April 2001 

Classifieds
Letters
Display Ads
Archives
Article Index
Apr 2001 Issue
Latest Issue
MSBA Home Page

Joan Ericksen Lancaster is an associate justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court. She chaired the Supreme Court Task Force on Juvenile Justice Services.

Cheryl Widder Heilman is director of the Center for Reducing Rural Violence, a program of the Council on Crime and Justice. The Council served as a consultant to the Task Force on Juvenile Justice Services.

"There are literally hundreds of potential dispositions for juvenile offenders within the juvenile court system"

The juvenile justice system confronts a wide range of delinquent behaviors. Some involve violent crimes such as rape, murder, and aggravated assault. Others involve illegal drugs or property crimes, such as burglary or theft. Still others are status crimes -- truancy, underage use of alcohol and tobacco, and youth who run away from home. For the most serious offenders, certification and extended juvenile jurisdiction statutes provide the option of adult criminal court sanctions. The vast majority of juvenile offenders, however, remain under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

There are literally hundreds of potential dispositions for juvenile offenders within the juvenile court system, ranging from diversion programs that require several hours of community service to court-ordered placement in a secure, residential, out-of-home facility. In making disposition decisions, system professionals seek to promote public safety and reduce juvenile delinquency "through means that are fair and just, that recognize the unique characteristics and needs of children, and that give children access to opportunities for professional and social growth."2 Efforts by committed people throughout the juvenile justice system are making a difference in the lives of delinquent youth. Nonetheless, the system faces a number of serious challenges.

Timeliness: Too Little, Too Late
One of the challenges is timeliness. Juvenile justice system personnel operate with limited information and limited time in which to make decisions, leading one member of the Task Force to describe the system as "the McDonald's of justice":

We operate with little information, in two- to three-minute increments. We are all rushing to judgment to get cases done. More information should be available to all who have an interest in the child, to make better decisions. We need more information, more time to understand the child's needs and make good judgments.3

A related problem identified by system personnel is that juvenile offenders often come before the juvenile court "too late" -- as a result of delays in the processing of cases Research confirms that the most effective juvenile interventions are those that are swift and consistent..4 Delays loom large in the experience of youth, for whom six months may feel like a different lifetime, or at least enough time to have disassociated the offense from the case disposition. Juveniles need direct and immediate consequences.

Some counties have used collaborative efforts to improve the timeliness of the system's response to juvenile crime. For example, the J.O.L.T. Program -- Juvenile Offenders seen in Less Time -- is a collaborative effort by the Burnsville police department, the Dakota County Attorney's Office, and the court system to expedite the processing of selected juvenile cases. More can be done, however, to improve processing of juvenile cases statewide.

Diversity: Language and Racial Disparities
Another challenge facing the juvenile justice system involves the diversity of youth who come before the court. There are several troublesome aspects in the way the system currently operates for children of color. Many counties lack interpreters to talk with families who are not fluent in English. Language and cultural differences create tremendous barriers, made greater by the fact that system personnel are overwhelmingly white and children of color are disproportionately represented in the delinquency system. Some have suggested a disparity in the way the system responds to young people of color. As one public defender commented, "What constitutes gang involvement is disparate among communities: three Hispanics hanging out together constitutes a gang, but not in the white community."

"Better connections with communities of color" has been identified as "one of the greatest challenges" facing the system. More can be done to provide effective services for the Native American, African American, Latino, Southeast Asian, East African, and other youth and families of color within the juvenile justice system. Additional efforts are needed to increase data collection to understand existing racial disparities. Additional funding for interpreters would provide greater opportunity to fully engage non-English speaking families. Finally, more culture-specific and other services should be developed to address the racial and cultural disparities within the juvenile justice system.

Are Services Making a Difference?
Every day, judges, prosecutors, and probation officers make decisions to offer or order services for juveniles within the justice system, based on the information available to them. Unfortunately, these decisions are often made without the benefit of a good, across-the-board understanding of what dispositions and services are most effective to address the range of problems that come before the juvenile court. There is little shared knowledge about what will make a difference.

Part of the problem is a lack of accountability and evaluation in the service system. Some counties and some individual programs have begun to track how well services protect public safety, assist offenders to change, hold offenders accountable, and help to restore victims and the community. In many instances, however, the juvenile court makes placement decisions without clearly identifying the goals to be achieved and without the ability to track results over time. When results are reported, according to some, "we are measuring the wrong things. We are a long way from measuring change in the lives of youth -- are youth increasing their ability to function and act in productive ways?"

More can be done to create a system that is accountable and that helps achieve positive results. Using service outcome goals to frame the results desired would allow juveniles, their families, the court, and service providers to assess progress on things such as whether:

• youth lead law-abiding lives;
• youth take responsibility and repair the harm they have done to victims;
• youth are accountable to the community as a consequence of their conduct;
• youth have supportive and positive relationships with their families/caregivers, other adults, and other youth within their own community;
• youth are involved and recognized for their involvement in positive social, civic, educational, recreational and leisure activities;
• youth experience educational success;
• youth have age-appropriate living and social skills and habits; and
• youth are physically and mentally healthy.

Documented evaluation of whether juveniles achieve the goals selected by the court in each individual case would go a long way toward improving our ability to assess whether services are making a difference. The Task Force has adopted model service protocols to help counties begin to look comprehensively at service outcomes and results. The more juveniles, families, and communities learn about service results, the better able they will be to tailor services to achieve the goals they desir

"More can be done to engage families in the planning and delivery of services to their children."

"Common sense dictates a coordinated approach when social services, probation, and school officials are all working with the same child and family."

Many people are affected by what happens within the juvenile justice system, but none more directly than the juveniles whose cases are heard by the juvenile court.

Involving Youth Directly
Juveniles in the system -- both boys and girls -- want to be more involved in what happens in juvenile court. Typical comments from juvenile offenders in out-of-home placements suggest many young people feel "like a number" going through the juvenile justice system. They see "a real lack of communication" between system professionals and themselves. As one young person described it, "The system talks at you and not to you." System professionals agree that "communication with youth is weak." We can do a better job of listening and working with youth in the juvenile justice system.

We can also do a better job of holding youth accountable -- early on. Juveniles expressed frustration that "the system waits a long time to address the issues. No real action is taken until you do something serious." Young people praised probation officers who cared about them and had the time to check in on a regular basis. Their recommendation: probation should be more intense, so that progress is monitored more closely. Other needs often go beyond the delinquent conduct that brought them before the court. Young people asked for more help in addressing the "underlying issues" that caused their delinquent behavior -- which may include problems of substance abuse or violence and abuse at home.

Working with Families
Addressing the underlying issues often requires working with the families of the young people who come before the juvenile court. Research shows that family involvement and accountability can make a tremendous difference in the response of a juvenile. Effective services involve family members and strengthen family support.5

Yet, parents and caregivers report barriers to actively participating in juvenile court proceedings. Some parents describe feeling "looked at as another person who committed the crime," not as a part of the solution to changing their child's behavior. Others have a difficult time understanding the role of their child's attorney, and wonder why the attorney advocates solely for the child's interests and desires, not those of the parents.

Many parents and caregivers do not even attempt to participate, however, and, as some system professionals complain, "parents won't even come to hearings." In fact, the root cause of a juvenile's delinquent behavior may include their family's problems. Truancy and runaway behavior can be survival behavior. Our current system is "youth-focused, which is a weakness, in that it does not hold families accountable and responsible."

More can be done to engage families in the planning and delivery of services to their children. One practical example includes the approach some judges already use -- asking caregivers to describe what they have done to respond to the conduct that has led to the juvenile court proceeding. Some jurisdictions also make use of existing laws to hold parents accountable.6 Further study on why parents fail to participate, including whether there are positive ways to enhance parental involvement and support, is needed.

Engaging Victims of Juvenile Crime
Victims of juvenile crime may receive restitution, but their understanding of the juvenile court process and participation in court is often limited. Engaging victims in the delinquency process helps offenders appreciate the impact of their behavior and helps victims recover from the harm caused by the juvenile's conduct. Use of restorative justice programs such as family group conferencing, restorative circles, and mediation can be effective ways to involve victims at a problem-solving stage, where victims and offenders can work something out together that is reasonable. Examples of this approach are being used throughout the state. In Hennepin County, for example, probation officers resolve shoplifting cases by going out to the neighborhood to fashion a remedy with the local store, the youth, and the youth's family.

Community-based Solutions
Such community-based solutions play a critical role in the juvenile justice system. Services in close proximity to community or neighborhood help youth improve their capacity to function in the community. Juvenile justice system professionals report that "community-based services and a network of support for juveniles in the community are the most effective way to help youth avoid crime." The juvenile justice system is not tapping the community as much as it could be. Families, neighbors, relatives, coaches, teachers, park and recreation workers, potential employers, the faith community -- all should be part of the solution to the problem of juvenile crime.

A Balanced Approach
A "balanced approach" philosophy for the juvenile justice system addresses all of these needs. Under such an approach, crime victims, community members, and juvenile offenders are all involved in finding constructive resolutions to delinquency that enhance community safety in the least restrictive, most cost-effective manner. Juvenile offenders are held accountable: they understand and make amends for the harms resulting from their crimes. Victims and community are repaid, restored, and included in the process. Juvenile offenders are also given opportunities to become fully engaged and respected members of the community and to develop skills to ensure they are competent in the areas of education, living skills, and physical and mental health. Incorporating a balanced approach philosophy throughout the juvenile justice system will enhance the likelihood that services will respond to the needs of youth, families, victims, and the community.

More effective services within the juvenile justice system would also result if we can find ways to increase service coordination and collaboration, address gaps in service availability, and promote healthy youth development.

Increase Collaboration
While there are a number of successful local collaborative efforts -- Scott Family Net, the Scott County family services collaborative, JuvNet, a collaborative project in Hennepin County to share information, the All Children Excel program in Ramsey County for delinquent children under ten, and the 3rd Judicial District's juvenile assessment center, to name but a few -- there are many barriers to agencies and systems working together. These barriers include a lack of resources and time for collaborative work, data privacy limitations, the lack of an integrated data system, and funding streams that keep systems separate.

Effective collaboration takes time, resources, open communication, support of leadership, a shared vision, clearly defined roles and responsibilities, and ongoing evaluation. Statewide, more effective coordination among schools, the juvenile justice system, and social services would improve outcomes for juveniles. More coordination in delinquency and "CHIPS" (children in need of protection and services) cases is also needed. Many children who are in need of protection and services at a young age come to the attention of the juvenile court when they are older. Others have both social service and delinquency cases pending at the same time. Common sense dictates a coordinated approach when social services, probation, and school officials are all working with the same child and family. Effective collaboratives find ways to make this common sense approach a reality.

Address Service Gaps
Many counties find it difficult to provide access to the full range of services necessary to address the problems confronted by the juvenile court. Some counties report a lack of substance abuse services: "We do a Band-Aid approach. There are huge gaps" in service availability. Others identify missing services for youth with fetal alcohol syndrome, a birth defect caused by alcohol that has its primary effect on the brain. Although research shows an early diagnosis is associated with a lower rate of delinquent behavior, assessment and other services for fetal alcohol syndrome youth are often not available. 7

Statewide, counties are concerned about accessing needed mental health services. Some juveniles are not able to access mental health services until they become part of the delinquency system. Early identification of at-risk youth and early intervention could reduce delinquency filings and improve service results. "We should not have to wait for a suicide attempt, a series of offenses, or a huge violent act. If we intervened earlier with these children, we could help."

The lack of gender-specific programming is also a statewide concern. More services to teach independent living and vocational skills to older juveniles are needed in some counties. Addressing these gaps is a significant challenge. Counties can begin by using the model service protocols developed by the Juvenile Justice Services Task Force. The protocols provide a process to identify and develop services to fill gaps in the service delivery system at the local level.

Develop Healthy Youth
Finally, to be most effective, services for juveniles should incorporate positive opportunities and healthy youth development. Such an approach builds on studies that link certain developmental assets to children who are successful.8 Optimal services for juveniles within the delinquency system address problems, but also support the development of things that healthy youth have -- positive adult relationships, support for good work in school, religious connections, positive social and sports activities, and positive peer groups. Opportunities for community investment and involvement -- like the delinquent skateboarder who helped build a skateboard park -- can also make a difference.

One of the strengths of Minnesota's juvenile justice system is the many dedicated and hard-working people who respond on a daily basis to the problems confronted by the juvenile court. Through their work, and the work of the Task Force on Juvenile Justice Services, we have begun to answer the $64,000 question. Is Minnesota's juvenile justice system making a difference? We'll know we've succeeded when we are all engaged in finding constructive resolutions to delinquency that enhance community safety, hold juvenile offenders accountable, restore victims and community, and offer juveniles opportunities to develop skills and become fully engaged and respected members of the community.

"more young people are coming through the juvenile justice system than ever before."

1 Data on juvenile filings includes delinquency felony, delinquency gross misdemeanor, delinquency misdemeanor, status offense, delinquency under ten, truancy and runaways. Source: Minnesota State Court Administrator's Office.

2 Minn. Stat. 260B.001, subd. 2 (2000). See also Minn. R. Juv. P. 1.02 & 15.05, subd. 2(B) (court "shall consider whether a particular disposition is . . . necessary to restore law-abiding conduct [and] serve the best interests of the child").

3 Unattributed quotes and perspectives cited in this article are taken from several documents developed by the Task Force on Juvenile Justice Services and on file with the Minnesota Supreme Court, Court Services Division, State Court Administration. These include: 1. records of the March 16, 2000, Focus Group Discussion conducted by the Task Force; 2. the Task Force Focus Group Report (April 20, 2000); the Pilot County Workgroup Report and Initial Findings (April 20, 2000); and the Task Force Focus Group Report -- Juveniles (June 7, 2000).

4 See Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, 9 (1995)(hereinafter OJJDP Guide)

5 OJJDP Guide at 7.

6 Existing laws include Minn, Stat. ¤ 260B.421 ("any person knowingly interfering with an order of the juvenile court is in contempt of court") and Minn. Stat. ¤ 260B.154 (authorizing contempt proceedings for failure without reasonable cause to appear or bring a child to a juvenile court hearing).

7 Ann Streissguth, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: A Guide for Families and Communities, 4, 109, 239 (1997); Pilot County Report at 3.

8 Peter C. Scales and Nancy Leffert, Developmental Assets: A Synthesis of the Scientific Research on Adolescent Development (1999).

In November, 1999, the Minnesota Supreme Court established a task force to look more closely at the services offered and ordered for juveniles who come before the juvenile court. Chaired by Justice Joan Ericksen Lancaster, the Task Force on Juvenile Justice Services brought together a wide range of juvenile justice professionals to assess how well the existing juvenile justice system is working to provide services for juveniles, identify unmet needs of youth, families, victims of juvenile crime, and the community, and explore what more could be done to improve service coordination and effectiveness.

The Task Force was aided significantly by input from five pilot counties -- Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, Olmsted and Beltrami -- selected to represent urban, suburban and rural communities throughout the state. Many others with experience in the juvenile justice system offered input through a series of statewide focus groups and presentations at Task Force meetings. Working with consultants from the Council on Crime and Justice, the Task Force synthesized its work into draft recommendations, which were distributed to over 500 judicial system personnel, service providers, and advocacy groups for review.

The final report and recommendations of the Task Force highlight the challenges faced by the juvenile court today, as well as the ways in which delivery of juvenile justice services could be changed to result in a more coordinated and responsive approach to the problem of juvenile crime. To assist local jurisdictions in implementing the recommendations, the Task Force adopted model service protocols, which provide a step-by-step method for counties to use in assessing their services. Selected recommendations will be pilot tested and refined over the coming months. The text of the Task Force's report is available for review on the Web at http://www.courts.state.mn.us, under the heading of Public Notices.