Criminal Justice Policy Review

The juvenile justice system has been transformed in recent years with a range of policies designed to hold youth accountable, but how does society hold this system accountable? Calls for governmental accountability are common, yet few jurisdictions can provide comprehensive information about the basic operations of juvenile justice and the effectiveness of system reforms. Most elements of the juvenile justice system operate on faith—managers and policy makers have to assume that their programs are based on sound evidence and that reform efforts are fully implemented with fidelity to their designs. Performance monitoring provides a way to address this situation, but it is unlikely to occur without a substantial commitment of resources. This article describes performance measurement and monitoring; their relevance for improving the accountability, operations, and effectiveness of juvenile justice; and three examples of how the techniques are currently being applied in the United States.

The accountability movement of the juvenile justice system in the late 1980s and early 1990s encouraged more punitive practices. Public opinion was strong during this time. The attitudes about the juvenile justice system are a product of individual demographic, cultural, and political characteristics. This study addresses opinions about juvenile waivers—a punitive sanction—examining data from the National Opinion Survey of Crime and Justice in the 1990s. This study analyzes attitudes about juvenile waivers, using multivariate quantitative methods. The results indicate a consistent relationship between the perception of the sentencing goals of the juvenile court (punishment versus rehabilitation) and one's attitudes toward the use of juvenile waivers. Contrary to the generated hypotheses, though, attitudes about juvenile waivers were not consistently dependent on individual demographic, cultural, or political characteristics.

This research seeks to determine whether the manner in which a juvenile is transferred to criminal court affects the length of confinement sentences. A significant difference in confinement sentences was noted between juveniles transferred by statutory exclusion and those waived after a judicial hearing. An underlying political mechanism is deemed responsible for this finding. As such, this research evokes the tension between the political incentives of legislators, the popular will, and the relative expertise of court actors in forming sentencing policy for transferred juveniles.

This study evaluates the intended and unintended consequences of the Missouri Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1995. Factors related to sentence outcomes are examined prior to the Act's passage and then several years after the Act was implemented. The elimination of sex and race biases were intended goals of the Act. Although the analyses reveal mixed findings, the results clearly indicate that sex and race equity was not achieved. Some evidence suggests that judges may be taking a more retributive approach since the passage of the Reform Act, for example, not placing as much emphasis on drug/alcohol use when making sentencing decisions. Alternative explanations are offered.

Interviews of 147 juveniles in postadjudication residential facilities revealed that the juveniles generally did not believe their parents were responsible for the illegal activities of the juvenile. A vast majority of juveniles said that their parents were not responsible at all and also said that if they had known that their parents would also be punished for their crimes, they would have been less likely to commit the crimes. No patterns emerged for these questions based on the demographic or social characteristics of the juveniles. Implications of the juveniles' perspective are considered, focusing particularly on the juveniles' lack of willingness to place accountability on their parents.

This article examines the impact of the Youth Criminal Justice Act of 2002 on police discretion with apprehended young offenders in Canada. Data for 1986 to 2005 from the Canadian Uniform Crime Reporting Survey are analyzed using an interrupted time series design. The Youth Criminal Justice Act was successful in achieving its objective of reducing youth court referrals by structuring police discretion. It caused a substantial change in the exercise of police discretion with apprehended youth: a substantial decrease in the use of charges and a corresponding increase in the use of alternatives to charging. The substitution of extrajudicial measures for charges occurred in all four regions of Canada and was much greater with minor offenses than with serious youth crime. Possible reasons for the success of the Youth Criminal Justice Act are discussed.