Jeffrey A. Butts

Reviving Juvenile Justice in a Get-Tough Era:

State and local jurisdictions throughout the United States enacted a wide array of new juvenile justice policies in recent years. Many of these policies were intended to make the juvenile justice system tougher, but others improved prevention, increased rehabilitation, and enhanced the restorative features of the juvenile justice system. This article describes the most prominent new ideas in juvenile justice and addresses a question usually asked by policy makers: What works? It suggests that a new generation of innovative programs might revive the spirit of American juvenile justice.

Viable Options: Intensive Supervision Programs for Juvenile Delinquents

The Wayne County Juvenile Court in Detroit, Michigan, recently developed and evaluated three in-home, intensive supervision programs as alternatives to commitment for adjudicated delinquents. More than 500 youths were randomly assigned to either intensive supervision or a control group that was committed to the state for placement. The evaluation found the in-home programs to be as effective as commitment for about one-third the cost. Two years after random assignment, the experimental and control group cases showed few differences in recidivism, either in official charges or by self-report. The study suggests that in-home programs are a viable option for many youths who would otherwise be committed.

Practitioner Views of Priorities, Policies, and Practices in Juvenile Justice

Dramatic changes in juvenile justice have occurred in recent decades. One result has been the emergence of new policies and practices, many of which remain largely unexamined. One avenue for gaining insight into whether such policies and practices are needed or effective, as well as into how the juvenile justice system might be improved, is to tap into the perceptions of people who work within this system. Drawing on a national survey of juvenile court practitioners, the authors investigate key questions about the effectiveness of juvenile justice and discuss the implications of the study’s findings for research, policy, and practice.

Introduction: Problem‐Solving Courts

Problem-solving courts have become a significant feature of the U.S. justice system, and their popularity appears to be growing internationally with courts under way or in development in countries such as Australia and Great Britain. Drug courts are the most visible type of problem-solving court, but other varieties are beginning to take hold. Mental health courts, domestic violence courts, and community-based courts among others are beginning to handle a considerable portion of the legal workload in many jurisdictions. Criminal law violations as well as neighborhood conflicts and interpersonal disputes are increasingly being referred to problem-solving courts rather than to traditional criminal or civil courts.

Necessarily Relative: Is Juvenile Justice Speedy Enough?

Despite 30 years of expanding procedural rights for juveniles, young offenders have not been provided with a constitutional right to a speedy trial. Yet concerns about timeliness are often equally pressing in the juvenile court. This study examines the timing of juvenile justice by analyzing delinquency case processing in nearly 400 jurisdictions. One fourth of all cases required 90 days or more to reach disposition—the maximum recommended by national standards. Processing time varied according to jurisdiction size, the rate of formal adjudications, and other characteristics of juvenile court caseloads.

Using Performance Monitoring to Improve the Accountability, Operations, and Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice:

The juvenile justice system has been transformed in recent years with a range of policies designed to hold youth accountable, but how does society hold this system accountable? Calls for governmental accountability are common, yet few jurisdictions can provide comprehensive information about the basic operations of juvenile justice and the effectiveness of system reforms. Most elements of the juvenile justice system operate on faith—managers and policy makers have to assume that their programs are based on sound evidence and that reform efforts are fully implemented with fidelity to their designs. Performance monitoring provides a way to address this situation, but it is unlikely to occur without a substantial commitment of resources. This article describes performance measurement and monitoring; their relevance for improving the accountability, operations, and effectiveness of juvenile justice; and three examples of how the techniques are currently being applied in the United States.

Accommodating Innovation In A Juvenile Court

In an attempt to reduce the number of adjudicated juveniles being committed to the state for placement, the juvenile court in Wayne CountyMichigan implemented three intensive supervision programs to serve as alternatives to commitment. A four-year, randomized evaluation of the programs found them to be cost-effective. An analysis of court processes, however, suggested that the programs gradually came to supplement rather than to displace commitments as intended. The results of this study illustrate how juvenile justice organizations adapt to the presence of alternative programs in ways that dilute their impact.