This is a development website for JJGPS. Visit the live site »

How are the states organized to advance more active and results-oriented juvenile justice solutions? Every state has a set of laws establishing a system of juvenile courts and a corresponding intervention system commonly referred to as juvenile justice services. Advancements in the science of adolescent development and accompanying intervention strategies are gradually changing juvenile justice services in states, which are increasingly adopting evidence-based approaches to screening and assessment and reporting their performance. 

Purpose clauses

Purpose clauses are usually written in statute to clarify the intention of the legislature for the state’s juvenile justice system, as this area of law is complex and can be ambiguous. Most states have an overall purpose clause for juvenile court and some have additional clauses by adjudication category or for the juvenile justice agency.

Purpose clauses tend to evolve along with larger juvenile justice paradigm shifts as priorities, knowledge, and national trends emerge. Purpose clauses are also influenced by court cases, new laws, and model legislation or reforms drafted by national experts during periods of collective change. Some states advance juvenile justice purpose clauses along this continuum and others mostly reflect principles of a prior reform cycle.

Read more

Learn more

This map summarizes NCJJ's new approach to classifying state purpose clauses.  It shows the state's most recent paradigm shift.

No clause:

These states have no statutory juvenile court purpose clause.

Parens patriae:

This Latin phrase means "father of the nation" and applies to clauses that reflect the juvenile court judge’s earliest role as the state’s designated protector of children.

Due process era:

Refers to the reform period of the 1960's & 70's where federal laws, model acts, and Supreme Court cases influenced the addition of due process procedures.

Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ):

Refers to states that incorporate BARJ, a model of reform released in the early 1990's on the heels of the most punitive era of juvenile justice.

Developmental Approach:

These states retain elements of prior categories, but have purpose clauses that mention the use of adolescent development or other research or data to assist the juvenile justice system, or requires the use of evidence based practices. >> Details

    VT NH MA RI CT NJ DE MD DC AL AK AZ AR CA CO FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA SC SD TN TX UT VA WA WV WI WY
    State

     

    Basic services

    Juvenile justice services share a common set of core intervention activities to support public safety and youth treatment goals. However, each state operates services to delinquent youth at different levels, with different delivery systems that are state operated, mostly state operated or locally administered.

    Some states operate juvenile justice services from the state level (11) with all but one of those states (Utah) actually centralizing authority in a single state agency.  Other states organize services mostly from the state level (22) and some can be characterized as organizing most or all core delinquency services locally (18).

    Learn more

      VT NH MA RI CT NJ DE MD DC AL AK AZ AR CA CO FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA SC SD TN TX UT VA WA WV WI WY

      Corrections agency

      Some variation and fluidity exists among states for the type of agency charged with juvenile corrections.

      Between 1993 and 2005, eight states separated juvenile corrections responsibility into an independent agency dedicated to juvenile corrections (Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Oregon). In contrast, between 2005 and 2015, two states merged independent juvenile corrections agencies within a broader adult corrections department (Kansas and North Carolina).

      Learn more

      Various state executive branch agencies administer commitments to state juvenile correctional facilities.  These agencies are responsible for maintaining operations and managing administrative functions, including finance and human resources or managing contracts to private provider networks. A four-category typology was created by NCJJ during the early 1990s to chart change.

      Independent juvenile corrections agency:

      State agencies of equal stature to a state’s adult department of corrections.

      Family/child welfare agency or division:

      Agencies within a broader social or human services agency or independent children and youth serving agencies that manage both child protection and juvenile corrections.

      Broad human services agency:

      The general public welfare agency.

      Adult corrections agency or division:

      Adult corrections agency, often with an internal division for juvenile corrections.

        VT NH MA RI CT NJ DE MD DC AL AK AZ AR CA CO FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA SC SD TN TX UT VA WA WV WI WY

        Intake and diversion

        Court intervention is mandatory in every state within hours when custody is taken from parent/s for detention. When youth are not in custody, initial complaints or petitions that allege a minor violated the law are screened for opportunities to divert youth from deeper court involvement at two stages.  Pre-petition court diversions occur after a court referral but before a judge must become involved. Post-petition court diversions occur after adjudication hearings are initiated, but before a formal juvenile record of adjudication is set.

        State legislatures specify when diversions can occur at intake and identify decision-making roles. In some states, prosecutors (DA's) make the decision. In others, the juvenile court oversees intake officers with this discretion.

        Juvenile court intake officers (JCIO's) are usually probation officers that work for a designated state or local (county/district) court service or executive branch agency. Some states divide tasks by offense level or grant authority to both DA's and JCIO's in other combinations. Many states permit variations in local jurisdictions by court rule or local agreements.  

        Diversion time limits

        Court diversion time limits are set by statute in many states. On one hand, time limits help standardize diversion responses throughout the state and keep matters from pending without resolution for long periods of time. Limits can also help maximize use of public resources (court time, alternative programming) and help resolve the use of 'voluntary' community supervision and placements quickly. On the other hand, mandated timelines could limit the court's ability to oversee comprehensive rehabilitation of youth without also imposing the collateral consequences of a juvenile record.

        Shorter pre-petition time limits afford due process, but shorter post-petition time limits may not afford the judge sufficient flexibility for exceptions, or enough time for youth with multiple needs to complete lasting rehabilitation or to restore justice. Time limits can also vary by local court rule or jurisdiction agreements.

        Learn more

        Read more

        This map shows whether prosecutorial officials and/or juvenile court intake officers have discretion to make the initial decision to pursue a court diversion following an adjudication-related referral that does not involve detention. These court diversions intend to avoid judicial involvement and/or a juvenile adjudication record and are usually arranged before an evidentiary hearing occurs. Pre-petition court diversions can take the form of a (diversion) program referral and/or a contingent written agreement with various terms and conditions that are monitored for successful completion.

          VT NH MA RI CT NJ DE MD DC AL AK AZ AR CA CO FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA SC SD TN TX UT VA WA WV WI WY
          State

          The map below shows whether and at what stage states identify court diversion time limits for when adjudications must proceed, be finalized for the record, or dismissed.

          Pre-petition: These court diversions are considered consensual and informal, but many states limit the amount of time before a judge must become involved to extend a monitored agreement or proceed with adjudication. The most common limit for non-judicial court diversions is six months.

          Post-petition: These court diversions are ordered by the court. Some states set time limits for how long consent decrees can remain in force and/or how long adjudication proceedings can remain in a pending status while juveniles complete terms and conditions or dispositions that intend to avoid an adjudication record upon successful completion.  When these court diversions are time limited, judges can most commonly hold matters in a pending status for an additional year.

            VT NH MA RI CT NJ DE MD DC AL AK AZ AR CA CO FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA SC SD TN TX UT VA WA WV WI WY
            State

            Solitary confinement

            Solitary confinement in youth facilities is currently being reconsidered in many state and local jurisdictions across the country, based on research and reflections that illustrate its negative effects.  The Stop Solitary for Kids campaign defines solitary confinement as the involuntary placement of a youth alone in a cell or room for any reason other than as a temporary response to behavior that threatens immediate harm to the youth or others. Whether it’s called “seclusion,” “isolation,” “segregation,” or “room confinement,” the result is often the same—long periods of time, sometimes weeks or months, in isolation with little access to education, mental health services, drug treatment, or basic human interactions. According to Stop Solitary for Kids, the practice can have long term consequences including trauma, psychosis, depression, anxiety, and increased risk of suicide and self-harm.

            In 2016, the use of solitary confinement was banned for youth in the federal prison system and the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention supported efforts to end solitary confinement.  The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and other professional organizations also took positions against solitary confinement for youth.  Many state and local jurisdictions followed suit by reducing or eliminating the use of punitive solitary confinement in juvenile facilities.

            A 2016 legislative review and survey of juvenile correctional facilities conducted by the Lowenstein Center for the Public Interest at Lowenstein Sandler indicated that 29 states prohibit the use of solitary confinement for punitive purposes in state operated juvenile correctional facilities, where youth are serving long term custodial sentences. 

            Prohibits punitive confinement:

            Jurisdictions prohibiting the use of punitive solitary confinement by law or practice in juvenile correctional facilities. Includes states that allow punitive confinement for a maximum of 4 hours per day.

            Limits punitive confinement:

            Jurisdictions limiting the amount of time a juvenile may spend in punitive solitary confinement in juvenile correctional facilities.

            No limits on punitive confinement:

            Jurisdictions placing no limit or allowing indefinite extension of the amount of time a juvenile may spend in punitive solitary confinement in juvenile correctional facilities.

              VT NH MA RI CT NJ DE MD DC AL AK AZ AR CA CO FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA SC SD TN TX UT VA WA WV WI WY
              State

              Adapted from 51 Jurisdiction Survey of Juvenile Solitary Confinement Rules in Juvenile Justice Systems, 2016. Lowenstein Center for the Public Interest at Lowenstein Sandler LLP.  Updates are made as new information becomes available.  In 2017, Wyoming and Georgia provided updates to the survey.

              Release decision

              Every year, thousands of youth are released from state juvenile correctional facilities and considerable variation exists among states on how this decision is made and by whom. The power to decide when a committed juvenile is to be released from a state correctional facility is often entrusted to the agency or institution to which the juvenile has been committed, the juvenile court having jurisdiction over the case, a separately constituted paroling authority, or sometimes to some combination of these. This analysis focuses on a physical release from an institution which may be separate from the decision to discharge a youth from agency supervision/custody.

              Learn More

              • JJIE Reentry Reform Hub: This online resource is curated by the National Juvenile Justice Network and provides an overview of key issues and reform trends relating to reentry and aftercare. Within the key issues and reform trends sections, you will find helpful links as well as the most recent research, cutting-edge reforms, model policies, links to experts, and toolkits to take action.
              • Youth Reentry Improvement Report (2011): This Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission policy report offers reform recommendations in the context of a state with a juvenile parole board and adult-style parole supervision model.

              The decision-making processes that result in the release of a youth from state correction institutions are complex and vary widely across the country. An analysis of these decisions resulted in the creation of 4 categories:

              Agency:

              Decides when to release youth from state institutions.

              Court:

              Courts have sole authority to decide when youth are to be released from state institutions. 

              Parole board:

              Decides when youth are to be released from state institutions. This power may be shared with the court or agency as it is in New Jersey, New York, and South Carolina.

              Agency and court:

              Discretion is shared. Sometimes, the release power is split between decision makers due to specific offense criteria or in other cases, the agency makes the decision subject to court approval.

                VT NH MA RI CT NJ DE MD DC AL AK AZ AR CA CO FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA SC SD TN TX UT VA WA WV WI WY
                State

                Risk assessment

                Risk/need assessment tools have become common practice in juvenile probation settings across the country. Risk/need assessment tools gauge the likelihood that an individual will reoffend and guide case planning by identifying and prioritizing criminogenic needs. These tools are the foundation of evidence based practices, enhancing efforts to treat offenders, reduce recidivism, and increase public safety.  NCJJ first surveyed state-level probation contacts in all 50 states and the District of Columbia in 2013 regarding the use of risk/need assessment tools in juvenile probation statewide, however NCJJ did not independently verify whether all jurisdictions within a state were actually using the identified tool. This 2017 update suggests states continue to adopt consistent approaches to assessment by adopting a single risk/need assessment tool statewide.  

                Since 2013, five additional states (Arkansas, Hawaii, Kansas, Mississippi and West Virginia) implemented a single risk assessment tool statewide in juvenile probation achieving Statewide Uniform Assessment. Two states (Kentucky and Rhode Island) changed the assessment tool in use, while retaining their statewide implementation. Kentucky switched from the YLS/CMI to the Risk and Criminogenic Needs Assessment (RCNA) while Rhode Island chose the SAVRY after years of using the Probation Risk Needs Assessment.

                Statewide uniform assessment:

                States adopt a single risk assessment tool statewide that is required or encouraged by the state.

                Layered/regional assessment:

                States do not achieve statewide implementation with a single tool due to layered probation (state and local) or due to regional differences.

                Locally administered assessment:

                States lack requirement to implement risk assessment tool allowing local policy to govern the use of risk need assessment tools.

                  VT NH MA RI CT NJ DE MD DC AL AK AZ AR CA CO FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA SC SD TN TX UT VA WA WV WI WY
                  State

                  Sex offense registry

                  When first adopted, federal registration and notification laws neither required nor prohibited inclusion of youth, but by the 1990s many state sex-offense registration laws were drafted to include youth adjudicated for sex offenses.  It was not until 2006, with the passing of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), that it became a federal requirement to register adjudicated sex offenses.

                  SORNA requires those who commit sex offenses to register their places of residence and employment, while state and local laws prohibit them from traveling within child safety zones. Failure to register any change is a felony offense, punishable by prison and fines. Youth who move across state lines may be required to register at their new address, even though they were not required to register in the state where the offense occurred. SORNA also broadened the categories of registrable offenses, some requiring lifetime registration.

                  Despite SORNA's original intentions, research indicates youth who sexually offend have relatively low reoffense rates and that registries stigmatize these youth in their communities and schools, resulting in serious unforeseen life-long consequences. For these and other reasons, in May 2016, the Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice recommended that youth adjudicated delinquent be exempt from SORNA laws.

                  Learn More

                  SORNA FAQ on Juvenile Registration (Office of Justice Programs website)

                  John Hopkins Moore Center for the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse 
                  (child sexual abuse prevention research center)

                  Based on a statute analysis completed by the Center for Youth Registration Reform, 12 states do not require registration for youth adjudicated of sex offenses in juvenile court.

                  Registers:

                  Statute permits or requires juveniles adjudicated in juvenile court on sex offender registries. While statute still requires registration in Pennsylvania, the practice has ended after being ruled unconstitutional by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Registerable offenses vary by state. Some of these registries are publicly available.

                  Does not register:

                  Does not place juveniles adjudicated in juvenile court on sex offender registry.

                    VT NH MA RI CT NJ DE MD DC AL AK AZ AR CA CO FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA SC SD TN TX UT VA WA WV WI WY
                    State

                    National assistance

                    The Center on Youth Registration Reform (CYRR) (a member of IMPACT JUSTICE) is a national youth advocacy organization dedicated to documenting the complexity of state policies on juvenile registries and providing national advocacy for repealing registry laws. CYRR provides news on system reform and tools for lawmakers reconsidering policies.

                    Evidence-based practices

                    Juvenile justice services are increasingly required to implement practices and program interventions supported by the current body of juvenile justice evaluation research and demonstrate outcomes that reduce the likelihood of re-offense.


                    Risk instruments

                    More states are using research-informed techniques for assessing risk factors (criminogenic needs) of youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice system. These techniques are increasingly guiding intervention planning for juvenile probation, with 38 states adopting a single risk assessment tool at the state-level. There are various instruments in use across the country as indicated in the Risk Instruments table on the right. 

                    State support: 42 states support risk assessment through either state statute or probation agency policy. In addition, 4 states have a state agency recommendation to adopt risk assessment in juvenile probation.

                    Learn more


                    Standardized mental health screening

                    Mental health screening involves applying a validated screening tool, by non-clinical staff, universally to an entire population.  States are increasingly using this approach in a variety of juvenile services settings from detention admission through probation and juvenile corrections.

                    Learn more


                    State support for evidence-based policies, programs and practices

                    The states vary in the infrastructure support they provide to advance this cause across diverse geographies.

                    State policy: 18 states currently have statutes that support a commitment to evidence-based programs and practices specifically in juvenile justice and another 28 states have agency administrative regulations that require evidence-based practices in some way.

                    Support centers: 13 states have established a support center or collaborative dedicated to coordinating activities around implementing, evaluating and sustaining evidence-based programming and practices in juvenile justice.  Support centers have a name, internet presence, provide training and technical assistance and provide performance indicator reports online.

                    Lean more

                    Download this data

                    Recidivism reporting

                    Juvenile justice services, programs, and interventions are often deemed successful or not based upon a common outcome measure of subsequent criminal behavior commonly referred to as recidivism. Recidivism is defined and measured in many different ways based upon how the measure will be used and what data is available. The most useful recidivism analyses include the widest possible range of events that correspond with actual reoffending and include sufficient detail to differentiate offenders by offense severity in addition to other characteristics (Sickmund and Puzzanchera,2014).

                    NCJJ reviewed publicly available juvenile justice recidivism reports was conducted to discover which states currently publish recidivism data and do so repeatedly over time. States that only offer point-in-time studies are not included here.

                    Some states simply provide a recidivism rate, while others provide much more detail to help define recidivism. Recidivism reports are published by different authors, including correction agencies and courts, leading to multiple reports for some states. In this analysis, these reports are combined into a single entry.

                    Once located, reports were reviewed to identify key elements that help define recidivism in each state.  These include which youth are tracked (study population), measures of recidivism (marker event), and how long youth are tracked (follow up period). To summarize the results, the study populations and marker events were synthesized into four categories: Arrest, Court Action, Supervision, and Placement. Some reports include details that provide for a more in-depth analysis, such as age, race, gender, risk level, and prior juvenile justice history.

                    Learn More

                    National assistance

                    The National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) has a history of helping jurisdictions collect, analyze, and apply data to make juvenile justice decisions. NCJJJ is currently partnering with The Pew Charitable Trust's Public Safety Performance Project (PSPP) and the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators on a comprehensive study of juvenile recidivism in five states. NCJJ can assist your jurisdiction to determine how to develop and apply measures of subsequent offending.

                    National Juvenile Justice Network

                    The Juvenile Justice Resource Hub is curated by the National Juvenile Justice Network (NJJN) and hosted by the Juvenile Justice Information Exchange. The Hub is a one-stop resource center for systems reform advocacy. It includes an evidence-based practice area that is designed to support youth advocates with a comprehensive literature review, summaries of key issues and terms and connections to experts.

                    Study populations:

                    The group(s) of youth being studied in states that publicly report recidivism data.

                    • Reported
                    • Not reported
                    Re-offense event:

                    Events that are used to measure recidivism in states that publicly report recidivism data.

                    • Studied
                    • Not studied
                    Follow-up periods:

                    Details regarding the length of time and frequency that youth are tracked in states that publicly report recidivism data.

                    • Reported
                    • Not reported
                    Details:

                    Additional levels of analysis provided in states that publicly report recidivism data.

                    • In reports
                    • Not in reports
                    • *Provides data in multiple reports

                    Download this data

                    Progressive recidivism data

                    As illustrated in table above, state level recidivism reports vary widely in the populations, marker events, and other details included in their analyses. Given the complexities involved in measuring recidivism, most published reports include only one population and one marker event as additional details often require additional data sources and other resources. However, there are a few examples of progressive recidivism research which include multiple populations and marker events and/or include more comprehensive analyses.

                    Click a state to see a summary of its policies and more information.

                    About this project

                    Juvenile Justice GPS (Geography, Policy, Practice, Statistics) is a project to develop a repository providing state policy makers and system stakeholders with a clear understanding of the juvenile justice landscape in the states.

                    Continue reading »

                    Feedback

                    Tell us what you think of JJGPS. Questions, feedback, or other comments are welcomed.

                    Questions or feedback »

                    Follow on Twitter »