Juvenile Justice in California: Facts & Issues
A major intervention, according to the study by Peter Greenwood
and associates, should happen at the first sign of illegal behavior,
no matter how small. Parental support at this time can be of great
help, along with swift and sure consequences for the young offender.
Frustration with the delays are voiced by every side. When a case
is not even heard for several months, this is a lifetime to a
teen-ager. In the overcrowded juvenile courts of Los Angeles County
delays can be five months at times. There is little connection
in their mind between the act and the consequences, and, all too
often, more serious delinquent behavior happens in the meantime.
Young people may feel they have "gotten by" with something
and nothing will happen. This is especially true of the younger
teens addressed in the State Bar study.
When the consequences are informal probation with no support for the parents in enforcement, many young people see this as no consequences at all. They continue to test the limits with escalating levels of misbehavior. While there is little disagreement about causes, disagreement arises about what the consequences should be. Beside unsupervised probation at home, programs can include electronic tracking, supervision by private agencies and day programs. When the family situation is not supportive of these programs there are various out of home placements. California depends on large camps for these needs, while other states have been successful with small, community-based homes. <83>
Many counties in California have been using a variety of options
to provide alternatives to incarceration for non-serious offenders.
Work programs operate in most counties
according to our study. Supervised crews perform cleanup, graffiti
abatement, school landscaping, and other community service projects.
These assignments are generally made to misdemeanor or mid-level
offenders in lieu of jail time.
The Little Hoover Commission recommends that the state and counties work together to ensure that a continuum of options exist to provide a range of timely, appropriate consequences linked to offenses at all levels of severity. The Commission recommends that, from their first contact with the juvenile justice system, young people should be made aware that they are accountable for their actions and that illegal activity brings consequences. The Commission also recommends that the first step should be a thorough assessment for needs for treatment and services. Options would then include:
OJJDP notes that community-based graduated sanctions programs appear to be at least as successful as traditional incarceration in reducing recidivism, and the most well-structured graduated sanctions programs appear to be more effective than incarceration. Although there is no graduated sanctions system in operation today that can be identified as a perfect model, OJJDP states that a consensus exists among juvenile justice professionals about the core principles of a model system. Such a model would combine treatment and rehabilitation with reasonable, fair, humane, and appropriate sanctions, and offer a continuum of care consisting of diverse programs. The continuum would include sanctions within the community for first-time, non-violent offenders; intermediate sanctions within the community for more serious offenders; secure programs for the most violent offenders; and aftercare programs that provide high levels of social control and treatment services to involve the family and the community in reintegrating the youth into the community. <85>
Frustrated by policy pendulum swings between treatment and retribution and by unclear and unrealistic public expectations, a growing number of judges, probation officers, prosecutors, and other juvenile justice professionals are embracing a new vision for juvenile justice. The balanced approach allows juvenile justice systems and agencies to improve their capacity to protect the community and ensure accountability of the offender and the system It enables offenders to become competent and productive citizens. Restorative justice, the guiding philosophical framework for this vision, promotes maximum involvement of the victim, the offender, and the community in the justice process and presents a clear alternative to sanctions and interventions based on retributive or traditional treatment assumptions. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is presently developing models to guide communities in implementing this concept. <86>
The concept was introducted in the California Legislature, this
past session by Senator Marks (SB2126). The bill was passed by
the Senate but died in the Assembly Public Safety Committee. It
may be introduced in the next session.
Source: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Balanced and Restorative Justice: Program Summary, 4
For the last 20 years, Massachusetts has made a bold transformation of its youth services program without compromising public safety by closing large institutions in favor of community-based treatment. <87> As Steve Lerne, Director of the Commonweal Research Institute, notes:
Incarcerating no more than 10% of its committed youth in secure facilities, the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services has closed its training-schools and built a broad sprectrum of community-based, residential and non-residential programs for the rest of the young men and women committed to its care. <88>
With intense personal observation and supervision, the providers (public or private contractors) plan a tight structure, gradually diminish the levels of restriction, and work closely with family, school and potential employers to support the mediation, restitution, and re-entry process. Dan Macallair, of the Center on Juvenile & Criminal Justice, stressed the flexibility, individuality, and practicality of this intensive case management.
<89>
Previous section.
Juvenile Justice in California: Facts & Issues TOC.
Next section.