Definitions and Key Principles

Definitions

Glossary of Terms

This section defines key terms used throughout the National Standards. Because so much of status offense and juvenile justice policy and practice is local, not all acronyms or terms used in certain localities are listed below.

Adolescent brain science – a field of scientific study focusing on the development of the human brain from the onset of adolescence (approximately age 10) to the time when the brain has fully developed (approximately age 25), as well as its implications for social, education, child welfare and justice policy.¹

Adoption and Safe Families Act (AFSA) – a federal statute enacted in 1997 to promote the adoption of children in foster care.² Provides programs and standards that support a “safety, permanency and well-being” framework built around four primary goals: moving children promptly to permanent families, ensuring that safety is a paramount concern, elevating well-being as a major focus of child welfare system efforts, and improving innovation and accountability throughout the child welfare system.³

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) – processes that offer youth, family members and other relevant parties the opportunity to meet, often in a confidential setting and usually with trained professionals, in an attempt to resolve familial, social and legal issues without formal legal proceedings. Such processes include but are not limited to mediation, peer or teen courts and family conferencing.⁴

Assessment – an evaluation or appraisal performed selectively with those youth identified by a valid screening instrument as requiring further inquiry, and designed to gather a more comprehensive and individualized profile of a youth and his/her family’s suitability for placement in a specific treatment modality/setting. In mental health, an assessment refers to comprehensive information required for the diagnosis of a mental health disorder. An assessment differs from a screening, which is used to determine if an assessment is needed. (Also see definition of Screening.)⁵

Best practices – policies, programs, services and other strategies demonstrated through research and evaluation to be effective at preventing, reducing and eliminating certain behaviors.⁶

Blending or blended funds – a funding or resource strategy that pools dollars from multiple funding streams into one single funding stream. After funds have been blended, the once separate funding streams are indistinguishable from one another.⁷

Braiding or braided funding – a funding and resource strategy that aligns and coordinates multiple funding streams, usually to provide programs and services to youth and families along a continuum of care. Braided funding differs from blended funding in that each of the braided funding streams remains intact so that resources can be tracked more closely for the purpose of accounting to state and federal administrators.⁸

Community – a distinct and identifiable collection of individuals who despite diverse backgrounds share one or more characteristics such as geographic location, race or ethnicity, gender, age or religion.⁹

Community-based – a program, service or other strategy conducted within and by members of a particular community. The program, service or strategy can be implemented independently or in conjunction with an outside group, e.g., a government agency or nonprofit organization.¹⁰

Continuum of care – an array of programs, services and other strategies that engage youth and families at the point of prevention and moves them to early interventions and more significant system involvement only as needed. Incorporated into the continuum:

the fundamental elements of valid screening and assessment instruments;
the matching of identified needs to the appropriate programs and services; and
ensuring that the programs and services provided are effective at improving outcomes for youth and their families.¹¹

Culturally competent – the extent to which a policy, program, service or other strategy is respectful of and compatible with the cultural strengths and needs of any given youth, family and community.¹²

Curfew violation – a status offense characterized as a youth who violates an ordinance prohibiting persons below a certain age from being in certain public places during set hours.¹³

Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO) – one of four core requirements set forth by the JJDPA. Provides that youth charged with status offenses, and abused and neglected youth involved in the child welfare system, may not be placed in secure detention or locked confinement.¹⁴

Detention – the locked confinement of youth whose alleged conduct is subject to court jurisdiction and for whom a restrictive, out-of-home placement has been deemed necessary for their own safety and/or for the safety of the community while court proceedings are pending.¹⁵

Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) – the disproportionately high rate of contact that minority youth have with the child welfare or juvenile justice system in proportion to the general population and as compared with white youth. Minority youth populations include American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and persons of mixed race/ethnicity.¹⁶

Diversion – the process of responding to the needs and behaviors of youth and families without formal court processing in the juvenile justice or child welfare system.¹⁷

Empirically-supported – a program, service, practice or other strategy that is demonstrated to be effective; is based on a clearly articulated and empirically supported theory; and has measurable outcomes.

Evidence-based – a program, service, practice or other strategy that is demonstrated to be effective; is based on a clearly articulated and empirically supported theory; has measurable outcomes; and has been scientifically tested, optimally through randomized control studies or comparison group studies; and has been replicated with similar measurable outcomes.¹⁸

Gender-responsive – the intentional creation and implementation of policies, programs, practices, services and other strategies that comprehensively reflect and address the needs of a targeted gender group. Gender-responsive approaches (1) incorporate the differences between male and female development; (2) acknowledge the different pathways boys and girls take into the child welfare, status offense and juvenile justice systems; and (3) take a gender-specific and strengths-based approach to prevention and intervention.¹⁹

Family engagement – the process of intentional and meaningful involvement of families, on both the personal and organizational levels, in the decision-making, policy development and reform efforts to improve outcomes of any system in which they are a part.²⁰

Family group decision-making – an approach in which family members are brought together with key stakeholders and a trained facilitator or coordinator to make decisions about how to care for children and youth and develop a plan of service. Different names used for this type of intervention include family team conferencing, family team meetings, family group conferencing, family team decision-making, family unity meetings, and team decision-making.²¹

Indian Child Welfare Act – a federal statute enacted in 1978 that governs the removal and out-of-home placement of American Indian children, establishes standards for the placement of Indian children in foster and adoptive homes, and enables Tribes and families to be involved in child welfare and status offense cases.²²

Intervention – a program, service or other strategy designed to respond to a particular behavior or event and prevent children, youth and families from penetrating further into a given system.²³

Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) – a national strategy of the Annie E. Casey Foundation designed to demonstrate that state and local juvenile justice systems can dramatically reduce their reliance on detention without sacrificing public safety. Launched in 1992, JDAI has been replicated in over 150 jurisdictions in 32 states and the District of Columbia.²⁴

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) – a federal statute enacted in 1974 that provides a set of uniform standards of care and custody for court‐involved children and youth across the U.S. states, territories, and the District of Columbia.²⁵ The JJDPA sets forth four core requirements, or protections, with which states must comply to be eligible for federal juvenile justice funding under the statute.²⁶ States who voluntarily choose to comply with the JJDPA also receive training and technical assistance from the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).²⁷ In addition, OJJDP is charged with monitoring state compliance with the JJDPA and providing guidance to the states on how best to prevent delinquency and improve their juvenile justice systems.²⁸

LGBTQ – an inclusive acronym that refers to children and youth who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, as well as children and youth who question or are still exploring their sexual identity.²⁹

Positive Youth Development – an intentional, pro-social approach that engages youth and families in a manner that is productive and constructive; recognizes, utilizes, and enhances youths’ strengths; and promotes positive outcomes for young people by providing opportunities, fostering positive relationships, and furnishing the support needed to build on their leadership strengths.³⁰

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) – a type of anxiety disorder triggered by exposure to a traumatic event such as physical or sexual assault or exposure to violence, disasters and accidents. A common characteristic of PTSD is that the individual continues to have an extreme, often debilitating emotional response to the event even when the event has ceased and s/he is no longer in danger.³¹

Runaway – a status offense characterized as a youth leaving the home, custody or supervision of parents or caregivers without permission and failing to return within a reasonable length of time.³²

Screening – a process designed to identify the needs of children, youth and families, particularly any mental health needs, who come into contact with a system, and to determine if further intervention, including court processing, is warranted. This is contrasted with an assessment, which would occur only if a valid screening instrument indicated the need for a more in-depth inquiry. (Also see definition of Assessment.)³³

Status offender – a child or youth who commits a status offense.

Status offense – conduct that would not be unlawful if committed by an adult but is unlawful only because of a child’s or youth’s legal minor status. Common status offenses include running away, truancy/chronic absenteeism, curfew violation, ungovernability/incorrigibility/beyond the control of one’s parents and minor in possession of alcohol or tobacco products.³⁴

Truancy – a status offense characterized as a youth being absent from school without a valid excuse from a parent, caregiver or school official.³⁵ The number of unexcused absences required to trigger a charge of truancy varies from state-to-state.

Ungovernability – a status offense characterized as a youth’s failure to comply with reasonable requests of a parent or approved caregiver to the point that the youth is deemed to be beyond the control of the parent or caregiver. Also referred to as “incorrigibility” or “beyond the control of one’s parents.”

Valid court order (VCO) – a statutory exception to the DSO core requirement, amended into the JJDPA in 1980. Provides that a judge may order a youth adjudicated for a status offense into locked confinement if the youth violates a valid court order.³⁶

Youth engagement – the process of intentional and meaningful involvement of youth and families, on both the personal and organizational levels, in the decision-making, policy development and reform efforts to improve system outcomes.³⁷

¹ Coalition for Juvenile Justice.(2006). What Are the Implications of Adolescent Brain Development for Juvenile Justice. Available at: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/resource_462.pdf.

² P.L. 105-89.

³ Center for the Study of Social Policy and Urban Institute (2009.) Intentions and Results: A Look Back at the Adoption and Safe Families Act.

⁴ Edwards, Leonard P. (1996). “The Future of the Juvenile Court: Promising New Directions. “The Future of Children: The Juvenile Court, Vol. 6, No. 3. Available at: http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/06_03_10.pdf.

⁵ Adapted from the US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP’s), Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders Best Practice Database. Available at: http://www.juvenilejustice-tta.org/resources/dso/about-dso, and Vincent, G. M. (2011). Screening and Assessment in Juvenile Justice Systems: Identifying Mental Health Needs and Risk of Reoffending. Washington, DC: Technical

Assistance Partnership for Child and Family Mental Health. Available at: http://www.tapartnership.org/docs/jjResource_screeningAssessment.pdf.

⁶ Adapted from OJJDP’s Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders Best Practice Database. Available at: http://www.juvenilejustice-tta.org/resources/dso/about-dso.

⁷ Blending and Braiding Funds and Resources: The Intermediary as Facilitator. (January 2006). Washington, D.C.: National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability. Available at: http://www.ncwd-youth.info/sites/default/files/infobrief_issue18.pdf.

⁸ Id.

⁹ Adapted from “The Guide to Community Preventive Services,” an electronic resource developed by the Community Preventive Services Task Force, an independent, nonfederal, uncompensated body of public health and prevention experts whose members are appointed by the Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: http://www.thecommunityguide.org/about/glossary.html.

¹⁰ Id.

¹¹ Adapted from Lipsey, Mark. W., et al. (2010). Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs: A New Perspective on Evidence-Based Practices. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University, Georgetown Public Policy Institute, Center for Juvenile Justice Reform. Available at: http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/pdfs/ebp/ebppaper.pdf.

¹² Adapted from OJJDP’s Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders Best Practice Database. Available at: http://www.juvenilejustice-tta.org/resources/dso/about-dso, and the Child Welfare Information Gateway, an electronic resource of the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.childwelfare.gov/supporting/cultural.cfm.

¹³ Adapted from OJJDP’s Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders Best Practice Database. Available at: http://www.juvenilejustice-tta.org/resources/dso/about-dso.

¹⁴ 42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)(11) 2012.

¹⁵ Adapted from the National Juvenile Detention Association’s “Definition of Juvenile Detention.” Available at: http://npjs.org/detention/.

¹⁶ Coalition for Juvenile Justice (2010). Disproportionate Minority Contact: Facts and Resources.

¹⁷ Adapted from OJJDP’s Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders Best Practice Database. Available at: http://www.juvenilejustice-tta.org/resources/dso/about-dso.

¹⁸ Adapted from S. 678, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2009. Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111s678rs/pdf/BILLS-111s678rs.pdf.

¹⁹ Adapted from the “Gender-Responsive Definitions?” of the National Girls Institute, http://www.nationalgirlsinstitute.org/i-work-with-girls/resources-best-practices/gender-responsive-definitions/, and Sydney, L. (October 2005). Supervision of Women Defendants and Offenders in the Community. Gender-Responsive Strategies for Women Offenders. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Correction, U.S. Department of Justice.

²⁰ Adapted from Aracelis, G. and Cheryl D. Hayes. (2008.) Understanding the State of Knowledge of Youth Engagement Financing and Sustainability. The Finance Project. Washington. D.C.

²¹ Adapted from the Child Welfare Information Gateway, an electronic resource of the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.childwelfare.gov. For a comparison of approaches, see Annie. E. Casey Foundation. Family Teaming: Comparing Approaches (2009). Available at: http://www.caseyfamilyservices.org/userfiles/pdf/teaming-comparing-approaches-2009.pdf.

²² Adapted from Adapted from the Child Welfare Information Gateway, an electronic resource of the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/courts/icwa.cfm.

²³ Adapted from OJJDP’s Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders Best Practice Database. Available at: http://www.juvenilejustice-tta.org/resources/dso/about-dso.

²⁴ For more information, visit their website at: www.jdaihelpdesk.org.

²⁵ cf. 42. U.S.C. § 5602.

²⁶ 42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)(11‐ 13), (22) 2012.

²⁷ 42 U.S.C. § 5633(f) 2012.

²⁸ 42 U.S.C. § 5614(b) 2012.

²⁹ National Center for Lesbian Rights. LGBTQ Youth in the Foster Care System. Available at: http://www.nclrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/LGBTQ_Youth_Juvenile_Justice_Factsheet.pdf.

³⁰ Taken from FindYouthInfo.gov, an on-line resource created by the Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs (IWGYP) comprising representatives from 12 federal departments and five federal agencies that support programs and services focusing on youth. Available at: http://www.findyouthinfo.gov/youth-topics/positive-youth-development.

³¹ Hetrick SE, Purcell R, Garner B, Parslow R. “Combined Pharmacotherapy and Psychological Therapies for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).”Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD007316. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007316.pub2. Abstract available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0014403/; “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).” Washington, D.C: National Institute of Mental Health, National Institute of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd/nimh_ptsd_booklet.pdf.

³² Adapted from OJJDP’s Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders Best Practice Database. Available at: http://www.juvenilejustice-tta.org/resources/dso/about-dso.

³³ Adapted from OJJDP’s Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders Best Practice Database. Available at: http://www.juvenilejustice-tta.org/resources/dso/about-dso, and Vincent, G. M. (2011). “Screening and Assessment in Juvenile Justice Systems: Identifying Mental Health Needs and Risk of Reoffending.” Washington, DC: Technical Assistance Partnership for Child and Family Mental Health. Available at: http://www.tapartnership.org/docs/jjResource_screeningAssessment.pdf.

³⁴ 28 C.F.R. § 31.304(h) (2008).

³⁵ National Center for School Engagement. (August 2006.) Guidelines for a National Definition of Truancy and Calculating Rates.

³⁶ PL 96‐509, 1980 S 2441, 94 Stat. 2755 (December 1980).

³⁷ Adapted from Aracelis, G. and Cheryl D. Hayes. (2008.) Understanding the State of Knowledge of Youth Engagement Financing and Sustainability. The Finance Project. Washington. D.C.

Key Principles

Section 1. Principles for Responding to Status Offenses

Judicial, legal, law enforcement, justice, social service and school professionals working with youth alleged to have committed status offenses and their families should:

Apply a child and family-centric approach to status offense cases by prioritizing child and family safety, well-being and permanency for the child (Section 1.1)
Understand and apply current and emerging scientific knowledge about adolescent development, particularly as it relates to court-involved youth (Section 1.2)
Understand positive youth development principles and how they can be used to achieve better outcomes for court-involved youth (Section 1.3)
Ensure that past trauma and other experiences, which may underlie or lead to status-offending behaviors, are identified and responded to with appropriate screening, assessment, treatment, services and supports (Section 1.4)
Implement a status offense system framework that promotes shared leadership and responsibility by encouraging youth engagement in court, agency, and other meetings affecting their case, safety, well-being, treatment services and/or placement (Section 1.5)
Utilize alternative dispute resolution strategies to resolve youth and family conflicts outside of the court system (Section 1.6)
Employ family engagement strategies that identify and emphasize a family’s strengths, and empower families to find and implement solutions outside of the court system (Section 1.7)
Eliminate racial and ethnic disparities by being culturally aware and ensuring impartial and equal access to culturally-competent prevention and intervention services and treatment for youth charged with status offenses and their families (Section 1.8)
Understand the developmental, behavioral and social differences between boys and girls and how their service needs are accordingly different. Make gender-responsive choices regarding interventions, treatment and services before, during, and following court involvement (Section 1.9)
Ensure that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or questioning (LGBTQ) youth who are charged with status offenses receive fair treatment, equal access to services, and respect and sensitivity from all professionals and other youth in court, agency, service, school and placement (Section 1.10)
Ensure children do not enter the status offense system because of learning, mental health, sensory, speech/language or co-occurring disabilities. Ensure that children with disabilities who do enter the status offense system are treated fairly and given access to needed evaluations, treatments and services (Section 1.11)
Coordinate with other relevant formal and informal systems of care to better serve children and families (Section 1.12)

Section 2. Efforts to Avoid Court Involvement

Education, social service, community-based, child welfare, runaway and homeless youth, mental health, law enforcement and juvenile justice systems should:

Aim to resolve all status offense matters through the provision of voluntary diversion services (Section 2.1)
Determine the proper course of action by identifying the family circumstances, unmet needs, or other factors that led to contact with the status offense system (Section 2.2)
Train professionals who first respond to alleged status offenses about family and community dynamics and other factors that can cause status behaviors, as well as the availability and role of screenings, assessments and services (Section 2.3)

Law enforcement systems should:

Focus on prevention and intervention by connecting children and families to needed services in lieu of charging or detaining children alleged to have committed status offenses (Section 2.4)

Education systems should:

Implement responses to truancy that match the reasons youth are absent from school and that aim to avoid court involvement, school suspension or expulsion (Section 2.5)

Child welfare, juvenile justice and runaway and homeless youth systems should:

Implement responses to alleged status behaviors that aim to avoid court involvement and are tailored to the reasons the youth and family have been referred to the child welfare, juvenile justice or runaway and homeless youth system (Section 2.6)

Court intake personnel should:

Not accept jurisdiction over any status offense case until it has been determined that the applicable statutory requirements were met and that the agency that first responded to the claim made reasonable efforts to avoid court involvement by exhausting all available, culturally appropriate, pre-court assessments, services, entitlements and treatments (Section 2.7)

Section 3. Efforts to Limit Court Involvement

Judicial officers should:

Dismiss or, alternatively, stay proceedings when community-based services or other formal or informal systems approaches would circumvent the need for continued court jurisdiction (Section 3.1)
Assess early whether the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) applies (Section 3.2)
Ensure youth charged with status offenses have independent, qualified and effective representation throughout status offense proceedings (Section 3.3)
Not allow children in status offense cases to waive counsel or alternatively only allow waiver if: (1) the waiver is on the record, (2) the court has fully inquired into the child’s understanding and capacity and (3) the waiver occurs in the presence of and in consultation with an attorney (Section 3.4)
Exercise their statutory and inherent authorities to determine, prior to adjudication, whether youth and families received, in a timely manner, appropriate interventions that could have limited their court involvement (Section 3.5)
Exercise their statutory and inherent authorities throughout the child and family’s court involvement to ensure that service delivery systems are providing the appropriate assessments, treatments and services to children and families in status offense cases (Section 3.6)
Assess alternatives to out-of-home placement or secure confinement (Section 3.7)
Not securely detain or confine youth at any point in the status offense process (Section 3.8)

Lawyers for alleged and adjudicated status offenders should:

Advocate for voluntary and community-based assistance to limit and/or avoid continued court involvement and secure confinement (Section 3.9)
Advocate for child clients to be treated fairly throughout the court process and for their due process rights to be protected (Section 3.10)
Ensure that child clients’ rights and entitlements under relevant federal and state laws are protected (Section 3.11)

Judicial officers and entities providing case management services should:

Effectively manage and close court and agency cases in a timely manner (Section 3.12)

Section 4. Recommendations for Policy and Legislative Implementation

State and local policymakers and advocates should:

Eliminate juvenile court penalties and sanctions for behaviors labeled status offenses and ensure that systems are accurately responding to behaviors as either episodes of normal adolescent behavior, or critical unmet youth and family needs that are best resolved through non-judicial interventions and supports (Section 4.1)
Support an infrastructure of community-based and child and family serving programs and systems to ensure direct youth and family access to a seamless, comprehensive and non-judicial continuum of care that is empowered and resourced to respond to behaviors that might otherwise be labeled as status offenses (Section 4.2)
In those limited circumstances where court involvement is necessary, ensure court mechanisms are in place that allow the appropriate court division to effectively serve the needs of the youth and family without inappropriate use or risk of more punitive outcomes for the child and family (Section 4.3)
Prohibit schools from referring youth who engage in status offense behaviors to court unless and until the school has made all reasonable efforts to avoid court involvement (Section 4.4)
Prohibit parents/caregivers from referring youth who engage in status offense behaviors to the juvenile court until the family has first sought and meaningfully engaged non-judicial interventions (Section 4.5)
Promote coordinated, blended or braided public funding streams that create a seamless, comprehensive community-based continuum of care for youth and families (Section 4.6)
Enact laws that ensure the right to counsel for youth who come into contact with the juvenile court for a status offense by not allowing youth to waive their right to counsel or only allowing waiver if: (1) it is on the record, (2) the court has fully inquired into the child’s understanding and capacity, and (3) the waiver occurs in the presence of and in consultation with an attorney (Section 4.7)
Prohibit the use of locked confinement for youth petitioned to court for a status offense (Section 4.8)
Mandate meaningful efforts to engage youth and families in all aspects of case planning, service delivery, court proceedings and disposition strategies (Section 4.9)

Federal policymakers and advocates should:

Amend the JJDPA to prohibit the use of the valid court order (VCO) exception to securely confine youth adjudicated for status offenses (Section 4.10)
Strengthen relevant federal agencies to provide research, training and technical assistance to state and local authorities to better assist state status offense system reform efforts (Section 4.11)
Create coordinated approaches between federal government agencies and programs that serve youth and families that will help states coordinate, blend or braid federal funding streams to create a seamless, comprehensive and, to the greatest extent possible, non-judicial continuum of care for youth and families (Section 4.12)