|
|
| Delays In Youth Justice |
| By Phil Bulman, staff writer at NIJ |
| Published: 05/19/2014 |
Historically, the American juvenile justice system has sought to take
an individualized approach to each case, focusing more on solving
problems than on punishing offenders. But solving problems related
to human behavior takes time and can collide with the principles of swift and
certain intervention. Delays in the processing of youth through the justice
system can have negative results not only for the youth themselves but also for
their families and communities.Improving the timeliness of the justice process is far more than a technical matter for managers and judges; it is a critical part of policy and practice in ensuring the juvenile justice system fulfills its basic mission. This bulletin reviews a research effort in juvenile case processing that looked at two information sources, a nationwide sample of counties and an indepth investigation of three Midwestern courts:
Unlike adults, juveniles do not have a Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial under the U.S. Constitution. A few states have encouraged speediness using statutes, court rules or both. Others have issued standards for timely case processing. The standards, however, are rarely compulsory. Table 1 shows suggested time limits proposed by various professional organizations. Many jurisdictions still exceed even the most tolerant of these standards. Key Findings From a Nationwide Data Sample To examine the larger context of juvenile justice delays, researchers examined case-level delinquency data from the National Juvenile Court Data Archive(1). The analysis included information from a large sample of juvenile courts and cases handled from 1995 to 2004. The researchers compared these data with data from an earlier study that analyzed delinquency processing from 1985 to 1994(2). From 1985 to 1994, median processing times increased by 26 percent and total caseload increased 57 percent. From 1995 to 2004, median processing times decreased 10 percent and total caseload decreased 8 percent. In both periods, processing time was related to jurisdiction size. As shown in table 2, for example, by the end of the 1995-2004 period, the median time to disposition was:
Longer processing times were associated with formally charged cases that did not result in adjudication. Forty-five percent of these cases took more than 90 days to finish. These were likely cases held open awaiting other actions, such as when a juvenile is completing a program of voluntary services and sanctions. Between 1995 and 2004, processing time decreased the most (11 percent) in large jurisdictions with declining delinquency rates, but there was no easy link between jurisdiction size, caseload size and processing time. The formal delinquency caseload in small counties increased by 12 percent, but processing times remained unchanged. In large counties, the caseload decreased by 5 percent, but median processing times fell 12 percent. Even in large counties that experienced a 50-percent increase in their formal caseloads, median time to disposition fell 11 percent. In sum, case-processing times decreased between 1995 and 2004, with the sharpest declines in large counties, counties with large proportions of formally processed cases involving secure detention, and counties with large proportions of public order offenses. There may be a number of reasons for these patterns. One explanation could be that these counties likely experienced the sharpest increases in case-processing times during the late 1980s and early 1990s when serious juvenile crime was on the rise. When juvenile crime began decreasing, the counties might have been able to speed up their processing times. Findings From Three Case Studies The three jurisdictions in the case studies took different approaches to reducing juvenile court delays, and each was effective. Researchers interviewed judges and other staff, watched proceedings, and reviewed court records and statistical reports. Two common themes emerged:
The Hamilton County juvenile court uses a sophisticated, expensive, automated case management system to control delays and manage its work. The court has been successful at reducing delays. Although this system works, it could be expensive for cash-strapped jurisdictions. The Kent County juvenile court relies on guidelines and time standards to avoid delays and to check its performance. Strong judicial leadership and able court management have been important in this county. A team oversees and tracks performance. This approach depends on a strong local court culture that stresses self-evaluation. The strategy works and could be effective in smaller jurisdictions that cannot afford expensive, automated systems. Peoria County is a small jurisdiction with a small court staff. Previously, the judiciary identified lagging cases, but staff cuts made it difficult to improve timeliness. The probation department then developed a simple database to track cases, which provided useful information about caseloads and placements. Judges’ motivation to reduce delay and the county’s stable courtroom workgroups also contributed to efficiency. Peoria’s experience shows that simple information management helps to offset the constraints of limited budgets and staff. Conclusion The causes of delay in the juvenile justice system are complex. Researchers have linked court delays to a wide range of causes, including workload, jurisdiction size, case characteristics such as offense type and severity, procedural reasons, management and organization, and the informal norms and values of a court. Processing times in adult courts have been studied more than those in juvenile courts, but those studies may be of limited value in understanding juvenile justice delays. The individualized approach of juvenile court proceedings is more complicated than adult proceedings and often takes more time. Youth justice delays have clearly not disappeared in U.S. juvenile courts. Many jurisdictions still exceed even the most tolerant standards issued by national organizations and commissions. Courts today struggle with shrinking budgets and staff losses and processing delays are likely to continue. With sound leadership and creative management of information, however, courts of all sizes can battle delay and deliver timely and effective justice. Endnotes
This publication summarizes Delays in Youth Justice by Jeffrey A. Butts, Gretchen Ruth Cusick and Benjamin Adams, NCJ 228493, available at NCJRS.gov. Delays in Youth Justice is the final report for NIJ award number 2005-IJ- CX-0041. This summary was written by Phil Bulman, a staff writer at NIJ |
MARKETPLACE search vendors | advanced search
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
|
Comments:
No comments have been posted for this article.
Login to let us know what you think