Section 1

Principles for Responding to Status Offenses

Key Principles

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)

---

Child and Family Safety, Well-Being, and Permanency

Section 1.1

Judicial, Legal, Law Enforcement, Justice, Social Service and School Professionals 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

Youth who come into contact with the court system because of an alleged status offense have often experienced poverty, trauma, abuse and neglect, as well as other physical and emotional injuries and disadvantages.  When investigating such cases, it is not uncommon for a first responder to discover that the youth could be referred to and better served by the child welfare system instead of the delinquency system.  Recognizing the significant need for child and family-centered responses, several states have empowered their child welfare systems to respond to status offense cases.¹  Yet, despite the fact that youth charged with status offenses have not been accused of a criminal or delinquent offense, more than half the states (and their local jurisdictions) vest the authority to respond to status offenses with their respective delinquency systems rather than their child welfare systems. In many cases, whether a child enters one system over the other is simply a function of the child’s age.

The National Standards advocate that states and local jurisdictions configure their systems to quickly identify the root cause of a youth’s alleged charge and consistently keep youth and their families’ interests at the center of any response or intervention.

The National Standards propose a different construct, one that mirrors the “safety, permanency and well-being” framework of the child welfare system’s Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA).²   Like ASFA’s focus on the child’s best interests, the National Standards advocate that states and local jurisdictions configure their systems to quickly identify the root cause of a youth’s alleged charge and consistently keep youth and their families’ interests at the center of any response or intervention.  Pursuing these and other reforms in systems and system culture will ensure implementation of policies, programs and practices that can most effectively meet the needs of youth and their families with little or no court intervention.

Important principles adapted from ASFA that can and should be considered when responding to families and youth alleged to have committed a status offense include:³

• Efforts to identify the cause of the status offense should begin well before court involvement and be expedited, where appropriate, with the provision of services to the youth and family. It is critical that  relevant stakeholders, where appropriate, provide services or supports as quickly as possible to enable youth and/or families in crisis to address and resolve problems.  When timely and intensive services are provided, agencies and courts can make informed decisions about the youth’s/family’s ability to function without deeper system assistance.  It is also important that those same stakeholders not widen the justice system net by providing diversion or intervention services where no action is needed or if even nominal justice system involvement could have a negative effect on the youth or family, particularly in low-risk, first time cases.⁴
• Involvement in the court system for a status offense can lead to deeper justice system involvement. Research shows that the longer youth are court-involved the greater the likelihood that they may enter and become embroiled in the justice system. Thus, system responses should prioritize diversion approaches and other responses that prevent or limit youths’ court involvement.⁵
• Responses to status offense behaviors should focus on system accountability and positive outcomes for youth and their families. There are a number of tools that jurisdictions, organizations and practitioners can use to focus on system accountability and quality service delivery for families in crisis, including annual reports of performance with statistics on cases diverted from court, cases petitioned to court and cases that re-enter the system.  State and local jurisdictions should also assess additional ways to create performance-based incentives for agencies that manage and contribute to the response.  Section 4 of the National Standards specifies that policymakers should work toward and expect positive results in status offense cases.
• Effective responses to status offense behaviors should do no harm. Given the nature and underlying causes of status offense behaviors, jurisdictions should make any and all reasonable efforts to not further traumatize youth who may already be suffering from physical, mental and emotional injury.  “Do no harm” approaches will avoid court involvement in the first instance and prevent youth from being securely confined at any point in the process.

---

¹ See, e.g., 42 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Annotated Judiciary and Judicial Procedures § 6302; 31 Delaware Code Annotated § 301; Minnesota Statutes Annotated § 260C.007.

² Adoption and Safe Families Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1305, et. seq. (1997). 

³ Principles discussion adapted from:  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. (1998). “Program Instruction, Log No. ACYF-CB-PI-98-02.” Available at:  http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/policy/pi/1998/pi9802.htm.

⁴ See, The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. (Sept. 1999) Diversion Programs, An Overview. Available at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/9909-3/div.html.

⁵ See, e.g.,  Petrosino, A, Turpin-Petrosino, C., and Sarah Guckenburg (January 2010). “Formal System Processing of Juveniles: Effects on Delinquency.” Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2010:1.

---

Adolescent Brain Development

Section 1.2

Judicial, Legal, Law Enforcement, Justice, Social Service and School Professionals 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. Some ways that stakeholders can achieve these goals include:⁴

1. Support and participate in education and awareness raising activities.  Numerous publications and resources provide more detail on adolescent development, developmental needs and differences, and connect these understandings with youth misconduct and court involvement.⁵  Professionals should work to educate themselves and their colleagues about these issues, as well as help adolescents understand how their own brain functions and how it impacts their behavior and reactions.
2. Ensure that courts and other decision makers who impact the lives of adolescents take into account general information about youth development and maturity, but also look at the specific circumstances of each young person’s past and present life circumstances (e.g., prior offenses, past and current trauma, family relationships). 
3. Use available scientific knowledge to evaluate and inform decisions about competence, culpability, disposition and defenses.
4. Focus on adolescents’ ability to contribute to their families and society, and work to build on their existing interests and strengths.  This includes supporting healthy bonds between adults and young people, and allowing adolescents to make their own decisions and develop their own judgment in safe environments.
5. Encourage and work with government and philanthropic organizations to fund promising or proven approaches that use scientific knowledge to craft and implement responses to youth alleged to have committed status offenses, as well as support the evaluation and reform of state laws on these issues.

---

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?” Available at http://www.juvjustice.org/sites/default/files/resource-files/resource_138_0.pdf.

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).

⁵ Id. (Includes a list of additional resources.)

---

Positive Youth Development

Section 1.3

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 youths’ 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?”  Available at http://www.juvjustice.org/sites/default/files/resource-files/resource_138_0.pdf.

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.

---

Trauma

Section 1.4

Judicial, Legal, Law Enforcement, Justice, Social Service and School Professionals Should 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

Juvenile justice and social service agencies and courts can take steps to recognize and respond to the impact of trauma on the children they serve:⁵

• Implement universal screening using trauma-specific instruments with proven reliability and validity, such as the UCLA PTSD index,⁶ the Traumatic Events Screening Inventory⁷ or the MAYSI-2.⁸
• Provide youth with evidence-based or empirically-supported interventions to address the effects of trauma.  Information about different evidence based practices including Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Trauma Affect Regulation: Guide for Education and Therapy, is available from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.⁹
• Raise awareness among court staff, agency personnel and the community about the impact of trauma, including multi-disciplinary training for judges, social workers and others about how trauma impacts brain development, symptoms of traumatic stress, and other trauma-related topics.
• Provide intensive training for detention facility staff so that certain youth behaviors are recognized as symptoms of traumatic stress, rather than simple disobedience or acting out, and responded to appropriately.
• Front-load and expedite dispositions and provide court orientations to youth in order to connect them to services faster and reduce the likelihood of system-induced trauma.
• Educate attorneys on how to interview clients using trauma-informed strategies.

Everyone reacts to exposure to violence differently, so how traumatic experiences will manifest in emotions and behavior varies from one youth to another.  For this reason, professionals should consider past victimization and other types of experiences that may have led to a status offense charge, even in youth who do not seem to be suffering from traumatic stress symptoms.  

Youth in the court system may require screening for past trauma and should receive necessary services.  Professionals working with these youth must understand how past trauma affects their system involvement and futures.  Youth should also be protected from self-incrimination while being screened for trauma or other behavioral health conditions. Screening forms or assessments used at various stages may ask about potentially illegal acts, such as substance abuse or violent reactions to feelings of anxiety or stress, and disclosures may not be protected by confidentiality rules when asked in a court, rather than a clinical, context.¹⁰  Youth should be told how information in these tools will be used and shared, and that they can skip any questions they do not wish to answer. 

System-induced trauma should be minimized by avoiding court involvement and secure confinement, minimizing out-of-home placement and placement changes, and choosing therapeutic, rather than punitive, settings if out-of-home placement is necessary.  Involving and educating parents and other family members about the impact of trauma is also essential, both because this information will help them be a resource for their children and because many parents of youth in the court system have also experienced (and are still impacted by) traumatic events.¹¹

Everyone reacts to exposure to violence differently, so how traumatic experiences will manifest in emotions and behavior varies from one youth to another.  For this reason, professionals should consider past victimization and other types of experiences that may have led to a status offense charge, even in youth who do not seem to be suffering from traumatic stress symptoms.  For example, lack of accommodation for a student who is not fluent in English, or who has a learning disability may or may not appear to be traumatic, but should certainly be addressed if a youth is involved in a truancy case.  Professionals should also be aware that gender differences exist both in the types of trauma youth commonly experience (e.g., girls are more likely to be sexually abused, and/or abused in relationships, while boys are more likely to be physically assaulted and to witness death or injuries) and effects of trauma (girls are more likely to meet PTSD diagnostic criteria, and experience depression and anxiety).¹²  Understanding a young person’s past (possibly traumatic) experiences can help professionals better serve them in many ways, from an attorney advocating that traumatic experiences should be considered as a mitigating factor at disposition to a caseworker, probation officer or detention staff member ensuring that an adolescent is screened and receives necessary treatment for PTSD.

---

¹ Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., Hamby, S., & Richard Ormrod. (2011). “Polyvictimization: Children’s Exposure to Multiple Types of Violence, Crime, and Abuse.” Juvenile Justice Bulletin – NCJ 235504. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available at: http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/jvq/Polyvictimization%20OJJDP%20bulletin.pdf.

² 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).

³ 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.

⁴ National Child Traumatic Stress Network Child Welfare Committee. Child Welfare Trauma Training Toolkit (2008). Available at: http://www.nctsn.org/products/child-welfare-trauma-training-toolkit-2008.

⁵ These tips are based on efforts currently underway in jurisdictions across the country, as described in: Pilnik, L., & Kendall, J. R. (2012). “Victimization and Trauma Experienced by Children and Youth: Implications for Legal Advocates.” Moving From Evidence to Action: The Safe Start Series on Children Exposed to Violence, Issue Brief #7. North Bethesda, MD: Safe Start Center, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Available at: https://www.ojjdp.gov/programs/safestart/IB7_VictimizationTrauma_LegalAdvocates.pdf. 

⁶ A self-report questionnaire to screen for exposure to traumatic events and assess PTSD symptoms in school-age children and adolescents. More information available at: http://www.nctsn.org/content/ucla-posttraumatic-stress-disorder-reaction-index-dsm-iv.

⁷ A 15 to 24-item clinician-administered interview that assesses a child’s experience of a variety of potential traumatic events including current and previous injuries, hospitalizations, domestic violence, community violence, disasters, accidents, physical abuse, and sexual abuse. More information available at: http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/pages/assessments/tesi.asp.

⁸ A paper-and-pencil self-report inventory of 52 questions designed to assist juvenile justice facilities in identifying youths 12 to 17 years old who may have special mental health needs.  More information available at: http://nysap.us/MAYSI2.html.

⁹ The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP), a “searchable online database of mental health and substance abuse interventions,” is available at http://nrepp.samhsa.gov.

¹⁰ Rosado, L.M. & Riya Shah  (2007) Protecting Youth from Self-Incrimination when Undergoing Screening, Assessment and Treatment within the Juvenile Justice System. Available at: http://www.jlc.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdfs/protectingyouth.pdf.

¹¹ National Child Traumatic Stress Network, Child Welfare Committee. (2011). “Birth Parents with Trauma Histories and the Child Welfare System: A Guide for Judges and Attorneys.” Los Angeles, CA, and Durham, NC: National Center for Child Traumatic Stress. Available at: http://nctsn.org/sites/default/files/assets/pdfs/birth_parents_trauma_guide_judges_final.pdf.

¹² NCCD Center for Girls and Young Women. (nd) Understanding Trauma through a Gender Lens. Available at: http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/understanding-trauma.pdf.

---

Youth Engagement

Section 1.5

Judicial, Legal, Law Enforcement, Justice, Social Service and School Professionals Should 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

It is critically important that youth have a voice in their status offense cases, where others are making critical decisions about their lives. Youth involvement can range from gaining their input about the services in which they participate to where they may live or when and how they interact with their parents.  In some instances, the petitioning party is a parent/guardian or the youth is in conflict with a parent.  Here, too, ensuring the youth’s voice is heard separately and apart from the parent’s is essential to negotiate a successful resolution of the matter and to assure fairness.  Youth engagement must begin when professional service systems first respond to an alleged status offense matter and continue throughout diversion and court processes.  Youth should be given the opportunity to participate in all agency meetings, alternative dispute resolution sessions and court hearings affecting their case. Youth engagement should also be undertaken consistent with the principles on trauma discussed in Section 1.4.

Implementing a framework that promotes youth engagement at all stages will greatly benefit youth, youth-serving agencies and courts.  By being present in court and meetings, youth can offer important insights into their lives and the causes of the alleged behavior, and gain a better understanding of the agency and court processes.  Empowering youth early to understand the status offense process and its repercussions can also serve as an important tool to encourage shared responsibility in resolving problems and limiting court involvement.  Likewise, youth presence in court and meetings also benefits judges and professionals who will be able to make more informed decisions for youth and their families.

There is a growing body of knowledge and guidance about youth empowerment, voice and engagement in child welfare and foster care.  Although there is little guidance available about youth involvement in status offense proceedings, many of the reforms being applied in child welfare are also applicable to youth charged with non-delinquent behaviors. Recommendations for courts to enhance youth voice and participation include: ¹

• Having a fair, impartial, and orderly system to support youth voice and involvement.
• Reaching a consensus among all stakeholders regarding youth participation in court and agency meetings.
• Requiring and facilitating youth attendance in their court hearings and agency meetings.
• Recognizing that youth gain a sense of control through involvement in their court proceedings.

There is also applicable child welfare literature on addressing logistical and other concerns when implementing a system that supports youth engagement and empowerment.  Recommendations for youth-serving agencies and youth lawyers include: ²

• To the fullest extent possible, schedule meetings and hearings before or after school hours for school-aged youth.  When a youth is not able to attend in person, consider allowing him/her to participate via alternative means, such as video-conferencing or conference calls.    
• Explain your role to the youth and what issues you can and cannot address.
• Avoid using acronyms or legal jargon that may make it difficult for the youth to understand what is happening during the meeting or hearing.
• Prepare the youth for upcoming meetings or court hearings by telling the youth who will be present, what their roles will be, what is expected to happen, and what the youth’s involvement will entail.
• If the youth is expected to speak or testify, provide guidance about how to do so most effectively.  Advise the youth if other participants will ask him/her questions and what the nature of those questions may be.
• Provide age-appropriate reading materials to the youth to describe the court or agency process.

---

¹ Adapted from: Children’s Bureau Express (2009). Spotlight on Encouraging Youth Involvement in Dependency Hearings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Vol. 10, No. 10. (referencing Pitchal, E. (Winter 2008). “Where Are All the Children? Increasing Youth Participation in Dependency Proceedings,” UC Davis Journal of Juvenile Law & Policy, Vol. 12).

² Khoury, A. (2007). “With Me, not Without me: How to Involve Children in Court.” in Child Law Practice Vol. 26, No. 9; Washington D.C.: American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law. Available at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/center_on_children_and_the_law/
empowerment/withme_notwithoutme.authcheckdam.pdf; Khoury, A. (2008).   “Establishing Policies for Youth in Court—Overcoming Common Concerns.” Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law. Available at: http://www.isc.idaho.gov/cp/docs/Establishing%20Policies%20for%20Youth%20in%20Court-Common%20Concerns.pdf.

---

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Section 1.6

Judicial, Legal, Law Enforcement, Justice, Social Service and School Professionals Should Utilize Alternative Dispute Resolution Strategies to Resolve Youth and Family Conflicts Outside of the Court System

Youth charged with status offenses may enter the system as a result of significant family conflict where disputes may result, for example, in a youth running away or being charged as “incorrigible.”  In many instances, the court system is not well suited to resolve these high conflict situations utilizing an adversarial process that may only worsen the fragile parent-child relationship.  Introducing alternative dispute resolution (ADR) strategies, like mediation, before court involvement and/or before an adjudicatory hearing can empower families to resolve conflicts internally with professional guidance and may limit child and family exposure to court and deeper justice system involvement.  ADR strategies seek to reach an agreement between the youth and his/her family in ways that encourage harmony, rather than punish the youth for actions that are often rooted in family dysfunction.  ADR also helps to alleviate congested family or juvenile court dockets and can reduce the number of youth who are removed from their family’s care.

Parent-child mediation offers the family and youth an opportunity to mutually identify and agree to resolve family problems.  It is a practice that many jurisdictions have begun to use with success in status offense cases.  It is incumbent upon professionals working with families to assess whether ADR approaches are appropriate and to ensure that the youth is willing to participate.  In instances where there is evidence of violence between the youth and parent, professionals should determine how ADR processes could be altered to assure youth safety and well-being, recognizing that in some circumstances, ADR approaches may not be appropriate.

---

Family Engagement

Section 1.7

Judicial, Legal, Law Enforcement, Justice, Social Service and School Professionals Should 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

Similar to youth engagement strategies, family engagement strategies focus on the strengths the family unit can bring to the process, not just the family’s deficits, and seek to access and leverage a family’s willingness to solve  problems with professional guidance.  Similar to ADR, family engagement strategies may limit child and family exposure to court and deeper justice system involvement and also help alleviate congested family or juvenile court dockets and can reduce the number of youth who are removed from their family’s care. They also provide a less formal setting for families to ask questions and better understand the status offense process, while giving professionals an opportunity to consult families in a meaningful way about what they want for their child and what the family needs to move forward.

For example, Family Group Decision Making (FGDM)¹ is an engagement strategy that recognizes the importance of involving families in making decisions about children who need assistance and care.  The process can be initiated by the agency serving the alleged status offender and implemented at critical stages of the status offense case, such as before court petitioning, adjudication or at disposition.  A key aspect of FGDM is to allow the family to lead the decision-making, encouraging them to actively participate in identifying viable solutions to the problems they face. ²

It is incumbent upon the professionals working with the family to assess whether FGDM is appropriate and ensure that the youth is willing to participate. In instances where there is evidence of violence between the youth and parent, professionals should determine how FGDM should be altered to assure the youth is safe and comfortable participating in the process.  In limited circumstances, the approach may not be appropriate. 

---

¹ Also may be called Family Group Conferences or Family Team Meetings.

² Description of FGDM is adapted from American Humane. About Family Group Decision-Making (website). Available at: http://www.americanhumane.org/children/programs/family-group-decision-making/about-family-group-decision.html.

---

Racial and Ethnic Disparities

Section 1.8

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

DMC Emerging Issues Brief

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.  

There are many things system professionals, from law enforcement to social service providers and courts, can do to reduce racial and ethnic disparities, including:⁷

• Collect and analyze data at all decision points so intentional strategies can be developed to reduce racial and ethnic disparities.
• Use culturally competent screening and assessment tools at appropriate points and throughout a status offense case.
• Implement family engagement and alternative dispute resolution strategies during status offense cases.
• Provide access to family-connected and community-based services in youths’ home communities, especially where a community may have disproportionately high involvement in the status offense system.

Systems can also look to a variety of initiatives for guidance on how to reduce racial and ethnic disparities.  For example, the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) has developed risk assessment instruments to be used at detention admissions, created effective alternatives to detention and supported expedited case processing.  By making DMC reduction a key element in detention reform, JDAI sites, among other reforms, have lowered the number of minority youth detained and provided youth better opportunities to avoid justice system involvement through community-based services.⁸

Another important way professionals can work to prevent and reduce racial and ethnic disparities in status offense cases is by implementing practices that are culturally and linguistically competent.  Cultural competency refers to the ability to effectively engage and interact with individuals from other cultures.  Linguistic competency refers to the ability to effectively communicate with those whose first language is not English.  While the status offense system can be complicated for any young person, it is even more difficult to navigate when the youth and family hold different cultural norms and values, and when English is not the child’s or the family’s first language.  System professionals can be more culturally competent by implementing policies and practices and delivering services in a way that take into account cultural factors and by ensuring use of cultural knowledge in training, screening and assessment and policy administration.⁹  System professionals can be more linguistically competent by ensuring that the information they convey, whether written or oral, is easily understood by a diverse audience, including those who are not fluent in English or who may have low or no literacy skills, as well as children and adults with disabilities.  Translating key documents, reports and court orders will be essential, as well as ensuring that an interpreter is present during hearings and meetings.  In addition, a significant number of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender youth in the justice system are also youth of color.  Programs should also be culturally fluent with regard to sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.¹⁰

---

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. Available at: http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/pdfs/cjjr_ch_final.pdf.

⁷ For more suggestions on what local governments can do to reduce DMC, see: Disproportionate Minority Contact Technical Assistance Manual (2009). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available at: http://www.ojjdp.gov/compliance/dmc_ta_manual.pdf; see also Annie E. Casey (Website). Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative: http://www.aecf.org/MajorInitiatives/JuvenileDetentionAlternativesInitiative.aspx.

⁸ Armour, J. and Sara Hammond (2009). Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System: Disproportionate Minority Contact. Washington, D.C.: National Conference of State Legislatures; Detention Reform Brief 3: An Effective Approach to Reduce Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Juvenile Justice (2009). Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.

⁹ A Fair Juvenile Justice System: The Importance of Linguistic and Cultural Competency (2007). Washington, D.C.: National Council of La Raza. Available at: http://www.modelsforchange.net/publications/400.

¹⁰ See, e.g., Irvine, A. (2010). “We’ve had Three of Them: Addressing the Invisibility of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Gender Nonconforming Youths in the Juvenile Justice System.”  Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, Vol. 19:3, pgs. 675-701.

---

Gender-Responsive Services

Section 1.9

Judicial, Legal, Law Enforcement, Justice, Social Service and School Professionals Should Understand the Developmental, Behavioral and Social Differences between Boys and Girls and How their Service Needs are Accordingly Different

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.

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.¹  Boys represent 83% of arrests for violent crimes and, in general, serve longer terms in detention facilities than girls.  Girls make up 61% of all runaway cases, and spend twice as long in detention facilities for status offenses as boys.²  Boys and girls may be charged with status offenses for different reasons, and react differently to system involvement and related interventions because of physiological, sociological and developmental differences. 

While girls and boys in the juvenile justice system come from all different family types and socioeconomic backgrounds, girls are more likely to enter the delinquency system if they:

• Are living in poverty;
• Have been exposed to domestic violence and/or substance abuse;
• Have a history of running away;
• Have experienced sexual, physical and/or emotional abuse;
• Feel disconnected from school or have experienced academic failure; or
• Have mental health and substance abuse issues.³

Factors that may make boys more likely to enter the delinquency system include child maltreatment, negative peer influences, substance abuse, dropping out of school, and living in violent communities.⁴

Research has shown that there are specific protective factors that may make girls less likely to commit offenses, including support from a caring adult, succeeding and/or feeling connected to someone in school, and religiosity.⁵  School connectedness, family support, and positive social activities have been found to be protective factors for both boys and girls.⁶

There are many ways agencies and courts who work with status offenders can be gender-responsive:

• Professionals who select and administer assessment instruments, or rely on the results of these instruments, should ensure that these tools are evidence-based or empirically-supported and have been designed for and tested with girls and boys (or the specific gender of the client group).⁷  Even where there is a shortage of validated instruments for girls, practitioners should endeavor to continuously research the best possible options.  
• Be aware that while evaluation research on programs for girls is lagging behind the research on effective programming for boys, programs that are gender-responsive for girls rely on a theoretical framework that dictates research-based principles for effective female programming.  Boys may also benefit from many of these program qualities. These include:
  • Being strength-based, trauma-informed and relational;
  • Ensuring clients’ physical, psychological and emotional safety;
  • Employing staff who are sensitive to trauma and understand girls’ socialization; and
  • Providing ongoing staff training and support.⁸
• Ensure that elements of gender-responsive practice are present throughout, from first contact with the system through service and treatment provision.  To the extent gender-specific programming is offered, youth should participate according to their gender-identity rather than their biological gender, if they are not the same.
• Strive to make programs culturally-competent and family-focused, and encourage youth to partner with staff in the development of their treatment plans.

Finally, professionals working with youth should keep in mind that trends or characteristics that may be generally true for boys or girls will not apply to all youth of that gender and that all young people should be treated as individuals.  For instance, when working with youth who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or questioning, it is particularly important to make decisions on an individual basis, and to respect gender identity and expression. (See Section I, Standard 10 for a more detailed discussion of considerations relevant to LGBTQ youth.)

---

¹ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (2008).  “Fact Sheet: Juvenile Delinquency” from “What Challenges Are Boys Facing, and What Opportunities Exist To Address Those Challenges?” Available at:  http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/boys/FactSheets/jd/report.pdf.

² Coalition for Juvenile Justice. (nd) Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO) Facts and Resources.

³ Zahn, M, et al. (2010) “Causes and Correlates of Girls’ Delinquency.” Girls Study Group. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.  Available at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/226358.pdf.

⁴ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (2008).  “Fact Sheet: Juvenile Delinquency” from “What Challenges Are Boys Facing, and What Opportunities Exist To Address Those Challenges?” Available at:  http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/boys/FactSheets/jd/report.pdf.

⁵ Hawkins S.R., et al. (2009) “Resilient Girls—Factors That Protect Against Delinquency.”Girls Study Group. Available at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/220124.pdf. (for this study “delinquent behavior” was defined to include status offenses (truancy and unruliness), gang membership, selling drugs, serious property offenses and assault).

⁶ Id.

⁷ See Brumbaugh S., et al. (2010) “Suitability of Assessment Instruments for Delinquent Girls.” Girls Study Group.  Available at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/226531.pdf.

⁸ Adapted from Selvaggi, Kimberly.  “Ideas for Building a Female Responsive System for Girls” (unpublished; on file with Coalition for Juvenile Justice (CJJ))

---

LGBTQ Youth

Section 1.10

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 youth¹ 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.”²  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.³

Families should be treated as potential allies in supporting LGBTQ youth.⁴ 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.⁵  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.

System professionals can ensure fair treatment of LGBTQ youth by taking the following steps:

• Identify when youth are entering the system due to alienation, exclusion, or persecution at home, in foster care or group homes, in the community or at school, due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.  Ensure steps are taken to preserve youth safety and well-being, which includes protecting confidentiality, rather than forcing them back into a hostile environment, keeping in mind that youth generally do better in their own homes when safe, and that some targeted intervention strategies have been shown to increase acceptance and improve behavior of parents and guardians and support in families who initially reject their LGBTQ children.⁶
• Ensure that LGBTQ youth receive appropriate services, such as connecting youth to affirming social, recreational and spiritual opportunities, and that confidentiality is respected.
• Ensure that LGBTQ youth have access to care consistent with best practices for these populations.⁷
• In situations where family rejection is an issue because parents/caregivers reject the youth based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, ensure that counseling and other services are offered to the whole family, that every effort is made to keep children with their families, and that alternative supportive residential arrangements are made when caregivers are unwilling to re-engage despite being offered or participating in appropriate interventions.
• Review nationally available best practice standards, such as those available from Child Welfare League of America and the National Center for Lesbian Rights/Legal Services for Children⁸ to ensure that your organization is doing all it can to meet LGBTQ youths’ needs, ensuring that schools, homes and if necessary residential placements are safe environments, and that attempts to ensure safety are not isolating, stigmatizing or punitive, e.g., placing an LGBTQ youth in seclusion to “protect” him/her.
• Recognize and acknowledge that experiences at home, in placement, in school, the community, and in the juvenile justice system may have been traumatic, and that LGBTQ youth may need support, intervention, or treatment for trauma.
• On an individual level, professionals must treat all youth, including those who identify as LGBTQ or non-gender conforming, with respect and fairness.  Youth should be allowed to express their identity through choice of clothing, hairstyle and nicknames without encountering pressure or judgment.

Having a written nondiscrimination and anti-harassment policy is also essential.⁹ These policies can address issues such as prohibiting harassment of youth or staff who are LGBTQ or gender non-conforming, requiring the use of respectful and inclusive language, and determining how gender rules (e.g., usage of “male or “female” bathrooms, gender-based room assignments) will be addressed for transgender and gender nonconforming youth. Programs should also provide clients and staff with training and helpful written materials.¹⁰

---

¹ Youth may also identify themselves as intersex, two-spirit (which refers to a belief in the existence of cross-gender roles with Native American traditions, based in a teaching that some people are gifted because they carry two spirits, one male and one female) or in other ways.  Although the principles in this section may still apply, the term LGBTQ is used throughout because the research discussed has focused on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and in some cases transgender or questioning youth.

²  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. Available at: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/report/2011/02/07/9117/families-matter/; Majd, K.,  Marksamer, J., and Carolyn Reyes. (2009) “Hidden Injustice: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth in Juvenile Courts.” Available at: http://equityproject.org/pdfs/hidden_injustice.pdf.

³ Id.

⁴ 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. Available at: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/report/2011/02/07/9117/families-matter/.

⁵ Id.

⁶ Id.

⁷ For more on medical and other issues relevant to LGBT youth, see Majd,K.,  Marksamer, J., and Carolyn Reyes. (2009) “Hidden Injustice: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth in Juvenile Courts.” Available at: http://equityproject.org/pdfs/hidden_injustice.pdf.

⁸ Available at: http://equityproject.org/pdfs/CWLA%20-%20bestpracticeslgbtyouth.pdf and http://equityproject.org/pdfs/defending_lgbt_youth.pdf.

⁹ Several model policies can be found at: http://equityproject.org/resources.html.

¹⁰ For links to resources for professionals and LGBT youth see “The Equity Project” at http://equityproject.org/resources.html.

---

Youth with Undiagnosed or Mistreated Disabilities

Section 1.11

Judicial, Legal, Law Enforcement, Justice, Social Service and School Professionals Ensure Children Do Not Enter the Status Offense System Because of Learning, Mental Health, Sensory, Speech/Language or Co-occurring 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 disabilities who do enter the status offense system 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.  For example, unmet special education needs can lead to truancy; untreated mental health issues can lead to conflicts at home and/or running away.  In addition, research shows that youth with learning and other disabilities are more likely to enter the justice system. Some estimate that as many as 70% of youth who enter the justice system have a mental health, sensory or learning disability, and anywhere between 28 percent and 43 percent of detained or incarcerated youth have special education needs.¹  Minority youth may be disproportionately affected by learning disabilities, in particular, because of risk factors relating to poverty and family functioning.  African American youth are 43 percent more likely to have a learning disability than youth in the general population and American Indian youth are 80 percent more likely.²  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.

There are many federal laws that protect the rights of children and youth with disabilities. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) entitles all children who have disabilities to an educational experience that is comparable to children who do not have disabilities. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that children with certain learning-related disabilities have a free, appropriate public educational experience in the least restrictive environment possible.³  IDEA also supports the notion that juvenile court intake personnel investigate pre-court efforts to identify and address a child’s special education needs and ensure that referring systems provide information on accommodations offered.⁴

Before school system, mental health system or other social service system professionals refer children with identified or suspected disabilities to the status offense system, they must assess whether the conduct at issue relates to or is caused by the disability.  System professionals should use the resources at their disposal through IDEA, Section 504 and/or Medicaid-EPSDT⁵ 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. 

In addition to the above, there are many things law enforcement, education, mental health and other child and family-serving systems can do to steer youth with disabilities away from the status offense court system: 

• Use standardized screening tools or questionnaires that have proven reliability and validity to identify disabilities early.
• Require staff training generally on the link between disabilities and justice system involvement and identifying disabilities early, as well as the use of these screening and assessment tools.
• Establish mandatory procedures to review the adequacy and scope of accommodations offered before any child is referred to the status offense court system.
• Educate, engage and support families and youth in plans for services, supports and interventions.
• Develop a holistic approach to addressing the child’s disability both during and outside of school hours through increased involvement with mentors, coaches and youth development approaches (see Section 1.3).

When children with disabilities enter the status offense court system, it is critical that court intake officers, judges and the child’s lawyer obtain information relating to the child’s disability and what services and treatments have already been offered. Children’s attorneys and courts should closely assess whether the status offense referral relates to the child’s disability and analyze whether the referring system made reasonable efforts to address the disability and avoid court involvement.  Children’s attorneys may consider requesting that the court hold a child’s case in abeyance pending the delivery of appropriate services or request dismissal if pre-court accommodations were insufficient.⁶

In those limited instances where court involvement is unavoidable, courts must also assure that disabled children are given a meaningful opportunity to understand and participate in status offense proceedings.  For example, the court should have an interpreter for a child who is hearing impaired or appoint a guardian ad litem attorney for a child whose has a diminished capacity to understand or participate in proceedings.  Courts may also consider appointing special advocates for children with learning disabilities who enter the system because of truancy, or with certain mental health conditions to help them navigate the system.  Having a system advocate who understands the child’s disability is critical to ensuring the child understands the proceedings and what is expected of him or her.  It also helps the court and parties better understand the child’s disability and how it may affect his or her ability to meaningfully participate in proceedings and comply with court mandates and his or her treatment plan.  

---

¹ National Disability Rights Network, Juvenile Justice (Website), Available at: http://www.ndrn.org/en/issues/juvenile-justice.html; Mallett C. (2011). “Seven Things Juvenile Courts Should Know about Learning Disabilities.” Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (citing numerous references); Quinn, M., et al.(2005). “Youth with Disabilities in Juvenile Corrections: A National Survey.” Exceptional Children, Vol. 71, No. 3. pp. 339-345.

²Altarac, M. & Saroha, E. (2007). “Lifetime Prevalence of Learning Disability among U.S. Children.” Pediatrics, 119, 577-584).

³ Tulman, J. (2010) “Using Special Education Advocacy to Avoid or Resolve Status Offense Charges” in Representing Juvenile Status Offenders. Washington, DC: American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, Chapter 6.  Available at: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/child/PublicDocuments/RJSO_FINAL.authcheckdam.pdf. 

⁴  See, e.g., 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k) (6).

⁵  For more information on what Medicaid/EPSDT is see Standard III(11).

⁶ Tulman, J. (2010) “Using Special Education Advocacy to Avoid or Resolve Status Offense Charges” in Representing Juvenile Status Offenders. Washington, DC: American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, Chapter 6.  Available at: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/child/PublicDocuments/RJSO_FINAL.authcheckdam.pdf.

---

Inter-Agency Coordination

Section 1.12

Judicial, Legal, Law Enforcement, Justice, Social Service and School Professionals Should Coordinate With Other Relevant Formal and Informal Systems of Care to Better Serve Children and Families

Interagency collaborations should engage public, private and faith-based organizations working with youth charged with status offenses and their families, such as juvenile justice, child welfare, mental health, education, substance abuse, courts, tribes and law enforcement.  Working together to address the complex needs of these youth and their families not only creates important connections between systems but will provide better services to families in a more cost-effective and efficient way. 

Although each community will develop its system of care or service continuum differently, some organizational and governance structure must emerge to best coordinate partner agencies.  Partners will need to agree on common goals and values, and strategic planning will help develop long term relationships that welcome diverse perspectives.  Interagency collaborations will not only involve management and administrative coordination, but frontline practitioner collaboration, which can be achieved, in part, through cross-training opportunities, the development of formal agreements, communication plans and interagency protocols for case coordination and information sharing.²

An important collaboration to establish for status offense system stakeholders is with their child welfare system counterparts. Often when children are referred to the status offense system, the misconduct for which they have been referred is caused by or related to instances of abuse or neglect.  For example, a child who has run away from home may be running from a neglectful situation; a child who is labeled ‘ungovernable’ may have experienced abuse at home.

The first responder to the status offense allegation must conduct a thorough investigation to assess whether a referral to another system, such as child welfare, mental health or substance abuse, is appropriate in lieu of moving forward with the status offense case.  Developing policies and procedures to do so between agencies will help ensure children’s safety and make certain that the needs of children and families do not slip through the cracks.   

Law enforcement systems also play a critical role in forming partnerships with social service, education, mental health and other child-serving systems.  Often the first responder to alleged status offenses, it is critical that police departments have strong working relationships with community service providers to ensure the youth and families that are first referred to them get the assistance they need.  In fact, the International Association of Chiefs of Police directs officers to choose the least restrictive option for youth and suggests departments make “informal referrals” to community service agencies when the problems exhibited appear to be influenced by substance abuse and/or personal or family crises.³

---

¹ Guiding Principles of Systems of Care—Interagency Collaboration (Website). Washington, D.C.: Child Welfare Information Gateway. Available at: http://www.childwelfare.gov/management/reform/soc/history/interagency.cfm.

² A Closer Look: Interagency Collaboration (2008).  Washington, D.C.: Child Welfare Information Gateway. Available at: http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/acloserlook/interagency/interagency.pdf.

³ IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center. (May 1994). Juvenile Enforcement and Custody: Concepts and Issues Paper.