2019 Issue

 


Articles


Lessons Learned from a Multidisciplinary Collaborative Supporting Juvenile Reentry

Dr. Erica D. Hooper-Arana, University of San Francisco
Pages 1-17

Multidisciplinary collaboration is paramount to engendering efficacious juvenile reentry. As the lives of juvenile offenders are infused with interwoven complexities and traumas leading to involvement with the juvenile justice system, a multifaceted approach permeated with varying perspectives is imperative. Effective juvenile reentry partnerships must embrace inclusivity and distinctly capitalize on the wide-ranging expertise encapsulated within a multidisciplinary team. Multidisciplinary collaboration is vital for juvenile offenders to return to the community from confinement with a comprehensive understanding of their situation as well as an assortment of approaches to mitigating their challenges both within and outside of the juvenile justice system. This manuscript will describe a unique approach and promising strategies designed to foster a smooth transition of urban juvenile offenders from confinement at a short-term detention facility back into the community. Lessons learned from a multidisciplinary collaboration between school districts, probation, health care, and city agencies designed to support juvenile reentry will be highlighted. Implications for replication among collaborative partners within the context of juvenile justice systems will be discussed.

Keywords: multidisciplinary collaboration, juvenile justice, juvenile offenders, juvenile reentry Download Article


Community-based Alternatives to Detention: Implementation Evidence on Evening Reporting Centers

Sonia Jain, Data in Action, LLC
Alison K. Cohen, University of San Francisco
Neola Crosby, Alameda County Probation Department
Jessica Gingold, University of Michigan Law School
Stacey Wooden, Alameda County Probation Department
Pages 18-31 

Evening reporting centers are an emerging best practice in community-based alternatives to detention. We ground our discussion of Alameda County (CA)’s evening reporting centers within an understanding of youth development theories, including the social cognitive career theory.  Alameda County is a diverse county in California’s San Francisco Bay Area that includes Oakland.  We used diverse sources of administrative data to describe the implementation of the evening reporting centers and report on outcomes of youth involved. We find that evening reporting centers are aligned with youth development theory. For example, they offer an opportunity for disadvantaged youth to build positive relationships with adults, which can contribute to positive youth development.  

Keywords: alternatives to detention, community-based, juvenile justice, social cognitive career theory Download Article


Beyond Skin Deep: Understanding Disproportionate Minority Contact through Ethnocultural Implicit Bias and the Decision-Making Process among Juvenile System Gatekeepers

Jonathan W. Glenn, PhD, Juvenile Justice Institute, North Carolina Central University
Pages 32-46

Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) has been studied as a social phenomenon for decades. Despite the quality research done on this construct, efforts to reduce disproportionality across the justice system have been marginally successful. Historically, DMC has been viewed from a perspective that attributes a macro level construct (systemic minority overrepresentation) to micro level processes (individual decision-making), with the most of the research focusing on whether DMC exists and the scope of the problem, rather than why it exists. The present article offers a theoretical explanation of DMC through an expanded lens of implicit bias. While implicit bias is usually discussed from a racial context, the discretionary decisions of justice system gatekeepers are subject to implicit biases transcendent of race. These biases, which may be grounded in ethnocultural differences, present the risk for inequitable criminal justice decision-making and may be driving the overrepresentation of minority youth in the justice system. The tenets of this perspective, as well as applications and recommendations are discussed. Download Article


The Competency Attainment Outcomes of 1,913 Juveniles Found Incompetent to Stand Trial

Janet I. Warren and Shelly L. Jackson, University of Virginia
Benjamin E. Skowysz, Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services
Shelby E. Kiefner, James Reed, and April Celeste R. LevitonUniversity of Virginia
Maria Francesca Nacu, Higher Education Research Firm
Chantee G. Jiggetts and Gerald G. Walls, Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services
Pages 47-74

Our study examines the outcomes of remediation services provided to 1,913 juveniles who have been determined to be incompetent to stand trial and ordered into remediation services by the court. These services were offered based upon statutory guidelines legislated in 1999, through a statewide, community-based program maintained by the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (VA DBHDS). Recipients of these services were eight through 18-years-old and were predominantly African-American (73%), Caucasian (21%), and Hispanic (3%). Our outcome data indicate that 76% of the youth ordered into remediation services were determined by the court to have been remediated, 19% unlikely to attain competency, and 5% had their charges dismissed. Remediation services were offered within the community and received by the majority of the youth within three months at an estimated cost of $5,000 per juvenile. Rates of remediation differed based upon the age and mental status of the youth receiving services with 7% of youth aged eight to 10 years being remediated compared to 44% of those aged 14 to 16 years of age. Youth with a diagnosis of both intellectual disability and mental disorder were the least likely to be remediated with 51% determined to be unlikely to attain competency and an additional 28% having their charges dismissed. These outcomes are similar to those obtained with incompetent adult defendants, often through costly periods of inpatient hospitalization, raising the question of why states would not provide these due process protections to the most vulnerable youth within the juvenile system. Download Article