![]() ![]() ![]() Study Purpose and Methodology With support from the State Justice Institute, staff from The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center and National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) conducted an analysis in 2021 of how courts that handle juvenile delinquency cases (“juvenile courts”) are structured and operate in all 50 states. Too often, judges are left to fend for themselves in making these difficult decisions, with limited administrative, best practice, or emotional supports commensurate with their outsized authority and responsibilities. In addition, even before the COVID-19 pandemic, judges reported to us that they encounter youth and families with an increasingly complex array of needs and are challenged to find viable service solutions that go beyond the purview of traditional court proceedings or judicial expertise. As a result, juvenile court judges are on the front lines of determining how best to balance community safety, public sentiment, media scrutiny, and political pressure with a commitment to research-based approaches and data-driven decision-making. Juvenile arrests and court referrals continue their more than 25-year decline, and the overwhelming majority of youth who are arrested have committed nonviolent offenses.³ Yet many communities across the country are experiencing increasing concern and divisiveness on responses to juvenile crime and related juvenile justice reforms. Further, the juvenile court standards that do exist, such as those from the American Bar Association, are over 25 years old.²Ī critical examination of the juvenile court is potentially more important now than at any time since the mid-1990s. At the national level, there is a limited set of juvenile court resolutions and best practice and resource guides for states to consider1 with little direction on fundamental issues like court structure or rotations. Indeed, states and locales have generally not assessed whether and how the structure, roles, and operations of their juvenile court support or hinder public safety and positive youth outcomes. In many states, juvenile courts also directly oversee local probation officers, shaping the culture, policies, and practices determining how most of the juvenile justice system operates.ĭespite the importance of these judges, however, their role has remained largely unchanged over the last decade even as jurisdictions and the field have engaged in substantial juvenile justice reforms. Go to the NCJFCJ Resolution Background Juvenile court judges are the most important public figures in the juvenile justice system-their decisions impact whether hundreds of thousands of youth each year become court involved and for how long, whether they are involuntarily removed from their homes and communities, and the services they receive. The Board of Directors at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) unanimously voted to adopt the “Resolution on Strengthening the Role of Judges Who Handle Juvenile Justice Cases Statewide.” Support for the resolution comes from our 50-state analysis, “Courting Judicial Excellence in Juvenile Justice: A 50-State Study.” These findings add to the JJGPS repository, which provides policymakers and system stakeholders with a clear understanding of the juvenile justice landscape in states. The visuals are designed to illustrate how practice varies across the country and allow users to quickly learn where states stand on key measures. The information there provides background on and visualizations of findings related to judicial selection judicial specialization how cases are assigned and judicial experience, training, and tools provided to juvenile court judges. Key findings in this report mapped to states can be found at the Juvenile Justice GPS (Geography, Policy Practice & Statistics).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |