Juvenile and Family Court Journal最新文献

This study examines philosophies and practices of juvenile justice in Austria and the United States specifically using cases of juvenile homicide to provide context to examine divergent outcomes in the two countries. Grounding the paper in the culture of control theory, findings indicate that Austria has not been as heavily influenced by punitive policies as has the United States and maintains a focus as a welfare state. Although the United States has made progress in parts of the juvenile justice system, for more serious offenses, it remains largely focused on crime control and punitiveness. Penalties for juvenile crimes, even the most serious cases, in Austria are geared toward resocialization, education, and treatment instead of punishment. Possible explanations for these differences are explored through local cultural and sociological examination.

Adolescence is a time of rapid change—physical appearance, behaviors, intellectual interests, and social choices. Often, however, it is branded as a time of bad choices and regrets. Neuroscience explains that these changes and behaviors (both positive and seemingly negative) are due to rapid and asynchronous changes in the brain, that drive all choices made by adolescents. Two areas of adolescent decision-making are addressed in this paper—the choice to seek gender affirming care (GAC) and trial decision-making when an adolescent is tried as an adult. For the choice to seek gender affirming care, the paper proposes a system for assessing the adolescent's decision-making ability, instead of a total ban on access to GAC, and for trial decisions, the paper proposes a system of mandatory trial competence assessment of all adolescents who are being tried as adults. For both sections, the paper uses the current Indiana statutes.

This study investigated juvenile recidivism among the statewide population of juvenile drug court graduates from 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 in West Virginia. One notable strategy to combat juvenile crime is the therapeutic jurisprudence approach that focuses on intervention by the judiciary to head the rehabilitation of offenders. This study analyzed recidivism data for 3 years following a juvenile drug court participant's completion of the program to determine the effectiveness of the therapeutic jurisprudence approach in West Virginia. Recidivism data were analyzed through chi-square tests of independence, multiple linear regression, and an ANOVA to ascertain the impact of the therapeutic jurisprudence approach. This writer tracked recidivism rates of graduates 3 years following completion of the juvenile drug court program to determine the overall effectiveness of the community-based, judicial treatment approach. The study examined recidivism rates for participants who received evidence-based treatment based on age to highlight if an offender's age at the time of graduation influenced future recidivism. Finally, the study investigated if there was a noteworthy difference in recidivism depending on where the participant participated in juvenile drug court across 19 separate juvenile drug court programs throughout the state.

We explored clinical outcomes among adolescents in juvenile drug court (JDC) by ethnoracial or gender identity, economic security, and mental health problems. Self-report and drug testing data were obtained through a randomized control trial (RCT) with 101 adolescents in JDC at four time points (i.e., baseline, 3-month immediate post, 6-month follow-up, and 12-month follow-up). Participants who identified as an adolescent girl and who were identified as having a mental health disorder demonstrated significant increases in talking about HIV 12 months after completing the intervention. Sexual risk behaviors increased for girls, Black, and Latine youth and decreased among adolescents with mental health problems. Marijuana use did not differ over time by identity. Programing that targets risk behaviors, including substance use and seemingly unrelated risk behaviors like risky sexual behavior, is warranted in addition to mental health services to improve health outcomes of adolescents with a history of juvenile legal system involvement.

Analysis of in-depth interviews with eight district court judges in North Carolina revealed over 40 practices that judges can adopt to become more trauma-informed in their work. These practices map onto SAMHSA's framework for a trauma-informed approach, demonstrating that abstract principles can translate into concrete actions in the courtroom setting. Analysis revealed an additional core principle of trauma-informed judicial practice—Rehabilitation and Healing—and several areas where judges can deepen their commitment to trauma-informed care—engagement with peer support programming; greater attention to cultural, historical, and gender issues; and application of trauma-informed practice in adult criminal court.

Restorative justice practices are popular alternatives for youth conflict resolutions in the juvenile justice system and in schools. However, we do not know the extent to which states have formalized the use of restorative justice. This study reviews state legislation to identify whether restorative justice has been codified in juvenile justice and public education statutes. Through a content analysis of relevant statutory provisions, we find considerable variation in how restorative justice is defined and implemented in the juvenile justice and public-school systems. We conclude with policy implications aimed at standardizing the understanding and application of restorative justice.

To meet the challenge of advancing child welfare law, a field affecting millions of families a year, practicing attorneys have developed a wealth of guidance for best practices. The Judicial, Court, and Attorney Measures of Performance (JCAMP) provide a way to determine whether legal programs are following these recommended practices and to assess the strength of attorney–client relationships. After providing context around challenges to high quality legal representation, best practice guidance, and evaluation research findings, this article reviews the JCAMP measures of attorney practice. JCAMP may be used by legal programs to both assess their own practice and to elicit feedback from affected families to ensure consistent high quality representation. Boldly assessing attorney interactions, and the experiences of clients in the court process, is critical to guiding and empowering lawyers to achieve excellence.

Performance measurement is meant to help organizations to better understand current practices, processes, outputs, or outcomes. Yet, it is often limited in its use and usefulness, partly because it is not designed with the end user in mind. This article describes a process that integrates participatory design and design thinking methodologies to bring together a multidisciplinary group of systems professionals, researchers, and persons with lived experience to create meaningful child welfare court performance measures. The methods and process used to design the measures are described, including the resulting measures in one domain of measurement. Key lessons were learned throughout this process, including the value of lived experience in design and implementation.

State Court Improvement Programs (CIPs) are responsible for conducting assessments of their foster care and adoption laws and judicial processes, and developing and implementing projects that improve child welfare court practices and the delivery of legal services in child welfare. JCAMP, the Judicial, Court, and Attorney Measures of Performance, provides states with the tools to collect the data necessary to inform those projects and measure their success. This article walks CIPs, judges, child welfare agencies, attorneys, parents and youth with lived experience, and anyone else with an interest in improving the child welfare court system through the JCAMP implementation process while reflecting on lessons learned by jurisdictions currently using JCAMP to collect court data. Key takeaways from these states include the importance of diverse teams, strong project management, and long-term planning for data use and project sustainability.