The 4 Core Requirements of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA)

On September 7th, 2024, we mark the 50th anniversary of President Gerald Ford signing the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) into law. Since 1974, this landmark legislation has reshaped juvenile justice by promoting reform, deinstitutionalization, and fair treatment for all youth.

Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders

A status offender is considered a youth who commits an act that would not be considered a crime if they were an adult. These acts include skipping school, running away from the home, breaking curfew, having possession or use of alcohol. Status offenders are not to be held in secure juvenile facilities for an extended amount of time or in an adult facility for any amount of time. Status offenders are often treated as if they have committed actual, law breaking crimes. JJDPA focuses on finding alternatives to incarceration such as community based programming, mental health services, mentoring programs, increasing family support, and many other mechanisms. 

A 17 year old, biracial girl who grew up in a home of domestic violence and heavy drug addiction leading her into the custody of the U.S. Department of Human and Health Services (DHHS) at an early age. She eventually ended up entering the juvenile justice system due to being a frequent runaway and fighting a drug addiction. Navigating between the two systems, her parents’ engagement in juvenile justice was very restricted and limited. The family system has a great impact on minority juveniles, even the ability to increase their chances of entering the criminal justice system and impact their chances of a positive outcome with appropriate tailor fit services for each individual family. However, the criminal justice system must provide culturally responsive tools for parents to be successful in engaging with the system in order to help their children reach a successful outcome. According to Paik (2016), Goffman describes family engagement as fluid and situational in juvenile justice. This youth’s mother and father both experienced their own struggles which created many barriers to being engaged in juvenile justice. Those barriers included housing instabilities, transportation, unaddressed mental health needs, and substance abuse, which all increase the chances of youth becoming a status offender. Unfortunately, this youth’s life was cut short right before her 18th birthday resulting from the lack of culturally appropriate engagement strategies that could have increased her parents’ chances of being better engaged. She was a status offender who never found herself out of the juvenile justice system alive. 

Adult Jail Lockup Removal and Sight and Sound Separation

Adult Jail and Lockup Removal is a core principle that emphasizes that youth may not be detained in an adult jail or lockup with the exception of times before or after court hearings (6 hour holding rule). The purpose of this is to protect youth from psychological, physical, or sexual abuse and isolation. Statistics show that youth in these conditions are 8x more likely to commit suicide, 2x more likely to be assaulted by staff, and 50% more likely to be attacked with a weapon than youth in a juvenile famility. Sight and Sound Separation is important to also protect youth from any form of abuse. There should never be a time when youth are in areas where they can see and hear adult inmates. 

Prior to Juvenile Court, juveniles were under the same jurisdiction and laws as adults. Historians have reported that up until around 1820 juveniles who had committed a crime were housed in prison with adults (Walker, 2007). The purpose of creating a separate system for juveniles was initiated by youth reformers who saw a need to protect children from adult prisoners. Children were often housed in detentions with older offenders who had committed more serious crimes. Instead of detaining children like adults, reformers believed that the focus should be rehabilitation and treatment (North Carolina Department of Public Safety, n.d.). As time progressed the system became overburdened with a large number of juvenile cases, which caught the attention of advocates and civil rights attorneys. The Gerald Gualt case changed the juvenile system greatly. This case was significant because Gerald Gualt was punished by the court, but he was not treated. Gualt was a 15 year old white boy who had been charged with making inappropriate calls to a neighbor. He was currently on probation at the time of his arrest. His mother was not notified of his arrest and he was taken to a juvenile detention home. Once his mother found out that he had been arrested, he was given a court hearing the next day. However, the officer who arrested him filed a juvenile petition and this petition went unserved on Gualt and his parents for more than two months. A court hearing was held, the victim was not present, and he was sentenced to six years, which was up to the age of 21 years old (United States Courts, 2019). 

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles must be given due process for any trial when confinement was a possibility. Due process consisted of right to notice of what they have been charged with, right to cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, right to the assistance of counsel, and the right of protection against self-incrimination. This case was significant because Gerald Gualt was punished by the court, but he was not treated (Van Keet et al., nd). Other measures could have been put into place for Gualt that included an assessment of his needs that could have been treated outside of the courts. At the time, the court’s sole purpose was to order rehabilitation treatment for juveniles instead of sentencing punishment. The mission was to understand and examine what circumstances lead to juvenile delinquency among each youth and create a plan to correct the behaviors. 

Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities

The Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) was created in 2002 to investigate the disproportionate number of minority youth in contact with the juvenile justice system (Kempf-Leonard, 2007). It found an effect on sentencing with roughly 70.5 million youth between the ages of 10 and 17 affected.  A significant gap between white and minority youth was found. Minority youth—overwhelmingly African American and Latinx—detained by law enforcement made up 69 percent, with white youth at 31 percent.An overrepresentation of African American youth and the racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system points out how necessary it is to have culturally responsive strategies to engage youth and families. 

According to the Office of Juvenile Justice (2022) statistics show that there has been a decrease in juvenile justice involvement amongst all races between 2005 and 2021. However, there is still an overrepresentation of African American and Hispanic youth. In 2020 there were roughly 35% of Black youth on a caseload, which is a 2% increase since 2005. Meanwhile, in 2020 there were 43% of White youth on a caseload, which is a 5% decrease since 2005. Looking at youth in detention centers, there were 35% African American youth on an overall caseload, with 42% in detention (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2024). Also, the statistics for youth who have been waived to adult court, African American youth are almost 3% more likely to be judicially waived and tried as an adult. They also have a 31% more chance of being placed out of the home, which holds the same for Hispanic youth and these rates have remained the same since 2005 for African American youth (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2024). 

Conclusion

As we celebrate this 50-year milestone, we honor the JJDPA’s legacy and reaffirm our commitment to its principles. The Act has not only transformed the juvenile justice system but has also inspired ongoing efforts to improve the lives of young people and ensure a fair and effective system. Here’s to the continued advancement of juvenile justice, guided by the enduring values of the JJDPA.