Reforming Juvenile Justice:  A Developmental ApproachPresentation to the Coordinating Council for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency PreventionRobert  L. JohnsonEdward P. MulveyGladys CarrionJuly 26, 2013 

*

*

National Academy of Sciences
        - Chartered by Congress in 1863
        - Purpose: To advise the government and the nation on critical national issues through objective, scientific, and evidence-based research and analysis

Designed to be independent, balanced, and objective; Not an agency of the federal government.

*

Committee Process
        - Scholarship and stature of Academies’ members
        - Ability to get the very best to serve pro bono, ensuring the breadth and balance of interdisciplinary committee composition
        - Quality assurance and control procedures, including a strict peer review process
        - Written reports (source of “formal advice”) based on evidence and rigorous analysis, ensuring independence and objectivity

*

Assessing Juvenile Justice Committee Charge  and Composition
        - To assess the implications of advances in behavioral and neuroscience research for the field of juvenile justice and the implications of such knowledge for juvenile justice reform.  

Committee Members:
        - 6 from the social sciences
        - 2 physicians
        - 3 practitioners
        - Director of state children’s services
        - Director of state juvenile corrections
        - Juvenile court judge
        - 2 with law/public policy expertise
        - 1 neuroscientist

*

Committee Members

Robert L. Johnson (Chair), UMDNJ - New Jersey Medical School  

Richard J. Bonnie (Vice Chair, IOM), University of Virginia  

Carl C. Bell, Community Mental Health Council, Inc.  

Lawrence D. Bobo (NAS), Harvard University  

Jeffrey A. Butts, John Jay College of Criminal Justice  

Gladys Carrion, New York State Office of Children & Family Service  

B.J. Casey, Weill Medical College of Cornell University  

Kenneth A. Dodge, Duke University  

Sandra A. Graham, University of California, Los Angeles  

Ernestine Gray, Orleans Parish, Louisiana  

Edward P. Mulvey, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine  

Robert Plotnick, University of Washington  

Elizabeth S. Scott, Columbia University  

Terence P. Thornberry, University of Maryland  

Cherie Townsend, Texas Youth Commission  

*

Summary of “Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach”

The Neuroscience

*

“Pruning”

Image adapted from Gogtay N, et al. Dynamic mapping of human cortical development during childhood through early adulthood. PNAS 2004;101(21): 8174 - 79, Fig. 3; downloaded from www.brainfacts.org

*

“Different parts at different times”

*

Behavioral Science

*

Findings
        - Adolescents differ from adults and/or children in three important ways: 
        - self-regulation in emotionally charged contexts
        - heightened sensitivity  to contextual influences
        - less ability to make judgments that require future orientation 
        - Cognitive tendencies are associated with biological immaturity of the brain and with an imbalance among developing brain systems

*

*

Figure 4 from Steinberg, L. (2013). The influence of neuroscience on U.S. Supreme Court decisions involving adolescents’ criminal culpability. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 513-518

*

Capacity + Environment = Developmental Path

Holds for both adolescence and early adulthood

Positive adolescent development related to: 

Parent or parent figure

Positive peers

Opportunities for decision making/critical thinking

Juvenile justice interventions are responsible for creating positive development as well as ensuring public safety

Being held accountable for wrongdoing and accepting responsibility in a process perceived as fair promotes healthy moral development and legal socialization

Conversely, being held accountable and punished in a process perceived as unfair can reinforce social disaffection and antisocial behavior

*

“Incorrigibility is inconsistent 

with youth.”

			- Miller majority opinion 

*

Goals of the System

Promoting Accountability

Ensuring Fairness

Preventing Re-offending

*

Recommendations

Adoption of a developmental approach to youth programs, policies and practices within DOJ/OJJDP, across the federal government, and when working with state, local and tribal partners in the field.

Create multi-stakeholder task forces

Strengthen the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Promote research

Improve data

*

CHALLENGES TO REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE ON THE GROUND

FEDERAL ROLE

LEADERSHIP

GUIDANCE

SUPPORT

RESOURCES

WHAT TO DO?

WHAT WORKS?

HOW TO DO IT?

EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS?

RESEARCH

*

FRONT DOOR TO JUVENILE JUSTICE IS INCREASINGLY THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM

JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM OF LAST RESORT; INABILITY TO ACCESS OTHER SYSTEM SUPPORTS

     MENTAL HEALTH

      SUBSTANCE ABUSE

      EDUCATION

      DEVELOPMENTAL   DISABILITIES

      HOUSING

HOUSING

REQUIRES COLLABORATION AND SHARED OWNERSHIP OF THE JUSTICE INVOLVED CHILDREN

*

Success at Reforming Juvenile Justice 

Requires Many Partners

LOOKING FORWARD 
        - 

STRONGER FEDERAL VOICE

INCENTIVIZE WHAT WORKS

SUPPORT AND PROMOTE THE RESEARCH

DOING WHAT DOESN’T WORK IS EXPENSIVE

*

THANK YOU!

For copies of the report: www.nap.edu

For more information: Bboyd@nas.edu

*