|
|
Juvenile Justice: Representation Rates Varied As Did Counsel's Impact on
Court Outcomes
(Letter Report, 06/19/95, GAO/GGD-95-139).
Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed juveniles' access to
counsel in state and local juvenile delinquency proceedings, focusing
on: (1) juveniles' right to counsel under 15 states' laws; (2) the
frequency with which juveniles have counsel in juvenile courts in 3
states; (3) the likely impact of counsel on juvenile justice outcomes;
(4) juveniles' access to counsel in adult courts; and (5) the quality of
counsel juveniles receive.
GAO found that: (1) the 15 states reviewed had laws guaranteeing
juveniles' right to counsel in delinquency proceedings which included
provisions for indigent juveniles; (2) 11 states specified the
circumstances under which juveniles could waive their right to counsel
and in 3 states, juveniles could waive their right to counsel although
statutes did not specifically provide for such waivers; (3) juvenile
representation rates varied between 97 percent to 65 percent and between
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas; (4) the impact of counsel on
case outcomes varied by the state and offense, but in 2 states,
juveniles without representation were less likely to receive out-of-home
placements; (5) differences in case outcomes between represented and
nonrepresented juveniles were due more to other variables than to
juveniles' representation status; (6) although there was no existing
data on juveniles' access to counsel in adult courts, state laws provide
for such representation; and (7) prosecutors and juvenile justice
officials were generally satisfied with the quality of counsel juvenile
offenders received and believed that public defenders were at least as
capable as private attorneys, although they had excessive caseloads and
limited resources.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-95-139
TITLE: Juvenile Justice: Representation Rates Varied As Did
Counsel's Impact on Court Outcomes
DATE: 06/19/95
SUBJECT: Juvenile status offenders
Courtroom proceedings
State law
Right to counsel
Right to due process
Lawyers
Juvenile delinquency
IDENTIFIER: California
Pennsylvania
Nebraska
Arizona
Florida
Maryland
Missouri
South Carolina
Utah
Idaho
Kansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
New York
Texas
Ohio
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed product. *
* *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble *
* those in the printed version. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, and the
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunity, House of
Representatives
June 1995
JUVENILE JUSTICE - REPRESENTATION
RATES VARIED AS DID COUNSEL'S
IMPACT ON COURT OUTCOMES
GAO/GGD-95-139
Juvenile Justice
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
DHRS - Department of Health and Rehabilitation Services
DJJ - Department of Juvenile Justice
DJS - Department of Juvenile Services
MSA - Metropolitan Statistical Area
NJCDA - National Juvenile Court Data Archive
NCJJ - National Center for Juvenile Justice
OJJDP - Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention
PMSA - Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area
SAS - Statistical Analysis System
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-259801
June 19, 1995
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
Chairman
The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
The Honorable William F. Goodling
Chairman
The Honorable William L. Clay
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunity
House of Representatives
The 1992 reauthorization (P.L. 102-586) of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-415) mandated that we
study access to counsel in state and local juvenile delinquency
proceedings. Some legal organizations and scholars had raised
concern about the access to counsel afforded to juveniles in juvenile
court proceedings. For example, the American Bar Association; the
Consortium of Children, Families and the Law; and individual law
professors testified in September 1992 to Congress that half of all
juveniles in the United States waive their constitutionally
guaranteed right to counsel without speaking to an attorney.
To meet our legislative requirements, we agreed with your committees
to
review state laws for 15 states that we selected to determine
juveniles' right to counsel,
determine the frequency with which juveniles have counsel in
juvenile courts in three states,
determine the likely impact of counsel on juvenile justice
outcomes,
determine if juveniles who are in adult court have counsel, and
develop insights regarding the quality of counsel.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
Statutes guaranteeing juveniles' right to counsel in delinquency
proceedings were present in the 15 states whose laws we examined.
For juveniles who could not provide counsel on their own, the states
had provisions to provide and compensate counsel for them. Of the 15
states, 11 had laws allowing the waiver of counsel under certain
circumstances but generally had rules to ensure that waivers were
made only when juveniles were aware of their right and voluntarily
gave up that right. According to officials in three other states,
juveniles can waive counsel even though the state statutes do not
specifically address the waiver issue. In the remaining state,
juveniles could not waive counsel.
We could find no national data regarding juveniles' representation by
counsel. However, the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ)\1
had such data for some jurisdictions, and we analyzed its data for
available counties in California, Pennsylvania, and Nebraska for
portions of 1990 and 1991. The results only relate to the
jurisdictions for which we were able to obtain data and therefore
cannot be generalized to other jurisdictions within these states.
Throughout this report, our references to the states apply only to
the counties in the states for which we have data.
Overall representation rates varied widely, from about 97 and about
91 percent, respectively, in California and Pennsylvania to
about 65 percent in Nebraska, and within the states the rates
varied between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.\2
Representation rates by offense category (e.g., violent crimes,
property crimes, drug crimes, etc.) varied, with minimal
variation in California and Pennsylvania (about 83 to almost 100
percent) across all categories and a wider variation across
categories in Nebraska (about 54 to 91 percent); however, 76
percent of all unrepresented cases in Nebraska were for less
serious property offenses.
Overall impact of representation on case outcomes varied according to
the state and the offense category. Sometimes juveniles with
representation were more likely to have their cases adjudicated as
delinquent (i.e., judged to be a delinquent)\3 and sometimes those
without representation were more likely to be adjudicated as
delinquent. In most cases, juveniles without representation were
less likely to receive out-of-home placements (e.g., training
school).
According to our logistic regression\4 models for California,
Nebraska, and Pennsylvania, unrepresented juveniles were generally
about as likely to have their cases adjudicated than represented
juveniles, but characteristics other than representation (e.g.,
detention prior to adjudication and prior offense history) were more
strongly associated with the likelihood of adjudication.
According to our models for placement outcomes for the three states,
juveniles' characteristics other than representation (e.g., detention
prior to adjudication or prior offense history) were more strongly
associated with placement decisions.
We could not locate any databases to determine if juveniles in adult
court had counsel or to compare access to counsel for juveniles in
adult and juvenile court. However, on the basis of our review of
criminal law, juveniles in adult court have the same right to counsel
as adults. In addition, our survey of prosecutors indicated that
juveniles in adult and juvenile court were given the same opportunity
as adults to be represented. (We could not determine the extent to
which juveniles waived their right to counsel in adult court.)
Prosecutors and juvenile justice officials in the eight local
jurisdictions we visited were generally favorable concerning the
quality of counsel provided to juveniles. They also reported that
public defenders were seen to be at least as capable as private
attorneys in representing juveniles, and several officials noted that
public defenders were more knowledgeable in the laws and rules
governing juvenile proceedings. However, these officials noted that
while public defenders had the most experience in juvenile law and
procedures, they also had very high caseloads. These officials
raised concerns over the limited resources and growing caseloads of
public defenders.
--------------------
\1 NCJJ, located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is the research
division of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
\2 NCJJ data from California contained only metropolitan counties.
\3 A delinquent is a youth who has been charged with or had a case
adjudicated for criminal conduct.
\4 Logistic regression analysis is a widely accepted statistical
methodology used when the dependent variable is qualitative, such as
if a juvenile is adjudicated as delinquent. Regression analysis
identifies relationships between the dependent variable and two or
more key variables, such as the use of counsel and the juvenile
offender's current offense category and prior offense history and
supervisory status.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Juvenile justice is primarily the responsibility of state and local
authorities because juvenile courts derive their authority from state
legislatures. The juvenile courts of all 50 states are part of their
states' judicial system but are generally county or city based and
vary in structure, policy, and procedure. Thus, juvenile courts'
jurisdiction and procedures vary widely across and within states.
Appendix I illustrates differences in profiles of the juvenile
justice processes in nine states.\5
--------------------
\5 Arizona, California, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Utah.
MAJOR ELEMENTS OF JUVENILE
COURT PROCEDURE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.1
When juveniles commit crimes, they are usually subject to the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court as a delinquent offender.
Referrals of delinquents come to juvenile court from many sources,
including parents, police officers, victims, and schools. Law
enforcement agencies provide the vast majority of referrals to
juvenile courts. The Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) reported in 1991 that law
enforcement agencies referred 85 percent of all delinquency cases to
the courts.
Referrals generally come to the court's intake department to be
screened by intake staff.\6 The intake staff examine the referral to
determine what type of crime is alleged to have been committed and
how to proceed with the handling of the referral. The intake
decision process has several potential outcomes. Among other things,
intake staff may decide to dismiss the case for insufficient legal
evidence or to resolve the matter informally out of court.\7 These
informal dispositions may include diverting the juvenile to a social
agency for services,\8
informal probation, or the payment of fines or some form of
restitution.
If intake staff decide that the referral should be handled formally,
a petition is drafted and filed to provide notice of the issues that
will be adjudicated. The petition charges the juvenile with a
delinquency offense violation and requests an adjudicatory or waiver
hearing. In some states, petitions may be dismissed before the
actual adjudicatory hearing\9 is held for various reasons, such as
when the case is not viewed by court officials as a particularly
serious offense. For example, in Pennsylvania, less serious
petitioned cases may be disposed of by consent decrees--informal
adjustments\10 without an adjudicatory hearing.
At an adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile may have his or her case
adjudicated, i.e., judged as delinquent and, if so, the case proceeds
to a disposition hearing.\11 The judge is responsible for presiding
over the hearing, including determining placement of the juvenile
during the pending proceedings, making any interim orders that are
necessary to the conduct of the case, and deciding the disposition of
the case if there has been a finding of delinquency. The range of
disposition options available to the juvenile court judge generally
includes (1) commitment to an institution; (2) placement in a group
home or other residential facility; (3) probation; (4) referral to an
outside agency or mental health program; or (5) imposition of a fine,
community service, or restitution order.
A juvenile may be temporarily placed in a detention facility during
various stages of a case as it progresses through the juvenile
justice system. Generally, juveniles alleged to be delinquent may be
placed in secure custody in a physically restrictive facility.
Depending on the state's detention laws, the juvenile may be detained
to protect the community, the juvenile, or both. In addition,
detention may be used to ensure the juvenile's appearance at a
hearing or while the juvenile is awaiting long-term placement in
another facility. A judicial decision to detain or continue
detention may occur before or after adjudication or disposition.
OJJDP estimated that in 1991 juveniles were held in detention
facilities between the time of referral and case disposition in about
20 percent of the 1.3 million delinquency cases.\12
--------------------
\6 We obtained the information in this section from various sources,
such as documents and discussions with juvenile justice officials.
\7 Besides insufficient legal evidence, a referral may be dismissed
because (1) the offense is petty or seen as a low risk, (2) the
referral is a first offense, and the level of its seriousness does
not merit formal consideration, (3) the juvenile and his/her family
have reimbursed a victim for damages, (4) formal processing is seen
as unnecessary, (5) or because family strengths are prominent and the
juvenile is perceived to be responsive to parental controls and
discipline.
\8 Diversion programs were designed to remove first-time offenders
and relatively minor offenders from the formal adjudication process.
To meet the treatment needs of those juveniles, most of whom have not
faced previous juvenile court adjudication, a variety of
community-based programs and agencies have been created.
\9 A hearing where a judge presides over a juvenile court proceeding
to determine if the juvenile actually committed the alleged offense.
\10 The juvenile and the court agree to suspend the case with the
juvenile remaining at home under probation conditions for up to 6
months.
\11 Juveniles can also be adjudicated as status offenders. Juveniles
who have come in contact with the juvenile justice system by
committing an offense (such as running away or truancy) that would
not be a crime if committed by an adult are status offenders. Our
review focused on delinquents and did not include status offenders.
For more information on status offenders, see our report entitled
Noncriminal Juveniles: Detentions Have Been Reduced but Better
Monitoring Is Needed (GAO/GGD-91-65, Apr. 24, 1991).
\12 At the time of our review, 1991 was the most recent data
available.
ROLE OF COUNSEL IN JUVENILE
COURT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.2
Historically, juvenile delinquents subject to the jurisdiction of
juvenile court were not afforded the same constitutional rights
guaranteed to adult criminal defendants. However, in 1967 the U.S.
Supreme Court held that juvenile offenders were entitled to the
assistance of counsel in certain juvenile delinquency proceedings, In
re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).\13 In Gault, the Supreme Court
concluded that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
requires that in proceedings to determine delinquency (e.g.,
adjudication hearings) that may result in commitment to an
institution in which the juvenile's freedom is curtailed, the
juvenile and his or her parents must be notified of the juvenile's
right to be represented by counsel. The Supreme Court also indicated
that if the juvenile and his or her parents could not afford counsel,
counsel must be appointed to represent the juvenile.
With regard to the waiver of counsel, the Supreme Court indicated in
Gault that waiver must be an "intentional relinquishment or
abandonment of a fully known right." The Supreme Court also stated
that the juvenile and his or her parents have a right expressly to be
advised that they may retain counsel. If they are unable to afford
counsel, they are entitled, considering the seriousness of the charge
and the potential commitment, to be appointed counsel. However, they
can choose to waive counsel.
Currently, there are three major approaches to the provision of
defense counsel in juvenile courts:
public defenders, which include private attorneys or law firms
under contract with or granted funds by a governmental entity to
defend juveniles; private agencies, such as legal aid societies
under similar contracts or grants; and government defender
agencies;
private attorneys appointed by the court to represent individual
juveniles and paid from public funds; and
privately paid attorneys.
--------------------
\13 In an earlier case, the U.S. Supreme Court indicated that a
juvenile was entitled to the assistance of counsel in a proceeding to
determine whether the juvenile's case should be waived to the
jurisdiction of the criminal court. Kent v. United States, 383 U.S.
541, 561-62 (1966).
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
To aid us in identifying the issues regarding access to counsel, we
reviewed relevant literature in bibliographies provided by NCJJ and
OJJDP. We developed information on juveniles' rights and access to
counsel through a combination of methods, including (1) an analysis
of statutes, state administrative procedures, and case law in 15
states;\14 (2) an analysis of NCJJ statistical data on 3 states;\15
(3) nationwide surveys of county prosecutors and public defenders;
(4) telephone interviews with selected state and local judges in
Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Texas, and Utah; and (5) visits to four states--Florida, Louisiana,
Pennsylvania, and Utah--to meet with juvenile justice officials to
understand the processes and frequency of when counsel was provided.
We completed our statistical analysis of NCJJ data in two parts.
First, using seven general crime categories (see table 1.), we
developed statistics on case processing outcomes for certain counties
in California, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania for calendar years 1990 and
1991.\16 Specifically, we reported the percentages of juveniles
petitioned to court who received counsel. Second, we computed and
analyzed the probabilities that juveniles with counsel and without
counsel were adjudicated or placed. We analyzed these two decision
points because the Gault ruling focused on these key decisions in
which juveniles were at risk of losing their liberty.
Juvenile facilities are not all the same. For example, facilities
vary in degrees of security. Data were not readily available to
differentiate between types of placement juveniles received or the
security of the facility. Therefore, our analysis only recognized
that the juveniles were either placed or not placed. Also, the data
identified represented and unrepresented juveniles who were
adjudicated as delinquents. However, data were not readily available
to identify those who were represented but during the process had
their charges reduced (e.g., from aggravated to simple assault).
Therefore, our analysis of the data may not recognize the impact of
being represented in terms of impact on reduction in charges.
Table 1
Crime Categories and Types
Crime categories Crime types
------------------ ----------------------------------------
Violent crimes Murder and nonnegiligent manslaughter;
rape; robbery; aggravated assault; other
violent crimes, which include negligent
manslaughter, sexual assault,
kidnapping, and others but excludes
simple assault; and indeterminate
violent offenses (i.e., the crime was a
violent crime, but the type of violent
crime was not known).
Property crimes Burglary, fraud, forgery, and
embezzlement; larceny; motor vehicle
theft; unspecified larceny; other
property (e.g., trespassing and
vandalism); indeterminate property
(i.e., the crime was a property offense,
but the type of property offense was not
known).
Simple assault Generally an attack without a weapon
resulting in minor injury.
Drug crimes Possession, trafficking, and other or
unspecified drug crime.
Weapons Unlawful sale, manufacture,
transportation, distribution, or
possession.
Public order or Disorderly conduct, escape, obstruction
nonviolent crimes of justice, and other public order
crimes (e.g., prostitution).
Indeterminate Crime type not known.
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Definitions of crime types included in the six broader crime
categories may vary across states. Further, certain specific crime
types are excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction in some states,
e.g., murder in Pennsylvania.
Source: Derived from Uniform Crime Report crime classifications,
NCJJ offense categories, and state definitions of crimes.
Because case characteristics, in addition to representation, may
affect case outcomes, we developed logistic regression models to
control for these characteristics. We looked at the relationships
between the type of counsel (i.e., public defender, court-appointed
attorney, or private attorney) in juvenile delinquency proceedings
and key decision points--adjudicated and placed--in the juvenile
judicial process controlling for a number of relevant variables. We
estimated the models separately for the 3 states for up to 10 crime
types yielding 24 adjudication and 24 placement models.
The variables we controlled for in our logistic regression models
measured three types of case characteristics: (1) demographic
variables, such as age, race, and gender; (2) offense-related
variables, such as current crime type, the severity of the current
crime type, and offense history; and (3) juvenile court-status
variables, such as detention prior to adjudication; source of
referral; informal adjustments prior to adjudication; representation
by counsel and the type of counsel representing the case, location of
the courts, and length of time to dispose of a case. See appendix
III for a discussion on how we classified crime types and the
variables used in the models.
Also, to better understand the underlying processes, we developed
profiles of the juvenile justice systems in nine states. We
coordinated our work with OJJDP, NCJJ, the American Bar Association,
the National Legal Aid Defenders' Association, and the Coalition for
Juvenile Justice. Appendix II provides a more detailed discussion of
our objectives, scope, and methodology, including the basis that we
used to select states and identify officials. The details of the
modeling procedures as well as of the results are discussed in
appendix III.
The data we developed, including the results of our interviews with
juvenile justice officials, are not projectable to other locations.
We did our work from March 1993 through November 1994 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Since no
federal agency has responsibility for the issues discussed in this
report, we did not obtain comments on a draft of this report.
However, we did discuss our results with NCJJ and OJJDP officials
and, where appropriate, incorporated their comments.
--------------------
\14 Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland,
Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Utah, and Texas.
\15 The three states are California, Pennsylvania and Nebraska. The
statistical data for all three states were somewhat limited.
California's data only included five counties, albeit five of the
largest counties in the state that represented 40 percent of the
state's juvenile population between ages 10 and 17. Pennsylvania's
data were for 1991 only and did not include Philadelphia county, the
most heavily populated county in the state. Philadelphia county
accounted for about one-third of all petitioned cases in
Pennsylvania; however, Philadelphia petitions all cases to juvenile
court. In the other counties, petitioned cases are limited to the
more serious ones. Therefore, Philadelphia's data are not comparable
with the rest of the counties. In Nebraska, one of the largest
counties' data did not consistently indicate whether juveniles had
representation at the adjudication hearing. However a state official
estimated that about 75 percent of juveniles in this county had
representation when they appeared before a judge at an adjudication
hearing.
\16 In considering the relative severity of crimes, we considered
classes of crimes, such as violent or property, rather than specific
types of crimes within a class or specific offense behaviors within a
type of crime. Therefore, we considered violent crimes as the most
serious class of crimes, followed by property crimes, drug crimes,
simple assault, weapons, and public order. Because we could not
determine what classes of crimes fell into the indeterminate
category, we did not consider it in the ranking of offense severity.
JUVENILES' RIGHT TO COUNSEL CAN
BE WAIVED IN MOST STATES WE
REVIEWED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
To determine juveniles' right to counsel, including the process that
juveniles can use to waive their right to counsel and the provision
of counsel for indigent juveniles, we reviewed the statutes, case
law, and state administrative rules of the court in 15 states.\17
(See app. IV for a table summarizing the state laws.) We found that
each of the 15 states had provisions that provide juveniles charged
with delinquent offenses the right to counsel. Further, most of the
states permitted juveniles, or their parents or guardians, to waive
their right to counsel under certain circumstances.
--------------------
\17 Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland,
Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Texas, and Utah.
JUVENILES' ACCESS TO COUNSEL
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
Each of the states had provisions that provided juveniles access to
counsel. However, the 15 states differed on details of how counsel
is to be provided.\18 See appendix IV for additional information on
juveniles' access to counsel.
--------------------
\18 These provisions go beyond the specific requirements of the Gault
decision, which only dealt with a juvenile's right to counsel at an
adjudication hearing.
JUVENILES' RIGHT TO WAIVE
COUNSEL
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
Eleven of the 15 state statutes that we reviewed specifically
outlined circumstances and procedures under which juveniles or their
parents or guardians could waive the right to counsel. In general,
the waiver had to be knowing and voluntary, i.e., an "intentional
relinquishment or abandonment of a fully known right." In the four
remaining state statutes, waiver was not specifically addressed. In
three of these four states, juveniles can waive counsel. In the
remaining state, juveniles cannot waive counsel.
Eleven states had specific requirements for how the waiver of counsel
was to occur. For example, in Arizona, the waiver had to be in
writing or in the minutes of the courts and could be withdrawn at
anytime. In Florida, even if there is a waiver of counsel, the offer
of counsel must be renewed at subsequent stages during the
proceedings. In Idaho, a juvenile may waive counsel if he or she
does so "intelligently," and the court determines that the best
interest of the juvenile does not require the appointment of counsel.
In Louisiana, the juvenile may waive counsel only after consulting
with an attorney or other adult interested in the juvenile's welfare.
In Missouri, a juvenile may waive counsel only with the approval of
the court. In Pennsylvania, only the juvenile's parent or guardian
can waive the right to counsel on behalf of the juvenile. New York
and Texas only allow waiver under certain circumstances. In New
York, a juvenile can waive counsel only after a law guardian has been
appointed and the court holds a hearing. In Texas, a juvenile cannot
waive counsel at certain proceedings, such as an adjudication hearing
or a disposition hearing.
In four states, the statues did not address waiver. In Kansas, the
statute does not specifically address waiver, but a recent state
Attorney General opinion concluded that juveniles can waive their
right to counsel if it is a "knowing and intelligent waiver." In Utah
and Nebraska, the state law was silent on waiver of counsel by
juveniles. However, Utah and Nebraska officials told us that
juveniles are allowed to waive counsel in these states. In New
Mexico, the state statute requires that juveniles be represented at
all stages of the proceedings. State officials told us that
juveniles are not given the option of waiving counsel.
REPRESENTATION RATES VARIED IN
THREE STATES MORE WITH
GEOGRAPHY THAN WITH OFFENSE
SEVERITY OR OFFENSE HISTORY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
We analyzed cases petitioned to juvenile courts in certain
California, Pennsylvania, and Nebraska counties. Our analysis showed
that the percentage of cases in which juveniles had counsel (1)
varied among the states, (2) varied with the location of the court
within states, and (3) varied somewhat across offense categories or
with offense history within the states.
REPRESENTATION RATES VARIED
AMONG STATES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1
Table 2 shows, for the six major crime categories and the
indeterminable crime category, the number of petitioned delinquency
cases disposed of in 1990 and 1991 for California and Nebraska, and
in 1991 for Pennsylvania. Using the data from table 2, we computed
the percentage of petitioned cases in which juveniles had counsel.
Table 3 shows that the percentage of petitioned cases represented by
counsel varied among states. In California, about 97 percent of the
juveniles were represented. In Pennsylvania, juveniles were
represented in about 91 percent of the petitioned cases. In
Nebraska, juveniles were represented in about 65 percent of the
petitioned cases. In addition, table 3 shows that, for each major
crime category, the percentage of petitioned cases represented was
lowest in Nebraska. For example, about 90 percent of juveniles in
Nebraska referred for violent offenses were represented, as compared
with almost 100 percent in California and 94 percent in Pennsylvania.
Table 2
Number of Cases Petitioned to Juvenile
Court for Calendar Years 1990 and 1991
Pennsylvan
Type of offenses California ia Nebraska
------------------------ ---------- ---------- ----------
All offenses, overall 60,710 14,584 4,507
Violent offenses 12,930 3,087 163
Property offenses 25,962 7,864 3,208
Drug offenses 6,846 963 112
Simple assault 3,529 1,440 396
Weapons offenses 3,474 153 85
Public order or other 7,105 624 85
nonviolent offenses
Indeterminate offenses 864 453 458
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Data were available for five counties in California, which
represented 40 percent of the juvenile population between ages 10 and
17. According to an NCJJ official, the Pennsylvania data, which were
only for 1991, excluded cases from Philadelphia because Philadelphia
petitions all cases, not just the more serious cases, to juvenile
court. According to a Nebraska official, data were not available on
representation rates in one of the state's larger counties. We also
omitted these cases from our analysis. However, he added that an
estimated 75 percent of the juveniles were represented at
adjudication hearings in that county. These limitations apply to all
results using California, Pennsylvania, and Nebraska data. Table 1
and appendix III provides information on the specific types of crimes
falling into each offense category in each state. The figures in
this table were computed after excluding cases in which the type of
counsel was missing in the database. In California, this amounted to
5 percent of 64,275 cases; in Pennsylvania 5 percent of the 15,397
cases; in Nebraska 18 percent of the 6,603 cases.
Source: GAO analysis of NCJJ data.
Table 3
Percentage of Petitioned Cases
Represented by Counsel, by State for
Calendar Years 1990 and 1991
Pennsylvan
Type of offenses California ia Nebraska
------------------------ ---------- ---------- ----------
All offenses, combined 97.2 90.6 64.9
Violent offenses 99.7 94.0 90.2
Property offenses 98.8 88.9 62.6
Drug offenses 99.4 96.4 80.4
Simple assault 98.7 89.4 75.0
Weapons offenses 99.4 90.8 90.6
Public order or other 82.7 86.2 71.8
nonviolent offenses
Indeterminate offenses 98.6 94.3 54.1
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: See note to table 2.
Source: GAO analysis of NCJJ data.
Our results were consistent with studies conducted by Barry C.
Feld\19 and Dean J. Champion,\20 which showed that the rates of
representation varied among states. Feld analyzed the representation
rates in cases disposed of in juvenile court in 1984 for California,
New York, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Nebraska, and North Dakota. He
found that between 85 percent and 95 percent of juveniles were
represented in the large, urban states--Pennsylvania, California, and
New York. By contrast, he found that between 37.5 percent and 52.7
percent of juveniles were represented in the midwestern
states--Minnesota, Nebraska, and North Dakota.
Champion analyzed juveniles' representation rates in California,
Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Montana, and Nebraska between 1980 and
1989. He found wide variation in representation rates among the
states. In California, the representation rates increased from 82
percent to 91 percent between 1980 and 1989. Over the same period,
in Pennsylvania, the percentage represented increased from 55 percent
to 85 percent. Conversely, in Nebraska and North Dakota, the
representation rates varied between 40 percent and 50 percent over
the 1980 to 1989 period.
In another study which analyzed Missouri's juvenile justice system,
the authors found that youths in urban localities were more likely to
be represented by counsel, regardless of their race. When
controlling for factors such as prior criminal history and
demographic characteristics, representation by counsel remained a
significant factor in predicting both detention and petition in rural
jurisdictions, and a significant factor in detention, petition, and
adjudication in urban jurisdictions.\21
We did not evaluate these studies, including any limitations they may
have.
--------------------
\19 Barry C. Feld, "In Re Gault Revisited: A Cross-State Comparison
of the Right to Counsel in Juvenile Court," Crime and Delinquency,
Vol. 34, No. 4, Oct. 1988: pp. 393-424.
\20 Dean J. Champion, Changing Involvement of Counsel by Juveniles
in Five States, 1980 to 1989: A Longitudinal Analysis, Pittsburgh,
PA, National Center for Juvenile Justice, Oct. 15, 1992.
\21 Kimberly Kempf, Scott Decker, and Robert Bing, An Analysis of
Apparent Disparities in the Handling of Black Youth within Missouri's
Juvenile Justice Systems: Technical Report. University of
Missouri-St. Louis, Nov. 1990.
REPRESENTATION RATES VARIED
WIDELY WITH LOCATION OF THE
COURT WITHIN STATES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2
While each of the three states guaranteed juveniles the right to
counsel and permitted them, their parents, or guardian to waive their
right, in practice juveniles were more likely to be unrepresented in
courts located in nonmetropolitan counties than in metropolitan
counties.\22 Table 4 shows the representation rates for Nebraska and
Pennsylvania by metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties.\23
Table 4
Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan County
Representation Rates for Cases
Petitioned to Juvenile Court in
Pennsylvania and Nebraska
Number of Percent of Number of Percent of Rate of
juveniles petitioned juveniles unrepresented juveniles
State petitioned juveniles unrepresented juveniles unrepresented
------- ------------ ------------ ------------- ------------- -------------
Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All 14,584 100.0% 1,374 100.0% 9.4
cases
Metropo 12,717 87.2 1,017 74.0 8.0
litan
Nonmetr 1,867 12.8 357 26.0 19.1
opolit
an
Nebraska
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All 4,449\a 100.0 1,559 100.0 35.0
cases
Metropo 2,034 45.7 240 15.4 11.8
litan
Nonmetr 2,415 54.3 1,319 84.6 54.6
opolit
an
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: See note to table 2.
\a Excludes 58 cases (1.3 percent of total) that were missing values
on variables used in the analysis.
Source: Our analysis of NCJJ data.
In Pennsylvania, about 13 percent of the 14,584 juvenile court
proceedings occurred in nonmetropolitan counties, but 26 percent of
the cases involving juveniles without counsel occurred in
nonmetropolitan counties. In metropolitan counties, 8 percent of all
juveniles were unrepresented, as compared with about 19 percent who
were unrepresented in nonmetropolitan counties. Therefore, juveniles
were more than twice as likely to go without representation in
nonmetropolitan counties as in metropolitan counties in Pennsylvania
(about 19 percent compared with 8 percent).
In Nebraska, more than half of the 4,449 juvenile court proceedings
were disposed in nonmetropolitan counties.\24
However, about 85 percent of all unrepresented juveniles lived in
nonmetropolitan counties. In metropolitan counties about 12 percent
of juveniles were unrepresented. By contrast, in nonmetropolitan
counties about 55 percent of juveniles were unrepresented.
Therefore, juveniles in nonmetropolitan counties were more than 4
times as likely to go unrepresented as those in metropolitan
counties.
In California, our data for the 60,710 juvenile cases came from 5
metropolitan counties. Nevertheless, two of the five counties
accounted for all of the unrepresented juveniles. In the other three
counties, no juveniles were unrepresented. In the two counties
containing the unrepresented juveniles, the percentage of juveniles
unrepresented was about 2 and 18.
Our findings on the variability in representation rates across
nonmetropolitan and metropolitan court settings within states are
consistent with Feld's study of representation in juvenile cases
disposed in 1986 in Minnesota.\25 He found 63 percent of petitioned
juvenile cases in metropolitan counties were represented by counsel,
but only 25 percent of petitioned juvenile cases in nonmetropolitan
counties had representation. He attributed these differences to the
procedural formality and due process orientation of metropolitan
courts as compared with the more traditional and informal processing
in nonmetropolitan courts.
--------------------
\22 For this analysis, we classified counties located within
metropolitan statistical areas as "metropolitan counties," and we
classified counties outside of metropolitan statistical areas as
"nonmetropolitan counties." These distinctions correspond roughly to
(1) more densely populated or more urban and (2) less densely
populated or more rural locations.
\23 NCJJ data from California contained only metropolitan counties.
\24 These data exclude one metropolitan county that contained 56
percent of all unrepresented cases in the state of Nebraska.
\25 Barry C. Feld, "Justice by Geography: Urban, Suburban, and
Rural Variations in Juvenile Justice Administration," Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 82, No. 1, 1991: pp. 156- 210.
PROVISION OF COUNSEL TENDED
NOT TO BE AFFECTED BY THE
TYPE OF CRIME AND PRIOR
OFFENSE HISTORY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3
The juvenile court data from California, Pennsylvania, and Nebraska
indicated that neither the type of offense nor juveniles' offense
history were strongly related to representation rates.
In California and Pennsylvania, juveniles who committed certain
nonviolent offenses, such as property offenses, were generally as
likely to receive representation as juveniles who committed other
more serious offenses, such as violent crimes or drug trafficking.
However, in Nebraska, juveniles who committed less serious crimes
(e.g., property and public order) were less likely to be represented
than those who committed more serious crimes (e.g., violent
offenses).
As shown in table 3, in California, juveniles petitioned to the court
for violent offenses were about as likely to be represented (99.7
percent) as juveniles sent to the court for property offenses (98.8
percent).\26 In Pennsylvania, juveniles with violent and drug
offenses were only slightly more likely to be represented than
juveniles with public order offenses (94.0 and 96.4 percent to 86.2
percent). In Nebraska, the juveniles' representation rates varied
across offense categories. Juveniles with weapons, violent, and drug
offenses were more likely (90.6, 90.2, and 80.4 percent) than those
with property offenses (62.6 percent) to be represented. In
Nebraska, juveniles with property offenses comprised about 71 percent
of all cases and 76 percent of all unrepresented cases. For violent
offenses in Nebraska, 90 percent of the juveniles were represented.
Offense history was not uniformly related to the likelihood of
representation between the states.\27 In Pennsylvania, across all
crime types, those with one or more prior juvenile court dispositions
were more likely to be represented than those with none. The extent
of the difference in representation rates varied across crime type.
For example, 94 percent of violent offenders in Pennsylvania with no
prior referrals were represented, and 98 percent of violent offenders
with one prior offense were represented. For public order or other
nonviolent offenders in Pennsylvania, the difference in
representation rates for those with no prior offenses and those with
one prior offense was more dramatic. Seventy-seven percent of the
public order offenders with no prior offenses were represented
compared with 93 percent of those with one prior offense. In
Nebraska, however, there were no consistent patterns across crime
types, which may be due in part to the small number of cases with
multiple prior offenses. For example, for property offenders in
Nebraska, representation was likely to be increased from 54 percent
(for offenders with no prior offenses) to 86 percent (for offenders
with three prior offenses) before decreasing to 78 percent for those
with five or more prior offenses.
--------------------
\26 The results in this paragraph are based on our analysis of the
broad offense categories given in table 1. We did a more refined
analysis of the more detailed offense types comprising these offense
categories. For details on this analysis, see appendix III.
\27 Offense history was measured differently across the states
because of the way they collected their data. For example, in
Nebraska, offense history was measured by the number of prior
referrals to juvenile court. In Pennsylvania, however, it was
measured by the number of prior juvenile court dispositions. In
California, there was no direct measure of offense history, but
California did indicate whether a juvenile was under probation
supervision at the time of the commission of the current offense.
JUVENILE COURT OUTCOMES VARIED
AMONG THE THREE STATES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
Our analysis of adjudication and placement indicated that decisions
varied.\28 Table 5 shows the number of represented and unrepresented
juveniles who had their cases adjudicated and those who were placed.
Table 5
Number of Represented and Unrepresented
Juveniles Whose Cases Were Adjudicated
and Who Were Placed, for Calendar Years
1990 and 1991
Number Not
State petitioned Adjudicated adjudicated Placed Not placed
---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
California
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 60,710\a 41,985 18,431 21,899 20,086
Represente 58,999 41,039 17,666 21,255 19,784
d
Not 1,711 946 765 644 302
represent
ed
Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 14,584\b 8,488\c 3,977 2,213 6,272
Represente 13,210 8,183\c 3,296 2,174 6,006
d
Not 1,374 305 681 39 266
represent
ed
Nebraska
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 4,507\d 3,861 645 463 3,398
Represente 2,927 2,393 534 404 1,989
d
Not 1,580\d 1,468 111 59 1,409
Represent
ed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: See note to table 2.
\a The number includes one case that had a missing value on the
variable that indicated whether it was adjudicated. It also included
293 cases that were transferred to criminal court. These 293 cases
were excluded from the total number of cases having adjudication
hearings (the sum of adjudicated plus not adjudicated) because
transfer cases do not go to adjudication hearings. All 293 transfer
cases were represented by legal counsel.
\b The number includes 251 cases that were transferred to criminal
court and were handled in the calculations in the manner described
for California. It also includes 1,868 cases that were disposed
without an adjudication hearing. These 1,868 cases also were not
used in tabulating the adjudication outcomes.
\c The numbers include three cases with missing values on the final
disposition variable.
\d The number includes one case with missing values on the variable
indicating the outcome of the adjudication hearing.
Source: Our analysis of NCJJ data.
In addition to these differences in the likelihood of being
adjudicated, overall relatively few adjudicated cases were
unrepresented in California and Pennsylvania. Specifically, of the
41,985 cases adjudicated as delinquent in California, only 946 (or
2.3 percent) were unrepresented. In Pennsylvania, only 305 of the
8,488 cases adjudicated as delinquent (or 3.6 percent) were
unrepresented. Conversely, in Nebraska, 1,468 of the 3,861 cases
adjudicated as delinquent (about 38 percent) were unrepresented.
The differences in the likelihoods of adjudication between
represented and unrepresented juveniles in California was associated
with the location of courts in which cases were heard and in
Pennsylvania with the use of informal adjustments after cases were
petitioned to the court. The higher likelihood of adjudication for
unrepresented cases in Nebraska was associated with juvenile court
cases located in more rural counties.
Our analysis of the placement decision showed that unrepresented
juveniles in Pennsylvania and Nebraska generally were less likely to
receive out-of-home placements than represented juveniles for each
offense category. In California, the overall likelihood of placement
for unrepresented juveniles was higher than represented juveniles.
Of the 21,899 juveniles placed in California, 644 (or 2.9 percent)
were unrepresented. In Pennsylvania, 39 of the 2,213 juveniles that
were placed (or 1.8 percent) were unrepresented. In Nebraska, 59 of
the 463 juveniles placed (or 12.7 percent) were unrepresented.
--------------------
\28 Our review did not include all possible outcomes of juvenile
court proceedings, but focused only on the juvenile being adjudicated
as a delinquent and receiving out-of-home placement.
OVERALL LIKELIHOOD OF
ADJUDICATION FOR JUVENILES
WITHOUT COUNSEL VARIED AMONG
STATES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1
The overall likelihood of a case being adjudicated as delinquent when
a juvenile was not represented varied among states. As shown in
table 6, these percentages ranged from 93 percent in Nebraska to
about 55 percent in California to about 31 percent in Pennsylvania.
The differences in the likelihood of adjudication between
unrepresented and represented juveniles also varied among states.
For example, unrepresented juveniles were less than one-half as
likely as represented juveniles in Pennsylvania to be adjudicated.
In California, unrepresented juveniles were about 80 percent as
likely to be adjudicated as were represented juveniles. (See tables
2 and 3 for the number of juveniles petitioned and the percentage of
juveniles who were petitioned and represented in each state.)
In California and Pennsylvania, comparatively small percentages of
all adjudications (less than 4 percent) involved juveniles that were
not represented. In Nebraska, a relatively large percentage of all
adjudicated cases involved juveniles who were not represented (about
38 percent). See table 5 for the number of juveniles who were
adjudicated and not represented.
Table 6
Percentage of Petitioned Cases
Adjudicated as Delinquent, by State and
Whether Represented or Unrepresented by
Counsel, for Calendar Years 1990 and
1991
Type of With Without With Without With Without
offense counsel counsel counsel counsel counsel counsel
-------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
All 69.9% 55.3% 71.3% 30.9% 81.8% 93.0%
offense
s,
overall
Violent 67.1 61.4 69.9 26.5 74.1 87.5
offense
s
70.4 62.6 73.3 32.1 82.2 93.3
Property
offense
s
Drug 74.6 57.5 74.9 50.0 82.1 100.0
offenses
Simple 66.5 53.3 61.0 31.5 75.1 86.9
assault
Weapons 71.9 52.4 71.6 20.0 76.6 87.5
offense
s
Public 69.9 52.9 65.6 21.1 90.2 87.5
order
or
other
offense
s
Indeterm 65.9 91.7 78.7 33.3 90.7 94.8
inate
offense
s
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: See note to table 2.
Source: GAO analysis of NCJJ data.
These aggregate differences in the likelihood of adjudication between
the two groups of juveniles (unrepresented and represented) tended to
be associated with the location of courts or with the use of informal
adjustments by the court to dispose of cases.
In California, all of the unrepresented juveniles came from two of
the five counties from which we obtained data.\29 In one of these two
counties, the overall likelihood of adjudication was lower than in
counties where no juveniles were reported as unrepresented.
In Pennsylvania, our analysis and discussion with a state official
indicated that the aggregate differences in the likelihood of
adjudication were due largely to the use of consent decrees to
dispose of unrepresented cases. A disproportionate number of cases
involving unrepresented juveniles in Pennsylvania were disposed of by
a consent decree--an informal disposition in which the juvenile and
the court agree to suspend the case providing the juvenile remains at
home under probationary conditions for up to 6 months. According to
a state official, counsel generally is not present or is waived
because juveniles have no risk of adjudication (or placement) if they
comply with conditions of the consent decree. For Nebraska, our
analysis showed that a disproportionate number of cases involving
unrepresented juveniles were processed in nonmetropolitan counties,
and cases involving unrepresented juveniles processed in
nonmetropolitan counties also were more likely to be adjudicated as
delinquent than those processed in metropolitan counties. Thus,
unrepresented juveniles in Nebraska were generally more likely to
have their cases adjudicated as delinquent in nonmetropolitan
counties.
--------------------
\29 All five California counties were located in metropolitan areas.
UNREPRESENTED JUVENILES
GENERALLY WERE LESS LIKELY
TO BE PLACED THAN
REPRESENTED JUVENILES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.2
As shown in table 7, unrepresented and adjudicated juveniles faced
different likelihoods of receiving out-of-home placements in the
three states. California had the highest rate of out-of- home
placement for juveniles without counsel. Pennsylvania and Nebraska
had lower rates of placement for these juveniles, although
unrepresented juveniles in Nebraska were less likely to be placed
than those in Pennsylvania.
Table 7
Percentage of Cases Adjudicated as
Delinquent Receiving an Out-of-Home
Placement, by State and Whether
Represented or Unrepresented by Counsel,
for Calendar Years 1990 and 1991
Type of With Without With Without With Without
offense counsel counsel counsel counsel counsel counsel
-------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
All 51.8 68.1 26.6 12.8 16.9 4.0
offense
s,
overall
Violent 63.2 44.4 29.3 15.4 28.4 0.0
offense
s
45.6 36.2 22.9 11.5 17.2 4.0
Property
offense
s
Drug 51.1 56.5 34.0 9.1 30.1 4.5
offenses
Simple 41.9 50.0 24.7 11.8 11.2 7.0
assault
Weapons 44.3 18.2 19.3 0.0 11.9 0.0
offense
s
Public 66.1 81.0 35.4 31.3 7.3 4.8
order
or
other
offense
s
Indeterm 53.7 54.5 47.5 14.3 14.2 3.0
inate
offense
s
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: See note to table 2.
Source: GAO analysis of NCJJ data.
Among states, the difference in the likelihood of placement between
represented and unrepresented juveniles varied. In California, the
overall difference in placement between represented and unrepresented
juveniles was about 16 percent. Between offense categories, the
differences ranged from about 1 to 26 percent--weapon offenses were
about 26 percent, drug offenses were about 5 percent, and
indeterminate offenses were about 1 percent. In Pennsylvania and
Nebraska, the overall differences between these two groups were about
14 percent in Pennsylvania and 13 percent in Nebraska, and in these
two states the differences also varied.
In California juveniles' overall likelihood of placement, represented
or unrepresented, was the highest of the three states at about 52
percent. However, the likelihood that a juvenile would be
unrepresented and placed was about 3 percent. In contrast, juveniles
in Nebraska had the lowest likelihood of placement--about 12 percent.
However, the risk that a juvenile would be unrepresented and placed
was largest in Nebraska. These differences were due to differences
in the representation rates. In California, more than 97 percent of
juveniles were represented, and the chances that a placed juvenile
was unrepresented was comparatively small (about 3 percent).
However, in Nebraska, about 35 percent of all cases were not
represented. Thus, even though Nebraska placed a smaller fraction of
its juveniles than did California, the overall chances that a placed
juvenile did not have counsel was much higher (about 13 percent).
REGRESSION MODELS FOR THREE
STATES SHOWED THAT VARIABLES
OTHER THAN REPRESENTATION WERE
STRONGLY ASSOCIATED WITH
ADJUDICATION AND PLACEMENT
OUTCOMES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
The differences in outcomes between groups of unrepresented and
represented juveniles were due more to variables other than the
presence of counsel. To control for the variables that were
associated with the likelihood of adjudication or placement and which
might have been distributed unequally between these two groups of
juveniles, we estimated logistic regression models for adjudication
and placement. (See app. III for detailed discussion of our
approach.)
For both the adjudication and placement outcomes, we estimated models
for up to 10 specific crime types, e.g., rape, robbery, and larceny.
We included in our regressions three classes of independent
variables: (1) demographic variables, such as age, race, and gender;
(2) offense and offender-behavior variables, such as current offense,
offense history, supervisory status, and type of counsel; and (3)
court processing variables, such as length of time to disposition,
detention prior to adjudication, the location of the court, and the
type of representation.\30
Overall we estimated 24 adjudication models, 10 for California, 9 for
Pennsylvania, and 5 for Nebraska. We also estimated 24 placement
models for the same sets of crime types in each state. For the
adjudication models, we found that unrepresented juveniles generally
were about as likely as represented juveniles to have their cases
adjudicated as delinquents. Also, although we found that the type of
counsel had effects on the likelihood of juveniles having their cases
adjudicated as delinquent, the effects were not consistent among
states or crime types. In addition, our models showed that
variables, such as being securely detained prior to adjudication, the
juvenile's prior criminal history, and the location of the court,
tended to have the largest impacts on the likelihood of adjudication.
For the placement models, we found that the absence of counsel was
not associated with the likelihood of placement for most crime types.
However, there were exceptions to this general finding.
Specifically, the absence of counsel reduced the likelihood that
juveniles were placed for some crimes in Pennsylvania and Nebraska
but not in California. The type of counsel also influenced placement
outcomes for juveniles. Finally, variables measuring the severity of
the juveniles' offenses and the offense history tended to have the
largest impacts on placement outcomes.
--------------------
\30 For details on the crime type classifications used for each
state's models and on all of the variables analyzed, see appendix
III.
ADJUDICATIONS ASSOCIATED
WITH COURT SUPERVISION,
LOCATION OF COURT, AND
INFORMAL ADJUSTMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1
The results of our modeling of the adjudication decision for the
three states showed that for some crime types the absence of counsel
had an independent effect on the likelihood of adjudication.
The effects of the type of counsel--public defenders, court-
appointed attorneys, and privately paid attorneys--on the likelihood
of adjudication varied among crime types and states. For example, in
California, juveniles represented by court- appointed attorneys were
more likely to be adjudicated than juveniles represented by the other
attorney types for property, weapons, drug, and minor violent (e.g.,
simple assault) offenses. Conversely, they were less likely to be
adjudicated for serious violent crimes such as rape and aggravated
assault. In Pennsylvania, juveniles who were represented by
privately paid attorneys were less likely to be adjudicated than
juveniles represented by other attorney types for aggravated assault
and larceny. In Nebraska, juveniles who were represented by private
court-appointed attorneys were less likely to be adjudicated than
juveniles represented by other attorney types.
The specific variables, other than the presence of counsel, that were
associated with the likelihood of adjudication varied, but there were
some similarities. For example, in California, whether a juvenile
was under court supervision\31 at the time of the offense, the
location of the county in which the case was disposed, and whether
the juvenile was detained prior to adjudication tended to have larger
associations with the likelihood of adjudication, rather than whether
a juvenile was represented. For example, juveniles who were detained
prior to adjudication were from 1.2 to 1.5 times more likely to be
adjudicated than juveniles not detained.
In Pennsylvania, petitioned juveniles who had adjudicatory hearings
in a court in a metropolitan county and were detained prior to their
adjudicatory hearing increased their likelihood of being adjudicated
as delinquent. However, the use of informal adjustments (i.e.,
consent decrees) to dispose of cases resulted in petitioned juveniles
not being adjudicated because they did not have adjudicatory
hearings.
The models showed that unrepresented juveniles were generally as
likely as represented juveniles to have their case adjudicated. For
some crimes and under some conditions, however, this was not always
the situation. For example, unrepresented juveniles with burglary
and weapons offenses in California and Pennsylvania and unrepresented
juveniles with larceny offenses in Nebraska were less likely to have
their cases adjudicated. In addition, in Nebraska juveniles in rural
areas, generally were less likely to have their cases adjudicated
than those in urban areas. To find out possible reasons for these
results, we reviewed relevant literature and talked with an official
in Pennsylvania as well as officials representing the American Bar
Association, juvenile justice systems, and public defenders to obtain
their reactions to these findings. The 1988 and 1991 studies by
Barry C. Feld showed that juveniles may be less likely to have their
cases adjudicated in rural areas because judges in those areas may
have greater familiarity with the juveniles' cases and may handle
them less formally or are less likely to adjudicate them as
delinquent. Consequently they may be less likely to appoint counsel.
The officials whom we interviewed and our review of the literature
offered the following possible reasons why juveniles without counsel
were less likely to have their cases adjudicated:
The judges may be more likely to ensure that juveniles have counsel
when they believe that a juvenile has a greater risk of
receiving a severe disposition (e.g., placement).
The informality of juvenile court processing in some states may be
a reason. Juveniles without representation are
disproportionately found in rural areas. Judges in these areas
may have greater familiarity with cases, and handle them less
formally. For example, for these cases, they may be less likely
to appoint counsel.
Judges may be more lenient to juveniles already under supervision
by the court and may be willing to continue their present
sentence, rather than adjudicating for a new offense.
Recognizing this, the juveniles may decide to waive counsel.
The relationships between judges and attorneys may be a factor.
For example, some judges may have antagonistic relationships
with attorneys. The presence of attorneys, therefore, may
result in more severe dispositions. Judges may also be more
protective of juveniles without counsel and, therefore, less
likely to give them a severe disposition.
--------------------
\31 The juvenile was being supervised as a ward of the court
immediately prior to the referral.
LIKELIHOOD OF PLACEMENT WAS
STRONGLY ASSOCIATED WITH
DETENTION AND PRIOR OFFENSE
HISTORY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.2
In our regression models, we analyzed variables that were associated
with placement outcomes.\32 The models indicated generally that (1)
whether the juvenile was detained prior to adjudication and (2) prior
offense history had a large impact on the likelihood of placement.
In each state, across most crime types, juveniles detained prior to
adjudication were more likely to be placed than juveniles who were
not detained. In general, detention prior to adjudication was viewed
as an indication of the severity of the offense, and juveniles who
were part of more severe cases were more likely to be placed.
Therefore, the positive association between detention and the
likelihood of placement is not surprising.
Similarly, juveniles' prior offense history or prior contact with the
juvenile justice system had strong and positive effects on the
likelihood of placement for most crime types for California and
Pennsylvania. In California, juveniles who were under court
supervised probation for a previous offense when they committed their
current offense were from 2 to 8 times more likely to be placed (for
all crimes except rape and robbery) than juveniles who were not under
court supervision. In Pennsylvania, juveniles with more than 3
priors were from 4 to 27 times more likely to be placed (for all
crimes except weapons) than juveniles with fewer than 3 priors.
We also found that the types of representation influenced the
likelihood of placement. For example, in California and Nebraska
juveniles who were represented by privately paid attorneys were less
likely to be placed than juveniles who were represented by other
attorney types for larceny and drug-related crimes. In Pennsylvania,
juveniles represented by privately paid attorneys were more likely to
be placed than juveniles represented by other attorney types for
aggravated assault and larceny.
--------------------
\32 For a discussion of the constraints imposed on our analysis by
the small number of unrepresented and placed cases, see appendix III.
JUVENILES IN ADULT CRIMINAL
COURT HAD SAME RIGHT TO
REPRESENTATION AS ADULTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
Under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, all defendants,
including juveniles being tried as adults, have the right to "the
assistance of counsel for his or her defense." We could not locate a
database containing information on how frequently juveniles were
represented in adult court. Our review of the law showed that
juveniles tried as adults were to be afforded the same right to
representation as adults tried in criminal court. In addition, the
results of our prosecutor's survey revealed their overall
satisfaction with the quality of counsel juveniles were receiving in
adult court.
QUALITY OF COUNSEL PROVIDED
JUVENILES CONSIDERED ADEQUATE
BY SURVEY RESPONDENTS AND LOCAL
OFFICIALS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9
According to state officials, no criteria existed to determine how
well juveniles were being represented by counsel, either in adult or
juvenile court. For example, we found no national or state databases
designed to define or measure quality within the context of the
juvenile justice system. In the absence of such criteria, we
obtained some perspective of how well juveniles were being
represented in both juvenile and adult court by soliciting the views
of juvenile justice officials around the country. To obtain some
perspective, we conducted a nationally representative survey of
prosecutors that handle juvenile justice matters and interviewed
selected juvenile court judges in eight states. In addition, through
personal interviews, we obtained the opinions of juvenile justice
officials in four states. In our survey of prosecutors and
interviews with judges and various officials, we asked questions
regarding their perceptions of the quality of counsel across several
dimensions, including overall (1) preparation, (2) legal skills, and
(3) effectiveness. The questions were targeted to the three types of
counsel that represent juveniles in both juvenile and adult courts:
public defenders, privately paid attorneys, and court-appointed
attorneys.
The results of our survey and discussions revealed overall
satisfaction with the quality of counsel juveniles were receiving,
both in adult and juvenile courts. Some officials, however, raised
concerns over nonqualitative considerations that were perceived to
affect the quality of counsel, such as high caseloads and limited
state funding.
PROSECUTORS WERE GENERALLY
SATISFIED WITH QUALITY OF
ALL THREE TYPES OF COUNSEL
PROVIDED JUVENILES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1
Our survey showed that while there were some differences in quality
of these three types of counsel, the respondents generally viewed all
three types of attorneys as being sufficiently prepared, possessing
the requisite legal skills, and representing their clients
effectively.\33 For example, as table 8 shows, most prosecutors
responded that all three types of counsel in juvenile court were well
prepared. Similarly, as shown in table 9, most prosecutors responded
that all counsel in adult court were well prepared. (See app. V for
additional details on our survey of prosecutors.)
Table 8
Percentage of Prosecutors Responding in
the Two Most Favorable Categories to
Attorneys' Capabilities in Juvenile
Court
Court-
Public Private appointed
Dimensions defenders attorneys counsel
--------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
Preparation 77 81 78
Legal skills 73 67 71
Effectiveness 81 83 83
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: For all three dimensions, we used a 5-point scale, but the
scale was different for each dimension. For the preparation
dimension, the top two responses were "very well prepared" and
"generally well prepared;" for the legal skills dimension, the top
two responses were "excellent" and " very good;" for the
effectiveness dimension, the top two responses were "very effective"
and "generally effective." We omitted those prosecutors who responded
"no basis to judge," "not applicable," and those not responding. See
appendix V for the tabulation of the questionnaire and appendix II
for sampling errors.
Source: GAO Survey.
Table 9
Percentage of Prosecutors Responding
Favorably to the Attorneys' Capabilities
in Adult Court
Court-
Public Private appointed
Dimensions defenders attorneys counsel
--------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
Preparation 80 90 83
Legal skills 74 74 70
Effectiveness 80 91 79
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: See note on table 8.
Source: GAO Survey.
Finally, we asked prosecutors for their views on the impact of
representation on juvenile dispositions that were "similar" except
for the presence of counsel. Most prosecutors believed that having
counsel did not have a big impact on the eventual outcome of the
case. About 70 percent said that juveniles received similar
dispositions regardless of whether they had counsel. Therefore, in
the views of most prosecutors, having representation in juvenile
court did not produce large, measurable differences in outcomes for
juveniles.
--------------------
\33 We did not obtain a national perspective from other juvenile
justice officials (e.g., judges or public defenders).
JUDGES WERE GENERALLY
SATISFIED WITH QUALITY OF
COUNSEL PROVIDED TO
JUVENILES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.2
We obtained the views of 16 judges regarding the issues related to
the quality of counsel within their jurisdictions in Florida,
Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and
Utah.
Overall, the judges indicated that the quality of counsel provided to
juveniles in juvenile court was adequate. For example, 10 of the 12
judges who commented on the quality of counsel provided juveniles in
juvenile court characterized their perception of quality of counsel
with responses such as "acceptable," "good," and "excellent." In
addition, one of the 12 judges indicated that the counsel afforded
juveniles in juvenile court was as good as the counsel adults receive
in adult court. However, when asked to comment on the quality of
counsel by attorney type (i.e., public defender, private, and
court-appointed), 7 of the 11 judges who responded indicated that
quality of counsel varied by type of attorney. For example, four of
the seven judges noted that, of the three attorney types, public
defenders are generally more knowledgeable about issues such as
juvenile law, court proceedings, and disposition options. One judge
of the four, in noting the public defender's familiarity with
juvenile court law, commented that he perceived public defenders as
"specialists."
In commenting on the dimensions of quality representation in a
juvenile case, judges most often cited (1) legal skills, (2)
knowledge of the law, (3) commitment to the client, and (4)
preparation. Other dimensions cited were experience, a thorough
investigation of the case, knowledge of alternatives, and meeting
with the client.
OFFICIALS IN FOUR STATES
VISITED BELIEVED QUALITY OF
COUNSEL WAS GENERALLY
ADEQUATE, DESPITE LIMITED
RESOURCES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.3
We discussed the quality of counsel issue with various juvenile court
and justice officials--including juvenile prosecutors, judges,
attorneys, service workers, and probation officers--located in eight
jurisdictions in Florida, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Utah.
According to state officials, none of these states had developed
criteria against which quality of counsel provided could be measured.
However, two jurisdictions had established specific qualifications
that attorneys must meet to represent juveniles in certain cases.\34
Overall our discussions with juvenile justice officials revealed
generally favorable responses concerning the quality of counsel
provided to juveniles. Further, several of the officials in Florida,
Louisiana, and Pennsylvania indicated that, in terms of effective
representation, public defenders are at least as capable as the
private attorneys in representing juveniles. The most frequently
cited reasons were the public defenders' familiarity and experience
with juvenile court procedures and available disposition or service
options. For example, several of these officials noted that public
defenders may do a better job than private attorneys because they are
more knowledgeable of the laws and local rules governing juvenile
proceedings. In Utah, one official noted that while some private
attorneys may be more aggressive, court-appointed attorneys develop
more expertise in handling juvenile cases.
However, some of these officials raised nonqualitative considerations
that were perceived to affect the quality of counsel, such as high
caseloads and limited state funding. They recognized that while
public defenders tended to have the most experience in juvenile law
and procedures, the officials also noted that public defenders had
very high caseloads. For example, one official noted that because of
the limited resources, public defenders do not have as much time to
prepare and often must seek continuances while others pointed out
that the number of public defenders had not kept pace with the
increased demand for indigent defense services. Another official
commented that the court-appointed attorneys do not have as many
resources or the time to devote to a case as private attorneys.
--------------------
\34 The two jurisdictions included Tallahassee, Florida, and
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Tallahassee officials told us that the
Second Judicial Circuit required that, when appointing an attorney to
handle a case representing a juvenile in a case in which more than
the one juvenile is involved, the appointed attorney must (1) be an
active member in good standing of the Florida Bar Association; (2)
have at least 1 year of juvenile court practice with demonstrated
competence; (3) have had, within the past two years, some specialized
training in juvenile law or litigation; (4) be familiar with the
requisite court system, including specifically the procedural rules
regarding timeliness of filings and procedural default; and (5) have
demonstrated proficiency in and commitment to quality representation.
The Philadelphia Criminal Rules provide guidance on the appointment
of counsel. The rules required the juvenile court to maintain a list
of attorneys qualified for appointment in both major felony juvenile
and nonmajor felony juvenile cases. The rules also specified that,
major felony juvenile cases (where the juvenile is likely to be
incarcerated as a juvenile or certified to an adult court), the
attorney must (1) have qualified for appointment for adult felony
cases, (2) have prior experience in at least five juvenile cases,
which were tried to completion, and (3) have had at least two major
felony juvenile cases in the past 2 years. For all other juvenile
cases, however, the attorney must have fulfilled the requirements for
appointment of counsel in adult misdemeanor cases. For both major
and nonmajor cases, the Rules specify that attorneys must have
completed at least one continuing legal education course in juvenile
law within the past year, are familiar with the Pennsylvania Juvenile
Act and the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Court Rules,
and are reasonably available to accept appointment.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.4
We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General; the
Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention;
the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested
parties. Copies will also be made available to others upon request.
Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI. If you
have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202)
512-8777.
Laurie E. Ekstrand
Associate Director, Administration
of Justice Issues
PROFILES OF STATE JUVENILE JUSTICE
PROCESSES
=========================================================== Appendix I
Table I.1
Profile of Juvenile Justice Processes in
Arizona, California, Florida, Maryland,
and Missouri
Proces
ses Arizona California Florida Maryland Missouri
------ ------------ ------------ -------------- -------------- ------------
Courts Superior Superior Circuit court 12 district 45 circuit
with court in 15 court in 58 in 20 circuits courts in 24 courts
juveni counties counties counties, 8 in 115
le circuit courts counties\a
jurisd in 24 counties
iction
Intake
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Local Local State State Local
at
which
intake
is
organi
zed\b
Branch Judicial Executive Executive Executive Judicial\d
at
which
intake
is
admini
stered
\c
Agency Juvenile County Department of Department of Probation
or court probation\e Health and Juvenile service
unit probation Rehabilitative Services (DJS) of circuit
of Services court
govern (DHRS)\f
ment
respon
sible
for
intake
Party Juvenile County DHRS intake DJS intake Juvenile
respon court intake probation worker officer officer\g
sible staff intake staff
for
perfor
ming
intake
Party County District State attorney State attorney Juvenile
author attorney attorney officer
ized
to
file
petiti
on
Probation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Local--The Local--the State-- State-- Local
at Administrati county juveniles are probation
which ve Office of executive provided supervision is
probat The Courts funds a probation or administered
ion helps to probation aftercare by DJS
is fund and department supervision
organi monitor that usually through the
zed juvenile supports a Delinquency
probation separate Case
services in probation Management
the state division\h Division of
DHRS\i
Level Judicial Executive Executive Executive Judicial
at
which
probat
ion is
admini
stered
Aftercare\j
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level State State State State State
at
which
afterc
are
is
organi
zed
Level Executive Executive Executive Executive Executive
at
which
afterc
are
is
admini
stered
Agency The The Parole Delinquency DJS The
respon Department Services Case Department
sible of Youth Branch of Management of Social
for Treatment the Division of Services,
afterc and Department DHRS Division of
are Rehabilitati of the Youth Youth
servic on Authority, Services
es Institutions
and Camps
Branch
State Institutions for Delinquents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Executive Executive Executive Executive Executive
at
which
state
instit
ution
servic
es is
admini
stered
Respon The The DHRS is DJS operates The
sible Department Department responsible all of the Department
agency of Youth of the Youth for the state's of Social
and Treatment Authority, administration juvenile youth Services,
type and Institutions of secure centers, Division of
of Rehabilitati and Camps training detention Youth
servic on is Branch is institutions, centers, and Services
e responsible responsible several secure group homes administers
provid for secure for training juvenile institutions
ed juvenile centers, detention and
institutions youth facilities, community-
, community centers, and secure or based
corrections training nonsecure treatment
contracts, schools, and community- centers
and parole conservation based
(aftercare camps treatment
supervision) camps and
services programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Circuit sizes range from about 1 to 5 counties. Each judicial
circuit has a juvenile court judge, who is appointed by the circuit
court.
\b "Organized" as defined by the National Center for Juvenile Justice
(NCJJ), refers to the level of government from which a service is
organized in a state. NCJJ arrived at this definition by determining
(1) the level of government in a state from which the authority for
the provision of a service originates (e.g., probation services are
delivered at the local level but may not be organized from that
level) and (2) the level of government in a state from which the
delivery of service can be directly affected.
\c "Administered" as defined by NCJJ, refers to the branch of
government that is vested with the responsibility for the day-to-day
provision of a service.
\d In all but three counties, (Kansas City, St. Louis City, and St.
Louis County), every circuit court has an intake unit administered by
probation.
\e The county executive funds a probation department that usually
supports a separate juvenile probation division. The juvenile
probation function often includes intake and investigation services.
\f Florida's Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is an
integrated system that delivers social, health, and rehabilitative
services to children and youth in 11 Children, Youth and Family
districts. Each district maintains a program office that is
responsible for integrated intake and program coordination that
encompass delinquency, child welfare, and health services.
\g In other states, this individual may be referred to as a probation
officer.
\h On the state level, the Department of the Youth Authority,
Community Corrections Branch, has regional offices that work closely
with county probation to run prevention and community corrections
programs. The Department also administers state funds that flow to
county probation.
\i The Division employs Community Control Officers to supervise
juveniles placed on community control (probation supervision) by
circuit courts and to provide aftercare supervision to juveniles
released on "furlough" from juvenile institutions. Several Community
Control Unit Offices are located throughout each District.
\j NCJJ has defined aftercare as the community supervision of youth
released from the state delinquent institution.
Source: We developed this information from discussions with various
state and local juvenile justice officials, court administrators,
juvenile justice advocacy groups, judges, and prosecutors. We also
reviewed federal, state, and local documents on juvenile justice
procedures and processes. We did not verify the accuracy of the
information through a review of state statutes and administrative
rules.
Table I.2
Profile of Juvenile Justice Processes in
Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
and Utah
Processes Nebraska Pennsylvania South Carolina Utah
------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
Courts with 93 county Court of Common Family court, Separate
juvenile courts, Pleas,\b 16 circuit juvenile
jurisdiction in 21 60 districts in courts in court,
districts; 67 counties\c 46 counties 8 juvenile
separate court districts
juvenile courts
in 3 counties\a
Intake
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level at Local Local State State
which intake
is
organized\d
Branch at Judicial Judicial Executive Judicial
which intake
is
administered
\e
Agency or County court County juvenile Department of Intake division
unit of probation Juvenile of juvenile
government department\f Justice (DJJ) court
responsible
for
intake
Party Probation Probation DJJ intake Probation
responsible officer of officer staff officer
for court intake\g
performing
intake
Party County attorney With the With the County attorney
authorized court's court's or district
to file authority, any authority, any attorney
petition individual can individual can
file a petition file a petition
Probation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level at State\h Local--county State--The State--
which governments Department of probation
probation fund juvenile Juvenile officers are
is organized probation Justice, employed by the
services that Community State Court
are operated Division Administrator
under the through local to provide
administrative field offices services in
supervision of judicial
local Courts of districts
Common Pleas
Level at Judicial Judicial Executive Judicial
which
probation
is
administered
Aftercare\i
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level at State Local State State
which
aftercare
is organized
Level at Executive Judicial Executive Executive
which
aftercare
is
administered
Agency The Juvenile County The Department The Department
responsible Parole governments of Juvenile of Human
for Administration fund aftercare Justice, Services,
aftercare of the services that Community Division of
services Department of are operated Division Youth
Correctional under the through local Corrections is
Services, administrative field offices responsible for
Division of supervision of the aftercare
Juvenile the local supervision of
Services Courts of juveniles
Common Pleas released from
secure
institutions by
the Youth
Parole
Authority
State Institutions for Delinquents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level at Executive Executive Executive Executive
which state
institution
services is
administered
Responsible The Department The Department Juvenile The Department
agency and of Correctional of Public correctional of Human
type of Services, Welfare facilities are Services,
service Division of operates youth operated by the Division of
provided Juvenile development Department of Youth
Services centers, secure Juvenile Corrections
treatment Justice, administers the
units, and Institutional state's secure
youth forestry Division; the confinement
camps; the Division's facilities,
counties facilities detention
administer the include secure centers and
detention institutions contracts for
facilities for juveniles residential and
and an nonresidential
assessment/ community-
evaluation based services
facility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a In much of Nebraska, county courts exercise jurisdiction over
juvenile matters. However, in Douglas, Lincoln, and Sarpy counties,
separate juvenile courts exercise jurisdiction. Nebraska statute
authorizes the establishment of separate juvenile courts in counties
with a population greater than 30,000 where authorized by the
electorate. In Nebraska, both county courts and juvenile courts
exercise their jurisdiction over delinquency matters in concurrence
with district courts.
\b A Juvenile Court Judges Commission advises juvenile courts on the
proper care of delinquents, establishes administrative procedures and
standards, examines personnel practices and employment standards used
in probation offices, collects and publishes statistics, administers
a grant-in-aid program to improve county juvenile probation services,
and provides training.
\c In Allegheny and Philadelphia counties, the Family Court Division
of the Court of Common Pleas exercises jurisdiction.
\d "Organized" as defined by NCJJ, refers to the level of government
from which a service is organized in a state. NCJJ arrived at this
definition by determining (1) the level of government in a state from
which the authority for the provision of a service originates (e.g.,
probation services are delivered at the local level but may not be
organized from that level) and (2) the level of government in a state
from which the delivery of service can be directly affected.
\e "Administered" as defined by NCJJ, refers to the branch of
government that is vested with the responsibility for the day-to-day
provision of a service.
\f Juvenile probation services vary widely among counties. The
number of staff and the caseload per probation officer are greatly
affected by the size and wealth of the particular county. Smaller
counties generally maintain a small staff consisting of one to two
people who are likely to handle both adult and juvenile cases.
\g Screening varies among counties. In Douglas County, for example,
the county attorney screens the juvenile over the phone, having never
met the individual. In Sarpy County, on the other hand, Probation
Officers screen the juvenile in person.
\h In 1985, Nebraska's Juvenile probation services transitioned to a
statewide system. Accordingly, juvenile probation services operate
under the Nebraska Probation System of the State Judicial Branch.
\i NCJJ has defined aftercare as the community supervision of youth
released from the state delinquent institution.
Source: We developed this information from discussions with various
state and local juvenile justice officials, court administrators,
juvenile justice advocacy groups, judges, and prosecutors. We also
reviewed federal, state, and local documents on juvenile justice
procedures and processes. We did not verify the accuracy of the
information through a review of state statutes and administrative
rules.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================== Appendix II
The 1992 reauthorization (P.L. 102-586) of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-415) required us to
conduct a study of access to counsel during delinquency proceedings
in juvenile court. In discussions with the staffs of the House
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities (formerly the
Committee on Education and Labor) and the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, we agreed to
review state laws for 15 states that we selected to determine
juveniles' right to counsel,
determine the frequency with which juveniles have counsel in
juvenile courts in three states,
determine the likely impact of counsel on juvenile outcomes,
determine if juveniles who are in adult court have counsel, and
provide insights regarding the issue of quality of counsel.
In addressing these objectives, we met with officials from OJJDP,
NCJJ, and other organizations familiar with juvenile justice issues,
such as the American Bar Association, National Legal Aid Defenders
Association, and the Coalition for Juvenile Justice to determine
their perspectives on juveniles' access to counsel. We conducted a
review of literature identified in bibliographies provided by NCJJ
and OJJDP as well as articles and studies we identified. We used
only those studies that were relevant to addressing our objectives.
We did not evaluate the studies or their limitations. Also, to
better understand state juvenile justice systems, we developed
profiles of juvenile justice processes in nine states: Arizona,
California, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, and Utah. We developed this information from
discussions with various state and local juvenile justice officials,
court administrators, juvenile justice advocacy groups, judges, and
prosecutors. We also reviewed state and local documents on juvenile
justice procedure and processes. We did not verify the accuracy of
the information through a review of state statutes and administrative
rules. These states were selected for their range of urban and rural
locations and their diversity of juvenile justice systems.
To determine the scope of juveniles' right to counsel in selected
states, we analyzed statutes, administrative rules, and case law in
15 states: Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana,
Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Texas, and Utah. We selected these states after
considering such factors as the diversity of each state's juvenile
justice system and the availability of state juvenile court
processing data maintained by NCJJ.\1 In addition to our legal
analysis of statutes in selected states, we reviewed an analysis of
statutes nationwide prepared by NCJJ.
To determine the frequency with which juveniles have counsel in
juvenile court, we used annual juvenile court data sets and case
records compiled and maintained by NCJJ.\2 Specifically, we analyzed
data on petitioned delinquency offenders in juvenile courts in
California, Pennsylvania, and Nebraska. We identified four other
states with NCJJ data on counsel, which we excluded because they were
the subject of another study (Minnesota), had a relatively small
population (North Dakota), or did not have data we needed for other
mandated juvenile justice studies--e.g., Juvenile Justice: Minimal
Gender Bias Occurred in Processing Noncriminal Juveniles
(GAO/GGD-95-56, Feb. 28, 1995). We used the NCJJ data for the
counties in the three states for which data were available to develop
statistics for a 2-year period in California and Nebraska covering
calendar years 1990 and 1991, and for 1991 for Pennsylvania, the most
recent available data at the time of our review. The sample for each
state was limited to petitioned delinquency cases only, excluding
status cases as well as abuse, neglect, and dependency cases, and
routine traffic offenses. We arranged the delinquency offenses into
seven broad categories: violent, property, simple assault, drugs,
weapons, public order, and indeterminate.
To obtain indications of the impact of counsel on dispositions, we
did a two-part analysis. First, we developed statistics on case
processing outcomes for each state. Second, we developed statistical
models that controlled for variables that may affect a juvenile's
disposition, e.g., offense severity or prior history. Specifically,
for each state, we estimated a series of logistic regression models
that investigated the relationships between the type of
representation in juvenile delinquency proceedings and key decision
points in the juvenile judicial process controlling for a number of
relevant variables. We measured four types of representation: (1)
no counsel, (2) privately retained counsel, (3) court-appointed
private counsel, and (4) public defender. We analyzed two key
decision points: (1) whether the juvenile was, in fact, adjudicated
as delinquent and (2) whether the juvenile received an out-of-home
placement as disposition of the case after adjudication. We
estimated the models separately for each of the 3 states for up to 10
crime types.
Data were available for five counties in California which represented
40 percent of the juvenile population between ages 10 and 17. The
Pennsylvania data, which were only for 1991, excluded cases from
Philadelphia because Philadelphia petitions all cases, not just the
more serious cases, to juvenile court. These limitations apply to
all results using California and Pennsylvania data. Table 1 provides
information on the specific types of crimes falling into each offense
category in each state. The figures in this table were computed
after excluding cases in which the type of counsel was missing in the
database. In California, this amounted to about 5 percent of 64,275
cases; in Pennsylvania about 5 percent of the 15,397 cases; in
Nebraska about 18 percent of the 6,603 cases. According to a
Nebraska official, data were not available on representation rates in
one of the state's larger counties. Therefore, we also omitted this
county's cases from our analysis, which amounts to 14 percent of all
of Nebraska's cases. However, the official added that an estimated
75 percent of the juveniles were represented at adjudication hearings
in that county.
Regarding juveniles in adult court, we were unable to locate a
national database containing information on the frequency of
representation. However, we discussed the matter with juvenile
justice officials during our field visits and solicited information
in our survey of prosecutors.
To provide insights regarding the quality of counsel, we surveyed a
national sample of local prosecutors; interviewed juvenile justice
officials, such as judges at the state and local levels; and surveyed
public defender offices.
To gather opinions and experiences of prosecutors concerning access
to counsel in the juvenile court system, we obtained 226 completed
questionnaires from a nationally representative, probability sample
of district prosecutor offices that deal with juveniles in juvenile
courts. We first identified a stratified probability sample of
county prosecutors in 290 of the 3,110 counties in the United States.
To gather information about large and small counties, the sample was
stratified on the basis of the number of felony convictions in 1985.
The 1985 felony convictions were used to first draw this sample of
290 counties in 1986 for the National Judicial Reporting Program.
We developed the questionnaire with advice from experts at NCJJ and
the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics and
pretested it with selected prosecutor offices. The survey was mailed
in March 1994. Two sets of follow-up telephone calls and two
additional mailings were conducted between May and July 1994.
We contacted all 290 selected counties to determine whether they had
juvenile prosecutors and to determine the counties over which the
prosecutors had jurisdiction. We determined that 270 of the 290
counties were eligible members of our study population of prosecutor
offices that dealt with juvenile offenders in juvenile court. After
weighing the probabilities of selection, we estimated that the study
population consisted of approximately 2,118 such juvenile prosecutors
in the United States. This number is less than the number of
counties (3,110), partly because some counties are consolidated under
a single juvenile prosecutor and partly because some jurisdictions do
not have prosecutors that appear in juvenile court. Of the 270
sampled prosecutors from the study population, 226 responded, for a
response rate of 84 percent.
We estimated all figures reported in the text from the returned
questionnaires to the estimated 2,118 juvenile prosecutor offices.
All sample surveys are subject to sampling error. This may occur
because the sample results may differ from what would have been
obtained if the entire population had received and returned the
questionnaire. The size of sampling errors in any survey depends
largely on the number of respondents and the amount of variability in
the data. In this report, all estimates, with two exceptions, are
made at the 95-percent confidence level with a sampling error of plus
or minus 10 percent. This means that, if we drew repeated samples
from the entire study population of prosecutor offices, 19 out of 20
samples would produce estimates within 10 percent of the true
proportion in the total population. In table 9, the estimates of 80
percent and 74 percent have confidence intervals of plus or minus
10.1 and 10.2 percent, respectively.
In addition to the reported sampling errors, any survey may be
subject to nonsampling errors as well. For example, differences in
how a particular question is interpreted, in the sources of
information that are available to respondents or in the types of
people who do not respond, can introduce unwanted variability into
survey results.
We included steps in the data collection and data analysis stages to
minimize such nonsampling errors. We selected the sample from a
complete list of all counties, and we pretested our questionnaire
with experts and members of the target population. Our extensive
follow-up efforts were designed to maximize the response rate, and we
achieved a final response rate of 84 percent. All data were keyed
twice and verified during data entry, and all computer analyses were
reviewed by a second, independent analyst.
We also administered a semistructured interview to 16 judges to
gather information concerning their views on the quality of counsel
provided to juveniles. We asked the judges about their perceptions
related to quality of counsel for the three types of counsel provided
to juveniles--public defenders, private attorneys, and
court-appointed counsel. The judges--located in Florida, Louisiana,
Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah--were
judgmentally selected on the basis of their availability, and their
views do not necessarily represent those of other judges.
We also sent a questionnaire to 26 state-level public defender
offices. We selected those states that, according to officials from
the National Legal Aid Defenders' Association, comprised the universe
of statewide public defender offices that represented juvenile
delinquents. We received 19 responses and followed up with telephone
calls for clarification.
In reporting survey and interview results from juvenile justice
officials, we did not evaluate their responses for possible biases.
To develop comparative information about the availability of counsel
for delinquents, we visited a total of eight jurisdictions within
each of four states. Those jurisdictions included Tallahassee and
Tampa, Florida; Baton Rouge and West Francisville, Louisiana;
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Salt Lake City, Logan, and Ogden,
Utah. We judgmentally selected Florida, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and
Utah on the basis of several factors, such as the large concentration
of juvenile offenders, the diversity of juvenile justice systems, the
range of urban and rural locations, and the availability of state
juvenile court processing data from NCJJ. Generally in each of the
selected states, we interviewed local judges, prosecutors, and public
defenders as well as representatives of juvenile courts, bar
associations, and state child welfare agencies. We selected them on
the basis of their availability at the time of our visits. Where
possible, we obtained statistical information on access to counsel,
which was maintained by the jurisdiction, and observed juvenile
proceedings in session.
--------------------
\1 Each year, NCJJ collects juvenile court processing data for up to
26 states.
\2 We used data that were housed in and made available by the
National Juvenile Court Data Archive, which is maintained by NCJJ and
supported by a grant from OJJDP. These data were originally
collected by the Alameda County, CA, Probation Department; the Los
Angeles County, CA, Probation Department; the San Francisco County,
CA, Juvenile Probation Department; the San Joaquin County, CA,
Probation Department; the County of Ventura, CA, Corrections Services
Agency; the Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal
Justice; and the Pennsylvania Center for Juvenile Justice Training
and Research. Neither the original data collectors nor NCJJ bear any
responsibility for our analyses or interpretations of the data.
METHODS FOR ANALYZING THE
FREQUENCY OF REPRESENTATION AND
IMPACTS OF COUNSEL ON JUVENILE
COURT OUTCOMES
========================================================= Appendix III
This appendix discusses the methods we used (1) to review the
frequency with which juveniles accused of delinquent activities
received counsel and (2) to assess the impact of counsel on two
juvenile court outcomes. For each issue, we restricted our analysis
to cases petitioned to juvenile court that were disposed in calendar
years 1990 and 1991 in California, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania. For
the purposes of this analysis, we used the term case to refer to a
single juvenile defendant. We used petitioned to refer to defendants
who had adjudicatory hearings or who were handled in a formal manner
by the juvenile court.
APPROACH OF THE REVIEW
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1
To review the frequency of representation, we identified cases of
juveniles petitioned to court and then determined if they had legal
representation during the processing of their cases. We looked at
whether represented juveniles differed from those without
representation on three characteristics: (1) the type of crime with
which they were charged, (2) their offense history, and (3) the
location of the court in more urban or more rural counties.
We reviewed the relationship between legal representation and two
juvenile court outcomes--adjudication as delinquent and receiving an
out-of-home placement after being adjudicated as delinquent.
Adjudication refers to the fact-finding hearing in which the juvenile
court determines whether or not there is sufficient evidence to
sustain the allegations in a petition. Out-of-home placement refers
to post-adjudication dispositions that result in the placement of the
juvenile outside his or her own home, regardless of whether such
placement is in a secure or nonsecure facility.
To analyze these relationships we compared the differences in
outcomes for juveniles who were represented against those who were
not, controlling only for the type of crime. Second, to control for
variables other than the type of representation, which may also be
associated with juvenile court outcomes, we conducted regression
analysis of the relationship between the outcomes and juveniles' case
characteristics. Specifically, we estimated separate logistic
regressions for up to 10 crime types in each of the 3 states for each
of the 2 juvenile court outcomes: (1) whether a juvenile was
adjudicated as delinquent and (2) whether an adjudicated juvenile
delinquent was placed out-of-home\1 . In estimating these equations,
we controlled for three classes of characteristics (1) demographic
variables, such as age, race, and gender; (2) offense and
offender-behavior variables, such as current offense, offense
history, and juvenile court supervisory status; and (3) juvenile
court processing variables, such as detention prior to adjudication
and the location of the court.\2
We estimated these regressions to answer three general questions:
(1) What were the independent or main effects of whether a juvenile
was represented on the likelihood either of being adjudicated or of
being placed? (2) What difference did the type of counsel--public
defender, court appointed, and privately paid--have on these
likelihoods? and (3) What independent variables had the largest
impacts on the dependent variables?
--------------------
\1 These two dependent variables--adjudicated and placed--were
dichotomous dependent variables. Each had only two possible values.
Juveniles' cases either were adjudicated as delinquent or they were
not. Similarly, they either were placed out-of-home or they were
not. In our analysis, we looked first at whether a case was
adjudicated and second, only for those cases that were adjudicated,
we looked at whether they were placed. We did not identify types of
placements because of data limitations.
\2 The specific crime types and variables used in the models are
discussed in more detail in the following sections.
APPROACH, DATA, AND METHODS TO
THE ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2
In general, we discuss three types of analyses in this appendix.
First, we analyzed the data to determine the number of cases in which
juveniles were represented or not. Drawing on issues raised in the
literature, we analyzed the representation rates for a number of
characteristics, including type of offense, offense history, and
location of juvenile courts.
Second, we compared juvenile court outcomes--whether adjudicated or
placed out-of-home--of juveniles who were represented with those who
were not represented. We reported the aggregate differences between
these two groups by offense categories.
Third, because juvenile court outcomes depend on more than whether a
juvenile had counsel, we estimated logistic regressions to determine
the independent impacts of the three types of representation on the
likelihood of adjudication and placement controlling for other
characteristics that affect these likelihoods. In addition, we
sought to determine which characteristics were most strongly
associated with these likelihoods.
DATA
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.1
We used juvenile court case-level data from California, Nebraska, and
Pennsylvania for cases disposed in calendar years 1990 and 1991.\3 We
obtained these data from the National Juvenile Court Data Archive
(NJCDA) of the NCJJ. We obtained the data on magnetic tape, and we
performed our own analysis of these data. We consulted with research
staff at NCJJ to obtain assistance in understanding the data and in
classifying certain variables for analysis. For example, we obtained
assistance in categorizing the specific statutory offenses or
behaviors that were recorded on the data tapes into offense
categories and offense types that we could use in the analysis.
The data from California were limited to five of the largest counties
(Alameda, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jaoquin, and Ventura) that
reported their data to the NJCDA. These counties represented about
40 percent of the state's juvenile population between ages 10 and 17.
For Pennsylvania, we used only the 1991 data, and we did not include
data from Philadelphia. In 1991, 14,584 cases were petitioned to
juvenile courts in Pennsylvania in counties other than Philadelphia
county, where there were 8,102 cases. Those petitioned in
Philadelphia county were not directly comparable with those in the
rest of the state because Philadelphia petitions all juvenile cases
to court--regardless of the severity of the offense. In the rest of
the state, petitioned cases are usually limited to the more serious
offenses or more serious offenders. In addition, we limited
ourselves to the 1991 data because in 1990, Pennsylvania did not
report data on the offense history of juveniles, and therefore we
could not analyze representation rates by looking at offense history.
For similar reasons, we did not include data from Philadelphia county
for either year. In addition, Philadelphia also did not report on
the prior offense history of juveniles and certain other variables
that we used in our analysis. We were able to report, however, the
overall representation rates for Pennsylvania in 1990 and
Philadelphia in 1991. (See the notes in table III.3.)
Nebraska reported data from all of its counties in 1990 and 1991.
However, Nebraska had the highest percentage of cases across the
three states in which the type of counsel was not reported (about 18
percent). In addition, we had to omit cases from one of the largest
counties in Nebraska because of the way it measured legal
representation. According to a state official, unlike the other
counties, in that one large county, the type or lack of legal
representation is recorded when a juvenile arrives at intake. At
intake, few juveniles are accompanied by attorneys; therefore, most
cases in that county are reported as not having counsel. However,
the state official indicated that about 75 percent of juveniles who
appeared before judges at adjudicatory hearings in that county were
represented by attorneys even though the reporting system indicated
that they were unrepresented. Because the data systems did not
indicate this change in representation, we deleted these cases from
our analysis. There were 905 cases petitioned to juvenile court in
this county, or about 16 percent of all petitioned cases in Nebraska.
--------------------
\3 These were the most recent data that we were able to obtain from
NCJJ at the time we began our analysis.
SAMPLE SELECTION ISSUES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.2
For all three states, we limited our analysis to those cases that
were petitioned to or formally handled by the juvenile courts for
delinquency offenses. This choice was made irrespective of the final
disposition of cases.
CRIME CATEGORIES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.3
To analyze these data, we cla |
