Issue Areas

---

Truancy and Other Status Offenses

---

Truancy

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 includes a discussion of research supporting the need to keep truant youth out of the court system and offers concrete steps education system professionals can take to identify and address the causes of truancy without justice system involvement, such as contacting the family and following up with a home visit or in-school meeting, making appropriate referrals and developing a plan with the youth and family to resolve the issues. School-based truancy or youth courts,  as well as alternative learning environments, are also discussed as possible responses.

Youth with Disabilities 

Youth-serving and school systems should ensure young people don’t enter the status offense system because of learning, mental health, sensory, speech/language or co-occurring disabilities. School professionals should use resources at their disposal through IDEA, Section 504 and/or Medicaid-EPSTD to identify the extent of the disability and provide relevant services to avoid status offense system involvement that may only exacerbate the problems the child and family are experiencing.  Section 1.11 provides concrete suggestions for education system professionals, as well as mental health and law enforcement to steer at risk youth with disabilities away from the status offense court system. 

Training Professionals

Youth-serving and education systems should train professionals who first respond to alleged status offenses, such as truancy, about family and community dynamics and other factors that can cause these behaviors, as well as the availability and role of screenings, assessments and services. See Section 2.3 to learn more.This page was adapted from the National Standards for the Care of Youth Charged with Status Offenses.

---

¹ Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model Programs Guide (and citations therein) (no date). Truancy Prevention.

---

Girls in the Juvenile Justice System

Research shows that boys are more likely than girls to be arrested and prosecuted in juvenile delinquency court, and that girls are more likely to be arrested for 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 make gender-responsive choices regarding interventions, treatment and services before, during, and following court involvement.

---

LGBTQ Youth 

Judicial, legal, law enforcement, justice, social service and school professionals should 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.  

LGBTQ youth are over-represented in the juvenile justice system, are more likely to be seriously maltreated by other youth in the system, and may receive excessive punishments, including secure confinement due to court biases or misguided attempts to keep these youth “safe.”¹  LGBTQ youth faced increased risks of being rejected by their families and bullied and harassed at school, which can lead to running away and truancy.²

Families should be treated as potential allies in supporting LGBTQ youth.³ Targeted interventions can work to change the behavior of families that are not initially accepting of LGBTQ children, and research shows that even small improvements in family acceptance of LGBTQ youth can lead to better physical and mental health outcomes.⁴  For this reason, it is essential that LGBTQ youth and their families are offered support services and that every effort is made to keep youth in their homes whenever it is safe to do so.  Youth and their families must also receive necessary supports and services to avoid court involvement altogether.  Detention facilities and residential placements must be made LGBTQ-affirming to reduce victimization among youth who may need to be placed out of their homes. Learn more about LGBTQ youth in Section 1.10.

---

¹  Minter, S. & Jeff Krehely (2011) “Families Matter: New Research Calls for a Revolution in Public Policy for LGBT Children and Youth.” Washington DC: Center for American Progress. Majd, K.,  Marksamer, J., and Carolyn Reyes. (2009) “Hidden Injustice: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth in Juvenile Courts.”

² Id.

³ Minter, S., & Jeff Krehely (2011) “Families Matter: New Research Calls for a Revolution in Public Policy for LGBT Children and Youth.” Washington DC: Center for American Progress.

⁴ Id.

---

Disproportionate Minority Contact

Racial and Ethnic Disparities

Judicial, legal, law enforcement, justice, social service and school professionals should 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.  

Disproportionate minority contact (DMC) refers to the disproportionate representation of ethnic, racial and linguistic minority youth in the juvenile court system.  The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) was broadened in scope in 2002 to require that states¹ address “disproportionate minority contact” (emphasis added) instead of only being required to address the disproportionality of minority youth in confinement.  Under the JJDPA, the federal government can withhold some of a state’s future grant allocation for the subsequent year if they fail to address disproportionality at all stages of justice system involvement.²

Minority youth are overrepresented in every aspect of the justice system.  African American youth represent 16 percent of the adolescents in this country, but comprise 40 percent of the youth incarcerated in local detention and state correctional facilities, and Latino youth are incarcerated in local detention and state correctional facilities nearly twice as often as white youth. Research shows that youth of color are treated more harshly than white youth when charged with the same category of offense, including status offenses.³  In 2009, the runaway case rate for African American youth was more than three times the rate for white youth, and the ungovernability case rate for African American youth was more than twice the rate of white youth.⁴  That same year the liquor law violation case rate for American Indian juveniles was more than three times the white rate.⁵

To alter the overrepresentation of minority youth in the system requires an understanding of and action plan to address the underlying disparities that bring minority youth in contact with the system.⁶  Effective responses to youth charged with status offenses and their families must have the intent and the effect of reducing the disparate treatment of minority youth at all points along the continuum, from prevention to identification to intervention.  See Section 1.8 to learn more about Disproportionate Minority Contact.

---

¹ In this context, “states” refers to all U.S. states, territories and the District of Columbia.

² Soler, M. and Lisa Garry. (2009) Reducing Disproportionate Minority Contact: Preparation at the Local Level. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

³ Although some status offense charges, such as liquor or curfew violations originate from police interaction or arrest, many referrals to the status offense system come from schools, home, or other service providers.

⁴ Puzzanchera, C. Adams, B., and Sarah Hockenberry. 2012. Juvenile Court Statistics 2009. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

⁵ Id.

⁶ Chapin Hall Center for Children. (2008). Understanding Racial and Ethnic Disparity in Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.

---

Use of the Valid Court Order

Research has shown the damaging effects detention or secure confinement can have on children, whether as a detention method pre-court or as a form of punishment after adjudication.  Children who are securely detained are more likely to become more deeply involved in the juvenile or criminal justice system and are more likely to re-enter the criminal justice system than children who participate in community-based programs.  Detention also has a negative and significant impact on many facets of the child’s life.  A child who has been securely detained has a higher likelihood of suffering from physical or mental health problems, struggling in or not completing school and having difficulty in the labor market later in life.¹  In addition, placing a child charged with a noncriminal status offense in secure confinement with children who have been accused of serious criminal offenses may expose the child to negative influences and behaviors that could lead to re-entry into the status offense system or entry into the delinquency system.²

Since 1974, the Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO) core requirement of the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) has provided that youth adjudicated for a status offense may not be placed in locked confinement.³  In 1984, the JJDPA was amended to provide an exception to the DSO core requirement that allows judges to securely confine youth adjudicated for a status offense if the child violated a “valid” order of the court.  (known as the VCO exception)⁴ While intended to be an exception to the rule, the VCO exception has amounted to “bootstrapping,” as it takes a status offense, protected from secure/locked detention under the JJDPA, and converts it into a delinquent act that is not entitled to the same protection. Federal and local policymakers and advocates should amend the JJDPA to prohibit the use of the VCO exception to securely confine youth adjudicated for status offenses.

CJJ released an Emerging Issues Policy Brief on the Use of the Valid Court Order. The brief examines how the VCO is used in the states.

To learn more about the VCO, go to Section 3.8, Section 4.8, and Section 4.10 of the National Standards of Care for Youth Charged with Status Offenses.

This page was adapted from the National Standards for the Care of Youth Charged with Status Offenses and the Emerging Issues Brief on the Use of the VCO.

---

¹ Holman, B., et al., (2007) The Dangers of Detention: The Impact of Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Secure Facilities. Justice Policy Institute, Annie E. Casey Foundation.

² Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. “Community-Based Alternatives to Secure Detention and Incarceration” in Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders Best Practices Database.

³ Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (Fall/Winter 1995). “Deinstitutionalizing Status Offenders: A Record of Progress.” Juvenile Justice, II (2). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

⁴ Id.

---

Runaways and Ungovernability

Trauma

System players must ensure that past trauma and other experiences are identified and responded to with appropriate screening, assessment, treatment, services and supports. Section 1.4 illustrates ways social service agencies and courts can recognize and respond to the impact trauma has on youth charged with status offenses, particularly in runaway and ungovernability cases.

Gender-Responsive Services

System players should understand the developmental, behavioral and social differences between boys and girls and how their service needs are accordingly different. Section 1.9 outlines concrete steps professional can take to make gender-responsive choices regarding interventions, treatment and services before, during, and following court involvement.

First Responders

First responders to status offense cases should aim to resolve all status offense matters through the provision of voluntary diversion services and by determining the reason behind system contact.  There are many steps professionals can take to promote voluntary service alternatives for their  runaway and ungovernability clients, and strategies they can use to identify the family circumstances or unmet needs that prompted system involvement. See Section 2 to learn more. 

Prevention and Intervention

Law enforcement professionals play a critical role in ensuring young people do not unnecessarily enter the status offense system.  The National Standards calls upon them to focus on prevention and intervention by connecting children and families to needed services in lieu of charging or detaining children. See Section 2.4 to learn more.

---

Juvenile Defenders

Juvenile defenders play an important role in helping ensure young people charged with status offenses do not slip deeper into the justice system or experience the negative outcomes associated with system involvement.

CJJ released Guidance for Juvenile Defenders in Status Offense Cases, which outlines the important issues to consider in status offenses cases.

Legal, judicial, and social service providers should apply a child- and family-centric approach to status offense cases. There are several ways system stakeholders can better integrate the principles of safety, permanency, and well-being into status offense cases. See Section 1.1 of the National Standards for Care of Youth Charged with Status Offenses for more details.

Juvenile counsel should advocate for voluntary and community-based assistance to limit and/or avoid continued court involvement and secure confinement. There are many steps attorneys can take to promote voluntary service alternatives for their clients and strategies to help clients avoid deeper justice system involvement and secure confinement. See Section 3.9 for more details.

Juvenile counsel should advocate that child clients be treated fairly throughout the court process and that their due process rights be protected. There are many ways that a young person’s lawyer can help ensure fair treatment, such as assuring the client is present for each court hearing or protecting the client’s privacy rights when mental health screenings or assessments are introduced. See Section 3.10 for more details.

Juvenile defenders should also protect the child client’s rights and entitlements. As illustrated in the commentary to this section, there are several entitlements or laws that may be applicable to a young person in the status offense system, such as Medicaid, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Indian Child Welfare Act. See Section 3.11 for more details.

---

Positive Youth Development

Judicial, legal, law enforcement, justice, social service and school professionals should understand positive youth development principles and how they can be used to achieve better outcomes for court-involved youth. Positive Youth Development (PYD) focuses on assets and skills, rather than risks and problems, and allows youth to develop decision-making abilities, work as part of a team and help others. Research has shown that approaches that focus on youth’s strengths and assets and that help youth build resiliency are more effective than approaches that only address their needs or weaknesses.¹  Experts suggest the following ways that PYD may be applied to respond to and prevent youth offenses:²

• Support honest discussions between adolescents and their parents that address and resolve conflict while encouraging development and recognizing strengths and accomplishments.
• Encourage youth relationships with adults other than parents who can serve as positive role models and advisors.
• Promote safe and healthy relationships with peers, based on shared interests and support.
• Encourage healthy lifestyle choices, including exercise and nutrition.
• Support positive organized activities, such as sports, the arts, or faith-based leagues or groups that give youth a sense of belonging.
• Allow youth to participate in activities that enable them to be engaged in and feel attached to their community and local events.
• Place youth in situations where they are able to make good decisions, use good judgment, come to understand the risks and consequences for their own decisions, set goals and envision a future where their goals are achieved.
   

Work or service-based alternatives to formal court involvement may also integrate aspects of PYD, especially when youth participation is based on individual interests and strengths.  Numerous programs around the country have used PYD principles to help youth who have committed delinquent offenses to recognize and build on their own strengths while contributing to their communities, such as by using artistic talents to turn graffiti covered walls into murals, or using athletics (including coaching and mentoring) to build self-esteem and promote achievement.³

---

¹ Some experts have suggested that increasing youth resiliency involves: 1) increasing connectedness, or relationships with one or more supportive adult(s); 2) developing  mastery or focusing on a youth’s particular skill or talent, such as painting; or soccer and 3) helping youth learn to control their own emotions (called affect regulation).

² Adapted from the suggestions of Jeffrey Butts, Ph.D. in Coalition for Juvenile Justice. (2006) “Applying Research to Practice Brief: What Are the Implications of Adolescent Brain Development for Juvenile Justice?” 

³ Butts, J. et al. (2010).  “Positive Youth Justice: Framing Justice Interventions Using the Concepts of Positive Youth Development.” Washington, DC: Coalition for Juvenile Justice. 

---

Adolescent Brain Development

Judicial, legal, law enforcement, justice, social service and school professionals working with youth alleged to have committed status offenses and their families should understand and apply current and emerging scientific knowledge about adolescent development, particularly as it relates to court-involved youth. Advances in brain science and technology are helping us better understand how the adolescent brain functions. We now know that young people’s brains continue to mature until their early- to mid-20s, and adolescents’ brains are different from adults’ both structurally and in how they are influenced by chemicals produced by the body, such as dopamine.¹  Adolescents are more likely to be influenced by peers, engage in risky and impulsive behaviors, experience mood swings, or have reactions that are stronger or weaker than a situation warrants.²  These differences do not mean that youth behavior that is harmful to themselves or others should be ignored.  Rather, it means that courts, agencies and practitioners should use this knowledge to inform and perhaps modify their practices and policies.

The U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged the differences in youth brain development and culpability in several recent decisions that strike down extreme sentencing for court-involved youth.³  Still, many juvenile and family courts are not entirely familiar with the relevant science and research that underlie the Court’s conclusions.  Consequently, these juvenile and family courts are not yet fully using available research to guide decision-making.  Professionals and systems need to educate themselves about the inherently different ways youth understand and react to the world around them, and use such knowledge to inform system responses to youth in need and youth alleged to have committed status offenses.  Potential changes include providing guidance and structure to youth and their families, and recognizing that adolescents will still sometimes make poor decisions and it is the adult caregiver’s and system’s role to help them recover from mistakes and make better decisions.⁴ See Section 1.2 to learn more about adolescent brain development. 

---

¹ These recommendations are adapted from Coalition for Juvenile Justice. (2006) “Applying Research to Practice Brief: What Are the Implications of Adolescent Brain Development for Juvenile Justice?”

² Id.

³ See Roper v. Simmons, 542 U.S. 551 (2005) (regarding the juvenile death penalty) and Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (regarding life without parole for juveniles). 

⁴ See Coalition for Juvenile Justice (2006) “Emerging Concepts Brief: What Are the Implications of Adolescent Brain Development for Juvenile Justice?” (pgs. 4-8).

---

Mental Health

The Effects of Trauma

Juvenile justice and social service agencies and courts must take steps to recognize and respond to the impact of trauma on the children they serve. Many youth alleged to have committed status offenses have been victims of child abuse or neglect and/or have witnessed family or community violence.  These experiences may be traumatic and in some cases will lead to short- or long-term traumatic stress symptoms. Studies estimate that past traumatic experiences and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder are twice as common among juvenile justice-involved youth.¹ Children who are abused or who experience other types of violence are more likely to commit crimes (as minors or adults), have mental health and substance abuse issues, and commit suicide.  Youth who witness family or community violence are also more likely to have social and academic problems, and experience anxiety, depression and/or aggression.²  Traumatic stress can manifest as anxiety, depression, concentration issues (post-traumatic stress is frequently misdiagnosed as ADHD), impulsivity, emotional numbing, lack of affect, and conduct problems, among other issues.³ See Section 1.4 to learn how trauma can affect health and mental health.

Training for First Responders

Training is critical for first responders in the child welfare, education, juvenile justice, law enforcement,⁴ social service, mental health and runaway and homeless youth systems.  Educating responders on the various home, community and school factors that contribute to or cause status behaviors will equip them to contribute to and implement a system that tailors approaches to the specific needs of each child and family.  Elements of the training should give first responders the ability to recognize signs of trauma, disability and mental health issues, as well as put behavior in the proper cultural and socioeconomic contexts. See Section 2.3 for more information about training first response professionals to identify health and mental health needs of youth charged with status offenses.

Youth with Undiagnosed or Mistreated Disabilities

Judicial, legal, law enforcement, justice, social service and school professionals working with youth alleged to have committed status offenses and their families should ensure that children with learning, mental health, sensory, speech/language or co-occurring disabilities are treated fairly and given access to needed evaluations, treatments and services. Often the conduct that leads to status offense system involvement relates to an unknown, under diagnosed or mistreated disability. Implementing and coordinating early screening, assessment and intervention strategies before court involvement is key to providing needed supports to children and families and limiting or avoiding unnecessary court involvement. See Section 1.11 for more information about youth with undiagnosed or mistreated disabilities.

---

¹ Ford, J. D., Steinberg, K., Hawke, J., Levine, J., & Zhang, W. (2012). “Randomized Trial Comparison of Emotion Regulation and Relational Psychotherapies for PTSD with Girls Involved in Delinquency.” Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 41, 27-37; Ford, J D., J Hartman, K.,  Hawke, J., and John F. Chapman.  (2008). “Traumatic Victimization, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Suicidal Ideation, and Substance Abuse Risk Among Juvenile Justice-Involved Youth” Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma. 1(1).

² Siegfried, C.B., Ko, S.J., & Kelly, A. (2004). “Victimization and Juvenile Offending.” Pg. 5, Los Angeles, CA and Durham, NC: National Child Traumatic Stress Network: Juvenile Justice Working Group.

³ National Child Traumatic Stress Network Child Welfare Committee. Child Welfare Trauma Training Toolkit (2008).

⁴  A survey of police chiefs by the International Association of Chiefs of Police found that departments had not provided juvenile justice in-service training to officers and that half of the agencies responding did not mandate in-service juvenile justice training after the academy. International Association of Chiefs of Police (2011). Juvenile Justice Training Needs Assessment: A Survey of Law Enforcement. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.