation officer will complete a
check-in. The check-in often includes a series of questions about such things as the juvenile’s performance in
school, relationship with parents, involvement with drugs or alcohol, or other high-risk situations. The face-
to-face meeting may also include a drug test, which involves the juvenile client submitting to urinalysis to
check for any substance use. At the other end of the spectrum, the contact may simply include a check-in by
phone, in which case the juvenile provides similar information (without urinalysis, of course) via a phone call
to the probation officer.
Second, with intensive supervision probation (ISP), the client is required to meet more frequently with a
probation officer. The ISP model that was initially developed for adults became a popular option for juvenile
probation by the late 1980s (Barton & Butts, 1990). ISP typically involves more rigorous supervision
standards, lower client-officer ratios, and increased levels of treatment services. As can be seen in Spotlight:
An Intensive Supervision Juvenile Probation Program, some ISP programs even target specific groups. The
basic premise assumes that probation officers who are working with smaller caseloads are able to dedicate
more time to supervision and services. Studies find that ISP can be an effective option for reducing
recidivism rates if the services offered are rehabilitative in nature (Lowenkamp, Flores, Holsinger, Makarios,
& Latessa, 2010). However, studies suggest that if the focus is purely supervision oriented, ISP can increase
the rate of technical violations (Petersilia & Turner, 1993).
Spotlight: An Intensive Supervision Juvenile Probation Program
The OJJDP has identified an intensive supervision probation (ISP) program in Illinois as an
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 54 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
exemplary or “model” program. The ISP program, begun in 1997 and known as the Peoria County
Anti-gang and Drug Abuse Unit, is designed to last six months. Juveniles served include those
probationers who have been assessed as having a history of gang involvement and substance abuse
issues.
The program includes the following five phases with the intended goal of reducing recidivism:
Planning and movement control
Counseling, treatment, and programming
Community outreach
Reassignment
Tracking and discharge
In the planning and movement control phase, the probation office will conduct a needs assessment to
identify issues for treatment and will begin the intensive supervision requirements. The second phase
will include referrals to substance abuse programs, counseling, anger management, or other needs
exhibited by the client. The third phase, community out-reach, involves requiring the youth to
complete community service or restitution services. The fourth phase, reassignment, begins working
with the client to reduce the level of super-vision to ready the juvenile for a transfer back to a standard
caseload that requires fewer meetings with the officer. Finally, the tracking and discharge phase
involves planning for the successful completion of the program.
According to Wassenberg, Gransky Dorman, McGahey, Syrcle, and Ball (2002), the program was
intended to be six months in length and serve 100 youth at any given time. However, probation
officers found that the number of youth served needed to be reduced to 80 (40 per officer) and clients
would need longer than six months to complete the program. Preliminary evaluation results suggest
that the program is effective at reducing recidivism rates. The intervention shows that the intersection
between probation and treatment is very strong in many jurisdictions.
Third, school-based probation is a recent innovation that has been adopted in several states, including
Arizona, California, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. As noted earlier, the probation officer and the school
system often act in partnership to assist the youth. The probation officer is placed directly within the school
setting or within a school district. By meeting with the youth within the school, the probation officer is able to
have informal contact with the youth and access important information regarding attendance, academic
performance, and the like. School-based probation is not available in all schools, and critics assert that the
programs must be wary of widening the probation officer’s reach too far into the school system. Specifically,
the probation officer’s presence should be used not to manage all disciplinary infractions among students, but
instead to provide contact only with youth adjudicated onto probation by the court system.
Although these typical models of probation exist to varying degrees throughout the country, the goals of
probation can vary dramatically from program to program.
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 55 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Probation officers aim both to protect the
community from criminal activity and to help
troubled youth offenders.
DC/Casper Star-Tribune/Associated Press
7.5 Goals of Probation Supervision
As we discussed earlier in this chapter, correctional
agencies commonly experience goal conflict. Probation
officers are often pulled in two competing directions.
First, the probation officer must be concerned with
maintaining community safety. If a youth on probation is
arrested for a violent crime, the public may be outraged
that the agency did not do more to control its client’s
behavior. In this case, probation officers must see
themselves in a law enforcement role. At the same time,
the probation officer is responsible for providing services
for the youth. To provide these services, the probation
officer must establish a helping role with the youth.
Officers may find it difficult to strike a balance between
the law enforcement and social worker orientations.
Probation services in the 1960s and 1970s were often
fairly service oriented. This was sometimes referred to as
the justice model. Probation officers were seen as
advocates for the clients and often focused on being service brokers, especially acting as the liaison for
services to be delivered to the youth. However, when the system began to take a more punitive stance toward
juvenile crime in the 1980s, we saw a direct influence on probation supervision. Probation officers were seen
as possessing too much discretion in deciding what services and supervision were appropriate for youth. At
the same time, advocates lobbied for restitution programs to “pay” victims or society for the harm that crimes
caused. ISP became popular in the late 1980s in part because of this movement to a more accountable
probation office with increased levels of supervision (Byrne, 1986).
In the 1990s, however, others advocated for a balanced approach to juvenile probation supervision. The
balanced approach follows many of the restorative or community justice components discussed earlier. In
particular, Dennis Maloney (1998) advocated for a balanced approach that gives equal attention to the
offender, the victim, and the community (which can include schools). Within that context, the services should
hold juveniles accountable for their crimes through sanctions but also provide services and skills to the client
so that he or she can contribute to society in a productive way.
Unfortunately, the wide range in the types and intensity of services provided by probation officers can limit
the potential effectiveness of these services.
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 56 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Evidence-based probation
Burger/Phanie/SuperStock
7.6 Effectiveness of Probation
Studies suggest that probation has mixed effectiveness. To understand the studies, however, we must examine
how they are conducted. For instance, most studies of probation use other probation samples as a comparison.
Let’s consider an example to illustrate why using this comparison is problematic.
If we decide to study whether an intervention like a drug court is effective in reducing drug use and future
criminal behavior among its participants, we would need to compare the outcomes of the drug court group
(e.g., drug test results, arrest rates) to juveniles who did not participate in the drug court. The logic is that you
are comparing the impact of the drug court to not having a drug court. But most probation studies compare
certain probation services to other probation services. For example, studies on caseload size and probation
effectiveness compared probationers who were served on lower caseloads to probationers who were served
on higher caseloads. The research suggested that caseload size by itself didn’t influence recidivism
(DeMichele, 2007). This may be surprising in that we might expect that probation officers with lower
caseloads have more time to spend with each case, which we would expect could increase their effectiveness.
However, if we really think about what a probation officer does, the personality traits they bring to the job,
the agency’s priorities, and so on, we can see that probation supervision is more complex than simply
caseload size.
The reality is that most probation officers are overworked and not given sufficient resources to complete the
job. Their contact with their clients, even when face to face, is often limited to check-ins during which they
ask the youth how things are going without the time needed for meaningful interactions about changing the
issues that brought the youth onto probation in the first place.
As a result, probation agencies are increasingly required to rely on
evidence-based approaches to investigation and supervision.
Evidence-based practices, sometimes referred to as “best practices”
or “what works,” are services, programs, or interventions that have
been shown to be effective, most often measured by reductions in
recidivism (Gendreau, 1996). The term best practice tends to be
used when referring to treatment programs. For example, best
practices might include intensive interventions that target juveniles
at higher risk for recidivism, that target issues related to the
juveniles’ criminal behavior (e.g., parental relationship, school
truancy, antisocial peers), and that use certain approaches over
others (e.g., cognitive-behavioral versus punitive approaches such as
boot camps) (Gendreau, 1996).
There are certain best practices that can be utilized by various
correctional agencies and settings. For example, with regard to a
probation officer’s investigative function, some probation agencies
now augment the PSI interview with a standardized risk and need
tool. One criticism of the PSI process had often been that probation
agencies did not use a standardized process or instrument.
Consequently, the recommendation given to the judge was often
based on the probation officer’s judgment of the youth. Studies show
that interview-based clinical assessments of a client’s overall risk of
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 57 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
approaches, like cognitive-behavioral
treatments and interventions, work
to reduce the rate of recidivism
among juvenile offenders.
recidivism tend to be inaccurate (Grove, Zald, Lebow, Snitz, &
Nelson, 2000). Even though the probation officer is collecting a
wealth of information, the officer’s assessment of the youth’s issues
and need for a particular sentence (e.g., remaining in the community
on probation versus being sent to an institution) would still be based
on the agency’s review of a narrative report. So a best practice in this area is to adopt a standardized
assessment of the youth’s risk and needs. These standardized tools use scoring rubrics that produce an overall
score or rating of the youth’s risk of committing future delinquency.
This process is followed in Ohio, where juvenile probation officers complete a formal and standardized
instrument of the youth’s criminal history and social background. The assessment tool, referred to as the Ohio
Youth Assessment System, asks the youth many of the same questions that can be found in a traditional PSI.
The difference is that the assessment tool scores each item. For example, the probation officer would assess
the youth’s family relations. When a problem exists in that area, the probation officer would assign a youth a
certain point value (e.g., 3 points for a negative relationship versus 0 points for a positive relationship). The
more issues the client has, the higher the score. In the end, the instrument produces an overall score that gives
the probation officer (and judge) the youth’s probability of future criminal behavior. Using tools to structure
decision making has been shown to be a much more effective approach than relying on officer judgement
(Baglivio, Greenwald, & Russell, 2015).
Another approach adopted in several states is the Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS)
model. Edward Latessa and colleagues at the University of Cincinnati developed the EPICS approach for
both juvenile and adult probation agencies (Smith, Schweitzer, Labrecque, & Latessa, 2012). Probation
officers are trained to provide targeted, short interventions to probationers during the typical face-to-face
meeting with clients. In particular, they argue that each face-to-face meeting should include the following:
Check in
Review
Intervention
Homework
During the session, the probation officer focuses on issues the client is dealing with that might act as barriers
to change. For example, if the youth is struggling with finding prosocial peers to spend time with after school
and on weekends, the probation officer can offer suggestions for prosocial activities and work with the youth
to develop coping skills to handle high-risk situations. For example, the probation officer would be able to
engage in a short role-play with clients about what to say or how to handle the next time an antisocial peer
asks them to attend a party or use drugs. The EPICS approach would not be in place of treatment services;
rather, it would simply provide a framework for meaningful interactions between the youth and the probation
officer.
Another model, developed by Faye Taxman of Virginia Commonwealth University, is referred to as
Proactive Community Supervision (PCS). Originally developed for adult probation and parole agencies,
the PCS model has also been used in juvenile agencies. Like the EPICS model, the PCS model is based on
what works or evidence-based practices for offender change. According to Taxman, Yancey, and Bilanin
(2006), the PSC model includes “five major components:
Identify criminogenic traits using a valid risk and need tool;
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 58 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Develop a supervision plan that addresses criminogenic traits employing effective external controls
and treatment interventions;
Hold the offender accountable for progress on the supervision plan;
Use a place-based strategy wherein individual probation/parole office environments are engaged in
implementing the strategy; and
Develop partnerships with community organizations who will provide ancillary services to
supervisees.” (p. 1)
Studies suggest that this approach can reduce recidivism among youth supervised by skilled probation
officers (Young, Farrell, & Taxman, 2012).
The impact of the relationship between the officer and the juvenile is also a critical factor in effective
probation, but it was frequently overlooked (Matthews & Hubbard, 2007). Traditionally, probation officers
often lacked training in relationship- and rapport-building, instead taking an authoritative style. But skills-
based approaches such as EPICS and PCS require communication skills to be effective.
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 59 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
7.7 Probation Revocation
The final issue confronting probation for juveniles is the revocation and termination of probation services. As
mentioned in Chapter 6, juvenile courts may invoke blended sentences. In this circumstance, the juvenile is
given a disposition in both the juvenile and adult systems. For example, a juvenile may be sentenced to
intensive supervision with juvenile probation but also receive a sentence of incarceration in the adult system.
The judge will suspend the adult sentence based on the juvenile’s behavior on intensive supervision
probation. In this example, if the juvenile fails to abide by the conditions of probation, the adult sentence may
be invoked.
Even when the juvenile is not given a blended sentence, the probation can be revoked and the juvenile sent
back to court. However, juveniles have been granted certain due process rights that must be considered in
court before probation can be revoked. The case that addressed this was MorrisseyMorrissey v. v. Brewer Brewer (1972), in
which a group of appellants claimed that their request for a jury trial was denied under Pennsylvania law. The
Supreme Court was asked to review whether juvenile defendants are entitled to a formal hearing as would be
found in a typical criminal proceeding. The Court ruled that if a juvenile’s probation is to be revoked, certain
rights must be preserved. Those rights include written notice, disclosure of evidence, opportunity to be heard,
a right to cross-examine witnesses, and a written statement of the charges. In addition, a revocation of
probation in juvenile court is not an automatic qualifier to be remanded to the adult criminal court system.
The judge will reconsider the dispositional options available both to serve the youth and to preserve public
safety.
There are several concerns regarding revocation, including race impacts and long-term impacts on the youth.
For example, a third of the referrals for residential facilities emanate from probation revocations. As we
discuss in Chapter 8, residential placement has multifaceted impacts, including reduced social bonds, time
away from school, and exposure to high-risk others. There are also concerns regarding whether the
probationer’s race could influence the judge’s decision to revoke a youth’s probation in favor of long-term
detention (Bishop & Lieber, 2011).
Although probation is the most frequently used sanction in the juvenile justice system, various other
dispositions are available, including community-based sanctions, also referred to as intermediate sanctions.
The intermediate sanctions we discuss in the next section do not represent an exhaustive list, but they provide
examples of commonly used interventions.
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 60 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Electronic monitoring devices allow authorities
to track the whereabouts of offenders.
age fotostock/SuperStock
7.8 Intermediate Sanctions
Intermediate sanctions can be applied in conjunction with probation, in place of probation, or as a sanction
for noncompliance on probation. Intermediate sanctions provide the judge with a greater menu of options
when sentencing the juvenile, particularly if the judge feels the juvenile warrants additional sanctions rather
than relying solely on standard probation services. The goal of the sanction may be community safety (e.g.,
electronic monitoring), restorative justice (e.g., restitution), rehabilitation (e.g., day treatment centers), or a
mixture of all three. Although a judge or probation officer may choose from a multitude of sanctions, we
focus here on several of the most popular ones.
Electronic Monitoring/House Arrest
House arrest can occur with or without electronic
monitoring. House arrest, also called home confinement,
requires the youth to stay in the community while
maintaining a higher level of supervision than found on
traditional probation or even ISP. The youth is often
required to stay in the home for certain periods of time.
The youth may be given the freedom to leave the home
during preapproved times and for activities such as
school or work; however, he or she often remains in the
home the majority of the time. The home confinement
can be part of a pretrial condition in an effort to reduce
the use of detention or as a sanction postadjudication.
The Developmental Services Group (2009) provided a
literature review for OJJDP and concluded that home confinement often includes three levels of restriction:
Curfew programs: The youth would be required to return home by a certain time each day.
Home detention: The youth would be required to remain home unless at school, work, or another
approved activity.
Home incarceration: The youth would be required to remain in the home virtually 24 hours per day,
with the exception of medical and court appointments.
Home confinement has its benefits. It retains the juvenile in the community rather than relying on detention or
incarceration. It also typically allows the juvenile to continue enrollment in a traditional school setting. Some
research has shown that juveniles placed under home confinement have lower recidivism rates while under
supervision (Weibush, 1993). Other research, however, indicates that benefits are short term and not seen as
promoting long-term behavioral change (Aos, Phipps, Barnowski, & Lieb, 2018).
Home confinement may also include electronic monitoring. The two most common types are referred to as
“passive” or “active” monitors. The passive monitors require some degree of effort on the client’s part. For
example, the juvenile may be required to insert a transmitter into a home device at certain intervals. Or the
juvenile may be required to answer random phone calls to the residence (it may be an automated system or
the probation officer). Typically, active systems transmit signals to a receiver in the client’s home, and the
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 61 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
signals are then continually relayed to the device-monitoring company.
Home devices are typically bracelets worn around the ankle or wrist. More recent technological
advancements include global positioning systems (GPS) or voice recognition software. GPS devices provide
immediate verification of the client’s whereabouts 24 hours a day. The devices can be set up to indicate
inclusionary and exclusionary zones. If the offender enters an exclusionary zone, the device will record the
violation. The device is touted as particularly useful for offenders charged with domestic violence and sex
crimes, and studies suggest it can be an effective option for reducing recidivism (Padget, Bales, & Blomberg,
2006). Voice recognition software, which also could be augmented with a camera, allows the monitoring
company to verify that the client is the one inserting the transmitter or answering the phone (a disadvantage
of the passive systems). Another recent advancement in electronic monitoring is the inclusion of an alcohol
sensor built into the client’s bracelet. The sensor is designed to pick up traces of ethanol in the client’s body,
thereby alerting the monitoring company of possible alcohol use.
A newer approach in electronic monitoring leverages smartphone technology to enhance tracking. By
monitoring a youth’s smartphone, the officer could keep track of the websites the youth is visiting and their
patterns of behavior (e.g., school attendance). This method is still in the development stage, and privacy
issues have not been worked out; however, agencies such as the National Science Foundation are providing
funding to explore the use of phones to enhance behavioral change.
As with home confinement, studies examining the effectiveness of electronic monitoring are mixed.
Proponents argue that electronic monitoring technology is a cheaper alternative to incarceration and can
augment traditional probation supervision. Critics argue that the monitoring devices can be expensive, and
given that families are often asked to bear the costs of the devices, it can put an unreasonable burden on poor
families. Moreover, studies suggest that electronic monitoring is not superior to ISP probation in terms of
recidivism rates (Petersilia, 2018). Finally, long-term follow-up studies of clients on electronic monitoring
found no significant reductions in recidivism (Finn & Muirhead-Steves, 2002; Stanz & Tewksbury, 2000).
However, given that it is a cheaper option than other forms of incarceration, many jurisdictions continue to
use these devices. In more recent years, innovations such as the GPS systems noted earlier have become
popular. However, the results are mixed as to whether the addition of GPS technology decreases a person’s
propensity to reoffend (Turner, Chamberlain, Jannetta, & Hess, 2015). Future technologies might hold more
promise. Remember, however, that even though technological advances within the realm of consumer
electronics (e.g., smartphones, tablets) might be fairly rapid, advancements involving the monitoring of
delinquency evolve much more slowly.
Day Treatment Centers
Day treatment centers became popular in the 1970s. The centers are nonresidential facilities that typically
serve youth during the day; however, they may also offer services in the evening or weekends (some are
referred to as evening treatment centers). Day treatment centers provide structured activities and can provide
a forum for treatment and general educational development (GED) classes for eligible youth.
Day treatment centers offer various services to youth, including individual and group counseling, family
interventions, school-based services, and recreation therapy. As with other intermediate sanctions, youth may
also be on probation while attending day treatment centers. The centers are seen as a cost-effective alternative
to residential treatment or incarceration.
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 62 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Few studies have been conducted on day treatment centers. The studies that have been conducted indicate
that these centers can be beneficial for youth (Wilson & Lipsey, 2001). Preliminary findings make sense if we
consider that these centers can provide youth with services (e.g., substance abuse treatment, job readiness
classes, life skills) designed to address their problems or issues. However, as with many of the community-
based alternatives that we have discussed so far, the effectiveness of these centers rests with how well they
are resourced and whether the programs use strategies known to reduce recidivism (this topic is explored
further in Chapter 10).
One of the largest providers of day treatment services is known as the Associated Marine Institute, Kids
(AMIKids) program (see the accompanying Spotlight).
Spotlight: AMIKids Day Treatment Program
The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice conducted an outcome evaluation of Associated Marine
Institute, Kids (AMIKids). The study compared both girls and boys who participated in the program
to juveniles who received services in a secure residential facility. The authors concluded that the
youth who participated in the AMIKids intervention were significantly less likely to be arrested and
placed in prison during the follow-up period. They also concluded that the AMIKids program saved
Florida taxpayers money, particularly when compared to the cost of incarcerating juveniles (Winokur
Early, Hand, Blankenship, & Chapman, 2010). The services, noted below, provide youth with skills
they can use when dealing with problems in their homes and communities.
AMIKids provides a variety of services to youth in eight states. Services include residential centers,
day treatment centers, alternative school programs, a program specifically for delinquent girls, and
family services.
Program Features
Adjudicated youth
Program hours, 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.
Serves girls and boys
Youth reside at home while in the program
Saturday services may be offered
Referred by court or schools
Average length of stay, 4–6 months
Typical Services
Academic educational services and GED prep
Recreation therapy (e.g., backpacking, wilderness programs)
Motivational interviewing
Cognitive-behavioral therapy to resolve deviant thoughts
Anger replacement training for anger issues
Skills streaming to teach youth coping skills for dealing with high-risk situations
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 63 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Community after-school programs provide
supervision and educational services for youth.
Eyecandy Images/Thinkstock
After School/Recreation
As the name implies, after-school programs (ASPs) are
designed to provide services to youth during the time
they are most likely to be unsupervised (e.g., 3:00 p.m.–
6:00 p.m.). The programs may also be offered on
weekends or during the summer. The types of services
offered vary considerably by program and state. Although
many school districts offer ASPs for youth whose parents
work or are unable to supervise them, ASPs have been
created in many communities to specifically target at-risk
youth. The benefits of these programs are twofold. First,
the programs keep the youth occupied during what
otherwise is considered a high-risk time. Second,
supporters argue that by offering educational services
after school, these programs can increase participants’
academic achievement. Moreover, agencies often receive financial support through the federal government
for these types of programs through the Every Student Succeeds Act (formerly the No Child Left Behind
mandate).
As mentioned earlier, ASPs can vary dramatically by state or program. For example, one nationally
recognized program, Be a Star, targets low-income youth ages 5 to 12 and teaches them about the danger of
drugs (Pierce & Shields, 1998). Another program, Success for Kids, targets low-income youth ages 6 to 14
and teaches them resiliency skills to overcome adversity (Maestas & Gaillot, 2010). Yet another program,
SMART Moves, which is operated by the Boys and Girls Club of America, provides educational services
designed to prevent drug use and sexual activity among 13- and 15-year-olds (Kaltreider & St. Pierre, 1995).
This chapter’s Featured Program box focuses on the literature-based program Reading for Life.
Mission: Reading for Life exists as an alternative to prosecution for nonviolent offenses. In small
groups with trained mentors, young people learn to make more virtuous life choices by recognizing
and implementing justice, prudence, temperance, fortitude, fidelity, hope, and charity.
What does Harry Potter have to do with juvenile rehabilitation? More than you might think.
The idea to pair the two began when Alesha Seroczynski was jogging one day. Having just immersed
herself in a Harry Potter novel, she began considering how J. K. Rowling’s famous story might enable
teens to see the value of good decisions. Little did she know that this thought process would lead to
the creation of exactly that: an intervention program in which mentors use the virtues espoused in the
http://www.readingforlife.us/
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 64 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Alesha Seroczynski,
Ph.D., founder and
director of Reading for
Life.
Alesha Seroczynski/Reading for
Life
Student painting of Richard
Parker from The Life of Pi.
Reading for Life
Harry Potter novels to teach character development.
Working with Bethel College, Alesha began to design curriculum based
on Aristotelian and Thomist virtue theory, the result of which became the
foundations of her Reading for Life program. According to Alesha, ”
[v]irtue theory maintains that morality is more than simply doing the right
thing” (Seroczynski, 2011). This theory emphasizes the agent over the
action, holding that the cultivation of virtue will produce moral action.
Alesha believes that virtue theory models a good and simple way to think
about life, encouraging one to slow down and think.
The pilot program was held in 2004 at the St. Joseph County Juvenile
Justice Center in South Bend, Indiana. Alesha, Scott Johnson, and a team
of undergraduates held a “story hour” once a week in which they read
aloud portions of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone with about 20
students, followed by a 90-minute discussion that involved exploring how
virtues were exhibited in the novel.
In “The Hidden Virtues of Harry Potter,” Seroczynski, Johnson, Lamb,
and Gustman (2011) note that “there are multiple moral dimensions in
Harry Potter, including the contrast of evil and greed with the virtues of
courage, fidelity, and love” (p. 3). The novel’s examples of injustice give
the program mentors the chance to talk about justice. The friendship among the novel’s main
characters, Harry, Ron, and Hermione, spurs discussion of the students’ own friendships. Harry’s
relationship with his friends contrasts with several of his conflicted relationships with adults, such as
his aunt and uncle or Professor Snape. Mentors take time to talk to the students about their own
family relationships, their relationships with authority figures, and various issues of trust.
Since the inception of the pilot, many other books have been added to the program’s reading list.
Mentors work with participants to consider whether or not the actions taken by the characters in a
book are virtuous. Mentors also show students why these virtues could be beneficial tools to have in
life and how to exercise them in daily situations. There is also a journal component, in which
participants write about virtuous and not-so-virtuous actions they have taken themselves.
After reading a book, groups complete a community service
project that complements the theme of the book. For example,
readers of Neil Gaiman’s The Graveyard Book, a novel about an
orphaned boy who is raised by ghosts, volunteered at a soup
kitchen that serves the homeless. And the group that read
Khaled Hosseini’s The Kite Runner spent the afternoon making
hygiene care packs for refugees in Afghanistan.
In 2005, Alesha was approached by Peter Morgan, then the
director of the Youth Justice Project, and together they
transformed Reading for Life into a diversion program for first-
time offenders at the St. Joseph County Juvenile Justice Center.
Participants in Reading for Life are given the opportunity to
have their case closed and record expunged after age 18 if they
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 65 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Students in the “Heavy Readers”
group completed this novel as part
of the fall/winter 2011 curriculum.
complete the requirements of the program and remain offense-
free for three years.
So why is Alesha so passionate about leading book discussions
as diversion programs? Because she believes that it makes a
difference in the lives of its participants. At the time of the study, 99% of Reading for Life graduates
had not been prosecuted for reoffending, and 94% had had no further contact with the law. Alesha and
the other mentors have seen first-hand the difference the program makes. For example, a discussion
on the different types of love helped one of the participants realize the need to break up with an
abusive boyfriend (Seroczynski, 2011). Additionally, many of the participants’ parents or guardians
say that they see behavioral changes in the juveniles as a result of the program.
The program’s motto is evident on its website: “A caring mentor. A good book. A new life.” Alesha’s
goal is to stop the cycle of violence—to prevent those who come in contact with the law from doing
so again.
For more information on this program visit the following website:
Story on National Public Radio (NPR):
http://www.npr.org/blogs/participationnation/2012/08/29/159957406/reading-for-life-in-
south-bend-ind (http://www.npr.org/blogs/participationnation/2012/08/29/159957406/reading-for-
life-in-south-bend-ind)
Although ASPs are popular, studies on their effectiveness overall are mixed. Some research suggests that
these programs can increase participants’ educational achievement; however, many others suggest they have
no impact (James-Burdumy et al., 2005). Most studies cite difficulties with comparing the programs, given
that they are so distinct from one another (Lauer et al., 2006). For example, some programs are loosely
organized and simply provide some adult supervision to the youth with few structured activities. Others are
more intensive and offer group sessions designed to teach kids a variety of life skills (e.g., budgeting,
nutrition, interviewing, job readiness). In addition, in many circumstances these programs are voluntary, and
attendance can be difficult to enforce. Finally, the effects of a given program (e.g., increasing resiliency) may
be difficult to measure. A summary of the research conducted by Lauer and colleagues did find a small but
significant impact on reading and math levels for participants.
Critics of ASPs suggest that the programs could increase their effectiveness if they incorporated best
practices into their models. Best practices with regard to ASPs include the following:
Targeting at-risk youth
Conducting an assessment of the youth’s risk and needs
Matching levels of services to the youth’s risk and needs (e.g., targeted services to the areas in which
the youth needs the most assistance)
Integrating family members when possible
Teaching youth coping skills for dealing with high-risk situations
Page 66 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Proponents of ASPs argue that they serve an important purpose above and beyond the increase in academic
achievement (Feldman & Matjasko, 2005). Although these programs are not necessarily treatment programs,
they do provide supervision to youth during a fairly at-risk time (3:00 p.m.–7:00 p.m.). As such, these
programs continue to proliferate in many jurisdictions.
Regardless of whether the system experiences shifts in social or political policy, community corrections will
remain a popular option for juvenile delinquents. Studies support keeping juveniles in the community to
remain close to their schools and families, and community corrections remains a cost-efficient way to respond
to criminal behavior. With that said, however, institutional corrections remains an important option for some
youth. In the next chapter we discuss institutionalizing juveniles and the importance of planning for their
eventual reintegration back into society.
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 67 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Summary of Learning Objectives
Analyze the community-based corrections goals of punishment, rehabilitation, and restorative justice.
Community corrections range from basic probation, community service, intensive supervision
probation, house arrest, electronic monitoring, day treatment, after-school programs, and a range of
treatment programs.
Several forces influence the effectiveness of community corrections with juveniles. Those forces
include goal conflict, resource limitations, bureaucracy, and philosophical differences.
Restorative justice is a popular approach for juveniles. Restorative justice programs are designed to
bring the offender, the victim, and the community together to repair the harm done to society.
Popular approaches include victim-offender mediation, community service, restitution, and circle
sentencing.
Describe how probation is organized and the population it serves.
Probation is the most widely used sanction under the community corrections umbrella. Probation can
be organized locally or at the state level depending on the jurisdiction.
Probationers differ in terms of race, age, gender, and charge type. However, the majority of juvenile
delinquents are placed on probation.
Explain the two basic functions of a probation officer.
Probation officers are often engaged in two core activities: investigation and supervision.
The presentence investigation report will detail the results of the investigation of the youth’s
background.
The level and types of supervision activities vary greatly and depend on factors such as the youth’s
background, supervision level, and resources of the agency.
Summarize the goals of probation supervision.
The goal of probation supervision is to increase public safety through supervision and service
delivery. However, probation officers often have to contend with competing goals.
The probation officer must be concerned with maintaining community safety while also being
responsible for the provision of services for youth. To provide these services, the probation officer
must establish a helping role with the youth. Officers may find it difficult to strike a balance between
the law enforcement and social worker orientations.
Outline the factors influencing the effectiveness of probation.
The effectiveness of probation is mixed; however, newer approaches suggest that probation officers
can increase their effectiveness by relying on best practices to guide the supervision activities and
face-to-face meetings with clients.
Best practices might include intensive interventions that target juveniles at higher risk for recidivism
and that target issues related to their criminal behavior, as well as augmenting the PSI interview with
a standardized risk and needs assessment tool.
2/7/21, 8(19 PMPrint
Page 68 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
Explain the circumstances in which probation can be revoked.
The courts ruled that if a juvenile’s probation is to be revoked, certain rights must be preserved.
Those rights include written notice, disclosure of evidence, opportunity to be heard, a right to cross-
examine witnesses, and a written statement of the charges.
Evaluate the effectiveness of intermediate sanctions.
House arrest and electronic monitoring remain popular options for juvenile delinquents. Recent
technological advancements in the area of electronic monitoring such as GPS, voice recognition
software, and alcohol monitors have increased its popularity. However, these methods have not been
shown to be particularly effective in reducing recidivism.
Day treatment centers offer a cost-effective alternative to incarceration and can provide a structured
treatment approach with increased levels of supervision.
The few studies that have been conducted do show that these centers can be beneficial for the youth.
However, the effectiveness of these centers tends to depend on how well they are resourced and
whether the programs use strategies known to reduce recidivism.
The effectiveness of after-school programs is mixed.
Critical Thinking Questions
1. Visit the Officer of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention website
(http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/probation/index.html
(http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/probation/index.html) ) and learn more about the latest trends in
probation.
2. Probation is the workhorse of the system; however, it often suffers from a negative image. That
negative image emanates from critics who believe that probation is too lenient a punishment. What
are your views on probation?
3. Do you think probation officers should act as treatment counselors, as suggested by the EPICS
model? What might be the disadvantages of having probation officers act in this role?
4. Do you think that global positioning systems (GPSs) are a reasonable option for monitoring juvenile
delinquents? Do you think GPS devices violate juveniles’ privacy rights? Why or why not?
Key Terms
Click on each key term to see the definition.
Associated Marine Institute, Kids program (AMIKids)
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover#)
Sanctions utilized by the court system to punish or correct criminal behavior.
Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS)
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover#)
A probation model in which probation officers are trained to provide targeted, short interventions to
probationers during the typical face-to-face meeting with clients to focus on issues that might act as barriers
to the client’s change.
The use of services, programs, or interventions that have been shown to be effective, most often measured by
reductions in recidivism. Also referred to as “best practices” or “what works.”
global positioning system (GPS)
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover#)
A technological device that provides immediate verification of the client’s whereabouts 24 hours a day.
The struggle faced by many correctional agencies in deciding which philosophical path to choose.
house arrest
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo
oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/
books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cov
er/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/c
over/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/section
s/cover#)
Home confinement that requires the youth to stay in the community while maintaining a higher level of
supervision than found on traditional probation or even ISP.
Page 71 of 71https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch06…ontent&clientToken=2af50dec-1a38-ceee-30a3-4d4171e45226&np=cover
A 1972 Supreme Court case that ruled that juveniles have been granted certain due process rights that must
be considered in court before the individual’s probation can be revoked.
A set of policies or interventions focused on reducing the probability of reoffending through changing why
the person began engaging in risky behavior.
Trauma-Informed Juvenile Justice Systems: A Systematic Review of
Definitions and Core Components
Christopher Edward Branson
New York University School of Medicine
Carly Lyn Baetz
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Sarah McCue Horwitz and Kimberly Eaton Hoagwood
New York University School of Medicine
Objective: The U.S. Department of Justice has called for the creation of trauma-informed juvenile justice
systems in order to combat the negative impact of trauma on youth offenders and frontline staff.
Definitions of trauma-informed care have been proposed for various service systems, yet there is not
currently a widely accepted definition for juvenile justice. The current systematic review examined
published definitions of a trauma-informed juvenile justice system in an effort to identify the most
commonly named core elements and specific interventions or policies. Method: A systematic literature
search was conducted in 10 databases to identify publications that defined trauma-informed care or
recommended specific practices or policies for the juvenile justice system. Results: We reviewed 950
unique records, of which 10 met criteria for inclusion. The 10 publications included 71 different
recommended interventions or policies that reflected 10 core domains of trauma-informed practice. We
found 8 specific practice or policy recommendations with relative consensus, including staff training on
trauma and trauma-specific treatment, while most recommendations were included in 2 or less defini-
tions. Conclusion: The extant literature offers relative consensus around the core domains of a trauma-
informed juvenile justice system, but much less agreement on the specific practices and policies. A
logical next step is a review of the empirical research to determine which practices or policies produce
positive impacts on outcomes for youth, staff, and the broader agency environment, which will help
refine the core definitional elements that comprise a unified theory of trauma-informed practice for
juvenile justice.
Childhood exposure to violence and other traumatic events is
increasingly recognized as a major public health challenge because
of its association with a host of deleterious long-term outcomes
(National Prevention Council, 2011). Although the majority of
Americans will experience at least one traumatic event before the
age of 18 (McLaughlin et al., 2012), trauma disproportionately
affects youth involved with the juvenile justice system (Miller,
Green, Fettes, & Aarons, 2011). An estimated 70% to 90% of
youth offenders have experienced one or more types of trauma,
including high rates of physical or sexual abuse, witnessing do-
mestic violence, and exposure to violence in school or the com-
munity (Abram et al., 2004; Ford, Hartman, Hawke, & Chapman,
2008). Accumulating evidence suggests that childhood trauma
exposure is likely a key risk factor for subsequent juvenile justice
involvement (Kerig & Becker, 2010). Juvenile offenders are a
particularly vulnerable population, but those with histories of
trauma exposure and/or symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) have higher rates of recidivism, co-occurring disorders,
school dropout, and suicide attempts (Cauffman, Monahan, &
Thomas, 2015; Haynie, Petts, Maimon, & Piquero, 2009; Wasser-
man & McReynolds, 2011; Wolff, Baglivio, & Piquero, 2015).
Multiple investigators have argued persuasively that youth may
cope with traumatic stress in ways that increase their risk of arrest,
including using drugs to avoid distressing memories, running away
from an abusive home, and carrying a weapon or joining a gang to
prevent revictimization (DeHart & Moran, 2015; Ford, Chapman,
Mack, & Pearson, 2006; Kerig & Becker, 2010).
Involvement in the justice system itself places youth at risk for
exposure to additional trauma as well as harsh practices that may
exacerbate their psychological distress and contribute to worse
legal outcomes. Potential sources of trauma in the justice system
This article was published Online First February 6, 2017.
Christopher Edward Branson, Department of Child & Adolescent Psy-
chiatry, New York University School of Medicine; Carly Lyn Baetz,
Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Sarah
McCue Horwitz and Kimberly Eaton Hoagwood, Department of Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine.
Carly Lyn Baetz is now at the Department of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine.
Research reported in this publication was supported by the National
Institute of Mental Health of the National Institutes of Health under Award
K23MH104697. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and
does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes
of Health. We thank Raquel Rose for her contributions to the systematic
review.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christopher
Edward Branson, New York University Child Study Center, 1 Park Avenue –
7th Floor, New York, NY 10016. E-mail: christopher.branson@nyumc
.org
include discriminatory law enforcement practices like “Stop and
Frisk,” abusive behavior by correctional staff, and the high rates of
physical and sexual victimization in juvenile justice facilities, all
of which are associated with an increased risk of PTSD symptoms
(Dierkhising, Lane, & Natsuaki, 2014; Geller, Fagan, Tyler, &
Link, 2014). Youth with prior trauma exposure may be “triggered”
and suffer psychological distress in response to several invasive or
coercive practices commonly used in the justice system, including
strip-searches or pat-downs, placement in secure facilities with
limited access to loved ones, and use of punitive seclusion or
physical restraint in detention or correctional settings. A small
retrospective study of young adults (ages 18-20) that had been
discharged from a juvenile justice facility in the past year found
that exposure to abuse and/or harsh punishments (i.e., seclusion)
while incarcerated was positively associated with post-release
criminal behavior and PTSD symptoms (Dierkhising et al., 2014).
Thus, the justice system may impede the efforts of trauma survi-
vors to rehabilitate and desist from crime.
The negative impact of trauma within juvenile justice goes
beyond youth offenders. It is increasingly recognized that front-
line justice system professionals are frequently exposed to
traumatic stressors in the line of duty, including witnessing or
experiencing violence and hearing details of trauma experi-
enced by crime victims or youth offenders (Chamberlain &
Miller, 2008; Kunst, 2011; Rainville, 2015). A growing litera-
ture reveals high rates of moderate to severe traumatic stress
symptoms in samples of correctional staff, probation officers,
law enforcement, and attorneys (Denhof & Spinaris, 2013;
Levin et al., 2011; Skogstad et al., 2013). Traumatic stress is
associated with impaired job performance among justice system
professionals (Denhof & Spinaris, 2013). Taken together, these
findings suggest that trauma contributes to worse outcomes for
all involved with the juvenile justice system.
Trauma-Informed Care
Increased public awareness of trauma’s pernicious effects and
its prevalence among society’s most vulnerable populations has
led to calls from a number of key stakeholders for the creation of
trauma-informed public service systems (National Association of
State Mental Health Program Directors, 2005; Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration, 2014). Trauma-
informed care (TIC) is an approach to organizing services that
integrates an understanding of the impact and consequences of
trauma into all interventions and aspects of organizational func-
tioning (American Association of Children’s Residential Centers,
2014). Implementing TIC goes beyond offering mental health
interventions designed to treat symptoms of PTSD, and requires
organizations and service systems to examine how their practices,
policies, and environments foster a sense of safety among con-
sumers with histories of trauma exposure (Kusmaul, Wilson, &
Nochajski, 2015). According to Elliott, Bjelajac, Fallot, Markoff,
and Reed (2005), in a trauma-informed organization,
all staff . . . from the receptionist to the direct care workers to the
board of directors, must understand how violence impacts the lives
of people being served, so that every interaction is consistent with
the recovery process and reduces the possibility of re-
traumatization. (p. 462)
For many agencies and service systems, TIC represents a signifi-
cant shift in thinking and practice.
The concept of trauma-informed service systems was first in-
troduced into the literature over 15 years ago by Harris and Fallot
(2001). Since then, several researchers and stakeholder groups
have attempted to define a TIC approach. These definitions include
broad principles or domains of TIC (e.g., staff education/compe-
tence around trauma, physically and psychologically safe environ-
ment of care, client-centered service planning) and/or recommen-
dations for specific trauma-informed practices or policies (e.g.,
eliminating or restricting harsh or coercive practices, mandatory
trauma training for all staff, universal screening of clients for
trauma exposure and related impairment; Hopper, Bassuk, & Ol-
ivet, 2010; Raja, Hasnain, Hoersch, Gove-Yin, & Rajagopalan,
2015; Wall, Higgins, & Hunter, 2016). Although there is general
agreement in the literature that TIC refers to the integration of
trauma awareness and understanding throughout an organization
or service system, there is currently no consensus-based definition
on the particular practices or policies that comprise this approach
for any service system (Hopper et al., 2010). Multiple authors have
identified the lack of consensus on the definition of TIC as a
primary barrier to creating trauma-informed systems (Hanson &
Lang, 2016; Hopper et al., 2010; Wall et al., 2016).
The Current Study
Although the basic definition of TIC cuts across service sys-
tems, the particular practices or policies that are implemented
should be tailored to fit the unique mission and challenges of each
system. There is currently no TIC definition for juvenile justice
that has been widely accepted, even though several federal agen-
cies and stakeholder organizations have established initiatives to
promote the adoption of TIC in the justice system (Federal Part-
ners Committee on Women and Trauma, 2013; National Council
of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, n.d.). This lack of consensus
has contributed to confusion among juvenile justice system leaders
and frontline providers as to what exactly is meant by TIC
(Donisch, Bray, & Gewirtz, 2016). Identifying the specific com-
ponents (practices, policies) of a trauma-informed juvenile justice
system is a prerequisite for developing and evaluating TIC service
models. The primary aim of the current study is to systematically
review the extant literature on definitions or descriptions of TIC
for the juvenile justice system in order to identify the most com-
monly named core domains and recommended practices or poli-
cies. Additionally, we will identify areas of consensus or disagree-
ment and directions for future research.
Method
Study Protocol and Inclusion Criteria
The first author developed the study protocol based on the
established guidelines for systematic literature reviews (Shamseer
et al., 2015). A copy of the full protocol is available upon request.
Our review focused on identifying English-language records pub-
lished since 2000 that proposed an original definition of TIC
specific to the juvenile justice system (whole system or any of the
following settings: law enforcement, juvenile courts, diversion
programs, probation departments, detention or correctional fa-
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
on
e
of
its
al
lie
d
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
636 BRANSON, BAETZ, HORWITZ, AND HOAGWOOD
cilities). For the present review, we operationalized this as
publications for which a primary focus was identifying core
principles or domains of TIC (i.e., promoting a safe environ-
ment of care) and/or recommending specific trauma-informed
practices, policies, or procedures for the juvenile justice system
(i.e., staff training on working with trauma-affected youth,
trauma-specific mental health services).
We excluded publications that called for TIC in juvenile justice
without defining it, simply cited an existing definition without adding
new recommendations, or defined TIC for the adult criminal justice
system or for multiple service systems without offering juvenile-
justice-specific definition/recommendations. Because TIC is a system-
wide approach, we excluded publications whose definition/recom-
mendations were limited to trauma-informed clinical services (i.e.,
screening/assessment, treatment). Additionally, we limited our search
to journal manuscripts, books, white papers, government/stakeholder
agency reports or policy statements, articles in trade magazines/
newsletters (e.g., American Jails magazine), and web-based resources
(i.e., stakeholder agency websites with TIC definitions). We excluded
dissertations, conference abstracts/presentations, webinars or online
presentations, blog posts, and popular-press articles.
Literature Search Strategy
We used a four-step process to identify eligible studies. First,
literature searches were conducted in 10 databases (EBSCO Crim-
inal Justice, ERIC, National Criminal Justice Reference Service,
Ovid PsycINFO, ProQuest Criminal Justice, ProQuest Psychol-
ogy, ProQuest Published International Literature on Traumatic
Stress, ProQuest Social Science, ProQuest Social Services Ab-
stracts, PubMed) using the search terms (“trauma informed” OR
“trauma focused” OR “trauma responsive”) AND (“juvenile jus-
tice” OR probation OR court� OR “law enforcement” OR “diver-
sion program” OR “juvenile detention”). In May 2016, the first
author conducted the literature searches and compiled a list of the
complete reference and abstract for every record identified. Two
reviewers (C. E. Branson and C. L. Baetz) independently reviewed
all abstracts to determine if they met our inclusion criteria. For
each abstract that was selected for further review by either re-
viewer, we then retrieved the full-text document. Two reviewers
independently reviewed the full-text articles to determine if they
met inclusion criteria. In cases of disagreement, the two authors
discussed the publication until a consensus was reached. The
overall level of interrater agreement was adequate (� � .62).
In the second step, the first author reviewed the reference lists of
all publications selected for inclusion to identify other potentially
eligible records. Next, we conducted a “cited by” search in Google
Scholar of all selected publications. For all new publications
identified through these steps, we repeated the two-step process
(independent review of abstracts, then full-text review). The final
step consisted of a Google Internet search for web-based resources.
We made the a priori decision to limit our review to the first 20
pages of hits (i.e., 200 websites). Web-based records that appeared
to meet inclusion criteria were saved in PDF format and reviewed
by the first and second authors.
Data Extraction and Coding
Two reviewers (C. E. Branson and C. L. Baetz) independently
extracted and coded data from all articles selected for inclusion
using a data collection form and codebook designed for the current
study (available upon request). The following variables were ex-
tracted and coded: publication year, publication type (i.e., journal
article, agency report), focus of TIC definition (i.e., entire juvenile
justice system or particular setting such as probation departments),
core elements of TIC (i.e., broad principles or categories of TIC for
juvenile justice system), and specific trauma-informed practices/
policies/interventions that were recommended.
Data Analysis and Synthesis
We used content analysis to identify and code recurring
themes regarding the core principles or domains of TIC for
juvenile justice and the specific strategies or practices recom-
mended for each domain. This approach was guided by the
“coding consensus, co-occurrence, and comparison” methodol-
ogy described by Willms et al. (1990), in which both a priori
and emergent themes (i.e., core domains or specific practices)
are coded to construct a conceptual framework (Palinkas,
2014). First, a primary coder (first author) extracted and coded
data from all the records. A second coder (second author)
repeated this for 50% of the records and examined the first
coder’s work on the other half. Three a priori categories (clin-
ical services, agency context, system-level) provided an initial
framework for organizing the data. The coders extracted ver-
batim anything that appeared to be a recommendation (e.g.,
agencies/systems should train staff on trauma) or explicitly
identified core domains or principles of a trauma-informed
juvenile justice system. After reading through all the data, the
coders drafted preliminary domains (e.g., creating a safe envi-
ronment). Next, the coders organized similar recommendations
together in a word processing document and assigned them to a
domain. Through discussion, the two coders came to a consen-
sus on names of the broad domains and the wording and
categorization of specific practice or policy recommendations.
Results
Literature Search Results
Our literature search identified a total of 950 unique records,
of which 898 were excluded during the initial screening. Re-
cords excluded at this stage included numerous studies on the
prevalence/impact of trauma exposure (e.g., Wolff et al., 2015)
and trauma-specific mental health services (e.g., Black, Wood-
worth, Tremblay, & Carpenter, 2012) for youth offenders and
other populations. Fifty-two full-text records were reviewed, of
which 42 were excluded, leaving a total of 10 publications
selected for inclusion (denoted by asterisks in the References).
The 42 excluded full-text records included 15 publications that
called for TIC in juvenile justice but did not provide a definition
or detailed recommendations (e.g., Ko et al., 2008), six publi-
cations that discussed trauma screening/treatment only (e.g.,
Igelman, Ryan, Gilbert, Bashant, & North, 2008), and five
publications that cited someone else’s definition of TIC (e.g.,
Crosby, 2016).
There were five instances in which we found multiple pub-
lications from the same author(s) that met our inclusion criteria.
We extracted and coded the data from all of these publications.
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
on
e
of
its
al
lie
d
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
637TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS
In four cases, we excluded a second publication that included
identical or less complete recommendations (Feierman & Fine,
2014; Ford, 2012; National Center for Mental Health and Ju-
venile Justice, n.d.; Sickmund, 2016) than another eligible
publication from the same author(s) (Feierman & Ford, 2016;
National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice &
Technical Assistance Collaborative, 2015; National Council of
Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2015). In the remaining case,
we excluded a series of policy briefs from the National Child
Traumatic Stress Network (Burrell, 2013; Dierkhising, Ko, &
Goldman, 2013; Kerig, 2013; Lacey, 2013; Rozzell, 2013;
Stewart, 2013) in favor of a more recent publication (National
Child Traumatic Stress Network, 2016), as the former explicitly
stated that it was a preliminary attempt to start defining the core
elements of TIC for juvenile justice. A complete list of the
excluded records is available upon request. Figure 1 provides a
detailed summary of our search.
Publication Characteristics
We reviewed 10 publications that defined TIC and/or recom-
mended specific trauma-informed practices or policies for
the juvenile justice system (see Table 1). Four publications gave
definitions or recommendations for the entire system, and
three defined TIC for juvenile or family courts. The remaining
three definitions/recommendations included one apiece for ju-
venile detention/correctional facilities, diversion programs, and
law enforcement. Publication dates ranged from 2012 to 2016,
with half published in the past 2 years.
TIC Definitions and Recommendations
The 10 publications included a total of 71 different practice
or policy recommendations representing 10 major principles or
domains of trauma-informed practice for juvenile justice. We
further organized these 10 domains into three categories based
on their level of focus: clinical services, agency context, and
system level (see Table 2). For each of these domains, we
identified all of the specific trauma-informed practices or pol-
icies that were recommended and how often they were recom-
mended across the 10 definitions (see Table 3). The number of
recommendations included in these definitions ranged from
four to 37 (M � 19.20, SD � 11.24). On average, publications
that defined TIC for the entire system included more recom-
Figure 1. Summary of the literature search. TIC � trauma-informed care; PTSD � posttraumatic stress
disorder.
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
on
e
of
its
al
lie
d
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
638 BRANSON, BAETZ, HORWITZ, AND HOAGWOOD
mendations (M � 25.67, SD � 9.50) compared with definitions
of TIC intended for particular justice settings like courts or law
enforcement (M � 16.43, SD � 11.39).
Only eight of the 71 recommendations (11%) were included in
the majority of definitions (i.e., n � 6). These recommendations
were universal screening/assessment of youth for trauma-related
impairment; providing evidence-based, trauma-specific treatment;
practices/policies that address the needs of diverse groups of
youth; access to social supports for youth and families; prioritizing
youth and family preferences for services; staff training; policies/
procedures to promote a safe environment; and eliminating or
reducing harsh/coercive practices. More than half of the recom-
mendations (n � 39 or 55%) were included in only one or two
definitions, with the remaining 24 recommendations (34%) in-
cluded in three to five definitions.
Clinical Services Recommendations
Domain 1: Screening & assessment. All but one of the
publications called for universal screening of youth offenders
for trauma-related impairment followed by a comprehensive
mental health assessment for youth who screen positive. A
smaller number of publications included recommendations
about what to screen or assess for (e.g., trauma exposure and/or
PTSD symptoms). Only three publications called for the use of
assessment tools that have been validated with youth in the
juvenile justice system.
Domain 2: Services & interventions. All but one of the
publications called for justice systems to make evidence-based,
trauma-specific mental health interventions widely available to
youth and families involved with the system. Seven different
recommendations were given regarding specific services, most
commonly offering trauma-specific services to youth in both
community-based juvenile justice agencies and detention/cor-
rectional facilities (n � 4).
Domain 3: Cultural competence. Six publications recom-
mended policies, procedures, and clinical services/program-
ming that address the needs of diverse groups of youth and
avoid or reduce disparities related to race/ethnicity, gender,
sexual orientation, developmental level, and socioeconomic
status. Three publications included recommendations for gen-
der-responsive/specific programming to meet the needs of girls
involved in the justice system. Three publications called for
services to be tailored for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,
and queer youth.
Agency Context Recommendations
Domain 4: Youth & family engagement/involvement. Seven
publications included recommendations around promoting youth
and family engagement with the justice system. Six publications
recommended that agencies/systems provide access to social sup-
ports for youth and families. Other common recommendations
within this area included prioritizing youth and family preferences
Table 1
Publications Included in Systematic Review
Publication
Focus of TIC
definition Broad domains of TIC identified
American Bar Association (2014) Courts NA
Attorney General’s National Task
Force on Children Exposed to
Violence (2012) Whole system NA
Feierman and Ford (2016) Whole system NA
Griffin, Germain, and Wilkerson
(2012)
Juvenile justice
facilities
NA
International Association of Chiefs of
Police (2014) Law enforcement NA
National Center for Mental Health and
Juvenile Justice & Technical
Assistance Collaborative (2015)
Whole system Policies & procedures; screening; clinical assessment/intervention; programming & staff
education; prevention & management of secondary traumatic stress; partnering with
youth & families; cross-system collaboration; addressing disparities & diversity
National Council of Juvenile &
Family Court Judges (2015) Courts/Judges NA
Pilnik and Kendall (2012) Courts/Attorneys NA
Rapp (2016) Whole system Governing/leadership; culture/mission/goals; programming; staff/personnel; system
Note. TIC � trauma-informed care; NA � not applicable.
a These domains were adapted from Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2014).
Table 2
Core Domains of Trauma-Informed Care for Juvenile Justice
Agency context 4. Youth & family engagement/involvement
5. Workforce development & support
6. Promoting a safe agency environment
7. Agency policies, procedures, & leadership
System level 8. Cross-system collaboration
9. System-level policies & procedures
10. Quality assurance & evaluation
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
on
e
of
its
al
lie
d
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
639TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS
Table 3
Recommended Trauma-Informed Practices and Policies for the Juvenile Justice System
Domain/Recommendations
Publications with this
recommendationa nb
Domain 1: Screening/assessment
1. Universal screening for trauma-related impairment (trauma exposure, PTSD) and comprehensive, trauma-
informed mental health assessments by a qualified clinician for youth who screen positive 1–4, 6–10 9
2. Use screening/assessment measures that are validated with diverse populations 1, 3, 8 3
3. Utilize screening/assessment measures that are validated with justice-involved youth 1, 6, 8 3
4. Use interviews over self-report measures to improve accurate identification of symptoms 7 1
5. Assessment should be used to monitor progress and evaluate client outcomes 7 1
6. Assessment must be completed without asking youth to repeat trauma stories in multiple interviews 10 1
Recommended areas to screen/assess
• Trauma exposure 2, 4, 7, 8, 10 5
• PTSD symptoms 4, 7, 8 3
• Relationship between PTSD symptoms and criminogenic risk-needs-responsivity factors 8 1
• Callous-unemotional traits 2 1
• Commercial sexual exploitation (CSEC) 1 1
• Family members’ information and history 10 1
• Co-occurring mental health/SUD problems 8 1
• Attachment failures 10 1
Domain 2: Services & interventions
7. Evidence-based trauma-specific treatment should be widely available/accessible to youth & families 1–4, 6–10 9
8. Offer treatment in community-based settings as well as juvenile detention/correctional facilities 3, 7, 8, 10 4
9. Provide a continuum of trauma-informed interventions (brief interventions to intensive treatment) 7, 8, 10 3
10. Services that teach youth self-regulation skills 3, 4, 8 3
11. Strengths-based framework 1, 4, 8 3
12. Develop trauma-informed safety plans (triggers, warning signs, coping strategies) with all youth affected
by trauma 7, 8 2
13. Integrate TIC principles into all services (mental health, substance use, medical) 3, 8 2
Domain 3: Cultural competence
14. Practices and policies should address the needs of diverse groups of youth and avoid/reduce disparities
related to race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, developmental level, and SES 1–3, 8–10 6
15. Provide gender-specific/responsive interventions and programs 2, 3, 8 3
16. Tailor services for LGBTQ youth 2, 3, 8 3
17. Tailor services to the age/developmental level of
youth 7, 8 2
18. Trauma-informed services for CSEC 1, 2 2
19. Create small, family style group living facilities for pregnant and parenting girls 2 1
Domain 4: Youth & family engagement/involvement
20. Prioritize youth and family preferences for services 3, 6–10 6
21. Provide youth and families with access to positive social support from people of similar backgrounds
(e.g., mentors, peer advocates) 2, 3, 6–8, 10 6
22. Provide education/service referrals to address parent/caregiver trauma and its impact on the family
system 1, 3, 7, 8 4
23. Involve youth & families in agency planning (advisory boards, routinely collecting feedback on
services) 6–8, 10 4
24. Provide tangible resources to reduce barriers to engagement and partnering (bus pass, child care, etc.) 8 1
Domain 5: Workforce development & support
25. Training for all staff to increase their understanding of trauma 1–10 10
26. Ongoing supervision to ensure that staff implement new approaches with fidelity 3, 7 2
27. Training for new hires and refresher trainings 8 1
Recommended topics for training
• Trauma-informed care principles/practices 1, 4, 7–10 6
• Impact of trauma on youth development & behavior 1, 5–8 5
• Skills for working with trauma-affected youth (i.e., identifying & responding to youth trauma reactions) 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 5
• Recognize the signs and triggers for traumatic stress reactions 6–9 4
• Family engagement/empowerment strategies 3, 5, 7, 10 4
• Ways that juvenile justice involvement can be triggering or re-traumatizing for youth 4, 5, 7 3
• Trauma-informed treatments/services available in the local community/justice system 5, 6, 9 3
• Trauma screening 6, 9 2
• Making appropriate referrals to services 3, 5 2
• Impact of trauma on youth delinquency 7, 8 2
• Adolescent development 5, 10 2
• Specialized Crisis Intervention Team training for law enforcement 5 1
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
on
e
of
its
al
lie
d
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
640 BRANSON, BAETZ, HORWITZ, AND HOAGWOOD
Table 3 (continued)
Domain/Recommendations
Publications with this
recommendationa nb
• Family dynamics 10 1
• Culturally competent care with special populations 2 1
• Parenting skills 10 1
28. Address traumatic stress reactions among front-line staff (PTSD, secondary/vicarious trauma) 1, 6–8, 10 5
29. Education/training to increase staff awareness of the symptoms and causes of staff traumatic stress 1, 6–8, 10 5
30. Discuss staff traumatic stress/wellness in supervision and/or team meetings 1, 7, 8, 10 4
31. Employee assistance programs or referral to outside therapist for counseling to address traumatic stress 7, 8, 10 3
32. Teach staff strategies for preventing traumatic stress (self-care, emotion regulation skills) 8, 10 2
33. Develop procedure for debriefing with staff following work-related events that are potentially traumatic
(e.g., youth killed, youth or staff assaulted) 7, 8 2
34. Consult with outside expert on addressing staff traumatic stress within the organization 1 1
35. Create coworker support opportunities (e.g., peer support groups onsite in agency) 1 1
36. Employee recognition (i.e., reinforce staff success) 7 1
37. Create agency climate that says seeking help is a sign of strength, not weakness 7 1
38. Routinely collect feedback from staff/involve them in agency decision making 10 1
39. Increase staff salaries to increase staff retention (i.e., to provide stability/consistency for youth) 10 1
Domain 6: Promoting a safe agency environment
40. Policies/procedures promote a physically and psychologically safe environment for youth/families and
searches) 1–3, 8–10 6
42. Promote respectful youth-staff interactions 3, 4, 6, 7 4
43. Minimize youth exposure to violence or threats from other youth or staff 3, 7, 8 3
44. Physical environment is calming, welcoming, and therapeutic 6, 7, 10 3
45. Transparent communication with youth/families about agency rules, their rights, and grievance process 2, 7, 10 3
46. Structure and predictability (consistent schedule, youth informed in advance of changes) 4 1
47. Ensure adequate security in the agency (lighting, cameras, security staff) 7 1
48. Use trauma-informed/positive behavior management strategies or systems 4 1
49. Create specialized crisis interventions teams 5 1
50. Facilities need private rooms for youth who do not feel safe or comfortable sharing a room at night 10 1
51. Eliminate uniforms 10 1
Domain 7: Agency policies, procedures, & leadership
52. Incorporate trauma-informed principles into all aspects of agency operations (mission statement, written
policies, protocols, procedures) 7, 8, 10 3
53. System/agency leadership must embrace a trauma-informed approach and build it into the organizational
value system and operational environment 6, 7 2
54. Create a task force to lead trauma-informed care initiative with staff from different departments and
roles 7 1
Domain 8: Cross-system collaboration
55. Collaborate with other systems/providers to coordinate care for youth with multi-system involvement 1, 5, 7, 8, 10 5
56. Work with community stakeholders to ensure that trauma-informed services are available in all child
service systems to address the impact of trauma before youth come into contact with justice system 3, 5, 7, 8 4
57. Establish information sharing agreements with other systems or providers that serve justice-involved
youth 7, 8 2
Domain 9: Systems-level policies & procedures
58. Policies/procedures to minimize justice involvement whenever possible (divert youth to community,
keep youth in least restrictive environment, and/or limit transfer to adult court) 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 5
59. Policies to require that a youths’ trauma history is used to connect them to services or limit juvenile
justice involvement and cannot be used against a youth in court (i.e., as aggravating factor, protection
against self-incrimination during court-mandated assessments) 3, 7–9 4
60. Policy/legislation to promote the adoption of TIC by juvenile justice agencies/systems 3, 7, 9 3
61. Guarantee legal representation for all trauma-exposed youth accused of a crime 2, 8 2
62. Policies to prevent youth from entering status offense or juvenile justice system because of abuse or
neglect (e.g., ran away from abusive home, assaulted an abusive parent in self-defense) 3, 9 2
63. Appoint independent monitors to ensure that youth in facilities are safe and receiving appropriate
services 2, 3 2
64. Legislation to ensure that commercially sexually exploited children are treated as victims, not criminals 1, 2 2
65. School discipline policies to keep kids in school rather than driving them to justice system 2 1
66. Revise mission of juvenile justice to focus on rehabilitation/safety rather than a corrections mission 10 1
Domain 10: Quality assurance & evaluation
67. Conduct evaluations and focus on quality improvement 3, 7, 10 3
(table continues)
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
on
e
of
its
al
lie
d
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
641TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS
during service planning (n � 6), involving youth/family members
in systems evaluation or planning efforts (n � 4), and providing
education and/or service referrals to address caregiver trauma and
its impact on the family system (n � 4).
Domain 5: Workforce development & support. Staff train-
ing on trauma was identified as a core element of TIC in all 10
publications, making it the only unanimous recommendation. A
total of 15 different training topics were recommended across the
10 publications. The most frequently recommended topics for
training were TIC principles or practices (n � 6), specific skills for
working with trauma survivors (n � 5), and the impact of trauma
on youth development/behavior (n � 5). Five publications recom-
mended agency or system-wide efforts to address work-related
traumatic stress reactions among frontline staff. Nine different
strategies were identified, most commonly staff education on the
signs and causes of work-related PTSD (n � 5) and discussion of
work stressors in supervision or team meetings (n � 4).
Domain 6: Promoting a safe agency environment. Six of
the publications identified policies and procedures to promote a
sense of physical and psychological safety among youth, families,
and staff as a core component of TIC. The most common recom-
mendations for creating a safe environment were restricting/elim-
inating the use of harsh or coercive practices that may trigger or
retraumatize youth (n � 6) and promoting respectful youth-staff
interactions (n � 4).
Domain 7: Agency policies, procedures, & leadership.
Three publications recommended that juvenile justice agencies or
systems institutionalize their commitment to TIC by embedding
principles of TIC into their written policies and procedures. Ad-
ditionally, two publications recommended that agency leadership
embrace a trauma-informed approach and build into the organiza-
tional value system.
System-Level Recommendations
Domain 8: Cross-system collaboration. Five publications
called for cross-system collaboration in order to coordinate care
with other service systems or providers that work with youth
offenders. Four of these definitions recommended working with
other community stakeholders to ensure that trauma-informed ser-
vices/care is available throughout all local child service systems.
Additionally, two publications recommended that juvenile justice
establish information-sharing agreements with other service sys-
tems/providers to facilitate coordination of care for youth involved
with multiple systems.
Domain 9: System-level policies & procedures. Five publi-
cations recommended system-level policies to minimize youth
contact with juvenile justice and/or keep them in the least restric-
tive environment. Four publications recommended policies to en-
sure that information about a youth’s trauma history is used to
connect them with services and is never used against them in court.
Three publications called for policies to promote the adoption of
TIC within juvenile justice.
Domain 10: Quality assurance & evaluation. Three publi-
cations called for ongoing data collection to evaluate the process
and impact of implementing TIC. Recommended areas of focus for
such efforts included youth outcomes (n � 2) and monitoring for
racial/ethnic disparities in access to TIC and outcomes (n � 2).
Notably, only one publication called for ongoing monitoring of
staff fidelity to trauma-informed interventions/practices.
Discussion
The current study, to our knowledge, represents the first
systematic review of the literature on existing definitions of the
core components and practices or policies that comprise TIC for
the juvenile justice system. Findings reveal that the bulk of the
extant literature consists of studies examining trauma’s impact
on youth offenders and theoretical articles outlining the ratio-
nale for trauma-informed juvenile justice systems, with a far
smaller number of publications (10 of the 950 records reviewed,
or 1%) that actually define the core components of TIC. The 10
publications included definitions/recommendations for the
whole system as well as for all major settings/professions
within juvenile justice (law enforcement, courts, probation/
diversion, correctional/detention facilities). The overarching
theme of our review is that the literature offers relative con-
sensus around the core domains but less agreement on the key
practices or policies that comprise a trauma-informed approach
for juvenile justice. One clear theme is that further refinement
of the definition is necessary.
The 10 publications included in the current review yielded a
total of 71 different recommendations. Although this is a large
number that includes a diverse range of practices and policies, we
were able to identify 10 broad domains of TIC (e.g., promoting a
safe agency environment, workforce development/support) that
Table 3 (continued)
Domain/Recommendations
Publications with this
recommendationa nb
68. Assess effectiveness of trauma-informed services/youth outcomes 3, 7 2
69. Monitor for racial disparities/cultural disparities in access to and benefit from trauma-informed services 3, 7 2
70. Assess fidelity to evidence-based/trauma-informed practices 7 1
71. Assess whether juvenile justice services are being used for youth and families who could benefit from
voluntary or preventive services and may not need system involvement at all 3 1
Note. PTSD � posttraumatic stress disorder; TIC � trauma-informed care; SES � socioeconomic status; LGBTQ � lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,
queer.
a 1 � American Bar Association (2014); 2 � Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence (2012); 3 � Feierman and Ford
(2016); 4 � Griffin, Germain, and Wilkerson (2012); 5 � International Association of Chiefs of Police (2014); 6 � National Council of Juvenile & Family
Court Judges (2015); 7 � National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice & Technical Assistance Collaborative (2015); 8 � National Child
Traumatic Stress Network (2016); 9 � Pilnik and Kendall (2012); 10 � Rapp (2016). b Total number of publications that included this recommendation.
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
on
e
of
its
al
lie
d
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
642 BRANSON, BAETZ, HORWITZ, AND HOAGWOOD
encompass all of the recommendations. Furthermore, these do-
mains are largely consistent with those found in definitions of TIC
for other service systems (Hopper et al., 2010; Raja et al., 2015).
This suggests a reasonable level of conceptual coherence around
the core domains of a trauma-informed juvenile justice system.
However, we found much less agreement around the specific
interventions or policies that were identified as essential compo-
nents of TIC for juvenile justice. Only eight of the 71 recom-
mended practices or policies (11%) were included in the majority
of publications, whereas most recommendations (n � 39 or 55%)
were included in only one or two publications. This suggests that
more work is needed to translate the broader domains of TIC into
particular interventions or policies, which is also the case for
efforts to define TIC in other child service systems (e.g., Wall et
al., 2016).
Another key gap in the extant literature is the limited discussion
of how to implement particular practices or policies and the
potential barriers at the agency or systems level. For example,
although there is unanimous agreement that all staff should un-
dergo training on trauma, there was much less consensus around
the specific areas that training should cover. Fifteen different
content areas for training were proposed, ranging from understand-
ing the impact of trauma on youth development to family engage-
ment strategies. Surprisingly, just over half of the publications (six
of 10) recommended training in specific skills for working effec-
tively with traumatized youth. Teaching frontline staff to recognize
when youth are experiencing a trauma reaction will have little
impact on youth–staff interactions unless it is supplemented with
training in specific skills for responding to such situations (e.g.,
trauma-informed de-escalation or engagement strategies). Addi-
tionally, only one of the publications discussed the need for on-
going supervision to assist staff in mastering and applying newly
learned knowledge or skills to their work, an important omission
given that training alone has been shown ineffective in helping
staff achieve fidelity to evidence-based practices (Beidas & Ken-
dall, 2010). The 10 publications that we reviewed represent the
most detailed, published recommendations for TIC in juvenile
justice, yet they rarely addressed such nuances. One exception is
the National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice and
Technical Assistance Collaborative’s (2015) report on creating
trauma-informed juvenile diversion programs, which identified
implementation issues in several areas (e.g., interventions, fund-
ing, quality assurance) and illustrated with real-world case exam-
ples.
Notably, only five publications recommended agency-level ef-
forts to prevent work-related traumatic stress among frontline staff,
which is consistently identified as a core component of TIC in
definitions for other service systems (Hopper et al., 2010). This is
a troubling omission given that work-related traumatic stress
symptoms are prevalent and associated with impaired job perfor-
mance among frontline staff (e.g., attorneys, probation/correc-
tional officers, law enforcement) in the justice system (Denhof &
Spinaris, 2013; Levin et al., 2011; Skogstad et al., 2013). Addi-
tionally, several groups of justice system professionals have ex-
pressed their desire for greater organizational support around these
matters (Donisch et al., 2016; Knowlton, 2015; Severson & Pettus-
Davis, 2013).
Future Directions for Research
The final aim of the current review was to propose directions for
future research in order to develop a consensus-based definition of
TIC for juvenile justice. We identified just 10 publications from a
small number of stakeholders, and it is unclear whether their views
on the core components of TIC are representative of the larger
field of juvenile justice professionals. Accordingly, we recom-
mend surveys with nationally representative samples of frontline
staff and system administrators to explore their perceptions of the
core components of TIC. It would also be useful to assess how
widely each of these practices has been adopted in juvenile justice
systems across the country. Hanson and Lang (2016) recently
published the findings of a similar survey of providers from
multiple service systems, including juvenile justice, and noted the
dearth of published research focused on defining or validating the
core concepts of TIC.
A key question emanating from this review is which, if any, of
these various recommendations will contribute to positive out-
comes for the juvenile justice system. The answer requires a
careful examination of published empirical studies to determine
which practices or policies currently in use produce meaningful
improvement in outcomes for youth, their families, staff, and the
broader agency environment. Additionally, prospective studies are
needed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different
trauma-informed practices or policies. For example, Borckardt et
al. (2011) examined the effectiveness of four TIC components
(staff training, policy changes, modifications to physical environ-
ment, client-centered treatment planning) for reducing the use of
seclusion and physical restraint in inpatient psychiatric hospital
settings by randomly assigning five inpatient units to implement
these components in different order. Such research can help refine
the core definitional elements that should comprise a unified
theory of TIC for juvenile justice.
Limitations
The primary limitation of the current study was our approach to
coding, categorizing, and describing the definitions/recommenda-
tions for TIC. Although we followed established guidelines for
systematic reviews (Shamseer et al., 2015), there are different
approaches we could have taken to our narrative synthesis of the
findings. For example, we did not analyze, in detail, the recom-
mendations for particular TIC models, training curriculums, or
interventions. Additionally, our decisions around assigning recom-
mendations to one of the 10 broader domains, and even the number
and names of these domains, were admittedly subjective. How-
ever, this is a minor limitation, as we were more interested in
identifying specific recommended practices or policies than
broader domains or principles of a trauma-informed approach for
juvenile justice.
Conclusions
The growth in recognition of the importance of TIC represents
an unprecedented opportunity to improve our nation’s juvenile
justice system and dramatically reduce the number of young lives
damaged each year through harsh and ineffective responses to
youth crime. However, to maximize this opportunity, it is neces-
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
on
e
of
its
al
lie
d
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
643TRAUMA-INFORMED JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEMS
sary to first develop a consensus-based understanding of what
constitutes a trauma-informed approach within juvenile justice.
This process should be informed by all key stakeholders as well as
empirical evidence on the impact of implementing particular prac-
tices and policies within the justice system.
References
References to studies included in the meta-analysis are preceded by an
asterisk.
Abram, K. M., Teplin, L. A., Charles, D. R., Longworth, S. L., McClelland,
G. M., & Dulcan, M. K. (2004). Posttraumatic stress disorder and trauma
in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 61,
403–410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.61.4.403
American Association of Children’s Residential Centers. (2014). Trauma-
informed care in residential treatment. Residential Treatment for Chil-
dren & Youth, 31, 97–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0886571X.2014
.918429
�American Bar Association. (2014). ABA policy on trauma-informed ad-
vocacy for children and youth. Chicago, IL: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/child_law/
ABA Policy on Trauma-Informed Advocacy.authcheckdam
�Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children Exposed to Vio-
lence. (2012). Defending childhood: Report of the Attorney General’s
National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/
sites/default/files/defendingchildhood/cev-rpt-full
Beidas, R. S., & Kendall, P. C. (2010). Training therapists in evidence-
based practice: A critical review of studies from a systems-contextual
perspective. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 17, 1–30. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.2009.01187.x
Black, P. J., Woodworth, M., Tremblay, M., & Carpenter, T. (2012). A
review of trauma-informed treatment for adolescents. Canadian Psy-
chology, 53, 192–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028441
Borckardt, J. J., Madan, A., Grubaugh, A. L., Danielson, C. K., Pelic,
C. G., Hardesty, S. J., . . . Frueh, B. C. (2011). Systematic investigation
of initiatives to reduce seclusion and restraint in a state psychiatric
hospital. Psychiatric Services, 62, 477–483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/
ps.62.5.pss6205_0477
Burrell, S. (2013). Trauma and the environment of care in juvenile insti-
tutions. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Child Traumatic Stress.
Retrieved from http://www.nctsn.org/resources/topics/juvenile-justice-
system
Cauffman, E., Monahan, K. C., & Thomas, A. G. (2015). Pathways to
persistence: Female offending from 14 to 25. Journal of Developmental
and Life-Course Criminology, 1, 236–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s40865-015-0016-z
Chamberlain, J., & Miller, M. K. (2008). Stress in the courtroom: Call for
research. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 15, 237–250. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1080/13218710802014485
Crosby, S. D. (2016). Trauma-informed approaches to juvenile justice: A
critical race perspective. Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 67, 5–18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jfcj.12052
DeHart, D. D., & Moran, R. (2015). Poly-victimization among girls in the
justice system: Trajectories of risk and associations to juvenile offend-
ing. Violence Against Women, 21, 291–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1077801214568355
Denhof, M. D., & Spinaris, C. G. (2013). Depression, PTSD, and comor-
bidity in United States corrections professionals: Prevalence and impact
on health. Florence, CO: Desert Waters Correctional Outreach. Re-
trieved from http://desertwaters.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/
Comorbidity_Study_6-18-13
Dierkhising, C. B., Ko, S., & Goldman, J. H. (2013). Trauma-informed
juvenile justice roundtable: Current issues and new directions in creat-
ing trauma-informed juvenile justice systems. Los Angeles, CA: Na-
tional Center for Child Traumatic Stress. Retrieved from http://www
.nctsn.org/resources/topics/juvenile-justice-system
Dierkhising, C. B., Lane, A., & Natsuaki, M. N. (2014). Victims behind
bars: A preliminary study of abuse during juvenile incarceration and
post-release social and emotional functioning. Psychology, Public Pol-
icy, and Law, 20, 181–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/law0000002
Donisch, K., Bray, C., & Gewirtz, A. (2016). Child welfare, juvenile
justice, mental health, and education providers’ conceptualizations of
trauma-informed practice. Child Maltreatment, 21, 125–134. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1177/1077559516633304
Elliott, D. E., Bjelajac, P., Fallot, R. D., Markoff, L. S., & Reed, B. G.
(2005). Trauma-informed or trauma-denied: Principles and implemen-
tation of trauma-informed services for women. Journal of Community
Psychology, 33, 461–477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20063
Federal Partners Committee on Women and Trauma. (2013). Trauma-
informed approaches: Federal activities and initiatives. Washington,
DC: Author. Retrieved from http://static.nicic.gov/Library/027657
Feierman, J., & Fine, L. (2014). Trauma and resilience: A new look at legal
advocacy for youth in the juvenile justice and child welfare systems.
Philadelphia, PA: Juvenile Law Center. Retrieved from http://www.jlc
.org/resources/publications/trauma-and-resilience
�Feierman, J., & Ford, J. D. (2016). Trauma-informed juvenile justice
systems and approaches. In K. Heilbrun (Ed.), APA handbook of psy-
chology and juvenile justice (pp. 545–573). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14643-025
Ford, J. D. (2012). Posttraumatic stress disorder among youth involved in
juvenile justice. In E. L. Grigorenko (Ed.), Handbook of juvenile foren-
sic psychology and psychiatry (pp. 485–501). Boston, MA: Springer.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0905-2_31
Ford, J. D., Chapman, J., Mack, J. M., & Pearson, G. (2006). Pathways
from traumatic child victimization to delinquency: Implications for
juvenile and permanency court proceedings and decisions. Juvenile &
Family Court Journal, 57, 13–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-6988
.2006.tb00111.x
Ford, J. D., Hartman, K., Hawke, J., & Chapman, J. F. (2008). Traumatic
victimization, posttraumatic stress disorder, suicidal ideation, and sub-
stance abuse risk among juvenile justice-involved youth. Journal of
Child & Adolescent Trauma, 1, 75–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
19361520801934456
Geller, A., Fagan, J., Tyler, T., & Link, B. G. (2014). Aggressive policing
and the mental health of young urban men. American Journal of Public
Health, 104, 2321–2327. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302046
�Griffin, G., Germain, E. J., & Wilkerson, R. G. (2012). Using a trauma-
informed approach in juvenile justice institutions. Journal of Child &
Adolescent Trauma, 5, 271–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19361521
.2012.697100
Hanson, R. F., & Lang, J. (2016). A critical look at trauma-informed
care among agencies and systems serving maltreated youth and their
families. Child Maltreatment, 21, 95–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1077559516635274
Harris, M., & Fallot, R. D. (2001). Envisioning a trauma-informed service
system: A vital paradigm shift. New Directions for Mental Health
Services, 2001, 3–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/yd.23320018903
Haynie, D. L., Petts, R. J., Maimon, D., & Piquero, A. R. (2009). Exposure
to violence in adolescence and precocious role exits. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 38, 269–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-
9343-2
Hopper, E. K., Bassuk, E. L., & Olivet, J. (2010). Shelter from the storm:
Trauma-informed care in homelessness services settings. The Open
Health Services and Policy Journal, 3, 80–100. http://dx.doi.org/10
.2174/1874924001003020080
Igelman, R. S., Ryan, B. E., Gilbert, A. M., Bashant, J. C., & North, K.
(2008). Best practices for serving traumatized children and families.
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
on
e
of
its
al
lie
d
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 59, 35–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1755-6988.2008.00020.x
�International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2014). Law enforcement’s
leadership role in juvenile justice reform: Actionable recommendations
for practice & policy. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://
www.theiacp.org/jjsummitreport
Kerig, P. K. (2013). Trauma-informed assessment and intervention. Los
Angeles, CA: National Center for Child Traumatic Stress. Retrieved
from http://www.nctsn.org/resources/topics/juvenile-justice-system
Kerig, P. K., & Becker, S. P. (2010). From internalizing to externalizing:
Theoretical models of the processes linking PTSD to juvenile delin-
quency. In S. J. Egan (Ed.), Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD):
Causes, symptoms and treatment (pp. 33–78). Hauppauge, NY: Nova
Science.
Knowlton, N. A. (2015). The modern family court judge: Knowledge,
qualities, and skills for success. Family Court Review, 53, 203–216.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12144
Ko, S. J., Ford, J. D., Kassam-Adams, N., Berkowitz, S. J., Wilson, C.,
Wong, M., . . . Layne, C. M. (2008). Creating trauma-informed systems:
Child welfare, education, first responders, health care, juvenile justice.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39, 396–404. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.39.4.396
Kunst, M. J. J. (2011). Working in prisons: A critical review of stress in the
occupation of correctional officers. In J. Langan-Fox & C. L. Cooper
(Eds.), Handbook of stress in the occupations (pp. 241–283). Chelten-
ham, UK: Edward Elgar. http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9780857931153
.00036
Kusmaul, N., Wilson, B., & Nochajski, T. (2015). The infusion of trauma-
informed care in organizations: Experience of agency staff. Human
Service Organizations Management, Leadership & Governance, 39,
25–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2014.968749
Lacey, C. (2013). Racial disparities and the juvenile justice system: A
legacy of trauma. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Child Trau-
matic Stress. Retrieved from http://www.nctsn.org/resources/topics/
juvenile-justice-system
Levin, A. P., Albert, L., Besser, A., Smith, D., Zelenski, A., Rosenkranz,
S., & Neria, Y. (2011). Secondary traumatic stress in attorneys and their
administrative support staff working with trauma-exposed clients. Jour-
nal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 199, 946–955. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1097/NMD.0b013e3182392c26
McLaughlin, K. A., Greif Green, J., Gruber, M. J., Sampson, N. A.,
Zaslavsky, A. M., & Kessler, R. C. (2012). Childhood adversities and
first onset of psychiatric disorders in a national sample of US adoles-
cents. JAMA Psychiatry, 69, 1151–1160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/
archgenpsychiatry.2011.2277
Miller, E. A., Green, A. E., Fettes, D. L., & Aarons, G. A. (2011).
Prevalence of maltreatment among youths in public sectors of care.
Child Maltreatment, 16, 196 –204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1077559511415091
National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors. (2005).
NASMHPD position statement on services and supports to trauma survi-
vors. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nasmhpd.org/
sites/default/files/NASMHPDTRAUMAPositonstatementFinal
National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice. (n.d.). What
constitutes trauma-informed services within juvenile justice systems?
Retrieved from http://cfc.ncmhjj.com/resources/trauma-among-youth-
in-the-juvenile-justice-system/what-constitutes-trauma-informed-
services-within-juvenile-justice-systems/
�National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice & Technical
Assistance Collaborative. (2015). Strengthening our future: Key ele-
ments to developing a trauma-informed juvenile justice diversion pro-
gram for youth with behavioral health conditions. Delmar, NY: Policy
Research Associates. Retrieved from http://www.ncmhjj.com/
strengthening-our-future/
�National Child Traumatic Stress Network. (2016). Essential elements of a
trauma-informed juvenile justice system. Los Angeles, CA: National
Center for Child Traumatic Stress. Retrieved from http://www.nctsn
.org/sites/default/files/assets/pdfs/jj_ee_final
�National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2015). Trauma-
informed juvenile and family courts. NCJFCJ Resolution. Reno, NV:
Author. Retrieved from http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/
ResolutionTraumaInformedCourts_July2015
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (n.d.). Trauma
informed system of care. Retrieved from http://www.ncjfcj.org/our-work/
trauma-informed-system-care
National Prevention Council. (2011). National prevention strategy. Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of
the Surgeon General. Retrieved from http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/
priorities/prevention/strategy/report
Palinkas, L. A. (2014). Qualitative and mixed methods in mental health
services and implementation research. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 43, 851– 861. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
15374416.2014.910791
�Pilnik, L., & Kendall, J. R. (2012). Victimization and trauma experienced
by children and youth: Implications for legal advocates (Issue Brief No.
7). North Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from
http://www.ojjdp.gov/programs/safestart/IB7_VictimizationTrauma_
LegalAdvocates
Rainville, C. (2015). Understanding secondary trauma: A guide for lawyers
working with child victims. ABA Child Law Practice, 34, 133–136.
Retrieved from www.childlawpractice.org
Raja, S., Hasnain, M., Hoersch, M., Gove-Yin, S., & Rajagopalan, C.
(2015). Trauma informed care in medicine: Current knowledge and
future research directions. Family & Community Health: The Journal of
Health Promotion & Maintenance, 38, 216–226. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1097/FCH.0000000000000071
�Rapp, L. (2016). Delinquent-victim youth—Adapting a trauma-informed
approach for the juvenile justice system. Journal of Evidence-Informed
Social Work, 13, 492–497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23761407.2016
.1166844
Rozzell, L. (2013). The role of family engagement in creating trauma-
informed juvenile justice systems. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for
Child Traumatic Stress. Retrieved from http://www.nctsn.org/resources/
topics/juvenile-justice-system
Severson, M., & Pettus-Davis, C. (2013). Parole officers’ experiences of
the symptoms of secondary trauma in the supervision of sex offenders.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminol-
ogy, 57, 5–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306624X11422696
Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew,
M., . . . the PRISMA-P Group. (2015). Preferred reporting items for
systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elab-
oration and explanation. British Medical Journal, 349, g7647. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647
Sickmund, M. (2016). NCJFCJ resolution regarding trauma-informed ju-
venile and family courts. Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 67, 49–52.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jfcj.12054
Skogstad, M., Skorstad, M., Lie, A., Conradi, H. S., Heir, T., & Weisæth,
L. (2013). Work-related post-traumatic stress disorder. Occupational
Medicine, 63, 175–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqt003
Stewart, M. (2013). Cross-system collaboration. Los Angeles, CA: Na-
tional Center for Child Traumatic Stress. Retrieved from http://www
.nctsn.org/resources/topics/juvenile-justice-system
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014).
SAMHSA’s concept of trauma and guidance for a trauma-informed
approach. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14–4884. Rockville, MD: Au-
thor. Retrieved from http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content/SMA14-4884/
SMA14-4884
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
on
e
of
its
al
lie
d
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
Wall, L., Higgins, D., & Hunter, C. (2016). Trauma-informed care in
child/family welfare services. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Institute
of Family Studies. Retrieved from https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/
trauma-informed-care-child-family-welfare-services
Wasserman, G. A., & McReynolds, L. S. (2011). Contributors to traumatic
exposure and posttraumatic stress disorder in juvenile justice youths.
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 24, 422–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jts
.20664
Willms, D. G., Best, J. A., Taylor, D. W., Gilbert, J. R., Wilson, M. C.,
Lindsay, E. A., & Singer, J. (1990). A systematic approach for using
qualitative methods in primary prevention research. Medical Anthropol-
Wolff, K. T., Baglivio, M. T., & Piquero, A. R. (2015). The relationship
between adverse childhood experiences and recidivism in a sample of
juvenile offenders in community-based treatment. International Journal
of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 1–33.
Received August 22, 2016
Revision received December 1, 2016
Accepted December 28, 2016 �
Members of Underrepresented Groups:
Reviewers for Journal Manuscripts Wanted
If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for APA journals, the APA Publications and
Communications Board would like to invite your participation. Manuscript reviewers are vital to the
publications process. As a reviewer, you would gain valuable experience in publishing. The P&C
Board is particularly interested in encouraging members of underrepresented groups to participate
more in this process.
If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts, please write APA Journals at Reviewers@apa.org.
Please note the following important points:
• To be selected as a reviewer, you must have published articles in peer-reviewed journals. The
experience of publishing provides a reviewer with the basis for preparing a thorough, objective
review.
• To be selected, it is critical to be a regular reader of the five to six empirical journals that are most
central to the area or journal for which you would like to review. Current knowledge of recently
published research provides a reviewer with the knowledge base to evaluate a new submission
within the context of existing research.
• To select the appropriate reviewers for each manuscript, the editor needs detailed information.
Please include with your letter your vita. In the letter, please identify which APA journal(s) you
are interested in, and describe your area of expertise. Be as specific as possible. For example,
“social psychology” is not sufficient—you would need to specify “social cognition” or “attitude
change” as well.
• Reviewing a manuscript takes time (1–4 hours per manuscript reviewed). If you are selected to
review a manuscript, be prepared to invest the necessary time to evaluate the manuscript
thoroughly.
APA now has an online video course that provides guidance in reviewing manuscripts. To learn
more about the course and to access the video, visit http://www.apa.org/pubs/authors/review-
manuscript-ce-video.aspx.
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
on
e
of
its
al
lie
d
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
Trauma-Informed Juvenile Justice Systems: A Systematic Review of Definitions and Core Components
Trauma-Informed Care
The Current Study
Method
Study Protocol and Inclusion Criteria
Literature Search Strategy
Data Extraction and Coding
Data Analysis and Synthesis
Results
Literature Search Results
Publication Characteristics
TIC Definitions and Recommendations
Clinical Services Recommendations
Domain 1: Screening & assessment
Domain 2: Services & interventions
Domain 3: Cultural competence
Agency Context Recommendations
Domain 4: Youth & family engagement/involvement
Domain 5: Workforce development & support
Domain 6: Promoting a safe agency environment
Domain 7: Agency policies, procedures, & leadership
System-Level Recommendations
Domain 8: Cross-system collaboration
Domain 9: System-level policies & procedures
Domain 10: Quality assurance & evaluation
Discussion
Future Directions for Research
Limitations
Conclusions
References
THREE YEARS OF TEEN COURT OFFENDER OUTCOMES
Deborah Kirby Forgays
ABSTRACT
Since 1983, Teen Courts have offered a judicial altemative for many adolescent
offenders. In the flrst year of the Whatcom County Teen Court Program a
small sample of Teen Court offenders had more favorable outcomes than did
Court Diversion offenders. In the current study, the results are based on a
three-year sample of 84 Whatcom County adjudicated youths, each with at
least one prior conviction. Overall, recidivism was lower for the Teen Court
offenders than for flrst-time Court Diversion offenders. Sentence completion
rates were comparable for the two groups. In addition to behavioral outcomes,
responses on a satisfaction survey and a self-acceptance inventory provide a
more complete view ofthe offenders’ perspectives. One unanticipated outcome
was the number of offenders who chose to continue involvement with Teen
Court sessions, independent of sentencing requirements.
Since the early 1980s, Tieen Courts have provided youthful offenders
with an altemative to the standard juvenile justice system. The sub-
stantive increase in youth courts, from fewer than 100 to over 1000, is
evidence of the strong advocacy for these programs (National Youth
Court Center, 2005). Further, according to current outcome evaluation
data, youth court offenders have lower recidivism rates than offenders
in other juvenile adjudicating formats (Butts, Buck, & Coggeshall,
2002). The majority of youth court programs focus on first-time offend-
ers (Acker, Hendrix, Hogan, & Kordzek, 2001), although there is gen-
eral acknowledgement that repeat youthful offenders constitute a
major problem in the juvenile justice system (Umbreit, 1993). Recently,
researchers reported that repeat offenders who were processed
The Whatcom County Teen Court is the result ofthe vision of Tina Lanci of
Northwest Youth Services (N\ffYS), Judge Charles Snyder, and Court Commis-
sioner Martha Gross. Cathy Beaty (NWYS) has put life-sustaining organiza-
tion mto that vision. Thanks are due Lisa DeMilio of Interfaith Community
Center, Kim Schuster of the Puhlic Defenders Office, Nan DeSelover of the
Juvenile Justice Center, and to all ofthe community and student volunteers
This research was funded by a grant 1-200-01100 from the Governor’s Juvenile
Justice Advisory Council of Washington State and the Office of Juvenile Delin-
quency Prevention. |
Requests for reprints should be sent to Deborah Kirby Forgays, Ph D De-
partment of Psychology, Western Washington University, BeUikgham’ WA
98225-9089.
ADOLESCENCE, Vol. 43, No. 171, Fall 2008
Libra Publishers, Inc., 3089C Clairemont Dr., PMB 383, San Diego, CA 92117
through Teen Court (TC) had lower recidivism rates than did a group
of first-time Court Diversion (CD) offenders (Forgays & DeMilio, 2005).
However, the sample was small and represented only a single year of
the program. In the present study, three years of outcome data from
the Whatcom County, Washington State Teen Court program are com-
pared with outcomes from the county Court Diversion program.
One key difference between altemative youth courts and the typical
juvenile justice approach is the make-up of the court personnel. In
the standard juvenile justice approach, including CD programs, adults
represent youths in court and adults decide on the sentence. In con-
trast, the youth court emphasis is on trial by peers—peer counsel,
jurors, bailiff, clerk, and even peer judges. During the TC session, the
adolescent offender observes the courtroom personnel—judge, bailiff,
clerk, advocate—in socially responsible roles. Then the peer jury de-
vises a sentence that provides the youth offenders with positive com-
munity activities to enhance their commitment and involvement. For
example, one sentence component may include serving on a TC jury.
This activity places the offender in a socially responsible role, working
with other adolescents to develop a sentence that refiects community
values. Thus, through observation of and involvement in appropriate
civic behavior, the offender who is adjudicated through TC should be
more attached to their community and, therefore, less willing to dis-
rupt the community with delinquent acts.
Restorative Justice Approach
In the standard legal system, the crime is against the state or law—a
rather abstract concept for an adolescent. The goal of the sentence
is to punish the offender. By contrast, within the restorative justice
approach, the crime is against a person or community (Bazemore,
2001; Bazemore & Maloney, 1994). In juvenile court or court diversion
sentences, the offender is held responsible for the crime and must
make restitution. The restorative justice sentence does not focus solely
on punishment.
Rather, there are multiple goals—offender accountability, commu-
nity protection, competency development, and youth advocacy (Malo-
ney, Romig, & Armstrong, 1988). Community reparation activities,
such as letters of apology or interaction with crime victims, are de-
signed to educate the offending youth about the impact of the crime
on the community and to provide the community with evidence of the
offender’s new understanding. A final component provides an avenue
for the youth’s “restoration” into the community as a socially responsi-
ble citizen (see Godwin, 2001 for a more in-depth discussion of restor-
474
ative justice; Maloney & Holcomb, 2001; Presser & Van Voorhis, 2002).
This restoration is crucial because offending youths t5T)ically need di-
rection to reinstate themselves positively with their peers and adults.
An effective restorative justice sentence pairs accountability with so-
cially responsible behavior for the offender.
However, although the components of restorative justice are clearly
delineated, examinations of their efficacy are few. Well-designed evalu-
ations of youth court programs are increasing but vary in their focus.
Some researchers have identified attitude changes such as a more posi-
tive view of police officers and the legal system after their youth court
adjudication (Fox et al., 1994). In New Mexico and Kentucky, evalua-
tors focused on recidivism rates (Harrison, Maupin, & Mays, 2001;
Minor, Wells, Soderstromj Bingham, & WiUiamson, 1999). For exam-
ple, re-offense rates for jrouth court offenders in New Mexico were
lower than those of any other diversion program in that state. Further,
at one year follow-up, loyer recidivism was associated with having
served on a youth court jury. In the Kentucky program, adolescent
offenders who completed more hours of community service were less
likely to re-offend. Neither program directly compared youth court of-
fenders with youth offenders from other adjudicating formats. Thus,
it was not possible to evaluate fully the impact of peer-mandated sen-
tences.
More recent investigations of youth court programs have included
comparisons with non-youth court offenders. In Idaho researchers ran-
domly assigned first-time
court programs—Juvenile
charged youthful offenders to one of four
Accountability, Youth Court, Magistrate
Court, and Educational Control (Patrick, Marsh, Bundy, Mimura, &
Perkins, 2004). The crime was limited to Minor in Possession (MIP) of
alcohol or tobacco. There were no significant differences in recidivism
across the four groups in the first year ofthe research project, although
the authors noted a trend toward lower recidivism in the Juvenile
Accountability group. Butts and colleagues (2002) reported that, in
three ofthe four states surveyed, youth court offenders had lower recid-
ivism rates than offenders processed through traditional juvenile
courts. In the fourth state] Maryland, the youth court and diversion
rates were comparable. In the Butts et al. study, the adolescent crimes
included a range of misdenieanors and gross misdemeanors. Although
limited to a single data-collection period, the Butts et al. study is note-
worthy for its multi-site controlled comparison of youth court pro-
grams.
One possible reason for the dearth of comparison studies is the diffi-
culty in identifying and obtaining an appropriate comparison group. A
475
viable comparison group would be matched on characteristics such as
crime, age, and gender. The comparison group should have similar
adjudicating experiences to those of youth court defendants, differing
only on the make-up of the sentencing group—peers versus adults.
With these considerations in mind, CD youthful offenders were se-
lected as the youth court comparison sample. CD is a program designed
for first-time offenders of non-felony crimes. TC offenders were adjudi-
cated through CD for their first crime but are not ehgible for their
second offense. TC offenders’ second offense falls into the same cate-
gory as those of CD offenders—misdemeanors and gross misdemean-
ors. CD and TC offenders have admitted their guilt and hence are most
concerned with the sentence. In addition, reparation to the community
is common to both TC and CD sentences. The main difference between
TC and CD adjudication formats is the reliance on a peer jury rather
than an adult panel. Thus, a comparison between TC and CD offender
outcomes is a suitable method to examine the impact ofthe peer sanc-
tion and modeling unique to youth courts.
Current Study
The current study examined TC offender outcomes across three
years. This article is a follow-up of the first-year findings of the What-
com County Teen Court Program (for a more detailed description see
Forgays & DeMiho, 2005). Outcome measures for the repeat adolescent
offenders included self-report inventories and behavioral indices. Of-
fenders described their Teen Court experiences and their own social
competencies. Behavioral evidence of positive or negative outcomes
was derived from sentence completion data, court records, and involve-
ment in TC sessions subsequent to sentence requirements. Recidivism
was defined as being charged with a crime after the TC session. Sen-
tence completion and re-offense rates were compared with rates of
first-time offenders adjudicated through CD programs. It was antici-
pated that across the three years, TC offenders would have higher
sentence completion and lower recidivism rates than CD offenders.
METHOD
Participants
Eighty-four youthful offenders, 58 males and 26 females, agreed to
be sentenced through the Whatcom County Teen Court program. Of
those reporting ethnicity, 85% indicated Caucasian, 4% Hispanic, 2%
African-American, 1% Native American, and 8% Other (East Indian,
476
Ukrainian, or more than one ethnic identity). The average age for boys
and girls was 15.55 years ¡and all but 3 lived at home with at least one
biological parent. Over 91% of the offenders were enrolled in school
and the remaining 9% either were not enrolled in a public school or
were working on their GED. Boys and girls reported a different pattern
of school performance. There were more boys on the extremes—more
failing (22%) and more As & Bs (7%)—than girls (5% and 4%, respec-
tively). There were more girls (58%) than boys (34%) reporting grades
in the Cs & Ds range. In th[e past year, a substantial percentage of girls
(38%) and boys (31%) had been suspended from school for violations
unrelated to the TC crimel
Data on the CD comparison group were limited to sentence comple-
tion and re-offense rates. Cases were randomly selected from a list
obtained from Juvenile J t stice Services. The list had been stratified
by gender, and CD crimes were limited to misdemeanors or gross mis-
demeanors. All CD cases were first-time offenders.
Measures
Northwest Youth Services Intake & Assessment Record I Evaluation
Form. The Intake & Assessment Record elicits offender demographic
information and information about current and previous offenses. The
Evaluation form identifies the degree to which each sentence compo-
nent was completed. A post-sentence completion interview is the final
part of the Evaluation Form.
Exit Survey is a nine-item satisfaction survey. The offenders indicate
the perceived fairness of the sentence and their understanding of the
Teen Court process. Sentence fairness is rated on a four-point scale
from too harsh to very fair. The remaining survey items are presented
in a yes/no format. “The sentence made sense to me” is an example.
Intemal consistency is .67 across the three years.
Harter: Self-Perception P,rofile for Adolescents (Harter, 1985). The
Harter inventory provides’ information about how adolescents see
themselves across domains, e.g., scholastic competence, social accep-
tance, physical appearance’, overall self-worth. The format has good
face validity because the respondents are asked to rate themselves in
relation to other adolescents and each option is presented as equally
acceptable. The measure has been normed and standardized on male
and female youths in the age range of the Teen Court offenders. In
this study, analyses were restricted to the Self-Worth scale as there
was no theoretical basis for anticipating other domain differences. In-
ternal consistency was .85. When compared to the normative, same-
477
age, same-gender population, TC offender scores were within one stan-
dard deviation of the normative mean.
Behavioral indices. Sentence completion and recidivism comprised
the two behavioral measures. Northwest Youth Services (NWYS) per-
sonnel completed a checklist with the offender identifying each part of
the sentence and the degree to which it had been completed—not at
all, mostly not, partially completed, and fully completed. Recidivism
was determined by a review of juvenile court records by court personnel
blind to the goals of this study.
Procedure
All TC defendants were first referred to NWYS by the District Attor-
neys office. Accompanied by a parent or guardian, the adolescent com-
pleted the Northwest Youth Services Intake & Assessment Record. As
a prerequisite, the offender pled guilty to the charge and the parent
or guardian agreed to support the offender’s sentence completion. In
compliance with ethical guidelines for research with minors, parent
and youth consent forms were obtained for all offenders. On the night
of the TC session, prior to the hearing, the offender completed the
Harter Self-Perception Profile. After the hearing, the offender com-
pleted the Exit survey.
The NWYS Teen Court Coordinator monitored the offender for com-
pletion of sentencing components, including fines and restitution to
victims. The typical time frame for sentence completion was two to
three months. At the end ofthat time, the offender completed an out-
come evaluation/interview either at the NWYS office or by phone. Re-
cidivism was evaluated six months after sentencing.
RESULTS
Descriptives
All TC crimes were misdemeanors or gross misdemeanors. The most
frequent crime for boy and girls was shoplifting and/or theft. However,
an equally frequent crime for girls was assault—almost three times
more frequent than for boys. Minor in possession of alcohol or mari-
juana (MIP) was the next most frequent offense for boys and girls.
Boys were more likely to be involved with property damage, car prowls,
criminal trespass, carrying a weapon, and disturbing the peace than
were girls. Overall, boys were involved in more property-related and
girls in more person-related crimes. There was an identifiable victim
in 7% ofthe cases.
478
With regard to sentencing, 86% of boys and 95% of girls received
sentences that included community service as well as sentencing com-
ponents specifically related to their crime, such as a drug evaluation,
letter of apology, restitution or appearance before a victim impact
panel. Fifty-two percent of defendants were sentenced to serve on one
TC jury for the month following their own court appearance. In addi-
tion to serving on a TC jury as part of their sentence, previously adjudi-
cated youth also served 14 times in the role of clerk, bailiff, or advocate.
Participation in these roles was never part of a TC sentence and there-
fore was voluntary, self-motivated behavior. Moreover, thirteen
(15.5%) former defendants (either Teen Court or Juvenile Court)
served as jurors on multiple occasions, service that was also voluntary
and not related to their sentence.
Sentence Completion & Recidivism Data
Across the three years o’f the funded Whatcom County Teen Court
Program, 84 youthful offenders were sentenced by peer juries. The end
point for sentence completion was three months, and recidivism was
evaluated six months post TC session. Sentence completion rates were
consistently high, ranging from 85-92%, yet recidivism varied by year,
as seen in Table 1. When the recidivism data were collapsed across
the three years, significantly fewer TC youth re-offended compared to
first-time adjudicated CD youth (x̂ (1,161) = 14.92, p < .001). There
Table
Recidivism Rates for Teen Court and Court Diversion
Adolescent Offenders by Year
Year Teen Court Court Diversion
Year]
Year 2
Years
14%
12%
25%
31%
25%
80%
479
were no significant gender differences for sentence completion or recid-
ivism. Boys and girls were equally likely to fulfill their sentence re-
quirements and refrain from re-offending. As of the writing of this
manuscript, 30 of the original 84 TC offenders are now at least 18
years of age. Based on a review of court records, 10% have re-offended,
none with felony charges.
Harter Self-Acceptance Inventory (Harter, 1985)
Seventy-six offenders agreed to complete the Harter Self-Perception
Profile questionnaire. A 2 (gender) by 3 (TC year) ANO VA was per-
formed with Self-Worth as the dependent variable. There was a sig-
nificant main effect in Self-Worth scores by Teen Court year, F = (5,70)
= 5.70, p = .000, Adj. R” = .24. There was no main effect for gender
nor was the interaction significant. However, Year 3 offenders reported
significantly higher self-acceptance than either Year 1 or Year 2 offend-
ers, F = (2,73) = 12.83, p = .000.
Offender Perspectives
Immediately following the TC session, defendants met with NWYS
Staff to review the sentence requirements and to complete the exit
survey. Responses were relatively uniform across gender and across
all three years. Sentence ratings were as follows: too easy (0% girls;
4% boys), too harsh (20% girls, 16% boys), fair enough (55% girls, 48%
boys), and very fair (25% girls, 32% boys). The majority ofthe offenders
indicated that the sentence components made sense (70% girls, 64%
boys), and that they received clear explanations for the Teen Court
process (65% girls, 83% boys). Finally, 77% of girls and 82% of boys
indicated that if they had a friend in trouble with the law, they would
recommend the Teen Court option to their friend.
DISCUSSION
To date, the majority of youth court outcome evaluations limit their
populations to first-time offenders (Butts et al., 2002; Patrick et al.,
2004). In the current study, the focus was on repeat offenders. Adoles-
cent jurors developed sentences based on restorative justice compo-
nents—accountability, restoration, and offender re-engagement in the
community. (For a more detailed description of juror sentencing pat-
terns, see Forgays, DeMiho, & Schuster, 2004). The TC offender out-
comes were compared with those of the first-time CD sample. The
CD and TC samples had committed similar types of crimes and were
480
matched on demographic variables.The key sample differences were
that the TC sample included repeat offenders and received a restor-
ative justice sentence from their adolescent peers rather than from
adults.
When compared with the CD sample, the TC offenders had lower
recidivism rates and comparable sentence completion rates. Moreover,
only a small percentage of the now adult TC offenders have re-of-
fended. Yet, there was substantial variabihty in recidivism across the
three years in both the TC and CD samples. The dramatic increase in
recidivism in the third year is somewhat perplexing. On the one hand,
this increase can be placed in context—the TC recidivism rate of 25%
was substantially lower than the 80% for the CD group. On the other,
what factors contributed to the re-offense differences in Year 3?
The explanation for the increase does not appear to be related to
demographics. The distribution of crimes—e.g., shoplifting, minor in
possession of alcohol or niarijuana (MIP)—^was comparable across the
three years for TC and CDj offenders. For the TC offenders, court proce-
dures and sentencing guidelines were the same. The TC gender and
ethnic distributions were not significantly different across the three
years.
One possibility is that Yjear 3 juvenile offenders may have committed
more crimes than offenders in Years 1 and 2 adjudicated crimes. Ac-
cording to national surveys, youthful offenders report conimitting more
crimes than indicated by| national crime statistics (Snyder & Sick-
mund, 1999). Thus, Year 3 offenders with a first or second charge may
have broken the law before, but had not been caught. In addition, when
county prosecutors were faced with a backlog of Minor in Possession
(MIP) cases, at times they would dismiss the charges if the charged
adolescent completed a Drug & Alcohol Evaluation. In these cases,
although a youth’s crime is recorded as a first offense, that youth may
have been charged previously with an MIP. Thus, the Year 3 offending
youths may be more practiced in committing crimes and more likely
to re-offend.
From another perspectivje, the Harter Self-Worth scores may provide
some explanation for the TC sample. During the first two years, the
overall Self-Worth subscale scores were the lowest scores for male and
female offenders. This suggests that these youthful offenders have low
self-acceptance, wishing that they could be different. Certainly, low
self-acceptance can be a cause for concern. However, thé stated desire
to behave differently may indicate that these offenders are amenable
to the restorative justice opportunities to act more responsibly. In con-
trast, year 3 offenders’ overall self-worth scores were significantly
481
higher, suggesting an inflated sense of self. Similar to adolescents with
conduct disorder, offenders with an unrealistically positive self-view
may be less responsive to interventions that rely on social bonds.
(Baumeister, Bushman, & Campbell, 2000; David & Kistner, 2000).
Since the restorative justice approach relies on the youths’ willingness
to modify their behavior to gain social acceptance, the TC experience
may have little effect on these adolescents’ delinquent behavior. Al-
though the Harter is not designed as a diagnostic tool, the self-esteem
information provides some direction in understanding the spike in
Year 3 recidivism rates.
The determination of program effectiveness is often limited to objec-
tive outcomes such as sentence completion and recidivism rates. Yet,
the offender’s perspective on the TC process and sentence can be
equally informative. Overall, the offenders had favorable comments
about their TC experience, with the majority willing to recommend the
option to others in the same situation. These comments provide rich
detail and anecdotal support for TC as a positive infiuence on the
offender. However, the most powerful indicator of a TC impact is
through self-directed offender behavior. A number of former TC defen-
dants returned to serve as a juror even after fulfilling their sentence
requirements. Moreover, former youthful offenders volunteered as ad-
vocate, bailiff, and clerk to maintain contact with the TC program. A
few former offenders even joined the Teen Court Student Advisory
Board. This self-determined involvement is consistent with empow-
erment theory and a strong endorsement of the TC experience. The
offenders accepted the sanction from their peers by completing their
sentences. In addition, the former offender utilized TC court roles to
re-engage with a peer community. Earlier youth court evaluations
noted that youthful offenders who completed jury duty were less likely
to re-offend (Harrison et al., 2001). Future investigations should ex-
plore more systematically the possible relationship between serving in
a TC role and positive self-view, as well as a link to lower recidivism.
The positive impact of jury duty may be due to many factors. By
observing non-adjudicated adolescents and working with them on a
common task, the former offender practices social problem-solving
skills. Further, becoming a member of the jury is personally empow-
ering and allows the former youthful offender to see him/herself as a
valuable community member. Parent comments also noted positive
effects, including better communication with their adolescent and im-
proved attitudes about school. Thus, improved parent relationships,
greater commitment to school, and continued involvement with the
Teen Court program should result in less delinquency; i.e., adolescents
with strengthened social bonds would be less hkely to re-offend.
482
Future Directions
As with any applied research endeavor, this project had hmitations.
Sentence completion, recidivism, and self-reported personal and family
status form the basis of the Teen Court six-month follow-up. Clearly,
more extensive post-sentence data from the offenders and their parents
could expand the hst of possible contributors to lower recidivism. How-
ever, after sentence completion, the youthful offenders are reluctant
to participate in additiorial information gathering. Although such re-
luctance is understandab|le, a continuing information gap remains re-
garding developmental niilestones such as high school completion or
work history. One ongoing limitation is the relatively small number of
offenders processed through i the Teen Court system compared with
the total juvenile justice population. The size of the group is tied di-
available, the program is
rectly to funding. If cour.ty, state, and federal resources were made
in place to expand its services.
However, even with these constraints, the study results are consis-
tent with a growing data base on youth courts that apply restorative
justice tenets. In the Whatcom County Teen Court Program, repeat
offenders had a lower recidivism rate than did first-time Court Diver-
sion offenders. Moreover, the TC program provides an opportunity for
non-offending high school students to support their peers, leam about
the justice system, and contribute to their community in a meaningful
way (Forgays et al., 2004|. Thus, judgment by one’s peers appears to
be an effective deterrent to future crime, especially when the offender
has the opportunity to become part ofthe Teen Court experience in a
later socially responsible role.
REFERENCES
Acker, J. R., Hendrix, P. N., Hogan, L., & Kordzek, A. (2001). Building a better
youth court. Law & Policy, 23, 197-215.
Baumeister, R. F., Bushman| B. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2000). Self-esteem,
narcissism, and aggression: Does violence result from low self-esteem or
from threatened egotism? Current Directions in Psychological Science
9, 26-29.
Bazemore, G. (2001). Young people, trouble, and crime: Restorative justice as
a normative theory of informal social control and social support Youth &
Society, 33, 199-226.
Bazemore, G., & Maloney, D. (1994). Rehabilitating community service: To-
ward restorative service sanctions in a balanced justice system. Commu-
nity Service Federal Probation, March 24-35.
Butts, J., Buck, J., & Coggeshall, M. (2002). The impact of Teen Court on
young offenders. Washington, D.C: Urban Institute.
483
David, C. F., & Kistner, J. A. (2000). Do positive self-perceptions have a “dark
side”? Examination of the link between perceptual bias and aggression.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 327-337.
Forgays, D. K., & DeMilio, L. (2005). Is Teen Court effective for repeat offend-
ers? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Crimi-
nology, 49, 107-118.
Forgays, D. K., DeMilio, L., & Schuster, K. (2004). Teen Court: What jurors can
tell us about the process. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 55, 25-34.
Fox, J. W., Minor, K., & Pelkey, W. L. (1994). The relationship between law-
related education diversion and juvenile offenders’ social- and self-per-
ceptions. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 61-77.
Godwin, T. (2001). The role of restorative justice in Teen Courts: A preliminary
look. Lexington, Kentucky: National Youth Court Center.
Harrison, P., Maupin, J. R., & Mays, G. L. (2001). Teen Court: An examination
ofthe processes and outcomes. Crime & Delinquency, 47, 243-264.
Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-perception Profile for Adolescents. Uni-
versity of Denver.
Maloney, D., & Holcomb, D. (2001). In pursuit of community justice. Youth &
Society, 33, 296-313.
Maloney, D., Romig, D., & Armstrong, T. (1988). The Balanced Approach in
practice. Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 13-19.
Minor, K. I., Wells, J. B., Soderstrom, I. R., Bingham, R., & Williamson, D.
(1999). Sentence completion and recidivism among juveniles referred to
Teen Court. Crime & Delinquency, 45, 467^80.
National Youth Court Center (2005). Youth court stats. Retrieved August 16,
2005, from http://www.youthcourt.net
Patrick, S., Marsh, R., Bundy, W., Mimura, S., & Perkins, T. (2004). Control
study of juvenile diversion programs: An experiment in juvenile diver-
sion—the comparison of three methods and a control group. Social Sci-
ence Journal, 41, 129-135.
Presser, L., & Van Voorhis, P. (2002). Values and evaluation: Assessing pro-
cesses and outcomes of retorative justice programs. Crime & Delin-
quency, 48, 162-188.
Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999
National Report. Retrieved January 12,2004 from http://www.ncjrs.org/
hml/ojjdp/nationalreport99
Umbreit, M. (1993). Juvenile offenders meet their victims. Family and Concili-
ation Courts Review, 31, 90-100.
Restorative Sentencing: Exploring the Views
of the Public
Julian V. Roberts1,3 and Loretta J. Stalans2
Within the past decade, restorative justice has emerged as a truly global phe-
nomenon. Although retributive justice has dominated the penal landscape, more
recently, restorative principles at sentencing have attracted increased attention.
Restorative sentencing emphasizes the importance of compensation and recon-
ciliation between victims and offenders and pays less attention to establishing
proportionality between the seriousness of the offense and the severity of the sen-
tence imposed. Although voluminous (and proliferating), the scholarly literature
on restorative justice has to date neglected one critical issue: public opinion with
respect to this justice paradigm. Public opinion researchers too, have generally
overlooked this topic. The goal of this paper is to determine which elements
of the new paradigm generate public approval, and which features are likely
to encounter or provoke public opposition, drawing upon related international
research published in English over the past 20 years (1982–2002). The review
reveals widespread support for “restorative” sentencing options, such as commu-
nity service, compensation, and restitution, particularly when applied to young
offenders. However, it also seems clear that public support for these alternatives
to punitive sentencing options declines as the seriousness of the offence increases,
suggesting strong public adherence to the retributive principle of proportionality
in sentencing.
KEY WORDS: restorative justice; public opinion.
Within the past decade, restorative justice has emerged as a truly global
phenomenon. Restorative programs and policies have been created in most indus-
trialized and many developing nations. Restorative initiatives exist at all stages of
1Department of Criminology, University of Ottawa, Canada.
2Department of Criminal Justice, Loyola University, Chicago.
3All correspondence should be addressed to Julian V. Roberts, Department of Criminology, University
of Ottawa, Canada; e-mail: jvrl@sympatico.ca.
the criminal process, from policing to prisons and community-based corrections
(e.g., Braithwaite, 1999; Walgrave, 2002). Defining terms such as “restorative
justice” or “restorative sentencing” is not easy, as the initiatives encompassed by
these terms vary widely across jurisdictions. Nevertheless, some defining char-
acteristics are clear. In contrast to retributive justice, restorative justice stresses
reconciliation between the offender, the victim, and the community to which both
belong. At the stage of sentencing, restorative justice emphasizes the importance
of responding to the needs of victims and encourages the offender to accept re-
sponsibility and express remorse. Restorative sentencing privileges sanctions such
as compensation and community service. Restorative justice is more concerned
about the interests of victims and less concerned with imposing punishments pro-
portional to the seriousness of the crime. In contrast, proportionality is a central
defining characteristic of retributive sentencing (von Hirsch, 1993).
Although restorative justice is sometimes contrasted with retributive models
of sentencing, this dichotomy oversimplifies the issues (see discussion in Daly,
2000). Restorative sanctions often carry onerous requirements for the offender, and
retributive sentencing frequently incorporates compensatory dispositions that are
more usually associated with a restorative philosophy. For example, if a restora-
tive conference results in an agreement that the offender perform many hours
of community service, and this turns out to be work of a quite degrading na-
ture, the difference between a restorative and punitive sanction disappears. A
better contrast can perhaps be made between restorative and punitive models of
sentencing (McCold, 1996). Restorative sentencing privileges compensation and
community-based sanctions that keep the offender in the community in order to
facilitate restoration. Punitive sentencing stresses the use of sanctions that punish
(and possibly deter) the offender.
The scholarly literature on restorative justice has to date overlooked one
critical issue: the level of public support for this justice paradigm. Except for a
brief discussion in the Cullen et al. (2000) review of public attitudes to crime and
justice, almost nothing has been written about public reaction to restorative justice
as it applies to sentencing.4 It is a curious omission, in light of the importance of
community support and participation in the restorative justice paradigm.
It is important to know more about public views in the area of sentencing
policy for several reasons. First, in restorative justice paradigms, the public and
victim are expected to take an active role in the sentencing process. Second,
legislators and policy-makers frequently advert to the need for policies that are
consistent with public views, or which will promote public confidence in the
administration of justice. Indeed, for better or worse (usually the latter), many penal
policies emerging in the United States and elsewhere derive their impetus from
the force of public opinion, or politicians’ interpretations of public opinion (see
4Belgrave (1995) summarizes findings from a focus group in New Zealand (see also Lee, 1996).
Restorative Sentencing: Exploring the Views of the Public 317
Roberts el al. 2003; Tonry, 2001). Legislators are unlikely to promote restorative
justice if they perceive that its policies engender public opposition, a point noted
by several commentators.5
It is also necessary to have a scientific evaluation of public opinion because a
number of studies have uncovered a gap between the views that the public actually
holds, and the opinions ascribed to the public by politicians. In several areas,
politicians appear to have misread public opinion. For example, the argument has
been made that the public strongly support mandatory sentences of imprisonment,
the “War on Drugs,” and the elimination of prison programs that promote the
rehabilitation of prisoners. None of these assertions is consistent with the findings
from systematic research (see Applegate, 1997; Cullen et al., 2000; Roberts, 2003).
Finally, restorative justice claims to offer a superior alternative to conven-
tional responses to crime that stress punishment and deterrence. Public reaction
therefore represents an additional dimension on which to make comparisons and
explore commonalities between retributive and restorative models of justice (see
Van Ness and Strong, 2002; von Hirsch et al., 2003, for further discussion). More-
over, polls routinely reveal that the general public is dissatisfied with current
responses to crime and has little confidence in the criminal justice system (e.g.,
Hough and Roberts, 2004b; Sherman, 2002). We need to know whether the growth
of restorative initiatives will ameliorate or exacerbate the near universal problem
of low levels of public confidence in the administration of justice.
Focus on Sentencing
Although restorative justice has application to all areas of justice, there are
several justifications for focusing on public reaction to sentencing. First, sen-
tencing represents the apex of the criminal process, and attracts considerable
public and media attention. Second, any conflict between public conceptions and
restorative practice is likely to be most apparent at this stage of the criminal
justice system. Restorative such as conferences that result in the diversion of
the offender from court processing apply to the less serious forms of offending.
However, restorative sanctions that replace (rather than supplement) more puni-
tive dispositions—particularly imprisonment—in cases of serious violent crime
represent a far greater challenge for restorative justice advocates.
This paper explores public reaction to restorative sentencing, drawing upon
research published in English over the past 20 years (1982–2002).6 The aim of
the review is not to determine whether the public is for or against restorative
5For example, Belgrave (1995) notes that “If restorative justice is to be introduced, or maintained, in
any country as a substantial part of the way crime is dealt with it will be important to know how
acceptable restorative justice is to the general public.” (p. 1)
6An electronic literature search was conducted of all relevant scholarly databases and restorative justice
websites. As well, a survey of key informants generated a number of unpublished surveys.
318 Roberts and Stalans
sentencing options. A wealth of research has found that the public holds complex
views about the appropriate response to offenders and the entitlements of crime
victims; accordingly, it would be an oversimplification to expect the public to
assume a position definitively for or against restorative justice. Instead, we seek
to determine which elements of this paradigm attract public approval, and which
features are likely to provoke public opposition.
PUBLIC AWARENESS OF RESTORATIVE SENTENCING OPTIONS
The state of public attitudes must be considered in the context of public
knowledge of restorative justice. Although restorative justice has clear historical
antecedents (see Braithwaite, 1999), it is unlikely that members of the public are
familiar with more recent restorative innovations such as conferences or sentencing
circles. In one of the few examinations of public knowledge of restorative justice
programming, Doble and Greene (2000) found that only 11% of the sample
were aware of restorative programs in their state, including reparative boards, a
restorative sentencing option.7 The 1996 British Crime Survey found that only
16% of the public identified compensation as a sanction (Hough and Roberts,
1998). The one study of public awareness of a restorative sentencing option in a
developing nation also revealed low levels of awareness: less than half a sample
of Ugandans had heard of community service as a sentencing option (Sita and
Edanyu, 1999). Thus although, as will be seen over the course of this essay, the
public are very supportive of compensatory sentencing options, knowledge of
restorative options tends to be rather poor.
This lack of familiarity may impede public acceptance of restorative sentenc-
ing options. Experimental research has demonstrated that when people are made
aware of alternative sentencing options, support for imprisonment declines. In one
study, involving the British Crime Survey, all respondents were asked to sentence
a recidivist offender convicted of residential burglary. Half the respondents were
given a “menu” of all available sentencing options (restorative and punitive) while
the other half were simply asked to sentence the offender without having been
made aware of all the options. (Respondents were assigned to condition at ran-
dom). Of those who sentenced the offender without the benefit of the sentencing
options, 22% favored compensation; the percentage choosing this option among
respondents who had been provided with the list of sentencing options was twice
as high (44%; see Hough and Roberts, 1998).8
7These boards meet directly with the offender and devise an appropriate reparation plan designed to
repair the harm inflicted on the victim (see Doble and Greene, 2000, p. 21).
8It is worth noting that support for the restorative sanction in the “informed” condition was accom-
panied by a corresponding decline in support for the punitive option of imprisonment (Hough and
Roberts, 1998). Since multiple responses were possible, respondents could have chosen to impose
imprisonment and a restorative sanction. Thus the decline in support for imprisonment represents a
genuine shift, and not an artifact of the wording of the question.
Restorative Sentencing: Exploring the Views of the Public 319
PUBLIC ATTITUDES TO RESTORATIVE SENTENCING OPTIONS
It is clear that among the broad panoply of alternative sentencing options
available to judges in most western nations, those with a restorative purpose are
particularly popular with the public. Doble (1998) reports a typical finding: New
Hampshire residents were asked to express their support for, or opposition to,
alternative sanctions. Some of these sanctions could be described as restorative,
others as punitive in nature. Restitution and community service (which have a
restorative component), were supported by significantly higher percentages of
respondents than the punitive alternatives to incarceration. For example, fully
79% of the sample was strongly in favor of restitution, compared to only 54%
who favored a “military-style” discipline program, and 56% who supported house
arrest. Similar findings emerge from earlier surveys of the public in other coun-
tries. Wright (1989) found that fully 85% of Britons held the view that it was a
good idea to make some offenders perform community service rather than go to
prison.
One of the most convincing demonstrations of the strength of public support
for restorative rather than punitive sentencing comes from a comprehensive survey
conducted by Boers and Sessar (1989). German respondents were presented with
a series of criminal cases to consider, and were asked which of a number of
responses was most appropriate. These ranged from a purely restorative to a purely
punitive nature. The most restorative response option was “a meeting between
victim and offender to arrive at a restitution agreement” and the “purest” punitive
response was “the offender should be punished. Even if he provides restitution
to the victim, the punishment should not be dispensed with or reduced.” In four-
fifths of the cases, respondents favored a resolution that consisted entirely or
partially of a restitution-based agreement between offender and victim. The general
finding that support for imprisonment declines precipitously when the offender
has made restitution has now been replicated in other jurisdictions (see Sessar,
1999).
The Importance of Proportionality and Crime Seriousness
Restorative justice advocates are divided with respect to the role of propor-
tionality in sentencing. Van Ness and Strong (2002) and Walgrave and Geudens
(1997) distinguish between retributive and restorative proportionality. According
to the retributive version, the severity of the sentence must reflect the serious-
ness of the crime for which it is imposed (see von Hirsch, 1993). According to
restorative proportionality, the critical relationship is between the seriousness of
the crime and the “degree of restorative effort required by the offender” (Walgrave
and Geudens, 1997, p. 376). Restorative proportionality requires offenders to
apologize, to offer compensation, and to make other gestures (such as community
320 Roberts and Stalans
service) that become more onerous in relation to the degree of harm inflicted, and
are related to repairing the harm that the crime caused. Described in such terms,
restorative justice offers an alternative to the central guiding principle of retributive
justice.
No empirical research has directly explored the relative degree of public sup-
port for these two competing versions of proportionality. However, the retributive
version of proportionality is clearly important to public conceptions of sentencing.
Support for proportional sentencing has emerged repeatedly from many studies
of public opinion conducted in several countries, and using different research
methodologies (e.g., Darley et al., 2000; Gebotys and Roberts, 1987). The general
finding is that the severity of punishments favored by the public rises in direct
proportion to the seriousness of the crime, although the relationship is far from
perfect (Rossi et al., 1985).
Research with German respondents also has found that public support for the
restorative response to an offense declined steadily as the seriousness of the crime
increased (see Boers and Sessar, 1989). The central role of crime seriousness
as a determinant of public support for restorative initiatives also emerges from
Doble and Greene (2000). They found very strong public support for sentencing
by “Community Reparations Boards,” which work with a judge to determine and
oversee the sentencing of nonviolent offenders. Rather than send the offender to
prison, these boards focus on developing alternative dispositions with a strong
restorative component, including the imposition of community work and resti-
tution. When asked their reaction to this concept, 92% of respondents were in
favor of the concept. However, when asked to consider some specific offender
scenarios, a quite different pattern emerged. For the most serious crimes (rape,
armed robbery), there was almost no support for assignment to a reparative board
(percentages under 5%). For less serious offenses, the level of public support was
much stronger. For shoplifting, auto theft, and theft, over two-thirds of the sample
favored the use of a reparative board over imprisonment. As with several findings
in this area, this one has been replicated in other jurisdictions, suggesting that
there may well be cross-cultural consistency in public attitudes (e.g., Russell and
Morgan, 2001).
Psychological Explanations for Why the Public
Supports Restorative Justice Sentencing
In the remainder of this paper we will document the public’s support and
opposition to restorative justice under different circumstances. First, however, we
identify psychological theories that provide some explanations for why the public
supports restorative justice, but principally for less serious cases of offending. Two
influential theories in psychology provide a basis from which we can obtain an
understanding about the public’s attitudes toward restorative justice. These theories
Restorative Sentencing: Exploring the Views of the Public 321
are the group value model (Lind, 1995; Lind and Tyler, 1988) and attribution theory
(Finchman and Jaspars, 1980; Hart and Honore, 1959; Heider, 1958; McGillis,
1978).
The group value model assumes that people place great importance on their
status and membership in social groups (Lind and Tyler, 1988). Feelings of in-
security about their status in society often lead people to seek clues from the
behavior of others to assess their status. Lind and Tyler’s (1988) group value
model predicts that procedures that reaffirm group membership will be regarded
positively. Two key elements of just procedures from a group value model per-
spective are providing an opportunity to be heard and providing dignified treat-
ment (for a review of empirical research see Lind, 1995; Lind and Tyler, 1988).
The group value model suggests that the public may prefer restorative justice
sentencing conferences compared to adversarial sentencing hearings because the
conferences allow both the victim and offender an opportunity to be heard by
the other side. In addition, the public believes that a “level playing field” is a
critical component of a fair process and that adversarial procedures are unfairly
tilted against the poor (Finkel, 2000). Thus restorative sentencing conferences
provide a more equitable environment between victims and offenders. Finally,
the group value model suggests a central reason why the public may prefer
restorative sentencing: it emphasizes that the offender has lost his/her status as
a respected member of the community and must perform certain reparative acts
to regain status in the group. The assumption that people value belonging to
groups and communities underlies Braithwaite’s Reintegrative Shaming concept
(Braithwaite, 1989) and is central to the restorative justice process. This assump-
tion receives support from social psychological research (see Lind and Tyler,
1988).
Attribution theory also explains why the public supports the use of restorative
sentencing and restorative conferences. This theory proposes that people seek
explanations for crimes and inappropriate behavior. People seek explanations in
order to determine whether the wrongdoer will commit the act again, as well as to
determine the appropriate response or punishment (Heider, 1958; McGillis, 1978).
People want to know whether, and to what extent, the offender should be blamed
for the crime. Attribution research shows that people make a distinction between
responsibility and blameworthiness. An individual may be held responsible for a
crime, (because they committed the crime), and at the same time not be blamed
for the offense. Blameworthiness refers to the extent to which a person deserves
to be punished for committing a wrongful act. A man who steals to feed a starving
family is responsible for the theft but is less deserving of punishment than a man
who steals to support a drug habit.
Research on intuitive perceptions of unfairness indicates that people believe
that assessments of responsibility and blameworthiness should be individualized
(Finkel, 2000). Research on attribution theory has revealed that people favor
322 Roberts and Stalans
more severe punishment when they believe that the crime was caused by stable
internal factors such as character or personality traits, and are more supportive of
community-based sentences when the crime was caused by external factors such as
unemployment, victim provocation, immaturity, or the influence of associates (for
a review of this research see Lurigio et al., 1994). People are more likely to infer
internal causes when the offender has a prior criminal record or has committed
a serious violent crime (e.g., Landy and Aronson, 1969; Lussier et al., 1977),
and based on these explanations are more likely to believe that the offender will
commit additional crimes (Carroll, 1978; Carroll and Payne, 1977). Restorative
sentencing is designed to repair the harm done to the victim and community,
and makes a clear connection between the factors related to why the offender
committed the crime and the reparative sentence.
A central feature of restorative sentencing conferences is that the offender is
encouraged to accept responsibility for the crime and to apologize to the victim and
community. Several restorative justice models require an oral or written apology
from the offender to the victim as part of the restorative sentence. Expressions
of remorse and apologies may affect the extent to which the public attributes
the crime to internal causes (and therefore blames the offender). Apologies for
culpable conduct are expected in most cultures and have a clear impact on public
sentencing preferences. The public attributes less blame to people who commit
minor transgressions of social norms when these individuals apologize (e.g., Darby
and Schlenker, 1989; Ohbuchi et al., 1989).
Several experimental studies have found that apologies and the expression
of remorse decrease the severity of the sentences recommended by members of
the public (Harrel, 1981; Robinson et al., 1994; Scher and Darley, 1997). For
example, offenders who appeared to be remorseful were sentenced to shorter
prison sentences than offenders who did not express remorse (Robinson et al.,
1994; see also Kleinke et al., 1992). Additionally, respondents were more willing
to recommend victim–offender mediation (rather than a more punitive alternative)
if the offenders expressed remorse (Bilz, 2002). Experimental research using
children and adults in Germany has also found that apologies influenced the
severity of assigned punishments for property and battery crimes (see Hommers,
1988; Hommers and Endres, 1991). Moreover, the more extensive the apology,
the greater the effect it has on reducing the severity of recommended punishments
(Scher and Darley, 1997).
Psychological research on sentencing preferences has found that the public
prefers individualized justice (Finkel, 2000; for a review see Roberts & Stalans,
1997). Both attribution theory and the group value model may explain why public
support for restorative sanctions declines as the crime increases in seriousness.
The group value model predicts that people will want to provide procedures that
provide an opportunity to be heard only to members of their own group and are
more self-interested when dealing with members from other groups. As crimes
Restorative Sentencing: Exploring the Views of the Public 323
become more violent and serious, people will attribute the crime to internal causes
and conclude that the offender is dangerous and immoral. Therefore, offenders
who commit serious crimes are seen as belonging to the criminal subculture and
not to law-abiding society.
Another explanation for the declining public support for restorative sen-
tencing in serious cases concerns the principle of retributive proportionality. If
the public see restorative interventions as being less punitive than conventional
criminal justice processing, then these sanctions become less plausible in direct,
inverse relation to the seriousness of the offense under consideration. However,
public adherence to proportionality only goes so far as an answer; as noted, a form
of proportionality could be incorporated into a restorative model of sentencing.
Future research needs to examine whether restorative proportionality addresses
these concerns. 9
Additionally, public support for retributive proportionality may explain some
opposition to some restorative programs. Thus although there was widespread
support for diversion and the use of reparative boards for nonviolent offenders,
more respondents in the Doble and Greene (2000) study had a more negative than
positive view of the state’s furlough program. The explanation for this apparent
inconsistency would appear to be that furloughs involve a more serious offender
population, a finding confirmed by comments made in focus groups conducted by
the same researchers (see Doble and Greene, 2000, pp. 63–64). Similarly, victim–
offender mediation programs are seen by the public as being less appropriate for the
more serious forms of offending. In a sentencing scenario study, participants were
less willing to send the offender to victim–offender mediation as the seriousness of
the offense increased. For example, they were most reluctant to send an offender
who stalked his ex-girlfriend, and a terrorist who bombs a bookstore (Bliz, 2002).
A final explanation for the public support for restorative options for less
serious offenses, and punitive responses for serious crime invokes the philosophy
of sentencing. Public models of the purposes of sentencing are as complex and
as context-specific as those held by the judiciary. It is likely that the philosophy
underlying sentencing is transformed by the seriousness of the offense from a
reparative to a punitive model. The public may see little necessity to punish many
offenders as long as adequate reparation to the victim has been made. On the
other hand, even complete restitution cannot prevent the public from desiring
to punish serious offending. When this philosophical shift (from restoration to
retribution) occurs, restorative sanctions lose their power to further the goal of
sentencing, namely punishment, and the public revert to the most punitive of
sanctions (imprisonment).
9It is possible that compensation—however large—is unable to create a proportional response. Doob
and Marinos (1995) found that even when members of the public were able to impose unlimited fines,
people still favored incarcerating the offender if the offence involved serious violence.
324 Roberts and Stalans
Independent of the issue of proportionality, it is possible that the sentencing
purpose guiding the public changes with the nature of the crime, and in partic-
ular the seriousness of the offense. There is empirical support for this hypothe-
sis. Several studies have found that the public pursue the goals of rehabilitation
and restoration in the less serious forms of offending (e.g., Roberts, 1988). For
these purposes, restitution, compensation, and community service are perceived
as ideal dispositions. With respect to the most serious forms of offending that do
not contain extenuating external factors, the sentencing purpose favored by the
public shifts to punitive goals that are naturally associated with nonrestorative op-
tions, principally imprisonment (see McFatter, 1978; Roberts and Stalans, 1997,
pp. 199–202).
Although the public is less supportive of restorative sanctions for serious
or violent crimes, the attraction of compensatory sanctions is not restricted to
property crimes. If restitution is made, it can even undermine public support for
the death penalty. McGarrell and Sandys (1996) found that 76% of a sample of
Indiana residents supported the death penalty when no alternative was presented,
40% supported the death penalty over life imprisonment without parole, and 26%
supported the death penalty when the alternative of restitution to the family cou-
pled with life imprisonment without parole was presented. Respondents preferred
the alternative of restitution to the family (coupled with life imprisonment without
parole) over the alternative of life imprisonment without parole. These findings
have been replicated in other states (see Bowers, 1993). Thus, part of the expla-
nation for why support for restorative sanctions decreased for serious crimes may
be due to the research designs of past studies. In several studies, the public was
forced to choose between restorative or retributive sanctions. The death penalty
studies show that the public wants both kinds of sanctions for serious violent
crimes.
The sparse descriptions of crimes in prior research also raise questions about
whether public support for restorative sanctions actually decreases for all types of
serious or violent crimes. The scenarios did not include violent crimes in which the
offender committed the violent act due in part to external circumstances. The public
may not blame offenders who commit homicide due to external factors if such
circumstances suggest that offenders are of good character. There are examples
of murders or homicides where offenders may merit restorative sanctions rather
than punitive sanctions, namely battered women killing their abusive partners,
active euthanasia at the terminally ill victim’s pleading requests to die, or a father
accused of negligent homicide because he forgot to put a seatbelt on his son
who subsequently died in a car accident. In these types of homicide cases, juries
have acquitted the defendants even though the prosecutor had enough evidence
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime (see
Roberts et al., 2003, Chap. 6). Juries assessed the character of the offender and
victim and concluded that the defendants had good character and committed
Restorative Sentencing: Exploring the Views of the Public 325
unlawful acts due to extenuating external factors. These jury nullification cases
illustrate that the public’s conception of justice includes mercy and forgiveness.
Thus, another reason why the public supports restorative sentencing is that it is
consistent with their desire to exercise clemency for certain types of offenders and
offenses.
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON RESTORATIVE SANCTIONS
Restitution and Compensation
A theme that emerges from almost every empirical study that has investigated
public sentencing preferences over the past 30 years concerns the importance of
restitution and compensation. A generation ago, Shaw (1982) found that two-
thirds of a sample of Britons supported greater use of restitution as a strategy to
reduce the size of the prison population. In a survey of the Dutch public, 89%
of respondents believed that requiring the offender to make compensation to the
victim was a suitable way of responding to the crime (Wright, 1989). In the United
States, Doble (1994) asked the public to consider changes they would favor with
respect to dealing with offenders. Mandatory restitution attracted near unanimity
(96% were in favor).
In addition to the appeal of restitution at a general level, sanctions that
incorporate restitution attract substantial support from members of the public
when they are asked to sentence offenders (e.g., Gandy, 1978; Hudson, 1992).
In an early demonstration of the importance of restitution to the public, Galaway
(1984) found that across six different crime scenarios, support for incarcerating the
offender declined dramatically when the offender was required to make restitution
to the victim.
Galaway’s finding using New Zealanders has subsequently been replicated
in several other jurisdictions. Bae (1992) found that American respondents who
were presented with restitution as one of the sentencing options were significantly
less likely to choose imprisonment for a range of property offenses than were
respondents who were not given the option of restitution. Similarly, a survey of
5000 adults in Scotland found that 30% favored victim compensation and 19%
favored community service for theft (Scottish Office, 1996). Most recently, Doble
and Greene (2000) asked respondents to rate the importance of a number of
components of reparative boards. The most important element (rated as being
“very important” by more than 90% of the sample), was making restitution. This
high level of support for restitution and compensation has been replicated in several
other jurisdictions, including Great Britain and Holland (Wright, 1989).
Pranis and Umbreit (1992) report interesting findings from a survey in which
respondents in Minnesota were asked to imagine that their homes had been
326 Roberts and Stalans
burglarized and to choose a sentence for the offender (a recidivist with a previous
conviction for burglary). People had the option of choosing between imposing
one of two sentences: (i) 4 months probation and 4 months jail, or (ii) 4 months
probation and repayment of the $1200. Three times as many respondents chose
repayment over the incarceration of the offender. This finding is noteworthy be-
cause it shows that the punitive response (imprisonment) carries little appeal for
the public when placed in direct contrast to the compensatory alternative.
Community Service
Community service is another reparative sanction that can achieve a restora-
tive aim (Karp, 2001). Public support for community service emerges from re-
search that offers respondents a choice between imposing one of two sanctions,
community service or imprisonment. Doob et al., (1998) report findings from such
a study. When given a choice, the vast majority of a sample of Canadians was will-
ing to substitute community work for a period of imprisonment. For example, when
sentencing an adult offender convicted of a minor assault, 72% of the sample fa-
vored community service over imprisonment. The appeal of community service as
a sentencing option is not restricted to developed nations: Sita and Edanyu (1999)
found that fully 86% of their respondents in Uganda supported the concept.
A frequent method used to explore public sentencing preferences involves
providing respondents with a choice between two sanctions, one that is punitive,
and one that is restorative in nature. Alternatively, respondents are sometimes
asked to sentence an offender, and if they choose imprisonment, are then subse-
quently asked if they would find a noncustodial restorative sanction to be equally
acceptable. The impact of reparation was clear in a study conducted fully 20
years ago. A representative, national survey of the public in Canada was asked to
sentence an offender convicted of burglary. Having selected a particular sentence,
respondents were then asked whether they would prefer to impose reparation to
the victim or the community. Given this choice, almost two-thirds of the sample
responded affirmatively (Doob and Roberts, 1988).
In more recent research (in the same country) reported by Tufts and Roberts
(2002), respondents were asked to sentence juvenile and adult offenders described
in brief case histories. Respondents who elected to impose a term of custody
were then asked to consider the acceptability of a substitute sanction. Specifi-
cally they were asked: “If a judge sentenced the offender to probation and 200
hours of community work, would that be acceptable?” In scenarios involving the
offenses of assault and burglary (and first offenders and recidivists), almost half
the respondents stated that they would find the alternative (restorative) sanction
acceptable.
Hough and Roberts (2004a) provide additional evidence of the acceptability
of alternate sanctions. Respondents to a nationwide survey in Britain were asked to
Restorative Sentencing: Exploring the Views of the Public 327
impose sentence in a number of scenarios involving young offenders. People who
had “imposed” custody were then asked whether they would find it acceptable if
the court ordered the offender to “one year of supervision, 200 hours of community
work and to compensate the victims.” Four-fifths of these respondents indicated
that they would find this alternative sentence to be an acceptable substitute for im-
prisonment. These findings demonstrate the strong influence of reparative efforts
upon popular conceptions of appropriate punishments.
Sentencing Juvenile Versus Adult Offenders
Although there is widespread public support for restorative sanctions, the
public appears to see restorative (rather than retributive) sanctioning as more
appropriate to juvenile offenders, and in particular juveniles without previous
adjudications. Attribution theory would predict greater support for restorative
sanctioning of juvenile compared to adult offenders based on attributions that
juveniles may have acted as a result of immaturity and peer pressure; they also have
a greater chance to be reintegrated in the law-abiding society. For example, Gandy
and Galaway (1980) found that the majority of respondents believed that juvenile
offenders (compared to adult offenders) were more appropriate candidates for a
sentence of restitution instead of imprisonment. This finding also emerges clearly
from responses to various “sweeps” of the British Crime Survey. For example,
in the 1998 administration, there was more public support for compensation than
imprisonment in the case of an adult offender convicted of burglary (Mattinson
and Mirrlees-Black, 2000).
When asked to consider the sentencing of juvenile offenders, there was
significantly greater support for restorative options. Thus, when asked to sentence
a 15-year old first-time offender convicted of shoplifting, 43% endorsed the use
of a restorative caution, 15% a reparation order, and 28% some other form of
community sentence. Only 3% favored custody (Mattinson and Mirrlees-Black,
2000). These findings have been replicated in other jurisdictions. For example, in
the Canadian study in which respondents favoring imprisonment were asked about
the acceptability of alternate restorative sanctions, support for these alternatives
was significantly higher when the offender was a juvenile rather than an adult
(Tufts and Roberts, 2002; see also Doob, 2000).
The Role of Criminal Record
Research based on the British Crime Survey illustrates another important
variable influencing public support for restorative sentencing alternatives: the
criminal history of the offender. When the juvenile offender was described as
having committed the crime for the third time, support for imprisonment rose to
328 Roberts and Stalans
36% of the sample (from 3% in the first-offender case), (Mattinson and Mirrlees-
Black, 2000). Similar differentiation between first offenders and recidivists in
support for restorative sanctions has been apparent even in the early studies in
the area. Gandy (1978) reported differences between public reactions to offenders
with or without previous criminal adjudications. This finding emerges from the
New Zealand focus group research: restorative options were seen as being less
suitable for recidivists (Belgrave, 1995).
These results underscore another theme in the literature on public attitudes
to restorative justice that has been replicated across many studies: consistent
with the predictions of attribution theory, the public perceives alternative, restora-
tive sanctions to be more appropriate for first offenders than for recidivists (see
also Bilz, 2002; Tufts and Roberts, 2002). There is an important qualification to
the generalization that the public sees recidivists as inappropriate candidates for
restorative initiatives. If the current offense is nonviolent, the public still view
restorative interventions as appropriate. A Vermont study of public attitudes is
instructive: significant proportions of respondents endorsed the use of community
board sentences for a recidivist shoplifter (76% favored use of community board);
a five-time bad check writer (73%), and even a repeat, unarmed burglar (66%).
However, even a first-time armed robber was regarded as an appropriate case for
the community board by only 4% of respondents (Gorczyk and Perry, 1997). Thus
when first-offender status and crime seriousness are compared, the latter appears
to be far more important. Gandy (1978) also found that for non-violent offenses,
the existence of previous convictions made little difference in terms of support for
reparative sanctions rather than imprisonment. Previous convictions then, under-
mine the case for a restorative response in the eyes of the public, but generally
only for violent crimes.
Why restorative justice options seem less appropriate for recidivist offend-
ers requires further research. It is possible that the public sees restorative justice
options as aimed at offenders who have yet to become persistent offenders, and
for whom rehabilitation is more likely. Alternatively, it is possible that restorative
solutions are perceived as a more lenient sentencing option, and that repeat of-
fenders have disentitled themselves to this leniency by virtue of their recidivism.
Attributions of future offending may also play a role: the public probably regards
persistent offenders as more likely to reoffend, and this may justify the higher lev-
els of public support for a nonrestorative sentencing option such as imprisonment.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
What conclusions can we draw from this examination of the empirical liter-
ature on public opinion and restorative sentencing? First, there is clearly strong
public support for restorative concepts such as compensation, restitution, and
community work. This finding emerges from studies in which people are given a
Restorative Sentencing: Exploring the Views of the Public 329
choice between these options and punitive sentences such as imprisonment. Sec-
ond, there is particularly strong support for restorative justice as it pertains to less
serious offenses, juvenile offenders, first offenders, and recidivists who have not
committed crimes of violence. In addition, there is considerable public support for
restorative responses to a wide range of offending. However, when the offense in
question involves violence, particularly sexual violence, the public’s enthusiasm
for restorative justice options wanes.
What explains the popularity of restorative sentencing options? The idea that
the offender has made amends to the individual victim or the larger community
clearly carries considerable popular appeal. Although the issue awaits the results
of systematic research, it is probable that sympathy for the victim drives much of
the public interest in compensatory sentencing options. And this itself may reflect
both a desire on the part of the public to assist victims of crime, as well as the belief
that by making compensation, the offender is taking an important step toward his
or her rehabilitation and restoration to the community. Focus group research has
shown that the public clearly perceives community service to be serving a dual
purpose. The public believes that community service is appropriate for young
burglars because it gives them a warning, keeps them out of prison, and allows
them to repay their debt to society (Russell & Morgan, 2001).
Recent public opinion data from the United Kingdom are relevant to this point.
Members of the public were asked to rate the effectiveness of different sentences
at reducing crime. Somewhat surprisingly, perhaps, “offenders compensating and
making amends” was rated as very effective by 24% of the sample, approximately
the same percentage that rated “prison and supervision in the community” as
being very effective (25%). In fact, making amends and providing compensation
were seen to be more effective than fines, electronic monitoring, and probation
(Chapman et al., 2002).
This result is consistent with findings from the United States: Flanagan (1996)
reports the results from a poll in which Americans were asked to rate the effective-
ness of various alternatives to prison in protecting citizens against crime. Making
offenders work “so that they can earn money to repay victims” was seen as being
the most effective option, more effective than jail or fines. Thus almost 90% of
the sample rated the reparative initiative as being effective, compared to less than
half who rated prisons or fines in this way (Flanagan, 1996). Since prisons punish
more than court-ordered reparation, and fines involve a comparable deprivation, it
is clearly the reparative element of the amends to victims that attracted respondents.
Gandy’s early research with a sample of American respondents also casts
light on the appeal of restorative sanctions. Unlike many later studies, in Gandy’s
survey, respondents could choose from among a number of reparative options,
including repaying the victim and working for the community. Gandy (1978) found
that respondents consistently preferred either repaying the victim or working for
the victim rather than working for the community. Repairing the harm inflicted
330 Roberts and Stalans
upon the individual carries more appeal than making some more diffuse gesture
towards a less well-defined community. Clearly, part of the broad attraction of
reparative, restorative justice springs from the benefit that accrues to the individual
victim.
The literature on alternative sanctions (including noncompensatory alterna-
tives to imprisonment such as house arrest) is also relevant to the question of
why restorative sanctions are important. Restorative sanctions comprise a sub-
set of alternatives to imprisonment. This raises the question of whether support
for restorative sanctions is part of a broader support for alternatives, or whether
the restorative sanctions within alternatives are in part responsible for the lat-
ter’s popularity. In one representative survey of Canadians (Angus Reid, 1997),
respondents were asked to state why they supported alternative sanctions. They
were given a list of possible advantages to consider. The most popular justification
was “allowing the offender to pay back the victim” (supported by 69% of the
sample), suggesting that a desire to effect restitution is driving public support for
alternative sentencing.
Members of the public also appear to believe that community service and
restitution can keep the community safe: 75% of Americans indicated that re-
quiring probationers to pay restitution and perform community service was an
effective way to protect citizens (Maguire & Pastore, 1997). These trends are
important because they contradict the punitive view of sentencing ascribed to the
public, according to which punishment should take precedence over other con-
siderations, including the use of restitution and community service. Empirical
research should further explore the reasons why the public supports community
service and compensation to the victim. Are these sentences attractive because
they attempt to rehabilitate the offender, repair the financial harm done to the
community and victim, or restore the dignity of the victim? Or, do they appeal
because they promise public safety through deterring the offender?
Survey research conducted in Scotland illustrates that the public may support
community service and restitution for different reasons. Scottish respondents were
asked to sentence individuals described in detailed cases and were given eight sen-
tencing options (community service order, pay compensation to the victim, fine,
probation, prison, deferred sentence, electronic tagging, and drug treatment and
testing order). In sentencing a first-time-convicted burglar, the most popular sen-
tence was a community service order (selected by 35%), followed by paying
compensation to the victim (selected by 29%). When asked to rate the importance
of various sentencing aims, over 75% rated two sentencing purposes—making
amends to the victim for the harm done and showing public disapproval—as ex-
tremely or very important. Fifty-seven percent gave these ratings to incapacitation,
and 43% to the aim of punishment (Justice 1 Committee, 2002). This research
demonstrates that the popular support for community service was primarily for its
restorative benifits.
Restorative Sentencing: Exploring the Views of the Public 331
Although the public may support restorative initiatives most strongly when
the crime is not particularly serious, many exponents of restorative justice argue
that it is with respect to the most serious personal injury offences that the potential
for restoration is greatest (see Braithwaite, 1999). The expression of mercy and
forgiveness has its most profound effects for the most serious crimes. However,
research suggests that convincing the public that the “payoff” of restorative justice
is likely to be greatest for the most serious crimes may well prove difficult, at least
for the foreseeable future until (and unless) public models of sentencing evolve
from a retributive to a restorative model.
If public support for restorative sentencing is considerable, why has this al-
ternative form of sentencing not supplanted more traditional, retributive models of
justice? We offer two explanations. First, the deep public support for restorative
concepts such as victim compensation has escaped the attention of practitioners
and policy-makers. Busy trial judges for example, are unlikely to have the oppor-
tunity to immerse themselves in the research literature exploring the public and
the justice system. Second, politicians have also overlooked the findings of this
literature. This explains why governments in several countries have attempted to
promote public confidence in criminal justice by passing punitive sentencing legis-
lation, such as mandatory sentencing laws (see discussion in Roberts et al., 2003).
The general finding of this review—that the public in different jurisdictions
supports sentencing initiatives that reflect restorative justice principles—carries
an important message for policy-makers in the field of criminal justice with clear
policy implications. People tend to have less confidence in the criminal justice
system than other public institutions, and within the justice system, the courts
attract the lowest confidence ratings (see Hough and Roberts, 2004b). Investing in
restorative sentencing options is likely to promote, not diminish public confidence
in the courts, provided these options are not applied to the most serious forms of
criminal behavior.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the following individuals for assistance in obtaining sur-
veys: Mara Schiff, Trevor Sanders, Peggy Christian, and Grant Lecky. We also
acknowledge the helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper provided by
John Braithwaite, Kathleen Daly, the editor of this journal, and three anonymous
reviewers.
REFERENCES
Angus Reid (1997). Attitudes to Crime, Angus Reid Group, Ottawa.
Applegate, B. (1997). Penal austerity: Perceived utility, desert, and public attitudes toward prison
amenities. Am. J. Crim. Justice 25: 253–268.
332 Roberts and Stalans
Bae, I. (1992). A survey on public acceptance of restitution as an alternative to incarceration for
property offenders in Hennepin County, U.S.A. In Messmer, H., and Otto, H.-U. (eds.), Restorative
Justice on Trial: Pitfalls and Potentials of Victim–Offender Mediation—International Research
Perspective. Kluwer Academic, Boston.
Belgrave, J. (1995). Public attitudes towards restorative justice, Chap. 4. In Restorative Justice: A
Discussion Paper, Ministry of Justice, Wellington, NZ.
Bilz, K. (2002). Restorative Justice and Victim Offender Mediation (VOM): A New Area for Social
Psychological Inquiry, Available at: www.princeton.edu/∼kbliz/V
Boers, K., and Sessar, K. (1989). Do people really want punishment? On the relationship between
acceptance of restitution, punishment, and fear of crime. In Sessar, K., and Kerner, H.-J. (eds.),
Developments in Crime and Crime Control Research, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Bowers, W. J. (1993). Capital punishment and contemporary values: People’s misgivings and the
court’s misperceptions. Law Soc. Rev. 27: 157–175.
Braithwaite, J. (1989) Crime, Shame and Reintegration, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne,
Australia.
Braithwaite, J. (1999). Restorative justice: Assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts. In Tonry,
M. (ed.), Crime and Justice, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Carroll, J. S. (1978). Causal attributions in expert parole decisions. J. Pers. 36: 1501–1511.
Carroll, J. S., and Payne, J. W. (1977). Crime seriousness recidivism risk, and causal attributions in
judgments of prison terms by students and experts. J. Appl. Psychol. 62: 595–602.
Chapman, B., Mirrlees-Black, C., and Brawn, C. (2002). Improving Public Attitudes to the Criminal
Justice System: The Impact of Information, Home Office, London.
Cullen, F., Fisher, B., and Applegate, B. (2000). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. In
Tonry, M. (ed.), Crime and Justice, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Daly, K.(2000). Revisiting the relationship between retributive and restorative justice. In Strang, H. and
Braithwaite, J. (eds.), Restorative Justice: From Philosophy to Practice, Dartmouth, Aldershot,
England UK.
Darby, B. W., and Schlenker, B. R. (1989). Children’s reactions to transgressions: Effects of the actor’s
apology, reputation and remorse. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 28: 353–364.
Darley, J., Carlsmith, K., and Robinson, P. (2000). Incapacitation and just deserts as motives for
punishment. Law Hum. Behav. 24: 659–683.
Doble, J. (1994). Crime and Corrections: The Views of the People of Vermont, John Doble Research
Associates, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Doble, J. (1998). Crime and Corrections: The Views of the People of New Hampshire, John Doble
Research Associates, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Doble, J., and Greene, J. (2000). Attitudes Towards Crime and Punishment in Vermont: Public Opinion
About an Experiment With Restorative Justice, John Doble Research Associates, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Doob, A. N. (2000). Transforming the punishment environment: Understanding public views of what
should be accomplished at sentencing. Can. J. Criminol. 42: 323–340.
Doob. A. N., and Marinos, V. (1995). Reconceptualizing punishment: Understanding the limita-
tions on the use of intermediate punishments. Univ. Chicago Law Sch. Roundtable 2: 413–
433.
Doob, A. N., and Roberts, J. V. (1988) Public punitiveness and public knowledge of the facts: Some
canadian surveys. In Walker, N., and Hough, M. (eds.), Public Attitudes to Sentencing, Cambridge
Studies in Criminology, LIX, Gower, Aldershot, England, UK.
Doob, A. N., Sprott, J., Marinos, V., and Varma, K. (1998) An Exploration of Ontario Residents’ Views
of Crime and the Criminal Justice System, Center of Criminology, Toronto.
Finchman, F. D., and Jaspars, J. M. (1980). Attribution of responsibility: From man-the-scientist to
man-as-lawyer. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic
Press, New York.
Finkel, N. J. (2000). But it’s not fair: Commonsense notions of unfairness. Psychol. Public Policy Law
6: 898–952.
Flanagan, T. (1996). Community corrections in the public mind. Federal Probation 6: 3–9.
Galaway, B. (1984). A survey of public acceptance of restitution as an alternative to imprisonment for
property offenders. Aust. N. Z. J. Criminol. 17: 108–116.
Restorative Sentencing: Exploring the Views of the Public 333
Gandy, J. (1978). Attitudes toward the use of restitution. In Hudson, J., and Galaway, B. (eds.), Offender
Restitution in Theory and Action, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Gandy, J., and Galaway, B. (1980). Restitution as a sanction for offenders: A public’s view. In Hudson,
J., and Galaway, B. (eds.), Victims, Offenders, and Alternative Sanctions, Lexington Books,
Lexington, MA.
Gebotys, R., and Roberts, J. (1987). Public views of sentencing: The role of offender characteristics.
Can. J. Behav. Sci. 19: 479–488.
Gorczyk, J., and Perry, J. (1997). What the public wants. Market research finds support for restorative
justice. Corrections Today 59: 78–83.
Harrel, W. A. (1981). The effects of alcohol use and offender remorsefulness on sentencing decisions.
J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 11: 83–91.
Hart, H. L. A., and Honore, A. M. (1959). Causation in the Law, Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.
Heider, E. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, Wiley, New York.
Hommers, W. (1988). The effects of apology and third-party compensation on punishments imposed
for two kinds of damages. Z. Sozialpsychol. 19: 139–151.
Hommers, W., and Endres, J. (1991). The effects of apology on interrelated judgments concerning
restitution and punishment. Z. Exp. Andgewandte Psychol. 36: 433–452.
Hough, M., and Roberts, J. V. (1998). Attitudes to Punishment: Findings From the British Crime
Survey, Home Office Research Study 179, Home Office, London.
Hough, M., and Roberts, J. V. (2004a). Youth Crime and Justice: An Analysis of Public Opinion in
Great Britain, Kings College, Institute for Criminal Policy Research, London.
Hough, M., and Roberts, J. V. (2004b). Public Confidence in Criminal Justice: An International Review,
King’s College, Institute for Criminal Policy Research, London.
Hudson, J. (1992). A review of research dealing with views on financial restitution. In Messmer,
H., and Otto, H. (eds), Restorative Justice on Trial: Pitfalls and Potentials of Victim-Offender
Mediation—International Research Perspectives, Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA.
Justice 1 Committee (2002). Public Attitudes Towards Sentencing and Alternatives to Imprisonment,
Available at: www.scottish.parliament.uk/official report/cttee/
Karp, D. R. (2001). Harm and repair: Observing restorative justice in Vermont. Justice Q. 18: 727–757.
Kleinke, C. L., Wallis, R., and Stalder, K. (1992). Evaluation of a rapist as a function of expressed
intent and remorse. J. Soc. Psychol. 132: 525–537.
Landy, D., and Aronson, E. (1969). The influence of the character of the criminal and his victim on
the decisions of simulated jurors. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 5: 141–152.
Lee, A. (1996). Public attitudes toward restorative justice. In Galaway, B., and Hudson, J. (eds.),
Restorative Justice: International Perspectives, Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, NY.
Lind, E. A. (1995). Social Conflict and Social Justice: Lessons From the Social Psychology of Justice
Judgments, Available at: http://www.duke.edu/∼alind/INAUG.html
Lind, E. A., and Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum Press,
New York.
Lurigio, A. J., Carroll, J. S., and Stalans, L. J. (1994). Understanding judges’ sentencing decisions:
Attributions of responsibility and story construction. In Heath, L., Tindale, S., Edwards, J.,
Posavac, E., Bryant, F., Henderson-King, E., Suarez-Balcazar, Y., and Myers, J., (eds.), Applica-
tions of Heuristics and Biases to Social Issues, Vol. 3, Plenum Press, New York.
Lussier, R., Perlman, D., and Breen, L. (1977). Causal attributions, attitude similarity, and the punish-
ment of drug offenders. Br. J. Addict. 72: 357–364.
Maguire, K., and Pastore, A. L. (1997). Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, United States
Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Mattinson, J., and Mirrlees-Black, C. (2000). Attitudes to Crime and Criminal Justice: Findings From
the 1998 British Crime Survey, Home Office, London.
McCold, P. (1996). Restorative Justice and the role of the community. In Galaway, B., and Hudson, J.
(eds.), Restorative Justice: International Perspectives, Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, NY.
McFatter, R. (1978). Sentencing strategies and justice: Effects of punishment philosophy on sentencing
decisions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 36: 1490–1500.
McGarrell, E. F., and Sandys, M. (1996). The misperception of public opinion toward capital pun-
ishment: Examining the spuriousness explanation of death penalty support. Am. Behav. Sci. 39:
500–513.
334 Roberts and Stalans
McGillis, D. (1978). Attribution and the law: Convergence between legal psychological concepts. Law
Hum. Behav. 2: 289–300.
Ohbuchi, K., Kameda, M., and Agarie, N. (1989). Apology as aggression control: Its role in mediating
appraisal of and response to harm. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 56: 219–227.
Pranis, K., and Umbreit, M. (1992). Public Opinion Research Challenges Perception of Widespread
Public Demand for Harsh Punishment, Citizens’ Council, Minneapolis.
Roberts, J. V. (1988). Public Opinion and Sentencing: The Surveys of the Canadian Sentencing
Commission, Department of Justice Canada, Ottawa.
Roberts, J. V. (2003). Public opinion and mandatory sentences of imprisonment: A review of interna-
tional findings. Crim. Justice Behav. 20: 1–26.
Roberts, J. V., and Stalans, L. (1997). Public Opinion, Crime, and Criminal Justice, Westview Press,
Boulder.
Roberts, J. V., Stalans, L. S., Indermaur, D., and Hough, M. (2003). Penal Populism and Public Opinion.
Lessons from Five Countries, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Robinson, D. T., Smith-Lovin, L., and Tsoudis, O. (1994). Heinous crime or unfortunate accident?
The effects of remorse on responses to mock criminal confessions. Soc. Forces 73: 175–190.
Rossi, P., Simpson, J., and Miller, J. (1985). Beyond Crime Seriousness: Fitting the punishment to the
crime. J. Quant. Criminol. 1: 59–90.
Russell, N., and Morgan, R. (2001). Sentencing of Domestic Burglary, Sentencing Advisory Panel,
Available at: www.sentencing-advisory-panel.gov.uk/research/page 01.html
Scher, S. J., and Darley, J. M. (1997). How effective are the things people say to apologize? Effects of
the realization of the apology speech act. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 26: 127–140.
Scottish Office (1996). Detailed Analysis of the 1996 Scottish Crime Survey Published Today, Available
at: www.scotland.gov.uk/news/release98 2/pr1841.htm
Sessar, K. (1999). Punitive attitudes of the public: Reality and myth. In Bazemore, G., and Walgrave, L.
(eds.), Restorative Juvenile Justice: Repairing the Harm of Youth Crime, Criminal Justice Press,
Monsey, NY.
Shaw, S. (1982). The People’s Justice: A Major Poll of Public Attitudes on Crime and Punishment,
Prison Reform Trust, London.
Sherman, L. (2002). Trust and confidence in criminal justice. Natl. Inst. Justice J. 248: 22–31.
Sita, N., and Edanyu, G. (1999). Awareness and Attitude of the Public Towards Community Service,
Interim National Committee on Community Service, Available at: www.restorativejustice.org
Tonry, M. (2001). Symbol, substance, and severity in western penal policies. Punishment Soc. 3:
517–536.
Tufts, J., and Roberts, J. V. (2002). Sentencing juvenile offenders: Comparing public preferences and
judicial practice. Crim. Just. Policy Rev. 13: 46–64.
Van Ness, D, and Strong, K. (2002). Restoring Justice, Anderson Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.
von Hirsch, A. (1993). Censure and Sanctions, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
von Hirsch, A., Roberts, J. V., Bottoms, A. E., Roach, K., and Schiff, M. (eds.) (2003). Restorative
and Criminal Justice, Hart Publishing, Oxford.
Walgrave, L. (ed.) (2002). Restorative Justice and the Law, Willan Publishing, Cullompton.
Walgrave, L., and Geudens, H. (1997). The restorative proportionality of community service for
juveniles. Eur. J. Crime Crim. Law Crim Justice 4: 361–380.
Wright, M. (1989). What the public wants. In Wright, M., and Galaway, B. (eds.), Mediation and
Criminal Justice. Victims, Offenders and Community, Sage, London.
What Will You Get?
We provide professional writing services to help you score straight A’s by submitting custom written assignments that mirror your guidelines.
Premium Quality
Get result-oriented writing and never worry about grades anymore. We follow the highest quality standards to make sure that you get perfect assignments.
Experienced Writers
Our writers have experience in dealing with papers of every educational level. You can surely rely on the expertise of our qualified professionals.
On-Time Delivery
Your deadline is our threshold for success and we take it very seriously. We make sure you receive your papers before your predefined time.
24/7 Customer Support
Someone from our customer support team is always here to respond to your questions. So, hit us up if you have got any ambiguity or concern.
Complete Confidentiality
Sit back and relax while we help you out with writing your papers. We have an ultimate policy for keeping your personal and order-related details a secret.
Authentic Sources
We assure you that your document will be thoroughly checked for plagiarism and grammatical errors as we use highly authentic and licit sources.
Moneyback Guarantee
Still reluctant about placing an order? Our 100% Moneyback Guarantee backs you up on rare occasions where you aren’t satisfied with the writing.
Order Tracking
You don’t have to wait for an update for hours; you can track the progress of your order any time you want. We share the status after each step.
From brainstorming your paper's outline to perfecting its grammar, we perform every step carefully to make your paper worthy of A grade.
Preferred Writer
Hire your preferred writer anytime. Simply specify if you want your preferred expert to write your paper and we’ll make that happen.
Grammar Check Report
Get an elaborate and authentic grammar check report with your work to have the grammar goodness sealed in your document.
One Page Summary
You can purchase this feature if you want our writers to sum up your paper in the form of a concise and well-articulated summary.
Plagiarism Report
You don’t have to worry about plagiarism anymore. Get a plagiarism report to certify the uniqueness of your work.
Free Features $66FREE
Most Qualified Writer
$10FREE
Plagiarism Scan Report
$10FREE
Unlimited Revisions
$08FREE
Paper Formatting
$05FREE
Cover Page
$05FREE
Referencing & Bibliography
$10FREE
Dedicated User Area
$08FREE
24/7 Order Tracking
$05FREE
Periodic Email Alerts
$05FREE
Our Services
Join us for the best experience while seeking writing assistance in your college life. A good grade is all you need to boost up your academic excellence and we are all about it.
On-time Delivery
24/7 Order Tracking
Access to Authentic Sources
Academic Writing
We create perfect papers according to the guidelines.
Professional Editing
We seamlessly edit out errors from your papers.
Thorough Proofreading
We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.
Thorough Proofreading
We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.
Delegate Your Challenging Writing Tasks to Experienced Professionals
Work with ultimate peace of mind because we ensure that your academic work is our responsibility and your grades are a top concern for us!
We Analyze Your Problem and Offer Customized Writing
We understand your guidelines first before delivering any writing service. You can discuss your writing needs and we will have them evaluated by our dedicated team.
Clear elicitation of your requirements.
Customized writing as per your needs.
We Mirror Your Guidelines to Deliver Quality Services
We write your papers in a standardized way. We complete your work in such a way that it turns out to be a perfect description of your guidelines.
Proactive analysis of your writing.
Active communication to understand requirements.
We Handle Your Writing Tasks to Ensure Excellent Grades
We promise you excellent grades and academic excellence that you always longed for. Our writers stay in touch with you via email.
Thorough research and analysis for every order.
Deliverance of reliable writing service to improve your grades.
