Bureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Conference on 

Juvenile Justice Records: 

Appropriate Criminal and

Noncriminal Justice Uses 

 

Criminal Justice Information Policy

Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH conference

Papers presented by

Dr. Francis J. Carney Jr.

Dr. Charles M. Friel

Kent Markus

Dr. Jan M. Chaiken

Dr. Michael R. Gottfredson

Shay Bilchik

Demery R. Bishop

Neal Miller

Robert R. Belair

Jan Scully

Donna M. Uzzell

Michael L. Curtis

Jo-Ann Wallace

David Gavin

Dr. Alfred Blumstein

Gordon A. Martin Jr.

Michael R. Phillips

Steve Galeria

Ronald C. Laney

Dr. Bernard James
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

National Conference on 

Juvenile Justice Records: 

Appropriate Criminal and

Noncriminal Justice Uses

Proceedings of a BJS/SEARCH 

conference

May 1997, NCJ-164269 

Papers presented by

Dr. Francis J. Carney Jr.

Dr. Charles M. Friel

Kent Markus

Dr. Jan M. Chaiken

Dr. Michael R. Gottfredson

Shay Bilchik

Demery R. Bishop

David Gavin

Dr. Alfred Blumstein

Gordon A. Martin Jr.

Michael R. Phillips

Steve Galeria

Ronald C. Laney

Dr. Bernard James

Neal Miller

Robert R. Belair

Jan Scully

Donna M. Uzzell

Michael L. Curtis

Jo-Ann Wallace
ii

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.

Director

Acknowledgments

This report was prepared by SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics,

Maj. James V. Martin, Chairman, and Gary R. Cooper, Executive Director. The project director was Sheila

J. Barton, Deputy Director. Twyla R. Cunningham, Manager, Corporate Communications, edited the

proceedings, with assistance from Jane L. Bassett, Publishing Assistant, who also provided layout and

design assistance. The federal project monitor was Carol G. Kaplan, Chief, National Criminal History

Improvement Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Report of work performed under BJS Cooperative Agreement No. 92-BJ-CX-K012, awarded to SEARCH,

The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, 7311 Greenhaven Drive, Suite 145,

Sacramento, California 95831. Contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies

of the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the U.S. Department of Justice.

Copyright © SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, 1997.

The U.S. Department of Justice authorizes any person to reproduce, publish, translate or otherwise use all

or any part of the copyrighted material in this publication with the exception of those items indicating they

are copyrighted or printed by any source other than SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice

Information and Statistics.
iii

Contents

Foreword, v

Introduction, vii

I. Overview

Welcoming remarks

Dr. Francis J. Carney Jr. SEARCH welcome, 1

Dr. Charles M. Friel Conference moderator’s welcome, 2

Keynote address

Kent Markus Keynote address, 3

II. Setting the stage: Current status of juvenile justice records

Opening address

Dr. Jan M. Chaiken Changing laws and policies governing juvenile justice records

radically alter balance between confidentiality and public access, and increase 

importance of record accuracy, 11

Background: Examining the foundation of

juvenile justice record policies

Dr. Michael R. Gottfredson An evaluation of the historical justifications for a distinct system of juvenile justice:

The age, versatility and stability effects, 14

Federal policies and perspectives:

The relationship of juvenile justice information to

national criminal justice goals

Shay Bilchik The importance of improving and sharing information

to furthering national juvenile justice reform, 21

Demery R. Bishop Juvenile recordhandling policies and practices

of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 25

State laws on prosecutors’ and judges’ use of

juvenile justice records

Neal Miller National assessment of criminal court use of defendants’

juvenile adjudication records, 27
iv

III. Public policy perspectives: Privacy and confidentiality

considerations of juvenile record issues

Overview

Robert R. Belair “The need to know” versus privacy, 37

Practitioners’ perspectives: Using the juvenile record

Jan Scully Juvenile justice issues and the role of juvenile records in

decisionmaking: A prosecutor’s viewpoint, 40

Donna M. Uzzell Florida’s Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action

Program: Collecting and using juvenile offender information to target detention, 

intervention and prevention efforts, 43

Michael L. Curtis Juvenile justice records management in Washington State, 48

Jo-Ann Wallace Striking a proper balance between legitimate uses of

juvenile records and individual privacy: The District of Columbia experience, 52

Collection, maintenance and use of juvenile fingerprints

David Gavin Implementing a statewide juvenile criminal history repository

in Texas: Issues and practices, 55

IV. Operational and management perspectives

Day two opening address

Dr. Alfred Blumstein Using juvenile records to predict criminal behavior, 61

The role of the juvenile record in judicial decisionmaking

Gordon A. Martin Jr. Judicial access to information critical to the juvenile court process

and to preserving the juvenile justice system, 72

Statewide juvenile systems

Michael R. Phillips Providing statewide access to juvenile court records and

proceedings in Utah, 75

Juvenile records as a basis for firearm prohibitions

Steve Galeria California’s approach to using juvenile records in

firearms checks, 80

Exchanging juvenile records between the

juvenile justice system and schools

Ronald C. Laney Information sharing critical to process of protecting children, 85

Dr. Bernard James Issues and implications of school-juvenile justice

information sharing, 87

Contributors’ biographies, 91
v

Foreword

In response to several years

of rapidly rising crime rates

among juveniles, especially

homicide rates, many States

have been opening access to

juvenile records and court

proceedings, and blurring the

line between how the

criminal justice system treats

juveniles and adults. The

problem of juvenile crime,

however, cannot be fully

understood by knowing about

rising graphs and nightly

news headlines. Large

numbers of adolescents who

get in trouble with the law are

our sons and daughters who

may never go on to commit

any serious crime, much less

become chronic violent

offenders.

While opening access to the

juvenile record is a policy

based on legitimate public

safety concerns, it threatens

to reverse nearly 100 years of

juvenile justice policy that

stresses rehabilitation,

treatment, and individual

privacy. How to balance the

use of juvenile justice records

in today's climate presents

unique challenges to juvenile

justice administrators, public

policymakers, and others in

the criminal justice arena

involved in aspects of

collecting, maintaining,

using, or disseminating

juvenile justice record

information.

To provide a variety of

perspectives and seek

solutions on this issue, the

Bureau of Justice Statistics,

along with SEARCH, The

National Consortium for

Justice Information and

Statistics, cosponsored the

National Conference on

Juvenile Justice Records:

Appropriate Uses in Criminal

and Noncriminal Justice

Proceedings in Washington,

D.C., on May 22-23, 1996.

This publication presents the

proceedings of that two-day

conference.

The conference focused on

the appropriate uses of

juvenile justice records in

juvenile and adult/criminal

court and other criminal

justice proceedings, as well

as for noncriminal justice

purposes, such as background

employment checks and

licensing. For those who

were not present at the

conference, these

proceedings provide a

perspective for understanding

the juvenile crime problem in

this context, an appreciation

for the variety of public

policy issues involved in

greater access to juvenile

justice records and court

proceedings, and new

insights into the operational,

management and technical

implications of such

recordkeeping changes.

I hope that these proceedings

serve as a basis for

continuing debate and study

on this topic. Juvenile justice

recordkeeping policies are

changing rapidly, and our

knowledge of the impacts of

these policy changes must be

constantly brought up to date,

not only the effects on

juvenile offenders and

juvenile crime but also the

costs and other practical

implications for justice

agencies.

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.

Director
vii

Introduction

The purported increase in violent

crime committed by juveniles has

resulted in a public-driven backlash:

more and more State and local

jurisdictions are prosecuting

juveniles as adults, and opening

access to juvenile records and

juvenile criminal proceedings that

for decades have been protected by

strict confidentiality laws

compatible with the rehabilitative

mission of juvenile justice. These

rapid changes in the juvenile justice

system and juvenile recordkeeping

practices raise a multitude of highly

sensitive legal, policy and

implementation issues that confront

criminal justice professionals.

Justice officials warn that greater

public access to juvenile justice

records and proceedings in the

United States is a fundamental shift

that threatens to undermine the

foundations of the juvenile justice

system as it has existed for nearly

100 years. Others say that opening

access and treating juvenile and

adult records the same is the only

effective means to stem the tide of

juvenile crime, and that a balance

can be struck between open access

and protection of juveniles. As the

millennium approaches, legislators,

policymakers and justice

practitioners at all levels of

government continue to grapple with

the important issues resulting from

this nationwide shift.

As part of its effort to spur debate

and seek solutions on this issue, the

Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.

Department of Justice, and

SEARCH cosponsored the National

Conference on Juvenile Justice

Records: Appropriate Uses in

Criminal and Noncriminal Justice

Proceedings on May 22-23, 1996, in

Washington, D.C. The focus of the

conference was the appropriate uses

of juvenile justice records in

juvenile and adult/criminal court and

other criminal justice proceedings,

as well as for noncriminal justice

purposes, such as background

employment checks and licensing.

The conference brought together

Federal agency directors and

officials; academics; members of the

State and local judicial, legislative,

court and criminal justice

communities; directors of State

criminal history repositories;

officials from national criminal

justice organizations; and juvenile

justice administrators, all of whom

are involved in some aspect of

juvenile justice recordkeeping

policy, collection, maintenance, use

or dissemination. This document

presents the proceedings of that

conference.

Day One of the conference provided

background information on the

current status of the juvenile justice

system and a discussion of the

public policy considerations

regarding the use of the juvenile

record. On Day Two, speakers

examined the operational and

management issues involved in

accessing juvenile justice

information.

In Part I of the conference,

“Overview,” Dr. Francis J. Carney

Jr., Executive Director,

Massachusetts Sentencing

Commission, who at the time of the

conference was SEARCH

Chairman, and Dr. Charles M. Friel,

Professor, College of Criminal

Justice, Sam Houston State

University, provide “Welcoming

remarks.” Dr. Carney says the

appropriate use of juvenile records is

a timely topic for justice agencies

nationwide, and mentions an

example from his Massachusetts

Sentencing Commission, which

recently struggled with the question

of whether to include the juvenile

record as a factor for sentencing

guidelines purposes. The

Commission’s juvenile record

debate, he reports, went on at

several levels — philosophical,

practical and policy — and reflects

the same emerging issues that he

expects the conference speakers to

address. Dr. Friel, who served as

conference moderator, predicts that

justice professionals nationwide will

have to address many policy and

legal issues as they band together to

deal with the problem of violent

youth crime through the use of

juvenile justice information. The

issue, he says, brings competing

perspectives to the question of how

to use, when to use, and who can use

juvenile records.

In his “Keynote Address,” Mr. Kent

Markus, Counselor to the Attorney

General for Youth Violence, U.S.

Department of Justice, reports that

societal changes are forcing justice

administrators, policymakers and

legislators to rethink the underlying

policy assumptions of the

rehabilitative mission of the juvenile

justice system; as a consequence,

many State legislatures nationwide

are amending their laws to permit

greater access to juvenile records

and criminal proceedings. He says

the public hype about juvenile crime

may overplay the magnitude of the

problem, and so he sets a framework

of the juvenile violence and crime

problem — citing five specific

causal links — that is useful to a

discussion about the appropriate

uses of juvenile records. He asserts

the Federal government can play an

important role in addressing juvenile

violence by gathering, modeling and

redistributing information, and in

providing leadership to bring

government entities together to fight

the problem. Rethinking the

underlying assumptions of juvenile

justice and juvenile records is

recognized as necessary, he says,
viii

adding that he hopes this rethinking

can be done in the context of the

causes of juvenile crime so that any

decisions that are made can

substantially impact the problem. He

says we need to ask how we can

better use and share information to

effectively deal with each causal

link to juvenile crime and violence.

In Part II of the conference, “Setting

the stage: Current status of juvenile

justice records,” the next five

speakers bring a variety of

perspectives to a discussion of the

current status of juvenile justice

records on a national level.

In his “Opening address,” Dr. Jan

M. Chaiken, Director, Bureau of

Justice Statistics (BJS), U.S.

Department of Justice, discusses

how changing laws and policies

governing juvenile justice records

are altering the balance between

confidentiality and public access,

and thus are increasing the

importance that the information

contained in juvenile records is

accurate. Dr. Chaiken say that in

laws and policies which transfer

juvenile offenders to the adult

system, in sentencing guidelines

which take into account an

offender’s previous activity, and in

laws which require that background

checks include consideration of

juvenile records, the offender’s

record — and its immediate

availability, accuracy and

completeness — is the basis for the

key decisions which impact

treatment of the individual. Issues

related to juvenile record accuracy

and completeness present difficult

challenges to justice practitioners

and policymakers, he notes. Over 25

years of effort and millions of

dollars have been expended to

improve adult criminal history

records, while work on improving

juvenile records has only begun.

Policies regarding the release and

use of adult records have been

resolved over the past two decades,

while newly enacted juvenile record

policies have yet to be evaluated,

and represent a reversal of the

underlying goals of the juvenile

system.

In “Background: Examining the

foundation of juvenile justice record

policies,” Dr. Michael R.

Gottfredson, Vice Provost for

Undergraduate Education,

University of Arizona, provides a

criminological evaluation of the

historical justifications for a distinct

system of juvenile justice using

three simplifying principles of age,

stability and versatility that he says

have many implications for the

questions that confront the justice

community. As he explains, the age

effect shows that the offending rate

for crime and delinquency peaks in

late adolescence and then declines

throughout life. The versatility effect

shows that there is enormous

variability in the kinds of offending

in the criminal population, with little

specialization or sense of direction,

as well as variability in the “problem

behaviors” of youths, such as school

misconduct and drug and alcohol

abuse. The stability effect suggests

that, once identified, individual

differences in rates of offending or

problem behaviors remain relatively

stable over long periods of time.

Prof. Gottfredson suggests that if we

are interested in preventing crime

among juveniles, we should focus

on the supervision and socialization

of children in the first 10 years of

life. In terms of the many

justifications for the separation of

the two systems, he further suggests

that the two justifications that are

most relevant have to do with

leniency and with separation of

children from adults. He also states

that of overwhelming importance in

the juvenile record issue is not

whether an individual has engaged

in a misconduct that is recorded in

the juvenile justice system but,

rather, the frequency and the

recency of such behavior.

The next two speakers discuss

“Federal policies and perspectives:

The relationship of juvenile justice

information to national criminal

justice goals.” The first speaker is

Mr. Shay Bilchik, Administrator,

Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP),

U.S. Department of Justice. In his

address, Mr. Bilchik focuses on

what he terms the critical

relationship between juvenile justice

system recordkeeping and

information sharing. He also

outlines the attempts of the OJJDP

to reach some of the nation’s most

urgent national juvenile justice

goals. Mr. Bilchik asserts that we

must put a system in place that will

have the capacity to use an

information system that serves as an

interdisciplinary database so that we

can make informed decisions about

each child. He says such a system

must act with full knowledge of

each individual case and child —

and with full information about local

and national trends that tell us what

is really happening in juvenile

justice in this country. In terms of

addressing the need to prosecute

violent and chronic juvenile

offenders in criminal court, he

advocates a system of transfer that

retains the ability of prosecutors and

judges to make case-by-case

decisions. Such a system, he says,

requires good recordkeeping and

effective practices to reduce violent

juvenile crime. Without an effective

information sharing scheme, the

various agencies in a jurisdiction

each have only a small piece of the

juvenile justice puzzle, he asserts.

Practitioners and policymakers are

beginning to realize this, which is

helping the juvenile justice

community to more fully reflect the

multiple systems that interact with

juveniles and to form a more

complete picture of the needs of a

particular juvenile and family.
ix

Mr. Demery R. Bishop, Section

Chief, Criminal Justice Information

Services (CJIS) Division, Federal

Bureau of Investigation, provides an

overview of the division’s policies

and procedures with regard to

juvenile criminal history records. He

reports that since March 1, 1993, the

FBI accepts, maintains and

disseminates all arrest fingerprint

cards from States for juveniles who

have been tried or adjudicated in

juvenile proceedings or who were

adjudicated as adults. The CJIS

Division is also involved in

collecting and maintaining juvenile

records contained in the Missing

Persons File of the National Crime

Information Center, and in

collecting and analyzing statistics on

juvenile crime. He also discusses

new initiatives that will help to

create a system of information on

juveniles for criminal justice and

law enforcement agencies

nationwide.

Mr. Neal Miller, Principal

Associate, Institute for Law and

Justice (ILJ), in his presentation,

“State laws on prosecutors’ and

judges’ use of juvenile justice

records,” discusses a national review

and assessment of criminal court use

of defendants’ juvenile adjudication

records that ILJ undertook for the

National Institute of Justice, U.S.

Department of Justice. In the

project, which covers laws and

practices through 1995, ILJ

surveyed prosecutors, criminal

justice record centers and State

sentencing guideline commissions;

reviewed State laws that affect and

specify prosecutorial and judicial

use of the juvenile adjudication

record; and performed field work in

two jurisdictions. Mr. Miller reports

that the study found that a

significant proportion of all

convicted persons have juvenile

adjudication records, and that

consideration of the juvenile record

at sentencing can have a strong

impact on incapacitation of

offenders under a presumptive

sentencing system. The study found,

however, that numerous problems

exist in most States having to do

with poor record quality and

differences in the substantive

meaning of sentences handed down

in juvenile and adult courts.

Part III of the conference focused on

“Public policy perspectives: Privacy

and confidentiality considerations of

juvenile record issues.” The first

speaker, Mr. Robert R. Belair,

SEARCH General Counsel,

Mullenholz, Brimsek & Belair,

addresses the topic of “ ‘The need to

know’ versus privacy.” In his

presentation, he reviews the contents

of a draft report SEARCH

completed with funding from BJS

that was distributed at the

conference. The report, Privacy and

Juvenile Justice Records: A MidDecade Status Report,

1 discusses

the nature and severity of juvenile

crime; the history and development

of the juvenile justice system; the

relationship between adult and

juvenile courts; disclosure and

confidentiality of juvenile records,

including sealing and purging

practices, illustrative State laws, and

recent legislative and judicial

activity; and juvenile justice trends

and the status of the juvenile justice

recordkeeping system as of the mid1990s. Mr. Belair says that the

report finds that there has been a

dramatic increase in the extent to

which juvenile record information is

available to criminal justice

agencies, to noncriminal justice

entities, and to the public. This

challenge to juvenile record

confidentiality and privacy is being

accomplished by treating juveniles

as adults, by relaxing confidentiality

provisions in existing juvenile

record laws, and by the advances in

centralized State criminal history

 

1 Now also published and available

from the Bureau of Justice Statistics

(NCJ-161255).

record systems and repositories. The

report, however, offers cautionary

notes against abandoning almost 100

years of confidentiality protections

of juvenile records and proceedings.

“Practitioners’ perspectives: Using

the juvenile record” is the subject of

a panel discussion of the next four

speakers, who represent local

prosecutors, State law enforcement,

State courts administrators and local

public defenders.

The first panelist, Ms. Jan Scully,

District Attorney of Sacramento

County, California, addresses

“Juvenile justice issues and the role

of juvenile records in

decisionmaking: A prosecutor’s

viewpoint.” In her remarks, she

discusses California laws, such as

“three strikes,” which affect the

prosecution of juveniles as adults.

She says the trend in California, as

well as the nation, is to change the

focus of juvenile justice from strictly

rehabilitation to include punishment

and public safety, and that doing so

has underscored the value of

deterrence in the juvenile system,

which she believes is important and

proves that the message of “getting

tough” on juvenile offenders is

being heard. She says

decisionmaking in her office is

greatly influenced by the prior

adjudications of a juvenile; this

includes decisions as to whether to

remand a juvenile to be tried as an

adult and what dispositions and bail

to seek. She asserts that how the

juvenile justice system treats

juvenile records impacts the public’s

and youthful offender’s perception

of the system. If the system offers

protection and deterrence, if

prosecutors act as the “hammer,”

then the public will have more

confidence in the system, and

juveniles will think more about the

consequences of their actions, she

says. However, she adds that those

efforts should go hand-in-hand with

intervention and prevention
x

programs, and that in California and

elsewhere, juvenile justice should

focus on rehabilitation balanced

with public safety interests.

Ms. Donna M. Uzzell, Special

Agent in Charge, Investigative

Support Bureau, Florida Department

of Law Enforcement, discusses

“Florida’s Serious Habitual

Offender Comprehensive Action

Program: Collecting and using

juvenile offender information to

target detention, intervention and

prevention efforts.” Ms. Uzzell

explains that SHOCAP is an

interagency case management

system that enables the juvenile

justice system and human services

agencies to make more informed

decisions regarding the small

number of juveniles who commit a

large percentage of serious crimes.

The program objectives for

SHOCAP are interagency

cooperation, creation of an

operational model, improved

information collected on serious

habitual offenders, and suppression

and control of the criminal activity

committed by these offenders. She

reports that the benefits of the

program have been more complete

profiles of these habitual offenders,

improved and more efficient

information sharing, and a more

efficient use of resources. She says it

will be the responsibility of the

justice system to be good stewards

of juvenile justice information, to

use it productively and efficiently,

and to protect our citizens while

protecting the rights of others.

Mr. Michael L. Curtis, Juvenile and

Family Court Specialist,

Washington Office of the

Administrator for the Courts,

discusses “Juvenile justice records

management in Washington State,”

in which he provides a two-decade

chronology of events which impact

the management of juvenile justice

records in his State. He says he

hopes this information helps inform

other States which are struggling

with the public policy issues

involved in such activities as

juvenile recordhandling procedures,

juvenile court proceedings and

statewide court automation.

Providing another perspective, Ms.

Jo-Ann Wallace, Director, Public

Defender Service, District of

Columbia, gave a presentation on

“Striking a proper balance between

legitimate uses of juvenile records

and individual privacy: The District

of Columbia experience.” She

believes that statutes such as the one

in the District of Columbia which

requires consent of an individual or

a court order for juvenile record

information to be released strikes a

proper balance between appropriate

law enforcement goals and privacy.

She says many of the trends driving

juvenile justice policy today — such

as the drive to remand more

juveniles to the adult system — are

motivated by fear and

misinformation, and are affecting

the bedrock principles of the

juvenile system: rehabilitation and

treatment. She warns that increased

sharing and openness of juvenile

records or court proceedings will

have devastating effects on juveniles

but will not increase confidence in

the system or deter juveniles from

committing crimes. She advocates

undertaking collaborative initiatives

in which the different segments of

the system figure out how to share

information while promoting

common and mutual crime reduction

goals and protecting the

confidentiality of juveniles, which is

critical to their treatment.

Wrapping up Day One of the

conference was Mr. David Gavin,

Assistant Chief of Administration,

Texas Department of Public Safety

(DPS), who discussed “Collection,

maintenance and use of juvenile

fingerprints,” specifically focusing

on the issues and practices involved

in implementing the statewide

juvenile criminal history repository

in Texas that came on-line on

January 1, 1996. In creating the

repository, Texas officials decided

to make it fingerprint-based; to

make it a day-one forward system;

to collect Class B misdemeanors and

above; and to integrate it and make

it compatible with the adult system.

They grappled with such issues as

sealing and purging procedures,

dissemination criteria, the type of

information to collect, and training.

Mr. Gavin reports that some key

factors to the success of the Texas

juvenile repository were

compatibility with the adult system;

support provided to local agencies

by field staff; and political support

given the effort by local police

chiefs and sheriffs. Finally, he says

that DPS believes that electronic

reporting is the only possible way to

run a juvenile repository of this size,

so State criminal justice agencies are

working to help local agencies

automate their arrest and disposition

reporting.

Part IV of the conference on Day

Two addressed “Operational and

management perspectives.” Leading

off was Dr. Alfred Blumstein, who

provided the “Day two opening

address.” Dr. Blumstein, J. Erik

Jonsson Professor of Urban Systems

and Operations Research, School of

Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie

Mellon University, addresses the

topic of “Using juvenile records to

predict criminal behavior.” In his

presentation, he discusses the

tension between the usefulness of

juvenile justice records to

policymaking and practice, and the

benefits we obtain from protecting

those records. He also discusses and

puts into context research findings

on juvenile crime; says that it is

difficult to identify and predict

which juvenile offenders are going

to persist in crime into adulthood

and which are going to terminate,

and that better predictive models

need to be developed in order to
xi

provide this information; discusses

expected increases in the crime rate

attributable to a large population

group moving into the peak crime

ages; the use of incarceration as the

single dominant strategy of criminal

justice policy in the past two

decades; and the use of waiver

procedures to send more children

into adult court, where the

presumption is that the punishment

is tougher. Although he advocates a

mixed strategy of prevention to deal

with at-risk youngsters, he says that

when people do come into contact

with the juvenile and adult systems,

we ought to be able to have the

records available for identifying

serious offenders when the time

comes to respond to them.

The next speaker was the Honorable

Gordon A. Martin Jr., Associate

Justice, Massachusetts Trial Court,

District Court Department, who

spoke on “The role of the juvenile

record in judicial decisionmaking.”

In his presentation, he decries the

wholesale dumping of children into

adult court, saying the juvenile

justice system, which is trained to

deal with juveniles, ought to be able

to do its job and continue to attempt

to rehabilitate juveniles through

such measures as intensive parole

supervision. He supports opening up

delinquency proceedings and

records so that the public can see the

work being done in the juvenile

arena. He asserts that judicial access

to all available information about a

child is critical to the juvenile court

process and to preserving the

juvenile justice system, and that it is

the responsibility of judges and

legislators to help public agencies

share all pertinent information about

a child they are trying to help, even

if it means waiving confidentiality

rules that impede information

sharing. He also defends the practice

of judicial waiver, saying it should

not become an automatic action

based on age or offense. Crucial to

judicial waiver, however, is the

availability of records that track

each youth’s involvement in the

juvenile justice and social welfare

systems, he says.

“Statewide juvenile systems” was

the focus of a presentation by Mr.

Michael R. Phillips, Deputy

Administrator, Utah Juvenile Court,

Administrative Office of the Courts,

who discusses the automated index

system that provides law

enforcement agencies in Utah with

statewide access to juvenile court

records, and Utah’s practice of open

juvenile court proceedings. Mr.

Phillips asserts that many juvenile

courtrooms and records are now

open to some level of public

inspection, despite popular belief.

For the past 15 years, he relates,

Utah has authorized any law

enforcement agency in the State to

access the juvenile records

maintained at the State level as part

of an arrest process or official

investigation, and to create referral

records in this system; probation and

parole agencies may also access the

records for purposes of presentence

reports. Recent changes in the law

have provided the media and public

with greater access to certain

juvenile records, he notes; the State

purposefully formatted these

released records in an easy-tounderstand format so that the rap

sheet is not misinterpreted. Mr.

Phillips also addresses Utah laws

that require the courts to notify

schools when a student is convicted

of certain felonies or placed on

probations; create new categories of

serious youthful offenders that

require new court processing

procedures; and sentencing

guidelines for juveniles. Finally, he

says that he does not believe that

opening access to juvenile court

records and hearings will destroy the

juvenile justice system, since the

economics of media coverage

usually prohibit extensive

involvement in juvenile courts.

Mr. Steve Galeria’s presentation,

“Juvenile records as a basis for

firearm prohibitions,” discusses

California’s approach to using

juvenile records in firearms checks.

Mr. Galeria, Manager, Statistical

Data Center, California Department

of Justice, provides a rundown of

California’s gun regulation history,

which dates back to 1909; discusses

purchase procedures and categories

of persons prohibited in the State

from purchasing handguns, rifles,

shotguns and ammunition; the

impact of regulations and legislation

on guns sales; and future activity in

this area.

The final two speakers address

“Exchanging juvenile records

between the juvenile justice system

and schools.” The presentation of

Mr. Ronald C. Laney, Director,

Missing and Exploited Children’s

Program, OJJDP, is on “Information

sharing critical to process of

protecting children,” in which he

says that all components of the

juvenile justice system must share

information about children at an

early stage of their involvement in

the system. This is because children

typically come into contact in the

system as a victim or an at-risk child

before committing serious

delinquency acts. The OJJDP, he

says, has undertaken efforts to

develop protocols for sharing

information within the juvenile

justice system, most recently an

effort with the U.S. Department of

Education to provide instruction to

educators and juvenile justice

administrators as to what

information can be shared. In most

cases, he says, OJJDP and the

Department of Education found that

laws do not necessary restrict

agencies from sharing information;

rather, it is an existing policy or

procedure or tradition passed down

from generation to generation in an

office that prevents information

sharing.
xii

Mr. Laney then introduces Dr.

Bernard James, Professor, School of

Law, Pepperdine University, who

addresses “Issues and implications

of school-juvenile justice

information sharing.” Dr. James

suggests that interagency

communication is the essential link

for a successful reform movement in

any local juvenile justice system

because decisions being made are

dependent on timely, accurate

information, and information from

schools will help provide a complete

behavioral picture of a youth.

Schools, meanwhile, need status

information about juveniles who are

constantly being placed on campus

as conditions of probation. He says

there is clear mutual reliance and

interdependence between schools

and juvenile justice that requires

two-way communication. However,

schools are often left in the dark in

terms of justice information, and the

juvenile justice system is usually

shut out of the educational system.

Fortunately, he notes, emerging

models are expanding the concept of

the juvenile justice system to

include schools, and interagency

information sharing agreements are

being authorized or required in more

and more States. He says that

educators should examine their local

policies to determine whether they

can take advantage of new State and

Federal laws which encourage a

legitimate exchange of information

among agencies.

Finally, mention and thanks are

given here to Dr. Charles M. Friel,

who ably served as the conference

moderator. Dr. Friel is Professor of

the College of Criminal Justice, Sam

Houston State University,

Huntsville, Texas, and is a member

of the SEARCH Board of Directors.
I. Overview

Welcoming remarks

SEARCH welcome

Dr. Francis J. Carney Jr.

Conference moderator’s welcome

Dr. Charles M. Friel

Keynote address

Kent Markus
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 1

SEARCH welcome

DR. FRANCIS J. CARNEY JR.

Executive Director

Massachusetts Sentencing Commission

On behalf of SEARCH, I would

like to welcome all of you to this

national conference on the

appropriate uses of juvenile justice

records in criminal and noncriminal

justice proceedings, and to extend

our appreciation to the Bureau of

Justice Statistics (BJS) and to BJS

Director Dr. Jan Chaiken for their

sponsorship of and participation in

this conference. To me, this

conference is very timely.

I would like to give you a quick

example of the types of issues we

are dealing with, using my recent

experience in Massachusetts. The

Massachusetts Sentencing

Commission submitted a new

approach to sentencing offenders in

our State, an approach involving

sentencing guidelines. One of the

most important dimensions in the

sentencing guidelines is the criminal

history of the offender, and one of

the hottest issues in the debate

surrounding the criminal history or

the formulation of the criminal

history was whether or not to

include the juvenile record as a

factor in the criminal history for

sentencing guidelines purposes.

That debate went on at different

levels. It went at the philosophical

level, such as what is the role of the

juvenile justice system? What is the

meaning of adjudication of

delinquency versus conviction of a

crime?

At the policy level, if you do

include the juvenile record, should it

be limited to certain crimes? Should

it only be limited to serious crimes?

Should there be constraints on the

age of the juveniles? Some offenders

are 12 years old versus 16 years old.

Should the juvenile record lapse?

That is, over time, is there a

difference between the 18-year-old

gang member who is appearing in an

adult court for the first time versus

the 30-year-old offender who is

appearing in adult court for the first

time and who has not been arrested

since a 16-year-old arrest for

stealing a car?

The debate continued at the

practical level as to whether the

juvenile record is reliable enough to

be used for sentencing purposes. Is

it accurate enough? Is it uniform

enough to be incorporated into a

criminal history classification?

Those are some of the issues that

emerged in that context vis-à-vis the

juvenile record. I will be interested

to listen to the discussions at this

conference to learn about the

ramifications of these issues in

general.

Now, as SEARCH Chair,1 I am

called upon from time to time to

introduce speakers at meetings and

conferences. Rarely have I had the

opportunity to introduce a criminal

justice expert of the stature, of the

knowledge, of the experience, of our

moderator for this conference, Dr.

Charles M. Friel.

Dr. Friel is a professor and

former dean of the College of

Criminal Justice at Sam Houston

State University in Huntsville,

Texas. He has lectured extensively,

both nationally and internationally,

on matters regarding criminal

justice. He is an At-large Member

and a Board Member of SEARCH,

and is a recipient of SEARCH’s

highest award, the O. J. Hawkins

Award for Innovative Leadership

and Outstanding Contributions in

Criminal Justice Information

Systems, Policy and Statistics in the

United States. Dr. Friel is also the

1992 recipient of the Justice Charles

W. Barrow Award for distinguished

service to the Texas judiciary.

We are most fortunate to have

Dr. Friel as our moderator. He has

keen insights into the issues at hand.

He has an uncanny ability to get to

the heart of the matter, and he is one

of the nicest people you will ever

meet.

 

1 At the time of the conference, Dr.

Carney was Chair of the SEARCH

Membership Group.
Page 2 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

Conference moderator’s welcome

DR. CHARLES M. FRIEL

Professor

College of Criminal Justice

Sam Houston State University

Frank, I appreciate those kind

words. My mother would have

enjoyed hearing them, and my wife

would not believe them.

I would like to join SEARCH in

welcoming you all to our nation’s

capital and to this conference

sponsored by the Bureau of Justice

Statistics and SEARCH concerned

with the use of juvenile records and

the development and use of juvenile

justice systems. I hope you all

arrived here in Washington at the

same time as your luggage.

If you have had a chance to look

through the agenda for this

conference, I think you will be

impressed with the work that

SEARCH staff has done in trying to

identify a series of issues that should

be very germane to those of you

who work in the area of juvenile

justice as we begin to initiate a very

strong reaction, I suppose nationally,

to the problem of violent youth

crime. Critical to that is the use of

information about juveniles. There

are a lot of sensitive policy and legal

issues that we are going to have to

address over the next few years as

we band together to deal with the

problem of violent youth crime to

determine how we are going to use

juvenile justice information, and

incorporate that into the broader

panoply of the information systems

we have for adults.

The conference speakers that

staff has brought together are truly

excellent, experienced people who

will be sharing with you a variety of

perspectives about the use of

juvenile records. Unfortunately, this

is not an easy issue. If it were, you

could have one person come up here

and tell you what you need to do.

The issue brings many competing

perspectives to the question of how

and when and who uses juvenile

records. Through the course of this

conference, we hope to bring to you

the experience and knowledge of

practitioners, theoreticians, lawyers,

public policymakers and political

experts so that when you leave here,

you will have a sensitivity to the

variety of perspectives raised by this

issue.

It is my hope that when y’all

leave here, that every one of you

goes away with at least one good

idea. Maybe it is a new insight or

maybe it is some creative new way

to use an existing technology, or

perhaps it is a new grasp of how to

better use policy or administrative

practice or change of law to

effectively improve the quality of

juvenile justice in your jurisdiction,

your State or your community.

I would also hope that each of

you leave with at least one good

contact. There are attendees here

from all over the country who work

in all aspects of the juvenile justice

system or in fields of information

science as applied to criminal

justice. Be generous with each other.

Do not be shy. Just reach out there

and say, “I’m Charlie” or “I’m

Mary.” And find that somebody else

here whose job responsibilities are

comparable to yours, who is fighting

the same kinds of problems and

issues, but who may be a year or 6

months ahead of you. That person

already has made the mistake you

are about to make. Introduce

yourselves and exchange business

cards. So go away with two things:

one good idea (which is worth a lot

of money, when you think about it)

and one good contact.

My responsibilities today and

tomorrow will be to present to you

the speakers and panelists that we

have brought together, and to keep

my eye on the clock, which may be

the hardest part of my task because

we have some people up here who

like to talk a lot.
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 3

Keynote address

KENT MARKUS

Counselor to the Attorney General for Youth Violence

U.S. Department of Justice

I am starting to get used to

introductions in which people deal

with their confusion about the many

different jobs I have held at the

Justice Department by saying things

like, “Well, he’s a doer.” I was in

Massachusetts recently and Don

Stern, the United States Attorney

there, introduced me and said, “I’ve

never really been able to figure out

what Kent does, but he’s the guy I

call when I need to get something

done.” I take that as a compliment

and I think in some ways that is a

good approach to things: that no

matter what the specific title or role

we may have at any specific time,

hopefully we can be helpful to

others needing to penetrate the

bureaucracy. I also think it helps me

deal with the perspective that my

wife has on the situation, which is

that I simply cannot hold a job.

In the range of capacities that I

have had in the time I have been at

the Justice Department dealing with

Brady Law and Crime Bill

implementation and with a number

of other criminal justice initiatives

that we have been involved in, there

is one pervasive underlying theme

that comes back again and again: the

importance of information as it

relates to our criminal justice efforts,

particularly the importance of

criminal history records and how

they are used and deployed in the

criminal justice context. Because of

societal changes, we are being faced,

in the world of juvenile records,

with some rethinking that we all

must undertake together.

To some extent, we have lost our

innocence with respect to juvenile

crime, and it is forcing us to rethink

some of the underlying assumptions

that have been almost sacrosanct

with respect to the juvenile justice

system. Certainly, the fundamental

underlying policy view of the

juvenile justice system was that this

system was exclusively oriented

toward rehabilitative efforts, and

that punishment had no role and

should not be contemplated in the

context of juvenile justice activity.

We have to reconsider that policy

view and question whether that is

still the appropriate paradigm for

what we are seeing in society today.

Along with the expectation that

the juvenile justice system was

oriented exclusively toward

rehabilitative efforts were some

pretty strong assumptions that were

built into the system through law

and policy that dealt with

information about juveniles. These

assumptions insisted that, if in fact

we had a rehabilitative-oriented

system, notions of privacy and

access to information about

juveniles were at a premium, in

terms of keeping that information

confidential so that the rehabilitative

mission could be maximized. Thus,

the notions of allowing a child to be

branded as a criminal was something

we wanted to avoid because that

interfered with the rehabilitative

mission.

What we are seeing, of course, is

that as we are rethinking these

assumptions, so are a lot of

policymakers, and all kinds of

changes are being made quite

rapidly in these areas, both from a

policy perspective and a legislative

perspective. Right and left, State

legislatures are amending their laws,

not only to permit greater access to

juvenile records, but also greater

access to juvenile criminal

proceedings overall. This is a

fundamental shift: proceedings

themselves were previously kept

closed in order to maintain that

privacy associated with the

rehabilitative mission of juvenile

justice.

 As we begin 2 days of discussion

about the appropriate roles and uses

of juvenile justice records, and when

records should be shared and for

what purpose, I thought it might be

helpful if I set a somewhat broader

context with respect to what we are

seeing in this country with respect to

youth violence. I want to do this so

that we can think about some of

these issues that we are having to

face in the context of the problem

we are trying to deal with and solve.

When I was asked by the

Attorney General to take on this

effort, to think about how the Justice

Department might more effectively

deal with the problem of youth

violence, I did not have the

awareness I do today of both the

magnitude of the problem we are

facing or the public hype

surrounding it. I happily also did not

know that it would not be long

before the Richmond TimesDispatch would characterize my job

as “America’s New Thug Czar.”

To give an example of the hype

that we are facing in this area right

now, I thought it would be

interesting to outline a day I had

recently. When I got up in the

morning, I went to work and the first

thing that I was faced with was final

preparations for the Attorney

General’s weekly press availability.

Every Thursday morning, she makes

herself available to all credentialed
Page 4 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

press for any questions they wish to

ask on any subject, and of course we

try to make sure that she feels

adequately prepared through efforts

on Wednesday evening and then

again on Thursday morning. The

story had broken about a case in

Richmond, California, the tragic

incident involving the two 8-yearolds and the 6-year-old who had

beaten the little baby. We knew that

the Attorney General was going to

be asked questions about that case

and her views about it, and so the

first thing we dealt with that

morning was some discussion

internally about what kind of

responses she might give to that

matter.

When we left the press

availability that morning, where

they did, of course, raise that

question, I went to a speech she was

giving to the International

Association of Chiefs of Police,

which was having a summit on the

subject of — youth violence. From

the police chiefs meeting on youth

violence, I headed over to the CNN

studios, where I had been asked to

appear on their television show,

“Burden of Proof.” It involves

current legal issues, and they wanted

to talk that day about — youth

violence. From the CNN studios, I

headed over to Jefferson Junior High

School in southwest Washington,

where the Vice President was

meeting with students, with

members of the Washington Bullets

basketball team and with the United

States Attorney for the district, Eric

Holder, on the subject of — youth

violence.

Upon leaving the school, I flew

to Boston to give a speech at a

statewide meeting of law

enforcement officials where they

had convened a summit about —

youth violence. The next morning, I

got up, took a plane back to

Washington, and landed just in time

to get to a meeting at the White

House convened by the First Lady

on the subject of — youth violence.

At the end of this crazy and

exhaustive 24-hour period, I had to

step back and ask, “What is going

on here?” Why is there this degree

of intense attention to this subject,

where the Vice President and the

First Lady and the entire Chiefs of

Police Association and the television

programs and the press and

everybody are all focusing this

much time and attention and energy

on this subject?

That, I think, is a question we

have to think about because there is,

perhaps, a risk that we can make too

much of the problem we are facing.

It is important to remember as we

are talking about this issue that less

than one-half of 1 percent of the

juveniles in the United States are

arrested for a violent offense each

year. That gives you some sense of

the magnitude of the problem.

Juveniles are responsible for one in

five violent crimes. That is a lot, but

certainly nowhere near the majority

of them. In fact, one of the

interesting things we see is that most

juveniles who appear once in

juvenile court, never return. So the

perception being created in part by

some of these media commentators

of an incredible, insurmountable,

unstoppable tidal wave of violent

criminal activity, I think, overplays

the problem.

Trends in juvenile crime

At the same time, there is a

serious problem, and the thing that

causes us to recognize that problem

is the trend data that we are seeing. I

have learned a valuable lesson about

trend data from Bureau of Justice

Statistics Director Jan Chaiken,

whom I now quote when I speak all

over the country. He has taught me

the lesson that the reason we gather

statistical information and make

projections is to try and figure out

which things we want to prove to be

untrue. And I think that is a very

important concept to keep in mind:

that gathering this information,

studying it, and thinking about what

is likely to happen in the future

gives us the ability to make

decisions about where we should

focus our resources and attention to

try to deal with problems and try to

determine that those trends are not

what they might be if we left them

alone. Let me speak briefly about

what those trends are.

In the last 5 years, while the

general crime rate in the United

States has been down about two

points, juvenile crime has been up

21 percent. And we see the same

kind of divergence, and perhaps

even more extremely, when we look

at violent crime. Again over the last

5 years, while the murder rate in the

United States is down about 9

percent, the juvenile murder rate

during that same period is up 15

percent. Happily, in the last year, the

data show a small downturn. But

that set of trend lines — which

shows the country going one way

with adults and completely the

opposite direction with our young

people — is certainly disturbing.

It is even more disturbing when

you combine that crime rate effect

demographically with what is

happening in the country. Current

projections by demographers

suggest that over the next 25 years,

there will be a 31 percent increase in

the number of juveniles in the

United States. We not only expect to

have a substantially slanting upward

line with respect to the violent

juvenile crime rate, but we also have

a substantially slanting upward line

with respect to the number of

juveniles. Of course, if those two

effects are combined, the suggestion

is that we will have that same

substantially slanting upward line

with respect to the amount of crime,

especially violent crime, that is

being committed by our juveniles. It

is that projection that we want to

work to try to ensure does not come

true.

In trying to set a framework that I

think is helpful and useful to all of

us as we are thinking about the
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 5

appropriate use of records, I thought

it would be helpful to talk about

what we see as some of the very

clear causal links to the trend data. I

do not intend to suggest that these

are exhaustive or comprehensive;

however, I think that the five points

that I am going to make are a very

substantial part of the explanation

for this trend activity.

Causal links to juvenile crime

First, and one that will come as

no surprise to anyone, is the

problem of drug abuse. Some

interesting data that I have seen

suggest that one-third of all

juveniles who are arrested were

stoned at the time of their arrest, and

that 43 percent of juvenile murderers

were high at the time they took

another person’s life. An interesting

number that I just learned from our

drug czar, retired Gen. Barry

McCaffrey, is that drug-addicted

persons commit, on the average, 170

crimes per year to support their

habits. That certainly tells us that

there is — as there is in so many

parts of criminal activity — a small

group of people committing a

majority of the crimes, and that a lot

of violent crime stems from that

drug abuse and drug-addicted

behavior. Gen. McCaffrey says that

if you do not like higher taxes to pay

for even more prisons and you do

not like your neighbors being

victimized by crime, invest in drug

treatment programs. Of course, that

suggestion, all too often, is

characterized as coddling criminals.

I would suggest, instead, that drug

treatment is about changing the

behavior of those persons who are

committing those hundreds of

crimes a year to support their habit.

It is about preventing violent crime.

We have to keep kids away from

drugs and we have to treat those

who are addicted.

Second, the easy access to guns

by children. Recent statistics reveal

that eight of 10 juveniles who killed,

used a gun. That is up from 5 of 10

just 15 years ago. In the last 10

years, the number of juveniles who

killed with a gun quadrupled. One

study of high school students found,

and I found this just fascinating, that

28 percent of those surveyed

believed that it was “okay to shoot

someone who hurts or insults you.”

Ten percent believed it was “okay to

shoot a person if that is what it takes

to get something you want.” There

is an attitude we have to deal with

here, but if a gun is available, the

attitude reveals that it is all too

likely that the gun is going to be

used. We have to reduce the easy

flow and access of guns to our

young people.

Third, a phenomenon that I

describe as “developmental

neglect.” The Carnegie Foundation

has done a very nice job of

demonstrating rather definitively

that our children are spending less

and less time, not only with their

parents, but with adults overall. We

are seeing higher rates of divorce, of

course, increases in families with

both parents working, growth in

single-parent families, the erosion of

extended families, neighborhood

networks, and associated support

systems. If a child is not going to get

guidance from a parent, they have to

get it from an older brother, a sister,

a neighbor, a teacher, a clergyman,

someone who is going to intervene

in the life of that child to suggest

what is right, what is wrong, what

the lines are, what the barriers are,

how far they can go, what they will

be in trouble for and what they will

not. Instead, the sources that are

teaching those lessons right now —

with less time spent, again, not only

with parents, but with adults overall

— are peers and television. These

are not particularly effective sources

to teach young people lessons about

what is right and wrong, what the

barriers and burdens are that people

can undertake.

Fourth, domestic violence, both

observed and received. Studies

clearly show that those who are

abused learn that violence is normal.

They are substantially more likely to

be criminally violent than those who

are not abused. The American

Psychological Association released a

study recently that shows that those

who witness violence at home are

substantially more likely to commit

violent acts themselves later on.

On the good side, we expect that

home is the best classroom for our

children to learn things, and that

when we want to teach them values

and ethics to take through their

lives, parents are the best people to

teach those things. Then why does it

not make sense to us that home is

also, unfortunately, the best

classroom for violent behavior?

Why wouldn’t those who experience

violence at home learn that violent

behavior is appropriate and

acceptable, and is behavior in which

they should engage? The fact is, that

those who witness violence, those

who are subjected to violence, and

indeed, interestingly enough, those

who are subjected to physical

neglect, are desensitized to violence,

believe that violence is societally

acceptable, and learn that it is okay

to engage in violence themselves.

We have to break the cycle of

domestic violence.

Fifth, media violence, as

depicted, for example, on television

and in movies. An interesting study

paid for by the cable television

industry, called the Media Scope

Survey, showed that 73 percent of

violent acts on television go

unpunished. Eighty-six percent of

violent acts failed to show any longterm damage, either physical or

psychological, to the victim. Four

percent of programs with violence

emphasized nonviolent problemsolving alternatives. Four percent.

Can we blame all of this on the

media? Of course not. But what is

happening through the media’s

depiction of violence without

consequences, without punishment,

is that violence is glamorous, and
Page 6 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

kids are being desensitized to the

effects.

Federal role

In thinking about these five

causal links, my obligation at the

Justice Department is to then

consider “What is it that we as the

Federal government are supposed to

be doing about any of this?” I

generally break our role down into

four areas:

One, we have the ability to seek

and, through the legislative branch

of the Federal government, attain

legislative changes. That may be

helpful a little bit. There may be

some things here and there that

tinkering with and changing and

altering are productive; indeed, just

about a week and a half ago, the

President announced new proposed

legislation to deal with violent crime

among our young people. It has

about a dozen provisions that I think

are constructive and, if adopted,

would help. But Federal legislation

is not going solve this problem,

which is fundamentally a State and

local problem.

Two, the Federal government has

the authority to bring prosecutions.

Again, while there may be some

import to prosecuting the most

violent juveniles — those who are

involved in gangs or drug-dealing

— through the Federal system, and

we will do so when it is appropriate,

we are not going to solve the

problem through Federal

prosecutions. The number of

juveniles who are incarcerated under

Federal jurisdiction, either tried as

juveniles or juveniles who were tried

as adults, is 185. This is not a

substantial level of activity within

the Federal government, and I do

not think that is likely to change in

any serious way in the near future.

The prosecution activity is going to

have to take place primarily at the

State and local level.

Three, a very critical Federal role

is information gathering,

information modeling and

information redistribution. This is

what we do, through the various

bureaus and offices in the Office of

Justice Programs: we gather

statistical and programmatic

information. We provide funding to

try modeling and then we evaluate

those models and when they work,

we redistribute information about

what works and what does not. That,

I think, is a critical Federal role, and

one that is useful, productive and

essential because I think it is highly

unlikely that much of that modeling

and information redistribution

activity would ever take place if not

done by the Federal government.

Role number four is providing

leadership, and that comes in a

couple of forms. It comes in the

forms of highlighting problems that

need attention and encouraging

attention to them. But sometimes it

also comes in a more concrete form,

and that is in being the entity that

centralizes certain activity. An

example that is useful in this context

is something like the Interstate

Identification Index, where the

Federal government plays the

leadership role in bringing about one

national pointer system that

essentially links all of the individual,

decentralized State databases of

criminal history information.1

 

1 Editor’s note: The Interstate

Identification Index (III) is an “indexpointer” system for the interstate

exchange of criminal history records.

Under III, the FBI maintains an

identification index to persons arrested

for felonies or serious misdemeanors

under State or Federal law. The index

includes identification information, FBI

Numbers and State Identification

Numbers (SIDs) from each State holding

information about an individual. Search

inquiries from criminal justice agencies

are transmitted automatically via State

telecommunications networks and the

FBI’s National Crime Information

Center telecommunications lines. If a hit

is made against the Index, record

requests are made using SIDs or FBI

Numbers and data are automatically

retrieved from each repository holding

Again, I think that is a useful and

constructive role for the Federal

government to play so that it can

provide information and bring

entities and governmental units

together.

I think that with respect to the

problem of youth violence generally

and juvenile records specifically, the

areas in which I expect the Federal

government will play some

substantial role is in the latter two,

information and leadership. We may

legislate a little bit, and there is

actually one provision in the

President’s bill that deals with

gathering juvenile record

information at the Federal level.

And we may, in some of our

prosecutions, use juvenile record

information.

However, I think that the likely

place that the Federal government is

going to play substantially with

respect to juvenile record

discussions is in this information

gathering, modeling and information

redistribution effort, and in the

leadership effort. I think everybody

who is involved in this area

recognizes that we have to do this

rethinking process and I hope we

can do it while considering these

issues in the context of some of

these causal links that I have

discussed. We need to think about

how the effective use of criminal

record information may assist us in

dealing with drug abuse and drugaddicted young people, how that

information can be strategically used

to break up the flow of gun traffic,

and how information can be used to

break that cycle of violence. We

need to take each one of the causal

 

records on the individual and forwarded

to the requesting agency. For more

information, see U.S. Department of

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Use

and Management of Criminal History

Record Information: A Comprehensive

Report, Criminal Justice Information

Policy series, by SEARCH Group, Inc.

(Washington, D.C.: Government

Printing Office, November 1993).
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 7

links to the problem, and ask how

can we better use information and

share information to deal with those

causal links to try to destroy them.

Importance of records

We know that criminal records

provide relevant information about

the predictive nature of criminality

that stems from earlier behavior. We

know that the records are relevant to

officer safety, we know that the

records are relevant to adult

sentencing, we know the records

may be relevant to subsequent

juvenile sentencing. So, as the

discussion goes on over the course

of the next day and a half, I hope

that we will link into the

conversations about how records

should be used by judges and

schools; how privacy and

rehabilitative considerations weigh

against law enforcement goals and

how we reconcile those distinctions;

whether records should be kept

centrally or decentralized or some

combination thereof; what

information should be retained by

law enforcement agencies and what

should not; and what access there

should be to information from social

service agencies or schools, as well

as information that is actually

retained by courts and other law

enforcement organizations. I

encourage you to think about all of

those questions we are facing in a

manner that links with the causal

issues so that we can really examine

the question as to whether the record

policy decisions that we are making

are likely to substantially impact the

problem we are trying to deal with.

From my perspective, the most

important message that I can leave

you with is that, as you are thinking

about those issues and as you are

considering what role the Federal

government ought to play, I hope

that we will partner with you in that

discussion; that you can assist us in

any coordination efforts we are

making by telling us what we are

doing right and what we are doing

wrong. I hope that you can help us

in defining and seeing and then in

disseminating effective strategies

that are being adopted and that we

can work cooperatively with you in

order to be as effective as possible

about this rethinking process in

hopes of dealing with what is, I

think we all agree, a tremendously

important problem. Thanks very

much.
II. Setting the stage: Current status of juvenile justice records

Opening address

Changing laws and policies governing juvenile justice records

radically alter balance between confidentiality and public access,

and increase importance of record accuracy

Dr. Jan M. Chaiken

Background: Examining the foundation of juvenile justice record policies

An evaluation of the historical justifications for a distinct system

of juvenile justice: The age, versatility and stability effects

Dr. Michael R. Gottfredson

Federal policies and perspectives: The relationship of

juvenile justice information to national criminal justice goals

The importance of improving and sharing information

to furthering national juvenile justice reform

Shay Bilchik

Juvenile recordhandling policies and practices

of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Demery R. Bishop

State laws on prosecutors’ and judges’ use of juvenile justice records

National assessment of criminal court use of

defendants’ juvenile adjudication records

Neal Miller
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 11

Changing laws and policies governing juvenile justice records

radically alter balance between confidentiality and public access,

and increase importance of record accuracy

DR. JAN M. CHAIKEN

Director

Bureau of Justice Statistics

U.S. Department of Justice

My thanks to SEARCH staff for

coming up with a conference on

such a current, critical and complex

issue: juvenile justice policies and,

specifically, decisions concerning

the establishment, compilation,

exchange and use of juvenile

records.

The policies surrounding these

decisions focus on some of the most

basic concerns of most Americans:

• Our children — and our desire to

ensure that every child is given

every opportunity to develop into

a law-abiding and productive

citizen;

• The public safety — and our

desire to protect all citizens

against violence and other crimes

in their home, at work, on public

transportation, and in the streets

of our cities and towns;

• Financial constraints —

measured not only in terms of

criminal justice costs but also in

terms of the financial and

emotional costs to the victims of

crime, their families, and those

whose lives are changed by the

fear of potential criminal attacks;

and

• The justice system — designed

ideally to interface between these

concerns and to protect society in

a fair and just manner which is

most likely to produce long-term

safety.

We all know that the juvenile

justice system is undergoing major

review and changes at this time.

Almost every State has taken official

steps designed to bring the treatment

of juveniles closer to the criminal

justice treatment accorded adults.

The New York Times, which

addressed this issue in a recent Page

1 lead article and an editorial, stated

that “almost all 50 States have

overhauled their laws in the past 2

years ... and the thrust of the new

laws is to get more juveniles into the

adult criminal justice system where

they will presumably serve longer

sentences under more punitive

conditions.” Such trends include, for

example:

• laws which require that

jurisdiction over juveniles who

are over a set age or who have

had three juvenile offense

“strikes” be automatically

transferred to the adult system;

• laws and policies encouraging

prosecutorial discretion and

judicial waiver of juveniles to the

adult criminal justice system;

• sentencing guidelines which take

into account an offender’s

previous activity even if not

charged in the adult system; and

• laws which require that

background checks include

consideration of juvenile records.

In all of these areas, the offender’s

record — its immediate availability,

its accuracy and its completeness —

represent the fulcrum on which key

decisions impacting the treatment of

the individual are balanced.

In a parallel move, as addressed

in numerous publications, the laws

and policies governing juvenile

recordkeeping have also changed

radically. Initially formulated to

implement the mandate to provide

confidentiality to juveniles in order

to support the rehabilitation efforts

on which the juvenile system was

founded, current trends in legislative

and court actions have increasingly:

• opened juvenile proceedings and

the records about them to the

public, or at least to specific

segments of the public with

particular needs to know;

• required that categories of

juveniles (generally those

convicted of an offense which in

the adult system would be a

felony) be fingerprinted; and

• required that records of juvenile

offenders be included in State

criminal record systems in the

same manner as would be

followed for adult offenders

convicted of the similar criminal

acts.

These laws, coupled with the

rapid advances in technology which

make automated access to records

available at minimal cost, can be

expected to radically alter the

balance between juvenile

confidentiality and public access and

to increase the importance of

ensuring record accuracy.

These legislative changes reflect

public concern over statistics which

show that in a time of declining

overall violent crime, according to

both Uniform Crime Reports and

victimization surveys, the number of

adolescents being arrested for

serious crimes continues to increase.

Further, the size of the population in

the crime-prone ages 14-17 reached
Page 12 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

a low point 2 years ago and is

projected to continue to increase for

the indefinite future. By the year

2005, the number of teens aged 14-

17 will be 20 percent above its 1994

level. These projections are not too

tricky, since everybody who will be

14 to 17 in 2005 has already been

born.

A very rapid increase in the rates

of homicide committed by teenagers

began in 1985 and continued until

1994, when it leveled off. At least

some of the legislative changes must

reflect frustration over procedures

which allowed record checks of

adults to overlook these records of

violent acts committed by young

people whose records were not

accessible through the adult system.

As most of you know, the Bureau

of Justice Statistics is charged with

responsibility for implementing the

grant provisions of the Brady Act,

the Child Protection Act of 1993,

and the domestic violence and

stalker reduction provisions of the

Violence Against Women Act,

which is part of the Crime Control

Act of 1994. The program to

accomplish this is the National

Criminal History Improvement

Program, or NCHIP. About 18

months ago, at a conference to

launch the start of that program,

which is designed to improve the

quality of criminal history records, I

made a presentation addressing the

importance of record quality. At that

time, I stated that improving

criminal records, and by this I meant

adult records, was not about moving

electrons or increasing numbers of

bits and bytes. Rather, criminal

record improvement was about

helping the police to catch child

abusers, and rapists, and other social

predators; that it was about helping

judges make decisions on sentencing

and pretrial release; and,

increasingly, that it was about

helping people make decisions about

employment, national security and,

of course, purchasing firearms and

holding positions of trust involving

children, the elderly and the

disabled.

The issues we faced at that time

were simple in comparison to the

issues presented today with regard to

juvenile records. By the start of the

NCHIP program, over 25 years of

effort at the Federal, State and local

level involving millions of dollars

had been expended to establish,

network and develop adult record

systems. Our studies showed that as

of 1994, however, only about onequarter of the nation’s adult criminal

records were both complete with

dispositions and available in

response to a national inquiry.

In the juvenile justice

community, the work has just

begun. Under the NCHIP program,

substantial funds are being used for

Automated Fingerprint

Identification Systems (AFIS), and

States are allowing juveniles to be

fingerprinted. States are also using

NCHIP funds to establish enhanced

interfaces between police, courts and

the repository. In the juvenile justice

community, transfer of records

between law enforcement

components is a newly emerging

goal, with extensive interagency

negotiation and technical

development to follow.

Most importantly, the underlying

policies regarding the release and

use of adult records have been

debated and largely resolved over

the past 20 years. Newly enacted

policies applicable to juvenile

records have largely emerged within

the past few years — with their full

impact yet to be evaluated. As you

partake of this conference, this

factor is important to remember,

since the newly emerging juvenile

recordkeeping policies to a large

extent reflect a reversal of the

underlying goals of the juvenile

system as it has existed since its

inception.

Over the next 2 days, a large

number of speakers will address this

conference who represent the

academic, legislative, governmental

and juvenile justice communities.

Presentations will be made

concerning legislative and policy

trends and requirements, technical

advances and operational procedures

designed to implement State and

local policies and laws.

As you listen to the speakers, I

would ask that you give continuing

thought to several general points

which impact on the issues that will

be addressed here.

First, focus on the huge impact

which policies adopted to govern

juvenile justice operations,

particularly juvenile records, have

on current society. The Philadelphia

cohort studies by Wolfgang and his

associates showed that among boys

born in 1945, 35 percent had a

police contact but only 6 percent

were chronic delinquents. So, over

one-third of all these boys would

have had an arrest record. As I am

sure you can imagine, some of these

boys went on to occupations that

require background checks, such as

police officers and directors of

statistics agencies. So the nation

would have suffered quite a bit if

ordinary background checks had

prevented these boys from moving

forward in their chosen careers.

Well, you might say, that is just in

major cities. But the National Youth

Survey, which interviewed a

nationally representative group of

boys and girls who were age 11 to

17 in 1957, recently collected all of

their arrest records and found that 15

percent of boys on a nationwide

basis had an arrest record for other

than a minor traffic offense. Of

these, less than half could be

considered as serious juvenile

delinquents. So just remember that it

is your nieces and nephews that we

are talking about here.

It is also important to recall that

the prevalence of arrest is much

higher for some racial and ethnic

groups than for others, most studies

showing that the percentage of black

males who have a police contact by

age 18 is at least twice as high as for
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 13

white males. So apparently raceneutral policy changes can have

disproportionate effects on minority

groups.

Taken together, these statistics

suggest that although the high

percent of teenagers who have

violated the law justifies tighter

policies on juvenile offenders, care

should be taken to ensure that

punitive policies, particularly those

which may impact on future

development of the child, do not

have negative and potentially

harmful effects on young people

who will not become major

recidivists. Policies such as record

sealing and limiting disclosure to

situations following a subsequent

offense appear to follow this line of

reasoning.

Second, consider the weakness of

our knowledge about the effects of

policy changes even on the very

targets of the policy changes. What

is the impact of transfer to the adult

system and incarceration on

juveniles who, by all indications,

would become chronic violent

recidivists? Will these policies

change the amount of crime

committed by these youngsters?

And, if so, to more crime or to less

crime? Such research as we have

suggests that incarcerating juveniles

in adult facilities may increase the

amount and seriousness of crime

they commit over their entire

criminal career.

Third, consider during these

discussions the practical impact of

these trends on the demand for, and

use of, juvenile records — that is,

the importance of ensuring that

records which are used for greater

purposes be accurate and include

positive identification. Consider also

the recordkeeping implications

associated with the trend toward

transfer of juveniles for adult

prosecution — that is, the fact that

increasing numbers of records

formerly considered and protected

as juvenile records will, in the

future, be adult records and directly

governed by the policies governing

use and exchange of adult records.

It is an unusual limelight to be in

for those of us who work in

computer rooms and concern

ourselves with layouts, formats,

codes, security of computer systems,

communications networks and

fingerprint technology. But this

year, everybody is watching us.
Page 14 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

An evaluation of the historical justifications for a distinct system

of juvenile justice: The age, versatility and stability effects

DR. MICHAEL R. GOTTFREDSON

Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education

University of Arizona

I would like to share some

thoughts with you about the

rationale for a distinct system of

juvenile justice, a very problematic,

important question that faces all of

us. I would like to draw on some

work and ideas from Travis Hirschi,

a colleague with whom I have

worked over the last 20 years or so,

and credit him with many of these.

It is a most perplexing problem,

the creation of separate systems for

juvenile and adult offenders. First, I

would like to review briefly some of

the historical justifications for that

separation, which are common and

well known. Second, I would like to

raise the question of how we might

put these justifications in the context

of what we know about crime,

criminality and juvenile

delinquency. Finally, I would like to

attempt to evaluate some of those

justifications in light of those facts.

Justifications for separate

systems

Many justifications have been

offered for the historical separation

of the two systems, of treating

juveniles differently from adults. We

do have a tendency to ebb and flow

in our faithfulness to these

justifications over time. Ours is not

the only historical period in which

we have questioned this distinction,

this separation, and wondered what

to do about it. In thinking and

reading about the history and

justifications for juvenile justice, I

have come up with perhaps a halfdozen principles that we have used

at one point or another in our history

to justify this different treatment of

adults from juveniles. Let me review

those quickly, although there may be

others you have in mind. I think that

most of them, however, could be

evaluated or tested against the facts

that I am going to discuss.

One of the principal justifications

for keeping the adult and juvenile

criminal justice processes separate

certainly has to do with our notions

of criminal intent and diminished

responsibility, in which we believe

that there is a fundamental

difference in terms of the ability to

be responsible for one’s actions that

distinguishes children from adults

— or even children from adolescents

from adults.

Another justification is that we

have believed from time to time (it

is questionable whether we do now)

that there is some differential

treatment amenability, or

rehabilitative potential, between

young people and older people.

There have been several different

versions of that idea. Some believe,

or have believed at one point or

another, that young people are still

somehow more malleable than older

people, that there is still a possibility

to change the direction or scope of

their behavior or their life progress,

and the earlier the better.

Oftentimes, we refer to that

malleability in terms of the

“sequencing of acts” or the “life

course progression,” such that it

seems to be desirable or perhaps

efficient to intervene before there is

some escalation in the conduct of

the young person to the point where

it becomes irreversible or more

difficult to reverse. So there have

been notions about escalation or

progress through a career. A

subcategory of treatment

amenability has to do with the

question of the potentially adverse

consequences of the justice system

itself on the subsequent life course

of people as they move through the

system, such that we are quite

concerned about not unduly

jeopardizing the subsequent life

chances of individuals as a

consequence of their interaction

with the juvenile justice system.

We have also believed from time

to time that it is important to keep

juveniles separate — physically

separate — from adult offenders.

This stems from the notion that if

juveniles do become too closely

associated with adults, particularly

in correctional associations, that that

will have an adverse effect on the

juveniles, such that they will

become more hardened criminals or

more likely to offend subsequent to

that association; therefore, we

should do what we can to minimize

that and keep kids away from adult

offenders.

Justification has also been

offered for the separate systems that

simply relies on a notion that better

conditions should be associated with

the treatment of juveniles than the

treatment of adults, particularly

since we are putting money,

resources, time and effort into the

conditions of the juvenile justice

process and the conditions of

confinement. That justification is

related to, but I think somewhat

distinct from, yet another

justification, which simply offers the
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 15

point of view that we should be

more lenient toward children than

we are toward adults. There are a lot

of rationales that we might use to

come to that attitude, but it surely

characterizes much of our thinking

historically about juvenile justice

and juvenile corrections. Youth,

perhaps, allows us to excuse more,

to understand more, or to be more

sympathetic to the idea of offending,

and that should be translated then

into an attitude that we have toward

juvenile offenders of leniency; it is

an attitude that we would not

necessarily extend to the adult

offender or the adult system.

Finally, there is this conflation of

problem behaviors or events that

happen to children that we have

used as a justification for the

juvenile justice system. It is more of

a social welfare attitude, rather than

a criminal justice attitude, but it has

to do with society’s responsibility

for taking care of children who are

in some jeopardy, who are in some

peril, because they come from an

abusive home or they come from no

home in the ordinary meaning of

that term. Because their conduct is

suggestive of a social welfare

intervention, many so-called “status

offenses” have historically fallen

into this category.

All of these and more, as I am

sure you have other justifications

that have arisen over time, are

clearly questioned today. There is no

doubt about it, they have been

questioned since their invention, but

never, perhaps, so much as today,

when we are concerned with the

very high crime rate and the

problem of youth violence such that

enormous changes are being

suggested for nearly every facet of

the juvenile justice system.

Changes are being suggested in

the age of adult and juvenile

jurisdictions; enhancement of

transfer provisions; mandatory

transfer positions; shifting the

discretion about who makes the

transfer decision from the juvenile

court to the prosecutor; and the

lengthening of sentences. The very

notion of the juvenile court, per se,

and all of its manifestations are

being questioned, such as an

emphasis on the nature of behavior,

rather than specific offenses; a

concern about delinquency and

conduct, rather than specific acts; an

attitude and frame of mind that

characterizes much of what goes on

in juvenile court in terms of its lack

of an adversarial character; and the

kinds of information — and the very

language — used in the juvenile

court system. Clearly, all of those

issues are under a great deal of stress

today.

Facts about crime and

delinquency

The justifications for the

separation of the adult and juvenile

justice processes are very complex

and invite different kinds of

considerations. Faced with

complexity of this order of

magnitude, I am always eager to

ignore the complexity — by pulling

the academic stunt of ignoring all of

this variability, all of this

complexity — and seek some

simplifying principles.

I would like to take a look at all

of these issues from the point of

view of criminology, from the point

of view of the causes of crime and

delinquency, and seek some

clarification. I would like to remind

you of three facts about crime and

delinquency that I think have

enormous significance for all of

these issues about the separation and

treatment of juveniles from adults,

and that even go directly to the

question of what kinds of

information we can collect on

people that is useful for the juvenile

criminal justice system.1 I cannot

 

1 Before launching into these three

facts, I would add as a footnote that

much of the separation in our treatment

of juveniles from adults does rest on one

very powerful set of assumptions about

spend a lot of time convincing you

that these are facts, so I will

stipulate it. Just agree with me,

tentatively if you like, that these are

facts, and then wander with me

through the implications that these

facts have for the historical

foundations of the distinction

between the juvenile and adult

systems of justice.

The three facts that I would like

to remind you of are: First, the age

effect on crime, the relationship

between age and crime. Second,

what criminologists are increasingly

referring to as the “versatility

effect.” And, third, what is

increasingly referred to as the

“stability effect.” Age, versatility

and stability.

— Age effect on crime

The first fact is the relationship

between age and crime. It is in some

ways a controversial topic, but the

basic outlines of the fact about age

and crime are really not in serious

dispute.

The relationship between age and

crime is well characterized by the

graph in Figure 1, which is the rate

of arrests for robbery standardized to

age. This general distribution fits the

distribution for nearly all forms of

crime and delinquency. It has

several features that are of enormous

 

human conduct: Something about crime

and delinquency changes with age. It

seems to me an obvious underlying

assumption; there is something about the

meaning of crime or delinquency to the

offender that changes with age, and we

should therefore think about it

differently as a function of age.

Something about its purposefulness,

something about the gain or the loss to

be achieved to the individual, or

something about the consequences to

others, changes with age. One or the

other, or both of those, seems to me to

be fundamentally involved in much of

these decisions. But it seems to me that

those are seriously doubtful

assumptions; there may be nothing about

crime that meaningfully changes with

age.
Page 16 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

significance to discussions such as

those we are having here. It is easy

to characterize, and it is nearly

impossible to explain. It is nearly

invariant, it is a ubiquitous

relationship.

The offending rate for crime and

delinquency rises suddenly, very

dramatically, in the preadolescent

years. It peaks in late adolescence or

early adulthood, around 17 or 18, for

most forms of crime, and then, just

as suddenly, not quite as

dramatically, it begins to decline. It

declines rapidly, and it declines

consistently, monotonically

throughout life. The rate of

offending declines to about half its

peak value by about age 22 or 25,

and it then continues to decline

throughout life. I like to use robbery

as an example to show the

underlying form of the age/crime

relationship because it is a

prototypical street crime: it is one

we are all concerned about, and it

has elements of potential violence

and theft. I think it fairly well

characterizes the age/crime

relationship.

There are many things that are

instructive about the relationship

between age and crime, but foremost

among them is its stubbornness to

vary. That is to say, this basic

relationship characterizes many

forms of crime and many forms of

delinquency, and criminologists and

researchers have looked long and

hard for variability in this

underlying relationship. In my

opinion, they have been quite

frustrated in finding it.

Age and crime is a ubiquitous

relationship; it has great

implications for many of the

questions that confront us. It

suggests that for all offenders, for all

individuals, the basic underlying

relationship will be similar; that

individuals will vary, in terms of the

level of this basic underlying

relationship, but it will have its

effect no matter what we do. The

fact is, the teenage years will be the

years of maximum offending for

everyone, and then the crime rate

will decline as a person ages. It will

decline inevitably and dramatically

despite whatever we do to, for or

with individuals.

That is a lot to swallow, but let

me ask you to stipulate that this

relationship between age and crime

does characterize all people; it

characterizes all forms of offending

that we are most concerned about;

and it will happen virtually no

matter what we do.

— Versatility effect

The second fact that I want to

impress upon you has to do with

what we now refer to as the

“versatility effect,” which is the

opposite of the notion of

specialization. There is, in the

records of juveniles and adults,

whether they be official or selfreport, and no matter how we collect

or tabulate our information,

enormous variability in terms of the

kinds of offending in the offending

population. Once again, we have

looked hard and long for evidence of

specialization; that is, specific forms

of offending that are

overwhelmingly preferred by

specific individual offenders. We

can discover some specialization in

the records of offenders, I would not

dispute that. But it is, I would argue,

quite at the margin. What really

characterizes crime and delinquency

is versatility, not specialization. It is

wrong, therefore, to think of

offenders as solely burglars, drug

abusers, robbers, rapists, auto

thieves or the like. It is more correct

to think of higher or lower rates of

offending that are characterized by

offending in a wide variety of acts,

rather than in a limited scope.

Specialization can be discovered

in the records of offenders.

However, it tends to be opportunitydriven; that is, not driven as much

by the individual proclivities of the

people involved but rather by the

opportunities to offend. An

individual who lives in a large

housing unit has the opportunity to

be a burglar that individuals who

live in single-family dwellings do

not have. Individuals who have

access to cars have a greater

opportunity to be auto thieves.

Individuals who have great

proximity to drugs, and those who

are selling them, have a greater

opportunity to be drug offenders.

But holding apart those

opportunistic notions, what

characterizes the records, again

whether they be self-reported or

official, is versatility.

The versatility of which I speak

is not limited or constrained by

violations of juvenile or criminal

law. The versatility that is

everywhere in evidence in youth or

adult records goes well beyond

violations of the law, and

encompasses most of what we think

of as problem behaviors. So the

versatility effect encompasses

school misconduct, for example,

such as truancy, disobedience and

disorderly conduct, and all drug and

alcohol use, including both licit and

illicit drugs, or those which are

illegal at some ages and not others,

such as tobacco. Eight-year-olds

who use tobacco are part of the

versatility effect. The versatility

effect also includes things such as

accidents, self-injury and all forms

of injury to others.

A good example of these patterns

is provided by the classic study by

Sheldon and Eleanor Gluck in which

they looked at delinquents and

nondelinquents in a sample as they

aged. One of the things they took

measures of was whether or not the

young people involved in their

sample had been involved in

accidents and, for example, whether

they had been hit by a moving

vehicle. They found that the rates

are two to three times higher among

the delinquents than the

nondelinquents.

This is just an example of the

scope of conduct or behavior that I
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 17

am including in the versatility effect.

As mentioned, it includes school

behaviors, all drug and alcohol use,

and injury to self and others. It is

very broadly construed: measures of

visits to the emergency room of a

hospital are included, as well as

shoplifting. As a matter of fact, for

my money, a visit to a hospital

emergency room is as good a

predictor of delinquency as is an

incidence of shoplifting.

Another example is provided by

data recently published by Marianne

Junger. She looked at all of the

studies in Europe and the United

States that included measures of

accidents and delinquency. She

looked at the correlates of the two

and she discovered that, empirically,

accidents could not be distinguished

from delinquency. That is to say, in

terms of its antecedents or

correlates, they are virtually the

same. The predictors that you would

develop in any kind of predictive

study of delinquency would do as

well to predict accidents, given a

base rate adjustment. So with

predictors such as the mother’s

education or age, marital tensions,

socialization, supervision or selfworth, the correlates of accidents

and the correlates of delinquency are

the same.

Because there is such versatility

in criminal behavior, there is in the

records of juveniles and adults very

little evidence of direction in any

sense of progression or nature. For

example, criminal activity does not

seem to escalate in terms of

seriousness or become more

consistently directed toward

particular offenses over time. It

tends to be versatile throughout the

record. Those are very important

empirical findings. Again, if we roll

up our sleeves, and we crank up the

computers and we have a

sufficiently large number of cases,

we can discover statistically

significant evidence of

specialization. But for my money,

we have not discovered much

substantively interesting evidence of

specialization, or of escalation, or of

increasing or decreasing seriousness,

or of patterning in any form.

Thus, the age effect coupled with

the versatility effect help call into

question, in my opinion, some of the

assumptions we have made about

the partitioning of juveniles from

adult offenders that are based on

notions of developmental sequence,

or some projection or trajectory that

is a function of age. Again, the

versatility effect characterizes all

offending, not just juvenile

offending.

The versatility effect has been

useful to me in helping to

understand something about the

nature of crime; that is, why is it that

these things go together? Why is it

that school difficulties, automobile

accidents, shoplifting, assaultive

behavior and smoking cigarettes at

age eight tend to go together? Why

do we find such a clustering of

problem behaviors? Why do they

seem to hang together, in sample

after sample, in study after study?

The conclusion that Travis

Hirschi and I have come to is this:

these behaviors mean very much the

same thing to the individual

involved with them. They do not

mean a whole lot, that is one

principle. They are not highly

motivated behavior. They do not

suggest forces beyond which

individuals have no control. What

they do seem to suggest, however, is

a lack of foresight, a lack of

attention to the long-term. While it

is easier to get somewhere if you

drive more rapidly than if you drive

more slowly, you are more likely to

get in an accident. It is easier to get

what you want by putting it in your

pocket and walking out of the store.

It is easier to end an argument by

hitting someone with a blunt object

than not. All of these behaviors

suggest, to me at least, that they are

focused on short-term solutions and

immediate gratification. And they

all share the same phenomena of

having negative or potentially

negative long-term consequences. In

other words, they characterize

individuals who have less self

control than others. In other parts of

our work, we describe where self

control comes from: it is the impact

of parenting on the first 10 years of

life.

— Stability effect

The third fact of crime and

delinquency is the stability effect.

Stability is readily described, easy to

confuse. The stability finding

suggests that, once identified,

individual differences in rates of

offending or problem behaviors

remain relatively stable over long

periods of time. Let me state it

again: individual differences in

problem behaviors remain relatively

stable over long periods of time.

That is to say, individuals who can

be identified at age 10 or 12 or 15 as

being relatively high in problem

behaviors (such as frequent

offenders or those involved in

accidents or school difficulties) tend

to be relatively high in problem

behaviors at a later age as well.

The stability effect does not say

that “once a crook, always a crook”

or “once a delinquent, always a

delinquent.” As a matter of fact, we

know that is not true. We know that

is not true by the first fact we talked

about, the age effect, which suggests

that for everyone, whether they are a

relatively frequent or infrequent

offender, the rate of offending

declines with age, and declines

dramatically with age over time. But

what the stability effect does say is

that there are identifiable, relatively

reliable, individual differences in the

rate of offending that, once

identified, help characterize

individual careers over time.

 My colleagues John Laub and

Robert Sampson recently completed

a reanalysis of the Glucks’ work.

They found a strong relationship

between delinquency and antisocial

behavior at a relatively young age,
Page 18 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

and its correlation to later

involvement in the criminal justice

system. They partitioned their

sample into those who had an

official record of delinquency before

age 14, and those who had no

record; they then followed up on

these individuals to about age 35.

They took a look at the relationship

between those early characteristics,

those early definitions, and

subsequent ones. They found that

official delinquency is very strongly

related to later outcomes. It is

related to the percent of the sample

who were first arrested at age 17 to

25, and to the percent first arrested

between 25 and 32. Official

delinquency is also related to those

who used drugs or alcohol

excessively later in life.

Interestingly enough, these

associations do not depend on the

method of measurement for early

antisocial or problem behavior. The

Glucks took another measure (which

Laub and Sampson collapsed into a

single measure) in which they asked

teachers to identify the individuals

who were most problematic. They

asked the students themselves to

identify those who were most

problematic, and they asked parents

to do the same. They then classified

people in the sample by those

ratings, and those ratings themselves

are reasonably predictive of later

adult misconduct. Another

measurement made, which was

extremely crude, psychometrically

inappropriate and indefensible, was

to ask each mother whether her child

had a lot of tantrums when the child

was young. What kind of question is

that? It is a very poor question

psychometrically. Yet that measure,

as crude as it is, is a reasonably

strong predictor of all kinds of

difficulty throughout life.

If the stability effect were

graphically depicted, the distribution

could show an underlying offending

rate for two different groups of

people: a high-rate group and a lowrate group. The stability effect

would say that two things are going

to happen. First, there will be

differences over a long period of

time between individuals who have

a fairly high level of problem

behaviors at one point versus those

who have a low level. Those

differences will characterize these

samples throughout life. Second,

both groups will decline in their

offending as a function of age, pretty

much despite whatever it is that we

do. If you drew a hypothetical line

through that graph, you would find

an underlying offense rate. You

could say this line might be

something like the probability of

coming to the attention of the

authorities is .8 under the

assumption that frequency alone

drives that probability (which I think

is not an unreasonable assumption).

Then you could say that both groups

will come to the attention of the

authorities when they are

adolescents, but some will come to

the attention of the authorities at a

much greater degree. The criminal

activity of both groups, however,

will decline as a function of age.

Evaluating the justifications

Let me apply these three facts to

the questions that confront us now,

and that is the justifications for a

separate juvenile justice system. I

think these justifications are loaded

with implications; they are very

difficult to wrestle with, and I

certainly have not been able to

wrestle with them to a sufficient

degree to come to any firm

conclusions.

Together, the facts tell us that we

should not forget that, over time,

post-adolescence offending will

decrease for all offenders. They tell

us that early measures will predict

later measures. That is to say, early

measures of self-control will predict

later measures. Early school

difficulties and early drug and

alcohol use will predict later crime,

not because they are causally

related, but because they are both

manifestations of an underlying

characteristic. Unruliness will

predict crime. Excessive television

watching will predict crime, not

because of the content of the

television, but simply as a measure

of lack of supervision or a lack of

involvement in other activities.

Crime will predict employment

instability. Delinquency will predict

marital instability and difficulties in

having and fashioning interpersonal

relations of all sorts and vice versa.

In my view, the genesis of these

problem behaviors does take place

in the first 10 years of life. These

differences are profound and are

developed by what goes on, or what

does not go on, in the supervision

and the socialization of very young

children. The facts tell us that if we

are interested in the prevention of

crime, that the juvenile and criminal

justice systems are at best at the

margin in that interest, and what we

should be fundamentally interested

in is the raising of children and the

inadequate circumstances that an

increasingly large number of

children find themselves in.

In terms of the justifications for

the separation of the two systems,

let me suggest that, in my opinion,

the two that survive have to do with

leniency and with separation of

children from adults. The idea that

crime means something differently

based on one’s age is problematic to

me. Crime means the same to older

offenders as it does younger

offenders: it means that they are not

paying attention to the long-term

consequences of their behavior, that

they have relatively low self control.

Neither one of them is acting

particularly responsibly, if that is

what we mean by adult conduct.

Responsibility means to take

ownership of your actions, think

about its consequences to others and

to yourself. The lack of

responsibility characterizes adult

offenders as well as juvenile

offenders. Our tendency today is to

treat juveniles as adults. My guess
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 19

is, from the research, it is very much

the other way around. We ought to

think much more of adult offenders

in the same way that we think of

juvenile offenders: pay less attention

to specific acts and more to an

underlying delinquency kind of

status.

Let me just make one last point: I

think it is very difficult to establish a

prejudicial effect on offending,

either as a function of the juvenile

justice system or the criminal justice

system, over and above what the

stability effect indicates to us. That

is to say, I do not believe I need to

make adjustments in that age

distribution of crime, dependent on

involvement in the juvenile and

criminal justice systems. I know that

is a provocative thing to say and it is

full of implications, but I do not

believe I need to make that

adjustment for the effect of juvenile

and criminal justice on an individual

crime rate. That means a lot of

things, about the rehabilitative

potential, the effect of

incapacitation, the effect of

deterrence and the like, most of

which I believe are quite at the

margin, as you can tell by now. But

what it does also suggest is that it is

difficult to establish a prejudicial

effect for our use of records on

individuals.

Based on the literature I have

read, it is apparent to me that of

overwhelming importance in the

juvenile record issue is not whether

an individual has engaged in an

antisocial misconduct that we have

recorded in the juvenile justice

system but, rather, the frequency and

the recency of such behavior. The

frequency and the recency, however,

are as useful in the adult as in the

juvenile arena.

It seems to me that one policy we

might want to contemplate is

something of a tradeoff for a more

liberal use of juvenile records to

make dispositions and sentencing

decisions, with an enhanced policy

about the expungement of records. If

records have a negative connotation

for juveniles, they do so for adults as

well. If there has been a period in

which there is no involvement, or no

recorded involvement, of that

individual in the justice system, we

can be greatly assured that the

individual is on the lower curve of

offending. After some relatively

brief period of time, I might suggest

3 years, where there is no evidence

of conduct in the history of either

the juvenile or the adult, their record

should be expunged.
Electronic Editor's Note: This page is not available electronically.
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 21

The importance of improving and sharing information

to furthering national juvenile justice reform

SHAY BILCHIK

Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

U.S. Department of Justice

I am thankful to the Bureau of

Justice Statistics and SEARCH for

providing me with an opportunity to

be with you today. I will focus my

comments on the critical

relationship between juvenile justice

system recordkeeping and

information sharing and the attempts

of the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to

reach some of our most urgent

national juvenile justice goals.

Information drives reform

I am convinced that information

sharing in the juvenile justice

system — and I define that term

broadly to include the formal system

and related systems as well — is one

of the most essential elements for

furthering national juvenile justice

reform. All of us know the statistics

about the increases we are

experiencing in violent juvenile

delinquency — and many of us

know first-hand the weaknesses we

find in all too many of our juvenile

justice systems. I am certain that

improving those systems and

reducing the level of violence will

become a reality only if we at the

same time create and improve our

information systems.

My first two most significant

contacts with OJJDP before joining

the Justice Department were with

the Restitution project — RESTTA

— and with the Statistics and

Systems Development (SSD)

project, working with Howard

Snyder, Melissa Sickmund and

Barbara Allen-Hagen. The

experience with the SSD project

taught me a lot — about the

frustrations of trying to develop that

perfect information system and the

difficulty of sharing and finding

information within our juvenile

justice systems.

My first-hand experience as a

prosecutor for 16 years in Miami,

Florida, also taught me a lot about

the imperfections of our

recordkeeping and information

sharing systems. I saw juveniles

traveling from county to county,

committing “first offense” after

“first offense.” I saw “high tech”

identification systems in which

intake workers asked other intake

workers if they recognized a

defendant who was adept at

changing names and dates of birth.

We were not concerned about

national information — we simply

longed for the basic information

needed to run a credible system.

We have come a long way, both

in Miami and as a nation, toward

improving those systems, but we

still have a lot of work to do: work

in recording and maintaining the

information we need, in developing

systems that provide easy access to

the information, and in developing

the protocols we agree to follow

across disciplines to use the

information appropriately in

carrying out our responsibilities.

So how does this relate to our

national juvenile justice goals?

Recently our attention was drawn to

a horrible situation in California

involving a 6-year-old who is

alleged to have attacked and badly

beaten a 1-month-old baby. Once

again, the media focused on the

crisis of increasing juvenile

violence. Now, the truth of the

matter is that while it is much too

soon to be analyzing the facts of this

case, tragic incidents such as this

one — and the recent case in

Chicago involving a 10- and 11-

year-old who were charged with

dropping a 5-year-old from a 14thfloor balcony — may indeed reflect

the broader problems that we face

related to rising juvenile crime. And

those problems are our failure as a

society to address the needs of our

most troubled youth and to form a

protective net around all of our

children, while at the same time

providing for the public safety.

Addressing these problems will

require the development in our

communities of a continuum of

interventions, from the earliest of

prevention activities to a variety of

juvenile justice system

interventions, including the possible

transfer of the most serious, violent

and chronic offenders for criminal

prosecution.

The common denominator in this

work is information.

Objectives for improving

juvenile justice services

The recently released National

Juvenile Justice Action Plan, a work

product of the Coordinating Council

on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, defines the task that we

face and recognizes that we will be

successful only if we use a

comprehensive approach, one that is

grounded in research and that
Page 22 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

reflects the entire continuum of

activity to which I just referred.1 In

this regard, it uses the core

principles of prevention,

intervention and treatment as laid

out in OJJDP’s Comprehensive

Strategy for Serious, Violent, and

Chronic Juvenile Offenders and its

Guide for Implementation.

2

The Action Plan has eight

objectives that we must work toward

to reduce youth violence and save

the lives of our children. I will

discuss a couple of these objectives

and illustrate how information

sharing is essential to the objectives

of the Action Plan and OJJDP’s

overall goals.

— Intervention, sanctions,

treatment

First, the Action Plan calls for us

to provide immediate intervention

and appropriate sanctions and

treatment for delinquent juveniles.

To do this we must advocate for a

strengthened juvenile justice system,

one that has adequate capacity and

resources to get the job done. We

have to be able to make risk and

needs assessments of all children

coming into the system in order to

recommend appropriate, case-

 

1 U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

Combating Violence and Delinquency:

The National Juvenile Justice Action

Plan, Summary , by the Coordinating

Council on Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (Washington,

D.C.: Government Printing Office,

March 1996).

2 U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

Comprehensive Strategy for Serious,

Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders,

Program Summary, by J.J. Wilson and

J.C. Howell (Washington, D.C.:

Government Printing Office, 1993), and

Guide for Implementing the

Comprehensive Strategy for Serious,

Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders,

J.C. Howell, ed. (Washington, D.C.:

Government Printing Office, May 1995).

specific actions and placements that

both provide for the public safety

and meet the children’s

rehabilitative needs. We must

develop a range of interventions and

sanctions appropriate for the child,

and we must provide adequate

resources for staff to do their jobs.

Children like those I mentioned

earlier generally do not come to the

system’s or the community’s

attention for the first time when a

tragic incident occurs. There are

usually red flags: school failure,

truancy, aggressive behavior, a

record of minor delinquency, or

family and parenting problems that

may include domestic violence, and

abuse or neglect. These are warning

signs that we must have the capacity

to address adequately, but in all too

many jurisdictions we do not have

that capacity and we do not have the

information systems in place to

retrieve the information we need.

We do not have the ability to cut

across systems so that the schools,

courts, law enforcement, and social

service and mental health agencies

can appropriately share what they

know about the children and

families in their respective systems.

That must change.

— Collaboration

The Action Plan recognizes that

we must work collaboratively on the

issues of intervention, sanctions and

treatment. OJJDP plays an important

role in assisting State and local

jurisdictions in coming to grips with

the need to include a juvenile

record-sharing scheme in the

juvenile justice system.

OJJDP’s perspective on this issue

is fairly simple: each State and local

jurisdiction should be using an

approach that reflects what I think

many practitioners have realized for

years: that we must work

collaboratively, both from the top

down and the bottom up. We must

move forward together — judges,

prosecutors, defense attorneys,

probation and parole officers;

police; youth service workers and

other juvenile justice practitioners;

legislators and policymakers;

Federal, State and county leaders;

and school officials, mental health

providers and community members,

including youth — with our

collective knowledge about what

works and what does not, in

attempting to turn the tide of youth

violence. And in order to do this

work most effectively, we must be

able to share information with each

other.

When I think about all of these

players working together, it reminds

me of a chapter of Robert

Fulghum’s book, All I Really Need

To Know I Learned in Kindergarten,

in which he writes about his

childhood recollections of playing

hide-and-seek. He recalls the kid in

the neighborhood who hid so well

no one could find him.

Fulghum writes about how, after

a while, the other kids would stop

yelling “olly-olly-outs-in-free” and

would go off and leave the kid all by

himself. The kid hiding too well

would get mad and the other kids

would get mad back. He would

argue that they should have kept

looking for him, and they would say

that he was not playing the game the

way it should be played and that he

should have come out from his

hiding place.

The operation of the criminal,

juvenile justice and human services

systems is much the same. The

multiple layers of government and

various disciplines — all involved

with our children and their families

— have been hiding from each other

for all too many years without being

found, each side pointing fingers

and blaming the other: a kind of

“hide-and-seek,” grown-up style.

What Fulghum suggests next in

this story parallels where we need to

be going in our work on juvenile

crime and violence. He describes the

game of Sardines, in which the

person who is “It” hides and

everybody goes looking for him.
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 23

When you find the person who is

“It,” you get in and hide with him.

Pretty soon everybody is hiding, but

instead of apart from one another,

the players are together and on

common ground. That is how I view

what we need to do in relation to all

of these systems: come together to

work as a team in our efforts,

perhaps as a “virtual team,” brought

together by the linking of

information systems. Right now, the

juvenile justice system and juvenile

violence in this game of Sardines is

“It.”

— Adequately serving each child

The Action Plan recognizes that

our juvenile delinquency system

operates under the constraints of

limited resources and is unable to

provide full attention to every case,

every child, every family. It argues

that a delinquency system that

works will be able to serve a child’s

and a community’s needs adequately

through an entire range of

interventions. However, with the

increases in caseloads and demands

on the system caused by the

increases in delinquency reports, we

have been putting a disproportionate

share of our resources into the back

end of the system. As a result, too

many jurisdictions are doing paper

intake on their cases. They are not

meeting the juveniles or their

families before making casehandling recommendations, and they

are not focused on communicating

with other systems to find out more

about the child who has surfaced in

the juvenile justice system, perhaps

for the first time, but who may have

surfaced in another system at an

earlier point in time. As a result, we

may lose the best chance we might

have for success in turning back a

developing delinquent career.

We must put a system in place

that will have the capacity to use an

information system that serves as an

interdisciplinary database so that we

can make informed decisions about

each child. We need, in short, a

system that provides its workers

both the time and the information

needed to successfully determine an

appropriate course of action for each

individual case at the point of entry

into the system.

We must build a system that

provides complete and adequate

disposition recommendations to the

court, a product of reasonable

caseloads for probation and other

youth service workers who bear the

responsibility for fully exploring the

child’s background. This includes

the history of the family, the child’s

health, mental health, school

records, prior arrests and treatment

efforts, as well as current

opportunities for effective

intervention and appropriate

aftercare.

This strengthened juvenile justice

system will also have programs and

interventions that can be matched

with the assessment of each child’s

needs so that we can truly help our

troubled and delinquent youth.

Warehoused, or kept in detention or

at home waiting for placement, these

children remain the product of the

broken pieces in their lives.

The system that works is not slotdriven. It is based instead on need

and risk assessments that benefit the

child and provide for the safety of

the community, while at the same

time not unnecessarily overcrowding

facilities and straining the capacity

of the system. This system has

sufficient detention and residential

facilities, as well as alternatives to

detention and secure care, such as

day treatment and electronic

monitoring, and a full range of

aftercare programming.

But perhaps foremost, it is a

system that will act with full

knowledge of each individual case

and child — and with full

information about local and national

trends that tell us what is happening,

what is really happening in juvenile

justice in this country. I think

OJJDP made tremendous strides in

this area with the release of our

national report on juvenile offenders

and victims in 1995 and an update to

that report this year.3 I assure you

that OJJDP will continue to be there

as a partner in these efforts, through

the sharing of information and the

provision of technical assistance and

training, ongoing research and

evaluation efforts, and formula and

discretionary funding.

— Dealing with chronic offenders

The second objective of the

Action Plan that I will mention

today addresses the need to

prosecute certain serious, violent

and chronic juvenile offenders in

criminal court. We must recognize,

however, that with the push toward

prosecuting more and more youth in

the criminal courts through lowering

the age of criminal responsibility

and automatic transfer, we are losing

our ability to make case-by-case

transfer decisions. To preserve that

ability, we must instead advocate for

a system of transfer that retains our

sense of individualized justice.

The Action Plan calls for criteria

and guidelines to be used for both

judicial and prosecutorial transfer

decisions and points to the use of

blended sentencing and extended

jurisdiction as examples of creative

ways of dealing with these serious,

violent and chronic offenders. It also

calls for further examination of the

impact of transfer provisions to

ensure that we are transferring the

right juveniles and that they are

indeed being incapacitated in the

criminal justice system.

 

3 U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A

National Report, by H. Snyder and M.

Sickmund (Washington, D.C.:

Government Printing Office, 1995); and

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1996

Update on Violence , by H. Snyder, M.

Sickmund and E. Poe-Yamagata

(Washington, D.C.: Government

Printing Office, February 1996).
Page 24 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

Every part of this objective

requires good recordkeeping and

information sharing, both to make

good initial case and sentencing

decisions and to learn, on a national

level, about the most effective

practices we can implement to

reduce violent juvenile crime both in

the short- and long-term.

Combining efforts, leadership

OJJDP is dedicated to

strengthening this country’s juvenile

justice systems and its delinquency

prevention efforts. But without an

effective information sharing

scheme, the various agencies in a

jurisdiction each have only a small

piece of the juvenile justice puzzle.

Practitioners and policymakers are

realizing this more and more often

and, as a result, the very concept of

“juvenile justice community” has

begun to evolve to include agencies

outside the court or law enforcement

communities, to more fully reflect

the multiple systems that interact

with them and to form a more

complete picture of the needs of a

particular juvenile and family.

I would be remiss if I did not also

mention a project OJJDP has been

working on over the past year with

the U.S. Department of Education.

We are developing an instruction

guidebook and a fact sheet around

the Family Educational Rights and

Privacy Act (FERPA) to clarify the

limitations on information sharing

practices between schools and the

juvenile justice system and other

“need-to-know” organizations.

When the brother of the 5-yearold saw him being dropped from the

balcony in Chicago, he raced down

14 flights of stairs. He explained

later that he did so in order to try to

catch his brother. I got tears in my

eyes when I first read those words,

and it pains me to this very moment

to think that in so many

communities in this country we are

not doing much more than racing

hopelessly down a flight of stairs,

too late to save a child, in our work

on behalf of our children.

I am convinced that together, by

working through a variety of issues,

including those we will address at

this conference, we can have a real

impact on the lives of our most

troubled children and the problems

of youth delinquency and violence.

So let us work together in taking on

this task. Only through our

combined efforts and leadership —

and ultimately, this all comes down

to leadership — will we be

successful or, in Fulghum’s words,

by playing Sardines, not hide-andseek. So I say to all of you — “ollyolly-outs-in-free” — let us come

together, on common ground and

fully informed, to address these

problems.

Thank you.
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 25

Juvenile recordhandling policies and practices

of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

DEMERY R. BISHOP

Section Chief

Criminal Justice Information Services Division

Federal Bureau of Investigation

From the FBI’s Criminal Justice

Information Services (CJIS)

Division’s perspective, juvenile

justice is an expanding arena.

As I was preparing my remarks, I

read an article in the Washington

Post that I wanted to share with you

this morning. It referenced a local

student who was gunned down near

his home this past weekend. He was

characterized in the article as a

talented football fullback from one

of the local high schools, a 17-yearold sophomore who was simply

walking down his neighborhood

street, with his brother and his

cousin, when an older model

burgundy car occupied by three

teenagers passed them, made a Uturn, pulled up beside them and

stopped. An individual in that

vehicle, another youth, got out from

the front passenger seat, according

to the article, and said simply to the

victim, “What’s up?” A

contemporary greeting, as you well

know. The victim, in turn, replied,

“What’s up?” At that point, the

assailant, to quote the article, “...

pulled the gun from the back of his

pants. The victim and his two

companions ran, but the suspect

fired at least one shot, hitting the

victim in the back and killing him

instantly. The two other youths

escaped unharmed.”

The shooting occurred not at 4

a.m., or at a time that you might

think a crime of this nature would

occur, but at 4:45 in the afternoon,

on a weekend. The question here,

which has stumped investigators, is

the fact that no one knew the

assailants. There was no known

reason whatsoever for the crime, no

motive at all! The victim was

described as an individual who was

an outgoing student-athlete with an

“infectious smile and a promising

future.”

That is what I am sure confronts

each and every one of you daily

regardless of what function you

perform in the juvenile justice

process: the question of why? What

caused the untimely death of this

bright and promising individual?

This question is one which you are

here to discuss and learn more about

during this conference.

Juvenile fingerprint card

policy

My role today is to give you an

overview of the CJIS Division’s

policies and procedures in terms of

juvenile criminal history records. It

is really quite simple. In 1993, the

FBI implemented an updated policy

after the U.S. Department of Justice

conducted research and received

comments as to what the FBI should

be doing with juvenile fingerprints.

Prior to March 1, 1993, we did not

accept juvenile fingerprint cards

unless the juvenile offenders were

specifically denoted as being

“Adjudicated As Adults.”

Subsequent to March 1, 1993, those

regulations were changed in the

Code of Federal Regulations,1 and

now the FBI will accept, maintain,

and disseminate arrest fingerprint

 

1 Title 28, Code of Federal

Regulations, § 20.32.

cards for juveniles who have been

tried or otherwise adjudicated in

juvenile proceedings.

Once a juvenile fingerprint card

is submitted to the FBI, it is handled

like any other criminal record

submission. We accept the card on

an arrest as well as an adjudication.

It boils down to the fact that once a

fingerprint card is submitted by a

State and is in our domain, it

becomes ours. If an inquiry is

received as to whether a particular

juvenile has a record, we will advise

the requester that a record exists. We

do not place any caveats on those

State submissions. They, the State

submissions, have created a record

in our index and that information is

provided to qualified requesters. We

will disseminate the juvenile records

whenever a legitimate request is

received, whether it is a criminal

justice check or an application for

employment, license or bond, etc.,

that comes to our attention. I point

out that each State has the

responsibility to determine whether

its own laws permit submission of

juvenile prints to the FBI; if we

receive juvenile arrest cards from a

State, we will disseminate these

records to all legitimate inquiries.

That is our current fingerprint/

dissemination policy.
Page 26 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

Missing juveniles file

Our other involvement with

juvenile records is the Missing

Persons File within the National

Crime Information Center (NCIC).

This morning, I had the opportunity

to attend an awards banquet

sponsored by the National Center

for Missing and Exploited Children

to recognize law enforcement

officers for their outstanding and

stellar work in the missing children

arena. There are several categories

within the system of records in

NCIC that allow juvenile records to

be entered into NCIC. One category,

“Missing Juveniles,” allows for the

entry of a juvenile record where the

individual(s) is not endangered or

missing involuntarily. For instance,

a runaway would, of course, be

entered into that category, and that

information is available to all law

enforcement and criminal justice

agencies nationwide.

The awards ceremony was just a

small indicia of how the NCIC

system works, and how law

enforcement in general has become

so acutely aware of the problems of

missing children, in conjunction

with juvenile problems and crimes,

nationwide. Providing information

on missing juveniles, along with the

identification process, are two of the

main areas that the FBI and the CJIS

Division are involved with our law

enforcement and criminal justice

partners.

Juvenile crime statistics

The third area that I want to

mention is that we collect and

analyze statistics on juvenile crimes.

We collect information that is

submitted from law enforcement

agencies nationwide through our

Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)

program, which is currently being

broadened and improved through the

National Incident-Based Reporting

System (NIBRS).

Our UCR report in 1994

indicated that there was an increase

of approximately 11 percent over the

previous year in arrests of persons

under 18 years of age.

We are currently working

through the 1995 statistics. Those

numbers are not yet available but, as

you may recall, there was an article

in the Washington Post recently

which referenced juvenile crimes

and the fact that juvenile crime was

continuing to rise, even though the

overall crime index was down. This

is something that you, as criminal

justice practitioners, are intricately

involved with.

We have seen a major increase in

our overall use of the NCIC system

and of the Missing Persons File,

particularly the records for

unemancipated minors, that is, under

the age of 18, who are endangered

or possibly missing involuntarily.

We have seen how those records are

being used and the need for

instantaneous reporting of that type

of information to the system. This

issue is one in which we are

currently working very closely with

the National Center for Missing and

Exploited Children.

New initiatives

The CJIS Advisory Policy Board,

which reviews issues and provides

recommendations to FBI Director

Louis Freeh on criminal justice

information services, at its June

1996 meeting in St. Louis, Missouri,

will consider a proposal to expand

the criteria in the Missing Persons

File to allow the flagging of juvenile

records, where the circumstances

surrounding the “missing incident”

are considered to be an extremely

aggravated or endangered type of

situation.

Additionally, we now have Safe

Streets and Violent Crime Task

Forces which work in conjunction

with other law enforcement agencies

throughout the United States, such

as the Drug Enforcement

Administration, the Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and

local/State law enforcement

agencies. We are seeing more and

more juvenile offenders involved in

drugs and gangs. We just recently

created a gang file within the NCIC

that will be of investigative benefit

to law enforcement nationwide in

identifying individuals who have

participated in gangs or gang

activity.

There are a number of initiatives

we have under way which may not

impact you so much on a day-to-day

basis but will, as Shay was saying,

create a system of information. We

are definitely part of that, and we are

making information available to all

criminal justice and law

enforcement entities nationwide.

That, in a nutshell, is what the CJIS

Division and the FBI is in the

process of doing.

Providing criminal justice

information is a role in which the

CJIS Division plays a vital part. I

think it is a very important role and

one which our Advisory Policy

Board certainly has endorsed. CJIS

and the criminal justice community

both recognize the value of sharing

information concerning missing

persons, specifically missing

children, and of being able to

provide that information to law

enforcement and agencies such as

the National Center for Missing and

Exploited Children, as well as

others. I want to thank you for

allowing me to be here and present

this succinct overview of these CJIS

initiatives and programs.
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 27

National assessment of criminal court use of defendants’

juvenile adjudication records

NEAL MILLER

Principal Associate

Institute for Law and Justice

Increases in youth crime

contribute a disproportionate share

of the national crime problem. One

legislative response to youth crime

is to authorize, and even mandate,

prosecutors and judges to consider

the youth’s juvenile adjudication

record in case decisions. Under a

National Institute of Justice (NIJ)

grant, the Institute for Law and

Justice (ILJ) undertook a national

review and assessment of laws and

practices relating to the use of

defendants’ juvenile adjudication

records in the criminal courts. ILJ’s

study included (1) surveys of

prosecutors, criminal justice record

centers and State sentencing

guideline commissions; (2) review

of State laws; and (3) field work in

two jurisdictions: Wichita, Kansas,

and Montgomery County, Maryland.

State legislation

The ILJ study first looked at the

gamut of laws affecting and

specifying prosecutor and judge use

of the juvenile adjudication record.

A few highlights from that report,

which covers State legislation as of

January 1995, include:

• Fingerprint requirements or

authorizations: 40 States

explicitly authorize, while only 2

States forbid fingerprinting

arrested juveniles.

• Central holding and

dissemination of juvenile records:

27 States authorize, while only 5

States forbid this.

• Prosecutor and judge access to

the juvenile record: all 50 States

authorize judge access, while 24

States explicitly authorize

prosecutor access.

• Sentencing laws dictate

adjudication record use in 24

States, including 14 States with

sentencing guidelines, 2 States

with presumptive sentencing laws

for sentence range, and 7 States

for probation/prison decisions.

California and Louisiana include

the juvenile record in their “three

strikes” laws.

• Limits on juvenile court

jurisdiction and the resultant

juvenile record creation that

include jurisdiction with lower

ages for adult court handling,

waiver laws and concurrent

jurisdiction laws. (ILJ is

presently working on a study of

juvenile waiver that includes an

update on these laws.1)

The full legislative study findings

were published by the NIJ as part of

its Research in Brief series.2 Exhibit

 

1 “Judicial Waiver and its

Alternatives: A Legal Fact Sheet,” report

submitted by ILJ to the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice,

November 1996.

2 U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, National Institute of

Justice, State Laws on Prosecutors’ and

Judges’ Use of Juvenile Records,

Research in Brief Series, by Neal Miller

(Washington, D.C.: Government

Printing Office, November 1995). The

information in the Research in Brief was

developed from a larger project

undertaken by ILJ that examines how

adult criminal courts use defendants’

juvenile records. When completed, the

full report of this research will be

3 from the report details which

criminal court figures are statutorily

authorized to have access to juvenile

adjudication records.3 Exhibit 4

from that report classifies by State

the differing types of State

sentencing laws that mandate

juvenile record consideration.4

— Legislative update

In 1995, a nonsystematic and

incomplete review of new State laws

found new laws enacted in

Connecticut (prosecutor access),

Florida (expanded fingerprinting and

juvenile justice information system

amendments), Hawaii (expanded

fingerprint authority), New

Hampshire (prosecutor access),

Ohio (three strikes law variation),

Oregon (fingerprinting and record

holding), and Texas (juvenile justice

information system). The

forthcoming ILJ report on juvenile

waiver will provide more updated

information.

Practitioner surveys

There is a reality out there

independent of State legislation. For

example, as of 1994-1995, five

States had not implemented central

recordkeeping statutory authority for

 

available from the National Criminal

Justice Reference Service. Neal Miller

and Tom McEwen, “Prosecutor and

Criminal Court Use of Juvenile Court

Records: A National Study,” report

submitted by ILJ to NIJ, August 1996.

3 Exhibit 3 is included in this

presentation as Figure 1.

4 Exhibit 4 is included in this

presentation as Figure 2.
Page 28 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

lack of authorized funding.

Conversely, law enforcement

officials fingerprint arrested

juveniles in several of the States

without explicit statutory authority

for this.

The most glaring discrepancy

between State laws and the laws’

implementation was with prosecutor

access to and use of the juvenile

record. A survey of nearly 100

prosecutors in large jurisdictions

was undertaken. These prosecutors

reported that in 22 States they either

never, rarely or only occasionally

saw juvenile record information.

This includes information from

presentencing reports, suggesting

that they were not looking very

hard. In another 22 States,

prosecutors routinely obtain juvenile

record information. In six other

States, prosecutors in some large

jurisdictions gain this information;

in other jurisdictions in these States,

they do not. Looked at from another

angle, in 19 States where the State

sentencing law mandates juvenile

record consideration, prosecutors in

only 12 of those States used this

information.

Where juvenile record

information is available, it typically

comes from the prosecutor’s own

files. This information source may

be supplemented (or replaced) by

the juvenile court. In only six States

is central record information

routinely available to prosecutors

(and useful if available). The most

common use made by prosecutors of

this information is for sentencing

recommendations (16 States).

Although prosecutors in 17 States

had juvenile record information

available at case intake, prosecutors

in only 8 States routinely use it at

that point. Surprisingly enough,

prosecutors in only eight States

routinely use juvenile record

information to inform their plea

offers. Exhibit 8 from the study final

report details prosecutor survey

reports on their access to and use of

juvenile adjudication records.5

We also found that prosecutors

do not routinely make use of

juvenile record information

available to them from the State

central record repository. Of 26

States with such centers, prosecutors

in only 8 States report using it as a

major source of record information.

Incidence of juvenile records

One might suspect then that the

incidence of juvenile records among

adult offenders is too low to warrant

consideration or concern. A review

of State sentencing commission data

in five States found that the

incidence of juvenile records among

offenders ranged from less than 6

percent to 16 percent. This is a

significantly lower figure than that

reported by other research of cohorts

of youth and inmates that provides

much higher estimates, up to 45

percent in some instances.

ILJ’s field work in Wichita,

Kansas, suggests that this

discrepancy may be simply the

result of poor recordkeeping. There,

we found that 43 percent of

defendants arrested for violent

felonies or drug dealing and under

the age of 26 had juvenile records,

while only 5 percent of older

defendants charged with the same

crimes were found to have such

records.6 The reason for this

difference was that until 1989, when

the present prosecutor was first

elected, the office records of

juvenile cases were purged when the

youth reached age 21.

A similar pattern was found in

Montgomery County, Maryland,

where officials with the State

juvenile justice information system

reported that they purge their

computerized information system

 

5 Exhibit 8 is included in this

presentation as Figure 3.

6 See Exhibit 15 from the study final

report, included in this presentation as

Figure 4.

when the record subject turns 21.

Thus, whatever the real incidence

rate of juvenile adjudications may be

for older defendants, it is not easily

determinable from official records.

(For comparison purposes, see

Exhibit 13 from the final report; it

details the incidence of adult

criminal records among the Wichita

cohort.)7

Impact of use

The 1989 change in office policy

in Wichita was most fortuitous since

sentencing guideline legislation

enacted in 1993 provides that

juvenile adjudication records (for

felony-level offenses) are to be

scored in the same way as adult

records are for the purpose of setting

sentence.

This provision in the new

sentencing guidelines resulted in an

increase in the sentence imposed in

59 percent of the cases where the

defendant had a juvenile record. In

the remainder of the cases the

juvenile record was inconsequential

or the defendant had such an

extensive adult record that the

juvenile record was superfluous. But

where the juvenile record was

relevant, the additional penalty

imposed was as high as 4 years

prison time.8

More recent Kansas legislation

doubled the effect of prior records in

serious violent crime cases so that a

juvenile record may now add as

much as 25 years to the sentence

imposed.

Implications

The two most important study

findings are:

• A significant proportion (at least

33 percent) of all convicted

persons have juvenile

adjudication records, and

 

7 Exhibit 13 is included in this

presentation as Figure 5.

8 See Exhibit 17 from the final

report, included in this presentation as

Figure 6.
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 29

• Consideration of the juvenile

record at sentencing can have a

strong impact on incapacitation

of offenders under a presumptive

sentence system.

Numerous problems exist,

however, in most States, including

record quality deficiencies from

both nonadherence to record

reporting requirements and record

destruction policies. Indeed, the

problem of poor record quality may

be so great that users (for example,

prosecutors) have little incentive to

press for improvement, since the

records are not used anyway

(because of poor quality). A

somewhat circular problem, but real

nonetheless.

Other problems have not even

been noted by policymakers, much

less resolved. For example,

sentencing laws that mandate

juvenile record use assume that there

is some substantive meaning to a

juvenile adjudication for a particular

offense (for example, a violent

felony-level incident). Because the

juvenile justice system is often

treatment-oriented, there is no

necessary relationship between the

adjudicated offense and the

“sentence” imposed by the court. A

plea to a violent felony offense

carries no greater penalty than a plea

to a lesser misdemeanor where the

disposition is to an indefinite term of

treatment. This means that a defense

counsel decision to recommend a

plea to avoid being tried and sent to

a youth center may now be the basis

of a claim of inadequate

representation for failure to consider

how the adjudication record might

be used in the future.

The result is that the juvenile

court is likely to move toward either

greater adversarial procedures

(including jury trials) or toward

becoming marginalized by

increasing resort to the criminal

court. Indeed, in States where a

three strikes law exists, the juvenile

defendant might be well advised to

accept or even (where possible)

move for transfer of jurisdiction to

the criminal court. There, the

defendant will have a right to jury

trial, potentially more favorable

evidentiary rule, and a sentencing

environment where serious offenses

are the norm, not the exception.
Page 30 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

Figure 1 (Exhibit 3): Statutory Authority for Criminal Court Access to Juvenile Records by State, 1994

STATE PROSECUTOR

PROBATION

OFFICER JUDGE

CENTRAL

REPOSITORY HOLDS

JUV. RECORDS

SENTENCING

LAW

Alabama NA Can see NA NA

Alaska NA PSI report NA Authorized to hold Record is factor

Arizona NA NA NA NA Record is factor

Arkansas Can see NA Can see Authorized to hold

California Can see NA NA Authorized to hold Record is factor

Colorado Can see NA NA NA

Connecticut Can see some Can see Can see NA

Delaware NA NA NA Authorized to hold

Florida Can see NA Can see NA Record is factor

Georgia NA PSI report NA NA

Hawaii NA NA Can see NA Record is factor

Idaho Can see NA NA NA Record is factor

Illinois Can see Can see Can see Authorized to hold Record is factor

Indiana Can see Can see Can see Authorized to hold Record is factor

Iowa NA PSI report Can see NA

Kansas Can see PSI report Can see Authorized to hold Record is factor

Kentucky Can see PSI report NA Authorized to hold

Louisiana Can see Can see Can see NA Record is factor

Maine NA PSI report Can see Authorized to hold

Maryland NA PSI report NA NA Record is factor

Massachusetts NA PSI report NA Authorized to hold

Michigan NA PSI report NA Authorized to hold Record is factor

Minnesota Can see some PSI report NA Authorized to hold Record is factor

Mississippi Can see Can see Can see NA

Missouri NA PSI report NA NA

Montana Can see Can see Can see NA Record is factor

Nebraska NA Can see Can see NA

Nevada NA Can see NA NA

New Hampshire NA PSI report NA NA

New Jersey Can see PSI report NA NA Record is factor

New Mexico Can see PSI report NA NA

New York NA PSI report NA Authorized to hold

North Carolina Can see NA NA NA Record is factor

North Dakota NA Can see Can see NA

Ohio NA NA NA NA Record is factor

Oklahoma NA PSI report NA Authorized to hold

Oregon NA PSI report Can see NA Record is factor

Pennsylvania NA PSI report NA Authorized to hold Record is factor

Rhode Island Can see PSI report NA Authorized to hold Record is factor

South Carolina Can see some PSI report NA Authorized to hold

South Dakota Can see Can see Can see NA

Tennessee NA Can see Can see Authorized to hold

Texas Can see NA NA NA

Utah NA PSI report NA Authorized to hold Record is factor

Vermont Can see NA Can see NA

Virginia NA Can see NA Authorized to hold

Washington Can see NA NA Authorized to hold Record is factor

West Virginia NA PSI report NA NA Record is factor

Wisconsin NA PSI report NA Authorized to hold

Wyoming NA PSI report NA Authorized to hold

NA = Not Authorized
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 31

Figure 2 (Exhibit 4): State Criminal Sentencing Laws Authorizing Use of Juvenile Records by Type of 

Sentencing Law (24 states), 1994

 Type of Sentencing Law 

STATE SENTENCING

GUIDELINES

PRESUMPTIVE

SENTENCING LAW

PROBATION

FACTOR

Alaska Prior juv. disp. affects

Arkansas Prior juv. disp. used Prior juv. disp. weighed

California Prior juv. disp. affects and

counts for three strike law

Florida Prior juv. disp. used

Hawaii Prior juv. disp. weighed

Idaho Prior juv. disp. weighed

Illinois Prior juv. disp. weighed

Indiana Prior juv. disp. weighed

Kansas Prior juv. disp. used

Louisiana Prior juv. disp. used Habitual offender law

Maryland Prior juv. disp. used

Michigan Prior juv. disp. used

Minnesota Prior juv. disp. used

Montana Prior juv. disp. weighed

New Jersey Prior juv. disp. affects Prior juv. disp. weighed

North Carolina Prior juv. disp. used

North Dakota Prior juv. disp. weighed

Ohio Prior juv. disp. weighed

Oregon Prior juv. disp. used

Pennsylvania Prior juv. disp. used

Rhode Island Prior juv. disp. used

Utah Prior juv. disp. used

Washington Prior juv. disp. used

Wisconsin Prior juv. disp. used
Page 32 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

Figure 3 (Exhibit 8): Prosecutor Juvenile Record Access: State, Frequency, Sources, Use

STATE FREQ. OF

RECORD

USE

FROM OFFICE

FILES

FROM JUV.

COURT

FROM PSI

REPORT

FROM

POLICE

FROM REC.

REPOS.

FROM

OTHER

SOURCE

PRIMARY USE

Alabama Occasional Yes Yes (2) Charging

Alaska Occasional Yes Yes Sentence

Arizona Routine Yes Charging

Arkansas Routine Yes Plea negot.

California Routine Yes Yes (2) Yes Yes Yes (2) Charging

Colorado Occasional Yes (2) Yes Yes (2) Sentence

Connecticut Never Other agency NA

Delaware Routine Yes (2) Yes Yes (2) Sentence

Florida Routine Yes Yes (2) Yes Yes (2) Yes (2) Charg./sent.

Georgia Varies Yes Yes Sentence

Hawaii Routine Yes Yes Investigate

Idaho Routine Yes (2) Yes Sentence

Illinois Varies Yes Yes Charg./sent.

Indiana Routine Yes Yes (2) Sentence

Iowa Occasional Yes Yes Plea negot.

Kansas Routine Yes Yes Plea negot.

Kentucky Routine Other agency Yes Sentence

Louisiana Varies Yes Yes (2) Yes Screen/sent.

Maine Occasional Yes Charging

Maryland Occasional Yes (2) Yes Sentence

Massachusetts Varies Yes Yes Charging

Michigan Routine Yes Yes (2) Yes (2) Charging

Minnesota Occasional Yes Sentence

Mississippi Never Other agency NA

Missouri Never Other agency NA

Montana Routine Yes Yes (2) Yes (2) Yes (2) Sentence

Nebraska Routine Yes Yes (2) Yes Charging

Nevada Routine Yes Sentence

New Hampshire Rarely Other agency Yes NA

New Jersey Routine Yes Yes Yes (2) Charg./sent.

New Mexico Occasional Yes Plea negot.

New York Occasional Other agency Yes Grand jury

North Carolina Occasional Yes Yes Plea negot.

North Dakota Rare Yes (2) Yes Sentence

Ohio Varies Yes Yes Charg./sent.

Oklahoma Occasional Yes Yes (2) Plea negot.

Oregon Occasional Yes Plea negot.

Pennsylvania Varies Yes Yes Yes Yes (2) Plea/sentence

Rhode Island Routine Yes Plea negot.

South Carolina

C li

Routine Yes (2) Yes Grand jury

South Dakota Routine Yes Yes (2) Charging

Tennessee Occasional Yes Yes Charging

Texas Occasional Yes (2) Yes Sentence

Utah Occasional Yes Yes (2) Plea negot.

Vermont Rare Yes (2) Yes NA

Virginia Occasional Yes (2) Yes (2) Yes Sentence

Washington Routine Yes Charging

West Virginia Occasional Yes Sentence

Wisconsin Routine Yes Yes (2) Yes Charg./plea

Wyoming Routine Yes Charging

Yes = major source; Yes (2) = secondary or lesser source
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 33

Exhibit 15: Juvenile Record Prevalence-Wichita

Number of

 Defendants Juvenile Record Percent 

All Defendants 592 136 23

Under age 26 279 120 43

Age 26 and Older 313 16 5

Figure 4

Exhibit 13: Number of Defendants with Adult Convictions by Highest Charge-Wichita

Total Number of Number with Percent with

 Highest Charge Defendants Adult Record Adult Record 

Murder 26 18 69

Attempted Murder 7 2 29

Rape 18 9 50

Kidnapping 22 16 73

Robbery 63 47 75

Aggravated Assault 97 62 64

Other Sex Crime 15 4 27

Burglary 175 113 65

Drug Trafficking 105 64 61

Weapons Violation 60 42 70

Other Serious Felonies 4 2 50

Total 592 379 64

Figure 5

Exhibit 17: Sentence Impact from Juvenile Adjudication Inclusion in Guidelines

Calculation-Wichita

 Impact/No Impact Number of Cases 

Increased Incarceration 38

Increased Probation 36

No Effect 52

Off-Grid 5

Total 131

Figure 6
III. Public policy perspectives: Privacy and confidentiality

considerations of juvenile record issues

Overview

“The need to know” versus privacy

Robert R. Belair

Practitioners’ perspectives: Using the juvenile record

Juvenile justice issues and the role of juvenile records in

decisionmaking: A prosecutor’s viewpoint

Jan Scully

Florida’s Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program:

Collecting and using juvenile offender information to target

detention, intervention and prevention efforts

Donna M. Uzzell

Juvenile justice records management in Washington State

Michael L. Curtis

Striking a proper balance between legitimate uses of

juvenile records and individual privacy:

The District of Columbia experience

Jo-Ann Wallace

Collection, maintenance and use of juvenile fingerprints

Implementing a statewide juvenile criminal history repository

in Texas: Issues and practices

David Gavin
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 37

“The need to know” versus privacy

ROBERT R. BELAIR

General Counsel

SEARCH

Even as I speak, we are passing

out a report which SEARCH

completed with funding, and expert

analysis and advice, from the

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).

Its working title is “Privacy and

Juvenile Justice Records: A MidDecade Status Report.”1 This is

very much a draft report, and is the

fourth major report that SEARCH

and BJS have done together on the

topic of juvenile records.

(Highlights of those previous reports

are summarized in the new report.)

Challenges to confidentiality

Let me first give you the bottom

line of the report, and then review its

contents. The bottom line — and

this is not anything that you have

not heard already today — is that

there has been a dramatic increase,

especially over the last couple of

years, in the extent to which juvenile

record information is available to

criminal justice agencies, to

noncriminal justice entities, and to

the public. You just heard Neal

Miller say that there is a shortfall

between the theory and reality of

juvenile record access. I do not

doubt that for a minute, but if you

look at the laws and at the changes

in the law, there is no question that

we are in the middle of a real

revolution in the way in which

lawmakers and policymakers

 

1 Unpublished draft report by

SEARCH Group, Inc., May 1996, which

was distributed to conference attendees.

The final draft of the report is expected

to be published by the Bureau of Justice

Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, in

early 1997.

approach confidentiality and

privacy.

How is this challenge to juvenile

record confidentiality and privacy

being accomplished? First, by

treating juveniles as adults. Second,

by relaxing confidentiality

provisions in existing juvenile

record laws. And third, to some

extent, by the advances in

centralized State criminal history

record systems and repositories.

Looking at this issue over the

past couple of decades, juvenile

record information was not held in

State repositories, and was

unavailable to the adult criminal

justice system. Not only was it

unavailable as a practical matter, but

there was also a wide and deep body

of thought that juvenile record

information should not be available,

that there should be this two-track

system in which you would have

one career as a juvenile offender,

and then start over as a first offender

at the adult level. I think that has

changed.

While the report notes that it is

understandable that there would be

challenges to juvenile record

confidentiality, given the increases

in juvenile crime, the report offers a

cautionary note. Number one, there

remains enormous desistance in the

system. Most juveniles do not, in

fact, continue to be active and

frequent offenders at either the

juvenile or the adult level. Number

two, before we abandon what is

almost 100 years of confidentiality

protections, we need to think about

the role, as a society, that

confidentiality plays in avoiding

stigma for those juveniles who do,

in fact, desist, and in promoting

rehabilitation.

With that as a summary, let me

quickly review the draft report. The

report presents some juvenile crime

statistics. Obviously, juvenile crime

today is frequent, it is serious, it is

violent, and it has been on the rise

until, perhaps, just very recently.

Most importantly, it greatly worries

the American public. There is no

question about that. Crime in

general, and juvenile crime in

particular, has become a first-tier

political issue, along with war, peace

and the economy, leaving behind the

second-tier issues that crime always

used to be grouped with: education,

the environment, and certain

consumer issues. Juvenile crime is

exacerbated both in the sense of

causes, but also in the sense that the

American public worries about it,

because it is associated with gangs,

drug activity and guns.

It is not surprising, then, that the

two concepts on which juvenile

record confidentiality rests are (1)

this notion that juveniles do not have

the criminal mind-set to be held

responsible for what they do (and

this is really hundreds of years of

English common law focused for the

most part on children under seven),

and (2) rehabilitation. Professor

Gottfredson talked about that this

morning, about how juveniles are

malleable and great candidates for

rehabilitation. This is addressed in

the SEARCH report.
Page 38 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

Treating juveniles as adults

Confidentiality is being

challenged, as mentioned, by

treating juveniles as adults. Let me

quote a New York Times front page

article: “In the midst of the most

dramatic changes to the juvenile

justice system since the founding of

the first family court a century ago,

almost all 50 States have overhauled

their laws in the past 2 years

allowing more youths to be tried as

adults, and scrapping long-time

protections, like the confidentiality

of juvenile court proceedings.”

The transfer procedures include

judicial waiver (the traditional

method, which affects about 2

percent of juvenile offenders),

prosecutorial discretion and

statutory exclusion. In 1995 alone,

State legislatures all across the

country amended their laws to treat

juveniles more frequently as adults,

and to relax confidentiality

protections. In 1995, 11 States

amended their laws to lower the age

of transfer. Vermont’s age of

transfer is now at 10, Montana’s is

at 12, and Georgia’s, Illinois’, and

Mississippi’s are at 13. The upper

age limit for juvenile court

jurisdiction is under attack. Almost

10 States now have lowered the

upper age limit for juvenile court

jurisdiction to sustain, and there are

obviously some variations

depending upon the nature of the

offense and past offense records.

The information implications of

this are profound. First, of course, as

juveniles get treated as adults, their

records get treated as adults, and

that, more and more in this country,

means public access. Second, the

pressure to collect and to maintain

juvenile records grows as the

demand for the information grows,

and the kinds of audiences involved

in access grows.

Relaxing confidentiality

protections

The second way in which

juvenile information is becoming

more available is the relaxation of

confidentiality protections. Juvenile

court records are more likely to be

affected than law enforcement

records. Legal records are more

likely to be affected than social

records. Clearly, if you look at it

over a couple of decades, there is far

more access — both in theory and, I

believe, in practice — to juvenile

record information in adult courts

today than there was, say, in 1982

for sentencing purposes, for

charging purposes or for probation

purposes.

As I said at the outset, this notion

of a two-track system is clearly in

disfavor today and, frankly, for good

reasons. Victims today are more

likely to be entitled to access to the

juvenile record of their offender.

Schools and national security

agencies, or agencies making

national security determinations, are

also more likely to get access.

Today, in over 30 States, the law

provides that the name and photo of

a juvenile can be released to the

public in cases of violent and repeat

juvenile offenders. In 1995, 10

States amended their laws to permit

expanded public access to juvenile

justice records in various

circumstances. Recent case law, for

the most part, has been sympathetic

to statutory claims for expanding

access or making public, juvenile

record information.

Juvenile data systems

The third way in which juvenile

record information is becoming

more available has to do with the

existing or emerging systems that

collect, maintain and disseminate

juvenile record information:

• Today, 40 States authorize the

fingerprinting of juveniles, while

only 2 States prohibit the

fingerprinting of juveniles. That

is almost a flip-flop from where

we were 20 years ago, where the

commonplace was that statutes

prohibited the fingerprinting of

juveniles except in extraordinary

circumstances.

• Today, there are statewide

systems that are at least

attempting to collect and

maintain juvenile record

information. In 1988, only 13 out

of 50 State repositories felt that

they had legal authority to collect

and maintain juvenile record

information. Today, that number

is 27. It does not mean that all

those States have juvenile record

repositories that are up and

running or that have a great deal

of information, but it is certainly

consistent with the trend.

• The FBI now accepts juvenile

record submissions from the

States and treats those

submissions in the same way that

the FBI treats adult records.

• And, of course, now we are

seeing juvenile court systems that

are automated, sometimes

countywide, sometimes more

extensive than that.

Factors ensuring record

confidentiality

Let me close by discussing the

other side of the equation, and that is

the need for privacy and

confidentiality in juvenile justice

records. Do all of those trends which

are moving in one direction mean

that privacy and confidentiality, as

far as juvenile records is concerned,

is dead? Will it go the same way that

the adult system seems to be going?

Just this week at the Federal level,

we have talked about making

criminal history record information

available for background checks for

tenants in public housing, for school

bus drivers, for security guards.

Obviously, in connection with the

Brady Law, there are background

criminal history checks of

prospective gun purchasers. I do not

think there is any question that it is a

different environment today with

respect to the dissemination and the

availability of adult records than 20

years ago.
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 39

While I think that juvenile

records will become more available,

and already have become more

available, I think it is also right that

they will not become fully available.

This is a point that the report makes

several times, and there are several

reasons for this.

The first reason is the

demographics of the record subjects.

I think the demographics of juvenile

offenders make it likely that society

will maintain a reservoir of

sympathy for these children. A

recent Ohio study of juveniles who

are incarcerated in that State shows

that 90 percent of these children

have substance abuse problems, 5

percent are homeless, 30 percent

have mental disorders, 75 percent of

the girls and 50 percent of the boys

have been sexually assaulted, 25

percent of these children have their

own children, 6 out of 10 of these

children lived with single mothers,

and 8 out of 10 came from homes

with an annual income of less than

$10,000. As the Ohio officials who

did the survey concluded, these kids

truly are the throwaways of our

society. And to repeat a telling quote

from one of the Ohio officials: “Just

the other day we had a 12-year-old

who shot a man. He was so little, I

had to order special shoes for him,

size 3.”

A second factor that I think is

likely to continue to permit

confidentiality and privacy to endure

in the juvenile record context is the

viability of the juvenile courts. The

vast majority of juveniles who are

processed in court today, continue to

be processed in juvenile and family

courts. On experience, this notion of

transferring juveniles to adult courts

may turn out not to be a useful or

helpful strategy. The New York

Times article that I referred to

recounts recent studies in Florida,

New York and New Jersey which

suggest that juveniles sentenced to

adult facilities display what is called

a “contagion effect,” which I know

many of you are familiar with. By

being exposed to hardened adult

criminals, juveniles in those settings

are more likely to return to crime,

and to do so with more ferocity than

their juvenile peers who have gone

through the juvenile process and

were sentenced to juvenile facilities.

There is also likely to be a public

backlash. Look at what the

prosecutors in Richmond,

California, are doing. They are

charging a 6-year-old with

attempted murder. It seems to me

that there is at least a good chance

that, in time, the American public

will have a backlash when society

charges its 6-year-olds with murder.

A third factor is desistance: the

vast majority of juvenile offenders

do desist from crime, and whether

that is rehabilitation or the age/crime

relationship, the fact of the matter is

that the vast majority of juveniles do

desist. I think we are going to find

that over time, policymakers, after

the frenzy of the current period, will

ask themselves does it really make

sense to abandon confidentiality

protections for 90 percent of

juveniles in an effort to protect

society against perhaps 10 percent or

less of juveniles? And maybe the

real question is why cannot we do

better? Why cannot we do both?

This leads to another point,

which is sealing and purging laws.

They continue to subsist in most

States as a last refuge and a safe

harbor. In many States, they are

available only in cases where

juveniles have shown some

rehabilitative effect, or at least the

effects of time, and have established

a clean record period. It may well be

that as a society we will begin to

think about using sealing policies in

a more creative and pervasive way.

Last, I want to address problems

with opening juvenile records.

While the records today are

authorized to be fingerprintsupported, they are not always

fingerprint-supported. They have

low disposition reporting rates. They

are incomplete. They are inaccurate.

They are not as good as the adult

records, and there are many heroes

in this room of the 20-year battle to

improve the adult record system in

this country, and you folks know

better than I how difficult a task that

is. So it does seem to me, and the

report makes this point, that there is

still this notion — born of desistance

and optimism and the uncertain and

often bleak results of incarceration

— that, as a society, we need to

figure out a way to do better than

just throw away 15- and 16- and 17-

year-olds, and continue to work on

ways to use confidentiality and

privacy to both protect society, but

also to promote rehabilitation.

Thank you.
Page 40 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

Juvenile justice issues and the role of juvenile records in

decisionmaking: A prosecutor’s viewpoint

JAN SCULLY

District Attorney

Sacramento County, California

Good afternoon everyone. I am

probably the “hard nose” of this

group, which you will be able to tell

from my comments. So just take me

as the devil’s advocate if you have a

different perspective, but I am

looking at this issue from a

prosecutor’s viewpoint.

New laws affecting California

juveniles

California, as many of you are

probably aware, is notorious of late

for getting tough on criminals,

particularly violent offenders, and

the example of that is our “three

strikes” law that was passed in 1994.

It sent a clear message to our

citizens and our bad guys that

Californians were saying, “We’re

mad as hell and we’re not going to

take any more!” Three strikes was a

citizen initiative, and the focus of

the law is on prior violent and

serious criminal conduct, on

criminal history. Part of that

emphasis is that we can best predict

the future by looking at the past.

There is a juvenile component to

the three strikes law, strikes being

considered serious or violent

felonies. For purposes of juveniles,

if we seek to have the juvenile tried

as an adult and the juvenile is

convicted, that is an easy strike. If

we, for certain designated crimes,

petition the court to have a juvenile

remanded to our criminal adult

court, and even if that petition is

denied and the juvenile petition is

ultimately sustained, then that

counts as a strike for future conduct

of that individual as an adult. Of

course, that is still continuing to be

tested in the court system, because

three strikes is still relatively new.

Another thing happening in

California is that in January 1995,

the governor signed a bill that

allows prosecutors to, for certain

types of violent crime, petition the

court to try as adults juveniles who

are 14 years of age or older. (It used

to be that we could only do that at

the age of 16.) A trend that we are

seeing in California, if not across the

nation, is that for the first time in a

long time — instead of the sole

focus of juvenile justice being

rehabilitation with no mention of the

“P” word (for punishment) or

detention (jail time) — public safety

is as important as juvenile

rehabilitation. A good example is

that for the first time, I have been

told, in many, many years, juveniles

being held in the detention facility at

Sacramento County’s juvenile hall

actually know the name of the

Sacramento County D.A. I know

this because one of the correctional

officers said my name is used in

vain, regularly. I, frankly, view that

as a compliment, because that means

that our message of “getting tough”

on juvenile offenders is being heard.

Upon taking office in 1995, I

initiated a policy that we seek to

have tried as adults all juveniles who

use guns to commit crimes and all

juveniles who kill, in every

situation. That actually is consistent

with the gun and homicide statistics

in our county, and I would bet that it

is reflective of our State as well as

the nation. In 1994, we did an

evaluation in our unincorporated

part of Sacramento County, and

found we had 72 homicides. The

Sacramento County Sheriff’s

Department analyzed those cases

and found that over 40 percent were

committed by young people, 19

years of age and under, and of those,

the assailants used a gun 80 percent

of the time. Clearly, public safety

implications have to be considered.

The value of deterrence

An important part of how we deal

with juveniles — as far as

consequences versus rehabilitation

or a combination thereof — is to not

only render punishment, but also to

underscore the value of deterrence,

which impacts whether or not a

youthful offender decides to engage

in certain types of conduct. Frankly,

if my name is being used in vain at

juvenile hall, the message is getting

out to the youth in the community. If

that means that they are being

deterred from committing more

serious crime, then they are better

off and we are better off. I think part

of our problem is that our system

has devalued itself over the years to

the point where we have lost that

consequence impact, and so our

juvenile justice system is no longer

considered a deterrent.

Quick comment on the 6-year-old

from Richmond, since I am from

California. This type of situation

really does pose a dilemma to all of

us. Should a 6-year-old have charges

pressed against him in the juvenile

system and be adjudicated? I do not

think there is a right or wrong

answer.

What this situation poses to us as

a system is that we are not equipped
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 41

to deal with a child of that young an

age who commits that type of crime.

But if our system is not the right one

to do it, then which system is? Our

child protective service system is

equipped to deal with kids in

abusive environments who are

victims, not offenders. And our

juvenile justice system,

unfortunately, is the only

mechanism by which we can

provide evaluations to determine

what this child needs.

I have heard that this child,

within the last year or so, lost his

father as a murder victim; that since

this child could walk, he has been

walking the streets by himself,

lacking supervision; and that he has

a number of mental issues. So he

was almost predestined to be where

he is. All of those things have to be

dealt with for the future. Would you

not have some record of that

conduct for this child in years to

come? Is there some way that we

need to deal with that?

I am hoping that as a result of

this case, our child protective and

juvenile justice systems and other

appropriate institutions come

together to decide how we are going

to deal with these sorts of situations.

There is not one system that can

adequately deal with this case

because we have not had to do it

before, but we will have to deal with

it in the future.

Obtaining and using juvenile

records

Where do we get records of

juvenile adjudications in

Sacramento County? We are just

now getting an automated system

for juvenile records. We have had an

automated system for our adult

criminal justice system in operation

for a long time. Obviously, when

your agency is automated, it is very

helpful in terms of being able to

acquire information quickly, and

that information tends to be more

valid than if it is being maintained

manually. I do not know about other

States, but we get much scantier

information if we have to seek

records from other counties in our

own State, and certainly other

States, that have varying systems of

how they keep records, if they

provide those records to you at all.

We do use the court as a backup, but

our information is often quite

reliable.

How do we use our juvenile

records? It varies, again, from

county to county, but there are a

number of cases, particularly the

lower-level crimes, where probation

is really the screening organization,

and where the prosecutor will never

even see a case. So probation will

often make that preliminary decision

and will consider, obviously, any

prior adjudications or contacts that

this juvenile has had in the context

of the juvenile system.

We also use juvenile records in

detention considerations. Are we

going to detain this child or will we,

pending his case in court, release

him out into the community under

certain conditions? Obviously, we

are going to look up the number and

the nature of prior adjudications, and

at previous offenses that were

committed when the juvenile was,

perhaps, out in the community while

he had other charges pending.

We are going to look at previous

grants of probation, and whether

there were violations or a

successfully completed probation.

Any prior juvenile history is

considered and influences our office

in terms of whether or not to charge

an individual. If we do charge, the

history affects any plea dispositions.

Are we going to go for the

maximum charge or is there some

sort of reasonably related,

intellectually honest charge on

which we can appropriately dispose

of this case?

Impact on decisions

Our decision-making is

influenced greatly by the prior

adjudications of the juvenile. We

make great efforts to try to find the

history because we do not like to

make those decisions in a vacuum.

At the juvenile level, sentences will

certainly be influenced by a

juvenile’s history, and violations of

probations also are dependent in part

upon prior adjudications.

Not only are criminal history

records important in the juvenile

disposition area, they influence us in

terms of whether or not to remand a

juvenile to be tried as an adult. I

have one policy that, irrespective of

prior adjudications, a juvenile be

tried as an adult (at least we attempt

to get the judge to send the juvenile

to adult court). But for cases that do

not fall within that mandatory

exercise of our discretion, we

always consider the background and

previous adjudications. From my

office’s standpoint, where there are

adult prosecutions for young adults

(18 to 21), the juvenile adjudications

become more significant because we

believe that an 18-year-old who

commits a first-time business

burglary is very different from the

18- or 19-year-old who commits a

business burglary and who had

committed crimes as a juvenile and

had been remanded in the past to the

California Youth Authority.

In addition, we use the juvenile

record to argue a position on bail for

young adults, to determine whether

or not that young adult ought to be

released pending his case, whether

he should be released on his own

recognizance or have some minimal

bail imposed. Again, plea

disposition and sentencing always

makes a difference to our advocacy

position. I can tell you, though, it is

not unusual to have a juvenile court

judge read an entire juvenile file,

including all prior contacts with our

juvenile system, for juvenile

disposition purposes. In adult court,

you will frequently find judges who

refuse to consider juvenile records. I

think it is important that we are

consistent in the manner in which

we handle these cases.
Page 42 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

Restoring confidence in the

juvenile system

A point I want to make is that

how we treat juvenile records

impacts the public’s and the

youthful offender’s perception of

our juvenile justice system. Again I

reference the attitude of the youthful

offenders in our juvenile hall with

respect to me. When they have that

attitude, I think they tend to fear

more the juvenile justice system and

the public tends to have more

confidence in our system. I do not

think the public right now is looking

for rehabilitative efforts in our

juvenile system; they are looking for

deterrence and protection. I believe

that the public, over the years, has

lost confidence in our ability as a

system to protect them. I have told

people that I am not a social worker,

I am a D.A., and I want people to

fear the consequences of contact

with my office.

I think it is important that we, as

a prosecutorial agency, are the

hammer; however, I greatly support

collaborating with early intervention

and prevention programs so that we

get people more motivated to

participate in and take advantage of

those systems, and to empower

themselves.

An example of that is truancy

efforts my office undertook in

Sacramento County. At the

beginning of the school year we

reminded parents of their

requirement to get kids to school.

Later on in the year, we publicly

announced that we would hold them

accountable in fulfilling that

requirement and arrest them for the

failure to do so. We actually picked

out 12 of the parents of the most

chronically truant students in our

county and we did a sweep, arresting

them on the creative charge of

contributing to the delinquency of a

minor, a misdemeanor. Now, for the

first time in 10 years, our city school

district has the highest rate of

attendance that it has ever had.

Students are coming back to school.

The schools have student attendance

review boards, which are

multiagency boards that try to

address family needs and concerns

in order to assist families to keep

their children in school. These

boards try to resolve issues and get

kids to school, and they work with

parents and families and kids early

on. They are not the hammer. By

people knowing that our office is the

hammer, parents and students have

been flocking to those student

attendance review boards. By our

office being viewed as strong, I

think we empower the social service

programs that really aid and assist

juveniles and families, and I think

this is very important in terms of our

relationship so long as our roles are

kept in the proper perspective.

I would like to make two more

points. One is that there is a trend in

which parents are being held

accountable for repeat, chronic

truants. At least in California, there

is a new wave of prosecutors

looking at accountability and

responsibility by parents. Will we

get to the point where chronic

criminality by juveniles, prior

adjudications, translate into civil or

criminal liability or responsibilities

for parents? There is a legislative

trend that way.

A second point is that there is a

move, at least in California, to take

some of the discretion away from

prosecutors and judges as to whether

to try a juvenile as an adult. For

certain types of crimes, it’s like “one

strike, you’re out, you’re an adult.”

Legislation is moving forward that

deals in large part with prior

juvenile adjudications; if passed,

certain types of offenses will

automatically result in the youths

being tried as adults.

If anything, the public backlash

against juvenile crime right now is

moving toward more consequences

and public protection. I think we are

going to see, from citizens of

California and probably other parts

of the nation, a move to focus

juvenile justice on rehabilitation

counterbalanced with public safety

interests.
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 43

Florida’s Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program:

Collecting and using juvenile offender information to target

detention, intervention and prevention efforts

DONNA M. UZZELL

Special Agent in Charge

Investigative Support Bureau

Florida Department of Law Enforcement

I would like to begin by sharing a

story about two men who were

camping together. They are good

friends and they spent a great day

fishing. It was time to return to the

tent and get ready for a new day. As

they were bedding down, one of the

guys heard a noise, and they peeked

outside the tent but did not see

anything. They heard it again,

looked outside and, lo and behold,

there was a huge bear heading for

the tent. They knew they had to

evacuate and, as they started to

leave, one of them turned back and

went into his duffel bag and started

searching. The other guy looked at

him and said, “Come on, we gotta

get outta here. What are you doing?”

He said, “Well, I’m looking for my

sneakers.” His best friend said,

“What do you need sneakers for?”

He said, “So I can run fast.” The

other guy said, “You can’t outrun a

bear.” And he said, “I don’t have to

outrun the bear. All I have to do is

outrun you.”

This is the moral to my story: we

have been trying to outrun the

problems that are associated with the

increase in juvenile crime, but we

have not been doing an effective job.

What we really need to do is try to

get ahead of the game. And I

commend SEARCH for having a

conference that focuses on giving

you best practices and models and

information to take back to your

States and to implement.

I am here to address the Serious

Habitual Offender Comprehensive

Action Program (SHOCAP) in

Florida, and the statewide SHOCAP

initiative. SHOCAP is an

interagency case management

system that enables the juvenile

justice system and human services

agencies to make more informed

decisions regarding the small

number of juveniles who commit a

large percentage of serious crimes.

Statistically speaking, the U.S.

Department of Justice’s Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (OJJDP) stated that 94

percent of the kids who were ever

involved with the criminal justice

system never came back a second

time.1 Of that remaining 6 percent,

4 percent went on to commit a

second offense, and the remaining 2

percent went on to become career

criminals. That 2 percent were

responsible for about 30 to 40

percent of serious juvenile crime.

This correlates with long-term

studies that revealed that 6 to 8

percent of male juveniles accounted

for over 60 percent of serious

offenses committed by juveniles.

I have always been a doubting

Thomas, and so I really did not

believe those numbers. Prior to

joining the Florida Department of

Law Enforcement (FDLE), I was a

sergeant with the Tallahassee Police

Department, where I oversaw the

juvenile unit. When we started our

 

1 The OJJDP started the original

Serious Habitual Offender Drug

Involved Program (SHODI) and

continued with SHOCAP.

SHOCAP program there in 1992 —

we were monitoring about 184

juveniles at the time — we pulled a

snapshot look of these kids in our

database. And we found that these

184 kids accounted for 35 percent of

all juvenile arrests and 56 percent of

our part I felony arrests. This is out

of a census tract of a population of

about 18,000 children in the 10-17

age group. Clearly, the FDLE felt

that if it instituted a program that

targeted the most serious, repeat,

habitual juvenile offenders, this

could have a significant impact on

criminal activity.

Thus, Florida began the

SHOCAP program and every

agency that has contact with

juveniles in the juvenile justice

system is represented at the table in

an interagency work group so that

we can all agree on what criteria

should be used to determine who a

serious habitual offender is. The

agencies involved in SHOCAP are

police; schools; human services

agencies (particularly agencies

helping the dependency-involved);

corrections (the correctional

component in Florida is fortunately

handled by a new criminal justice

agency, the Department of Juvenile

Justice); the courts (court

administrators, judges and public

defenders); and prosecutors.

SHOCAP objectives

The program objectives for

SHOCAP are four-fold, and include

elements of (1) interagency

cooperation, (2) creation of an
Page 44 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

operational model, (3) improved

information collected on serious

habitual offenders, and (4)

suppression and control of the

criminal activity committed by these

offenders.

1. Cooperation. SHOCAP seeks

to increase cooperation and

coordination between agencies

interacting with youths.

2. Operational Model. Agencies

must develop an operational model

for dealing with those juvenile

serious habitual offenders to include

school placements, police contacts,

arrest procedures, case management,

program placement and

reintegration/aftercare. This model

will help agencies to determine

proper school placement of juveniles

and to determine police contacts,

including field interview reports.

Before SHOCAP was in place in

Tallahassee, we would drive around

in our police car and see youths on

community control or supervision

who would not be at the places they

were supposed to be. They were out

past curfew and, as you would drive

by, they would wave to you and you

would wave to them. They viewed

the system as a joke.

Since SHOCAP, all the terms of

supervision for our serious habitual

offenders are listed and they are

distributed to every police officer.

So now in Tallahassee, there are 150

more pairs of eyes and ears on the

street, looking at these youth, and

knowing that they are not supposed

to be there. Now when you drive by

and see these youths, waves are no

longer exchanged. You get out of

the car and say, “Hey, you’re not

supposed to be here, you’re against

curfew.” You fax that information

the next day to their supervisor, and

that becomes a violation of

community control. We are working

on a system that will eventually

allow the officer to pick these

juveniles up in the street;

unfortunately, current Florida laws

do not allow that. But doing so

would provide quick consequences

for the action.

In terms of arrest procedures, law

enforcement officers normally have

a great deal of discretion as to

whether to arrest a juvenile. In most

police agencies where SHOCAP is

instituted, the agencies tell their

officers that if they come across a

juvenile serious habitual offender,

the offender must be arrested. The

officer does not have discretion

because the offender has already

showed a propensity to continue to

commit crime.

In terms of case management,

SHOCAP calls for enhanced

supervision, having community

control counselors or re-entry

counselors with lower caseloads.

In terms of program placement,

SHOCAP aims to determine what

programs are best suited for kids

that have committed these serious

crimes.

Reintegration and aftercare are

important because these kids do not

get locked up forever, they do come

back in our communities. They

come back to the same

environments that they left, and

unless there are strong reintegration

and aftercare programs, those

juveniles will re-offend. This

includes supervision that allows

police officers and prosecutors and

schools to have a say-so in the types

of supervision and treatment

concerns for that child. You should

not just tell a child, “You must

attend school” and not tell the

school system that you are

mandating that child’s attendance.

You should not just put a child back

in the community and not let law

enforcement know that that child is

back. Good community policing

goes hand-in-hand with SHOCAP,

because these community policing

officers could knock on doors, could

make sure these kids are home past

curfew, and could set up a circle of

wagons to hold these children

accountable for their supervision.

3. Improved Information. This

objective seeks to improve the

quality and relevance of the

information collected on serious

habitual offenders, such as known

associates, parents/siblings, police

field contacts, school placement, and

terms of supervision.

The social services agencies have

dependency information on that

child. The schools have their own

records with exclusively school

information. The police have law

enforcement information, and the

courts have their information of

adjudications. When you put this

information together and overlay it

chronologically, you start to see a

picture, and that picture is very

important when you look at how this

child ended up in criminal activity.

The Tallahassee Police

Department started profiling these

kids and, in most of our profiles, we

found out that the first contact that

the system had with this child was

an abuse and neglect or domestic

violence call to the home. Long

before we ever saw this child as an

offender, we saw the child as a

victim. This collection of

information helps us create that kind

of profile, and tells us that when we

look at it chronologically, we can

see that this child was suspended

from school, but it was only a

couple of days after a domestic

violence call or abuse call to his

home. We can see that the child then

acted out in school, was suspended,

and was then caught on the street

bashing mailboxes. This information

helps us to create a pattern that we

can look at and make decisions

about that we could not before.

This reminds me of a story that I

once heard of a man who was on a

train, and he saw this gentleman get

on with his children. The kids were

being extremely disruptive, but the

gentleman was just sitting there,

ignoring the fact that his children

were causing so many problems for

the other passengers. Finally, the

man observing this was so fed up
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 45

with their behavior, he could not

take it any more. He looked at the

gentleman and said, “Sir, I do not

know if you have noticed this or not,

but your kids are disrupting

everyone else on the train.” And the

gentleman replied, “You know,

you’re right. We just left the

hospital an hour ago, where my wife

died, and I don’t know what to do,

and I don’t think these kids know

what to do either.” And the man

telling the story said his whole

paradigm shifted; it changed the way

he felt. He went from total irritation

to an understanding, to a

compassion, and it was because

when the information he received

changed, his feelings and behavior

changed as well. This tells us that

we need to make better decisions

based on the information we have

about these youth.

As I mentioned, profiles of these

offenders can contain known

associates information, which is a

useful investigative tool for law

enforcement. I can think of several

cases at the Tallahassee Police

Department in which we solved the

cases very quickly because we had

done a link analysis. We had looked

at all the serious habitual offenders

in a reporting area where we had a

particular crime and we then linked

known associates to those offenders.

We used our school resource

officers to determine who was in

school during that time, and who

was not. We looked at placement

services to determine who was in a

program and who was on a home

visit. From that, we were able to

identify a suspect and actually make

the arrest. In Tallahassee, a profile

indicated 52 percent of the kids who

were serious habitual offenders had

older siblings with criminal

histories. That list needs to be

distributed to every elementary

principal because, lo and behold,

when these principals see that list

and realize an offender has a

younger sibling in their school, they

know that child should be targeted

for a prevention program. We need

to look at a comprehensive

approach, not just targeting the

hardened.

4. Suppression and control of

serious habitual offender criminal

activity. In terms of this SHOCAP

objective, I reiterate much of what I

heard the prosecutors say, and that is

that these offenders need to be given

consequences for their actions.

Benefits

What are the benefits of

SHOCAP? More complete profiles

of these habitual offenders,

improved and more efficient

information sharing, and a more

efficient use of resources. If we only

have “X” amount of resources,

should we blanket our resources or

do we look at that 2 percent of

offenders who are committing the

majority of our criminal activity?

How are we going to use the limited

detention space we have? How are

we going to use the limited bed

space that we have? Another benefit

is improved interagency

cooperation, which then results in

improved system credibility.

Information gleaned from serious

habitual offender profiles can help

you target your detention,

intervention and prevention efforts.

If you look at a conceptual model of

serious habitual criminal evolution,

you will find that there is a peak of

youthful criminal activity in the 18-

year-old category. Once you identify

a criteria, and you know who those

kids are, that is where you look at

targeting your detention and

incarceration efforts. You can start

monitoring the lower age groups to

determine who is the up-and-coming

serious habitual offender. That is

where you can target intervention

efforts. Then, where children are

subjected to abuse, neglect and

exploitation, this is the at-risk

population where you can target

prevention efforts.

In determining the criteria for

what makes a juvenile a serious

habitual offender, most SHOCAP

projects value arrest-alone

information, although they require at

least one felony adjudication before

enabling the child to be in the

program. The Tallahassee Police

Department’s SHOCAP criteria

require that a juvenile have a

minimum of 21 arrest points.2 The

juvenile must have one felony

adjudication, or adjudication

withheld, the juvenile must be less

than 18 years, and must never have

been convicted or sentenced as

adult.

Once your criteria are place, what

do they tell you? Based on their

criteria, the Tallahassee police

developed a collective description of

a serious habitual offender. The

average offender:

• had been reported missing or run

away at least once;

• is associated with some type of

gang or group criminal activity;

• is drug-involved (whether using

or selling);

• associates with other serious

habitual offenders almost 100

percent;

• was 10.5 years of age at first

arrest, has been arrested an

average of 28.87 times during his

criminal career, and averages

18.53 felony arrests;

• was primarily a property offender

at first, and then moved on to

persons crime;

• is currently on parole from a

residential placement;

• is re-arrested every 43 days; and

• was arrested 2.5 times prior to his

first adjudication withheld, 9

times prior to his first

delinquency adjudication, and

has been adjudicated an average

of 10.6 times.

 

2 Points are assessed according to the

following scale: six points for a persons

felony, five for a property felony, and

three for a misdemeanor offense.
Page 46 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

SHOCAP initiative

Let me briefly discuss the

statewide SHOCAP initiative.

Florida received initial funding for

our five existing SHOCAP sites in

1994-1995.3 We also asked for

funding for 10 new sites. In 1995-

1996, we continued our funding for

the 15 existing sites, and we added

11 more sites which are just now

coming on board. And in 1996-

1997, we have continued funding for

those 26 sites, and we are adding

five additional sites. We are looking

at linking areas of the State where

counties are not involved in

SHOCAP so we can look at the

offenders’ corridors of travel.

We are fortunate in Florida to

have legislative authority to do the

program. In 1993, our legislature

instituted the Violent Crime Act,

which authorized a study for the

FDLE to look at establishing a

juvenile criminal history database.4

That database was established in

1994. The legislature also looked at

increased information sharing: the

law mandated that the schools, law

enforcement and juvenile justice

share information on juvenile

records in that database, and that

each county had to have an

interagency agreement delineating

how they were going to share that

information.5

This is significant, because it is

the first time (and this is for Florida

records only) that we have allowed

secondary dissemination off of that

database. Law enforcement can

exchange that information directly

with schools, and that is a

significant change in the direction

that we were going. The law also

mandated notification of school

superintendents of juvenile arrests.

A school superintendent must be

 

3 “Existing” sites are those that were

part of the original OJJDP project that

was held nationwide to bring SHODI or

SHOCAP sites on board.

4 FS 943.05 and 943.0515.

5 FS 39.045.

notified immediately after the arrest

of a student, and that superintendent

has 48 hours to notify his chain of

command down to the local

classroom teacher and guidance

counselor. Finally, the law

established record retentions for

juvenile serious habitual offenders.

As of May 1, 1996, there were

60,104 records in our juvenile

criminal history database, which

account for about 112,000 arrests.

Of course, juvenile information is

collected on all felonies (we had a

law mandating that felony prints go

to FDLE for automated fingerprint

identification system purposes, but

now we actually have created a

record on those prints), and we also

include enumerated misdemeanors.

These include violent misdemeanors

or those that show a propensity for

violence, like cruelty to animals, or

repeat misdemeanors, like petty

theft, which indicate a felony if three

offenses are adjudicated.

Gang initiative

Another initiative we are

undertaking involves gangs. If you

are aware of the Violent Gangs and

Terrorist Organizations File

(VGTOF) that the FBI started in the

National Crime Information Center

(NCIC), we will be using that file

statewide rather than developing our

own. The NCIC file was developed

in late 1995; it is a pointer index, not

an intelligence system. As of

January 1, 1996, they had 439

subgroups and 127 gangs in that

database.

We are pushing for every Florida

city to enter in gang information in

this file, and we are undertaking an

all-out effort to promote the use of

the database. We are looking at this

hot file as a good barometer to see

how much information locals will

put into a gang file. To that effect,

we are reaching out to all 26

SHOCAP sites and to any counties

that have a multiagency gang task

force. In a pilot project with one

county, we will provide manpower

to help them identify their groups

and subgroups, and enter data on

their gang members.

It is a big initiative we are

undertaking and, based on how that

pilot goes, we may even help enter

gang data from all the other major

counties within Florida. We feel that

if we put that effort forth, we will

get a workable database that will

enhance the safety of our officers in

Florida.6

I would like to end with a story

because I began with one. It is about

a captain on a battleship and, as he

was sailing along the seas, a seaman

came up to him and said, “Sir, there

is a light on the starboard side and if

we do not change course, we are

headed for collision.” The captain

replied, “You signal that other ship

and you tell them to change their

course by 20 degrees.” The seaman

did so, and the reply came back,

“No, you change your course 20

degrees.” The captain became pretty

upset and said, “You send them a

message saying that ‘I am a captain,

change your course 20 degrees.’ ”

The reply came back, “I’m a seaman

first class, change your course 20

degrees.” By this point, the captain

was so furious, he said, “You signal,

and send the message ‘I am a

battleship, change your course 20

degrees.’ ” The reply came back, “I

am the lighthouse.”

I would like to conclude by

saying that in Florida we learned the

hard way, with our tourist killings

 

6 Since this presentation, the FDLE

and local law enforcement officials

determined that the NCIC VGTOF file

was not meeting all of Florida’s law

enforcement needs regarding gang

intelligence. FDLE is in the process of

developing a statewide gang intelligence

database for investigative purposes that

will merge data into the VGTOF file for

purposes of officer safety. The FDLE

estimates the pilot database to be

operational in January 1997 with full

statewide implementation effective with

the on-line development of FCIC II

system.
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 47

and other crimes that affect the

economic well-being of our State,

that we cannot continue to do the

things the same way. We cannot run

into a lighthouse, or a brick wall for

that matter, and not change the way

we look at things and the way we

use our information. The pendulum

has shifted, as I have heard other

speakers say. It is going to be our

responsibility to be good stewards of

that information, to use it

productively, to get the best bang for

the buck, and to protect our citizens

while protecting the rights of others.

That is a challenge for the year

2000, and hopefully we have made a

good start. And I thank you for the

opportunity to be here.
Page 48 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

Juvenile justice records management in Washington State

MICHAEL L. CURTIS

Juvenile and Family Court Specialist

Washington Office of the Administrator for the Courts

The following timeline presents a

chronology of events over the past

two decades which impact the

management of juvenile justice

records in the State of Washington. I

hope that providing this information

helps inform other States which are

struggling with the public policy

issues involved in such activities as

juvenile record handling procedures,

juvenile court proceedings and

statewide court automation.

1978

Juvenile Code. The Washington

State Juvenile Code — the “new

code” as we still call it, even though

it is almost 20 years old — becomes

effective after being passed in the

1977 legislative session.1 Pursuant

to the new code, juvenile offender

proceedings, except those cases

which are diverted, are no longer

confidential; juvenile hearings are

open to the public; and the official

juvenile court file, the one kept by

the county clerk, is considered a

public record. In addition,

sentencing is based on a

presumptive, determinant sentencing

model requiring knowledge of a

juvenile’s criminal history. Juvenile

nonoffender proceedings (for

example, dependency and status

offenders), however, still remain

confidential.

The new code divides juvenile

justice into three chapters: status

offenders, juvenile dependency, and

juvenile offenders.

— Status offenders. The chapter

of the new code addressing status

offenders comes about as part of the

 

1 RCW Title 13.

revision to the offender portion of

the code.2 The idea was that we

were incarcerating too many status

offenders for minor offenses, that

we needed to decriminalize status

offenses, and that we needed to

provide more services to help these

kids instead of locking them up.

Thus, the new chapter transfers from

the county to the State, the

responsibility for intervention with

status offender youths. As is the case

with the new juvenile offender laws,

this new chapter is tied to efforts to

stem juvenile institution populations

in that a significant percentage of

youths currently housed in

institutions (particularly females) are

there primarily for status offenses.

— Juvenile dependency. The

dependency chapter of the new

code3 is borne out of concepts being

incorporated into Federal legislation

that ultimately becomes enacted as

the Federal Adoption Assistance and

Child Welfare Act of 1980.4

— Juvenile offenders. The

offender chapter of the new code5

incorporates a “just deserts” model

that proclaims the intent of

statewide sentencing consistency

and the child’s right to due process.

However, a major factor

contributing to support of a

 

2 RCW 13.32, titled “Runaway

Youth Act.” The chapter is later repealed

in 1979 and a new chapter, RCW

13.32A, “Procedures for Families in

Conflict,” is enacted. In 1990, the

chapter is further amended and renamed

the “Family Reconciliation Act.”

3 RCW 13.34.

4 Public Law 96.272.

5 RCW 13.40.

presumptive determinant sentence

model is the State’s inability to

control commitments to its juvenile

institutions, and the resulting

demand for additional institutional

beds.

By switching to a formula for

determining sentences, the State is

able to control the flow of kids

going into the juvenile institutions.

We developed a formula in which,

based on the seriousness of the

offense and the age of the juvenile,

point values are assigned to each

offense. That is multiplied by an

increase factor looking at the child’s

criminal history, which is based on

the seriousness of the offense and

how long ago that offense occurred.

The points for each prior offense are

added up and then multiplied by the

point total for the current offense,

which results in the total points.

This is compared to a chart that

identifies what that child’s sentence

would be. That sentence depends on

whether the child is a first or minor

offender, a middle offender, or a

serious offender, as well as the

child’s age or criminal history. It is a

fairly complex system, but we have

adapted to it.

— Records. A specific chapter

under the new code addresses the

“keeping and release of records by

juvenile justice or care agencies.”6 I

believe it identifies a fairly decent

process for handling juvenile

records.

 

6 RCW 13.50.
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 49

1979

Juvenile Court Information

System. The statewide Juvenile

Court Information System, known

as JUVIS, comes on-line. In a need

to expedite the development of a

system to track juvenile offender

criminal histories, the PROFILE

system is imported from the State of

Utah for use on an interim basis.

The system is relatively laborintensive and relies heavily on the

use of codes for data entry. As of

1996, although some modifications

have been made, JUVIS is still

primarily PROFILE. (We are

currently working toward a new

system.)

During the initial implementation

phase, the system is brought on-line

at five of the State’s 33 juvenile

courts. The remaining courts submit

criminal history information to the

Office of the Administrator for the

Courts (OAC), which in turn enters

the information into JUVIS.

By 1982, JUVIS is on-line in 27

of the Washington’s 33 juvenile

courts. In 1985, full statewide

implementation is complete when

the final two juvenile courts come

on-line.

1982

Management reports. The OAC

commences providing

comprehensive management reports

using JUVIS data to local courts.

The reports provide integrated

statistics on case activity,

delinquency histories and court

action on dependencies. Courts may

also request individual “ad hoc”

reports which are prepared by OAC

Information Services staff.

Codes and procedures task

force. A JUVIS “Codes and

Procedures” task force is created

with the charge to standardize local

data entry procedures and

transaction coding. If data entry and

coding standards are not established,

the system can be a mess. It has

been difficult to draw any sense

from data entered in JUVIS during

the early days.

1983

JUVIS Form 6. The JUVIS

“Form 6” comes on-line, providing a

“criminal history only” record

listing.

Supreme Court ruling. The

Washington State Supreme Court

finds that newspaper journalism may

constitute legitimate research, and

establishes policy and procedure for

the release of or access to juvenile

justice records for research

purposes.7

1984

Sentencing Reform Act. The

Washington State (Adult Criminal)

Sentencing Reform Act becomes

effective. The new law includes a

definition of criminal history that

incorporates certain age- and

offense-specific juvenile court

adjudicated offense history.

(Meaning some juvenile court

history counts toward the criminal

history for purposes of adult

sentencing.) This requires juvenile

courts to submit fingerprints of

adjudicated juveniles who meet

these criteria to the Washington

State Patrol.

1986

School attendance. A State

statute is amended to require

children to attend school.8 The

previous language placed sole

responsibility for school attendance

on the parents of the student. The

amended statute retains a dual

jurisdictional approach to truancy

actions, providing for either

superior/juvenile or district court

jurisdiction.

 

7 Seattle Times Co. v. County of

Benton, 99 Wn.2d 291, 661 P.2d 964.

8 RCW 28A.225.010.

1987

Desk manual. The Desk Manual

for Juvenile Court Administration is

published and circulated to juvenile

courts. This took place because in

Washington State, there are 33

county-based juvenile courts and it

was difficult when they needed to

interact with each other. The OAC

was called in to assist with devising

a desk manual for juvenile court

administrators to help them deal

with organizational and

communication issues. So now there

is a standard way to communicate

with each other and with State

agencies, such as the Department of

Licensing (DOL) or the State Patrol,

when they send criminal history

information. It seems to help them,

and it has been a popular document.

Abuse findings. A new State

statute requires county clerks to

notify the State Patrol of any

dependency or domestic relations

case in which the court makes a

specific finding of physical or sexual

abuse of a child.9 This statute is

enacted so the State Patrol can have

some kind of criminal history

information on future perpetrators or

situations where a person may be

considered a future perpetrator. The

only problem is in the specific

finding terminology. Generally in

our courts, judges do not say, “this

person abused that kid”; they simply

rule that the child is dependent, and

leave it at that. Thus, I do not think

this law is a generator of a whole lot

of information, but it is another

situation in which the courts are

required to report to the State Patrol.

Repeal of fingerprint statute. A

State statute requiring court

authorization prior to the

fingerprinting or photographing of a

juvenile10 is completely repealed.

The repeal was in conjunction with a

new law implementing a statewide

Automated Fingerprint

Identification System (AFIS); when

 

9 RCW 43.43.840.

10 RCW 13.04.130.
Page 50 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

the AFIS came on-line, the

administrators decided they wanted

this information on juveniles as

well.

1988

Driving privileges. A law is

enacted that revokes the driving

privileges of juveniles found to have

been involved in alcohol or

substance abuse violations

(including diversion cases).11 The

new law also establishes procedures

requiring court reporting of these

offenses to the State DOL. One

unexpected result was that because

this license revocation information

is a public record (even though it

does not state the reason for the

revocation), insurance companies

can obtain it. So car insurance rates

for juveniles in these situations went

up.

Mandatory HIV testing. A law

is enacted providing for mandatory

HIV testing of all persons convicted

of a sexual offense, prostitution or

offenses relating to prostitution, or

drug offenses associated with the

use of a needle.12 This imposed

another reporting requirement on the

OAC; we had to contact public

health departments, and they would

then do the testing and take care of

follow-up information for those

persons. The statute’s inclusion of

the term “persons convicted”

resulted in inconsistent

interpretations of its applicability to

juvenile offenders. However, in a

subsequent Washington Supreme

Court case, the justices determined

that the statute was, indeed,

applicable to juvenile offenders.13

 

11 RCW 13.40.264.

12 RCW 70.24.340.

13 In re A,B,C,D,E, 121 Wn.2d 80,

847 P.2d 456.

1990

Sex offender laws. Sex offenses,

and the need for more information

on sex offenders, are the topic of the

Washington Legislature in 1990.

Two particularly heinous offenses

take place around this time to bring

this about. One involves a young

woman who is murdered by an

inmate out on work release; her

mother subsequently becomes a

State legislator and now chairs the

House Corrections Committee. The

second situation involves a young

boy whose penis is severed by a

person who had been recently

released from a State institution.

Both of these situations result in a

huge public outcry.

—Mandatory registration. A

law is enacted requiring persons,

including juveniles, convicted of a

sex offense, to register with the

county sheriff for the county of the

person’s residence.14 The statute is

amended the next year, requiring the

agency having jurisdiction over the

offender to provide notice to the

offender of the offender’s duty to

register.

—Release of information. Two

laws are enacted authorizing public

agency (including Juvenile

Rehabilitation Administration)

release of “necessary and relevant”

information regarding sex offenders

when the information is necessary

for public protection.15

—Victim/witness notification.

A law is enacted providing for law

enforcement, victim and witness

notification when a juvenile

offender, found to have committed a

violent or sex offense, is to be

discharged, paroled or placed on any

authorized leave or release or

transfer.16 The statute is amended in

1993 to include juveniles found to

have committed a crime of stalking.

 

14 RCW 9A.44.130.

15 RCW 4.24.550 and RCW

13.40.217.

16 RCW 13.40.215.

1991

Software integration into

JUVIS. We decide that it is about

time for courts to be able to access

their own data. Although

Washington has had a statewide

system in place since 1979, the only

way local courts can get data is

through the management reports we

send them or by asking for us to run

reports. Thus, Intellect software is

integrated into the Juvenile Court

Information Center, providing local

juvenile courts independent access

to JUVIS data.

While the software is made

available and training is offered,

inconsistent participation in the

training programs and eventual

discontinuation of training results in

few courts using the software. A

positive outcome of the availability

of the software is the discovery by

individual courts of their

inconsistent data entry practices and

the impact such practices have.

There is a real need, in developing

information systems, to have a

continual, ongoing, consistent

training program, or else your data

are not going to be useful.

1992

Information exchange. A law is

enacted providing for (clarifying)

the exchange of information

between school districts, law

enforcement and juvenile courts.17

Confidential information. A

law is enacted providing that

information identifying child

victims of sexual assault is

confidential, and not subject to

disclosure to the media or the

public. The following year, the State

Supreme Court strikes down the

statute, saying there is a

constitutional right to open access to

judicial proceedings, including

access to this information.18

 

17 RCW 28A.600.475.

18 Allied Daily Newspapers v.

Eikenberry, 121 Wn.2d 205.
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 51

Statistics system. The State

implements the Superior Court

Management Information System

(SCOMIS) statistics model,

providing uniformity of data entry

procedures and specificity of codes.

1993

Juvenile justice agency

definition. A law is amended to

redefine the term “juvenile justice or

care agency” to include schools.19

This adds schools to the list of

agencies that can access juvenile

records, which greatly aids

interagency information exchange.

This proposal is initially opposed by

those having concerns over school

districts’ knowledge of certain

juvenile offender activity

(specifically, diverted offenses such

as minor in possession of alcohol

offenses).

1994

Firearms laws. In 1994, the

legislative topics are guns and

drivers’ licenses. A law is amended

to redefine the offense of unlawful

possession of a firearm.20 Under the

amended law, courts are required to

report to the State DOL when

juveniles are convicted of offenses

that make them ineligible to possess

a firearm. Another law is amended

providing for driving privilege

revocation for juveniles found by a

juvenile court to have committed an

offense while armed with a

firearm.21

 

19 RCW 13.50.010.

20 RCW 9.41.040.

21 RCW 13.40.264.

Juvenile court jurisdiction. A

law is amended providing that for

purposes of enforcement of an order

of restitution, the juvenile court has

jurisdiction for up to 10 years

beyond the juvenile respondent’s

18th birthday.22

Integrated systems. The

integration of the SCOMIS and

JUVIS system functions to a DBII

database system commences. The

integration is pursuant to policy

adopted by the Judicial Information

System Committee, and effectively

eliminates any need for double data

entry, thus enabling more efficient

and effective data management.

1995

Truancy law. A law is amended

to require mandatory filing of

truancy petitions and to provide for

sole juvenile court jurisdiction over

truancy matters.23 The change

requiring mandatory filing results in

a substantial increase in the number

of truancy petition filings: there are

91 filings statewide in 1994,

compared to 2,983 filings statewide

from September 1995 to January

1996.24

 

22 RCW 13.40.190.

23 RCW 28A.225.

24 This revised statute brings into

question under which category juvenile

truancy filings should be filed. While

statutorily identified as a “civil action,”

the matters are, by statute, to be heard in

juvenile court. While civil

filings/pleadings are not confidential,

nonoffender-related filings/pleadings in

juvenile court are confidential. Under

county clerk filing categories, case type

2 is civil (open record), case type 7 is

juvenile dependency (closed record), and

case type 8 is juvenile offender (open

record). The clerks do not have

unanimous agreement on the issue. In

January 1996, the State Attorney

General issued an opinion stating that

truancy filings/pleadings are

confidential. Some county clerks do not

concur and therefore disregard this

opinion.

Domestic violence. The

legislature enacts new and amended

laws addressing domestic violence

prevention. One mandate of these

laws is for Judicial Information

System availability in each district,

municipal and superior court by July

1, 1997, to include a database

containing information with regard

to family member involvement in

the court system (criminal, domestic

relations, domestic violence, and

juvenile dependency, at-risk and

child-in-need services).

That system, when complete, will

have what is called the “family

connector code.” When you bring up

the name of an individual in our

court system, the database will show

that person’s involvement in the

court system, as well as the

involvement of any family member

in all levels of our court system

(juvenile court, superior court and

district court).

1996

Diversion cases. A law is

amended to remove limits on

diversion agreement restitution

amounts, and to provide a process

by which a court may establish

jurisdiction over a diversion case

(for up to 10 years beyond the

juvenile’s 18th birthday) if there is

an outstanding restitution amount at

the end of the term of diversion.25

 

25 RCW 13.40.080.
Page 52 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

Striking a proper balance between legitimate uses of juvenile records

and individual privacy: The District of Columbia experience

JO-ANN WALLACE

Director

Public Defender Service

District of Columbia

If anything, and I suppose this is

no surprise, I hope to be the voice of

restraint in this discussion. In

Washington, D.C., I have always

thought that there was a good

balance in the statutes governing

juvenile records and, after hearing

folks today, I think that even more

so.

The District of Columbia statute

governing the use of juvenile

records strikes, I believe, the proper

balance between legitimate uses of

those records and not-so-legitimate

uses. Basically, it requires consent

of an individual in order for the

sharing of information to be

accomplished, and also largely relies

on court involvement when there is

an absence of consent. It does

provide for release of records to

further appropriate law enforcement

goals and ends but, at the same time,

it has criminal penalties for anybody

who violates the confidentiality

statutes. This is how it should be.

Juvenile record trends

There are several different trends

driving the current attention that is

being focused on the juvenile

records issue. Some of these arise

from very legitimate concerns, and

we need to address them. For

example, the trend toward pursuing

coordinated, holistic services for

juveniles and for families and

children makes sense. It makes a lot

of sense from a treatment

perspective, and it makes a lot of

sense from a fiscal perspective. The

reality is that our resources are

dwindling, so we need to coordinate

our resources so that we can provide

effective treatment, prevention,

intervention and law enforcement.

Others trends driving the juvenile

records issue are motivated by fear

and by inaccuracies and are, quite

frankly, unwise and unwarranted.

An example of this is the trend

toward criminalizing juvenile

behavior, and blurring the line

between adults and children. We are

treating children more and more like

adults. One of the speakers said

earlier, “Let’s be consistent.” Well,

the reality is that children are not

like adults. They do not think like

adults, they do not behave like

adults. They never have, and they

never will. What is happening is that

the trend toward making juvenile

court more like adult court and

treating juvenile records more like

adult records is affecting the

bedrock principles of juvenile court:

rehabilitation and treatment.

Carefully crafted, but strict, laws

against disclosure can promote

legitimate treatment and law

enforcement goals, while at the

same time protect the privacy of

individuals and the bedrock

principle of parens patriae without

simply giving lip service to that

principle.

Sharing information

In the District of Columbia, the

standard for release of information

in juvenile court is as follows: the

information is available to public or

private agencies or institutions that

provide supervision or treatment of

the child or have custody of the

child, if supervision, treatment, or

custody is under order of the Family

Division. This allows for people

with a professional interest in the

protection, welfare, treatment and

rehabilitation of a child, or a

member of the child’s family, to

have access to records. Generally,

police and law enforcement records

for juveniles are not open to the

public. However, there are

exceptions. If the juvenile is treated

as an adult, if he is transferred to

adult court, then his records are

treated as if he were adult. The court

can always order records released in

appropriate circumstances, such as

to private or public agencies

providing juvenile supervision.

Fingerprints may not be disclosed,

unless they are needed for a criminal

investigation or trial, used for law

enforcement purposes only, or their

disclosure is mandated by court

order.

Generally, as I said, a lot of what

allows for the sharing of juvenile

information in the District stems

from law enforcement exceptions,

consent of the appropriate

individual, or court orders. This, I

think, provides appropriate

protections, and it works. And here

is proof that it works. I was recently

at a meeting of the District of

Columbia Council, where most of

the individuals in the juvenile

system were represented:

prosecutors, law enforcement, the

schools, probation, the courts, the

defense council and social services.

The question on the table was this:

Do we need to open up or change
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 53

the statutes regarding juvenile

record confidentiality in the District

of Columbia? With one exception,

the answer was “no”; we are able to

get the information we need. Again,

with one exception, everyone there

felt that they were able to get the

information that they needed. In

fact, it was said that the problem in

the District is not a question of

having restrictive statutes that do not

permit easy access to juvenile data,

the problem is that we do not have

the technology to share the

information that the statute allows

us to share.

The one exception to that

agreement at the meeting was the

public schools. They wanted more

access to information. Interestingly

enough, it was officials from the

court who spoke up and said, “This

is the reality. There are good reasons

why the statutes are there, because

the fact is, the labeling those statutes

are designed to prevent — the

prejudice and stereotyping of

juvenile offenders — does happen.”

It is a real fact of life; I see it every

day. Now, a lot of people in schools

are motivated and certainly would

never use a label to brand a child

unfairly, but the reality is that that

does happen.

Privacy principles

In talking about changing

confidentiality laws and sharing

more information, it is important to

remember that the reason they are

there, the privacy principles that put

them there in the first place, are

really bedrock principles of our

society. They are there for the

protection of all of us, and they are

there to promote the treatment goals

of the juvenile system. The idea is,

unless you give someone the

protection to be candid and

forthright, you are not going to get

the information that you need for

treatment. That principle will never

change, and the consequences of all

of this sharing and opening of files

and information, while of course

driven by some very, very good

motivations, also have some

devastating effects.

One is this: When we talk about

the sharing of information, there are

all different degrees. Sometimes we

are simply talking about sharing

between public agencies. Other

times we are talking about sharing

information with the public or the

media. A lot of people would draw

the line and say juvenile

proceedings should be confidential,

but all the information that is in the

file should be shared with anybody

who has anything to do with law

enforcement or juvenile justice.

When you open up the records

and broaden the number of people

who have access to the records, you

must remember this: the larger the

number of people with access, the

larger the potential for abuse. Now

most people are law-abiding

citizens, and people working in law

enforcement or the juvenile justice

system generally know what the

laws are and follow them. But it is

also very true — and this is a

practitioner’s view and experience

— that even with strict

confidentiality provisions, even with

criminal penalties in place,

information gets out that should not.

Oftentimes, it is released by the

people who are charged with

protecting that information. And the

consequences to individuals, to

families, to children, is real.

The harm caused by the

breakdown of confidentiality is real

when a child’s name gets out in the

paper, even before the child is

convicted of an offense. We see it

when that child tries to get

employment. When that child —

who has turned himself around, and

has really done everything that the

system tells him he is supposed to

do, and has learned from his

mistakes and tries to start anew — is

haunted when that record comes

back, or when someone says, “Oh, I

remember you, I saw your name in

the paper.” Those things happen.

Unfortunately, what happens is,

when the information is released, it

is often released partially so, or

inaccurately so, and released in a

manner that does not allow the

public to fully ascertain the truth of

the situation. Far too often, I have

seen the fact that people do not look

at the individual, they look at the

charge or offense. They do not know

what the circumstances are. And, the

more violent the charge, the more

negative the response. The bottom

line is that these things are all

antithetical to the whole notion of

parens patriae and treatment and

rehabilitation.

Openness no deterrent

The trend toward releasing

confidential juvenile information in

a way that brands or labels people

harkens back to the days when

women were branded with scarlet

letters. What the public wants is less

crime. And the question is, is

opening up juvenile records and the

juvenile courthouse going to lead to

increased confidence in either the

juvenile justice system or law

enforcement? Quite frankly, I think

that the answer is no. Because, it

does not deter. Our clients generally

do not do a cost-benefit analysis

when it comes to committing a

crime. That is the reality. They do

not, and that is true of adults and

children, although it is more true of

children because of the differences

in the way children think. Children

are thinking of the immediate, not

whether their name is going to be in

the paper next week or that some

public light will be shed on them

that will harm their future. They are

thinking, “I have to walk out my

door, and there are a lot of people

with guns out there, so I need a gun

to protect myself too.” And that is

the reality. So increased record

openness is not a deterrent to that.

Information sharing does lead to

better treatment modalities for most

treatment goals, but there are ways

to do that and still protect
Page 54 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

confidentiality and all of the

rehabilitative goals that that

promotes.

The District of Columbia has a

lot of joint collaboratives and

initiatives underway, more so than

any place I can think of, and that is a

good thing. We are all sitting around

the table trying to figure out how to

share information and to promote all

the common and mutual goals that

we have in order to reduce crime in

our city. And we have been able to

do that even in a city where the

court of appeals believes that

confidentiality is critical to the

treatment process for juveniles, in a

city where we have to jump through

certain hurdles in order to get

information from various agencies.

But the hurdles really are not that

high, and the goals that the hurdles

protect are in place and are

advancing. That is true in a city

where the court of appeals recently

said that confidentiality is so

important to the juvenile justice

system, and to society in general and

criminal justice in particular, that

they were willing to reverse a trial

court decision when the trial court

refused a defense request to exclude

the media from those proceedings.

I started off by saying that I

wanted to be the voice of restraint; I

would like to end with that, and

remind folks to keep in mind why

we are even having this discussion

in the first place, and not to throw

the baby out with the bath water.

Thank you.
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 55

Implementing a statewide juvenile criminal history

repository in Texas: Issues and practices

DAVID GAVIN

Assistant Chief of Administration

Texas Department of Public Safety

Texas just overhauled its family

code, which resulted in the revamp

of the State’s entire juvenile justice

system, one component of which is

the creation of a separate repository

for juvenile criminal histories. This

repository is new for Texas, so I will

describe some aspects of that

system, as well as some related

issues.

In Texas, we are certainly in the

midst of the same pendulum swing

that has been discussed here all day.

All of the juvenile justice issues that

have been raised here, have also

been discussed in Texas. Many

changes were made in the family

code in the last legislative session,

and already discussions are

beginning on what to change in the

new family code.1 (We operate on a

biennial cycle; 1995 was the last

session, so our next session is in

1997.)

Family code changes

I would like to give an example

of how some of these issues were

translated into statute by comparing

the old statute language with the

new statute language. (The family

code covers the entire juvenile

justice system, not just the

information system.)

The previous top three public

purposes of the family code were as

follows:

1. to provide for the care and

protection, and the wholesome

moral, mental and physical

development of children coming

within its provisions;

 

1 Title 3, Texas Family Code.

2. to protect the welfare of the

community and control the

commission of unlawful acts by

children; and

3. consistent with the protection of

the public interest, to remove

from children committing the

unlawful acts, the taint of

criminality and consequences of

criminal behavior and to

substitute a program of treatment,

training and rehabilitation.

In the last session, those purposes

were changed so that the top three

public purposes of the family code

are as follows:

1. to provide for the protection of

the public and public safety;

2. consistent with the protection of

the public and public safety, to

promote the concept of

punishment for criminal acts; and

3. to remove, where appropriate, the

taint of criminality from children

committing certain unlawful acts,

and to provide treatment, training

and rehabilitation that

emphasizes the accountability

and responsibility of both the

parent and the child, for the

child’s conduct.

I think that is a clear expression of

the very issues that have been raised

today.

The Texas Youth Commission is

the corrections arm of the juvenile

justice system in our State. The

Commission’s executive director

has been attending interim

legislative hearings, showing a

video that clearly demonstrates the

change in the programs within the

Commission. These changes

represent a much more boot camplike structure with quasi-military

punishment, and have resulted in

letters being sent from youths

currently in Commission custody to

their brothers and sisters and friends,

warning them of these changes.

These letters are expressing a much

different point of view about the

Texas Youth Commission and what

is happening there than ever before,

stressing what these youth regard as

the deterrent effect of these changes.

Governor Bush identified

juvenile reform as one of his main

goals and, in the last session, as

mentioned, the legislature did pass a

bill focusing on that issue. One

component of that bill was the

creation of a central repository of

juvenile criminal history records. I

would like to address my comments

to the implementation of the

fingerprint-based system, and some

of the issues associated with that

implementation.

Creating a juvenile repository

Prior to the passage of the new

law, there was no State central

repository for juvenile records.

Records had to be kept at the local

level, separate from adult records,

and could not be sent to a central

State or Federal repository, with the

exception of missing person records,

wanted person records, or records of

children certified to stand trial as

adults. But arrest records and

custody and treatment records could

not be sent to the State for creation

of a central repository.

The legislature undertook the

overhaul correctly: they held

hearings all over the State, had
Page 56 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

juvenile justice practitioners come in

and testify in those hearings, worked

cooperatively, encouraged public

testimony, asked all the right

questions and, I believe, took the

right approach to creating the

juvenile record system. They made a

few key decisions.

First, they decided that it must be

a fingerprint-based system. I think

that addresses some of the issues

that have been raised here in terms

of reliability and accuracy of the

records. Clearly, fingerprints are the

national biometric standard for

identification of persons being

classified in criminal justice

computerized systems.

Second, they decided it was

going to be a day-one forward

system. This was really a decision

by default, since there were very few

records that could have been

gathered and centralized for offenses

occurring before January 1, 1996. It

was obvious that it needed to be a

day-one forward system.

Third, they wrestled with the key

issue of the level of activity that

would be entered into the juvenile

central repository. This went all over

the spectrum during discussions, and

it came back to a definition that is

consistent with the records that exist

in our current adult file, which is

Class B misdemeanors and above.

We have A’s, B’s, and C’s , with

C’s being the minor misdemeanors.

So what goes into the central

juvenile repository is conduct

which, had it been committed by an

adult, would constitute an offense

not punishable by fine only, and that

means Class B misdemeanors and

above. This drew a very clear line as

to the purpose of the database: it is a

criminal history repository that is

going to track criminal events

committed by juveniles.

The law is very clear about what

happens to other data that are not

reported to the central repository

operated by the Department of

Public Safety (DPS). That data still

remain separate from adult data, and

are not forwardable to any other

central repository. There was some

concern on the part of the DPS that,

as the legislature was writing new

laws for what data could be

forwarded, we did not lose data that

were previously forwarded to us. So

we watched very carefully that

wanted and missing person records

would still come to us. In fact, we

lost out on the gang information. A

separate statute was passed that

prevented the gang information —

which was previously referred to the

FBI’s Violent Gangs and Terrorist

Organizations File — from being

sent to a State or Federal repository.

So it is important to watch, as all of

the data are categorized and

aggregated in statutes, that your

agency not gain one thing only to

lose another just by the construction

of the language.

Fourth, and most importantly, it

was decided that the system had to

integrate and be compatible with the

adult system. This became,

obviously, a key factor for the

repository, because there was no

question about making separate

records. The law gave DPS the

authority to mix the records, to

integrate the juvenile records into

the adult records. We were able to

use the same file structure and, in

fact, we are putting the juvenile

records into the adult file.

This adult/juvenile record

integration gives us a number of

advantages in that, when the

inquiries come in over the law

enforcement network (the Texas

Law Enforcement

Telecommunications System

(TLETS)), those inquiries hit a

single file. If there happens to be a

juvenile arrest in the criminal history

database, that is returned. If there

happens to be an adult arrest, that is

returned. If there happens to be both,

then they are both returned. We

make no distinction in TLETS of the

data being provided. Juvenile arrests

are flagged, however, just so that it

is clear that an individual arrest

event occurred while the person was

a juvenile; thus, if the person’s

record has a juvenile arrest in it as

well as an adult arrest, the juvenile

arrest is specifically flagged. But the

point is, they reside in the same

database.

System components, issues

I would like to describe

components of the system, as well

as issues that arose in its

establishment.

There was a lot of discussion

during the legislative session about

what level of offense or activity

would be reported. That was

decided. Then there was a lot of

discussion about what would be the

threshold for sending the records,

and then what would be the sealing

and purging procedures. It was

finally decided that the law

enforcement agency which took the

juvenile into custody had 10 days to

decide whether they were going to

refer the child to juvenile court or

juvenile probation (which acts as an

arm of the court in Texas). Thus,

referral is the key event. The

criminal repository file only

contains activity for which the child

was referred to juvenile court or

probation.

If the law enforcement agency

does not refer the child within 10

days, then that agency has to destroy

all records of that child for that

event. This became an 11th-hour

issue in the legislative session, and

was finally resolved in conference

committee after the bill passed in

both houses. The voices were so

strong in terms of those legislators

not wanting the police to gather

clandestine files on juvenile custody

events, that they actually put in the

statute a provision that all police

chiefs and sheriffs in Texas have to

certify, by December 31 of every

year, that they have destroyed all

those records for which the juveniles

were not referred within the 10 days.

If an audit finds that was not the

case — that some records were, in
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 57

fact, not destroyed — the chief or

sheriff is subject to perjury.

Sealing became a very large issue

in terms of establishing the

repository. Juvenile records can be

sealed for misdemeanors if, after 2

years following a final act and

adjudication, the child has not had

any other activity in the juvenile

system. If the record is sealed, we

have to return it to the juvenile

court, and we have to destroy all

indices of that particular arrest. (If

the juvenile has other arrests, we can

keep those.) Felonies cannot be

sealed until after the juvenile’s 21st

birthday, and there are some other

provisions that make it a little bit

more difficult to seal felonies.

Clearly, the indication is that while

there should be a statewide database,

there is also going to be a broad

authority for taking data out after a

certain period of time has occurred.

As mentioned, though, certain

felonies cannot be sealed.

The statute establishes

dissemination criteria, some of

which is affirmative and some of

which is by default. The statute

creates a new dissemination status in

which juvenile justice information

can be given to military recruiters

with the consent of the juvenile; this

is not something Texas does for

adults. The statute then simply

points to the adult statutes for record

dissemination criteria. That creates a

very interesting situation because

when those adult statutes were

written, some of them many years

ago, the legislators did not anticipate

that juvenile records would be part

of the information disseminated to

recipient agencies. The only law that

I can think of in Texas that takes

juvenile records into consideration is

the newly passed concealed handgun

law, which limits the usefulness of

juvenile records to the previous 10

years. We may see more of that type

of prohibitions as the sessions go on.

Importantly, the statute also allows

the DPS to send the juvenile records

to the FBI.

The statute also mandates the

type of information that has to be in

the juvenile repository, and this once

again reflects the adult model. For

adult records, we track the offender

from the arrest, through prosecution,

through adjudication, to custody, if

he goes to the State penitentiary.

The same basic model occurs for

juveniles: we track the juvenile from

the reporting of the arrest, if there is

a law enforcement agency involved,

through intake, pre-prosecution,

prosecution, court adjudication and,

ultimately, to detention in the Texas

Youth Commission, if that occurs.

We decided to build the system

that would work in the manual

world. We have 254 counties, so the

process of reporting both adult and

juvenile arrests and adjudications

depends greatly upon the local

reporting agencies. We created a

manual process that would work,

and then allow the counties to

substitute automation if they are

able to provide the same data in an

automated fashion.

The law mandated the creation of

a multiple-part reporting form. Upon

a juvenile’s arrest, the law requires

the law enforcement agency taking

the juvenile into custody to fill out

its portion of the form, as well as a

fingerprint card portion. But there

can be paper-based referrals from

schools or other entities that do not

involve custody by a law

enforcement agency, and that is

where the fingerprints become

problematic. The statute specifically

says the law enforcement agency, or

the intake agency, will take those

prints. As a result, we are training

the juvenile probation offices to take

prints, because at some point the

child will appear in person at the

juvenile probation office. So if the

law enforcement agency does not

take the prints, juvenile probation

will take the prints and send them to

us. The probation officer or

prosecutor fills out the preadjudication section as that occurs

and sends that in, and then there is a

portion of the form that the court

sends in when the offense is

adjudicated. One form is used for

one offense, although we use

supplemental forms which

accommodate additional offenses

and status changes. Again, I

emphasize that we do accept

electronic submissions of the data

supplied on those manual forms.

Key factors to success

What were some of the factors

involved in successfully creating the

juvenile repository? The

compatibility with the adult system

was a key factor for us. Because we

made the two compatible and

integrated, it limited the

programming that had to occur in

our computerized criminal history

system and automated fingerprint

identification system (AFIS). It also

provided direct access over TLETS,

the same methodology for

dissemination to all the noncriminal

justice agencies, and generally a

shorter startup time in terms of

getting the system off the ground.

Field staff was also important to

getting this program started.

Obviously, we have a large State to

cover geographically, but there was

just no way that this level of

requirements could be placed upon

the local agencies without funding

unless we had field representatives

providing personal support to the

local agencies, as well as regional

and specialized agency training. The

field representatives helped to

articulate the State requirements and

encourage the local agencies’

efforts. Implementation of this

system is an interjurisdictional and

interagency problem within the

county to find those local solutions.

Using them proved to be key to our

efforts.

We have received varied

responses from local reporting

entities across the State. Generally,

the law enforcement agencies are

very enthusiastic. During the

legislative session the chiefs were
Page 58 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

very outspoken about their support

for this, even though they saw the

additional work required for them to

do the fingerprinting. The reality of

that workload is now is settling in

on them, but it has not lessened their

enthusiasm for the benefits that are

going to be derived from having the

fingerprints on file.

As regards the quality of

fingerprints we are receiving, these

are definitely the worst fingerprints

that we have in the file. We see that

as a training issue. The poor

fingerprint quality is due in part to

the fact that children cannot be

processed through the adult booking

sites; they have to be processed in

separate sight and sound areas.

There is a learning curve, even

within the police agencies, to get in

place a new process to fingerprint

the juveniles. We also have

difficulty in training the juvenile

probation offices of their need to

fingerprint. Although they are

willing to do that, it is very foreign

to what they have been doing up to

now. So there have the whole

process of buying the kits and

providing training. We see that as

something that is just in its infancy,

and is something that we will

continue to address.

The majority of the prosecutors

and judges have been very

enthusiastic about reporting juvenile

data, although there are a very few

areas where you simply come up

against the old mindset. Even

though the laws changed, the minds

have not in terms of sending

juvenile records to a central

repository.

Impact of automation

Clearly we are in the very

beginning stages of this project. The

requirements started for us in

January 1996, and we have about

20,000 juvenile arrest events that

have been reported to us. That is

low. Had we been receiving them

all, we would expect to have over

100,000 arrests on file by the end of

1996. We may or may not do that

but, again, we see this as an

outcome of being in a startup mode,

and we will continue to work with

the agencies on total compliance.

The sealing requirements of the

law are going to have a significant

effect upon us. Obviously, there is

all the work involved, but there is

also an effect that sealing has on the

fingerprints and their effectiveness

in the AFIS. For example, the

juvenile fingerprints become a part

of the AFIS database, and there will

be a few hits against those

fingerprints. But what also happens

is those fingerprints are being

searched against old latent

fingerprints from unsolved cases.

We are hitting on older cases that

the juveniles perpetrated a year or

two ago. There have been some very

surprised children in that regard. But

if we have to take out the indices

and the fingerprint records upon

sealing, we will lose the benefit of

having those fingerprints in the

AFIS as a source for future latent

searches against the file.

It is our clear opinion in Texas

that electronic reporting is the only

way that we can run a State

repository of our size. Through the

work of SEARCH Member Gene

Draper at the Texas Criminal Justice

Policy Council and the Criminal

Justice Division of our governor’s

office, some money has been made

available to help local agencies

automate disposition reporting. We

are using National Criminal History

Improvement Program grant money

from the Bureau of Justice Statistics

to distribute live-scan devices to our

current remote AFIS sites, if they

will also take that money and

upgrade their subject-in-process

systems to send us electronic arrest

data. We will not key in the entry of

that data at DPS. Through electronic

reporting, the base record is

provided to us to send to the FBI,

and it is the only vision that we

believe will be possible to carry us

into the early 21st century. And that

is the direction we are headed.
IV. Operational and management perspectives

Day two opening address

Using juvenile records to predict criminal behavior

Dr. Alfred Blumstein

The role of the juvenile record in judicial decisionmaking

Judicial access to information critical to the juvenile court

process and to preserving the juvenile justice system

Gordon A. Martin Jr.

Statewide juvenile systems

Providing statewide access to juvenile court

records and proceedings in Utah

Michael R. Phillips

Juvenile records as a basis for firearm prohibitions

California’s approach to using juvenile records in firearms checks

Steve Galeria

Exchanging juvenile records between the

juvenile justice system and schools

Information sharing critical to process

of protecting children

Ronald C. Laney

Issues and implications of

school-juvenile justice information sharing

Dr. Bernard James
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 61

Using juvenile records to predict criminal behavior

DR. ALFRED BLUMSTEIN

J. Erik Jonsson Professor of Urban Systems and Operations Research

School of Urban and Public Affairs

Carnegie Mellon University

The answer to the question of

whether juvenile records can be used

to predict criminal behavior is

“somewhat,” and that is about as

close a prediction as we are ever

really going to get.

I want to talk about some aspects

of what is going on in the juvenile

system, and that does involve issues

of records. I want to say something

about the tension between the

usefulness of records — particularly

in juvenile justice policy and

practice — and their protection, and

the benefits we get from that. In

order to move to that, I want to lay

out some definitions of how we use

juvenile records in dealing with

sentencing issues and policy.

Basically, how do we respond when

a child commits crime? I want to get

at that through a sequence of

dichotomies.

How juvenile records are used

There are two primary purposes

of using records, one is punishment

for punishment’s sake, and the other

is because it is going to do

something about crime. In the first

one, we want to know something

about the offender’s record because

we want to be more retributive,

more punitive to somebody who did

wrong previously and did not heed

the punishment. Thus, we want

record information to decide how

punitive we want to be the next time

the person offends. This is just for

punishment itself, regardless of what

it does about crime control.

In terms of crime control, there

are two basic thrusts. One is the

“macro-thrust,” which is known as

general deterrence. (General

deterrence involves sending the

message to everybody else, using

the punishment of an individual; one

purpose of a punishment policy is to

deter everybody.) Individual records

are not extremely critical in this

instance. The individual being

punished serves the same role as the

Internal Revenue Service trials of

tax evaders every March in order to

make the message fresh in every

taxpayer’s mind in mid-April. They

are not going to punish all the tax

evaders; they could not possibly do

that.

The second basic thrust of crime

control is the “micro-level,” which

is concerned with the individual

offender, and what we as a society

do to that person. Micro-level crime

control dichotomizes into two basic

approaches. One approach is reform

of that individual so that after some

punishment or treatment, he moves

on to some kind of rehabilitation. A

criminal record here is of some use.

A second approach is incapacitation,

which involves getting that

individual off the street, usually

through incarceration, so that he

cannot have further access to

victims. There are other forms of

incapacitation that simply inhibit the

individual from committing crime

through some physical or electronic

means as a substitute for

incarceration.

Incapacitation can be

dichotomized into general and

selective incapacitation. General

incapacitation occurs under any

punishment policy; even though it is

record-blind, some incapacitative

effect results. The other, which is

much more relevant to record issues,

is the selective incapacitation of

identifying the individuals who

represent the greatest threat, and

selecting them for incarceration.

That selection process inherently

involves some degree of individual

prediction that identifies an

individual who is worth

incarcerating because he will

continue to be a serious offender for

a relatively long time or because he

commits crimes at a high rate. That

is where record information is

certainly going to be relevant.

Tension between using,

protecting records

The tension between using and

protecting records comes, in part,

because we do recognize that lots of

kids end up doing some

unreasonable things, but that many

of them are going to stop doing

those unreasonable things. Figure 1

is a graph of the age-crime curve.

For robbery and burglary, the peak

offending age is about 16 for

burglary and about 18 for robbery.

Most of these kids stop offending,

and that is reflected in the fact that

these curves come down so quickly.

They get to half the peak at age 21

for burglary and at age 24 for

robbery. Most of those criminal

careers end fairly early.

Given the recognition of the

mischief that lots of kids engage in,

we do not necessarily want those

indiscretions to follow them the rest

of their lives if they go clean and

stop offending. On the other hand,

we do not want all 18-year-olds who
Page 62 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

appear before a judge to be seen as

absolutely clean. Thus, there is a

fundamental tension between

wanting to protect the privacy and

not stigmatize young individuals for

the rest of their lives, and having

information about their crimes

available when it is needed. That is

not just an act of grace, it is an act of

restoring a deterrent threat. If

individuals know that in the future

they will be punished more severely

because of a prior record, that is one

of the factors that could work to

keep them clean. It is not just for

their benefit, it is for society’s

benefit that we want to protect those

records.

Juvenile crime a growing

problem

Let me turn to the issue of

juvenile crime and the fact that it is

a growing problem. In the last

several years, we have seen a

decline in Uniform Crime Reporting

(UCR) crime rates. I want to focus

on homicide because it is one of the

more reliable UCR measures and it

is indicative of a lot of other things.

My basic thrust is this: what is going

on in the aggregate crime rates as

reflected in the UCR is a net

combination of the crime rate among

kids, which is getting worse, and the

crime rate among adults, which is

getting better. There are a lot more

adults than kids at this point, and so

we are seeing that decline. Let me

be somewhat specific about that.

Figure 2 is an interesting graph of

the last 20-odd years of robbery and

murder rates in the United States.

The striking thing about homicide,

which certainly surprises most

people in this country, is that if you

look over the past 20 years, there

has been no trend whatsoever in

murder. Most people think that it

has been going out of sight, but it

has really been astonishingly flat,

with no upward or downward trend.

Robbery has had a slight upward

trend of about 2.5 robberies per

year, or about 1 percent of the mean

value. And if you look at the last

several years, both of those crimes

seem to have peaked in about 1991

and have generally been coming

down.

Let me turn to murder. Figure 3

is a graph from 1965 and 1970 of

the age-crime curve for murder, that

is, the number of people at each age

arrested for murder, divided by the

total number of people at that age. In

contrast to the robbery/burglary

graph in Figure 1, which was really

sharply peaked, this has quite a flat

peak, and it is quite a bit flatter in its

structure than were the property

crimes (robbery and burglary are

both property crimes from the

offender’s viewpoint). Figure 3

shows two ancient years, 1965 and

1970. What we see here is an acrossthe-board rise from 1965 to 1970 in

the age-specific arrest rate for

murder.

Let me take us closer to current

times with the graph for 1985 and

1994 (Figure 4). We see that 1985 is

virtually the same as 1970, and it

turns out that the whole period

between 1970 and 1985 had

virtually identical age-crime curves

for murder. But we saw a major

qualitative change in that process

from 1985 to the early 1990s; it is as

if someone grabbed the age-crime

curve at age 18 and yanked it up and

pulled the adjoining years up with it.

There was a major change in

offending among children, and I

want to just take a few minutes to

talk about that.

Figure 4 also shows a fairly

consistent decline in offending in

the older ages. Between 1985 and

1994, we saw a doubling in the

homicide rate for ages 18 and under,

but that growth rate declined to the

point where there was essentially no

growth in the mid-20s, and there

was a fairly consistent decline after

30.

Let me first focus on the decline

in after-30 offending. How did that

happen? That is very tough to fully

pin down, but certainly one

contributing factor is the fact that in

the period 1985-1994, we more than

doubled the incarceration rate in the

U.S. This put a lot more people in

prison, and that can have an

incapacitation effect, but that is

predominantly in the older ages.

Those are folks who are likely to

have demonstrated persistent

criminality. There is considerable

dropout from criminal careers in the

late teens through the 20s. By the

time people are in their 30s and still

criminally active, many are

committed to criminal activity, and

incapacitation is probably the

dominant means by which their

crimes are likely to be reduced. (Not

all prisoners were necessarily locked

up for murder. Locking up a drug

seller is not likely to do much about

reducing drug transactions (because

he will be replaced by another

seller), but it might achieve some

increment of reduction in homicide

as an incapacitation effect.)

In this 1985-1994 time period,

people in the younger ages are

showing up too fast as new

offenders for incapacitation to be a

very powerful influence. To put it

another way, the people in prison in

the older age ranges are probably a

relatively large fraction of the

people who are currently criminally

active. We introduce “wastage”

from the viewpoint of incapacitation

as we persist in “three strikes” laws,

in mandatory minimum sentencing

laws, and in handing down

draconian sentences. That is because

an increasing fraction of the older

people in prison will have ended

their criminal careers. But during

1985-1994, this period had a

relatively large percent of those

criminally active in prison, so we

can achieve some significant

incapacitative effects.

At the younger ages, it is unclear

which of the offenders are going to

persist in any significant way into

their 30s and which ones are about

to terminate. We know extreme

examples on either side, but for the
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 63

large majority of the cases, it is very

tough to identify and predict which

offenders are going to persist in their

criminal careers.

Gun, drug epidemics underlie

juvenile crime

Juvenile homicide has been

growing dramatically. After the 15

years of stability from 1970-1985,

we saw the doubling suddenly start

in 1985, and so we must wonder

what contributed to that. If you look

at the weapons involved in juvenile

homicides, for about 15 years they

were fairly stable at 60 percent guns

and 40 percent non-guns. Following

1985, the juvenile homicides with

guns more than doubled, with no

change in non-gun homicides.

Another important trend was in

arrests for drug offenses of nonwhite males. That rate was lower

than the rate for whites throughout

the 1970s. The trend was flat

through the 1970s, and then

suddenly started up in 1985 and

doubled by 1989.

These observations suggest a

process that started with the arrival

of crack in urban areas, which

induced a large market demand

because new people were able to

buy crack cocaine who could not

afford to buy powdered cocaine in

the quantities that were previously

sold. Not only were these folks able

to buy crack, they also bought it one

hit at a time because they did not

have the capital to buy more, so

there was a major increase in the

number of market transactions. A lot

of people were in prison at the time.

The market recruited cheap sellers in

the person of kids from urban areas,

and that contributed to this major

growth in non-whites arrested for

drug offenses. People in the drug

business could be carrying a lot of

money or other valuable stuff, and if

someone tries to steal that, they

cannot easily call the cops to help

get it back. So these kids now carry

guns for their own protection. They

carry those guns and they show

them in the street, they show them in

schools. We know that kids are quite

tightly networked, and so the other

kids around them started carry guns

for their own protection.

What we saw was a gun epidemic

that diffused out from the inner-city

crack markets into other areas. As a

result, we saw a 120 percent growth

in homicide rates between 1985 and

1992 for non-white juveniles. For

white juveniles, we saw an 80

percent growth in the homicide rate,

but that did not start up until 1988, 3

years later, the time it took for that

gun epidemic to diffuse itself out

into the larger community. That

suggests that an important feature of

this period was much more one of

gun availability to kids, rather than

necessarily an inherently greater

propensity by kids to engage in

violence. You can tell that because

the gun homicides went up, but not

the non-gun homicides. And when

you look at juvenile suicide, suicide

with guns went up, while suicide

with non-guns stayed flat. Thus, that

propensity to violence which

underlies some of the cries about

“super-predators” may simply not be

the case. I think we must explore

this issue further, because I believe

that the dramatic rise in juvenile

violence results from the availability

of guns in the hands of kids who do

not exercise restraint.

For example, there was no

growth in homicide rates of white or

non-white adults during the period

of the 1980s. Even though nonwhite adults were significantly

involved in an increasing way in the

drug business in the 1980s, their

homicide rate did not go anywhere

during that period.

Youth boom drives increases

in crime

The future growth derives from

growing young cohort sizes. To give

you a window on that issue, Figure 5

is a smoothed graph of the age

composition of the U.S. population

in 1996, in millions, at each age. If

you read this backward, it is a

representation of the fertility history

of the United States. The post-World

War II baby boom started in 1947

— the war ended in 1945, people

got together in 1946, and then the

baby boom began the next year.

That boom continued until it peaked

in about 1960 (the people aged 36 in

1996), followed by a decline. That

was part of what contributed to the

decline in homicides after the

peaking in 1980 (see Figure 2) — a

moving out of the high-crime ages

by the baby boomers.

We reach a population trough in

the cohort born in 1975. That is the

smallest cohort in recent decades,

and they are now 21. We can see a

steadily growing wave behind them

of cohorts increasing each year by

about 1 percent. We are now moving

into a period in which larger

numbers of people will move into

those peak crime ages, 15 to 19 for

property crimes, 15 to 24 for the

violent crimes, and so there is a

cohort size effect pushing on us,

even if no changes occur in agespecific involvement in crime. To

the extent that rate changes occur,

that could be a double whammy if

the rate increases. But it could also

decrease. The one thing we can be

confident of is that we know the size

of oncoming cohorts for the next 15

years. For the nation as a whole,

there will be an increase in crime,

although not dramatic, and there are

some important increases down in

these young ages.

As we think of this mixed

strategy about what we have to do

about adults, as well as kids, there is

an important bulge in the population

that we ought to start worrying

about in terms of preventive efforts.

That would move us from the

single-instrument strategy of

incarceration that has been driving

so much of criminal justice policy

over the last 10 to 20 years.
Page 64 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

Juvenile policy trend

Let me say something about the

way criminal justice policy has been

moving, with prison as the dominant

response. Figure 6 shows the

incarceration rate by year in the

United States; that is, number of

prisoners per capita. Starting in the

early 1920s and for about 50 years,

to about 1973, this graph was

astonishingly flat. For 50 years we

had an incarceration rate of about

110 per 100,000, plus or minus 8

percent. It moved upward a bit

during the end years of the

Depression and downward during

World War II (when we had better

things for young men to do than stay

in prison), and then it reestablished

itself at that stable rate. In the post1973 period, we saw an astonishing

growth in the incarceration rate, a

quadrupling of the rate that had

prevailed for the previous 50 years.

This raises the intriguing question of

why, in the face of this growth in the

use of prison, there is no dramatic

reductions in the crime rates. One

might anticipate that perhaps crime

rates would have gone through the

roof if that many people had not

been locked up. But it also has to

raise some question about some of

the unintended consequences of

incarceration. For example, has it

converted entrepreneurial drug

sellers who were sent to prison

under mandatory minimum laws

into seasoned and well-trained

criminals? Much of the incarceration

growth is attributable to drug

offenders as the nation tried with

growing futility to attack the drug

problem through increased

incarceration.

Incarceration has clearly been the

single dominant strategy of criminal

justice policy, and we have focused

this particularly in the juvenile

system lately by the variety of

waivers that mandate that children at

younger ages go into an adult court

under a presumption that the adult

criminal justice system will be

tougher on them. However, there is

evidence from a number of

jurisdictions that suggests that,

because these bad kids would show

up at the high end in the juvenile

justice system and the low end of

the adult criminal justice system, in

many cases the punishment imposed

by the juvenile justice system is

greater than that imposed by the

adult system.

One of the strong arguments for

waiver is that the juvenile court

jurisdiction typically ends at some

young age, like 19 or 20, so you

cannot give an adequate sentence to

a kid who got caught in his 17th

year. This obviously suggests that

perhaps the better way to deal with

this problem is to extend the

authority of the juvenile system

rather than to assume that the adult

system is the solution to the

problem.

Predicting a criminal career

In terms of using juvenile career

information to predict an adult

criminal career, first we have to

recognize that forecasts are difficult.

Many people have made prediction

models and then tested them out on

real data; more often than not, they

find a high error of omission and

difficulty in identifying the people

who are most severely at high risk in

the future. You get some, but you

lose some also, in part because there

is only a limited amount of

information from the juvenile career.

The juvenile career is certainly valid

for making predictions for some

people at the extremes but, again,

for the large majority in the middle,

prediction is extremely difficult.

The basic purpose for which we

want to do the prediction is for

incapacitation. Concerns have been

raised about incarcerating people for

crimes they might commit in the

future. That is a legitimate concern,

but an even greater concern ought to

be raised about deterrence, because

that involves using the criminal

sanction to deter other people from

committing crimes. We are basically

locking up John Doe in order to

deter a lot of other people from

committing crimes. There are some

very tough ethical issues involved,

but there is no question that judges

do take into account prior records to

make some judgments about future

criminality by an individual before

them. We would like them to be as

intelligent in that as possible.

There are two key parameters we

want to predict about an individual:

one is how much longer he is going

to continue in criminal activity, and

the other is how many crimes a year

is he likely to commit? What is his

offending frequency? To some

extent, people who commit many

crimes a year, just by chance alone,

are more likely to end up in prison

than low-rate offenders, even if

there is no prediction made about

them. We have to recognize that we

can get a lot of what we want to

know just in terms of their

frequency of offending. There are

some critical variables that are

indicative of offending frequency.

One of the important ones is drug

abuse as an indicator of future

criminality. Another variable that is

relevant to the juvenile record

system is age of onset of criminal

activity. That is important

information that could be used in the

future, and obviously it is the

criminal record that provides the

information about future criminality.

It is important that we be able to

distinguish the persisters from the

people who are committing only a

few crimes, those who might be

remediable from those who are the

lost causes. Those are important

decisions.

Access to the juvenile record

There are certain things we ought

to consider doing. A few years ago

the National Academy of Sciences

Panel on Research on Criminal

Careers and Career Criminals

recommended that, because there is

useful information in the juvenile

record and because there is an
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 65

important desire to keep that record

private, we ought to give the adult

system access to the juvenile record

at the first serious adult

involvement. That approach has the

virtue of keeping the juvenile record

sealed until the offender does

something in the future, and it does

provide that protection to those who

are going to stay clean. That

recommendation has a vague term

called “serious involvement.” There

is a reasonably consistent ranking of

seriousness across crimes, with

murder at the top and minor

misdemeanor offenses at the bottom.

Any a jurisdiction can then decide

what is serious enough to make that

trade-off between the desire to

protect juvenile misbehavior and the

desire to identify serious criminals

who must be dealt with.

The other vague term is

“involvement.” I think a general

preference might be to say that when

the individual is convicted of a

particular offense, then the record

should become available for the

sentencing decision. But one could

make it post-indictment instead of

post-conviction. Again, considerable

discretion has to be used here, and

one of the problems we have seen in

criminal justice policy over the last

several decades — and part of what

has contributed to this dramatic

upward growth in incarceration —

has been the creation of great big

boxes, with all cases that fall in the

box treated identically. We see this

in mandatory minimum sentences,

we see this in a variety of sentencing

policies that are adopted by

legislatures. The focus in creating

the box is on one corner, but then

useful and needed discretion is

removed elsewhere.

The argument here is that States

ought to decide what is serious

enough to warrant breaking open the

juvenile record, and at what stage of

the system that record should be

opened. But at least this provides a

structure within which that issue can

be addressed, and it certainly should

be addressed. There are some people

who are going to be adult criminals,

and we certainly do not want to

presume that every 18-year-old has

no prior criminal involvement.

Indeed, it is almost certainly the case

that judges are going to be taking

account of the fact that an 18- or 19-

year-old showing up in the adult

court has some juvenile record; thus,

the ones who are indeed clean at that

point will be prejudiced against

because of the lack of information.

There is some calibration going on,

and we must recognize that. Using

the information makes sense.

All of the pressure to change the

juvenile justice system through

waiver procedures seems to be

intended to remove kids from the

juvenile court; maybe we ought to

deal with that more rationally by

giving the juvenile court greater

flexibility in dealing with its cases.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we have tried a

wide variety of methods to predict

future criminal behavior. They do

not do terribly well, at least in

statistical prediction, especially in

the middle ranges, rather than at the

extremes. Thus, we should continue

to work on developing better

models. Obviously, that must

recognize that some variables are

inappropriate to be used, the most

obvious being race. I should note

that race is not even a good

prediction variable. It may be a good

prediction variable to distinguish

between who gets involved with the

criminal justice system and who

does not, but when you look at

people involved with the criminal

justice system, race becomes an

enormously weaker prediction

variable. It is, however, an important

issue to recognize that there are

ethical limits on what you may use

in any kind of prediction.

Finally, a mixed portfolio is a

critical aspect of any strategy in the

criminal justice system. We need

more focus on prevention,

particularly on the age group now

under 10, some of whom are going

to be high risk. We have to develop

approaches to dealing with

prevention in a society where the

fundamental socializing unit is the

family. We used to have all kinds of

backups for the dysfunctional

family. We used to have extended

families, community centers and

churches to help out. We are now in

an era when most of those backups

have eroded or decayed completely.

The extended family is too often

remote because of mobility. We are

in a period of considerable turmoil

in the family; there are high rates of

illegitimacy and of children in

poverty. We need more parental

training, better prenatal care and

more early intervention in schools,

rather than waiting for the juvenile

justice system or any prediction of

who should be locked up. Clearly,

when people do get to the juvenile

justice system, and to the adult

system, we ought to be able to have

the records available for identifying

serious offenders when the time

comes to respond to them.
Electronic Editor's Note: Pages 66-71 (Figures 1-6) are not available

electronically.
Page 72 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

Judicial access to information critical to the juvenile court process

and to preserving the juvenile justice system

GORDON A. MARTIN JR.

Associate Justice

Massachusetts Trial Court

District Court Department

As you all know from your own

jurisdictions, the 18th birthday is the

basic cut-off point in the United

States for conduct to be

characterized as delinquent that

otherwise would be criminal. My

home State of Massachusetts, along

with seven other States, has

legislatively excluded an entire year.

We have purposefully kept out that

very tough year, the year between

the 17th and 18th birthdays, that the

vast majority of our sister States

deal with every day in their own

juvenile systems. Personally, I do

not want to have any more

exclusions, whether of age or of

offense, and that is simply because I

would like to do my job, which is

judicial decisionmaking and

discretion. (Let us all admire Dave

Gavin who told us yesterday

afternoon that his Texas Legislature

would not be back in session until

1997. Praise the Lord for any

legislature not in session for the rest

of 1996 because nothing good for

juveniles is happening in our

legislatures today.)

States tinker with juvenile laws

Fox Butterfield, that very able

New York Times writer, in the lead

story in a recent Sunday edition,

pointed out that almost every one of

our 50 States has been tinkering

with, attempting to tinker with or

actually revising its juvenile laws

during the past 2 years. And what

have they been doing? In essence,

they have been dumping children

into adult court and, ultimately, into

adult institutions where it is

presumed that they will serve longer

sentences under more punitive

conditions, where it may also be

assumed that they will become the

targets of, and bullied by, older adult

prisoners. I regret that some of our

political leaders do not seem to

regret that. Is it true that they will

receive longer sentences in adult

court? It depends on what the law is,

and what the reaction of judges is to

the offense, in the individual

jurisdiction.

I urge all of you to review the

points made in the National Juvenile

Justice Action Plan and its

summary.1 It is not a perfect

document, but it represents the

consensus of a lot of very

hardworking people. I was fortunate

enough in June 1994 to be one of the

appointees of the U. S. House of

Representatives to the Coordinating

Council on Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, which

developed the Action Plan. I hope

you will look at what we

recommend in terms of extended

juvenile jurisdiction. I want to keep

kids under the aegis of those who

have been trained to deal with them.

 

1 U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

Combating Violence and Delinquency:

The National Juvenile Justice Action

Plan, Summary , by the Coordinating

Council on Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (Washington,

D.C.: Government Printing Office,

March 1996).

If it means extending the age, then

let us do it.

There are different ways to

extend juvenile jurisdiction. I refer

to our most recent legislative change

in Massachusetts as the “New

Year’s Eve legislation of 1991.”

You can probably guess why: there

were so many mistakes in that

December 31 enactment that there

had to be an eight-part clean-up bill

passed in 1992 to correct it. Our

legislation, alas, did not include the

minimum age for transfer; that 6-

year-old from Richmond, California,

who has been mentioned could have

been swept along into adult court if

his offense fell during that time

period. I do not recommend our law

as a model, but it simply mandates

that retained juveniles (those whom

we keep in our system) found

delinquent because of first-degree

murder serve between 15 and 20

years. Up to the age of 21, they are

placed in a juvenile facility; beyond

that, they serve their sentence in the

adult correctional system. For

second-degree murder, they serve 10

to 15 years; again, by the age of 21,

they move to the adult system.

Unlike Texas, which moved its

30-year determinate sentence to 40

years, there is no hearing that occurs

in Massachusetts to find out whether

or not the juvenile system has done

its job. I do not care for our statute

in that form, but it could easily be

made palatable. I would like to have

a hearing; I would like to find out

whether the system that I value so

much, my Department of Youth

Services (DYS) in the
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 73

Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

has done its job. There is no reason

why the person cannot be released,

but remain on intensive parole

supervision after that if it is believed

that the DYS has done its job. It is,

however, obviously easier for DYS

to do its job if there is some

incentive for offenders to get out

before their entire life cycle has

repeated itself. If you think about it,

if most juveniles kill at the age of

16, and the minimum sentence is 15

to 20 years, they will serve more

years in custody than they have

lived. Rehabilitation, if it occurs,

does not take that long, and there is

the distinct possibility of the

affirmative work of juvenile

authorities being undone during the

years in the adult institution.2

Open access preserves

system

There is no question in my mind

that Sacramento County District

Attorney Jan Scully was exactly

right yesterday when she said that

the public had lost confidence in our

system’s ability to protect them.

However, there is the perception,

and it is just a perception, that we

slap wrists behind our closed doors.

I am here with an agenda, and let me

tell you exactly what it is: I am

proud of what our underfinanced

and understaffed juvenile justice

system has accomplished. I am

proud of the Massachusetts DYS,

nationally recognized because of the

success of its smaller communitybased facilities.

 

2 Subsequent to this conference,

Massachusetts followed the national

trend with its new juvenile legislation.

St. 1996, c. 200, abolished transfer

hearings, replacing them with automatic

adult prosecution for those 14 and older

accused of murder and prosecutorial

discretion as to whether those in that age

group accused of other serious offenses

would be indicted or remain in juvenile

court, but be subject to a state prison

sentence. See Mass. G.L. c. 119 §§52-84

as amended July 27, 1996.

My agenda is pretty simple: it is

to preserve and to strengthen the

juvenile justice system. It is my

concern that if we do not show the

public what we are accomplishing

with our delinquent juveniles, then

our system and the 100-some years

that have gone into its creation, from

the Chicago and Boston juvenile

courts, from the House of Refuge in

New York City, will come to an

end. In an ideal, trusting world, we

could keep our traditional system

with its current, or recent,

confidentiality. Please do not

believe for a moment that I do not

recognize the down side of

publicity. It is only because I view

opening access to juvenile

proceedings as, by far, the lesser of

evils, that I make the proposal that I

do. It is my belief, certainly, that

once the novelty has worn off, the

media will take as little interest in

most delinquency cases as it takes in

most adult criminal trials. And there

will not be anything that our

opponents — and I use that term

purely in a legislative sense because

there are many good people

sincerely in that vein — can accuse

us of hiding, because the doors will

be open.3

As I and my colleagues in the

National Council of Juvenile and

Family Court Judges have proposed,

you would be able to walk into any

delinquency trial. This was our

organizational statement. And, mind

you, these are the working judges

who deal with the juveniles in our

society every day. Traditional

notions of secrecy and

 

3 See Gordon A. Martin Jr., Open the

Doors: A Judicial Call to End

Confidentiality in Delinquency

Proceedings, 21 New England Journal

on Criminal and Civil Confinement 393

(1995). The July 1996 Massachusetts

legislation opened the court records and

trials of juveniles 14 and older charged

with serious offenses (termed “youthful

offenders”). Mass. G.L. c. 119 §§60A

and 65. Juvenile murder trials were

already open to the public.

confidentiality should be

reexamined and relaxed to promote

public confidence in the court’s

work. The public has a right to know

how courts deal with children and

families. The court should be

opened to the media, interested

professionals and students and,

when appropriate, the public, in

order to hold itself accountable, to

educate others, and to encourage

greater community participation.

That is the official policy statement

written just a year ago by the

National Council.

Judicial decisionmaking

My specific topic is the role of

the juvenile record in judicial

decisionmaking. Obviously, the

basic delinquency history is crucial

to the juvenile’s first court

appearance — arraignment, the

setting of bail. What, if anything,

has the juvenile been charged with?

If there has been a charge, what, if

anything, has the child been found

delinquent of? Have court

appearances been kept? Does the

juvenile show up? Has restitution, if

ordered, taken place? And has

anybody in the community appeared

on his behalf?

The more information a judge

has, whether it is on paper or

presented live, the better, and all

those factors that apply at

arraignment, at the setting of bail,

are equally important when you get

to disposition. I value prosecutorial

recommendations. I respect

prosecutorial discretion. I was a

prosecutor myself at the Federal

level for more than 3 years. I hope

that more than 22 of our States will

permit prosecutors access to records.

I think that is most important.

I also like to know about the

health of the child and when the last

physical occurred. I find, as do

many of you in our urban areas, that

asthma is disproportionately high in

our cities. I always make it a point

when the intake report shows that a

child does have asthma to take out
Page 74 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

my own inhaler and say, “Hey, I got

here to court this morning. I don’t

want you to use your asthma as an

excuse to miss school, to miss your

appointments with your probation

officer,” and then I find out who is

caring for their asthma. As to how

and where juveniles are going to

spend the summer, I find out just

how far away their extended family

is. Regretfully, I found that many of

the children in Roxbury are

considered safer if they are sent

away from Roxbury for the summer

to that extended family in Charlotte,

North Carolina, or in the rural parts

of the southeast.

In one case that I handled, a

young man we shall call “Al” was

found delinquent because of rape. Al

also set fires. You can imagine how

many facilities were eager to have

Al as a denizen. He continued on for

far too long in temporary detention

quarters, and I believe that occurred

in large part because the agencies

involved were reluctant to share

information with each other.

Ultimately, I issued an order to the

Departments of Mental Health,

Social Services and Youth Services,

and to his school district, that

waived all confidentiality rules that

were impeding information sharing.

At times, we must tackle these

things head-on and deal with them.

It is up to judges and legislators to

protect those public employees from

statutes that, superficially at least,

appear to bar their providing

obvious information to those

persons and agencies who are

attempting to work with them for the

good of the individual. Once this

information was shared, Al was

placed into an appropriate facility.4

 

4 Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, No.

85-J-440 (Mass. Dist. Ct., Quincy Div.,

filed Jan. 24, 1986).

Importance of judicial waiver

I hope that the judges in this

country will be able to continue to

do what I consider to be the most

important judicial decision —

waiver. Whether it is called transfer

or certification in some jurisdictions,

this is the movement of children to

adult courts. I believe that it should

be a judicial decision, that it should

not be an automatic action decided

by the exclusion of children because

of their age or because of the nature

of the alleged offense. In waiver

hearings, records are crucial;

obviously, we need the school

records, we need the psychiatric and

psychological records, we need the

records kept while the child has

been detained in the youth

correctional facility. I do not

propose that every record involving

that youth be made public, but I can

certainly see summaries of records

being made public, if that is

necessary to convey to the public

whose support we need to continue

our system, why a child is being

retained.

Those of us in court of necessity

deal with snapshots in time. In one

recent 2-year period, every young

man who appeared before me for

whom transfer was sought had

himself either been shot or stabbed

at some point. Suppose the camera

had clicked an hour before my

snapshot, or the following week.

Think about that.

Ultimately, virtually every

prisoner, juvenile or adult, not

executed either by law or by the

inmates with whom we have placed

him, gets out. What do we want

them to get out of their time in

confinement? What do we want to

have occurred while they were

confined? Would we like to see

them be literate? Would we like to

see them be employable? The adult

correctional system has not been —

I think you will agree — so notably

successful with its constituency to

warrant our handing over our

children, violent or not, to it.

So let us unite to preserve our

juvenile justice system from the

present onslaught upon it. Let us

open our delinquency proceedings

and, where appropriate, records so

that a skeptical public may learn of

the good work going on. In that

way, we shall lead our juvenile

courts into a second hundred years.
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 75

Providing statewide access to juvenile court records

and proceedings in Utah

MICHAEL R. PHILLIPS

Deputy Administrator

Utah Juvenile Court

Administrative Office of the Courts

I attended a similar juvenile

justice conference cosponsored by

the Bureau of Justice Statistics and

SEARCH in 1988 in Boston. There

were only about half as many people

there as are here today, which is

indicative of the increased level of

interest. We did not know it at the

time, but the ground was shifting

under our feet. Things were

happening, even as we met, that

were going to change the future of

juvenile justice.

In 1988-1989, the arrest rate for

thousands of juvenile violent crimes

went up significantly. This caught

the public’s attention. This growth,

even though it involved less than 1

percent of the children who are

referred to juvenile court, had a

significant impact on the media and,

ultimately, on legislators who

wanted to protect their citizens. Our

aging population gets more

conservative and they want more

protection.

This increase in the juvenile

arrest rate caused a significant

change in juvenile justice. I just

celebrated my 30th anniversary in

juvenile justice. The first 25 years

were relatively quiet; we did not

have a lot of media involvement,

and we liked it that way. In the last 5

years, I have become personally

acquainted with all of the media

representatives — television, radio

and print — in our State. They call

me regularly, and they want

information. It has really changed

the environment in which we work.

Some of the recent statements

made by politicians have had an

impact on the system as well.

In one statement, California

Attorney General Dan Lungren said

that in 1996, he is going to focus his

attention on legislation to end

confidentiality in juvenile justice

proceedings. He said we have to

remove the cloak of anonymity that

shields juveniles, and that there is

nothing wrong with young criminals

feeling the sting of public shame

when they get arrested. Finally, he

said these kids do not deserve a

grace period.

Virginia Governor George Allen,

in creating an action plan for

recently passed legislation in his

State, said that the package he had

set up would allow criminal

prosecution of many youths charged

with violent offenses, thus

increasing the number of kids

transferred to adult courts. He said

he is going to open up juvenile

proceedings and records to the

public. He said he is going to allow

dual sentencing, thus empowering

juvenile court judges to sentence

kids, even into the adult system, if

they did not get rehabilitated while

they remained juveniles. And he

said he is going to allow prosecutors

more discretion in transferring

certain kinds of very serious felonies

to the adult system.

Open records, hearings

These kinds of political

statements are typical of what has

been going on in State juvenile

justice systems throughout the

nation during the first half of the

1990s. But, contrary to common

belief, many juvenile courtrooms

and records are now open to some

level to public inspection.

The National Center for Juvenile

Justice recently conducted a review

of juvenile statutes in every State.

According to the Center, as of 1995,

39 States and the District of

Columbia allowed some access to

both juvenile court records and

hearings; 15 States and the District

have opened their court hearings to

the public; and 9 States have opened

their juvenile records to the public

with no restrictions. This is a

significant change from just 10 years

ago in the United States.

Statutes in many other States

allow judges to permit the public,

especially victims, to attend

otherwise restricted hearings on

request. All of these changes have

put pressure on juvenile justice

systems to respond to this new era

of openness.

Utah, for example, has had a

media committee that has met for

the last several years, and they were

surprised when I told them that the

media could go into any juvenile

court hearing, that all they had to do

was obtain the judge’s permission.

They said, “The judge is never

going to give us permission.” And I

said, “Have you ever asked?” They

answered “no.” And I said, “Don’t
Page 76 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

talk to me until you’ve tried.” We

have been keeping track over the

last 2 or 3 years and, except for one

or two unusual cases that probably

would have remained closed even in

adult court, the media have been

allowed into these hearings. The

media simply did not know they

could ask and get in. In fact, we

have one judge in our First Judicial

District — that judge is on a circuit

and holds court in a fairly rural area

— who has allowed the local media

representative to attend court every

Thursday for the last 10 years. Every

week, there is a write-up in the local

newspaper about what went on in

juvenile court. The reporter

generally does not publish the

names of the juveniles, although

there is no prohibition against it.

I think that juvenile courts have

been more open than those of us

who work in the system have

realized, it is just that nobody has

asked to attend. I am going to talk a

little about that media interest in

juvenile proceedings later in my

presentation.

Utah laws, rules governing

access

I would like to review some of

the laws and rules in Utah that

govern access to juvenile court

records, and to describe, from the

court’s perspective, how we respond

to requests for access to our courts.

Over the last 15 years we have

shared our statewide juvenile index

with law enforcement. Our Judicial

Council passed a rule that authorizes

any law enforcement agency in Utah

to look at juvenile records that we

provide through every dispatch

terminal in the State. The same

terminals used to access the National

Crime Information Center and the

National Law Enforcement

Telecommunications System are

used to access Utah’s statewide

juvenile index. We allow them to

access the index when it is part of an

arrest process or an official

investigation. We even allow them

to create referral records. For

example, if they decided to field

card a child and not make a referral

to court, we let them add that record

to the juvenile index. This then

becomes a statewide repository of

this type of juvenile involvement

with law enforcement.

We do not allow law enforcement

to print out the juvenile records,

although they can look at them, and

we do have the police chief in each

agency sign a document stating he

will train his staff to use it only for

official purposes. We do not want

one of the officers to check out his

daughter’s boyfriend. Although I am

sure that may happen, we think the

risks are worth allowing this kind of

access. Included in this statewide

access are pick-up orders, bench

warrants, other messages from

probation officers regarding the

child, and a rap sheet that includes

all of the formal referrals to juvenile

court and what the court has done

with that youth.

In addition, for over 20 years, we

have allowed adult probation and

parole access to a juvenile record

when they are doing a presentence

report on a youth who has not been

convicted in adult court. We want

this as part of their presentence

report to the adult court. We want

the adult court to be informed.

Through the main menu of the

statewide system, law enforcement

users can view the youth’s rap sheet

and create a critical message if they

want to add a message on the child’s

file. We allow them to create and

update their own diversion records if

they are not going to refer the child

to court. We allow them to run a list

of the kids they have referred to us

in the last few months so they can

see what we did with them. We

allow them to see a record summary,

and we allow them to run a list of

the cases that we have closed that

their agency has sent to us so that

they can see what the court did with

those.

The system provides a summary

screen of the child’s record, which

can run several pages. We know that

law enforcement officers sometimes

do not want to cover a lengthy rap

sheet, so the screen summarizes in

plain English exactly what this

youth has done, based on the records

we have, and then provides

information on what occurred in the

court hearing.

Let me describe the contents of a

typical on-line summary record. The

screen shows that the youth has been

convicted of two criminal offenses

which were included in two criminal

episodes. These offenses included

no felonies and two misdemeanors.

None of these criminal episodes

consisted of two or more offenses.

In terms of what occurred in court,

the youth was fined $100, which he

has paid, and he spent 4 days in

detention. The screen also says a

more detailed rap sheet can be

accessed that provides the names of

all the probation officers and the

judges who have worked with this

youth.

Even though our information

system is simply full of dates,

offense codes and dispositions, we

have tried to summarize this in plain

English for professionals who want

to use it to prepare their presentence

report. Our example screen shows

that the youth, at last report, was

residing with his mother only; the

marital status of his natural and legal

parents was indicated as divorced. It

says the youth was referred to the

Third District Juvenile Court for the

first time for a criminal or status

offense in November 1991, for bike

theft when he was 12 years of age.

Since that time, he has been referred

46 times for criminal or status

offenses; he has been convicted on

30 of those charges; and a total of

11, or 23 percent, of the charge

referrals have taken place over the

past 12 months. The youth’s offense

rate during the past 12 months is .92

offenses per month.
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 77

Another page of the summary

indicates that the youth had been

referred as a dependent neglected or

abused child when he was 7.3 years

of age, showing a history of abuse

on this record. The record also

provides a history of detention or

other placements. We share this

information system with our

Division of Youth Corrections, and

any time a youth is removed from

his home for a delinquent reason,

either for detention or foster care or

community placement or to a secure

facility, he is booked in and out on

this system. In this way, we have a

complete history of placements. In

this example, the youth spent 315

days in some sort of alternative

placement, mostly detention. If the

youth would have escaped from any

of these placement options, the

absence without leaves would also

show.

The summary record also

indicates that the youth was placed

on probation in 1993, and has spent

1,090 days on probation. It then lists

the names of all the agencies and

people (judges, commissioners, etc.)

who have dealt with this youth. The

last section references fines,

restitution and collections; we use

this information system to collect

and disburse restitution and to keep

track of community service hours.

The summary record contains a list

of the critical messages and other

materials that professionals want to

put in the system. The system also

displays a chronological rap sheet,

which details in chronological order

the youth’s history in the system.

Changes to the access law

The public has had access to

portions of the juvenile court record

in Utah for as long as I can

remember, but recently our law

changed to allow both media and

public access to any case in our

system in which a youth aged 16 or

17 is charged with a felony. It also

allows parents or guardians, other

parties, defense attorneys and

prosecutors to have access to any

element in the juvenile record. The

law also allows the State Division of

Law Enforcement and Technical

Services to look at a person’s

juvenile record for purposes of

establishing good character for

issuance of a concealed firearm

permit. Thus, if they think the

juvenile record is too long, they can

recommend denial of that person’s

concealed weapon application by

stating he is not of good character,

based on his juvenile record.

A subsection of that law states

that if a petition is filed charging a

minor 16 or older with an offense

that would be a felony if committed

by an adult, the court shall make

available to any person upon request

the following items: the petition, any

adjudication or disposition orders,

and a delinquency history summary

of the minor charged. This means

we give the media and the public, on

request, the prior record of juveniles.

When the media request the

record of a 16- or 17-year-old youth

who has been charged with a felony,

we provide them with a “media rap

sheet” in which we purposefully

summarize the juvenile’s record into

criminal episodes, convicted

offenses and court appearances. This

gives the media a more accurate

view of the record, since they are

not going to take the time to

carefully review and summarize the

information on a long rap sheet.

They are going to jump quickly to

conclusions unless we format our

information in such a way that leads

them to accurate evaluations of these

records. We hope this makes it easy

for them to understand and not

misinterpret the record.

In one typical media rap sheet,

the youth in question has been

convicted of 23 criminal offenses

which were included in 19 criminal

episodes. These offenses included 5

felonies and 18 misdemeanors or

infractions. Four of these criminal

episodes consisted of two or more

offenses. These 23 criminal offenses

were heard by the court in 12

hearings held over the course of the

youth’s court history. As a result of

the findings of these hearings, a

variety of orders were issued,

including fines of $78, 100 percent

of which were paid, restitution of a

couple of hundred bucks, which was

received, and 352 hours of

community service, which he has

not completed. He has spent over

1,000 days on probation and, while

on probation, he has committed 3

felonies and 13 misdemeanors. He

was sent to the Division of Youth

Corrections in September 1994, and

he has spent 94 days in community

placements of some sort. He was

placed in detention first in 1993,

where he spent 212 days, and he was

first placed in home detention in

1995, where he spent 7 days.

Automated name searches

I would like to digress and talk

about the art of name searching. We

have talked about fingerprint

information systems and how that

positively identifies individuals, but

often law enforcement or other field

officers do not have time to take

fingerprints and do the number

check. They are going to go into the

system and look for a person based

on a name search. Utah’s system is

probably the oldest juvenile justice

system in the world, brought on-line

in the summer of 1973. It has gone

through three iterations. In each

successive system, we have brought

all of our historical data with us, so

we are now dealing with some of the

grandchildren of the kids we dealt

with when we first started collecting

this statewide juvenile information.

We think it is fairly accurate

because we use it to drive our

courts; it produces petitions,

summonses, notices of hearing,

court dockets, intake rap sheets, and

all sorts of documents that flow in

and out of the court. In the process

of that flow, we collect and update

the information.
Page 78 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

Back in 1980, a bright young

man working for SEARCH Group,

Robert Marx, wrote an article in

SEARCH’s magazine in which he

discussed how good name searches

should be designed.1 They should

be forgiving, so if your search

criteria are wrong, the computer

does not disqualify that particular

entry, and it should be sorted. In

other words, the most likely person

should rise to the top of the list. And

he used Bay’s Law, a statistical

probability theory, to sort these lists

into ways that would make it more

likely that someone searching for a

name would make a hit.

The article is well worth taking a

look at because it is what we used to

develop our name search algorithm,

which has worked quite well for us.

If we cannot find the person using

that probability search, we can

default to a regular alphabetic

search, but invariably we will make

the hit on probability. Robert Marx’s

name search used the first and

middle names, first and middle

initials, last name, as well as a

phonetic match on the last name; the

year, month and day of birth; and, of

course, gender. We also discovered

recently that there is one thing kids

will not lie about — mom’s first

name. So we are going to add the

mother’s first name to our

information system and see if this

helps improve our hit rate. Seventy

percent of the kids on whom we do a

name search have a prior record. So

we need an accurate name search

algorithm. We also need to help law

enforcement make accurate hits

when their dispatcher is trying to tell

an officer in the field whether this

kid has a pick-up order or something

else in his record.

 

1 Robert L. Marx, “Probability

Theory and the Art of Name Searching,”

Interface, June 1980, p. 7.

School notifications, adult

system transfers

In terms of juvenile records in

schools, Utah State law requires that

the court notify the school when a

youth is convicted of any serious

felony against a person or when a

youth is placed on probation. We

have 3 days to do that, so we try to

hustle those out. This was set up to

help schools protect students from

more violent offenders and

offenders who have offended

enough to receive probation.

Utah recently adopted a serious

youth offender act, which changed

the way we transfer kids to the adult

system. It creates three categories of

serious youthful offenders:

• In the 601 category are youths

charged with murder or a felony

who have been sent to one of our

secure facilities. These youths are

automatically sent to adult court;

the juvenile court no longer has

jurisdiction over them. We

discovered that a third of our

secure facility beds were taken up

by kids who were in for their

second or third time in that

secure facility. They were taking

up a lot of space, so we said,

“Okay, kid you get one chance.

You come out charged with a

felony, you’re going to go to the

adult system.”

• Our 602 kids are what we call the

“10 deadly sins” group. If a youth

is 16 or 17 and charged with an

offense that falls within this “10

deadly sins” list, he is presumed

to be transferred to adult court,

but there is a hearing in juvenile

court to decide if that really

should happen. Many children

fall in this category.

• In the 603 category are children

who are transferred to adult court

after a prosecutor files a motion

asking for transfer. These

children must be at least 14 years

of age and charged with a felony.

Since we use the system to

process new referrals to court and it

provides a face sheet for intake staff,

the system now produces a special

warning notice to the probation

department when a youth may

qualify as a serious youthful

offender. The notice also defines

what it takes to become a serious

youth offender. So now the

probation officer is warned that this

kid fits our new law; he can then

discuss the case with the prosecutor.

In some cases, our courts just send

those cases directly to the

prosecutor.

Sentencing guidelines

In August 1995, the Utah

Sentencing Commission adopted

sentencing guidelines for juveniles,

which are fairly common in the

adult system. I worked with the

commission for 2 years as it tried to

hammer out what these sentencing

guidelines for juvenile court judges

ought to be. Depending on the

severity of the offense, a youth can

fit under one of four sentencing

categories.

For every child who is newly

charged in court and who fits one of

the four sentencing categories, a

notice is produced and sent to that

child’s probation officer. The notice

informs the officer that the youth

qualifies for one of the categories

under the State sentencing

guidelines; lists the category; lists

the offense that qualified the youth

for that particular category; and lists

the sentencing recommendation.

Nonjudicial, nonpetition kind of

offenses are not included. At the

bottom of the notice is a warning to

probation officers that this is a

computerized analysis that counts

every offense, but that the officers

should carefully review this because,

unless other conditions are present,

this is what their recommendation to

the court ought to be.
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 79

The reality of media interest

In conclusion, for those who are

concerned that the opening of

juvenile court records and hearings

will destroy the juvenile justice

system as it was envisioned by its

founders in 1899, take heart: the

economics of media coverage

usually prohibit extensive

involvement in juvenile courts.

Media representatives only have

enough time to cover the most

serious of juvenile crime. So even if

you open up your courts, they do not

often show up. We even produce an

automated felony docket for 16- and

17-year-olds, and we post it out in

front of the juvenile court for

anybody who wants to look at it. It

lists the juveniles’ names, when

their hearings are going to be held,

and in what courtroom.

We have found that even with

open juvenile proceedings, nobody

comes unless it is a very serious

kind of a case. Most private citizens

are too busy with their own interests

to spend time watching in juvenile

court. Most of the time, even with

unlimited access to juvenile court,

no one shows up except the parties

involved and those close to the

juvenile, either family, friends,

neighbors or schoolmates who

already know about the problems

this kid has had. If there is a stigma

attached to this juvenile’s actions, it

was attached when those closest to

him became aware of his problems.

But for those youths who are

worried about having their name in

the media, I have a suggestion for

them. Let this serve as a warning to

them that, in order to keep their

illegal juvenile activity confidential,

do not screw up big time on a slow

news day. Thank you.
Page 80 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

California’s approach to using juvenile records in firearms checks

STEVE GALERIA

Manager

Statistical Data Center

California Department of Justice

I have been asked to give a brief

presentation about how California

uses its juvenile records to

disqualify individuals from

purchasing firearms.

Before I discuss the specific laws

and procedures governing juveniles,

let me put these facts into their

proper perspective. The information

I am going to provide is about the

legal sale of firearms in California.

It does not address illegal sales

between individuals or account for

the number of firearms brought into

the State, legally or illegally.

Regulating firearm sales

It is also important to know

something of California’s gun

regulation history. Contrary to

popular belief, California has a

much more restrictive review

process than any other State in the

nation and it all started in 1909.

1909. Gun dealers were required

to keep a register of pistol and

revolver sales and to make the

register available to law

enforcement.

1923. Handguns could not be

released to the purchaser on the day

of the sale and a copy of the register

had to be sent to the local law

enforcement agency.

1953. The waiting period was

extended to 3 days. The California

Department of Justice (DOJ) would

notify local law enforcement if the

person was prohibited from

possession of a handgun and the

local agency would confiscate the

weapon.

1965. The waiting period was

extended to 5 days.

1972. The California DOJ, for the

first time, was required to notify gun

dealers of prohibited purchasers, but

5 days was not enough time to

process the numerous checks.

1975. The waiting period was

extended to 15 days to give the

California DOJ enough time to

review records to determine if

purchasers were prohibited and to

notify dealers to stop sales.

1991. All private party

transactions were required to be

processed by a licensed dealer.

Rifles and shotguns were added to

the review process. Prohibited

categories were expanded.

Rapid changes in 1991

In 1991, things started to heat up

in California. There was a great deal

of interest in gun sales, and

significant legislative changes

occurred that year. All private party

transactions were required to be

processed by a licensed gun dealer,

and rifles and shotguns were added

to the review process; up to that

point, only handguns were

controlled. Rifles and shotguns were

added because California found that

it did not take convicted felons long

to figure out that even if they were

turned down to buy a handgun, they

could return to the same store and

buy a shotgun or rifle. There was

nothing in the penal code to stop

them from purchasing, or the dealer

from selling, a long gun.

Adding shotguns and rifles to the

controlled category required several

compromises. First, California

requires the collection of quite a bit

of information about a handgun

when it is purchased, such as make,

model, serial number, etc. California

does not collect the same

information on rifles or shotguns.

Second, after review of the

application for the purchase of a

rifle or shotgun, current law requires

the destruction of that record after 5

days, whereas handgun purchase

applications are kept for several

years. Also, all of the handgun

information is entered and

maintained in an automated system

so that there is a complete history of

the purchase and any subsequent

transfers. Registration information

on rifles and shotguns is not

recorded in any system.

Purchase procedures

The review process is basically

straightforward and simple. Before a

gun dealer can release a gun to a

purchaser, the dealer must complete

a Dealer Record of Sale (DROS)

form and submit it to the California

DOJ for review. The DOJ will

review that person’s records, if any,

to determine if the person is in a

prohibited classification. If the

dealer does not hear from the DOJ

within the 15 days, the gun can be

released. Of course, if the DOJ

notifies the dealer that the purchaser

is prohibited (notifications are

usually made by telephone), the sale

must be canceled. This sounds easy

enough, but the complexity comes

from trying to process 400,000

DROS forms each year and

reviewing all the corresponding

records for prohibiting offenses and

related conditions.
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 81

Prohibited categories

The categories of persons

prohibited from purchasing firearms

were expanded in 1991, rather

extensively. Let me talk about it

here because I think it is the crux of

the issue as it relates to juveniles.

First, there is an age requirement.

A person must be 18 years of age

before he can own a rifle or a

shotgun, and 21 years of age before

he can own a handgun. Also, if the

person committed a specified

offense as a juvenile, it will have an

impact on whether or not that person

can purchase a handgun as an adult.

For example, let us say a person

wants to purchase a handgun at age

22, but he has committed a serious

crime at age 17. In this case,

California law will prohibit that

person from purchasing, possessing

or controlling any handgun or rifle

until he is 30 years old.

Second, most people who are

convicted of felonies (there is an

extensive list) — whether the

conviction is in California,

anywhere else in the U.S., or any

other country — may not possess

any firearm. California recently

added a related prohibition against

the possession of ammunition. The

logical connection is that if a person

cannot possess a firearm, why would

they need to possess any

ammunition?

Third, if a person is convicted of

specified misdemeanors, such as

threatening public officers or

witnesses — again, the list is rather

lengthy — there is an additional

prohibition of an extra 10 years.

Another recently added

prohibition, which applies to both

adults and juveniles, has to do with

mental health patients. The medical

community was not comfortable

sharing such information with the

law enforcement community, but

was convinced it is in the best

interest of the patient and the public

to provide the State with

information on individuals under a

physician’s care who had been

committed or who had committed

themselves. Because of the sensitive

nature of the information, it is kept

in a separate file, but is reviewed for

each gun purchase. In addition, if an

individual under a physician’s or

psychiatrist’s care makes a threat

against an identifiable individual,

that person’s doctor is required to

notify the State of the threat. Such

threats result in an additional

prohibition of 6 months after the

date the threat is reported.

In summary, the prohibited

categories are straightforward at first

glance, but cover a wide variety of

offenses and conditions. A person

will be denied a gun purchase for

one of the following:

Age: A person must be 18 years

of age to own or possess a long gun,

and 21 years of age to own or

possess a handgun.

Felony conviction: Persons

convicted of a felony, whether by

the U.S., California, or any other

State or country, cannot own or

possess any firearm or ammunition.

Misdemeanor conviction: Adds

a prohibition of 10 years after the

conviction.

Probation: If it is an express

condition of probation, a person may

not own or possess a firearm for the

duration of the probation period.

Protective order: The order may

direct the respondent to relinquish

any firearm and prohibit the

purchase or possession of any

firearm for the duration of the order.

Temporary restraining order:

The order may direct the respondent

to relinquish any firearm and

prohibit the purchase or possession

of any firearm for the duration of the

order.

Juveniles: Persons who have

committed specified offenses may

not own, possess or have under their

control any firearm until they reach

30 years of age.

Mental: Mental patients or

mentally disordered persons may not

purchase or possess firearms for 5

years after treatment and release.

Tarasoff: Persons who are a

threat to themselves or others, as

reported by their personal physician,

are prohibited from purchasing or

possessing firearms for 6 months

from the date of the report. (Named

for a Dr. Tarasoff, who proposed the

prohibition.)

California DOJ staff reviews

several in-house files and automated

databases to conduct the DROS

review. This is a name-check

process and it has some inherent

limitations. The files include:

• Automated Criminal History

System;

• Mental Health File;

• Restraining Order File; and

• Supervised Release File (includes

probation and parole).

Underreporting

In California, all arrests,

including juveniles, are to be

reported to the DOJ and entered into

its Automated Criminal History

System. When the arrest fingerprint

card is received, it creates or adds to

that person’s criminal history. When

the disposition of that arrest is

received, it is added to the history.

The problem in California is that

juvenile arrests and corresponding

dispositions are significantly

underreported. Only 25 percent of

the juvenile felony arrests are

reported and available in the

criminal history system. This is due

to the reluctance of local law

enforcement and the courts to

submit juvenile data. As discussed

earlier in this conference by officials

from other States, the same

conflicting views about how best to

rehabilitate or treat juveniles exist in

California.

Impact of regulations and

legislation

There have been other changes to

California’s gun check system that

apparently are having an impact on

all firearm sales. In 1993, gun sales

exceeded 600,000. In 1995, they

were down around 400,000.
Page 82 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

In 1994, purchasers of handguns

were required to obtain a Basic

Firearm Safety Certificate prior to

taking possession of a firearm. This

can be obtained by taking a written

test at the gun dealer’s place of

business, watching a video, or by

exemption if the person is a retired

peace officer, retired military, has a

hunting safety certificate, etc.

The other significant change in

1994 was the strengthening of gun

dealer licensing control laws. Prior

to 1994, a person could become a

“dealer” if he possessed a Federal

Firearms License (FFL). The cost

was low and many people could

legally sell from their home. But

having an FFL is not enough. As of

1994, gun dealers must not only

have an FFL but also a State Sellers

Permit, a DOJ Certificate of

Eligibility and a local Sales License.

In 1995, there were 12,788 FFL

dealers in California. As of May 15,

1996, there are only 3,578 legal

firearm dealers, which is still much

more than the 230 McDonald’s

restaurants in California.

This is all interesting and helpful,

but what is the magnitude of firearm

sales in California? What are the

trends? How well is the review

process working? And how is this

relevant to juveniles?

During the period of 1990-1995,

firearm sales steadily increased,

peaked and have been on the decline

for the last 2 years. The chart

(Figure 1) starts in 1990, when

California was keeping the records

of handgun sales only. The total sold

that year was approximately

330,000, or about 900 handguns a

day. In 1991, the total volume

jumped to 489,000, but that is

because California started recording

the sale of rifles and shotguns. The

sale of handguns remained about the

same. There was a slight increase in

1992, up to 560,000. Total sales

peaked in 1993 at 642,000 and then

there was a 7 percent decrease in

1994, down to 599,000. In 1995,

firearm sales dropped significantly,

30 percent, down to a total of

412,000.

The reason for the downward

trend in firearm sales in California is

not known. Some individuals have

suggested it is a matter of

economics, others (jokingly) say

that California is just saturated with

guns and that “everybody has at

least one.” The California DOJ

believes, but cannot prove, the down

trend is the result of a combination

of actions but has been most

significantly impacted by the dealer

licensing regulations and the

increased safety training

requirements.

Recent firearm transactions

How well the gun check/record

review process is working is also

open to interpretation. In 1995,

411,668 guns were sold and 185,072

records were reviewed to determine

if the purchasers should be

prohibited from owning a gun.

Based on those record reviews,

4,206 individuals were determined

to be in a prohibited classification

and denied a gun purchase (Figure

2). It is of particular interest, given

the purpose of this conference, to

note that 554 of those denials were

juveniles. Given the level of

underreporting of juvenile offenses

in California, it is reasonable to

assume the number of denials

should be significantly larger,

perhaps two or three times larger.

Clearly, from the viewpoint of gun

sale control, there is a need for

better juvenile arrest and disposition

reporting in California.

Future activity

We think we have made several

significant improvements during the

past 2 years to regulate the sale of

firearms in California. It appears

that more needs to be done with

regard to juveniles, and planning is

under way to collect more arrest

records. In 1997, California DOJ

also plans to start conducting dealer

inspections to ensure the dealers are

in compliance with current laws and

regulations. It also plans to begin

“point-of-sale” checks. Dealers will

be able to electronically submit

DROS information directly to the

DOJ and reduce the time it takes for

a record check from 15 to 10 days.

The questions still remain. If

there are fewer firearm sales, does it

mean it is becoming safer in

California or in any State? And if we

deny gun purchases to more

juveniles or those who committed

serious offenses as juveniles, will it

become safer in our cities and

towns?
CALIFORNIA FIREARMS SALES, 1990-1995

700,000600,000500,000400,000300,000200,000100,000

0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

330,295

489,433

559,608

642,197

599,672

411,668

330,295 329,133

382,122

433,822

382,085

254,626

160,300

177,486

208,375

217,587

157,042

TotalLong GunsHandguns

SOURCE: DOJ, Firearms Program

National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 83

Figure 1
Page 84 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

 HANDGUNS AND LONG GUNS 

Dealer Record of Sale Statistics

January Through December 1995

OFFENSE CODE DENIALS

Dangerous Drugs/Narcotics ............................449

Assault..........................................................1,864

Sex Crimes ........................................................54

Kidnapping..........................................................0

Homicide........................................................... 35

(Includes Manslaughter)

Vehicle Violations........................................... 103

(Includes Auto Theft)

Theft ................................................................104

Arson................................................................. 10

Burglary ..........................................................169

(Includes RSP)

Robbery............................................................. 58

Forgery/Fraud ................................................... 58

Weapons Offense ..............................................15

Other ................................................................. 63

(Includes Conspiracy, Accessory,

“yes” answer to questions, etc.)

OTHER DENIALS

Federal Denials ................................................. 58

Out-of-State Denials ....................................... 226

Military Denials ................................................16

Under-Age Denials (21 years) ......................... 54

8103 W&I Denials ..............................................3

Juveniles (707b W&I)...................................... 84

5150, 5250, 5260, 5270.15 ............................470

Probation (Condition) ...................................... 48

Restraining Order ............................................267

 411,668 - DROS Documents Processed 

254,626 - Handguns

157,042 - Long Guns

 185,072 - Folders Reviewed 

131,469 - Criminal Folders

53,603 - Applicant Folders

 TOTAL DENIALS 

Misdemeanors: 1,770

Felonies: 1,510

 Other: 926 

TOTAL 4,206

DENIALS BY FIREARM TYPE:

Rifle/Shotgun ......................... 1,672

Handgun ................................. 2,534

PRIVATE-PARTY SALES

Rifle/Shotgun ......................... 5,373

Handguns ............................. 14,647

Denials ........................................ 51

Figure 2
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 85

Information sharing critical to process of protecting children

RONALD C. LANEY

Director

Missing and Exploited Children’s Program

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

U.S. Department of Justice

In the past 12 years, the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (OJJDP) has trained

around 20,000 individuals under our

law enforcement training program.

Of those, 5,000 individuals

represented communities; they

included mayors, city managers,

judges, prosecutors, probation

officers and law enforcement

personnel. We found that the one

constant problem for every

community was the area of sharing

information. As a matter of fact, we

just recently conducted a training

program in San Diego, California,

with students representing 10

communities, and they said their

number one priority is sharing

information.

OJJDP always runs into a

problem because we are told by

school officials, “We cannot share

this information with you,” or we

are told by the social service

agencies, “We cannot share this

information with you.” As a person

who works in OJJDP’s Missing and

Exploited Children’s Program, I can

tell you that we run into that all the

time. We need to have information.

As a matter of fact, we like to

demonstrate a “social autopsy,” if

you will, of a child. What happens is

the child typically comes in contact

somewhere in the system as a victim

or an at-risk child before he ends up

either committing serious

delinquency acts or being murdered.

In our case, in investigating child

abuse cases and cases of missing

and exploited children, it is very

critical for us to share information at

an early stage. We run several major

programs that actually accomplish

information sharing. We formed

multidisciplinary teams and talked

about developing protocols for

sharing information.

When a child is first identified in

the system in any manner,

somebody has to write a report.

Where does that report go? In most

cases, it stays in that agency, where

it is buried in a file that nobody else

knows about.

A little over a year ago, we

started working with the U.S.

Department of Education,

negotiating with them on their

policies and procedures regarding

the Family Educational Rights and

Privacy Act (FERPA). In a couple

more weeks, we hope to release an

instruction guidebook and fact sheet

that gives educators and juvenile

justice system practitioners

information about the FERPA law,

and what they can and cannot do in

terms of information sharing

between schools and the juvenile

justice system.1 In most cases, we

have found that laws do not

necessary restrict agencies from

sharing information; rather, it is an

existing policy or procedure or

tradition passed down from

generation to generation in that

office that prevents information

sharing.

Of course, information sharing

has to go both ways. A lot of times a

police chief or sheriff will say, “You

know, if schools would give me that

information, I could do a lot with

it.” And then you talk to a school

administrator and he will say, “You

know, if the police gave us that

information, we would know a lot

more about this issue.” That

cooperative information sharing is

what we are trying to accomplish.

I would like to introduce Dr.

Bernard James. Bernie is the person

who we use out in the field as we

conduct training programs across the

 

1 U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, Information Sharing and the

Family Educational Rights and Privacy

Act, Fact Sheet series, No. 39, by Ronald

Laney (Washington, D.C.: Government

Printing Office, July 1996). The

guidebook, FERPA: Schools and

Interagency Communication for

Delinquency Intervention and

Prevention, can be obtained from

OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse,

1-800-638-8736.
Page 86 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

country for community leaders on

topics ranging from gangs and drugs

to child abuse and child exploitation.

His expertise is the legal aspects of

interagency information sharing, and

in our training programs he provides

trainees with their specific State

laws governing access to

information. He has actually created

a useful compilation of these State

laws that we are going to put on-line

with the National Criminal Justice

Reference Service soon so that

everybody can access them and find

out what stage of confidentiality

each State is in. (We will also be

including information about the

FERPA.)2 Bernie has helped trained

officials from 500 communities and

has helped some States write

legislation on these issues. He has

also helped us to prepare the FERPA

instruction guidebook and fact sheet.

 

2 Contact the Juvenile Justice

Clearinghouse, 1-800-638-8736, to find

out how to access this information.
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 87

Issues and implications of school-juvenile justice

information sharing

DR. BERNARD JAMES

Professor

School of Law

Pepperdine University

I want to talk about the issues

involving, give you a legal update

regarding, and discuss some

implications surrounding

interagency information sharing,

with a focus on school-juvenile

justice information sharing. (Feel

free to substitute any agency in the

mix because there are some generic

concerns that surface, and you will

be able to see the interchangeability

of agencies in this discussion.)

When we talk about interagency

information sharing, we have to start

with the issues and (a) ask ourselves

what resource do educators offer to

the juvenile justice system, (b)

determine whether there is a dual

benefit, and (c) suggest whether any

legal rules apply. As Ron Laney

pointed out, after 9 years of looking

at different State laws and talking

with communities regarding

information sharing, it becomes

clear to us that interagency

communication is the essential link

for a successful reform movement in

any local juvenile justice system. In

this context, we are talking about

school-juvenile justice information

sharing, but again, feel free to

substitute other agencies and I think

the model will still be applicable.

Information as resource

If you begin with the notion that

we are in the business of providing a

more technical level of services to

juveniles, it is clear that the

decisionmaking in which we engage

will be dependent on timely,

accurate information. I think it is

clear that schools need status

information about juveniles who are

constantly being placed on campus

as conditions of probation. There are

cases in which schools just have to

say “no” to local judges who attempt

to continue to boilerplate serious

and violent offenders back into the

schools. But, at the same time, the

juvenile justice system needs a

complete behavioral picture of that

youth, and so there is clear mutual

reliance and interdependence

between the two.

Mutual benefit

The objective of reform in local

juvenile justice systems is to place

increased responsibility and

accountability on the juvenile. The

educators’ contribution to

information exchange is, again,

essential. In terms of giving the

educators an additional tool,

however, there is another benefit

that is conferred upon them by

information sharing, because each

educator will need to have notice of

what lies underneath a condition of

probation, which is often not

available.

If you know an educator or if you

are an educator, think for a moment

about the knowledge that you have

of juveniles who are on your campus

under condition of probation after

going through the juvenile justice

system. Think of how you acquired

that knowledge, either through a

formal routine system or something

a little more clandestine, to the

comical in many jurisdictions where

the student will actually come to the

administrator and say, “Principal

Jones, I’ve been gone for a while

and that’s because I’ve been in

secure detention, but I’m back.”

The reality check is that the

schools are often left in the dark and

the juvenile justice system, as is

historically involved, is shut out of

the educational system. So both

sides are acknowledging one

another, but not participating in the

information sharing process.

Perhaps the most unfortunate issue

— particularly in groups like this

that come together to herald reform

in different areas across a wide

variety of legislation — is that

reform models often ignore certain

agencies and leave them isolated. I

think when you look at a short list of

agencies that remain isolated,

schools somehow find themselves

creeping toward the top of the list.

Juvenile justice models

In terms of emerging models,

States are expanding the concept of

the juvenile justice system to

include the educator. There are

certain States that I often offer to

local policymakers, legislators and

agencies as models of interagency

information sharing: Washington,

Florida, Oklahoma, Illinois and

Connecticut offer extremely good

models as to how to activate and

then implement an expanded notion

of the juvenile justice system that

includes other agencies that share

not just a common interest but also

contain a pivotal piece of the

juvenile behavioral puzzle that,

unless it is added, will not complete

the picture for decisionmaking.
Page 88 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

Interagency agreements are either

authorized or required in many

States in this emerging model, and

the two States that are taking the

lead in that are Florida and Illinois.

Illinois takes the permission

approach and authorizes local

jurisdictions to form interagency

teams under a pact or agreement that

identifies their common interests

and how they will share information,

and holds them harmless from

liability. The State of Florida, under

their Serious Habitual Offender

Comprehensive Action Program

(SHOCAP), requires it. Jurisdictions

under the SHOCAP mandate are

coming together under the force of

law to do precisely what this

emerging model suggests: expand

the juvenile justice concept to

include other agencies, and then to

sign agreements.

Another emerging model is that

State record laws require the

juvenile justice system to give

notice to schools at the point of

arrest and disposition. There are a

list of States that provide models in

this regard; within this list, let me

point out that the States of

California and Texas require this

notice to be given to the

superintendent, after which the site

administrator must be notified, and

then all teachers who will engage or

confront the student must be told.

Thus, in the emerging models

there is a reflection of the awareness

of both the need to include schools

in the information stream and to

create a juvenile justice system that

relies on two-way communication

between not only the law

enforcement and educational

components, but also other agencies

as well.

Legal update, implications

If we had more time, I would talk

about how the nuts and bolts work

with oral referrals, and the degree to

which Congress is on a reform trail

to the point where they have

amended the Family Educational

Rights and Privacy Act and the

Federal Privacy Act. We would look

at the text of both those laws and see

how Congress has gotten out of the

way.

The implications are that State

and Federal laws encourage a

legitimate exchange of information

between agencies, not the least of

which will include the conditional

core of the law enforcement

agencies and courts in the juvenile

justice system, but others as well.

And educators should examine their

local policies to take advantage of

this ability. Thank you for your

time.
Contributors’ biographies
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 91

Contributors’ biographies

Robert R. Belair

Mr. Belair is a partner with the

Washington, D.C., law firm of

Mullenholz, Brimsek & Belair, and

is General Counsel to SEARCH,

The National Consortium for Justice

Information and Statistics. He also

serves as CEO of Privacy and

Legislative Associates, a legal and

policy consulting firm. The principal

emphasis of Mr. Belair’s practice is

privacy and information law

involving administrative, legislative

and litigation activity. His practice

includes counseling in all aspects of

privacy and information law,

including credit and financial

records, educational records,

criminal records, juvenile records,

medical records, employment

records and telecommunications;

defamation; intellectual property,

including software copyright;

constitutional law; and criminal

justice administration.

As General Counsel to SEARCH,

Mr. Belair has participated in

SEARCH’s privacy and security

programs and has authored many

studies in the area of criminal justice

information law and policy. He was

actively involved in the

development of SEARCH’s revised

standards of criminal history record

information, Technical Report No.

13: Standards for the Security and

Privacy of Criminal History Record

Information (Third Edition).

Mr. Belair has served as a

consultant to numerous Federal

agencies and commissions on

information policy and law. He is

former Deputy General Counsel and

Acting Counsel of the Domestic

Council Committee on the Right of

Privacy, Office of the President.

Mr. Belair is a graduate of

Kalamazoo College and the

Columbia University School of

Law.

Hon. Shay Bilchik

Mr. Bilchik was confirmed as

Administrator of the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (OJJDP) in October

1994. He previously served as

Associate Deputy Attorney General

in the Office of the Deputy Attorney

General.

As Administrator, Mr. Bilchik is

responsible for the agency

congressionally mandated to lead

the effort to address the public

safety issues of juvenile crime and

youth victimization. OJJDP

leadership responsibilities include:

identifying effective strategies to

address juvenile crime through

research; coordinating,

implementing and supporting

effective programs and encouraging

innovative approaches to deal with

existing and emerging juvenile

justice issues; developing priorities

and goals and setting policies to

guide Federal juvenile justice issues;

providing technical assistance and

training to essential components of

the juvenile justice system; and

disseminating information on

juvenile justice trends, programs and

new approaches.

Mr. Bilchik began his career in

1977 as an Assistant State Attorney

for the 11th Judicial Circuit of

Florida in Miami. In 1979, he was

promoted to Juvenile Division Chief

and later to Deputy Chief Assistant

for Administration. In 1985, he

became the Chief Assistant for

Administration and was responsible

for administering an office of over

200 attorneys. He had supervisory

authority over juvenile prosecution

programs including those involving

prosecution of juveniles as adults in

the Criminal Division. He also

established and had oversight

responsibility for the Child

Advocacy Center, which is a

multidisciplinary intake unit for

cases involving victims of child

abuse.

As a prosecutor, Mr. Bilchik

served as the coordinator of a

number of special programs,

including the Police-Juvenile

Prosecutor Liaison and the SchoolJuvenile Prosecutor Liaison

Projects. He has lectured extensively

on juvenile justice issues and served

on the faculty of the National

Council of Juvenile and Family

Court Judges. In addition, he was

the author of the “Court Handbook

for Dade County Lawyers, Juvenile

Practice,” 1980 and “Prosecuting

Juveniles in Criminal Courts – An

Empirical Analysis,” 1984.

Mr. Bilchik has served on

numerous task forces and advisory

committees dealing with juvenile

delinquency and drug abuse issues.

He was also involved in the drafting

of a number of juvenile justice and

child abuse legislative proposals in

the State of Florida.

Mr. Bilchik received his

education at the University of

Florida, where he earned his

B.S.B.A. in 1975 and his J.D. in

1977.

Demery R. Bishop

Mr. Bishop is Section Chief in

the Criminal Justice Information

Services (CJIS) Division of the

Federal Bureau of Investigation,

U.S. Department of Justice. Mr.

Bishop began his career with the

FBI in August 1975. He has served

in the Knoxville, Tennessee

Division, the Newark, New Jersey

Division, the Birmingham, Alabama

Division as Senior Supervisory

Special Agent in the Huntsville

Resident Agency, and the Atlanta,

Georgia Division as Assistant

Special Agent in Charge.

Mr. Bishop also has served at the

FBI Headquarters in several

capacities, including legal advisor to
Page 92 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

the National Crime Information

Center, assignment to the Inspection

Division, and Unit Chief in the

Office of Public Affairs. He

assumed his current assignment in

the CJIS Division in November

1993.

Mr. Bishop received his Juris

Doctorate in 1974.

Dr. Alfred Blumstein

Dr. Alfred Blumstein is J. Erik

Jonsson Professor of Urban Systems

and Operations Research and former

Dean (1986-1993) of the H. John

Heinz III School of Public Policy

and Management at Carnegie

Mellon University. Dr. Blumstein

has had extensive experience in both

research and policy in the criminal

justice system since serving on the

President’s Commission on Law

Enforcement and Administration of

Justice in 1966-1967 as Director of

its Task Force on Science and

Technology.

Dr. Blumstein was a member of

the National Academy of Sciences

Committee on Research on Law

Enforcement and the Administration

of Justice from its founding in 1975

until 1986. He served as Chairman

of that committee between 1979-

1984, and has chaired the

committee’s panels on Research on

Deterrent and Incapacitative Effects;

Sentencing Research; and Research

on Criminal Careers.

On the policy side, Dr. Blumstein

served from 1979-1990 as Chairman

of the Pennsylvania Commission on

Crime and Delinquency, that State’s

criminal justice planning agency. He

also has been a member of the

Pennsylvania Commission on

Sentencing since 1986.

His research over the past 20

years has covered many aspects of

criminal justice phenomena and

policy, including crime

measurement, criminal careers

sentencing, deterrence and

incapacitation, prison populations,

flow through the criminal justice

system, demographic trends and

drug enforcement policy.

Dr. Blumstein is the recipient of

many prestigious awards in his field.

He also currently serves as an Atlarge Member of SEARCH. Dr.

Blumstein’s degrees include a

Bachelor of Engineering in Physics

and a Ph.D. in operations research

from Cornell University.

Dr. Francis J. Carney Jr.

Dr. Carney is Executive Director

of the Massachusetts Sentencing

Commission, an appointment he

accepted in December 1994. He

previously served as Executive

Director of the Massachusetts

Criminal History Systems Board and

as Director of Planning and

Research for the Massachusetts

Department of Correction.

Dr. Carney also teaches courses

on Corrections and Youth Crime

Problems at Boston University,

Metropolitan College. He has also

had teaching assignments at the

University of Massachusetts, Boston

State College, Boston University

School of Social Work, Boston

College and Tufts University. He

has served as a lecturer and

conducted training sessions on

correctional philosophy, research

and evaluation, planning, and the

security and privacy of criminal

records at the Department of

Correction Training Academy. He

has participated in the Municipal

Police Officers Training Program at

the State Police Training Academy

and the New England Criminal

Justice Training Institute at Babson

College.

Dr. Carney received his B.A.

from Boston College and his M.A.

and Ph.D. from Tufts University. He

served as Chair of the SEARCH

Membership Group and Board of

Directors from 1992-1996.

Dr. Jan M. Chaiken

Dr. Chaiken is Director of the

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS),

U.S. Department of Justice. His

appointment to this position was

confirmed in September 1994.

Dr. Chaiken earned his Ph.D. in

mathematics at the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology. He was a

senior mathematician at the Rand

Corporation in Santa Monica,

California, from 1972 to 1984, and

was a principal scientist in the law

and justice area at Abt Associates,

Inc., in Cambridge, Massachusetts,

from 1984 until he was nominated

as BJS Director by President Clinton

in 1994. He was selected as an Abt

Fellow and directed the Federal

Justice Statistics program at Abt

Associates.

Dr. Chaiken’s research has

focused on developing and applying

methods for improving operations of

criminal justice agencies. He is a coauthor of the “blueprint” for the

Federal Bureau of Investigation’s

new incident-based crime reporting

system, and he designed a

microcomputer software package for

police patrol car allocation that is

used by law enforcement agencies in

the U.S. and abroad. His best known

work has been carried out jointly

with his wife, Dr. Marcia Chaiken,

who is Director of Research at LINC

in Alexandria, Virginia. Together,

Drs. Jan and Marcia Chaiken have

authored numerous book chapters,

reports and articles on crime and

criminals.

Two LINC projects in which Dr.

Chaiken has been involved included

recommendations for improving the

sample of the National Institute of

Justice’s Drug Use Forecasting

(DUF) program and expanding uses

of DUF statistics for the

development of State and local

policy. He also has worked directly

with such agencies as the California

Corrections Department, the Kings

County (Brooklyn) District

Attorney’s Office, the Colorado

Division of Criminal Justice, the Los
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 93

Angeles Sheriff’s Department, and

the Massachusetts Committee on

Criminal Justice. Dr. Chaiken has

also taught mathematics and public

policy analysis at Cornell, the

Massachusetts Institute of

Technology and the University of

California, Los Angeles.

Michael L. Curtis

Since August 1985, Mr. Curtis

has been the Juvenile and Family

Court Specialist of the Washington

State Supreme Court’s Office of the

Administrator for the Courts (OAC).

In this position, Mr. Curtis works

closely with the superior court

judges and the administrators of the

State’s 33 juvenile courts, acting in

the capacity of an informational

conduit between the courts and other

agencies and individuals.

Also in his current capacity, Mr.

Curtis is involved in formulating

statewide policy, drafting and

implementing legislation and court

rules, responding to research

inquiries, and providing technical

assistance to the local courts. As the

judicial branch Juvenile and Family

Court Specialist, he also provides

technical consultation to State

executive branch agencies and the

State legislature. Recent project

areas of involvement include racial

disproportionality in the juvenile

justice system; unified family court;

and the Federal court improvement

grant program. He recently was

appointed lead staff to the Supreme

Court’s Domestic Relations

Commission. In addition, Mr. Curtis

regularly serves on various

committees and advisory boards as a

representative of the courts.

Prior to his employment at the

OAC, Mr. Curtis was employed for

10 years at the Benton and Franklin

Counties Juvenile Court located in

southeastern Washington State.

Positions held included court officer

(intake/diversion), probation

counselor, and manager of the legal

process unit.

Mr. Curtis holds a B.A. from

Washington State University.

Dr. Charles M. Friel

Dr. Friel is a Professor in the

College of Criminal Justice, Sam

Houston State University (Texas),

where he previously served as Dean.

In 1978 and again in 1984, Dr.

Friel received fellowships from the

Japanese Ministry of Justice to study

that nation’s correctional system. In

1988, he served as a visiting lecturer

in various police colleges in the

People’s Republic of China.

Dr. Friel has lectured extensively

throughout the U.S. and Canada. He

is an At-large Member and a Board

Member of SEARCH. He was the

1988 recipient of SEARCH’s O.J.

Hawkins Award for Innovative

Leadership and Outstanding

Contributions in Criminal Justice

Information Systems, Policy and

Statistics in the United States. Dr.

Friel is also the 1992 recipient of the

Justice Charles W. Barrow Award

for distinguished service to the

Texas judiciary.

Dr. Friel’s undergraduate studies

at Maryknoll College (New York)

included philosophy and Latin; he

received a Ph.D. in experimental

psychology from the Catholic

University of America, Washington,

D.C.

Steve Galeria

As a Senior Program Manager,

Mr. Galeria has gained a wide

diversity of experience with everincreasing levels of responsibility

over his 25-year career with the

California Department of Justice.

Mr. Galeria is currently the Manager

for the Department’s Statistical Data

Center. The statistical programs

administered by this center include

the following: Homicide, Hate

Crimes, Domestic Violence,

Uniform Crime Reporting, Law

Enforcement Officers Killed and

Assaulted, Death and Custody,

Citizens’ Complaints Against Peace

Officers, and the Juvenile Court and

Probation Statistical System.

Prior to his current position, Mr.

Galeria served in various analytical

and management roles associated

with the Department’s Criminal

History System; California Law

Enforcement Telecommunications

System; Law Enforcement Audit

Program; Firearms Program;

National Crime Information Center

Project 2000 Implementation;

Violent Crime Information Center;

and Law Enforcement Automated

Tactical Systems Program.

David Gavin

Mr. Gavin is Assistant Chief of

the Administration Division of the

Texas Department of Public Safety.

His current responsibilities include

the Texas State Criminal History

Repository, the statewide

Automated Fingerprint

Identification System (AFIS), the

National Crime Information Center

(NCIC) Control Terminal, and the

Uniform Crime Reporting Program.

He has worked in the field of crime

records for over 19 years. In

addition to his current areas of

responsibility, Mr. Gavin has

worked with the Texas Crime

Information Center, the Texas State

Identification Bureau, including the

Computerized Criminal History

System, the Texas Help End Auto

Theft project, and recently, the

Texas Concealed Handgun

Licensing Section.

Mr. Gavin has served as the

Western Regional Chairman within

the FBI’s Criminal Justice

Information Services (CJIS)

Division advisory process. He is

currently a Western Region

representative to the CJIS Advisory

Policy Board, serving on the

Identification Services

Subcommittee.

Mr. Gavin received his M.A.

degree in English from the

University of Texas at Austin.
Page 94 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

Dr. Michael R. Gottfredson

Dr. Gottfredson is Vice Provost

for Undergraduate Education at the

University of Arizona and Professor

of Management and Policy, Law,

Sociology and Psychology. He

joined the University of Arizona in

1985, after teaching at the

Claremont Colleges, the University

of Illinois at Urbana, and the State

University of New York at Albany.

Dr. Gottfredson’s research and

teaching specialties are crime and

the criminal justice system. He is the

author of several books, including

The Generality of Deviance (1994);

A General Theory of Crime (1990);

Decision-Making in Criminal

Justice (1988); and Policy

Guidelines for Bail: An Experiment

in Court Reform (1985). He has

published numerous articles in

professional literature about the

causes of crime and crime policy.

He has frequently consulted with

State, county and Federal

governments concerning criminal

justice policy.

He is a Fellow of the American

Society of Criminology. In 1994,

Dr. Gottfredson was selected as the

Andersen Consulting Professor of

the Year in the College of Business

and Public Administration.

Dr. Gottfredson received his A.B.

from the University of California at

Davis and his Ph.D. from the State

University of New York at Albany.

Dr. Bernard James

Dr. James is a Professor of Law

at Pepperdine University School of

Law. Dr. James has served on the

Pepperdine faculty since 1984. He

teaches courses in Federalism,

Individual Rights, First Amendment,

and State Constitutional Law. In

addition, Dr. James has taught a

seminar on U.S. Supreme Court

History with Chief Justice William

Rehnquist at the Pepperdine Law

School. Prior to joining the

Pepperdine faculty, Dr. James

served as judicial clerk for the Hon.

Judge Myron Wahls for the Court of

Appeals in Michigan.

Dr. James specializes in

constitutional matters, serving as the

First Amendment Contributing

Editor on the ABA Preview Journal,

which reviews cases of the U.S.

Supreme Court. He also writes for

the National Law Journal on First

Amendment matters.

Dr. James lectures in America

and Canada on legal issues and

serves as a constitutional law

commentator for the national and

local media. In 1995, he spoke

before a national audience on the CSPAN network show “Supreme

Court Review” about the flagburning cases decided by the Court

in its 1989-1990 term. Later that

year, he provided the analysis of the

Court’s decision in the high school

student Bible Club case for Los

Angeles talk radio stations.

Dr. James serves as Special

Counsel to the National School

Safety Center, a partnership between

the U.S. Departments of Justice and

Education and Pepperdine

University. He is the California

Chair of the National Organization

of Legal Problems in Education

(NOLPE) and is a member of the

faculty of the National Criminal

Justice Institute in Louisville,

Kentucky.

Dr. James received his

undergraduate and J.D. degrees from

the University of Michigan.

Ronald C. Laney

Mr. Laney was appointed

Director, Missing and Exploited

Children’s Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (OJJDP), in May 1994.

He had served as Acting Director of

the Programs from January 1993-

April 1994. From 1981 to April

1994, he was the Law Enforcement

Program Manager in OJJDP. He has

developed a series of Law

Enforcement Training Programs that

are offered throughout the country

today. Over 15,000 law enforcement

personnel have participated in these

training programs since 1982. Prior

to coming to OJJDP, Mr. Laney

served as a Program Manager in the

Law Enforcement Assistance

Administration for 5 years.

Mr. Laney has a Bachelor’s

degree in criminology from the

University of Tampa and a Master’s

degree in criminal justice from the

University of South Florida. He

served in the U.S. Marine Corps

from 1964-1970 before being

wounded during his second tour of

Vietnam and medically retired. He

also served as a probation officer in

St. Petersburg, Florida, during 1974,

and has received numerous awards

from local and State law

enforcement organizations for his

work in juvenile law enforcement.

Kent Markus

Earlier this year, Attorney

General Janet Reno appointed Mr.

Markus Counselor to the Attorney

General for Youth Violence. Prior to

this appointment, Mr. Markus

initially worked as Counsel to the

Deputy Attorney General of the

United States, the Justice

Department’s chief operating

officer. In that capacity, he worked

on a broad range of departmentwide

management, policy and

administrative issues. He was

responsible for oversight and

coordination of all department

activity with respect to the

implementation of the Brady Law

and the National Child Protection

Act and served on the department’s

Crime Bill and Judicial Selection

teams.

After passage of the Violent

Crime Control Act, Mr. Markus

became a Deputy Associate

Attorney General with responsibility

for coordination of the department’s

implementation of the Act. In that

capacity, he oversaw the

development of billions of dollars in

new grant programs and the

establishment of departmental

policies associated with the
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 95

prosecution of new crimes created

by the Act.

Prior to his service at the Justice

Department, Mr. Markus was Chief

of Staff at the Democratic National

Committee and Chief of Staff for

Ohio Attorney General Lee Fisher.

In each capacity, he had overall

management responsibility for the

budget, staff and operations of the

institution.

Earlier in his career, Mr. Markus

worked at law firms in Australia,

Alaska and Washington, D.C.,

before returning to Ohio to practice

law and teach at the Cleveland State

Law School. On Capitol Hill, Mr.

Markus also worked for U.S. House

Speakers Carl Albert and Tip

O’Neill and House Rules Committee

Chairman Richard Bolling.

Mr. Markus is a graduate of

Northwestern University and

Harvard Law School. He is also a

graduate of the Kennedy School of

Government’s “Program for Senior

Executives in State and Local

Government.”

Hon. Gordon A. Martin Jr.

The Honorable Gordon A. Martin

Jr. has served as an Associate Justice

of the Massachusetts Trial Court

since 1983, having been appointed

to the Roxbury District Court in

Boston, one of the country’s busiest

urban courts with great numbers of

drug and gun cases. Since 1994, he

also has served on the Special

Assignment Session of longer, more

complex cases from various Eastern

Massachusetts courts. He previously

served as the Presiding Justice with

administrative and security

responsibilities (1992-1994) and has

sat in two superior courts and 28

other district courts.

Justice Martin has extensively

lectured and served as a visiting

professor throughout the U.S.,

including the University of San

Diego School of Law, Tulane

University Law School, New

England School of Law, Boston

College Law School and Harvard

University. In May 1995, Justice

Martin was a guest lecturer at the

University of Regensburg Faculty of

Law, Germany, speaking on civil

rights in the U.S. to an expanded

Comparative Constitutional Law

course.

Justice Martin began his legal

career in private practice in Boston

and also has served as a trial

attorney in the Civil Rights Division

of the U.S. Department of Justice

(1961-1963); Assistant United

States Attorney for Massachusetts

(1963-1967); Special Assistant to

U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (DMA) (1967); and Associate

Professor at Northeastern University

School of Law (Boston). Justice

Martin was the Chair of Boston’s

Coordinating Council on Drug

Abuse (1970-1972) and was the

Commissioner of the Massachusetts

Commission Against Discrimination

(1969-1972). He also was appointed

by President Carter in 1980 to the

National Institute of Justice

Advisory Board.

Among the many more recent

professional activities in which

Justice Martin has participated are

Trustee of the Massachusetts Law

Reform Institute; Chair of the

National Council on Juvenile and

Family Court Judges’ Juvenile Law

Committee; Director of International

Institute for Youth, Inc.; Chair of the

Advisory Committee on

“Effectiveness of Juvenile Offender

Prevention and Treatment Programs:

What Works Best and for Whom,” a

study by the National Center for

Juvenile Justice; and a member of

the Federal Coordinating Council on

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, an appointment made by

the U.S. House of Representatives in

1994.

Justice Martin also has published

numerous articles and books,

including a 1995 article in the New

England Journal on Criminal and

Civil Confinement titled, “ Open the

Doors: A Judicial Call to End

Confidentiality in Delinquency

Proceedings.” His forthcoming

book, whose working title is, “How

Many Bubbles in a Bar of Soap: A

Fight for the Right to Vote in

Mississippi,” is an account of the

1963 Forrest County, Mississippi,

voting case. In connection with this

case, Justice Martin received the

first Marjorie Kovler Research

Fellowship of the John F. Kennedy

Library and Fellowship for

Independent Scholars from the

National Endowment for the

Humanities.

Justice Martin received his A.B.

from Harvard College and his J.D.

from New York University.

Neal Miller

Neal Miller has 24 years of

experience in policy-related research

on criminal justice issues. Mr.

Miller also has helped draft

legislation for the Congress and

State legislatures. His research has

covered fields as disparate as

development of inmate work

programs and analysis of court

preliminary arraignment processes.

Mr. Miller recently completed a

study of how juvenile adjudication

records are accessed and used by

criminal court judges and

prosecutors, including a national

survey of practitioners and field

studies in two jurisdictions. Other

recent studies have included a

survey of attorneys in Federal court

civil removal cases (where both the

Federal and State courts have

jurisdiction) to determine both

plaintiff and defendant reasons for

selecting a court; jail capacity

studies in Kansas, Ohio and Oregon;

State prosecution of gang-related

crime; private employer-law

enforcement cooperative efforts to

fight drug trafficking in the

workplace; and law

enforcement/corrections use of lessthan-lethal force weapons. At

present, Mr. Miller is completing a

publication on exculpatory use of

DNA testing in 29 post-conviction
Page 96 National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records

cases and a national study of

juvenile waiver practices.

Mr. Miller has authored over 40

publications in law reviews,

criminal justice-related journals,

professional association publications

and monographs published by the

U.S. Government. He also has

contributed to or been joint author of

three books, the subjects of which

range from legal education for the

layman to works on the law school

preparation for criminal justice

practice, correctional industries and

court studies.

Mr. Miller received a B.S. from

Dickinson College and a J.D. from

the University of Pennsylvania Law

School.

Michael R. Phillips

Mr. Phillips is Deputy

Administrator of the Utah Juvenile

Court, a position which he has held

since 1975. His current

responsibilities include serving as

staff to the Board of Juvenile Court

Judges and other administrative

responsibilities related to the

Juvenile Court system, including the

review and analysis of the Juvenile

Court’s $9 million budget. He also

has responsibility for the expansion

of the statewide juvenile information

system, including directing its

design, implementation and

operation.

Mr. Phillips also has served as

Director of the Division in the

Administrative Office of the Courts

and served as staff to the statewide

judicial performance evaluation

program for judges at all of Utah’s

court levels. He began his work in

the juvenile justice area as a

Juvenile Probation Officer for

Utah’s Third District Juvenile Court

in 1966.

Mr. Phillips has served as a

consultant to numerous juvenile

court systems. He also has published

articles relating to the Utah

experience and on various other

juvenile court topics.

Mr. Phillips has a B.S. in political

science from Weber State College

and an M.P.A. from Brigham Young

University.

Jan Scully

Ms. Scully was elected District

Attorney for Sacramento County,

California, in 1994. Since she began

her term, Ms. Scully has established

a policy that the District Attorney’s

Office will seek to try as adults all

juveniles 14 years of age and older

who use a gun to commit a crime.

She has restructured the office to

add two attorneys at Juvenile Hall,

one attorney to the Homicide

Bureau, and one attorney to the

Gang Unit to carry out her plan to

focus on violent offenders. In

addition, she has instituted a policy

to notify all victims of the name of

the deputy district attorney

prosecuting their case and to inform

them of their rights to seek

restitution.

Since her graduation from law

school, Ms. Scully has served in the

Sacramento County District

Attorney’s Office. In 1983, she

became a supervising deputy district

attorney and from 1984-1990, she

was in charge of the Sexual Assault

and Child Abuse Unit — a unit that

earned the respect of the legal

community and served as a model

for other units in the State.

During that time, Ms. Scully

served on the Board of Directors of

Women Escaping a Violent

Environment (WEAVE) and the

Children’s Receiving Home.

Ms. Scully currently serves on a

number of advisory boards and

Boards of Directors, including

People Reaching Out and Safe

Streets. She is one of three district

attorneys serving on the California

Department of Corrections Law

Enforcement Consortium. She also

serves on the Children’s Justice Act

State Task Force.

Ms. Scully is a graduate of

California State University,

Sacramento, and Lincoln Law

School.

Donna M. Uzzell

Ms. Uzzell is the Special Agent

in Charge of the Investigative

Support Bureau of the Florida

Department of Law Enforcement in

Tallahassee, Florida. Her duties

include management of the

Intelligence Section and Special

Programs such as the Missing

Children Information

Clearinghouse, Drug Abuse

Resistance Education Program

(DARE), Statewide Serious Habitual

Offender Program (SHOCAP),

Crimes Against Children Program,

Fugitives and Domestic Marijuana.

She previously served as a Sergeant

with the Tallahassee Police

Department and was a member of

the agency for 13 years.

In 1988, Ms. Uzzell was elected

to the Leon County School Board

and is now in her second term of

office, serving 2 years as Board

Chair. During the past 8 years, she

has worked on safe school policy

and procedures and has conducted

training throughout the State on

Crisis Intervention, Safe School

Planning, Interagency Collaboration

and SHOCAP. She currently is an

adjunct professor at Florida State

University teaching in the School of

Criminology and is a consultant for

Fox Valley Technical College in

Wisconsin.

Ms. Uzzell is a certified Crime

Prevention Practitioner and former

DARE officer. She has received

recognition for her work in the area

of child safety, including a Law

Enforcement Officer of the Year

Award. She has served on several

statewide Task Forces on school and

child safety and juvenile justice

issues. In 1993, she completed a

four-month special assignment to

the Commissioner of Education on

Law Enforcement and Education

Collaborative Relationships. In

1993, she spent 5 months on special

assignment to the Florida Attorney
National Conference on Juvenile Justice Records Page 97

General’s Office developing and

implementing the Florida

Community Juvenile Justice

Partnership Grant Program.

Jo-Ann Wallace

Ms. Wallace has been Director of

the Public Defender Service for the

District of Columbia since 1994.

Prior to that position, she was the

Deputy Chief of the agency’s

Appellate Division. She previously

served as a staff attorney and as the

Coordinator for the agency’s

Juvenile Services Program.

Ms. Wallace is a member of the

American Bar Association Criminal

Justice Standards Committee. She

currently serves on the Board of

Directors of the National Legal Aid

and Defender Association, on the

Defender Council, and is Chair of

the Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel on

Defender Services. Ms. Wallace cochairs the District of Columbia

Reclaim Our Youth Courts and

Justice Committee. In 1994, Ms.

Wallace founded the District of

Columbia Annual Appellate Practice

Institute. She is a member of the

visiting faculty for the Trial

Advocacy Workshop at Harvard

Law School.

Ms. Wallace clerked for the Hon.

Morris E. Lasker in the U.S. District

Court for the Southern District of

New York from 1984-1986. She is a

graduate of New York University

Law School.