Section 2

Efforts to Avoid Court Involvement

Key Principles

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)

---

Voluntary Diversion Services

Section 2.1

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

Status offense behaviors are low-level “offenses” that would not be an offense but for the child’s age. They are often symptomatic of larger issues the child faces in the home, school or community and may be less a reflection of the child’s risky behavior and more an indication of his or her unmet health, mental health, educational or family needs.  Youth alleged to have committed status offenses who are formally processed through the court system may be more likely to re-enter the justice system and experience other negative individual and family outcomes, such as increased tension between family members or negative educational or mental health outcomes.

Research has also shown that formal justice system processing in and of itself can have a negative impact on youth, increasing the likelihood of future justice system involvement.¹  Moreover, entering the formal court system can have many damaging effects on a child and family that may cause them more harm and/or amplify the issues that brought them into the system.  For example, in ‘incorrigibility’ or runaway cases, formal court processing may make the dynamic between parent and child worse and more adversarial.  In any case where the parent is an adverse party, court involvement may cause the child to feel resentment towards his or her parents or to feel abandoned.  If the child has entered the system because of a systemic failure in identifying, for example, a disability or abuse/neglect, being treated as an “offender” may never adequately address the child’s or families’ needs while pinning a stigmatizing label – one with collateral consequences – on a youth. 

Studies also indicate that for low-level delinquency offenders diversion programs have a more positive effect than formal court involvement and are more cost-effective.²  The same studies indicate that the best outcomes for public safety occur when the least restrictive interventions are offered.³  When implemented well, voluntary diversion approaches, such as those discussed in Section 1.6 and Section 1.7 better help families resolve conflicts, increase services to children in need, cost less and ultimately reduce the likelihood of re-entering the status offense or delinquency court system.

All stakeholders must recognize and commit to the premise that assessments or evaluations of youth, and statements made by youth in the course or conduct of diversionary informal proceedings, should not be later be used against them in any dependency, delinquency or criminal proceedings.  This is particularly important where such evaluations are conducted, or statements are made, prior to the appointment of counsel.  As discussed in Section 1.2, youth may not developmentally be able to understand the concept of possible self-incrimination when answering questions posed by an adult, or when participating in treatment, therapy, or other informal proceedings. Thus, prior to crafting alternatives to the formal justice system, there should be consensus and agreement reached on the limits of the use of such information.

---

¹ Boutilier, A., and Marcia Cohen. (2009). Diversion Literature Review.  Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

²The Truth about Consequences—Studies Point towards Sparing Use of Formal Juvenile Justice System Processing and Incarceration. (January 2012) Washington, DC: National Juvenile Justice Network. Available at: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/NJJN-Truth-about-Consequences_Fact-Sheet-FINAL_Jan23-2012.pdf.  

³ Id. (citing Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., and Sarah Guckenburg, “Formal System Processing of Juveniles: Effects on Delinquency.” Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2010:1, pp. 32-38 (January 29, 2010)); see also Uberto Gatti et al. (2009) “Iatrogenic Effects of Juvenile Justice,” 50 Child Psychology and Psychiatry 991, 994.

---

Family Circumstances and Unmet Needs

Section 2.2

Education, Social Service, Community-based, Child Welfare, Runaway and Homeless Youth, Mental Health, Law Enforcement and Juvenile Justice Systems Should 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

The status offense process is typically not the best way to serve youth and families with unmet needs.  Other informal or formal systems or processes that could address the youth’s issues include mental health, social service or community-based services, family court (custody), special education, child welfare, emancipation or civil commitment proceedings. 

While youth charged with status offenses become involved with the justice system because of behaviors that pose little risk to society, they often come from chaotic and even dangerous homes and communities, and may have witnessed or been victims of violence.¹  They or their families may be struggling with trauma or other mental health issues, substance abuse or other challenges. These youth may also enter the status offense system because of the failure of other systems (e.g., schools, child welfare) to appropriately identify and address their needs.  For this reason, it is essential that youth who have allegedly committed status offenses receive appropriate screening to identify physical, mental health (including trauma) and special education needs, as well as any substance abuse issues.  Their physical and emotional safety should also be addressed, and steps should be taken to protect them from victimization at home, in school or in their communities.  Children’s needs and strengths should be taken into account and used to develop a plan for addressing the alleged status offense, making referrals to and working with other systems, and, if necessary, providing services through the court system. 

It is imperative that juvenile justice, child welfare and community-based services use evidence-based or empirically-supported screening tools to triage institutional responses, and assessment tools to identify areas in which a youth may need assistance.²  The term “screening tool” usually refers to a short instrument that may identify youth who need further evaluation, and may be administered to all children entering a system.  The term “assessment” is often used for a more detailed instrument which looks at more types of information (e.g., risks, needs, strengths).  Assessments may require more training and education than screening tools to be administered properly.³  These instruments should be valid and reliable⁴ and should be appropriate for the population with which they are being used (e.g., designed for and tested with youth of the same age group, gender, ethnicity, etc.). 

Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, also known as the Federal Foster Care Act, states that before ordering removal or accepting a recommendation that a child be removed from his or her home, courts must determine whether the agency made “reasonable efforts” to prevent removal by providing supportive services to the child and family.⁵  Similarly, youth-serving systems must be accountable for making reasonable efforts to provide services and supports for children in their own homes and schools before a child is charged with a status offense.  For example, in truancy cases one must consider whether the school is failing to protect the child from bullying or failing to meet special education needs.  In a runaway case, it must be determined whether the child is running from an abusive parent, or being pushed out due to family conflict because of his or her sexuality or gender identity. 

Due to high caseloads, probation officers often don’t have the time to provide the intensive services youth and families likely need.  Unfortunately, when probation officers’ interventions fail to meaningfully address the child’s responses to the family or school, many youth end up pushed more deeply into the justice system.  When deciding whether another formal or informal system or services would be more appropriate, professionals should consider:⁶

• What circumstances at home, at school, or in the community is the youth responding or reacting to with the behavior at issue?
• Which services or systems does the youth prefer to work with?
• What resources or services does the youth need, and what course of action will most likely provide what is needed?
• What is the youth’s relationship with his or her parents and how willing are the parents to work with the different systems or service providers? (e.g., does the child need to be protected through a child welfare case; would the parents be willing advocates for the child in a special education hearing?)
• What are the legal consequences of system involvement? (e.g., a juvenile court record)
• Which system or community-based provider has the ability to move the child into the best possible placement, if necessary? (e.g., if conflict with a parent is an issue, would a change of custody to a noncustodial parent or relative be more appropriate; if the child needs inpatient mental health services, could those be provided through the mental health system?)

Professionals should also remain mindful of their ongoing involvement with the youth and family. Even in situations where it initially seems there are no better alternatives to the status offense system, professionals must be careful to avoid increasing youth and family contact with the system solely or primarily for the purpose of accessing services. As they get to know the child and family better, new information may come to light that shows that another system or community-based alternative may be better able to respond to the family’s or child’s needs.  In those cases, decision makers, like the court or social service provider, may consider conducting combined agency and family meetings to determine the best course of action and to make recommendations to the court.

To achieve the best possible outcomes, when youth are working with more than one system, provider or have their case transferred from one system to another, professionals should share and use information effectively, without violating youth’s due process and privacy rights.  This may be achieved by entering into Memorandums of Understanding with other relevant systems; see Section 4.12 for more information.

---

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 Screenings and assessments commonly used in the juvenile justice and child welfare system include the UCLA PTSD index and the MAYSI-2.

³ AOC Center for Families, Children & the Court (2011). Screenings and Assessments Used in the Juvenile Justice System: Evaluating Risks and Needs of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System.  Available at: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/AOCBrief_AssessOnline.pdf.  Conradi, L., Kisiel, C., & Wherry, J. (2012). “Linking Child Welfare and Mental Health Using Trauma-Informed Screening and Assessment Practices.”  Child Welfare, 90(6), 129-147.

⁴ “Reliability” refers to a measure’s consistency when outcomes over numerous and varied administrations are looked at and “validity” refers to an instrument’s accuracy at measuring what it is intended to.

⁵ Title IV-E, Section 472 (a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Social Security Act.

⁶ Adapted from Benton, H. et al., Representing Juvenile Status Offenders.

---

Training Professionals

Section 2.3

Education, Social Service, Community-based, Child Welfare, Runaway and Homeless Youth, Mental Health, Law Enforcement and Juvenile Justice Systems Should 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

Training is critical for first responders in the child welfare, education, juvenile justice, law enforcement,¹ 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.  Aspects of any training curriculum should be taught by appropriate experts such as child and adolescent development experts, juvenile attorneys and services providers.  Training components may include the following:

• What research shows about the effect court involvement may have on youth (see commentary for Section 2.1).
•  What research shows about the effect detention may have on youth (see commentary for Section 3.3).
• What research shows regarding the factors associated with each type of status offense, including discussions of risk factors in the home, community and school.
• How systemic failures may lead to status offense system involvement.
• Adolescent development (see commentary for Section 1.2).
• Being trauma-informed and understanding the effects exposure to violence and victimization can have on youth (see commentary for Section 1.4).
• Being culturally competent and sensitive to gender and LGBTQ issues (see commentary for Section 1.10).
• Accommodating and understanding issues relating to youth with disabilities (see commentary for Section 1.11).
• School system policies, including discipline practices and the role of bullying in truant behavior.

Professionals who are the first to respond to alleged status offenses should also receive ongoing training on screening and assessment instruments and services available in their communities, including information on how to access them.  Training should focus on the whole child and family by ensuring first responders are aware of services in a variety of areas that often affect families who enter the status offense system.  As a result, providers will be able to identify more quickly where the family or child needs help and link them to the proper assistance without involving the court system.  This will decrease the likelihood of the child becoming further disengaged from home, school and community.  Training components along these lines may include topics like:

• How to use available reliable and valid screenings and assessments.
• Accessing housing programs and services.
• Accessing education or vocational programs and services.
• Utilizing available evidence-based or empirically-supported mental health, health or other services appropriate for different types of status offenses.

Whenever possible, cross-training of professionals from different systems and service providers should be offered.  This allows professionals in different agencies to address issues in consistent and complementary ways, while reducing costs (e.g., by using each other’s staff as expert presenters, and reducing the number of events that need to be planned and paid for).  Types of training that could be offered on responding to truancy, for example, could include:

• Professionals from a local mental health agency educating school officials, law enforcement and juvenile justice professionals on identifying anxiety and other psychological issues and how and where to make referrals for mental health issues before these issues result in too much missed school.
• A social service or juvenile justice agency representative educating attorneys and judges, probation and truancy officers, school personnel and others about pre-court diversion programs and the dangers of juvenile justice system involvement.
• A training given by and for law enforcement and school professionals on bullying and gang involvement and how these lead to truancy.

---

¹  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. Available at: http://www.theiacp.org/PublicationsGuides/ContentbyTopic/tabid/216/Default.aspx?id=1603&v=1.

---

Prevention and Intervention

Section 2.4

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

Often, a youth’s behavior is a function of their perceived options.  When dealing with youth engaged in status behaviors, officers should investigate why the youth chose a particular course of action and how his or her environment—school, home or community—played a role in that choice. Officers should then contact the appropriate informal support system, community-based service provider or formal service system to further assist the child and family.  For juvenile offenders, the Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies requires law enforcement systems to make an effort to understand the cause of the behavior, stating: “Beyond enforcing the law with respect to juvenile offenders, agencies should make a firm commitment to implement procedures directed toward addressing the causes of the behavior and to develop programs designed to prevent juvenile delinquency.”¹ Just as an officer should not arrest a person accused of committing an offense without some level of probable cause or reasonable suspicion, an officer should not refer a youth for investigation as a status offender without some level of investigation as to the institutional dynamics that may be causing the conduct in question.  Using problem-solving techniques, officers should seek to understand the cause of the youth’s behavior and the role of adults in the youth’s choices and identify the best responders to it. This requires distinct police strategies for specific categories of status behaviors.

Most American police departments use the community policing model to problem-solve, collaborate with other government and community entities and gather information and community input.  Community policing requires recognition of “policing as a broad function, not a narrow law enforcement or crime fighting role.”²  As applied to truancy, for example, this approach would require law enforcement to first determine whether the youth is out of school because of a school decision (i.e. suspension), an action by the parent (i.e. failing to provide transportation, requiring youth to stay home for caretaking or other reasons) or another reason (i.e. bullying, school failure due to learning disability, depression).  In a runaway case, it would require the officer to consider what situation the youth is running from, and the frequency of the running.  Key to officers’ responses in each situation is the understanding that the youth’s behavior is the manifestation of situations caused by adults as well as a call for help.

---

¹ Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies (2007). Standard 44 Juvenile Treatment and Custody.

²  U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services, defines the key elements of community policing as problem solving and community partnerships with government agencies, community members and groups, nonprofit service providers, and businesses. Gordner, G. Community Policing: Principles and Elements. National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence.  Available at:  http://www.ncdsv.org/images/CommunityPolicingPrinciplesElements.pdf.

---

Truancy

Section 2.5

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

“Research indicates that truancy can be reduced by programs and activities designed to improve the overall school environment (and its safety), attach children and their families to the school, and enable schools to respond to the different learning styles and cultures of children.” 
National Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention

According to the National Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention “research indicates that truancy can be reduced by programs and activities designed to improve the overall school environment (and its safety), attach children and their families to the school, and enable schools to respond to the different learning styles and cultures of children.” Other research has looked at characteristics of successful truancy reduction programs and found that important commonalities include:

• Implementation of effective and relevant consequences for truancy.
• Motivational strategies used to bolster attendance.
• Truancy reduction services offered in the school and accessible community locations.
• Schools partnering with other social service providers and systems to implement truancy reduction initiatives.
• Families being meaningfully engaged in meetings, services and other interventions.⁷

There are many ways school districts can address truancy following these principles while avoiding court involvement, such as providing home visits by truancy officers who can work with the families and make service referrals,⁸ or the use of truancy review boards.  School-based truancy or youth courts⁹ may also help address truancy while avoiding court involvement, as can alternative learning environments/programs, such as independent study or night school classes.

Responding to truancy should always involve working with the youth and family to identify and address the underlying reasons for school absence. The steps that school system professionals should take when presented with truancy charges may vary by the size and resource level of the school district.  In general, schools should start by contacting the family and following up with a home visit or in-school meeting with the youth and family to identify reasons why the child may be truant.  Once the issues underlying the truancy are identified, the truancy officer or other school professional should make appropriate referrals or identify community or other system partners who can help address identified needs, and develop a plan with the youth and family to resolve the issues.  Monitoring and follow up, including additional referrals if identified services are not helping or new issues arise, should occur as appropriate to meet the family’s and child’s needs.  If no progress is made the family and truancy officer or school official should re-review the plan and consider involving the school principal, a truancy review board, or a school-based truancy or youth court, if available.

In addition, memoranda of understanding or other types of information sharing agreements are critical for systems to be able to work together to help youth, since schools and other entities may be wary of discussing particular students without them.  These types of agreements can also lay out the specifics of inter-agency partnerships, such as processes for making referrals between agencies and sharing or contribution of resources, information, space or staff time.  One example of a potentially beneficial collaboration is locating services in the schools (e.g., providing space for community mental health providers, who can provide services and bill Medicaid, rather than the school).¹⁰ Cross-training of professionals in different systems is also essential, see Section 2.3 for more information on cross-training and specific truancy examples. 

---

¹ Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Model Programs Guide (nd). Truancy Prevention.  Available at: http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/Topic/Details/122, (citing to Chang and Romero 2008; Henry and Huizinga 2005, as reported in Heilbrunn 2007; Henry and Huizinga 2007; Kelley et al. 1997; Loeber and Farrington 2000; Seeley 2008a, Walker 2007, Dryfoos 1990; Catalano et al. 1998; Robins and Ratcliff 1978; Snyder and Sickmund 1995).

² Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Model Programs Guide (nd). Truancy Prevention. Available at:  http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/Topic/Details/122.

³ Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model Programs Guide (no date). Truancy Prevention (citing to Baker, Sigmon, and Nugent 2001; Heilbrunn 2007; Hammond, Smink, and Drew 2007; OJJDP and USED, nd.).

⁴ Id.

⁵ Id.

⁶ Walls, Charles (2003). New Approaches to Truancy Prevention in Urban Schools. ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, Institute for Urban and Minority Education.  Available at: http://www.ericdigests.org/2004-2/truancy.html.   

⁷ Baker, S., and Nugent (2001), cited in Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model Programs Guide (nd). Truancy Prevention.  Available at: http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/Topic/Details/122.

⁸ Some school districts have used cost-benefit analyses using Average Daily Attendance figures and data on the relationship between attendance and standardized test scores to support hiring or retaining truancy officers.

⁹ For more information see Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Model Programs Guide (nd). Teen/Youth Courts.  Available at: http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/Topic/Details/78.

¹⁰ Locating services in schools also decreases missed visits and avoids stigmatization of youth. 

---

First Response Systems

Section 2.6

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

One of the most important things a professional can do when first responding to an alleged status offense is make reasonable efforts to learn the cause for the youth’s contact with the agency. These responders may often come into contact with youth who are alleged to have run away from home or to be out of their parent’s control or “ungovernable.” Using valid and reliable screening instruments and understanding the key risk factors correlated to these behaviors is critical to helping identify and respond to the behaviors appropriately.

For example, research has shown that running away from home is predicted by greater depression symptoms than peers, lack of parental support, school disengagement and heavier substance use.¹  Research on the contributing factors of ungovernable behavior has focused largely on the dynamics between a child and his or her family.  Parental behavior, discipline practices and the presence of supportive, caring adults all affect whether a child may exhibit behaviors that may be deemed ungovernable.  While most children exhibit some emotional or social problems as they enter adolescence, the majority of these behaviors are normal developmental milestones.  In some cases, however, poor relational dynamics with parent or mental or physical health problems predict unruly behavior.  Alcohol or drug use can be the cause of a child’s ‘out of control’ behavior, as can untreated (or improperly treated) personality or other mental health disorders that often first appear in adolescence.²

Based on these research findings, agencies’ first responses must be tailored to the reason the youth and family have been referred to them to adequately respond to the youth’s and family’s needs.  If school disengagement, for example, is the reason the child has run away, addressing the child’s academic needs is paramount to avoiding repeat running episodes.  If a youth is beyond his or her parents’ control because of a substance abuse problem, conducting an assessment and implementing substance abuse services will be the only way to start to resolve the problem.  

How child welfare, juvenile justice and runaway/homeless youth agencies first respond to youth will vary from community to community depending on state laws, agency policies and available resources.  However, all professionals providing an initial response to an alleged status offense should:    

• Seek to identify the reason the youth and family has been referred to the agency, which may include the use of valid and reliable screening or assessment tools.
• Consider whether any status offense system involvement is needed or (particularly in first-time, low risk cases) the family and youth would be better served if the system took no action and simply provided the family with a list of community resources.

• Develop a safety and service plan with the child and family that they can implement voluntarily and with which they can reasonably comply.
• Utilize the least restrictive alternatives when considering appropriate service or placement referrals, such as in-home services or limited respite care or a cooling off period, where appropriate.
• Keep in mind what the long term goal is for the youth and family when making service referrals or implementing a service or safety plan.

First responder agencies should be particularly cognizant of instances where adolescents are referred to them because of status behaviors, when in fact the youth is a victim of abuse or neglect.  Utilizing intake procedures that take sufficient time to assess the reason behind the referral will help identify abuse or neglect.  Too often it is difficult for older youth to access child welfare services, and some confidentiality and service delivery policies and practices are not favorable to older youth who report abuse or neglect.  Incentivizing youth to participate in the intake process and providing age appropriate assessments and services will help professionals identify the adolescent’s true needs and access the proper assistance without improperly labeling and treating him or her as an offender.   

---

¹ Tucker, Joan et al (2011) “A Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Risk Factors and Young Adult Outcomes.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 40 (5), p. 507-518.

² Development Services Group. (2009) Ungovernable/Incorrigible Youth Literature Review. Developed for the Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.  Available at: http://www2.dsgonline.com/dso/Ungovernable%20Youth%20Literature%20Review.pdf.

---

Court Intake Personnel

Section 2.7

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

In light of this and recent research showing the deleterious effects court processing can have on youth and families (as discussed in Section 2.1), court systems should make every effort to avoid petitioned status offense cases.  An important way for courts to do this is to critically assess what efforts first responders made to identify the reason the youth was referred to them and to implement a proper course of action that exhausts all available resources to help the child and family resolve their problems outside of court.  In many instances, courts’ ideal role is to coordinate responses and warn parents of the consequences of failure to address the circumstances and causes of their children’s behavior while directing cases into other appropriate systems.

Courts should develop clear protocols for intake officers to follow for each type of status offense to assure that no case is petitioned before the intake officer has determined that every reasonable effort was made to avoid court involvement.  The phrase “reasonable efforts” has long been a benchmark in child welfare cases for courts to critically analyze agency efforts to preserve and reunify families.  Laws in every state require the provision of services that will help families in the child welfare system remedy the conditions that brought them into the system.  Generally, agency efforts must include “accessible, available and culturally appropriate services that are designed to improve the capacity of the family to provide safe and stable homes for their children.”¹  The types of services that may be offered to comply with the reasonable efforts mandate include services like respite care, family therapy, home visiting programs, parenting classes or parent and family support groups.  

For all status offense referrals, intake officers should similarly review pre-court efforts with an emphasis on diversion services and assessments and treatments that identify the cause of the case referral, enhance the family’s capacity to address its own problems and provide a safe environment for the child.  They should also ensure that the child and family were able to reap the benefits of any applicable federal or state entitlement programs that would make formal court processing unnecessary. (See Section 3.11 and commentary.)  

Intake officers must also assess whether the behaviors alleged in fact meet the statutory definition of the status offense charged and that all statutory pre-requisites to court involvement were followed.  For example, many state statutes use terms like “habitual,” “without good cause” or “intentional” to describe status behaviors.  They may also require education or juvenile justice systems provide certain services or assistance before they can petition cases to court.  Yet, petitioners often fail to show how the alleged behaviors meet these criteria, or courts fail to fully assess whether the statutory definitions or pre-requisites were met.  As part of the intake officer’s reasonable efforts mandate to avoid court, he or she should screen out cases that do not meet statutory criteria.²

Efforts first responders must make will vary, depending on the alleged status behavior charged, the services available in the jurisdiction and state law or policy requirements. However, as discussed in more detail in Section 2.7 and Section 3.11, best practices suggest that intake officers should not accept jurisdiction over an alleged status case without minimally reviewing the extent of pre-court diversion efforts, whether statutory criteria for the alleged offense are met and whether other laws or entitlement preclude petitioning a status offense court case.

---

¹ Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2006) Reasonable Efforts to Preserve or Reunify Families and Achieve Permanency for Children.  Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services, ACYF/Children’s Bureau.

² For a more in depth discussion of meeting statutory criteria before petitioning a status offense case, see Smith, T. (2010). “Pre-adjudication Strategies for Defending Juveniles in Status Offense Proceedings” in Representing Juvenile Status Offenders.  Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, 62-66. Available at: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/child/PublicDocuments/RJSO_FINAL.authcheckdam.pdf.