Recommendations
Several lessons can be learned and cautions
should be heeded when policymakers consider
revising juvenile justice legislation. One lesson relates to
the impact that a new program will have on the
juvenile justice system as a whole. Changes made to one
part of the system will not exist in isolation, but will
have an impact on the delivery of juvenile justice
services for all who have contact with it. This
phenomenon, which is compounded by limited programs,
services, and budgets, may mean that appropriations to
pay for a new program may come at the expense of
other juvenile justice programs. For example, how
does the enactment of a law holding parents
responsible for the delinquent behavior of their children
affect probation caseloads? Does the implementation of
a curfew ordinance diminish available law enforcement resources and personnel? These and
similar questions should be addressed in order to avoid
the negative consequences of well-intentioned
policy initiatives. On a similar note, policymakers
should be aware that a comprehensive change in
juvenile justice policy or law will affect not only the
juvenile justice system but other State agencies whose
primary responsibilities are to provide services to
children and families.
Aside from resource obstacles and unintended
consequences, logistics, systems inconsistencies,
and administrative burdens may impede the implementation of well-designed legislation. States
enacting comprehensive juvenile justice reform
legislation should consider the practices already in place
and calculate whether changes to them are
necessary, how difficult the changes will be, and what
new administrative options are available. In
addition, policymakers should be aware that the actions
of other players, especially those in the juvenile
justice system, affect the implementation and use of
sanction options. For example, it is important for
policymakers to draft legislation broadly enough to
encourage juvenile court judges to use their discretion in
determining whether to impose a specific sanction
or, conversely, to narrowly construct a statute to
support a more consistent use of certain dispositions.
Further, States need more effective tools for
determining what implementation challenges are
inherent in juvenile justice reform and administration.
Much of the information available to State
policymakers focuses on the types of policies being
initiated. Much less information is available on what
works, why it works, how it came to be effective, and
what factors States need to consider in replicating it.
By looking beyond policy initiation to the
formulation of programs and the implementation and
evaluation of existing policies, States may be better able to
decide what types of juvenile justice prevention, sanction, and treatment programs should be
made available to the youth of the State or jurisdiction.
One tool that States have available, in the absence
of empirical analysis, is to study existing
juvenile justice policies and initiatives in other States.
States can look at initiatives previously undertaken in
other States when formulating new juvenile justice
policies to familiarize themselves with what works,
what does not, and what types of obstacles may
interfere with policy implementation. Further, the
preliminary blueprint provided by looking at other State
initiatives can be honed and modified to fit local
environments and the specific needs of the State.
The National Conference of State Legislatures, for
example, provides information to State legislators
on trends in State legislation, innovative and
effective programs and strategies, and available resources
at the Federal level.
Conclusion
State efforts to combat youth violence and
delinquency have taken many forms. From prevention
to deterrence through tough, accountability-based sanctions to innovative blended sentencing
options, policymakers are searching for programs and
policies that effectively stop juveniles from
becoming lifelong criminals. Efforts to facilitate an
immediate and appropriate response to juvenile violence
and delinquency have resulted in many States
enacting legislation to promote a continuum of services
to juvenile offenders, although the efforts have
been piecemeal in some States, because not all States
have passed laws or possess the necessary funding to
offer a full range of services to juvenile offenders.
Many States in the past few legislative sessions
have made dramatic changes to their juvenile codes,
with
a policy emphasis on promoting accountability of youth offenders, while devising new programs
to intervene effectively in the lives of delinquent
youth. The case studies from Colorado, Connecticut,
Ohio, and Oregon reflect the opportunities that
abound through comprehensive reform initiatives and
the difficulties in formulating and implementing
new policies to have an impact on the incidence of
juvenile violence and delinquency.
State lawmakers need current information about
the challenges and difficulties in legislating
programs and policies to combat youth crime.
Consideration of the political, budgetary, and administrative
obstacles and opportunities present in the milieu
in which these critical policy decisions are made
is crucial to ensuring that services and sanctions
for delinquent youth are both appropriate and
reflective of the legislative policies and goals that States
are seeking to achieve. This report has supplied some
of that information.
Share With Your Colleagues
OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We encourage you to
reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and reprint it in your newsletter
or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP and any other authors
found on the title page. We are also interested in your feedback, such as how you
received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP materials
meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and questions to:
Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse
Publication Reprint/Feedback
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 208496000
Phone: 8006388736
Fax: 3015195212
E-mail: [email protected]
|