Volume 1 • Number 1 Spring/Summer 1993 JUVENILE

aaaaa❁

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Volume 1 • Number 1

A Publication of theOffice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Spring/Summer 1993

Conditions ofConfinement

Inside America’sjuvenile institutions

JUVENILEJUSTICE

AlsoA judge speaks out

Parental kidnaping

◆

◆D

EPARTMENT OF JUSTIC

E

OF

FI C

E

OF JUST I CE PRO

GR

AM

S

BJA

N

I JOJJ DP BJS

OV

C

From the Administrator

The challenges facing our youth have never been greater. The reasons forstrengthening our families, the best hope for our children’s future, have never beenmore persuasive.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is proud to workwith you for America’s youth and their families by preventing delinquency and im-proving our juvenile justice system. Your day-in and day-out efforts are valued andappreciated. With the inauguration of Juvenile Justice, we hope to provide you with

information and encouragement as you continue to make animportant difference in your community and our Nation.

Certainly, I was encouraged to read Judge David Mitchell’swords. They testify to the dedication to public service thatmarks this distinguished jurist. We have been blessed with someoutstanding juvenile court judges. As the torch of leadershippasses at the National Council of Juvenile and Family CourtJudges, I offer their new president, Judge Roy B. Willett,whose insightful comments are found in these pages, mycongratulations and support.

OJJDP is committed to providing you the tools to do the bestjob possible under the constraints we all must live with. Onesignificant way of doing this is by conducting sound and practi-cal research. I think this issue exemplifies that.

Mr. Dale Parent of Abt Associates brings us importantinformation about the conditions of confinement of juveniles

in secure facilities. As we witness the disturbing increase in incidents of violenceperpetrated by youth, this topic takes on added significance.

I can think of few things more tragic for a parent than the loss of a son or daughter.OJJDP’s pioneering NISMART study (National Incidence Studies on Missing, Ab-ducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children) revealed the serious problem of paren-tal abduction. Dr. Linda Girdner, whom OJJDP is privileged to have directing ourproject, Identifying Risk Factors for Parental Abduction, offers valuable insight fromher research on obstacles to the recovery and return of parentally abducted children.

I won’t comment on everything this issue brings you—I’ve only been given a page—but I do wish to pay tribute to two distinguished juvenile justice professionals, JamesGould and Deborah Wysinger, whose tragic deaths last year were a loss to us all.The honor of the Gould-Wysinger Awards consists in no small measure in the noblenames they bear. My congratulations to those so honored.

Juvenile Justice is your magazine. Your comments and suggestions are always welcome.Thank you for all you have done, are doing, and shall do. Together we can do the job.

John J. WilsonActing AdministratorOffice of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention

JUVENILEJUSTICEVolume I • Number 1 Spring/Summer 1993

Office ofJuvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention

Acting AdministratorJohn J. Wilson

Executive EditorEarl E. Appleby, Jr.

Assistant EditorCatherine M. Doyle

Managing EditorJohn D. Kotler

Juvenile Justice StaffDavid L. Schmidt

Marilyn SilverJoellen M. Fritsche Talbot

Juvenile Justice is published bythe Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention(OJJDP) to advance its man-date to disseminate informa-tion regarding juveniledelinquency prevention andtreatment programs (42 U.S.C.5652).

Points of view or opinions ex-pressed in this publication arethose of the authors and do notnecessarily represent the offi-cial positions or policies ofOJJDP or of the U.S. Depart-ment of Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Preventionis a component of the Office ofJustice Programs, which alsoincludes the Bureau of JusticeAssistance, the National In-stitute of Justice, the Bureau ofJustice Statistics, and the Of-fice for Victims of Crime.

FEATURESConditions of Confinement by Dale G. Parent .................................... 2

An OJJDP research director assesses conditions of juvenile confinement and recom-mends corrective action to improve them.

On the Front Lines: Interview With Judge David B. Mitchell ............... 8

A leading juvenile court judge offers his candid comments on the challenges facingthe juvenile justice system and the Nation.

Parentally Abducted Children:Roadblocks to Recovery and Reunion by Linda K. Girdner, Ph.D. ........... 17

OJJDP’s principal investigator of obstacles to the recovery of parentally abductedchildren reviews her findings and recommendations.

IN BRIEFJustice Matters

JJDP Act Reauthorized Through 1996 ................................................................. 24Gould-Wysinger Award Winners for 1992 .......................................................... 24In Memoriam ........................................................................................................ 25A Special Occasion ............................................................................................... 26

Juvenile and Family Court Judges Elect Willett Council President ......... 27

Across Our DeskBook Review: When Parents Kidnap: The Families Behind the Headlines ...........28

Technical Assistance & Training ..................................................................28

OJJDP Combats Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Delinquency.....29

OJJDP Publications ................................................................................................. 30

ORDER FORM .......................................................................................................... 31

2

Juvenile Justice

Conditionsof ConfinementBy Dale G. Parent

In 1988 Congress asked the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention (OJJDP) to study the conditions of confinement forjuvenile offenders, assess whether the conditions conformed to nationalstandards, and recommend improvements.

◆ Suicide prevention.

◆ Inspections and emergencypreparedness.

◆ Education.

◆ Recreation.

◆ Mental health services.

◆ Access to the community.

◆ Limits on staff discretion.

For each assessment area, one or moreassessment criteria were defined, with atotal of 43 assessment criteria being de-veloped.2 Data for the study were derivedfrom the 1991 Children in Custody(CIC) Census (conducted biennially forOJJDP by the Bureau of the Census), amail survey of all 984 facilities in August1991, and 2-day site visits to 95 facilitiesconducted during the fall and winter of1991.

Conformance rates were determined foreach assessment criterion. Investigatorsthen looked beyond conformance to na-tional standards to actual conditions inthe facilities. Problems were identifiedbased both on conformance and on con-

The study, conducted in 1991 by AbtAssociates, Inc., under a contract withOJJDP, included a survey of 984 publicand private detention centers, receptioncenters, training schools, and juvenileranches in the United States. On a dailybasis, these facilities hold 65,000 juve-niles—69 percent of confined juvenilesin the United States. The remainder arein shelters, halfway houses, and grouphomes—facilities excluded from thestudy. The study did not address condi-tions of confinement for juveniles whowere tried and sentenced as adults anddetained in adult facilities or who wereconfined in secure hospital settings.

To assess the conditions of confinement,criteria were developed based both onnational standards and on the needs ofjuveniles.1 Twelve subject areas wereidentified for investigation:

◆ Living space.

◆ Medical services.

◆ Food, clothing, and hygiene.

◆ Living accommodations.

◆ Security.

Dale G. Parent is a senior analystin law and public safety for AbtAssociates, Inc., where he hasconducted research on bootcamps, day reporting centers,and offender fee collection. Mr.Parent directed the Office ofJuvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention’s assessment of condi-tions of confinement in securejuvenile facilities.

Conditions of Confinement

3

of severely deficient facilities. Rather, thestudy suggested that improving condi-tions significantly will require broad-scale reforms affecting routine practicesin most facilities.

Admissions to juvenile facilities haverisen since 1984, reaching a record highof nearly 690,000 in 1990. The largest

increase occurred in detention, whereadmissions rose to 570,000.

ditions, and regression analysis was usedto identify the characteristics of both ju-veniles and facilities.

Recent TrendsAdmissions to juvenile facilities haverisen since 1984, reaching a record highof nearly 690,000 in 1990. The largestincrease occurred in detention facilities,where admissions increased from justover 400,000 in 1984 to 570,000 in 1990.The number of confined juveniles (basedon 1-day CIC counts) rose from 50,800in 1979 to 63,300 in 1991. The popula-tion housed by all facilities exceptranches increased. So, too, the numberof facilities increased, from 930 in 1979to 984 in 1991. (Ranches were the onlytype of facility that did not grow innumber.)

Between 1987 and 1991, the characteris-tics of juveniles confined also changed.The percentage of males rose from 85percent to 88 percent. Confined minorityjuveniles rose from 53 percent to 63 per-cent, with the largest increases occurringamong blacks (from 37 percent to 44percent) and Hispanics (from 13 percentto 17 percent). Juveniles confined forcrimes against persons rose from 21 per-cent to 28 percent, while those confinedfor drug-related offenses rose from 6 per-cent to 10 percent. Those confined forproperty offenses declined from 40 per-cent to 34 percent.

Conformance toAssessment CriteriaAlthough few facilities were completelyfree of deficiencies, only a small groupfailed to meet a large number of assess-ment criteria. As a result, investigatorsconcluded that conditions of confine-ment will not be improved materially byreforming or eliminating a small number

Conditions of confinement appeared tobe generally adequate in three importantareas:

◆ Food, clothing, and hygiene.

◆ Recreation.

◆ Living accommodations.

Although most juveniles were confinedin facilities that had passed State and lo-cal fire, safety, and sanitation inspec-tions, site visits revealed numerousfacilities in which fire exits were notmarked or fire escape routes were notposted. In a few facilities, fire exits wereblocked by furniture or other objects.This suggests that State and local firecodes for juvenile facilities requirestrengthening, more vigorous enforce-ment, or both.

According to most assessment criteria,confined juveniles had adequate access tothe community. An exception was accessto a telephone. Forty-two percent of con-fined juveniles resided in facilities thatdid not permit them to receive incomingtelephone calls.

The survey found high conformance tomost criteria restricting staff discretion intreatment of juveniles. An exception wasauthorization of searches. Most confined

4

Juvenile Justice

Facilities have responded to crowdingby restricting intake (particularly in de-tention centers), granting early release(particularly in training schools), and re-fusing to take new admissions (particu-larly in ranches). As a result, althoughcrowding has become more widespreadsince 1987, population levels in crowdedfacilities have remained at about 120 per-cent of design capacity.

Rates of injury were higher in crowdedfacilities, making them more dangerousfor juveniles and staff.3 Moreover, as thepercentage of juveniles housed in dormi-tories with 11 or more residents in-creased, rates of juvenile-on-juvenileinjury also increased. This may accountfor the higher search rates in crowdedfacilities.

Investigators concluded that new facili-ties should not be built with large dormi-tories and that large dormitories inexisting facilities should be eliminated assoon as practical. Facilities can cushionthe effects of crowding, but they cannotalter the decisions of police, prosecutors,juvenile judges, and probation and paroleofficers that lead to crowding.

To control crowding, jurisdictions mustimplement plans that identify decisionsaffecting confinement. The plans should:

◆ Identify characteristics of juvenileswho enter the system.

◆ Document the maximum number ofjuveniles allowed in a facility.

◆ Establish confinement andnonconfinement placement options.

States should use this information to de-velop policies that regulate the use andduration of confinement and guide futureplacement options for confinement andnonconfinement.

juveniles were housed in facilities inwhich line staff could authorize roomsearches and frisks, and a substantial mi-nority were held in facilities in whichline staff could authorize strip searches.

Facilities had substantial and widespreaddeficiencies in the following areas: crowd-ing, security, suicide prevention, andhealth screenings and appraisals.

Conformance to assessment criteria wasalso generally high in the areas of edu-cation, health care, and mental healthservices. However, adequacy of theseservices could not be assessed objectivelybecause of the lack of data on confinedyouths’ educational, health, and mentalhealth needs. Major initiatives are re-quired to collect such data to determinewhether facilities provide appropriateprograms.

Facilities had substantial and widespreaddeficiencies in the following four areas:crowding, security, suicide prevention,and health screenings and appraisals.Major findings from the study are dis-cussed below.

CrowdingCrowding was a pervasive problem in ju-venile confinement, affecting sleepingrooms, living areas, and entire facilities.In 1987, 36 percent of confined juvenileswere in a facility in which the populationexceeded design capacity. By 1991 theproportion living in overtaxed facilitieshad increased to 47 percent. In 1991one-third of confined juveniles were inliving units with 26 or more juveniles,and one-third slept in rooms that weresmaller than required by nationalstandards.


5

SecuritySecurity practices are intended to pro-vide a safe environment for juveniles andstaff and prevent escapes. Investigatorsfound high levels of nonconformancewith security assessment criteria and sub-stantial problems with injuries and es-capes in juvenile facilities.

Eighty-one percent of confined juvenileswere housed in facilities with three ormore facilitywide population counts perday. However, conformance dropped forthe remaining security criteria. Only 62percent of juveniles were in facilities thatmade housing assignments based on therisk factors of individual juveniles. Just36 percent were in facilities in which thesupervision staffing ratio met the assess-ment criterion.

Risk of injuries. In the 30 days prior tothe mail survey, nearly 2,000 juveniles (3percent) and 651 staff (1.7 percent) wereinjured in the facilities surveyed. Rates ofinjury were highly variable. About 10percent of confined juveniles were in fa-cilities in which 8 percent or more of thejuveniles were injured, and 1 percentwere in facilities in which 25 percent ormore of the juveniles were injured.About 10 percent of confined juvenileswere in facilities in which 5 percent ormore of staff were injured, and 1 percentwere in facilities in which 17 percent ormore of staff were injured.

As noted above, juvenile and staff injuryrates were higher in crowded facilities.Juvenile-on-juvenile injury rates alsoincreased as the number of juvenileshoused in large dormitories increased.Injury rates for juveniles and staff werehigher in facilities in which living unitswere locked 24 hours a day. Interestingly,the percentage of juvenile residents con-victed of violent crimes was not relatedto injury rates.

The classification of juveniles accordingto their propensity for violence and theseparation of potential predators fromvictims are two methods used to protectjuveniles. However, investigators foundno relationship between conformance tothe classification assessment criteria andrates of injury. The reasons for this wereunclear. It is possible that existing juve-nile classification procedures do not reli-ably identify violence-prone youth orthat crowding diminishes facilities’ abil-ity to adequately separate predators fromvictims. More study of classification isneeded to determine what improvementsare needed.

In site visits, administrators and staff fre-quently said their facilities would be saferif staffing ratios were improved. How-ever, investigators found no relationshipbetween supervision staffing ratios andrates of injury. They did find that higherturnover rates of supervision staff wereassociated with increased juvenile-on-staff and staff-on-juvenile injury rates.Thus, less experienced staff memberswere more likely to be injured by juve-niles and were more likely to injurejuveniles.

It is possible that juvenile classificationprocedures do not identify violence-prone

youth or that crowding diminishesfacilities’ ability to separate predators

from victims.

Risk of escape. In the 30 days before themail survey, more than 1,600 confinedjuveniles (2.5 percent of all confined ju-veniles) attempted to escape. More than800 (1.2 percent of all confined juve-niles) succeeded. Investigators found noapparent relationship between facilities’

6

Juvenile Justice

conformance to the classification assess-ment criteria and escape rates.

The number of facilities that relied onperimeter fences as an obstacle to escapehas grown. Since 1987, the number offacilities with perimeter fences increasedfrom 38 percent to 47 percent. However,this study found no conclusive relation-ship between perimeter fences and escaperates.4

the time of admission and that trainedstaff members in suicide prevention.

Facilities that conducted suicide screen-ings at admission had lower rates of sui-cidal behavior. Other suicide preventionmeasures—training staff, frequent moni-toring, and written suicide preventionplans—were not associated with suicidalbehavior rates.5 However, as with ratesof injury, suicidal behavior rates in-creased as turnover rates of supervisionstaff increased.

Certain housing arrangements were asso-ciated with suicidal behavior. Increasedincidence of this problem was associatedwith placement of juveniles in singlerooms or in short-term isolation of 1 to24 hours. Yet facilities frequently failedto address housing arrangements in sui-cide prevention plans. The current find-ings confirm the importance of notplacing suicidal juveniles in rooms bythemselves.

Health Screeningsand AppraisalsHealth screenings and appraisals fre-quently were not completed in a timelymanner. More than 90 percent of con-fined juveniles received health screen-ings, but only 43 percent were screenedwithin an hour of admission in conform-ance with national standards. Ninety-fivepercent received health appraisals, butonly 80 percent were appraised within aweek of admission.

Staff members who were not trained bymedical personnel provided healthscreening for one-third of the juvenilesin detention centers. Because the pur-pose of health screening is to identifyinjuries or conditions requiring immedi-ate medical care, using untrained orinadequately trained staff is cause forconcern.

Suicidal behavior is a serious problem injuvenile facilities. In 1990, 10 juvenilesin confinement killed themselves, arate double that of youth in the generalpopulation.

Suicide PreventionSuicidal behavior was a serious problemin juvenile facilities. In 1990, 10 juve-niles in confinement killed themselves, arate roughly double that of youth in thegeneral population. In the 30 days beforethe mail survey, 970 confined juveniles(1.6 percent of the confined population)committed 1,487 acts of suicidal behav-ior (attempted suicide, self-mutilation, orother suicide gesture). During the same30 days, facilities reported 2.4 suicidalbehavior incidents for every 100 con-fined juveniles. If that period were typi-cal, more than 11,600 confined juvenileswould have engaged in more than 17,800acts of suicidal behavior in a year.

Most juveniles were placed in facilitiesthat had written suicide prevention plansand that monitored persons considered tobe suicide risks at least four times anhour. Three of every four confinedyouths were in facilities that screenedjuveniles for indicators of suicide risk at


7

Procedural VersusPerformance StandardsMost national standards on conditions ofconfinement focus on developing writtenpolicies and procedures or attaining spe-cific staff ratios rather than on definingoutcomes that facilities should achieve.Performance-based standards are difficultto formulate because they require agree-ment on the outcomes that should beachieved.

This study found that procedural stand-ards often have no discernible effect onconditions within facilities. Investigatorsconcluded that standard-setting organiza-tions such as the American CorrectionalAssociation and the National Commis-sion on Correctional Health Care shouldrevise their standards to incorporate goalsthat facilities can strive to attain andagainst which their performance can bemeasured.

Notes1. The requirements for national standards weredeveloped by five organizations, including theAmerican Bar Association/Institute for JudicialAdministration, the American Correctional Asso-ciation, the National Advisory Commission onJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, theJuvenile Justice Task Force of the National Advi-sory Commission on Criminal Justice Standardsand Goals, and the National Commission on Cor-rectional Health Care.

2. As an example, security had three assessmentcriteria: (1) whether the facility had three or morefacilitywide counts per day, (2) whether the facil-ity used a risk-based classification system to makehousing assignments, and (3) whether the facilityhad at least one supervision staff member for every10.67 juveniles.

3. Injury rates were based on those that occurredfor any reason in the 30 days prior to the mail sur-vey. Investigators did not distinguish betweenthose caused by accidents, sports, application ofrestraints, or assault (juvenile-on-juvenile, juve-nile-on-staff, or staff-on-juvenile).

4. Facility administrators frequently expressed theview that escapes and walkaways could be substan-tially reduced only by adopting high security prac-tices and equipment that would radically alter thefacility’s purpose from treatment to control.

5. It is possible that training, monitoring, andprevention planning prevent many suicidal behav-ior incidents from becoming a completed suicide.However, investigators found too few completedsuicides to test these relationships for statisticalsignificance.

Supplemental ReadingAmerican Correctional Association. ResearchFindings and Recommendations: Conditions of Con-finement Standards Revision. Laurel, Maryland:American Correctional Association, 1988. Thisbook analyzes the influence of physical standardsestablished by the American Correctional Asso-ciation on juvenile and adult facilities.

American Correctional Association. Standards forSmall Juvenile Detention Facilities. Laurel, Mary-land: American Correctional Association, 1991.This book details standards developed by theAmerican Correctional Association for juveniledetention centers with less than 20 beds.

National Coalition of State Juvenile Justice Advi-sory Groups. Promises To Keep. Washington, D.C.:National Coalition of State Juvenile Justice Advi-sory Groups (now the Coalition for Juvenile Jus-tice), 1989. The fifth report to the President,Congress, and the Administrator of the Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention sum-marizes the discussion of conditions of confine-ment that took place at the coalition’s 1989conference.

Parent, D. Conditions of Confinement. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juve-nile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1993.This OJJDP study compares the conditions of con-finement for juvenile offenders with nationalstandards and recommends policy improvements.

Rauch, W.H., J.D. Henderson, et al. Guidelines forthe Development of a Security Program. Washington,D.C.: National Institute of Corrections, 1987.This manual provides guidelines for the operationof secure juvenile and adult facilities.

Juvenile Justice

8

On the Front Lines:Interview WithJudge David B. Mitchell

Juvenile Justice: You have become in-creasingly recognized as a leading juve-nile court judge and as a leader in thearea of juvenile justice. Why do youconsider this important, and could anonjudge do the same?

Judge Mitchell: It’s important and tradi-tional for the juvenile judiciary to take aleadership responsibility locally and, insome instances, nationally because we’rethe ones who see the situation in its mostdifficult form. In other words, the judge isalways there and sees what’s occurring inthe community.

The judge, in most instances, is in thebest position to address the needs of thefamilies that come before the court. Thejudge, in many instances, is in the bestposition to speak to the issues because heor she is not seeking voter approval forthe court’s policies. The judge can go be-fore the public and the policymakers andadvocate from a position of respect andresponsibility for the needs of the sys-tem as opposed to setting forth politicalsolutions.

Juvenile Justice: It sounds like a tall or-der for a juvenile court judge.

Judge Mitchell: True. When you sit inthe civil or criminal court, your impact isupon the litigants. That’s important;however, you have no real opportunity toeffect the changes needed within the

community. You may help streamline thesystem so that the cases move moresmoothly. You may even be able to ad-dress some aspects of the problems of thecommunity as they relate to the courts.When you sit in the juvenile court, how-ever, you have the opportunity to speakto the broader social problems of yourcommunity, to really participate in mak-ing things better overall as opposed towhat happens in this one case.

Juvenile Justice: What are the requisitesfor being a judge?

Judge Mitchell: Maryland has one of theunique statutes on that. It says as a gen-eral principle that no person may sit in ajuvenile court unless they want to do so.Secondly, the person must have sometraining, experience, or interest in thefield. Finally, the person requires the ap-proval of the chief judge of the State.

Juvenile Justice: There are so manyfunctions in the juvenile court for whichthe judge is responsible. Many courts del-egate some of this work to referees andothers. Do you? And is it a good thing?

Judge Mitchell: Unfortunately, we do.Baltimore city historically has been amaster-dominated court. We have mas-ters, who in other communities are calledreferees and in others commissioners.These are nonjudicial authorities. Theyare competent experts in what they do,

Judge David B. Mitchell is associ-ate judge of the Baltimore (Mary-land) City Circuit Court and haslong been active in juvenile andfamily law. The interview wasconducted for Juvenile Justice byIrving Slott, former director ofOJJDP’s Information Dissemina-tion Unit.

9

On the Front Lines: Interview With Judge David B. Mitchell

but they do not carry the imprimatur andauthority of a judge. The decision to op-erate the court this way is fiscally driven.As such, we have become a court thathas only one judge and eight juvenilemasters. There’s no way for one judge tohear all those cases.

I believe cases should be heard by personswho have the final authority to make de-cisions, rather than have the judge act asa rubber stamp to what has happened.When it comes to the ultimate decisionof what’s going to happen to that child,to that family, or to the community,judges should make those decisions justas they decide whether you’re going to beevicted from your home, whether youhave to pay a parking ticket, or whetheryou are going to be separated from yourfamily and incarcerated for the offenseyou have been found guilty of commit-ting. Children and family issues are noless significant, and should be accordedthe same level of responsibility.

Juvenile Justice: Let’s turn to the subjectof waiver, which has received quite a bitof interest lately. When should a juvenilecase be waived to the criminal court?How and by whose authority?

Judge Mitchell: Only the judge shouldmake the decision on when a case shouldbe waived out of the juvenile system. Al-though some jurisdictions allow that de-cision to be made by the prosecutor, inmost jurisdictions it is a judicial determi-nation, and that is the way it should be.The judge is impartial. The prosecutor,no matter how competent, is a partisanin the process and subject to political andcommunity pressures.

We use waiver too much! I’m usingwaiver broadly to encompass not just thejudicial decision on a charge where thejuvenile court has the original jurisdic-tion but to include cases where by statutethe juvenile court no longer has original

jurisdiction. For example, in Maryland, ifa child is 16 years of age or older and ischarged with a handgun offense, the ju-venile court doesn’thave jurisdiction inthat case. It is lodgedin the criminal sys-tem originally, andthe juvenile courtcan only gain thatcase if a transfer orwaiver occurs fromthe criminal sys-tem to the juvenilesystem.

We use waiver toomuch. We have notconsistently ad-dressed the needs ofthe juvenile system,so we blame the kidswhen they commitoffenses that angerus. We send them tothe adult system. Be-cause of the inten-sity of crime in theurban setting, you find waiver beingsought in a lot of cases.

Juvenile Justice: The other way juve-niles who commit offenses don’t go tocourt is through diversion. How shoulddiversion be effected?

Judge Mitchell: Diversion is a viable toolfor the juvenile justice system. Given theappropriate resources, a diversion pro-gram keeps the kid from having to comeinto the court system as a charged child. Idon’t believe it should be run by the po-lice, and I don’t think they do either. Itshould be run by an executive agencythat will take a number of factors intoconsideration before a diversion decisionis made.

Even after a decision has been made tocharge the child, a diversion program

Judge David B. Mitchell

Juvenile Justice

10

should be available through the courts.You need the opportunity to get the at-tention of the family by bringing them tocourt and then to be able to divert theyouth.

Juvenile Justice: I understand that someproblems have occurred where a socialwork agency responsible for troubledkids does not want offenders aroundnonoffending youth.

members of society, but since then pro-ceedings have become more litigious toinsure constitutional rights. Has thishelped the juvenile? What’s it done tothe court?

Judge Mitchell: I think the fact we are aconstitutional court is very good. I havenot the slightest quarrel with that. Bearin mind, I’m from a generation that hasknown no difference. I started practicinglaw in 1970 when Gault had alreadychanged the courts. I don’t have a prob-lem with lawyers in the court, but I con-fess to some concern about the kinds ofmessages kids are getting. I recall as apracticing lawyer representing a kid andbeing torn with a conflict whether toperform my “legal obligation” to my cli-ent and ignore what the consequencesmight be for this kid, or to do what Ithink is best for this child.

Sometimes the adversarial system is inconflict with what is in the best interestof the child. The perfect example of thatis the case of two young ladies, 10 or 11,very tender years, that I had as respon-dents before me about 4 years ago. Theywere very innocent children. Theirmother was a day care provider. Theseyoung ladies had been fondling the kidswho were coming to their mother forcare. It was more out of curiosity thananything malicious or criminal.

The authorities discovered it, and thekids were brought before the court. Theyhad a lawyer; the lawyer couldn’t explainanything to these little girls. The Statewould have had difficulty prosecutingthese little girls, yet these little girlsneeded to understand what was happen-ing. The lawyer said to me, “Judge, Idon’t know what to do. If I play my roleas lawyer for these children, they won’tget the help they need, unless I can per-suade the family to get it on a privatebasis.”

Many of these youthful offenders are onlyoffenders because that’s what we callthem when we interact with them.

Judge Mitchell: That is a problem, but Iharken back to something one of my col-leagues said some years ago. Many ofthese youthful offenders are only offend-ers because that’s what we call them atthe moment we interact with them.

Juvenile Justice: We caught them.

Judge Mitchell: Yes, we caught them orsomeone complained about them. It goesin almost a circle. If your son takes yourcar, is that misbehavior on his part, or doyou decide to call the authorities andmake it a delinquency offense? We’re nottalking about the hardcore situation suchas when a child seriously assaults some-one. We’re talking about petty thefts andacting-out behavior. I agree with youabout mixing the populations, but whenwe examine who these kids are, they’rethe same kids.

Juvenile Justice: They’re troubled kids.

Judge Mitchell: Yeah, they’re troubledkids, and troubled kids have the sameneeds.

Juvenile Justice: The juvenile courtoriginally was entrusted with determin-ing treatment, to rehabilitate and set ju-veniles on the path of becoming good

11


There are critics who say that the court isnot constitutional enough, that we donot uniformly provide protection forchildren’s rights. I know that in Mary-land and particularly in Baltimore city,every child that comes before the courthas an attorney. Every child! In most in-stances when parents are brought beforethe court for purposes of abuse, neglect,or dependency issues, they are providedcounsel. At least for the adjudication anddisposition stages of the case.

Juvenile Justice: Then would you havethree attorneys?

Judge Mitchell: Oh yes, three, some-times four. Mom and Pop might be inconflict, so we’ll have a representative foreach one of them. We may have interve-nors from the grandparents or other rela-tives, or even interested parties who haverepresentative counsel. We may have sixor seven lawyers here for one family.

I don’t know if I would go so far as otherjurisdictions and have jury trials for thesekids. I think that’s going too far. I have aconcern about legalistic messages beingsent to kids. Kids receive messages andfilter them differently than adults. I’mconcerned that they’ll get the impressionthat they can hire somebody and beat thecase.

Juvenile Justice: This has been a prob-lem for prosecutors. Dedicated prosecu-tors have told me that they feel aresponsibility for the juvenile as well asfor society. It annoys them when theycome against a defense attorney who re-ally doesn’t know how to handle such acase.

Judge Mitchell: It should be a specializedbar. The family will go out and hire thesame lawyer that they would have hiredif a 25-year-old person were charged witha crime. The needs of the person chargedare completely different. Prosecutors who

spend time in the juvenile court under-stand the differences and it frustratesthem. It frustrates the court as well. Wework very hard to educate the bar on thedifferences.

Juvenile Justice: But is there a special-ized juvenile defense bar?

Judge Mitchell: If there is, it’s the publicdefender’s office. The public defenderrepresents 80 percent, maybe 90 percent,of the kids who come before our court indelinquency matters. A specialized baralso exists for my court in dependencycases. They receive training, and theyhave a great deal of experience in thefield. They become acquainted with whatexists programmatically. They do notrelinquish the rights of their clients,but they are strong advocates for thecommunity.

Juvenile Justice: Let’s turn our attentionto the public. Citizens are concernedabout juvenile involvement in violence,shootings, drugs, gangs. Are these yourpriorities?

Judge Mitchell: If you’re sitting in acriminal court, violence and drugs areyour priorities. If you’re sitting in the ju-venile court, it’s the same thing. Kids aregross mirrors of the general society. Theyare exaggerations of what occurs gener-ally in society.

The family will go out and hire the samelawyer as if a 25-year-old were charged.

The needs are completely different.

Drugs and violence have been predomi-nant in the criminal justice system for acouple of decades. When kids start doingthe same thing, we blame them. We at-tack the kids as if they invented vio-

Juvenile Justice

12

lence. There is no poppy field in Balti-more city. There is no gun factory inBaltimore city. They import drugs fromother communities, but they don’tbring them across the United Statesborder.

erybody, particularly in the African-American community.

Juvenile Justice: It becomes part ofnormality.

Judge Mitchell: Yes, it does. Saturday Iattended a funeral in Washington, D.C.The deceased was the son of a womanwho was a high-school classmate of mywife. Her son was on his first date inGeorgetown, the first time out with hismother’s car. Someone apparentlyjumped out of the bushes and put a bulletin this boy’s head.

It affects every one of us. I’ve been to anumber of funerals. I have kids who havebeen in this court who have ended up ina violent way. It tears at the fabric of oursociety. I don’t know what we can doabout violence. I do know what does notwork—incarceration. If putting people inpenitentiaries for decades was effective,we wouldn’t have gotten to this stage.

Juvenile Justice: That is challenged bythe rare kid who simply shoots some-body without any feeling. He has neverbonded.

Judge Mitchell: What imprisonment ac-complishes, at the juvenile or adult level,is removal of that person from society. Itprovides protection for potential victimsfor a period of time. Unfortunately, it isnot a deterrent. The other day, I sat withthree drug dealers. We candidly discussedtheir behavior in a community forum.They understand the criminal justice sys-tem. They understand the law. Theyunderstand the possibilities not just ofbeing caught and going to prison, but ofdying. And they don’t care. They are notstopping.

Juvenile Justice: Tomorrow isn’t impor-tant. Next year isn’t important.

Judge Mitchell: Immediate self-gratifica-tion drives them. The fact that little kidsand mothers are being injured, killed in

If putting people in penitentiaries fordecades was effective, we wouldn’t havegotten to this stage.

The political process seizes upon thesehorrible figures and statistics. Theyblame the inability of the juvenile systemto control the situation. Therefore youconstantly have calls for reform of thejuvenile system, that you’re not toughenough.

Juvenile Justice: Whatever toughnessmeans.

Judge Mitchell: Whatever toughnessmeans. If you get tough with them, you’regoing to get results. Fallacious. Whatevertoughness means, it’s still fallacious.

Juvenile Justice: And yet the data showthat violence has increased among juve-niles, even among younger kids. This isdisturbing.

Judge Mitchell: Yes. It has spread downto the subteen group, the adolescents.Sexual offenses against children by chil-dren has now spread in alarming rates tovery young children. In Baltimore about60 percent of the kids in the city, par-ticularly the African-American kids,have witnessed a violent event. I’m nottalking about Mom and Pop fighting orbrothers and sisters fighting. I’m talkingabout a homicide or shooting. A hugenumber of people in the communityknow someone who has been killed orhave had a member of their family whohas been killed. It has an impact on ev-

13


random shootings, innocent victims ofturf wars, they rationalize by saying,“Well, mothers know it’s dangerous outthere; they shouldn’t send their babiesoutside.”

Incarcerating these individuals is not theanswer alone. The process must go backfurther, to fundamental values that mustbe provided in the home. One of thedrug dealers said, “I teach my childrenvalues, but I don’t have any values of myown.”

It must go to the educational, housing,and social opportunities we providewithin that compact community that issometimes called the inner city, some-times called the ghetto. It is a concentra-tion of a permanent underclass of povertythat can see the other side through theglass but doesn’t know how to get there.Until we solve that problem we’re goingto have this one.

Juvenile Justice: You touched on theproblem of juvenile sex offense before. Isthat a serious problem?

Judge Mitchell: Yes. I have seen the in-cidents of criminal sexual behavior bykids against kids increasing at an alarm-ing rate.

Juvenile Justice: OJJDP has just initi-ated a study to determine, not only howserious a problem it is, but to distinguishthe types of offenses and offenders. Whenour fiscal year 1992 plan was issued, wereceived more comments on that, allpositive, than on the entire rest of theplan.

Judge Mitchell: You touched a nerve I’mnot sure you realized that you were aboutto touch. More and more, younger andyounger sexual offenders are coming intothe courts. They are pushing the enve-lope of the psychiatric community whichhad determined that you cannot classifya person as a pedophile below a certainage.

Juvenile Justice: Status offenses are of-ten the first sign of antisocial behavior.Are they serious problems for the court?

Judge Mitchell: The reformist commu-nity quite accurately indicates the courthas done a good job of botching this one.We’ve tried to use contempt authority.We’ve incarcerated kids. But the prob-lem still exists. Kids do self-destructivethings. They are not being brought to theattention of the courts. The reformistcommunity has done an excellent job ofconvincing everyone that this is just ado-lescent aberrational behavior that kidswill grow out of and become beautifulcitizens. But every delinquent who comesbefore the court and is adjudicated delin-quent was a status offender at some pointearly in his or her life.

Of course, not every status offender willbecome a delinquent or criminal. How-ever, if you don’t address these problemsearly, you’re going to have to addressmore difficult problems later. In the sameway, almost every person that comes be-fore the juvenile and criminal systemshas dropped out of school or failed to at-tend school. As long as you don’t attackthe attendance problem, you’re going tocultivate a class of criminals, a class ofindividuals who eventually will violatethe criminal justice system’s laws.

In most urban communities you are do-ing well if 50 percent of the kids who en-ter the ninth grade graduate. Now that’sa status offense, truancy. The kids get themessage real early on that no one is goingto do anything about it.

As long as you don’t address the schoolattendance problem, you’re going

to cultivate a class of criminals.

Juvenile Justice

14

Juvenile Justice: Early on could be thefirst grade.

Judge Mitchell: Yes, that’s why in Balti-more we are starting a school attendanceproject in the elementary schools. We’regoing to bring parents whose kids aren’tgoing to school into the courthouse.We’re going to start enforcing compul-sory school attendance laws.

Juvenile Justice: OJJDP has undertakena major research project, a longitudinalcohort study of 4,000 kids. We find thatkids who are dropping out later probablydropped out in the very early grades.

Judge Mitchell: When we have fiscalproblems in urban communities, one ofthe first areas to cut in education is at-tendance monitors. Special education isone of the next areas. Many of the tru-ancy cases are not brought to us until thekid has missed 120 days. That’s too late.Thirty percent of the elementary pupilsin Baltimore are chronic truants whomiss at least 30 days, 6 weeks, fromschool each year.

Juvenile Justice: We talk about statusoffenses as a legal term. Status offenders,though, are all kinds of kids. The kid thatruns home and hides under the bed is dif-ferent from the one that runs away fromhome.

Judge Mitchell: One of the problemsthat the court has now is that the systemdoes not have legal authority over thosekids. It is very frustrating for judges to getcalls from a family saying my child is do-ing this or that and we need services.What do I do? If I call the agency, theywill say, “Wait till the child commits acrime.” It’s very frustrating.

Juvenile Justice: How difficult is it toinvolve the parents?

Judge Mitchell: The child does not existin a vacuum. The problems of the childare not just the child’s. The child’s actingout often is nothing more than a re-

sponse to stimuli from the family. We arevery active in that area, but we’re not al-ways successful, and that’s not an indict-ment of the juvenile system, it’s anindictment of what is happening in oursociety. We have to involve the family.

Juvenile Justice: How do you involvethe family when there is a limit to whatgovernment can do in intruding into afamily? There ought to be some humilitythere. How do you say, “You can do bet-ter. Your children’s future depends onyou”?

Judge Mitchell: We’ve been somewhatcoercive, in that we do a lot of lobbyingand persuasion in trying to establish abase level of responsibility and authorityin the family. We talk with the kids incourt to make sure they understand theirmother’s rules aren’t any different thananyone else’s. In some instances we haveto kind of bludgeon parents to get themmotivated.

Juvenile Justice: It’s almost a cliché thatthe status of professional juvenile justicework is low. Is this true? How can it beovercome?

Judge Mitchell: That’s a very difficultquestion. I firmly believe that the jobnever gives you dignity. You give it what-ever dignity or lack thereof it has.

That photograph on the wall is of theseven judges that ran for election as ateam in 1986. We went around Balti-more visiting community associations. Iwas introduced as a juvenile court judge.They didn’t ask the criminal court judgesabout crime. They didn’t ask about civilissues or issues of rent or housing. Theywanted to talk to that juvenile courtjudge. The community has a great deal ofrespect for that position.

Juvenile Justice: Well, is it the law fra-ternity that doesn’t respect juvenilework?

15


What they do not know, they do not un-derstand, and what they do not under-stand, they do not respect. A judge whohad just completed his term in the juve-nile court wrote me to say that it hadbeen the most exciting and challengingresponsibility in his legal career. “I wantto return, I want to stay involved,” headvised me.

Juvenile Justice: My last question is:Would you predict the future? We’ve dis-cussed many different problems affectingjuvenile justice. Will things get better?

Judge Mitchell: One of the greatest chal-lenges facing juvenile justice is to pro-vide consistent services both before casesget to the court and afterwards. It is of novalue for the court to work miracles inrehabilitation if there are no opportuni-ties for the child in the community and ifthe child is simply going to return to thesqualor from which he or she came.

For one of the first times in our Nation’shistory, we have a permanent underclassof poor black, white, and Hispanic kids.These kids see no opportunities. Theyreside in intense, comprehensive poverty.They are served by inadequate housing.They are provided with educational sys-tems that do not function. Until we deal

Judge Mitchell: Absolutely. The law fra-ternity looks upon this as less than sig-nificant. You must be less talented,because if you were more talented as ajudge or professional lawyer, you’d bedealing with the million-dollar cases.

Several years ago, I substituted for an ad-ministrative judge. A major civil casewith quite complicated issues came up,an injunction of a restaurant. The law-yers met with me at the end of my juve-nile docket, and we discussed theproblem and resolved the case. Later, oneof the lawyers, in a backhanded compli-ment, said, “Judge, I didn’t think it waspossible to resolve this case, becauseyou’re sitting in juvenile.”

It’s the legal fraternity that has given ju-venile law a low regard. It’s not the socialwork community. This is their life. It’snot the juvenile professionals or the caseworkers. It’s their life. The legal commu-nity has made it less than significant.

You’re not talking about giving someonea death sentence. You’re not talkingabout giving someone 50 years! You’renot talking about that medical malprac-tice case or bank dissolution. You’re talk-ing about kids. It’s the same in familylaw. Divorces, marriage dissolutions, cus-tody issues are given less respect in thelegal community and other areas.

Juvenile Justice: How do you changethat?

Judge Mitchell: You have to work withthe leadership of the bar and the indi-vidual members. You have to go to thelaw schools. We’re trying to build the re-sponsibility of law students in this pro-cess through clinical education programs.I work with my colleagues on the benchto accept rotation to the juvenile courtnot as purgatory but as a challenge.

Juvenile law is a specialized area thatmany people don’t know anything about.

I work with my colleagues on the bench toaccept rotation to the juvenile court not as

purgatory but as a challenge.

with the environment in which theylive, whatever we do in the courts isirrelevant.

Meanwhile, fiscal constraints, if left tocontinue, will decimate our efforts to re-form the juvenile justice system. Serviceswill be concentrated in institutions andfew resources will remain in the commu-

Juvenile Justice

16

nity. All the studies show that institu-tions don’t work. Most juvenile institu-tions are simply little prisons, networkingplaces where inmates make contacts forfuture criminal activities.

Innovation in community services andtreatment is no longer being fostered. Infact, it’s being suppressed. No one wantsto pay for it. These are some of the big-gest challenges facing the justice system.People expect the criminal justice systemto be the savior of the community. Weare not. We do not have a policy to dealwith drugs. Unless a solution is found tothe crisis of alcohol, drug, and substanceabuse, we’re going to continue to haveproblems.

A higher rate of kids in rural environ-ments use cigarettes, smokeless tobacco,beer, wine, and liquor and binge drinkingthan kids in urban environments. Unlesswe recognize that substance abuse affectsall of America, not just our cities, andstart attacking the broad scope of theproblem, the juvenile court, the criminalcourt, and all the courts will be irrel-evant. All we shall be is conductors onthe railroad to prison.

Juvenile Justice: Are there any signs ofimprovement?

Judge Mitchell: Not on the front end.The political community is dealing withthis rhetorically. They’re wringing theirhands and they’re pointing fingers. Onthe back end, there’s no investment inthe future. We are investing in buildings.We’re building prisons, and they will notsolve the problem. More and more, big-ger and bigger.

Juvenile Justice: Judge Mitchell, I thankyou very much.

Judge Mitchell: I thank you.

Most juvenile institutions are simply littleprisons where inmates make contacts forfuture criminal activities.

17

Parentally Abducted Children: Roadblocks to Recovery and Reunion

ParentallyAbducted Children:Roadblocks to Recoveryand Reunion

“Is my child custody decree worth the paper it is written on?” Faced withthe reality that a spouse or former spouse has taken the children andfled, distraught parents may ask this question and others: “Who will helpme find my children?” “When will I see them again?” “How can my cus-tody decree be enforced?”

According to the National IncidenceStudies on Missing, Abducted, Runaway,and Thrownaway Children, an estimated163,200 children abducted by parents orother family members in 1988 were takenacross State lines, concealed from or pre-vented from having contact with the cus-todial parent, or taken with the intentionof being kept indefinitely or changingtheir custody.1

What are the obstacles to locating, re-covering, and returning parentally ab-ducted children? A recent studysponsored by the Office of Juvenile Jus-tice and Delinquency Prevention(OJJDP) and conducted by the AmericanBar Association (ABA) indicates thatlaws enacted to prevent parental abduc-tions and facilitate the recovery and re-turn of abducted children are notworking properly.2 This article describesthese laws, identifies obstacles limitingtheir utility, and recommends correctiveaction to enhance their effectiveness.

ABA StudyIn 1988 Congress directed OJJDP to con-duct a study to identify legal, policy, pro-cedural, and practical obstacles to thelocation, recovery, and return of paren-tally abducted children and to recom-mend ways to overcome or reduce them.3

The subsequent 2-year research projectby the ABA Center on Children and theLaw addressed legal and social scienceaspects of the problem.

The Center conducted comprehensivelegal research on Federal and State stat-utes, court rules, and case law pertainingto parental abduction and custody deter-mination, modification, and enforce-ment. Attorneys, judges, and Statemissing children clearinghouse personnelwere surveyed to review their experiencesin custody enforcement and family ab-duction. Special legal consultants devel-oped papers on the role of law enforce-ment personnel and prosecutors in civil

Linda K. Girdner, Ph.D., of theAmerican Bar Association’s Cen-ter on Children and the Lawserves as a consultant to the Of-fice of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention (OJJDP). Shedirected OJJDP’s research projectObstacles to the Recovery andReturn of Parentally AbductedChildren. Dr. Girdner continuesher work on behalf of parentallyabducted children and their fami-lies as director of OJJDP’s projectIdentifying Risk Factors for Pa-rental Abduction.

By Linda K. Girdner, Ph.D

Juvenile Justice

18

enforcement of child custody orders, is-sues arising in criminal appellate deci-sions, and procedural changes to expeditecustody enforcement.

The Center for the Study of Trauma atthe University of California, San Fran-cisco, surveyed a sample of family abduc-tion cases drawn from the files of theNational Center for Missing and Ex-ploited Children (NCMEC) and exam-ined child recovery experiences in threecommunities.

Responses to ParentalAbductionsAttempts have been made to address theproblem of parental abductions throughthe civil legal and criminal justice sys-tems. In addition, Federal and State in-formation clearinghouses have beenestablished to help parents locate missingchildren.

Civil LegalThe civil legal response to the problem ofparental abduction was designed to pre-vent child custody proceedings from go-ing forward simultaneously in more thanone State and conflicting custody ordersfrom being issued in more than one juris-diction. Federal and State laws were en-acted to prevent forum shopping byparents seeking more favorable custodydeterminations and to require every Stateto honor and enforce child custody or-ders properly issued by the court of an-other State.

Three key laws were enacted to addressinterstate and international parentalchild abductions: the Uniform ChildCustody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), theParental Kidnaping Prevention Act(PKPA), and the Hague Convention onthe Civil Aspects of International ChildAbduction.

Uniform Child Custody JurisdictionAct. During the period from 1969 to1983, the UCCJA was enacted in someform in all States, the District of Colum-bia, and the Virgin Islands. The UCCJAis primarily a jurisdictional statute thataddresses when a court has subject matterjurisdiction in a custody case, whether acourt should exercise jurisdiction, andwhether a court must enforce the decreeof another State or whether it can modifysuch a decree. The UCCJA sets out fourbases of subject jurisdiction and includesprovisions to prevent simultaneousproceedings.

Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act. En-acted in 1980, PKPA is a Federal lawthat gives priority to the home State forsubject matter jurisdiction.4 UnderPKPA, courts are required to enforce andmay not modify custody orders of sisterStates that have exercised jurisdiction ina manner consistent with the Act.

PKPA specifies that the Federal Bureauof Investigation (FBI) can investigate in-terstate and international parental ab-duction cases in which a warrant forunlawful flight to avoid prosecution hasbeen issued. PKPA also allows authorizedpersons to access the Federal Parent Lo-cator Service.

Hague Convention on the Civil Aspectsof International Child Abduction.Signed by the U.S. Government in 1980and ratified in 1988, the Hague Conven-tion on the Civil Aspects of Internation-al Child Abduction is an internationaltreaty that addresses the problem of in-ternational parental abduction. Proce-dures for implementing the HagueConvention in the United States are setforth in the International Child Abduc-tion Remedies Act.5

The Hague Convention provides for theprompt return of wrongfully removedor retained children to their country of

19


“habitual residence.” The treaty governscases involving countries that have be-come parties to it.6

Criminal Justice SystemFederal laws mandate that law enforce-ment agencies report missing children,including parentally abducted children.State laws and procedures relating tomissing children and parental kidnapingvary widely.

Missing Children Act of 1982. To pro-mote the involvement of law enforce-ment in the location of missing children,Congress passed the Missing ChildrenAct of 1982.7 Public Law 97–292 requiresthe FBI to enter missing children intothe National Crime Information Center(NCIC), a computer data base that en-ables law enforcement agencies acrossthe country to access information about amissing person or fugitive. Under theAct, local law enforcement agencies mayenter a missing child into NCIC, de-pending on State laws, but the FBI mustdo so if it is not done at the local level.

National Child Search Assistance Actof 1990. Prior to 1990, many State stat-utes and local law enforcement proce-dures required a waiting period before achild could be declared “missing” and aninvestigation begun. Such delays im-peded the recovery of children. Congresspassed the National Child Search Assist-ance Act of 1990 to address this prob-lem.8 Public Law 101–647 prohibits lawenforcement agencies from requiringwaiting periods and mandates that miss-ing children be entered immediately intoNCIC. The law further stipulates thatNCIC entries be made available to Statemissing children clearinghouses.

State Criminal Laws. All States havecriminal parental kidnaping statutes,commonly called criminal custodial in-

terference laws. However, State laws varyas to whether parental kidnaping is afelony or a misdemeanor. In many States,parental abduction becomes a felony onlyafter the child is transported across Statelines. The criminal liability of unwed,joint, and sole custodial parents who ab-duct their children and prevent the otherparent from having any access also varies.In some States, parental abduction priorto a custody order may not constitute acriminal violation.

ClearinghousesFederal and State clearinghouses serve awide audience, including parents andfamilies, law enforcement personnel, so-cial service professionals, and interestedcitizens. Clearinghouses provide re-sources, technical training, and generalinformation on the issues related to miss-ing children. Most help locate missingchildren by distributing photographsand descriptions. This section describessome of the services a clearinghouse canprovide.

Abduction of children probably hasbeen part of family life since thebeginning of history. Among thefirst child abductions to enter Euro-pean awareness were the biblicalstudy of King Solomon decidingcustody of a child that one motherhad taken from another and varioustales of classical mythology. . . .Since early times children have been

both economic commodities andemotionally laden targets for re-venge by abductors. . . . Recall thestory retold by Shakespeare of thetwo little princes snatched from theirmother and imprisoned in the Towerof London by their uncle becausetheir claim to the English thronethwarted his own ambitions.

Abduction in Historical Perspective

From When Parents Kidnap: The Families Behind the Headlines, by Geoffrey L. Greifand Rebecca L. Hegar. Copyright 1993 by Geoffrey L. Greif and Rebecca L. Hegar.Reprinted with the permission of The Free Press, a Division of Macmillan, Inc.

Juvenile Justice

20

National Center for Missing and Ex-ploited Children. Title IV of the Juve-nile Justice and Delinquency PreventionAct of 1974 provided funds for the Na-tional Center for Missing and ExploitedChildren, a private nonprofit organiza-tion, to serve as a national clearinghouseand resource center.9 NCMEC providestechnical assistance in parental abduc-tion and other missing children cases,maintains a toll-free hotline, and pro-vides legal consultation with civil attor-neys and prosecutors in abduction cases.

State Missing Children Clearinghouses.Forty-two States and the District of Co-lumbia have State missing children clear-inghouses. Most were established bystatute and are housed within the Statecriminal justice agency. Clearinghousesvary in the functions mandated and re-sources available to them. Customarilytheir functions include public educationand information; communication andcoordination with parents, attorneys, lawenforcement personnel, and governmentagencies; and assistance in the locationand recovery of parentally abducted chil-dren. Many State clearinghouses serve asthe contact in international abduction

Why Do ParentsAbduct Their Children?Of the many roles children playwithin families, parental abductionhighlights the most tragic. In someabductions children are taken be-cause they have become indispens-able to a parent’s well-being; inothers they are removed from dan-ger by parental acts of courage. One

study of 86 parents who were con-templating abducting their children(only a small percentage had seri-ous plans) found that almost halfwere motivated by the perceivedneed to protect the child from physi-cal, sexual, and emotional abuse.

From When Parents Kidnap: The Families Behind the Headlines, by Geoffrey L. Greifand Rebecca L. Hegar. Copyright 1993 by Geoffrey L. Greif and Rebecca L. Hegar.Reprinted with the permission of The Free Press, a Division of Macmillan, Inc.

cases within the purview of the HagueConvention.

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. OJJDPcreated the Juvenile Justice Clearing-house (JJC) in 1979 to serve as a na-tional resource for information onjuvenile crime and missing children is-sues. JJC maintains an extensive collec-tion of literature on parental abductionsand other topics related to missing chil-dren. JJC distributes OJJDP publicationsfeaturing up-to-date statistical materials,research findings, program descriptions,and evaluations. In addition, JJC pro-vides referrals to other informationsources in this field. A component ofthe National Criminal Justice ReferenceService, JJC also offers library services,conference support, and access to anelectronic bulletin board for news andannouncements.

Obstacles to Recoveryand ReturnDespite Federal and State laws, major ob-stacles to locating, recovering, and re-turning parentally abducted childrenpersist. These obstacles fall into threebroad categories: unfamiliarity, non-compliance, and inconsistency andambiguity.

Unfamiliarity. Lawyers, judges, and lawenforcement officers exhibit a vast lackof knowledge and experience in the lawsconcerning parental abduction. In a na-tional survey of judges, 60 percent of therespondents reported that counsel rarelyor never raised the Parental KidnapingPrevention Act in applicable cases.

Noncompliance. Many law enforcementofficers, judges, and attorneys fail to com-ply with applicable laws. One widespreadpractice among law enforcement officersis to use marital status, type of custodyorder, and other criteria such as thresh-

21


olds prior to entering a child as missinginto the National Crime InformationCenter. As indicated, this practice vio-lates Federal missing children laws.

Inconsistency and Ambiguity. Federaland State laws relating to missing chil-dren, parental abduction, and custodyenforcement lack uniformity and speci-ficity. Not only do statutes vary fromState to State, but court interpretationsof Federal and State laws have led togreater ambiguity and confusion. Thelack of clarity and specificity regardinglaw enforcement’s role in enforcing childcustody orders has led to a growing con-cern over civil liability suits.

Corrective ActionCongress, State legislatures, and profes-sional associations representing judges,lawyers, prosecutors, and law enforce-ment officers must act to improve our ef-fectiveness in addressing parentalabduction cases. For this to take place,the public needs to be better informedabout the issues involved. Specific rec-ommendations to address particular ob-stacles to recovery and reunion aresummarized below.

CongressConflicting Custody Orders. Congressshould amend the Parental KidnapingPrevention Act to include an expressFederal cause of action (that is, the rightto take a case to Federal court) in casesinvolving conflicting custody decrees re-sulting from two or more States exercis-ing child custody jurisdiction.

Lack of Procedures To Determine ifCustody Orders or Proceedings Exist.Congress should pass legislation estab-lishing a national computerized childcustody registry that would provide

courts ready access to child custody fil-ings and determinations. The custodyregistry could be combined with a na-tional child support registry.

Ambiguities in the Parental KidnapingPrevention Act. Congress should amendPKPA to clarify several provisions, in-cluding continuing modification jurisdic-tion, emergency jurisdiction, and thetypes of cases to which PKPA shouldapply.

State LegislaturesLack of Effective Enforcement. Statesshould adopt expedited enforcementprocedures that ensure consistent, cost-effective, and timely enforcement of cus-tody orders. These procedures shouldmandate a role for police officers andprosecutors in the civil enforcement ofchild custody orders.

Lack of Uniformity and Specificity inState Variations of the Uniform ChildCustody Jurisdiction Act. The NationalConference of Commissioners on Uni-form State Laws should review State en-actments of UCCJA and promulgateamendments. State legislatures shouldamend their UCCJA statutes to achievegreater uniformity and specificity. Forexample, a provision could be added al-lowing temporary foster care placementof abducted children, pending return tothe lawful custodian.

Lack of Coordination Between ParentalAbduction and Family Violence Poli-cies. State legislatures should review lawson parental abduction, spouse abuse, andchild abuse to determine how batteredspouses and abused children may be fur-ther victimized by current laws andprocedures in the event of parental ab-duction. Revisions should conform to theintent of parental abduction laws, protect

Juvenile Justice

22

victims, and provide due process for allparties.

Need for Additional State Civil Stat-utes and Rules. State legislatures shouldpass statutes providing for the flagging ofbirth and school records of missing chil-dren. Then, if a copy of a missing child’srecord were requested, law enforcementwould be notified of the requester’s nameand address. In addition, State court rulesallowing out-of-State attorney appear-ances should be adopted.

Inadequate Funding for Law Enforce-ment and State Missing Children Clear-inghouses. State legislatures should fundlaw enforcement agencies and State miss-ing children clearinghouses at levelsneeded to meet their mandates relatingto parentally abducted children. Statemissing children clearinghouses and po-lice departments should use availableFederal assistance.

Liability Risks of Law Enforcement.State legislatures should clearly definethe statutory authority under which lawenforcement officers enforce custody or-ders. Procedures for ensuring the validityof the decree should be identified.

Inadequacies in Criminal Statutes. Statelegislatures should make parental abduc-tion a felony when the child is beingconcealed, has been taken out of State,or is at risk of harm. These circumstancesshould apply to any case in which theabduction is in derogation of the custodyrights of another parent or family mem-ber, whether or not a custody order hasbeen issued.

Law Enforcement Agenciesand ProsecutorsLack of Compliance With Federal Law.Law enforcement officers should betrained to follow the mandates of the

Missing Children Act of 1982 and theNational Child Search Assistance Act of1990 and directed by superiors to followthe procedures of these Acts. Officersshould file a missing child report, notifyNCIC, and investigate every parentalabduction case, regardless of the maritalor custodial status of the parents.

Failure To Investigate and Prosecute.Collaborative efforts among professionalassociations, the American ProsecutorsResearch Institute, the Missing and Ex-ploited Children Comprehensive ActionProgram, and NCMEC should promotetraining and technical assistance in theinvestigation and prosecution of parentalabduction cases.

Attorneys and JudgesLack of Knowledge of Child Custodyand Parental Abduction. Judges and at-torneys should be provided continuingeducation in laws applicable to parentalabduction cases. Educational materialsshould be developed for different practi-tioners and widely disseminated. Appel-late judges should receive continuingeducation on PKPA and UCCJA. Then,as appellate judges become better in-formed, lower court judges who wanttheir decisions sustained will ensure thatthere is no favoritism toward local partiesin their courts.

Need for Knowledgeable, AffordableAttorneys. A national referral system forattorneys with experience in parental ab-duction cases should be maintained. Barassociations should encourage attorneysto take parental abduction cases on a probono or sliding scale basis. Legal aid pro-grams should give high priority to paren-tal abduction cases so that more low-income parents can have their childrenreturned. No child should remain missingbecause a parent is poor.

23


The PublicAiding and Abetting Abductors. A me-dia campaign should be undertaken toeducate family members and friendsabout the criminal risks of involvingthemselves in the abduction or conceal-ment of a child. As appropriate, prosecu-tors should file criminal charges againstaccomplices.

Dispelling the Myth That Parental Ab-duction Is Not Serious. The public, aswell as law enforcement personnel,judges, and attorneys, should be informedof research that dispels commonly heldmyths minimizing the gravity of parentalabduction.

SummaryA parent whose child has been abductedby the other parent or another familymember often experiences obstacles inhaving the child located and returned.The parent may find that law enforce-ment is unwilling to enter parentally ab-ducted children into the FBI’s computerdata base. The parent may require legalservices in separate jurisdictions and mayhave difficulty finding knowledgeableand affordable attorneys. Parents who arenot married or lack custody orders, thosewith joint custodial or noncustodial sta-tus, and those who are economically orotherwise disadvantaged are likely to ex-perience additional difficulties.

Implementation of these recommenda-tions will help return parentally abductedchildren to their nonabducting parents.

Notes1. D. Finkelhor, G. Hotaling, and A. Sedlak.Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and ThrownawayChildren in America, First Report: Numbers andCharacteristics, National Incidence Studies. Wash-ington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Officeof Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,1990.

2. Linda K. Girdner and Patricia M. Hoff.Obstacles to the Recovery and Return of ParentallyAbducted Children. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention, forthcoming.

3. 42 U.S.C. § 5778.

4. 28 U.S.C. § 1738A.

5. 42 U.S.C. § 11601 et seq.

6. As of April 1992, 24 nations had implementedthe Hague Convention.

7. 28 U.S.C. § 534(a).

8. 42 U.S.C. § 5780.

9. 42 U.S.C. § 5778.

Supplemental ReadingFinkelhor, D., G. Hotaling, and A. Sedlak. Miss-ing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Childrenin America, First Report: Numbers and Characteris-tics, National Incidence Studies. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Jus-tice and Delinquency Prevention, 1990. OJJDP’sseminal study provides data on children abductedby family and nonfamily members and on otherchildren in crisis. The study is available from theJuvenile Justice Clearinghouse for $14.40 per copy(NCJ 123668). An executive summary (NCJ123667) is available free of charge from the Clear-inghouse. (See the OJJDP publications order formon page 31 for ordering information.)

Gill, J.L. Stolen Children: How and Why ParentsKidnap Their Kids and What To Do About It. NewYork: Seaview Books, 1981. The author discusseswhat victimized parents can do to recover theirparentally abducted children and describes thetreatment of psychological problems abductedchildren may incur.

Greif, G.L., and R.L. Hegar. When Parents Kidnap:The Families Behind the Headlines. New York: TheFree Press, 1993. Please see review on page 28.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre-vention. Parental Kidnapping: How To Prevent anAbduction and What To Do If Your Child Is Ab-ducted. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention, 1985. This 44-page handbook recom-mends actions parents can take to prevent anddeal with parental abductions.

Wauters, S.M., R. Peck, and J. Mindak. Interfer-ence With Custody: Guidelines for Police. TomsRiver, New Jersey: Ocean County Prosecutor’sOffice, 1989. This 45-page handbook describesguidelines followed by police in Ocean County,New Jersey, in handling parental abduction cases.

24

IN BRIEF

JUSTICE MATTERSJJDP Act Reauthorized Through 1996On November 4, 1992, Public Law102–586 was enacted, reauthorizingthe Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention Act through1996. The Juvenile Justice and De-linquency Prevention Amendmentsof 1992 reinforced the basic prin-ciples of the Act and broke somenew ground. Features of the new lawinclude:

◆ Restructuring the membership ofthe Federal Coordinating Councilon Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention to include both Federalagency and practitioner members.

◆ Discretionary grant program fo-cus on a variety of areas:

– Prevention and diversion.

– Rural delinquency preventionand treatment.

– Hate crime reduction.

– Family involvement intreatment.

– Health, education, and mentalhealth services to juveniles incustody.

– Gender bias and gender-specific services.

– Protection of due process rightsand access to counsel.

– Graduated sanctions.

– Juveniles in the criminal justicesystem.

◆ A mandate for States to addressminority overrepresentation in thejuvenile justice system.

◆ A new $50-million State Chal-lenge Activities grant program de-signed to address 10 system reformactivities.

◆ New mentoring and boot campprogram authority.

◆ Authorization for the Presidentto call and conduct a nationalWhite House conference on juve-nile justice.

◆ A new title authorizing incen-tive grants for local delinquencyprevention programs.

The Missing Children’s Programwas also reauthorized for an addi-tional 4 years.

Bethesda Day Treatment Program(West Milton, Pennsylvania)

Cambodian Family Youth Program(Santa Ana, California)

Community IntensiveSupervision Program(Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)

Community IntensiveTreatment for Youth(Birmingham, Alabama)

The Cornerstone Project(Little Rock, Arkansas)

Court-Appointed SpecialAdvocates(Baltimore, Maryland)

In 1992 the Office of Juvenile Jus-tice (OJJDP) inaugurated a programto recognize exceptional achieve-ments in the advancement of juve-nile justice. This mark of distinctionwas named the Gould-WysingerAward in honor of James Gould andDeborah Wysinger, two dedicatedOJJDP professionals whose deathsin 1992 were a tragic loss to the ju-venile justice community.

More than 50 nominees were rec-ommended by their colleaguesacross America. The caliber of thecandidates was outstanding, andOJJDP is proud to congratulate the1992 Gould-Wysinger winners:

Developing Alabama Youth(Alabaster, Alabama)

Family Ties(New York, New York)

Gang, Drug, and Drop-OutIntervention Program(Dallas, Texas)

George Junior Republic FamilyTherapy Unit(Grove City, Pennsylvania)

Holistic EnvironmentalLife-Skills Project(Marshall, Michigan)

(continued on page 26)

Gould-Wysinger Award Winners for 1992

25

IN BRIEF

JUSTICE MATTERSDeborah Ann WysingerDeborah Ann Wysinger, 41, died onAugust 13, 1992. She is survived by her11-year-old daughter, Ashleigh RaeWysinger-Lester; her sisters, EarleanMayo, Brenda Payne, Shyrell Reed,and Linda Wysinger of Chicago, andNettie Barnett of Flint, Michigan; andher brothers, Larry, Bernard, and BreardWysinger of Chicago. Countless friendswere touched by her life, includingcolleagues at OJJDP, where she servedwith distinction for 15 years.

Deborah received a master of arts de-gree in criminal justice from Gover-nors State University in Park Forest,Illinois, and began her career as a socialservices worker at the Circuit Court ofCook County’s Juvenile Division.

Deborah’s accomplishments at OJJDPare too numerous to mention. As pro-gram manager and State representa-

tive, she received many achievementawards for her outstanding leadershipin working to fulfill the congressionalmandate to reduce the disproportion-ate incarceration of minority youthand to improve the juvenile justicesystem on Indian reservations.

Deborah’s professional life was markedby her commitment to the principles ofsocial justice, constructive socialchange, and helping people achievetheir maximum potential. During hertenure as program manager for the Fed-eral Women’s Program, Deborah washonored for spearheading many suc-cessful initiatives. She also played aleadership role in the National Asso-ciation of Blacks in Criminal Justice.

An active and faithful member ofEbenezer A.M.E. Church, Deborah will

be remembered for her charm, friend-liness, integrity, thoughtfulness, grace,and good humor in the face of joy anddisappointment. She gave strength,courage, and love to her family; loy-alty, comfort, and compassion to herfriends; and above all, enduring love,commitment, friendship, respect, anddirection to her daughter Ashleigh.

James E. GouldJames E. Gould, 54, a member of OJJDPfor nearly 15 years, died on May 7,1992. In addition to his son, James E.Gould, Jr., of Falls Church, Virginia;his daughters, Kathleen Ann Stump ofKansas City, Missouri, and Janette MarieGould of Arlington Heights, Illinois;and his sister, Catherine Keith ofPetaluma, California, Jim leaves manyfriends in the juvenile justice system.

Jim began his career with the Wyan-dotte County Juvenile Court in Kansas,becoming superintendent of the Juve-nile Detention Center and director ofCourt Services. He joined the U.S.Department of Justice through the LawEnforcement Assistance Administra-

tion in 1975. In October 1977 he beganworking at the Office of Juvenile Jus-tice and Delinquency Prevention,where he served as chief of the Techni-cal Assistance Branch and assistant di-rector of the Technical Assistance andTraining Division.

A natural leader and an expert on avariety of challenges confronting thejuvenile justice system, Jim devoted hisgreatest energy and creative talents tojuvenile correction and detentionissues.

An avid reader and golfer, and an afi-cionado of John Wayne films and NewYork Times crossword puzzles, Jim will

be remembered for his competence, hislaid-back style, his concern for troubledchildren, and his friendship with allthose around him.

In Memoriam

26

IN BRIEF

JUSTICE MATTERSA Special OccasionOn September 23, 1992, the Ft.McNair’s Officers’ Club played hostto a special occasion for a specialman. The occasion was the retire-ment party for a 25-year veteran ofour criminal justice system. Theman is Irving Slott.

Irv joined the Department of Justice(DOJ) in 1969, after a successful ca-

reer in the private sector. Beginninghis distinguished DOJ career withthe Law Enforcement AssistanceAdministration (LEAA), he servedas deputy director of LEAA’s re-search arm, the National Instituteof Law Enforcement and CriminalJustice, today’s National Institute ofJustice. Subsequently, Irv became

the director of Program Develop-ment and Evaluation for LEAA. Inbetween, he served as technical ad-visor and assistant to the DeputyAttorney General.

If you are getting the impressionthat Irv is a man of many talents,you are on the right track. Let’s justsay that if he played professionalbaseball, he’d be a utility man.

Fortunately, for the youth ofAmerica, the Office of Juvenile Jus-tice and Delinquency Prevention(OJJDP), which Irv joined in 1982,managed to make use of his diverseskills in a number of critical posts,including the directorships of theTraining and Technical Assistance,State Relations and Assistance, andResearch and Program Develop-ment divisions, and of the Informa-tion and Dissemination Unit.Indeed, to return to our baseballanalogy, Irv’s record of most OJJDPdivisions headed in a single career issure to stay on the record books fora long time.

Most importantly, the contributionsIrv has made to the betterment ofjuvenile justice—not only person-ally, but through the juvenile justiceprofessionals whose skills he hassharpened and whose dedication hehas reinforced—will pay rich divi-dends ad multos annos. Which is ex-actly what Irv’s many friends atOJJDP and throughout the JJ worldwish Irv and his gracious wife Loisin his well-deserved and (knowingIrv) doubtlessly active “retirement.”Bravo, Irv, well done, and many,many thanks!

House Arrest Program(Elkhart, Indiana)

Juvenile Diversion Program(Pueblo, Colorado)

Madison CountyJuvenile Court Services(Jackson, Tennessee)

North Dakota AttendantCare System(Bismarck, North Dakota)

Office of Juvenile JusticeSystem Oversight(Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)

AWARD WINNERS (continued from page 24)

Specialized Treatment Services(Mercer, Pennsylvania)

Tuscaloosa County Juvenile CourtVictim Restitution Program(Tuscaloosa, Alabama)

OJJDP thanks everyone—bothnominees and nominators—whosecontributions made our first Gould-Wysinger Award program such asuccess. We look forward to review-ing your recommendations for 1993.

Irving and Lois Slott

27

IN BRIEF

Juvenile and Family Court JudgesElect Willett Council PresidentAt its 1992 annual meeting inCharleston, South Carolina, theNational Council of Juvenile andFamily Court Judges (NCJFCJ)elected Judge Roy B. Willett as its48th president. Judge Willett, a cir-cuit court judge for the twenty-thirdjudicial circuit of Virginia, presidesover juvenile and family cases, aswell as other matters. A graduate ofSamford University Law School,Willett has served on the bench for18 years.

As the NCJFCJ president, JudgeWillett leads an organization thathas represented judges and othercourt professionals for more thanhalf a century. The Council pro-vides continuing education for trialand appellate court judges and othercourt personnel in areas related tojuvenile and family law.

Judge Willett met with Juvenile Jus-tice for this interview in Novemberin Roanoke, Virginia.

Juvenile Justice: What are themost pressing issues facing the juve-nile court?

Judge Willett: In addition to a lackof resources, I would say drug use,the problems associated with youth-ful unwed mothers, and poverty.

Juvenile Justice: Have you seenmuch change over the last 5 yearsin the kind of youngsters cominginto court?

Judge Willett: More weapons seemto be involved, and there is moredrug-related violence. However, itseems to me that the overall use ofdrugs is on the decline.

Juvenile Justice: Do you find dif-ferences between males and femalesin the types of delinquent actscommitted?

Judge Willett: We see males in-volved in more violence, more ag-gressive activity, but [this typeof activity] is increasing amongfemales. We see many femalesinvolved in robbery, assault andbattery, and the like.

Juvenile Justice: What types ofdemographic changes are affectingchildren?

Judge Willett: The breakdown ofthe family is the primary problem.Many parents are not fulfilling theirroles. They are expecting the gov-ernment and the schools to provideparenting functions.

Juvenile Justice: How do we bringthe schools into the process for thechild?

Judge Willett: Well, I think theDARE program is an excellent pro-gram. The “Officer Friendly Pro-gram” that puts a police officer inthe schools so the child may learn[that police officers] are approach-able is wonderful. And maybethe DARE concept could be ex-tended to the anti-gang area aswell. Still, I think we are expect-ing too much from schools. Schoolsexist primarily to teach, but manypeople expect schools to be the pri-mary disciplinarians, to take onparenting.

Juvenile Justice: Some people ar-gue that the juvenile court has notdone a very good job with violentoffenders and that waiving more mi-nors from juvenile court to adult

court would improve the situation.Do you agree?

Judge Willett: I recently testifiedbefore the Virginia Commission onViolent Crime on this very issue. Ithink these options should be usedwhere appropriate with specific cri-teria set for waivers to prevent arbi-trariness in the transfer decision.Transfer or waiver should be a judi-cial decision. But I don’t thinksending more children to adultcourt is the answer.

Juvenile Justice: Do you thinkthere needs to be greater uniformitynationally in the age range of youthwho may be transferred to adultcourt?

Judge Willett: I think it is a shamethat when a child crosses the borderof another State, perhaps by acci-dent, he may suddenly become anadult where criminal culpability isconcerned. I’d like to see 18 [years]as the age for adult criminal culpa-bility and nothing less than 15[years] as the offense age for transfer.States that dropped below that ageprobably reacted to specific indi-vidual cases to the detriment oftheir system as a whole.

Judge Roy B. Willett

28

IN BRIEF

ACROSS OUR DESK

General Reading List

BOOK REVIEWWhen Parents Kidnap:

The Families Behind the HeadlinesGeoffrey L. Greif and Rebecca L. Hegar. New York: The Free Press, 1993.

OJJDP’s 1988 National IncidenceStudies on Missing, Abducted, Run-away, and Thrownaway Children(NISMART) estimated that163,200 children were abducted byparents (or other relatives) andtaken across State lines, preventedfrom contact with the custodial par-ent, or taken with the intention ofbeing kept.

As Dr. Linda Girdner notes in herenlightening article on parental ab-ductions (page 17), when faced withthe reality that a spouse has takenone’s children and fled, distraughtparents may ask such disturbingquestions as “Is my child custodydecree worth the paper it is writtenon?” and “Who will help me findmy children?”

Yet, coauthors Geoffrey Greif andRebecca Hegar observe, “Little sys-tematic social science or psycho-logical research [has] been under-taken on the topic [of parentalabductions].”

The dearth of research highlightsthe importance of Greif and Hegar’scontribution to the literature onthis significant social problem. Theauthors were well prepared for theirtask. Greif and Hegar are colleagues,serving as associate professors at theUniversity of Maryland’s School ofSocial Work. Hegar has written nu-merous articles on family policy andchild welfare, and Greif is the au-thor of three books on singleparenting.

Parental abduction is, after all, onlyone aspect of myriad changes thathave besieged the American familyand the American child, one out offour of whom lives with a singleparent.

Not content simply to depict theexperiences of parents who have ab-ducted their children and of parentswho are seeking to have their chil-dren returned, the authors also offerconcrete recommendations for re-ducing the number of parental ab-ductions. In this regard, the bookcomplements the OJJDP-sponsoredAmerican Bar Association study onobstacles to the return of parentallyabducted children conducted by Dr.Girdner, which presented its ownrecommendations.

Improving State ComplianceThrough a contract with Community Research Associates, OJJDPprovides technical assistance to State and local juvenile justiceagencies, State advisory groups, and nongovernmental associations.The assistance is intended to advance compliance with the man-dates established by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-tion Act regarding the deinstitutionalization of status offenders, theremoval of juvenile offenders from adult jails, and the separation ofjuveniles from adult prisoners. Technical assistance to improvejuvenile detention policies and practices, facilities, alternativeservices, and the preadjudicatory process are also provided.

For further information, contact:James W. BrownCommunity Research Associates, Inc.115 North Neil Street, Suite 302Champaign, IL 61820(217) 398–3120

Meeting the statutory mandates is also the focus of regional trainingand informational workshops offered by the Coalition for JuvenileJustice (formerly the National Coalition of State Juvenile JusticeAdvisory Groups) on behalf of OJJDP. The training, technicalassistance, and information project serves State Juvenile Justice

Advisory Groups and includes a national conference to addresstheir needs.

For further information, contact:Robert J. BaughmanCoalition for Juvenile Justice1211 Connecticut Avenue NW., Suite 414Washington, DC 20036(202) 467–0864

Assisting Law EnforcementOJJDP is committed to training law enforcement personnel inmethods of improving their juvenile operations, assisting publicagencies in developing effective responses to serious juvenile crime,and addressing the needs of State and local officials through trainingand technical assistance in areas such as juvenile gang and drugactivity, and the investigation of child abuse and exploitation.

For further information, contact:Ron LaneyLaw Enforcement ProgramOffice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention633 Indiana Avenue NW., Room 710Washington, DC 20531(202) 307–5940

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE & TRAINING

29

IN BRIEF

A program is only as sound as itsprinciples. The following principlesguided development of OJJDP’s newprogram Comprehensive SystemApproach for Serious, Violent, andChronic Juvenile Offenders.

Strengthen the family. The familybears the primary responsibility ofinstilling moral values in the child.

Support core social institutions.Schools, churches, and other localcommunity-based organizationshelp children to develop into pro-ductive law-abiding citizens.

Intervene immediately when delin-quent behavior occurs. To preventfirst-time offenders from committingmore serious, violent crimes or be-coming habitual offenders, early in-tervention efforts should center onthe family and other core socialinstitutions.

Identify and control violent andhabitual delinquents. The minorityof offenders who have committedheinous crimes or have failed to re-spond to community-based inter-vention efforts must understandthat violent and habitual juvenilecrime will not be tolerated.

From John J. Wilson, “OJJDP’s Comprehen-sive System Approach for Serious, Violent,and Chronic Juvenile Offenders,” OJJDP,November 1992; and James C. Howell,“Program Implications for Research onChronic Juvenile Delinquency,” OJJDP,November 1992.

OJJDP Combats Serious, Violent,and Chronic Juvenile Delinquency

Violent Youth Crime Increases◆ From 1982 to 1991,violent crime arrest ratesof youth under age 18increased 43 percent.

◆ In 1991 an estimated122,900 youth under age18 were arrested for vio-lent offenses—the high-est number in more than25 years.

◆ In 1991 an estimated3,400 youth were ar-rested for murder andnonnegligent manslaugh-ter, an increase of nearly6 percent over 1990. In the same period, arrests for robbery and aggravatedassault also increased—10 percent and 6 percent, respectively.

From Howard Snyder, “Arrests of Youth, 1991,” OJJDP Update on Statistics, forthcoming.

1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991

100

0

200

300

400

500

Arrest Rate

Violent Crime Index Arrest Rates, 1965–1991*

* Arrests per 100,000 youth, ages 10–17.

From OJJDP’s ongoing Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency, beingconducted by Huizinga, Loeber, and Thornberry. For further information about this research,write to OJJDP, Research and Program Development Division, 633 Indiana Avenue NW., Wash-ington, DC 20531.

Characteristics of Chronic OffendersWhat distinguishes a delinquent youth from those who abide by the law? Re-searchers have found that most chronic violent offenders share the followingcharacteristics:◆ Family—They are less attached to and monitored by their parents.

◆ School—They have less commitment to school and attachment toteachers.

◆ Peers—More of their peers are likely to be delinquent, and they them-selves are more likely to be gang members.

◆ Neighborhood—They are more likely to reside in poor areas with highcrime rates.

Although few in number (15 percent in one sample), chronic delinquentsreport committing 75 percent of violent offenses, and most chronic juvenileoffenders start their criminal careers prior to age 12.

Researchers have identified three pathways to chronic delinquency:◆ Overt—Aggression becomes fighting, then violence.

◆ Covert—Minor covert behavior becomes property damage, then seriousdelinquency.

◆ Authority conflict—Stubborn behavior becomes defiance, then authorityavoidance.

30

IN BRIEF

OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse offers literature searches on youth-related issues to meetyour research and planning needs.

Topical Searches and Topical Bibliographies are prepackaged data base search products drawn from the National CriminalJustice Reference Service (NCJRS) document collection. Each package contains bibliographic citations and abstracts ofbooks, journal articles, manuals, and reports on a juvenile justice topic. Updated every 6 months, Topical Searches contain30 document abstracts and are available for $5 each (free to State and local juvenile justice agencies if requested on agencyletterhead). Updated annually, Topical Bibliographies contain up to 200 abstracts and are $17.50 each.

Topical SearchesNEW! Delinquency PreventionPrograms (TS021527)NEW! Female Juvenile Offenders(TS021529)Juvenile Detention (TS021511)NEW! Juvenile Sex Offenders(TS021526)NEW! Mental and DevelopmentalDisorders and Delinquency(TS021528)NEW! Minorities in the JuvenileJustice System (TS021510)

Missing and Abducted Children(TS021519)Violent Juvenile Offenders(TS020502)

Topical BibliographiesHabitual, Serious, and Violent Juve-nile Offenders (TB020502)Juvenile Gangs (TB020501)Juvenile Substance Abuse(TB020505)School Crime (TB020503)Sexual Exploitation of Children(TB020504)

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs


DEP

ARTM

EN T O F J

U STI C

E

O FFI

CE O F JU S TI C

E PRO

GRA

MS

BJA

NIJ O JJ D P

BJS

OV

C

a product of the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Topical

Bibliography


U.S. Department of JusticeOf fice of Justice Programs


D

EP AR TM E NT O F

JUST

ICE

OFF

ICE

O

F JUS TI C E PR O G

R AM

S

BJA

NIJ

OJ JD P B J S

OVC

a product of the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse


Topical Search

OJJDP PUBLICATIONSOJJDP PUBLICATIONSThe following OJJDP publications are available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. To obtain acopy, please use the order form on page 31 or call the Clearinghouse at 800–638–8736.

Juvenile Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse:A Guide to Federal Initiatives for Preven-tion, Treatment, and Control. 1992. 188pp. NCJ138741. Free.

Describes Federal programs, research,training, publications, and resourcesfocusing on the problem of juvenilesubstance abuse.

Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System.1992. 176 pp. NCJ139556. $11.50.Executive Summary. Forthcoming.16 pp. NCJ139556. Free.

Discusses the role that minority statusplays in the processing of youth throughthe juvenile justice system. Examinestrends in minority youth crime andcase processing and reviews researchliterature.

“Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1989,”OJJDP Update on Statistics. 1992.12 pp. NCJ138740. Free.

Summarizes national estimates of delin-quency and status offense cases disposedof by juvenile courts in 1989.

Helping Victims and Witnesses in the Juve-nile Justice System: A Program Handbook.1991. 276 pp. NCJ139731. $15.

Offers guidance in establishing and op-erating victim/witness assistance pro-grams in the juvenile justice system.Describes model programs and lists re-sources for additional information.

To obtain a Topical Search or Topical Bibliography, please use the order formon page 31 or call 800–638–8736.

Deduct the total from my NCJRS Deposit Account.

Acct. No. _____________________________________

Charge my MasterCard VISA

Card No. _____________________________________

Exp. Date ____________________________________

Signature ____________________________________

PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FREE. Check thebox for each item you wish to receive.

Juvenile Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse: A Guide toFederal Initiatives for Prevention, Treatment, andControl. NCJ138741.

Juvenile Justice Standards flyer. Provides informationon ordering all 24 volumes prepared by theAmerican Bar Association and the Institute ofJudicial Administration. LT90.Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System—ExecutiveSummary. NCJ139557.

Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and ThrownawayChildren in America, First Report: Numbers andCharacteristics, National Incidence Studies—ExecutiveSummary. NCJ123667.

Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1989. NCJ138740.

PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FOR A FEE. Checkthe box for each publication you wish to receive and totalthe cost in the payment section at the bottom of theform.

Helping Victims and Witnesses in the Juvenile JusticeSystem: A Program Handbook. NCJ139731. $15.00(U.S.), $16.60 (Canada), and $20.60 (otherinternational orders).

Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System—Full Report.NCJ139556. $11.50 (U.S.), $13.65 (Canada), and$17.75 (other international orders).

Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and ThrownawayChildren in America, First Report: Numbers andCharacteristics, National Incidence Studies.NCJ123668. $14.40 (U.S.), $17.20 (Canada),$24.60 (other international orders).

DATA BASE SEARCH PRODUCTS. Check the boxfor each item you wish to receive and total the cost in thepayment section at the bottom of the form.

Topical Searches. $5.00 each (U.S. and Canada), $7.50(other international orders). Up to three free to Federal,State, and local criminal and juvenile justice agenciesin the United States if requested on agency letterhead.To obtain a free topical search, do not use the order form.Instead, call 800–638–8736 or write Juvenile JusticeClearinghouse, Department F, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville,MD 20850.

Child Abuse and Its Link to Delinquency. TS021516.

NEW! Delinquency Prevention. TS021527.

NEW! Female Juvenile Offenders. TS021529.

Juvenile Detention. TS021511.

NEW! Juvenile Sex Offenders. TS021526.

NEW! Mental and Developmental Disorders andDelinquency. TS021510.

NEW! Minorities in the Juvenile JusticeSystem. TS021528.

Missing and Abducted Children. TS021519.

Violent Juvenile Offenders. TS020502.

Topical Bibliographies. $17.50 each (U.S.), $18.50(Canada), and $22.50 (other international orders).

Habitual, Serious, and Violent JuvenileOffenders. TB020502.

Juvenile Gangs. TB020501.

Juvenile Substance Abuse. TB020505.

School Crime. TB020503.

Sexual Exploitation of Children. TB020504.

Juvenile Justice Order Form

Total $__________

Enclose payment or provide account number.

All payments must be in U.S. dollars and drawn on aU.S. bank.

Check or money order enclosed, payable toJuvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

Check this box if the information onyour address label is incorrect. Pleasemake corrections on your mailing label.

AFFIX MAILING LABEL HERE

JUVENILEJUSTICE

Volume I • Number 1Spring/Summer 1993

PLACEFIRST CLASS

STAMPHERE

FOLD, TAPE, BUT DO NOT STAPLE

JUVENILEJUSTICE

Juvenile JusticeJuvenile Justice Clearinghouse/NCJRSP.O. Box 6000Rockville, MD 20850

Please provide a daytime telephone number in case we need to contact you regarding your order.(_____) ______________________

Allow 6 to 9 weeks for delivery. You will be notified by mail within 30 days if your paid ordercannot be filled.

Fee orders are shipped UPS. Because UPS cannot deliver to post office boxes, please provide astreet address for shipment of orders requiring payment.

The following lists all OJJDP publicationscurrently available from the Juvenile Jus-tice Clearinghouse. To obtain copies, callor write:Juvenile Justice ClearinghouseBox 6000Rockville, MD 20850800–638–8736

Most OJJDP publications are available freeof charge from the Clearinghouse; requestsfor more than 10 documents require pay-ment for postage and handling. For infor-mation on payment procedures, or tospeak to a juvenile justice information spe-cialist about additional services offered,contact the Juvenile Justice ClearinghouseMonday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:15p.m., e.s.t.

Delinquency PreventionEducation in the Law: Promoting Citizen-ship in the Schools. 1990, NCJ 125548Mobilizing Community Support for Law-Related Education. 1989, NCJ 118217,$9.75National Youth Gang Suppression andIntervention Program. 1990, NCJ 130917OJJDP and Boys and Girls Clubs ofAmerica: Public Housing and High-RiskYouth. 1991, NCJ 128412Preserving Families To Prevent Delin-quency. 1992, NCJ 136397Proyecto Esperanza: Community-BasedHelp for At-Risk Hispanic Youth. 1988,NCJ 113953

Missing and Exploited ChildrenAmerica’s Missing and Exploited Chil-dren—Their Safety and Their Future. 1986,NCJ 100581Child Abuse—Prelude to Delinquency?1985, NCJ 104275, $7.10Child Sexual Abuse Victims and TheirTreatment. 1988, NCJ 113766Investigator’s Guide to Missing ChildCases: For Law Enforcement Officers Lo-cating Missing Children. 1987, NCJ 108768Missing, Abducted, Runaway, andThrownaway Children in America, FirstReport: Numbers and Characteristics,National Incidence Studies. 1990,NCJ 123668, $14.40Missing, Abducted, Runaway, andThrownaway Children in America, FirstReport: Numbers and Characteristics,National Incidence Studies, ExecutiveSummary. 1990, NCJ 123667Missing and Exploited Children: TheChallenge Continues. 1988, NCJ 118218Missing Children: Found Facts. 1990,NCJ 130916OJJDP Annual Report on Missing Children.1990, NCJ 130582Report on Missing and Exploited Children:Progress in the 80’s. 1987, NCJ 113586Sexual Exploitation of Missing Children:A Research Review. 1988, NCJ 114273

Stranger Abduction Homicides of Children.1989, NCJ 115213

Status OffendersAssessing the Effects of the Deinsti-tutionalization of Status Offenders. 1989,NCJ 115211Impact of Deinstitutionalization on Recidi-vism and Secure Confinement of StatusOffenders. 1985, NCJ 099808Runaways in Juvenile Courts. 1990,NCJ 124881

Law EnforcementDirected Patrol Manual—JuvenileProblems. 1985, NCJ 097348Drug Recognition Techniques: A TrainingProgram for Juvenile Justice Professionals.1990, NCJ 128795Evaluation of the Habitual Serious andViolent Juvenile Offender Program,Executive Summary. 1986, NCJ 105230Innovative Law Enforcement TrainingPrograms: Meeting State and LocalNeeds. 1991, NCJ 131735Law Enforcement Custody of Juveniles:Video. 1992, NCJ 137387, $13.50Law Enforcement Custody of Juveniles:Video Training Guide. 1992, NCJ 133012Targeting Serious Juvenile Offenders CanMake a Difference. 1988, NCJ 114218

CourtsCASA: Court Appointed Special Advocatefor Children . . . A Child’s Voice in Court.1988, NCJ 111392The Child Victim as a Witness. 1989,NCJ 118315Court Careers of Juvenile Offenders. 1988,NCJ 110854, $8.40Helping Victims and Witnesses in theJuvenile Justice System: A ProgramHandbook. 1991, NCJ 139731 $15Juvenile Court Drug and Alcohol Cases:1985–1988. 1991, NCJ 132074Juvenile Court Property Cases. 1990,NCJ 125625Juvenile Court’s Response to ViolentCrime. 1989, NCJ 115338Juvenile Court’s Response to Violent Of-fenders: 1985–1989. 1992, NCJ 139558Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1989. 1992,NCJ 138740

RestitutionGuide to Juvenile Restitution. 1985,NCJ 098466, $12.50Juvenile Restitution Management Audit.1989, NCJ 115215Liability and Legal Issues in JuvenileRestitution. 1990, NCJ 115405National Directory of Juvenile RestitutionPrograms 1987. 1987, NCJ 105188

National Trends in Juvenile RestitutionProgramming. 1989, NCJ 115214Restitution and Juvenile Recidivism. 1992,NCJ 137774Restitution Experience in Youth Employ-ment: A Monograph and Training Guide toJobs Components.1989, NCJ 115404Restitution Improvement Curriculum:A Guidebook for Juvenile RestitutionWorkshop Planners. 1988, NCJ 110007Victim-Offender Mediation in the JuvenileJustice System. 1990, NCJ 120976

CorrectionsAmerican Probation and ParoleAssociation’s Drug Testing Guidelines andPractices for Juvenile Probation and ParoleAgencies. 1992, NCJ 136450Growth in Minority Detentions Attributed toDrug Law Violators. 1990, NCJ 122011Juveniles Taken Into Custody: Fiscal Year1990 Report. 1991, NCJ 130758National Juvenile Custody Trends:1978–1989. 1992, NCJ 131649OJJDP Helps States Remove JuvenilesFrom Adult Jails and Lockups. 1990, NCJ 126869Private-Sector Corrections Program forJuveniles: Paint Creek Youth Center. 1988,NCJ 113214Privatizing Juvenile Probation Services:Five Local Experiences. 1988, NCJ 121507Public Juvenile Facilities: Children inCustody 1989. 1991, NCJ 127189

General Juvenile JusticeGuide to the Data Sets in the NationalJuvenile Court Data Archive. 1991,NCJ 132073Juvenile Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse: AGuide to Federal Initiatives for Prevention,Treatment, and Control. 1992, NCJ 138741Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System.1992, NCJ 139556, $11.50Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System,Executive Summary. 1992, NCJ 139557OJJDP Funds 21 New Projects DuringFiscal Year 1988. 1989, NCJ 116872Project New Pride Training Manual. 1986,NCJ 100133, $15.00Twelfth Analysis and Evaluation: FederalJuvenile Delinquency Programs 1988.1988, NCJ 115786

StatisticsArrests of Youth 1990. 1992, NCJ 133011Delinquency in the United States, 1983.1987, NCJ 104867National Juvenile Justice StatisticsAssessment: An Agenda for Action. 1989,NCJ 119764

Publications From OJJDP

aaaaaaa

Washington, D.C. 20531

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice Programs


BULK RATEPOSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDPPermit No. G–91

CLEARINGHOUSE

The Resource You Need.The Information You’ll Use.The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) offers thiscomprehensive information resource to assist juvenile justice professionals inmeeting the challenges presented by today’s diverse issues. The JuvenileJustice Clearinghouse coordinates the distribution of OJJDP publications anddisseminates information about agency-sponsored research, program, andtraining initiatives. Juvenile justice information specialists are available torespond to inquiries by providing publications, literature reviews, referrals,and other resource materials.

The Juvenile Justice ClearinghouseCall Toll Free

800–638–8736

UVENILEUSTICE

Volume 1 • Number 1 Spring/Summer 1993 JUVENILE

Documents

Transcript of Volume 1 • Number 1 Spring/Summer 1993 JUVENILE