The Future of the Juvenile Court: Promising New Directions

Abstract

The juvenile court of the future will be a viable, but changed, institution largely because of society's need to hold parents accountable for their children's well-being and youths accountable for their actions. The author describes three current trends in juvenile court which will continue to impact the court in the future. First, more jurisdictions will refine and streamline their court structures, either through better coordination or by creating unified family courts. This will result in better handling and supervision of multiple cases involving the same family. Second, the use of a wide variety of alternative dispute resolution techniques will grow, and the court will assume a monitoring and oversight function over these mediated agreements. Third, private and voluntary efforts will be utilized to assist the court in providing services to children and families, as well as to mobilize community-wide efforts on behalf of children. Ideally, the juvenile court of the future will place itself squarely in the community and work with others concerned about the well-being of children and families to provide an appropriate and meaningful response to each child who comes within the court's purview.

Project start: An evaluation of a community-wide school-based intervention to reduce truancy

“…The Project START, community-based court intervention was developed in response to the truancy intervention literature calling for combined approaches that address underlying family problems while holding youth accountable for status offenses (Edwards, 1996;Epstein & Sheldon, 2002;Kearney, 2003). This intervention represents many facets of recommended truancy intervention (Colorado Foundation for Families and Children, 2002).…”

“…Recently, policymakers have recognized the importance of multidimensional intervention strategies that seek to foster interdisciplinary, interagency collaborations (Edwards, 1996;Epstein, & Sheldon, 2002;White, Fyfe, Campbell, & Goldkamp, 2001). The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Education recommend that schools and other relevant municipal agencies decide how to combat truancy in their neighborhoods and that intervention decisions be made with the active participation of parents, educators, law enforcement personnel, juvenile and family court judges, and representatives from social service, community, and religious organizations (U.S. Department of Education, 1996).…”

“…Finally, it is recognized that court petitions are not necessary or appropriate in all truancy situations (Steinhart, 1996). As Edwards (1996) states, "There are not enough courtrooms, judicial resources, or hours in the day to hear all the cases involving children and their families" (p. 134). Moreover, court sanctions often fail to address the underlying issues facing families and preventing children from attending school (Edwards, 1996).…”

“…As Edwards (1996) states, "There are not enough courtrooms, judicial resources, or hours in the day to hear all the cases involving children and their families" (p. 134). Moreover, court sanctions often fail to address the underlying issues facing families and preventing children from attending school (Edwards, 1996). Within the juvenile justice system, the value of partnering with schools and community-based organizations for developing a continuum of services has been lauded (Edwards, 1996;Epstein & Sheldon, 2002;Steinhart, 1996).…”

Magistrates' Perspectives on the Criminal Division of the Children's Court of Victoria

“…Changes in court structure have also been advocated. For example, a unified court has been proposed that would integrate the Children's and Family Courts (Edwards, 1996;Freiberg et al, 2004;Nicholson, 2003) to provide a coherent and systemic approach to child-related law (Seymour, 2005).…”