Jurisdictional boundaries [3]

States vary in how each sets the basic playing field for juvenile justice with lower and upper age boundaries. State legislatures further create a range of complex exceptions for transfer to criminal court based on case-by-case, age and offense specifics.

  • Delinquency age boundaries 2016

    • Upper age

      17 years old

    • Lower age

      7 years old

    • Extended age

      19 years old

  • Transfer provisions 2015

    Transfer pathways
    • Discretionary waiver
    • Presumptive waiver
    • Mandatory waiver
    • Statutory exclusion
    • Once/always adult
    • Prosecutor discretion
    Mitigating provisions
    • Reverse waiver (remand)
    • Juvenile blended sentencing
    • Criminal blended sentencing
  • Transfer trends

    Loading…

Juvenile defense [4]

Much is at stake in a juvenile court action for delinquency, and successful outcomes are influenced by a family's ability to retain effective counsel early-on and retain them until a permanent resolution to all aspects of the legal matter is resolved.

  • Defense structure 2017

    • Organization

      Statewide

    • Oversight

      Full oversight

  • Waiver of counsel 2014

    Factors for consideration in juvenile justice statutes:

    • Age

    • Crime

    • Hearing

    • Placement

  • Indigency requirements 2013

    Indigency determination: Judicially

Racial/ethnic fairness [1][2][5][6]

Youth of color are overrepresented in many aspects of the juvenile justice system, from arrest to court referral and confinement. Thus a core requirement of federal juvenile justice policy requires each state to identify where disparities may exist.

  • Indicator data 2017

    Publishes annual indicators and assessment research.

  • DMC coordinators 2016

    Part-time or other state-level staff

  • Tribal delinquency jurisdiction 2016

    Shared with: State (other)

  • Monitoring data

    Loading…
    • N/A: Insufficient data to compute arrest rates
    • * Rates used to compute ratio based on fewer than 10 observations
    • † White detained rate is 0

Juvenile court

Each state has established a court with juvenile jurisdiction to address the law violating conduct of youth. Explore the structural and procedural differences.

  • Purpose clauses 2016

    • No clause

    • Parens patriae

    • Due process era

    • Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ)

    • Developmental Approach

  • Intake and diversion 2016

    Initial intake and diversion decision is at the discretion of the juvenile court intake officer and statutory time limits for pre- & post-petition court diversions exist.

  • Courtroom shackling 2015

    Courtroom shackling is restricted legislatively

  • Competency 2015

    • No juvenile standard

    • Juvenile standard is the adult standard

    • Juvenile justice standard exists

    • JJ standard includes developmental immaturity

  • Sex offense registry 2015

    Does not register

Juvenile justice services [7]

Every state has a set of laws establishing a system of juvenile courts and a corresponding intervention system commonly referred to as juvenile justice services. The different frameworks effectively create 51 distinctly different juvenile justice systems.

  • Organization structure 2014

    • Overall

      State operated

    • Detention

      State operated

    • Probation

      State operated

    • Reentry

      State operated

  • Corrections agency 2015

    • Independent juvenile corrections agency

    • Family/child welfare agency or division

    • Broad human services agency

    • Adult corrections agency or division

  • Solitary confinement 2016

    • Prohibits punitive confinement

    • Limits punitive confinement

    • No limits on punitive confinement

    • Did not respond

  • Release decision 2016

    • Agency

    • Court

    • Parole board

    • Agency and court

  • Risk assessment 2017

    • Statewide uniform assessment

    • Layered/regional assessment

    • Locally administered assessment

  • Risk instruments 2017

    • Statute or agency policy

    • Agency recommended

    Brief Risk Assessment Tool & Juvenile Assessment Generic

  • Mental health screening 2014

    Required in the following services:

    • Secure detention

    • Probation

    • Corrections

  • EBP support center 2014

    Has a support center or collaboratives dedicated to coordinating activities around implementing, evaluating, and sustaining EBPs.

  • Recidivism indicators 2016

    • Study populations: Supervision
    • Re-offense events: Arrest
    • Follow-up periods: 24 months with interval and adult systems reporting

Status offense issues [8]

A wide range of non-criminal behaviors by youth are grouped as status offenses. Actions such as truancy, running away or acting stubborn can thrust an adolescent into formal juvenile court actions for services and safety but also where their liberty may be at-risk.

  • Labeling 2015

    Spectrum of labels

    Victim Child welfare perspective
    Offender Public safety perspective
    • In need of aid, assistance, or care

    • In need of services

    • In need of supervision

    • Unruly

    • Status offender

  • Age boundaries 2016

    • Status offense jurisdiction: 7 through 17 years old
    • Delinquency jurisdiction: 7 through 17 years old
  • Reported data

    Loading…

Systems integration [9][10][11]

Youth involved in more than one system require special attention and coordination.  State and local policy-makers are increasingly sharing data concerning dual status youth and establishing a wide range of exciting coordination models.

  • Agency integration 2016

    Separate state-level centralized agencies

  • State coordination 2014

    • Data sharing

    • Committees or advisory groups

    • Formal interagency MOUs

    • Informal interagency agreements

    • Statute and/or court rules

  • Reported data


    Loading…

Data sources

  1. ^ a b c d Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics
  2. ^ a b c d e f g Easy Access to Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement
  3. ^ The Annual Report of the Chief Public Defender
    Susan O. Story, Connecticut Division of Public Defender Services
  4. ^ Annual Report of The Chief Public Defender
    Connecticut Division of Public Defender Services
  5. ^ A Second Reassessment of Disproportionate Minority Contact in Connecticut's Juvenile Justice System
    Connecticut Office of Policy and Management Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division
  6. ^ Biennial Report on Disproportionate Minority Contact Fiscal Years 2010-2011
    Connecticut Office of Policy Management
  7. ^ Program Report Card: Juvenile Probation
    State of Connecticut Judicial Branch
  8. ^ Judicial Branch Statistics - Juvenile Cases
    Connecticut Judicial Branch
  9. ^ Annual Progress and Services Report
    State of Connecticut, Department of Children and Families
  10. ^ Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act State Plan (CAPTA)
    State of Connecticut, Department of Children and Families
  11. ^ Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP)
    State of Connecticut, Department of Children and Families

State resources

Juvenile justice leadership

Other stakeholders

Policy (legal) research

Read more »

About this project

Juvenile Justice GPS (Geography, Policy, Practice, Statistics) is a project to develop a repository providing state policy makers and system stakeholders with a clear understanding of the juvenile justice landscape in the states.

Continue reading »

Feedback

Tell us what you think of JJGPS. Questions, feedback, or other comments are welcomed.

Questions or feedback »

Follow on Twitter »