U.S.

Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
June 2004
Access to Counsel
Judith B. Jones
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is presenting a Juvenile
Justice Practices Series to provide the field with updated research, promising practices, and
tools for a variety of juvenile justice areas. These Bulletins are important resources for youth-
serving professionals involved in developing and adopting juvenile justice policies and
programs, regardless of their funding sources.
This second Bulletin in the series examines access to legal counsel in the juvenile justice
system.
OJJDP supports the development and adoption of policies and programs that:
Provide access to quality (not cursory) legal counsel for all youth in the juvenile justice system.
Ensure that juveniles consult with counsel at the outset of the juvenile justice process (before
waiving their right to counsel) and at every subsequent step, through postdisposition.
The right to counsel for juveniles was established in 1967 with the landmark case In re Gault, 387
U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428 (1967). In Gault, Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas wrote, under our
Constitution the condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court, and the Court ruled
against the argument that a probation officer or judge could adequately represent a minor, given the
awesome prospect of incarceration until the age of majority. The Supreme Court held in Gault that
children have the right to remain silent and that no child can be convicted unless compelling evidence
is presented in court, under the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Gault was a major change
in juvenile law in that it upheld the constitutional rights of children. As Justice Fortas wrote: Neither
the 14th amendment nor the Bill of Rights is for adults only. The 6th amendment also protects
childrens rights to assistance of defense counsel (Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)) and,
moreover, to effective assistance of counsel (Stickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)). The 6th
and 14th amendments, along with the privileges enumerated in the Bill of Rights, form the
constitutional lexicon of juvenile justice.
In response to Gault and other decisions affecting juveniles and to concerns about the treatment of
youth in the justice system, Congress enacted the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act in
1974 (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq., Public Law 93415). The Act created the National Advisory
Committee for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, which was charged with developing a set
of national juvenile justice standards. The resulting Institute for Judicial Administration-American
Office of Justice Programs Partnerships for Safer Communities www.ojp.usdoj.gov
BarAssociation(IJA-ABA)Juvenile Justice Standards(IJA-ABA,1980)includedarequirementthat
juvenilesmustberepresentedbycounselfromtheearlieststagesofthecourtprocess.Yetresearch
continuestoshowsignificantvariationamongstatesandwithincountiesregardingeffective
assistanceofcounselandcommitmenttoindigentjuveniledefense.
ThisBulletindescribesissuessurroundinglegalcounselinthejuvenilejusticesystem,explores
factorsthathinderaccesstoandqualityofcounsel,discussestheelementsofqualitycounsel,and
offersexamplesofhowsomestatesandlocalorganizationsaremeetingthechallengeofimproving
accesstolegalcounselforjuveniles.TheBulletinalsoincludesalistofresourcesandtoolsfor
practitioners.
Issues Surrounding Legal Counsel in the Juvenile Justice System
TheAmericanlegalsystemiscomplex.Itisbasedonconstitutionallyguaranteedrights,commonlaw
precedent,andaweboffederalandstatestatutes,localordinances,andproceduralrules.Mountingan
adequatedefenseinjuvenileorcriminalcourt,avoidingself-incrimination,andensuringthatrights
areupheldrequiretheassistanceofcompetentlegalcounsel.Yetmanyminorswhobecomeinvolved
withthejuvenilejusticesystemneverrealizethesebasicrightsbecausetheyill-advisedlywaivetheir
righttocounsel,inappropriatelyacceptpleabargains,orreceivesubstandardservices.Insome
jurisdictions,asmanyas80to90percentofyouthwaivetheirrighttoanattorneybecausetheydonot
knowthemeaningofthewordwaiveorunderstanditsconsequences.Inadequateaccesstoquality
ancillaryservicesmentalhealth,health,social,andeducationalexacerbatestheproblemsfor
defensecounselwhoarehardpressedtoarguefornonexistentalternativestodetentionand
incarceration.
Thepaththroughthejuvenilejusticesystembeginswitharrestandcontinuesthroughpostdisposition.
Atallpointsintheprocess,counselmustinterveneeffectivelyandzealouslytoensurethatyouth
receivetheservicestheyneedtoforestallfutureencounterswiththejuvenilejusticesystemandthat
confinementisreservedforonlyappropriatecases.Thefollowingstep-by-stepreviewoftheprocess
callsattentiontoevidencethatjuvenilesoftendonotreceivethiskindofconsistent,effectivelegal
representation.
Arrest and Detention
Ajuvenilefirstcomesintocontactwiththejuvenilejusticesystematthetimeofarrest.Atthatpoint,
policehavethediscretiontoreleasetheyouthwithawarningortoconcludethatevidenceis
insufficienttoholdtheyouthforfurtherprocessing.Ifacaseproceeds,thejuvenileiseitherreleased
tohisorherparentsorguardiansorsenttoadetentionfacility.
1
Insomejurisdictions,appointmentof
counselforarrestedyouthmaynottakeplaceuntiltheyouthappearsincourt.
Afterarrest,adetentionhearingisheldtodeterminewhetherthejuvenileshouldremainconfined
priortoadjudication.Thetimeframeforthishearingissetbystatestatute;mosttakeplacewithin24
hoursofarrest.AccordingtoPuritzetal.(1995),citing1992data(Butts,1994:56),adispositionof
incarcerationismorelikelyforjuvenileswhoaredetainedpriortoadjudicationthanforthosewhoare
returnedtotheirfamiliesorplacedinanalternative,community-basedprogram.Otherdataindicate
thattherelationshipbetweendetentionandlikelihoodofincarcerationhasadisproportionatelylarge
effectonyouthfrompoor,minority,andsingle-parentfamilies(LeiberandStairs,1999:68).During
everyyearbetween1990and1999,blackjuvenilesweremorelikelytobedetainedthanwhite
1
Juvenilesweredetainedin20percentofthenearly1.7millioncasesprocessedin1999(Harms,2003).
2
National Studies
AC elinquency
Proceedings
i
i
utcomes
State Studies
ith
elinquency
Proceedings
ssessm
inDelinquencyProceedings
Louisiana. ssessm
DelinquencyProceedingsinLouisiana
Maine. Ma
Proceedings
2003).
Ma
Proceedings
Montana.
Proceedings (Albinetal.,2003).
a
DelinquencyProceedings
JusticeC elinquency
(BrooksandKamine,2003).
DelinquencyProceedings
Texas. SellingJusticeShort,JuvenileIndigentDefenseinTexas
Virginia.
Proceedings
Washington.
DelinquencyProceedings in,2003).
ithavi
Research on the Status of Access to Legal Counsel for Juveniles
TheBulletinsdiscussionofissuessurroundingaccesstocounselandfactorsthathinderaccesstoand
qualityofcounseldrawsonthemajorresearchstudiesdescribedbelow.
allforJustice:AnAssessmentofAccesstoCounselandQualityofRepresentationinD
(Puritzetal.,1995).ThisreportdocumentsfindingsfromanationalstudybytheABAJuvenile
JusticeCenterthatincludedasurveyofpublicdefenders'offices,court-appointedattorneys,lawschool
clinics,andchildren'slawcenters;interviewswthjudges,defenseattorneys,prosecutors,clients,court
administrators,andyouthadvocates;andsitev sitstojuveniledetentionandcorrectionsfacilities.
JuvenileJusticeRepresentationRatesVariedasDidCounsel'sImpactonCourtO (U.S.Government
AccountingOffice,1995).Inthisnationalstudy,researcherssurveyedprosecutorsandinterviewedjudgesto
learntheirperceptionsofthequalityofdefensecounselforjuveniles.
ThestatestudyreportslistedbelowwerepublishedbytheABAJuvenileJusticeCenterinassociationw
juvenileadvocacyorganizations.Researcherswhoconductedthestatestudiessurveyedandinterviewed
attorneys,judges,juvenilecourtpersonnel,youthandtheirparents,andyouthadvocates.
Georgia. Georgia:AnAssessmentofAccesstoCounselandQualityofRepresentationinD
(PuritzandSun,2001).
Kentucky. Kentucky:AdvancingJustice:AnA entofAccesstoCounselandQualityofRepresentation
(PuritzandBrooks,2002).
TheChildrenLeftBehind:AnA entofAccesstoCounselandQualityofRepresentationin
(Celeste,2001).
ine: AnAssessmentofAccesstoCounselandQualityofRepresentationinDelinquency
(AmericanBarAssociationJuvenileJusticeCenterandNewEnglandJuvenileDefenderCenter,
Maryland. ryland: AnAssessmentofAccesstoCounselandQualityofRepresentationinDelinquency
(Cummingetal.,2003).
Montana: AnAssessmentofAccesstoCounselandQualityofRepresentationinDelinquency
North Carolina.North C rolina: AnAssessmentofAccesstoCounselandQualityofRepresentationin
(Grindall,2003).
Ohio. utShort:AnAssessmentofAccesstoCounselandQualityofRepresentationinD
ProceedingsinOhio
Pennsylvania.Pennsylvania: AnAssessmentofAccesstoCounselandQualityofRepresentationin
(Miller-Wilson,2003).
(Stewartetal.,2000).
Virginia:AnAssessmentofAccesstoCounselandQualityofRepresentationinDelinquency
(Puritz,Scali,andPicou,2002).
Washington: AnAssessmentofAccesstoCounselandQualityofRepresentationin
(Calv
ABAJuvenileJusticeCenterstaffandtheirprofessionalcolleaguesinthefieldarecurrentlyconductingstate-
by-stateresearchonthestatusofaccesstolegalcounselforjuveniles.Thegoalofthisresearchistoidentify
systemicissuesinall50states,w ewtowardprovidinginformationtostatelegislaturesandexecutive
branchesand,ultimately,improvingaccesstocounselthroughstate-specificsystemschange.
3
juveniles,foralloffensecategories(Harms,2003).AlthoughtheU.S.SupremeCourt(Schallv.
Martin,467U.S.253(1984))ruledthatpretrialdetentioncanbeusednotaspunishmentbutonlyto
protectthechildandthecommunity,surveysinmanystatesfoundthatyouthareroutinelyand
inappropriatelysentintodetention.Youthmaybedetainedasascaretacticortoaccommodate
courtcalendars.Furthermore,ifcounseldoesnotmeettheclientuntilthedetentionhearing,the
attorneycannoteffectivelyinvestigateplacementwitharelativeorothercommunity-based
alternatives.
Effectiverepresentationattheearlieststagescanhaveimportanteffectsontheoutcomeofacase.An
attorneywhotalkstoaclientimmediatelyafterarrestcan:
Learnaboutanyconversationstheyouthmayhavewithpolice,intakeworkers,andfamily.
Explaintheprocessandensurethattheyouthdoesnotinappropriatelywaivetherighttocounsel,
admitguilt,ormakeotherdetrimentalstatementsordecisions.
Quicklyidentifypeoplewhoareinapositiontospeakwelloftheyouth(e.g.,teachers,ministers)
andaskthemtotestifyontheyouthsbehalf.
Providethedetentionhearingjudgewithenoughinformation(e.g.,familystrengths,possibilityof
placementwithextendedfamily,orotheralternativestodetention)towarrantreleaseratherthan
detention.
Pretrial
Investigation.Duringthepretrialphase,theattorneyinvestigatesthefactsofthecaseandfiles
pretrialmotionsonbehalfoftheclient.Juvenile Justice Standards(IJA-ABA,1980)stipulatesthat
theattorneyshouldmeetwiththeclientandbegininvestigatingassoonaspossible,whenmemories
arefreshandwitnessesarerelativelyeasytofind.Standardsalsoinstructsdefenseattorneystoobtain
informationfrompolice,prosecutors,schools,probation,familymembers,andchildwelfareassoon
aspossible.Often,however,theamountoftimeanattorneycanallocatetoconductinginvestigations
andlearningaboutaclientandcaseisinsufficienttomountanadequatedefense(seeFactorsThat
HinderAccesstoandQualityofJuvenileDefenseCounsel,page6).
Hearing for waiver or transfer to criminal court.Thepretrialphasemayinvolveahearingto
determinewhetherajuvenilescaseshouldbeheardincriminal(i.e.,adult)court.Duringthe1990s,
49statesandtheDistrictofColumbiapassedstatutesthatmakeiteasiertoprosecutejuvenilesin
adultcourts(Cummingetal.,2003,citingRedding,2003).Inmoststates,transfer(alsocalledwaiver)
toadultcourtisautomatic,dependingontheageofthejuvenileandtheseriousnessoftheoffense.If
transferisnotautomatic,however,theprosecutormustmakeaprima faciecase,showingprobable
causethatthejuvenilescrimeisseriousenoughtowarranttransferandthatthejuvenilewillnot
respondtotreatmentwithinthejuvenilejusticesystem(IJA-ABA,1980).Thedefenseattorneys
responsibilityistoargueagainsttransferandtokeepthecaseinthejuvenilecourt.
2
Researchfindings
underscoretheimportanceofeffectiveandzealousrepresentationforjuvenilesinwaiverhearings.
3
2
In1990,approximately7,500caseslessthan1percentofthe962,000formallyprocesseddelinquency
caseswerewaivedtoadultcourt(Puzzanchera,2003).
3
TheSentencingProject(anationalorganizationthatsupportsalternativestoincarceration)reportsthatjuveniles
prosecutedinadultcourtsincludeadisproportionatenumberofminoritiesandahighpercentageofabused
childrenandchildrenwhoarementallyoreducationallylimited(Poe-YamagataandJones,2000;Young,2000).
4
OJJDPdatashowthatalthoughthenumberofjudiciallywaivedcasesinvolvingblackyouth
decreased24percentbetween1990and1999whilethenumberinvolvingwhiteyouthincreased,
blackyouthstillaccountedfor44percentoftotalcaseswaivedin1999(Puzzanchera,2003).In
Florida,astudybytheOfficeofProgramPolicyAnalysisandGovernmentAccountabilityfoundthat
juvenilesintheadultprisonsystemwerealmost21timesmorelikelytobeassaultedorinjuredthan
thoseinthestatesjuvenilefacilities(GreeneandDougherty,2001).Anotherstudyreportedthat,
comparedwithadultinmates,youthinadultfacilitiesareeighttimesaslikelytocommitsuicide,five
timesaslikelytobesexuallyassaulted,andalmosttwiceaslikelytobeattackedwithaweaponby
inmatesorbeatenbystaff(Cummingetal,2003,citingRedding,2003).
Findingssuchasthesesuggestthepossibleconsequencesofineffectiverepresentationinwaiver
hearings.Toargueeffectivelythatajuvenileshouldnotbedetained(orultimatelyincarcerated)with
adultsandcanberehabilitatedwithinthejuvenilejusticesystem,adefenseattorneymustgather
supportiveinformationabouttheyouthssocial,educational,andfamilyhistory.Often,however,
insufficienttimeandresourcesareavailabletoconductathoroughinvestigation(seeFactorsThat
HinderAccesstoandQualityofJuvenileDefenseCounsel,page6).
Adjudication
Theadjudicationhearingparallelsthetrialinadultcourt.Althoughsomestatesentitlejuvenilestoa
jurytrial,thisisnotaconstitutionalright(McKeiverv. Pennsylvania,403U.S.528,91S.Ct.1976
(1971)).Atanadjudicationhearingbeforeajudge,thedefensemustargueforanacquittaland
prosecutorsmustproveguiltbeyondareasonabledoubt(In re Winship,397U.S.358,90S.Ct.
1068(1970)).
Statestudiesofjuvenileaccesstocounsel(seesidebaronpage3)indicatethatmostjuvenile
casesoftenasmanyas90percentresultinapleabargain.Pleabargainsarenotinherentlybador
evendetrimentaltotheyouthaslongastheyarenotmadeforexpediencyssakeandtheyouthclearly
isguilty.Juvenile Justice Standards(IJA-ABA,1980)providesthatajuvenileshouldnotaccepta
pleabargainunlessitisclearthatthejuvenilefullyunderstandsthealternativechoicesandthe
implicationsofapleabargainintheeventofrearrestorfailuretoadheretosentencingandprobation
provisions.Intheabsenceofeffectivecounsel,however,juvenilesmaybeunabletomakean
informedchoiceandmayenterintoapleabargainbecausetheydonotfullyunderstandthe
implications.
Disposition
Atthedispositionhearing,thecourtdecidestheplacement,sanctions,andservicesthejuvenile
offenderwillreceive.Dispositionsmayinclude(rangingfromleasttomostrestrictive)fines,
communityservice,restitution,in-homeprobation,electronicmonitoring,grouphomeplacement,and
securedetention.Servicesmayincludepsychological,psychiatric,andeducationalevaluation;
individualandfamilycounseling;substanceabusetreatment;andmedicalcare.
Duringthedispositionhearing,legalcounselcanhelpthejudgeidentifythemostappropriate
sanctionsandrehabilitativeservicesforeachjuvenile.Counselcanpresentlettersofsupportfrom
teachers,churches,andcommunitygroups;educationalandmedicalinformation;andother
documentstoaidthejudge.However,ifanattorneylacksthetimeandresourcestoinvestigate
dispositionoptions,ajuvenilemaybeincarceratedeventhoughalessexpensive,morebeneficial,and
moreappropriatealternativeisavailable.
5
Postdisposition
Juvenile Justice Standards(IJA-ABA,1980)indicatesthatlegalrepresentationforjuvenilesshould
notstopatdisposition.Postdispositionactivitiesincludefilingappeals,conductingperiodicreviews
ofhowtheyouthisfaring,ensuringthattheyouthisreceivingtheservicesorderedandthatplacement
remainsappropriate,andaddressingconcernsforconditionsofconfinement.
Ingeneral,appealsarerareinjuvenilecourt,possiblybecausesentencesareshortandtheappeal
processcanbelengthy.Anothercontributingfactor,assuggestedbyPuritzandcolleagues(1995),
maybethatpublicdefendersofficesarenotorganizedtodealwithappealsinjuvenilecases.
SubsequentstateresearchbytheABAJuvenileJusticeCenter(seesidebaronpage3)hasreported
similarfindings.Whenafelonyoffenseisinvolved,however,anappealmaybeinajuvenilesbest
interestsbecauseofthelong-termramificationsofafelonyconviction.
Factors That Hinder Access to and Quality of
Juvenile Defense Counsel
Anumberoffactorslimitajuvenilesaccesstolegalcounselandthequalityoflegalservices
provided.Thesefactorsmaybebroadlycategorizedasprofessional/proceduralandpolicy-oriented/
philosophical.
Professional/Procedural Factors
Professional/proceduralfactorsincludeappointmentofcounsel,waiverofcounsel,caseloads,
compensation,useofmotions,useofinvestigations,training,professionalsupport,andorganizational
challenges.Eachofthesefactorsisdiscussedbelow.
Appointment of counsel.Accesstolegalcounselbeforeandduringthepretrialdetentionhearingis
criticaltothecase.Yetstatestudiessuggestthatjuvenilesoftendonothaveaccesstocounselatthe
earlystagesandthatattorneysoftenlacksufficientleadtimetobecomefamiliarwiththeirclientsand
thefactsofthecases.
InTexas,researchersreportedthatnostatewideorlocalsystemsexistforappointmentofcounsel;
appointmentisatthepleasureofindividualjudges,whohavethepowertodeterminecompensation
rates.Often,attorneyswhobillatalowerratearechosen.Thefirsttimethatcounselmustbepresent
isattheadjudicationhearing,notthedetentionhearing.Similarly,inGeorgia,individualjudges
appointcounsel,sometimesfromalistofattorneysundercontracttothecounty.InLouisiana,some
parentssaidthatnoattorneywasappointedfortheirchild,evenwhentheyhadrequestedone,and
someincarceratedyouthsaidtheyhadnevermetwithanattorneyorhadspokentooneforlessthan
5minutespriortoadjudication.InKentucky,NorthCarolina,andOhio,mostattorneyswhowere
surveyedreportedthattheyarenotappointedtorepresentyouthuntilthedetentionhearingandoften
donotmeettheyouthuntiltheyarebroughttocourt.
Inseveralstates,statutesrequireappointmentofcounselatallstagesoftheproceedings.However,
becausethereisnosystemicmechanismtoconnectcounselandjuvenileattheearliestpointinthe
process,appointmentoftendoesnotoccuruntilaformalpetitionisfiledincourt.
ContrarytoABAStandards,Virginialawdoesnotspecificallyprovidefortherighttocounselat
arrest,intake,ortheinitialdetentionhearing.Atintake,courtservicesunitstaff,ratherthanthe
prosecution,collectinformationabouttheyouth;thedefensecounselisprohibitedfrombeingpresent.
Althoughthelawprohibitsstatementsmadetotheintakeofficerfrombeingusedagainstayouthat
6
trial,itdoesnotprotecttheyouthfromenteringthesystem.Courtsusuallyappointcounselatthe
arraignment/initialdetentionhearingwhenyouthareinformedofthechargesagainstthem;however,
counselreceivesnoticeoftheappointmentafterthishearing.Virginiaiscurrentlyusingvideo
detentionhearings,inwhichtheyouthremainsatthedetentioncenterandaddressesthecourtfrom
thatremotelocation.Theyouthhasnocourtrepresentationatthattimeandreceivesnoexplanationof
theproceeding.AbsenceofcounselintheearlystagesoftheprocessisalikelyfactorinVirginias
highrateofdetention(nearlytwicethenationalaverage)andinoneofthebiggestproblemsreported
byjuveniledefenseattorneys:inadequatepreparationandtimewithclients.
Mainesjuveniledefendersareallappointedbythecourtfromalistofprivateattorneys;thereisno
statewide,standardizedsystem.Mainelawrequiresthat,duringayouthsfirstappearancebeforethe
court(usuallythedetentionhearing),youthandparentsmustbeadvisedoftherighttocounselat
everystepoftheensuingproceedings.However,juvenilesdonothaveastatutoryrighttoanattorney
whenarrested,althoughtheycannotbedeniedaccesstoacourt-appointedattorneyiftheyrequest
one.JuvenilecommunitycorrectionsofficersareauthorizedbyMainestatutetoconditionallyrelease
anarrestedyouthtoparents,fostercare,oranalternativefacility.Detentionmustbeintheleast
restrictivesettingandcannotbeorderedunlessconditionalreleaseisinappropriate.
InWashington,childrenaregenerallyrepresentedbycounselatmostjuvenileproceedings;statelaw
providestherighttocounselanytimeathreatofconfinementexists.However,researchersfoundthat
representationvariessignificantlybycountyandthatinsomecounties,thedefenderisneverorrarely
presentatthefirstappearancehearing,whichdetermineswhethertheyouthshouldremainin
detentionuntilthenextarraignmenthearing.
MarylandandPennsylvaniahavenouniformprocesstoappointpublicdefendersandnoeligibility
criteriaforindigency.InMaryland,indigentparentswhoneedpublicdefenderservicesforachild
faceconfusingproceduresthatvaryfromcountytocounty.Parentsmaynothavetherequired
financialdocumentationor$25intakefeetoapplyforservicesimmediatelyormaynotbeawarethat
theymustapplywithinacertaintimeperiod.InNorthCarolina,assessmentofindigencyisnot
uniformlyapplied.Inaddition,thestateisinconsistentinitsuseofvariousmechanismseven
interceptionofstateincometaxrefundstoensurecollectionoffeesfordefenseservices.
Waiver of counsel. Juvenile Justice Standardsstatesthatjuvenilesshouldbeprovidedwithcounsel
inalldelinquencyorinneedofsupervisionproceedings(IJA-ABA,1980,standard2.3).Gaultheld
thatjuvenilesareentitledtocounselandthatwaivercanbemadeonlybyboththejuvenileanda
parent.Inseveralstates,statutesandcaselawprohibitorlimitwaiverofcounselbyjuveniles;those
thatpermitwaiversrequireproofthattheyouthunderstandsthemeaningandconsequencesofwaiver,
considerawaiverinvalidunlessitisinformedbycounsel,orgrantwaiveronlyafterajuvenile
consultswithparentsorguardians(Shepherd,1998).Despitetheseprotections,researchindicatesthat
toomanyjuvenilesareineffectdeniedrighttocounselbecausetheywaivethatrightwhenclearlyit
isnotintheirbestintereststodoso.
IntheABAJuvenileJusticeCenters1995nationalstudy(Puritzetal.,1995),34percentofpublic
defendersofficesandasimilarproportionofcourt-appointedcounselorsreportedthatsomejuveniles
waivetheirrightsatthedetentionhearing.Forty-sixpercentsaidthatonlysometimesorrarelyis
thereanadvisorycolloquywiththejudgebeforetheyouthwaivesthisright.Morerecentinterviews
withstateattorneysandcourtofficersfoundthatboththetimethejudgesallotforcolloquiesandthe
qualityofcolloquiesvariedconsiderably.Reasonscitedforwaiverwerethatjuvenilesthinktheircase
isnotveryseriousandparentsfearthecostofengaginganattorney(perhapsunawarethatonecould
beappointedfreeofchargeorunabletonavigatetheeligibilityprocedures).Instateswithhighwaiver
7
rates,researchersfoundthatmanyjuvenileswaivecounselwithoutevertalkingtoanattorneyanddo
notunderstandwhatwaivermeans,andyettheircompetencytowaivecounselisnotchallenged.
InGeorgia,researchersfoundthatdelaysinappointingcounselcausejuvenilestobelockedupfor
weekends,sosomeoptforwaiver.Somecountiesrequirethatparentsapplyforcourt-appointed
counselinperson;ifparentscannottaketimeawayfromworkordonotfullyunderstandtheneedfor
anattorney,theymightdecidetowaivetheirchildsrighttocounsel.AlthoughparentsinGeorgia
havetherighttopostbailiftheirchildisarrested,somecountiessetbailat$2,500ormore,puttingit
outofreachformanylow-incomefamilies.Georgiahasnosystemforinformingparentsoftheirright
topostbailandnobail-settingguidelines.
TheLouisianaChildrensCodestatesthatjuvenileshavearighttocounselateverystageofthe
juvenilejusticeprocess.Nevertheless,someparishesreportedthat80to90percentofjuvenileswaive
thisright,andotherparishesputthenumberatmorethanhalf.In2of12Ohiojurisdictionssurveyed,
waiverrateswereashighas80percent.VirginiaandMarylandreportedwaiverratesofabout50
percent.Pennsylvaniareportedarateof11percent.
AccordingtoMontanastatute,neitherayouthnorparentsmaywaivecounselifadjudicationcould
resultinaconfinementofmorethan6months.However,whenayouthisarrestedorreferredbya
schooltothejuvenilejusticesystem,aprobationofficerholdsapreliminaryinquiry,anditishere
thattheyouthcouldsignawaiverform.Anattorneyisnotrequiredatthisinquirybecauseitis
consideredaninformalhearing.Appointmentofanattorneyisnotrequireduntilapetitionisfiled,
usually3to4monthslater.
KentuckysCourtofAppealshasheldthatayouthcanwaivetherighttocounselonlyifheorsheis
initiallyappointedcounselandthewaiverismadeintelligently,afterconsultationwithcounsel(D.R.
v. Commonwealth,Ky.Ct.App.,64S.W.3d292(2001)).Two-thirdsofattorneyswhorespondedto
Kentuckyresearchersreportedthatjuvenilesoftenorveryoftenwaivecounselatdetentionhearings,
althoughnearlyalljuvenileswhowereincarceratedwererepresentedbycounsel.Ohiostatute
requiresthatwaiverofcounselmustbevoluntary,knowing,andintelligent,butresearchersfoundthat
manyjuvenilesmerelynodorsayokwithlittleunderstanding.InWashington,youthmaywaive
righttocounsel,anditisuptothejudgetoensurethattheyunderstandtheconsequencesofthat
decision.AccordingtodefenseattorneysinWashington,judgesdonotdiscusstheconsequencesor
voluntarynatureofwaiverinapproximately70percentofcases.
InMaine,waiverofcounselisnotaproblem.Manydistrictjudgesspendtimeexplainingtherightto
counseltojuvenilesandtheirparents,andsomejudgesrefusetoacceptwaiversofcounseluntila
youthhasspokentoanattorney.
Caseloads.Duringthelastdecade,thenumberofdelinquencycasesincreasedsignificantly.In1999
(thelatestyearforwhichpublishedstatisticsareavailable),thejuvenilecourtsprocessed1,673,000
cases,a5-percentdropfromthepreviousyear,buta27-percentincreasefrom1990(Stahl,2003).The
numberofdefenseattorneysandsupportpersonnelavailabletohandledelinquencycasesisnot
commensuratewiththelargevolumeofthesecases.Anoverburdenedattorneywithinsufficienttime
tobecomeconversantwithacaseparticularlyacomplexcaseishardpressedtoargueeffectively
fortheclient.
8
Initsnationalsurvey,theABAfoundthatexcessivecaseloadswerethesinglemostimportantbarrier
toeffectiverepresentationandledtoburnoutandjobdissatisfaction(Puritzetal.,1995:8).Although
theU.S.BureauofJusticeAssistance(2000)recommendsanannualcaseloadnogreaterthan200to
250forpublicdefendershandlingjuvenilecasesonafull-timebasis,nationalandstatestudies
indicatethatcaseloadsaremuchlarger.TheaveragejuvenilecaseloadintheABAsnationalsurvey
was300(ofatotalcaseloadexceeding500).Althoughnotallstatessurveyedin20002003reported
excessivecaseloadproblems,theissuearosequiteoften,especiallyinurbanjurisdictions.States
reportedannualdelinquencycaseloadsasfollows:
Georgia:200to350forpart-timedefenders.
Louisiana:asmanyas800peryear.
Kentucky:500to1,000(basedonreportsfromtwo-thirdsofKentuckysjurisdictions).Notethat
theaveragecaseloadforatrialattorneyinKentuckywas421inFY2002,down2percentfrom
FY2000.
Virginia:679to1,500forpublicdefenders,150to200forcourt-appointedattorneys
(representing5to30percentoftheirtotalcaseload).
Washington:360to750.
MarylandandPennsylvaniadonotcollectdataoncaseloadsize.However,attorneysinthesestates
reportednumbersinexcessofABAStandards.
Inmanystatessurveyed,largecaseloadsresultinanoverdependenceonprobationofficers,whooften
havemorecontactwithyoutheitherindetentionfacilitiesorotherplacementsthandoattorneys.
Juvenilesmaynotunderstandthattheprobationofficerhasnodutyofconfidentialitytothemandthat
whattheysaytotheofficercanbeusedagainstthemincourt.Whenoverburdeneddefensecounsel
relyoninformationfromprobationofficers,theattorneysroleasanadvocatemaybediluted.
Compensation.Indigentjuvenilesarerepresentedeitherbypublicdefenderswhoaresalaried
employeesofstateorlocalgovernmentsorbylawyersinprivatepracticewhoareappointedfroma
panelbythecourts.Researchshowsthatcompensationlevelsforattorneyswhorepresentjuveniles
areinadequateinmanyjurisdictionsandaregenerallynotcommensuratewithcompensationinother
areasoflegalpractice.Manyjurisdictionsputcapsonthenumberofhoursacourt-appointedattorney
(i.e.,notapublicdefender)canbilltoacaseoronoverallspendingpercase.Examplesofstate
compensationratesandfeestructuresfollow.
Georgiacountiesthatcomplywithstatesupremecourtguidelinespaycourt-appointedattorneys
$60perhourforin-courtworkand$45perhourforout-of-courtwork;defenderswhoareunder
contracttocountiesdonotreceivebenefitsorreimbursementforoverheadcosts.SomeGeorgia
countiescaptheamountthatattorneyscanreceiveforeachcase;inonelargeurbancounty,the
capis$300.Thesecompensationratesarewellbelowmarketratesattorneysreceivefor
nonappointedadultcriminalcases.Furthermore,notallcountiescomplywiththecourts
guidelines.
In2001,Kentuckyraisedstartingsalariesforentry-levelpublicdefendersintheDepartmentof
PublicAdvocacyfrom$23,388to$35,000;startingsalariesforexperiencedattorneysincreased9
percent.
InLouisiana,compensationforpublicdefendersandcourt-appointeddefenseattorneys
representingjuvenilesrangesfrom$22,000to$30,000peryearandoftendoesnotinclude
9
benefits.SomeLouisianajurisdictionsseverelylimitpaymentsforinvestigationsandexpert
witnesses.Mostofthesedefendersworkonlypart-timeonjuvenilecases,supplementingtheir
incomebyrepresentingadults;thosewhoworkpart-timemustsupplytheirownofficespace,
telephone,computers,andsupplies.
Mainesjuveniledefenseattorneysarepaid$50perhour,butthereisacapof$315percase.
PayforpublicdefendersinMarylandissignificantlylowerthansalariesforemployeesin
comparablepositionsinotherstateagencies,accordingtoastudybythestatesDepartmentof
BudgetandManagement.
InMontana,compensationratesfordefenseattorneysaresetbycountycommissioners.Insome
counties,attorneysarepaidaflatrate.Sometimes,officeexpensesarenotreimbursedatalland
travelisreimbursedminimally,atthestaterate(adisincentivetotravelthelongdistancesoften
requiredtovisitclients).
Since1986,attorneysinNewYork,NY,whoareappointedtorepresentjuvenileshavereceived
$40perhourforin-courtworkand$25perhourforout-of-courtwork(FritschandRohde,2001).
NewYorkrateswerechallengedinalawsuitagainstthestateandthecity(New York County
Lawyers Association v. State of New York and City of New York,763N.Y.S.2d397,decided
February5,2003).InNovember2003,theNewYorkCountyLawyersAssociationsettledwith
thestateandcity,whichhadappealedastatesupremecourtrulingthatraisedtherateto$90per
hour.EffectiveJanuary1,2004,privatecounselassignedtorepresentchildrenandthepoorin
courtproceedingsinNewYorkCityreceive$75perhourforworkonfelonycriminalcasesand
$60perhourforworkonmisdemeanorcases.
IntheOhiocountiessurveyed,startingsalariesforfull-timepublicdefendersrangefrom$35,000
to$42,000,andhourlyratesforcourt-appointedcounselrangefrom$40to$60forin-courtwork
and$30to$50forout-of-courtwork.
SalariesforpublicdefendersinPennsylvaniaaremuchlowerthanprosecutorssalaries.InCentre
County,forexample,thedistrictattorneyssalaryis$116,000andthechiefpublicdefendersis
$57,000.
InTexas,somedefenseattorneysarenotcompensatedforout-of-courtpreparatorywork,workon
dispositionissues,andpostdispositionfollowup,andmaybepaidaflatratepercaseorasetfee
forthefirstcourtappearanceandlowerfeesforeachsubsequentappearance.
LegalrepresentationinapproximatelyhalfofalljuvenilecasesinVirginiaisbycourt-appointed
attorneys,whosecompensationislimitedto$110percase.Pleabargainingisthenorminthese
cases.
Eventhoughcompensationforjuveniledefenseattorneyshasimprovedsomewhatinsome
jurisdictions,lowcompensationlevelscontinuetoaffectrecruitmentandretention.First-year
associatesatfirmsofmorethan250attorneysearnonaverage$110,000,accordingto2003data
compiledbytheNationalAssociationforLawPlacement(Luczycki,2003).In2002,theaverage
debtloadnationwideforgraduatinglawyerswasmorethan$80,000(ChaseandGonnell,2003;Equal
JusticeWorks,NationalAssociationforLawPlacement,andPartnershipforPublicService,2002).In
lightofthesefacts,itisunderstandablethatnewattorneysmaybereluctanttoenterpublicservice,
eveniftheyhaveastronginterestinjuveniledefensework.TheABAnationalsurveyfoundthat55
percentofjuveniledefenseattorneysremainedintheirpositionslessthan2years,andstatesurveys
foundthatlowcompensationcontributedtohighstaffturnover.
10
Anadditionalconcernisthepotentialeffectoffeecapsonthequalityofdefense.Because
investigations,interviews,andtestimonyfromexpertwitnesses(includingmedical,mentalhealth,and
otherprofessionals)areessentialinpresentingevidence,feecapsandotherlimitationsseverely
hamperanattorneysabilitytomountaneffectivedefense.Feecapsarealsoanincentiveforless
scrupulousattorneystoacceptalargenumberofcasesbutstintonpreparatorywork.
Use of motions.Amongtheimportantelementsofazealousdefensearepretrialmotionsandmotions
tosuppressevidenceonconstitutionalgrounds.Only30percentofpublicdefendersandcourt-
appointedcounselsurveyedbytheABAJuvenileJusticeCenterin1995saidtheyfiledpretrial
motions.Ofthosewhodidfilepretrialmotions,manyusedboilerplatemotionsandstandardform
pleadings.
Ingeneral,useofmotionsistheexceptionratherthantheruleinmoststatesstudiedbytheABA
between2000and2003.Evenwhenmotionsaremade,theyusuallyareoralandnotsupportedby
legalbriefs.However,thequalityandquantityofmotionsvariesbystateandcounty,dependingon
caseloadsizeandcourthouseculture.Forexample,since1996,whenKentuckyfirstsurveyedits
juvenilesystem,motionpracticehasimproved.Today,nearlytwo-thirdsofKentuckypublicdefender
officessurveyedreportedthattheyroutinelyfilemotionstosuppress,motionsfordiscovery
(includingdepositionsandinterrogatories),motionsregardingcompetency,andmotionsin limine(a
pretrialrequestthatcertaininadmissibleevidencenotbereferredtoorofferedattrial).
Use of investigations.Anotherelementofaneffectivedefenseistheuseofinvestigations.Thorough
investigationsmayuncoverwitnessesandphysicalevidencethatarehelpfultothedefense.The
Georgiastudyfoundthatjuveniledefenseattorneysrarelyconductinvestigations,possiblybecause
hourlyratesarelowerforout-of-courtworkthanin-courtwork,orbecauseofdollarcapsoncases.
Ratherthanfilingdiscoverymotions,attorneysoftenrelyontheprosecutorsdiscoveryapractice
thatnecessitatesafriendlyrelationshipwithopposingcounsel.InNorthCarolina,44percentof
attorneyssurveyedreportedthattheyrarelyorneverseethepolicereportorotherinvestigative
materialbeforetheirfirstmeetingwiththeclient,and44percentreportedthattheyhadnoor
inadequateaccesstoinvestigators.Thisfindingwasechoedinotherstates,whereattorneysreported
thattheydidnothaveaccesstotrained,experiencedinvestigators(suchassocialworkersandlaw
clerks)and,becauseoflargecaseloads,couldnotconductadequateinvestigationsthemselves.
Training.Trainingandmentoringareimportantingredientsforincreasingtheknowledgeandskills
ofjuveniledefenseattorneys.Researchindicates,however,thatsuchtrainingrarelytakesplace.Of
thepublicdefendersofficessurveyedinthe1995ABAstudy,78percentsaidtheyhadnobudgetfor
trainingjuveniledefenseattorneys;50percentdidnothaveatrainingprogramfornewattorneys,and
48percenthadnoongoingtrainingprogram;46percentlackedatrainingmanualforjuveniledefense
practice;and32percenthadnotrainingmanualatall.Officesthatdidhavetrainingprogramsoften
omittedimportanttopics,suchaspretrialmotions,alternativestodetention,andchilddevelopment.
ThefollowingsummariesarebasedonstatereportstoABAresearchersbetween2000and2003.
Georgiahasnotrainingstandardsforjuveniledefenseattorneysandnofundingfortrainingand
continuingeducation.Mostattorneyssurveyedsaidtheyseenoneedfortrainingbecausethey
learnonthejob.
KentuckysDepartmentofPublicAdvocacyconductedatrainingneedsassessmentthatresulted
insomeimprovements.Co-counseling(pairinganewattorneywithanexperiencedattorney)has
proventobeaneffectivetrainingtool.Newattorneysalsoholdcasereviewswithotherjuvenile
11
defenseattorneys,includinganexperiencedtrialattorneyandapostdispositionattorneyfor
complexcases.TheDepartmentofPublicAdvocacyconductsregularregionalworkshopsand
usestheInternetande-maillistservstokeepjuveniledefenseattorneysuptodateonpractice
issues.
TheLouisianaPublicDefendersAssociationoffersa2-daytrainingprogramforjuveniledefense
attorneys;however,unlikeprosecutors,defendersarenotcompensatedforattendingcontinuing
educationclasses.
Mainehasnotrainingrequirementandscantaccesstocontinuingeducationforjuveniledefense
attorneys.Until2002,theseattorneyshadtotraveloutofstateforcontinuingeducation.Thosein
ruralareasstillmustdrive8to10hourstoattendclasses.
MarylandsOfficeofthePublicDefenderoffersjuveniledefenseattorneysa1-weektraining
programtwiceayear,withtwofollowupsessions.AlthoughMarylandrequiresattorneysto
complete12hoursofcontinuingeducationperyear,specifictraininginjuveniledefenseisnot
mandatory.InFY2002,only19attorneysattendedclassesinjuveniledefense.
InMontana,opportunitiesfortraininginjuveniledefenseareminimal,andmostdefense
attorneysdonotspecializeinjuvenilecases.
NorthCarolinarespondentsnotedthatinadditiontomoretraininginjuvenilelawandprocedure,
theysawaneedforothertrainingspecifictorepresentingjuveniles,includinginterviewing
techniques,conflictresolution,verbalde-escalationskills,andcounseling.Lawschoolsatthe
UniversityofNorthCarolinaandNorthCarolinaCentralUniversityoperateclinicswherelaw
studentsrepresentyouthindelinquencyproceedings.TheChildrensEducationLawClinicat
DukeUniversitySchoolofLawengagesinspecialeducationadvocacy.Clinicsatlawschools
offerstudentsvaluableopportunitiestoworkundersupervisioninspecialpracticeareassuchas
juveniledefense.
InOhio,lackoftrainingandinexperienceofdefenderswereapparenttoresearchersfromtheir
observationsofcourtproceedingsandinterviewsofincarceratedyouth.
InPennsylvania,severaljudgessaidtheyresentedtheresponsibilityofensuringthatnew
attorneysadequatelyrepresenttheirclients.
InTexas,juveniledefenseappointmentsareusedasatraininggroundforadultcriminalcourt,
andnojurisdictionhaseitheratrainingprogramoraformalmentoringprogramforinexperienced
attorneys.
TheVirginiacodedoesnotrequirejuveniledefenseattorneystohavetrainingorexperience.The
oneannualjuvenilecourttrainingsessionisnotmandatory.Court-appointedcounselmustpayfor
theirowntraining.Forpublicdefenders,theCommonwealthsubsidizestrainingtomeet
requirementsofthebar,butdefendersmustpayforanyadditionaltrainingthemselves.
InWashington,trainingavailabilityforjuveniledefenseattorneysisexcellentinKingCounty
(Seattle)butdropsoffmarkedlyinothercounties.
Professional support.Tofunctioneffectively,juveniledefenseattorneysneedcertainbasicelements
ofprofessionalsupport,includingonlinelegalresearchcapability,paralegals,bilingualstaff,and
adequatespaceforinterviews.Professionalsupportalsoincludesaccesstoandfundstohireexpert
witnesses,suchaspsychiatrists,socialworkers,andforensicspecialists.TheABAs1995national
studyfoundthattheseelementsoftenwerelacking.
12
Forty-sixpercentofrespondentsinthe1995surveydidnothaveaccesstospecializedtexts,64
percentdidnothaveaccesstoonlineWestlaworLexislegaldatabases,and56percenthadno
paralegalsupport.Evenin2002,onlyapproximately50percentofattorneyswhorespondedtothe
ABAsurveyinOhioreportedthattheyhadaccesstoWestlaw,Lexis,orotheronlineresearch
services.LackofmeetingspaceforprivateinterviewswithclientswascitedasaprobleminTexas;
NewOrleansParish,LA;Montana;NorthCarolina;andsomeOhiocounties.
Amongofficesthatoftenservenon-English-speakingclients,83percentlackedbilingualstaffand43
percentdidnothavetranslatorsavailablein1995.InTexas,wheremostcourt-appointedattorneys
weresolopractitionerswithnostaffsupport,lackoftranslationserviceswasalsoaproblem.North
Carolinareportedalackofculturalcompetenceamongjuveniledefenseattorneysconcerningnew
immigrantstothestate,primarilySpanish-speaking,Vietnamese,andHmonggroups.Pennsylvania
respondentsnotedthatthenumberofLatinoclientswasincreasingbutthenumberofcertified
Spanish-languageinterpreterswasnot.Often,LatinodefendantsinPennsylvaniahadtotranslatecourt
proceedingsfortheirparents.
InOhio,approximatelytwo-thirdsofthoserespondingtotheABAsurveyreportedinadequateaccess
tomentalhealthprofessionals,one-thirdlackedadequateparalegalassistance,andlessthanhalfhad
adequateinvestigationassistance.AttorneysinVirginia,Maryland,Montana,NorthCarolina,and
Pennsylvaniareportedasimilarlackofsupportstaff,lawclerks,investigators,andexperts(mental
health,education,etc.).InVirginia,however,somejurisdictionsreportedhiringsentencingadvocates
whoinvestigatemitigatingevidencetopresenttothecourtinsentencinghearings,althoughthese
advocatesfocusprimarilyonadultcases.InruralcountiesofMontanaandMaryland,breachesof
confidentiality,longdistancesbetweenfacilities,andlackofcollateralsupportserviceswerereported
asproblems.
Organizational challenges.Professionalsupportalsoincludesanorganizationalcultureinwhich
aggressivedefenseofjuvenilesisvaluedratherthanregardedasanimpedimenttoefficiency.Inthe
ABAstudy,oneintervieweesaidthattomaintainafriendlyatmosphereinthecourthouseismore
importantthanlookinglikeagenius(Puritzetal.,1995:51).IntheTexasstudy,severalattorneys
reportedthattheywerepressuredtoelicitguiltypleasandwereremovedfromappointmentlistsif
theywereconsideredtobetooaggressiveoreveniftheyrefusedtocontributetoajudges
reelectioncampaign.ThesituationinWashingtonateam-spirited,friendlyphilosophythatapplauds
congenialityamongprobation,prosecution,defense,andjudgesislesscontentiousbutstill
troublinginitsimplicationsforjuveniledefendants(seediscussionofdueprocessinthenext
section).InMontana,thecourtroomphilosophyismorepunitive:somejudges,prosecutors,and
probationofficersviewedzealousadvocacynegativelyasameanstogettingthekidoff.
InNorthCarolina,severalcourt-appointedattorneyssaidtheybelievedthatjuvenilesandtheirparents
causedtheproblems.Theseattorneys,whocitedjuvenileslackofdisciplineandrefusaltotake
responsibilityfortheirbehavior,apparentlyassumedtheirclientswereguilty.AlthoughNorth
CarolinasJuvenileCodeholdsparentsliableforcontemptforfailuretocomplyintheirchilds
dispositionorders,thecourtdoesnothelpparentscomply(e.g.,byallowingflexiblecourthoursso
thatworkingparentscanmeetwithpersonnel,informingparentsoftheimportanceofinvolvement,or
assistingwithtransportation).
ResearchersinVirginiadescribedthecultureinjuvenilecourtsasunprofessional,rude,and
humiliatingtofamilies.Insomecourts,probationofficersnotCommonwealthsattorneys
prosecutedjuvenilecases.Probationofficersstoodnexttodefenders,sothatdefenderscouldnot
speakconfidentiallytotheirclients.Juvenilecourthearingsarenotrecorded,andthereisno
13
transcriptofrecord.JuveniledefenseisnotviewedasarespectableprofessioninVirginia.Court-
appointedlawyersrefusetotakejuvenilecases,andpublicdefendersmovetoadultcourtwhenthey
gainexperience.
Policy Factors and Philosophical Issues
Otherfactorsaffectinglegalrepresentationforjuvenilesrelatetochangesinstatepoliciesthatgovern
sanctionsforjuvenileoffendersandtobasicdueprocessissuesthatariseascourtsseekbothto
rehabilitatejuvenilesandtoprotectthecommunity.
State policies.Inlightofrecentstatepoliciesthatencouragetoughersanctionsforjuvenileoffenders,
itisespeciallyimportantforalljuvenilestoberepresentedbycompetentattorneyswhoprovidea
zealousdefense.Thesepoliciesarearesponse,inpart,todramaticmediareportsaboutjuvenilecrime
andtothepublicsperceptionthatsuchcrimehasbecomemoreprevalentandmoresevere(Dorfman
andSchiraldi,2001).
Inconsideringtheimplicationsofstatepoliciesthatencouragetoughersanctionsforjuvenile
offenders,itisimportanttokeepinmindthatracialminoritiesandyouthwitheducational,mental
health,andsubstanceabuseproblemsareoverrepresentedinjuvenilecourts(Hawkinsetal.,2000).A
consensusfromstateandnationalstudiesindicatesthatthereisapaucityofservicestomeettheneeds
oftheseyouth.Adefenseattorneywhocannavigatetheinterrelatededucational,health,andsocial
servicessystemstofindappropriateservicesfortheseclients(i.e.,culturallyrelevantservicesfor
minorityyouthandservicesthataddressspecialneeds)isbetterabletomountaneffectiveargument
againstpretrialdetention,incarceration,orwaivertoadultcourtandinfavorofdiversionto
rehabilitativeprograms.
Due process.Therulesofprofessionalconduct,aversionofwhichexistsineachstate,providethat
alawyershallabidebyaclientsdecisionsconcerningtheobjectivesofrepresentation...(ABA
Model Rules of Professional Conduct,Rule1.2,ABA,2002).Undermoststatesrulesofprofessional
conduct,theattorneymustpromotethechildswishesbecausethechildistheclient;theattorney
mustnotmakepersonaljudgmentsaboutwhatisinthechildsbestinterests.Nevertheless,
researchersinGeorgiaheardabestinterestsofthechildargumentfornotaggressivelypursuinga
juvenilesdefense.Ajuvenilecourtjudgeinthatstatedescribedtheapproachofthejuvenilecourtas
aconspiracyofjusticewhereahugebondoftrustexiststhatensuresanon-adversarial
environmentwitheveryonebelievingtheyareactinginthebestinterestsofthechild(PuritzandSun,
2001:31).InOhio,researchersfoundthebestinterestrolesopervasivethattherewasnoperceived
valueinhavinganattorneyrepresenttheyouth.InMaine,onejudgesaid:Agoodjuveniledefender
is:committedtokids,hasapassionforjusticeforkids...theytrytoworkforbestinterestofthekids
andcreateasolutionthatwillavoidthereturnofthekidtocourt.
Withthiskindofapproach,however,defensecounselfacesaconflictbetweenvigorouslydefending
theclientandactinginmoreofasocialworkerscapacitytopromotethechildsbestinterestsaswell
astoensureharmoniousrelationswiththecourt.InMaryland,respondentsinsomecountiesreported
thatthestandardofguiltwaschangedfrombeyondareasonabledoubtinfavorofachildsbest
interests,resultinginadjudicationwithoutdueprocessoflaw.InWashington,defenseattorneys
expressedconfusion,ambivalence,anddisagreementovertheirdualroleasanadvocateforbothdue
processandrehabilitationservicesafalsedichotomy,accordingtoresearchers.TheWashington
researcherspointedoutthatadefenseattorneycanworktoensurethatthedueprocessrightsofthe
clientarenotviolatedwhileatthesametimetryingtosecureservicesfortheyouth(e.g.,anattorney
14
canarguethatayouthbedivertedtoasubstanceabuseprogramorperformcommunityservicerather
thanbeadjudicated).
Elements Necessary for Quality Counsel
TheSentencingProjectoutlinedaseriesofelementsthatarecriticaltoeffectivejuveniledefense
(YoungandGainsborough,2000).AlthoughtheSentencingProjectreportfocusesprimarilyonyouth
prosecutedasadults,theseelementsaregermanetothedefenseofjuvenilesinbothjuvenileand
criminalcourt.Theelements,discussedbelow,includevalidassessment;knowledgeofyouth
development;accesstoexperts,information,andcommunityresources;buildingonfamilystrengths;
appropriatedefensestrategies;andintegrationofjuveniledefensewithothersystems.
Valid Assessment
Publicdefenderprogramsshouldhaveappropriate,validatedinstrumentsandskilledstafftoascertain
theneedsofyouthwhohavebeenarrestedandassesstherisktheymayposetothecommunity.The
instrumentsshouldprovideanaccurateaccountofeachyouthsmentalhealthstatus,useofalcohol
andillegalsubstances,educationallevel,familybackground,historyofabuseand/orneglect,flight
risk,andthreattothecommunity.Programsshouldhaveadequatefundsandstafftohandlethistask.
Knowledge of Youth Development
Attorneyswhorepresentjuvenilesshouldunderstandthatittakestimeandefforttobuildrapportwith
ayouthwhomaymistrustanyadult,nomatterhowhelpfulthatadultistryingtobe.Juveniledefense
attorneysshouldbefamiliarwiththeriskandprotectivefactorsthatinfluenceyouthbehaviorand
shouldknowaboutyouthculture,gangs,peerpressure,anduseofalcoholandillegaldrugs.
4
Attorneysshouldunderstandcognitiveandemotionaldevelopment(NationalCouncilofJuvenileand
FamilyCourtJudges,2001).Theyshouldbeawarethatnegative,critical,orcondescendingattitudes
orcommentsonthepartofcourtpersonnelmightpsychologicallydamagejuvenilesandshouldalso
takecarethatclientsdonotheardiagnosestheywouldnotunderstandandmightmisconstrue.
Attorneysshouldalsorealizethatyouthandadultshavedifferentconceptsoftime.Ayouths
perspectiveismoreimmediate,andhisorherattentionspanisshorter.Therefore,ayouthmay
interpretdelaysbetweenhearingsasanindicationthatasituationisnotserious.
ResearchconductedbytheMacArthurFoundationconfirmswhatmostwhoworkwithyouthsuspect:
Childrenandadolescentsdonotandcannotthinklikeadults.Theyareneitheremotionallyor
cognitivelymatureenoughtounderstandthefullramificationsoftheiractionsorwhatwilltranspire
oncetheyenterthelegalsystem.However,theneedforchilddevelopmenttrainingandguidancefor
juvenilejusticepersonnelhasbeenlargelyignored(Steinberg,2003:21).
Access to Experts, Information, and Community Resources
Attorneysrepresentingjuvenileclientsshouldhaveaccesstosocialworkers,childpsychologists,
educators,substanceabusetreatmentprofessionals,andotherexpertswhocanhelpthemwithyouth
developmentissues.Theseexpertsshouldbepartofthedefenseteam.Informationabouttreatment,
education,socialservices,andalternativestoincarcerationshouldbereadilyavailabletodefense
attorneys,sotheywillbeawareoftheseresourcesfortheirclientsandbeinapositiontorecommend
optionstojudges.
4
ManypublicationsondelinquencyriskandprotectivefactorsareavailablefromOJJDP.Visitthepublications
sectionoftheOJJDPWebsiteatwww.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp.
15
Attorneysshouldalsoknowofgapsinservices,asitispointlesstorecommend,forexample,drug
treatmentforaclientifnoservicesareavailable.Furthermore,theSentencingProjectrecommends
thatattorneyscontinuetheiradvocacyafterclientsarereferredforservices,toensurethatproviders
donotfailtheyouthsenttothem.
Building on Family Strengths
Tomountaneffectivedefense,counselshouldcommunicatewiththejuvenilesfamily(biological
parents,adoptiveparents,relatives,orotherguardians).Familymemberscanprovidebackground
informationabouttheyouthand,possibly,informationabouttheallegedoffense.Defenseattorneys
shouldhavethenecessaryresourcestoconductfamilyinvestigations,whichcanbetimeconsuming
andcostly.
Appropriate Defense Strategies
Juveniledefenseattorneysneedtobeawarethatcertaindefensesmaybeposedforjuvenilesthat
wouldnotbeusedforadults.Thesedefensesincludeinfancy,incompetency,lackofcriminalintent,
andlackofculpability.Infancyandincompetencyrefernottoimpairmentbutrathertoayouthsage
orlevelofpsychologicaldevelopment(infancyappliestominorchildren;incompetencyisthelackof
legalabilitytostandtrialortestify).Incapacityisthelackofphysicalormentalcapabilitiestohave
certainlegalconsequencesattachtoanaction(e.g.,achildhasanincapacitytomakeabinding
contract).Lackofculpabilityreferstotheabsenceofevidencethatapersonactedpurposely,
knowingly,recklessly,ornegligently(BlackandGarner,2000).
Integration of Juvenile Defense With Other Systems
Improvingaccesstolegalcounselwithinthejuvenilejusticesystemrequiresbroad-basedchangethat
encompasseshowattorneysrelatetotheirclientsandtoeachother,theirknowledgeconcerning
childrenandyouth,andtheirinteractionswithothersystems(e.g.,socialservices,healthcare,
education).Effortstoimproveaccesstolegalcounselforjuvenilescanandshouldbeintegratedwith
othersystems.Resultsfromstatesurveysrevealfactorsaffectingsuchintegration(seesidebaronpage
17).
Althoughtraditionallyassociatedwithdelinquencyproceedingsforyouthwhohavebeenarrested,
legalcounselforjuvenilesisalsoappropriateforothertypesofcourtproceedingssuchasstatus
offenses,abuseandneglecthearings,specialeducationadvocacy,domesticviolence,andlandlord-
tenantdisputes.Interrelatedissuesoftenunderlietheseproceedings.Forexample,astatusoffense
mayleadtoadelinquencyhearingiftheyouthviolatesacourtorder,childabusemaybeafactorin
chronictruancyorrunningawayfromhome,andinabilitytoobtainaffordablehousingmaycreate
overwhelmingfamilystressthatcanleadtocontactswiththelegalsystem.Suchunderlyingissues
maynotsurfaceorreceivesufficientconsiderationinjuvenilecourt.Attorneyswhocanbringtheir
knowledgeofthelawtobearontheseissuesmaybeabletointerveneonbehalfofayouthearly
enoughtoinitiateappropriateindividualandfamilyservicesthatcanpreventfurtherpenetrationinto
thejuvenilejusticesystem.
16
iolence.
i
ithspecialeducationneeds.
Mental health. i
i
Instateswi
i
Factors Affecting Integration of Juvenile Defense With Other Systems:
State Survey Findings
School systems.SurveyrespondentsinKentucky,Maine,Maryland,NorthCarolina,Ohio,andVirginia
reportedthatschoolsweretoooftenrelyingonthecourtstohandleissuesofsafetyandpotentialv
Zerotolerancepoliciesandcriminalizationofwhatismerelybadbehaviorintheclassroomcanlandachildin
juvenilecourtandevenprison.InKentucky,respondentsreportedconcernthatschoolswereinappropriately
releasingconfidentialinformationtothecourts,whereasMarylandrespondentsreporteddifficultyaccessing
schoolrecords.In2002,NorthCarolinaestablishedaSpecialEducationJuvenileJusticeProjectinfivepilot
countiesthroughagrantfromtheGovernorsoffice.Theobjectivesoftheprojectaretoprovidedirectspecial
educationadvocacy,offertrainingaboutspecialeducationrightsofjuvenileswthdisabilities,provide
technicalassistance,andpromotereferralsandevaluationsofjuvenilesw
InallstatessurveyedbytheABAteams,respondentsreportedthatyouthwthmentalhealth
problemsweregreatlyoverrepresentedinthejuvenilejusticesystemandalsoreportedasevereshortageof
treatmentresourcesfortheseyouth,particularlyinruralareas.Inmanystates,respondentscharacterizedthe
juvenilejusticesystemasthedumpinggroundforyouthwthseverementalhealthproblemsandsaidthe
systemisunequippedtomeettheneedsoftheseyouth.
American Indian populations. thlargeAmericanIndianpopulations,juveniledefenseattorneys
experienceuniquedifficultiesinworkingwthmultipleagenciesandjurisdictions:thefederalgovernments
BureauofIndianAffairsandIndianHealthService,tribalgovernments,andstateandcountygovernments.
How States Are Addressing Issues
Somestateshaveimprovedaccesstoandthequalityofcounselforindigentjuvenilesthroughsystems
changeefforts.Approaches,discussedinthefollowingsections,include(1)specialprogram
initiativesfundedbyfederal,state,andlocalgovernmentsorprivateorganizations;(2)newlegislation
thatrequiresachangeincurrentpractices;(3)administrativereformsthatintroducenewpoliciesand
procedures;(4)researchtoinformprogramdevelopment;and(5)litigationtoredressviolationofan
individualyouthsrightsortherightsofaclassofyouth.
Special Program Initiatives
California.TheAnnieE.CaseyFoundationsponsoredtheJuvenileDetentionAlternativesInitiative
inSacramento,CA,andfourotherU.S.communitiesin1993.InSacramento,theinitiativeaddressed
adysfunctionalandovercrowdedjuvenilecourtsystemthroughtheformationofapublicsector
partnershipbetweencountyprosecutorsanddefenseattorneys.Bothpartiesagreedtoanearly
resolutionprocessbywhichyoutheligibleforcommunity-basedalternativestodetentioncouldavoid
trial.Thebenefittothedefensewascompleteandopendiscoveryprovidedveryearlyinthecase.The
benefittoprosecutorswasearlysettlement,freeingthemtoconcentrateonmoreseriouscases
(Stanfield,1999).
Colorado.Topromotepublicawarenessofjuvenileslegalrightsandimprovelegaladvocacyfor
juveniles,Coloradoisfundinganinformation/trainingenhancementtotheWebsiteofthenewOffice
oftheChildsRepresentative.Thestatealsofundedannualjuvenilelawconferencestoenhance
attorneysknowledgeandskillswithregardtodelinquencycases(PatriciaCervera,ColoradoJuvenile
JusticeSpecialist,personalcommunication,August16,2001).
Washington.InWashington,FY2000OJJDPfundswereusedtodevelopaninterdisciplinary
approachtolegalrepresentationforjuveniles.ThestateestablishedagreementswiththeSeattle
UniversitySchoolofLawandSchoolofEducationtocreateaclinicallawprogramthatused
psychologistsandspecialeducationexpertstotrainjuveniledefenseattorneysandlawstudents.The
programtrained85attorneys,including45inprivatepracticewhoagreedtoparticipateinanewpro
17
bonopaneltorepresentjuveniles.IncooperationwiththeTeamChildproject(seepage26),the
universitydevelopedaspecialeducationmanual,acurriculum,andajuvenileresourcemanualand
alsoprovidedconsultationservicesinjuveniledelinquencycases.Anevaluationfoundthatthe
programsconsultationservicesmadeasignificantdifferenceinthelevelandqualityof
representationprovidedtojuveniles.
New Legislation
Illinois.In2000,Illinoisenactedlegislation(PublicAct910577)establishingataskforcetostudy
caseloads,salarystructures,technologicalneeds,andotherissuesaffectingrecruitmentandretention
ofpublicdefendersandassistantprosecutorsinthestatesjusticesystem.InJanuary2001,thefirst
statelawrequiringearlyaccesstocounselforchildreninpolicecustodywentintoeffectinIllinois
(PublicAct910915).Thelawrequirescounseltobepresentatthestationhouseduringinterrogation
ofjuvenilesyoungerthan13whoaresuspectsinmurderorsexualassaultcases.
Washington.Washingtonistheonlystatewithmandatorysentencingguidelinesforjuveniles.Under
thestatesJuvenileJusticeAct,certainminoroffensesrequirediversionofjuvenilestoperform
communityservice,makerestitutiontothevictim,attendcounseling,andpossiblypayafineofupto
$100.Althoughthediversionprogramisconsideredamodel,casesreferredtodiversionbetween
1991and2001decreased21percentwhilechargesfiledincreased19percentduringthesameperiod.
InJuly2003,anewlawwentintoeffectthatallowsvariousdispositionalternatives,including
suspendeddispositionontheconditionthattheoffendercomplieswithlocalsanctionsandtreatment
programs,achemicaldependencyalternativerequiringtreatmentinsteadofincarceration,anda
mentalhealthalternativethatallowsthecourttoorderacomprehensivementalhealthevaluationand
psychiatrictreatment.Afourthalternative,knownasmanifestinjustice,allowsjudgestodeviate
upwardordownwardfromthesentencingguidelinesbasedonmitigatingandaggravatingfactors.
Judgesmaytakeintoaccountfactorssuchastheparentsinvolvementandeffectivenessandthe
youthsschoolstatusandparticipationintreatment.
Administrative Reforms
Illinois.InIllinois,OJJDPgrantfundingwasusedtoassessthequalityofcounselforjuvenilesandto
improvejuveniledefenseaspartofastatewideefforttoreducedisproportionateminorityconfinement
(Clark,2001).Inapolicyreformthatislikelytohavepositiveadministrativeconsequenceswithinthe
juvenilejusticesystem,theIllinoisJuvenileJusticeCommissionandDepartmentofHumanServices
togetherendorsedtheCharterforIllinoisChildren.Thecharter,whichistheproductofastatewide
collaborationofchildadvocacygroups,socialservicesagencies,andcommunityorganizations,seeks
topromotethewell-beingofchildrenthroughpublicpolicyandhasamongitsgoalsequalprotection
anddueprocessoflawforallyouth(IllinoisDepartmentofHumanServices,2000).
InCookCounty,thePublicDefendersOfficeDetentionResponseUnit,inanefforttoimprove
procedure,beganinterviewingdetainedjuvenilesandtheirfamiliespriortothefirstcourtappearance.
BetweenDecember1997andMay1998,49percentofyouthinterviewedwerereleasedfrom
detentionbecausealternativeplansweresubmittedtothecourt.Thissuccessledtotheadditionof
twoparalegalpositionstoexpandtheDetentionResponseUnitproject(Henry,1999).
Oregon.Duringthemid-1990s,theMultnomahCountyMetropolitanDefendersServicebegantaking
socialhistoriesofjuvenileclientsearlyinthecourtprocessratherthanwaitinguntiladjudication.
(Socialhistoriesfacilitatethediscoveryprocessandprovidebackgroundinformationthatmightbe
relevantatahearing.)Thischangemeantthatdefenderswerebetterpreparedtodiscussappropriate
placementsandcouldspeedupthedispositionprocess(Henry,1999).
18
Research To Inform Program Development
Colorado. InFY2000,Coloradotargeteddisproportionateminorityconfinement(DMC)asan
inherentproblemassociatedwithlackofrepresentationand/orlackofadequaterepresentation
(ColoradoDepartmentofPublicSafety,2000).AftercompletingPhasesIandIIofOJJDPsDMC
requirement,ColoradoformedtheCoalitionforMinorityYouth,whichjoinedwiththeAccessto
CounselAdvisoryBoardtostudyseveralcommunities,includingMesaCounty(seedescriptionof
MesaCountyPartners,underPromisingPrograms,page21).Thecoalitionusesdataandresearch
findingstoeffectchangethroughspecialprograminitiatives.
Missouri.In1998,theUniversityofMissouri-St.LouiswasawardedOJJDPfundstostudytheissue
oflegalrepresentationincasesinvolvingseriousdelinquencycharges.Examiningcasesinurban,
suburban,andruralcounties,researchersfoundthatlegalcounselrepresentedonly32percentof469
juvenileschargedwithfelonies.Surprisingly,adispositionofout-of-homeplacementwasmorelikely
ifayouthhadanattorney(BurrussandKempf-Leonard,2000).Thestudysfinalreportwasshared
withjuvenilejudgesandjuvenileofficersinallofMissouris45circuits.
Litigation To Redress Violations of Rights
Litigation,thoughcostlyandcontentious,canservetoforcethejusticesystemtobettersafeguardthe
rightsofjuvenilesbyrecruiting,training,andimprovingworkingconditionsofjuveniledefense
attorneys.Claimingthatexcessivelyhighcaseloadsandinadequateresourcesresultedinpoor
representationforindigentclients,theConnecticutCivilLibertiesUnionbroughtsuitonbehalfof
publicdefendersagainsttheGovernorforviolationsofthe6thand14thamendments(Riverav.
Rowland,Conn.Super.Ct.,CV950545629(1996),citedinCooper,Puritz,andShang,1998).The
SupremeCourtofLouisianafoundthatworkingconditionsforpublicdefendersinNewOrleans
Parishresultedinlackofeffectivecounsel(Statev. Peart,621So.2d780(1993),citedinCooper,
Puritz,andShang,1998).Asaresultofthisfinding,morepublicdefenderswerehired;however,the
studyofjuveniledefenseinLouisianasuggeststhatseriousdeficienciesstillexist(Celeste,2001).
Asmentionedearlier,NewYorkslowcompensationratesforjuveniledefenseattorneysand
attorneysrepresentingthepoorwerechallengedinalawsuit,triggeredinpartbya2001seriesinthe
New York Timesaboutconditionsforandinsufficientnumbersofpublicdefenders(New York County
Lawyers Associationv. State of New York and City of New York,763N.Y.S.2d397,decided
February5,2003).Inaparticularlyinterestingcase,QuitmanCountyinMississippisuedthestate,
claimingthatthestatebreacheditsdutytoprovideadequaterepresentationforindigentcriminal
defendants.TheSupremeCourtofMississippiaffirmedthatthecountycouldbringaconstitutional
challengeagainstthestate.AtthetimethisBulletinwaswritten,thecasewasonremandforafull
trialonthemerits(State of Mississippiv. Quitman County,807So.2d401(Miss.2001)).
Promising Programs
Amongthefiveapproachesdiscussedabove,themostfrequentlyadoptedisthedevelopmentof
specialprograminitiativestoenhanceaccesstoeffectivejuvenilecounsel.Anumberofprograms
includeelementsconsiderednecessaryforeffectivelydefendingjuvenileclients,suchasvalid
assessments,knowledgeofyouthdevelopment,accesstoinformationandexperts,emphasisonrisk
andprotectivefactors,accesstocommunityresources,culturallyrelevantservicesforminorityyouth,
andservicesthataddressspecialneeds.Someoftheseprogramshavealsodemonstratedpositive
changesinaccesstoandqualityofcounsel.
19
Thissectiondoesnotattempttopresentanexhaustivelistofprogramsbutratherdescribessix
programsthatillustratearangeofpromisinginitiativesthatstateandlocalagencieshaveundertaken
toaddressissuesthataffectaccesstocounsel.SomeoftheprogramsusefederalOJJDPfunds
allocatedbytheirstates.Othersaresupportedbystatemoneyappropriatedthroughthelegislatures.
Stillothersreceivefundingfromfoundationsandprivatesources.Mostrelyonacombinationof
fundingsources.
First Defense Legal Aid
Sinceitsformationin1994,FirstDefenseLegalAid(FDLA)hasprovidedlegalaidtoadultand
juvenileresidentsofChicago,IL.Duringthisperiod,legalrepresentationforChicagominorshas
increasedfrom11percentannuallyto22percent.InIllinois(andmanyotherstates),policecan
questionasuspectforupto72hourswithoutthepresenceoflegalcounsel.Publicdefenderscannot
beappointeduntiladefendantappearsincourtandindigenceisdetermined.FDLAbridgesthisgapin
legalrepresentation,interveningattheoutsetofallcasesinvolvingjuveniles.Thisearlyintervention
isespeciallyimportantforjuveniles,who,becauseoftheiryouthandinexperiencewiththelegal
system,caneasilybeintimidatedintomakingfalsestatements.
FDLAattorneysrespondtoanaverageof25to50callsperday,700to1,500callspermonth.They
provideconsultationoverthephone.Theyalsogotothepolicestationifanindividualisbeing
subjectedtocustodialinterrogation,asyouthoftendonotunderstandtheirrightsandmayunwittingly
makestatementsagainsttheirinterestsasaresultofcoercion,intimidation,orconfusion.FDLA
attorneysalsoensurethatclientsspecialneeds(suchasreceivingmedicalattentionorprescribed
medicationswhileinpolicecustody)arebeingmet.Inaddition,theydocumentandreportany
violationsofproceduralorlegalrightsthatmayoccurwhileclientsareinpolicecustody.
FDLAofferslegaladviceandeducatesthepublicaboutthecriminalandjuvenilejusticesystems.It
conductsoutreachthroughstreetlawprograms,
5
publicserviceannouncements,socialworkers,and
variousagencies.Withtheadditionofaneducationcoordinatortothestaff,FDLAexpandedits
educationandoutreachcapabilitiesconsiderably.Duringthefirsthalfof2001,FDLAmade190
publiceducationpresentationsatareahighschools,elementaryschools,socialservicesagencies,
halfwayhouses,andchurches.ByprovidingpeereducatortraininginmorethanhalfofChicagos
publicschools,FDLAhasbeenabletoincreasethejuvenilepopulationitserves.
FDLAemphasizesitstrainthetrainersinitiative,whichidentifiescommunityleadersandshows
themhowtopresentFDLAspubliceducationprogram.Inthisway,basicknowyourrights
informationiscommunicatedregularlytostaffandclienteleofavarietyofeducationalandsocial
servicesagencies.TheFDLAstaffalsoconductstrainingonspecificlegalissuessuchassearchand
seizure,criminalizationofyouth,andjuvenilerights.
InSeptember2000,FDLAopenedanofficeinChicagosEnglewoodcommunity.ANational
AssociationforPublicInterestLawstaffattorneyassignedtotheEnglewoodofficeprovidesearly-
interventionlegalrepresentationandpubliceducationtocommunityresidents.FDLAsProject
E.A.G.L.E.(EnglewoodAccesstoGenuineLegalEmpowerment)wasundertakeninresponsetoa
growingriftbetweenEnglewoodresidentsandChicagopolice.Englewoodwasinthenationalnews
in1999whendetectivesclaimedthattwochildren,ages7and8,confessedtothemurderofan11-
year-old.DNAevidencelaterexoneratedthechildren,bringingpublicattentiontothefailureofpolice
5
Streetlawprograms,whichstartedin1972asaGeorgetownUniversityLawSchoolprojectandwerereplicated
acrossthecountry,provideyouthwithpracticalknowledgeaboutthelaw.
20
toproperlyinvestigatecrimesinthisneighborhood.Thewaythepolicehandledthehomicide
investigationaccentuatedtheneedforguaranteedfreelegalrepresentationandlegaleducationin
Chicagospoorcommunities.
FDLAsroleexpandedfurtherin2001withthepassageofIllinoisPublicAct910915.Thislaw
requiresearlyaccesstolegalcounselforchildrenyoungerthan13whoareinpolicecustodyandwho
havebeenaccusedofhomicideorsexualassault.
FDLAreceivesnogovernmentfunding.ItsfundingsourcesincludetheUnitedWay,Field
Foundation,ChicagoCommunityTrust,PublicWelfareFoundation,IllinoisBarFoundation,Chicago
BarFoundation,LouisLurieFoundation,WoodsFundofChicago,OpenSocietyInstitute,National
AssociationforPublicInterestLaw,andWPWR-Channel50Foundation.
ForadditionalinformationonFDLA,contact:
DarronBowden,Esq.
Director
FirstDefenseLegalAid
3645WestChicagoAvenue,Suite240
Chicago,IL60651
7738266550
7737224997(fax)
frstdefens@aol.com
Mesa County Partners
MesaCountyPartnersinGrandJunction,CO,hasshownconsiderablepromiseintackling
overrepresentationofminoritiesinthejuvenilejusticesystem.MesaCountyschiefjudgewasaware
ofthecountysDMCproblemasearlyas1993,whencourtdatarevealedthatminority
(predominantlyHispanic)youthconstituted60percentofallyouthinthejuvenilejusticesystem,
comparedwith12percentinthegeneralpopulation.Analysisofthedatafoundlittledifference
betweenminorityandnonminorityyouthwithregardtoseriousnessofcrimescommittedornumber
ofpolicecontacts.Theoverrepresentationofminoritiesemergedatthecommitmentstagebecause
minorityjuvenilesoftendidnothaveanattorney,didnotunderstandortrustthesystem,andhadnot
appearedincourtforpreviousoffenses(withtheresultthattheseoffenses,whichusuallywereminor,
accumulateduntilthejudgeorderedincarceration).
MesaCountyPartnersformeditsMinorityFamilyAdvocacyProjectin1995toworkwithminority
youthwhobecomeinvolvedwiththejuvenilejusticesystem.Theprogramuses2staffadvocatesand
12bilingualvolunteerfamilyadvocateswhowalkjuvenilesthroughthesystem,helpthemobtain
defensecounsel,andmakesurethejuvenilesknowtheirrights.Thestaffadvocatesattendall
detentionhearings,seethatpaperworkreachesthepublicdefenderorcourt-appointedattorney,and
helpyouthunderstandthestatusoftheircaseworkthatpublicdefendersoftendonothavetimeto
do.Thestaffadvocates,whoworkwithapproximately100youthatanygiventime,pairwith40
volunteeradvocates,whospend3to4hoursperweekwiththejuveniles,asmentors,tutors,and
friends.TheprogramisfundedwithOJJDPFormulaGrantfundsthroughtheColoradoDivisionof
CriminalJusticeandmatchingcountyfunds.StipendsforthevolunteerscomefromWRAP,an
agencysupportedbythecountysDivisionofHumanServicesandthelocalschoolsystem.
21
ForadditionalinformationonMesaCountyPartners,contact:
JoeHiggins
ExecutiveDirector
MesaCountyPartners
735SouthAvenue
GrandJunction,CO81501
9702455555,ext.18
9702457411(fax)
partners@gi.net
New York Legal Aid Society
Foundedin1876,theNewYorkLegalAidSocietyinNewYorkCityisthenationsoldestandlargest
legalservicesorganization(NewYorkLegalAidSociety,2000).Thesocietyhastwocomponents
thatdealwithlegalcounselforjuveniles:theJuvenileRightsDivision(JRD)andtheCriminal
DefenseDivision(CDD).
Juvenile Rights Division.JRDrepresents90percentoftheyouthwhoappearbeforetheFamily
CourtinNewYorkCityincasesinvolvingabuseandneglect,delinquency,andpersons-in-need-of-
supervisionstatusoffenses.Thedivisionrepresentedmorethan36,000youthin2002;child
protectioncasesfaroutnumbereddelinquencycases.
JRDsdelinquencyteamsrepresentchildrenyoungerthan16whoarechargedasdelinquentsin
familycourt.Initiatedafewyearsago,delinquencyteamsnowoperateinfourNewYorkCity
boroughs:theBronx,Brooklyn,Manhattan,andQueens.Teamsconsistofasupervisingattorneyand
staffattorneys,asocialworker,andaneducationalconsultantfromPEAK(ProvidingEducational
AssistancetoKids),aJRDprojectthataddresseseducation-relatedissuesofdelinquencyclients.The
teamsalsohaveaccesstoparalegals,investigators,andinterns.SocialworkersandPEAKeducational
specialistsbecomeinvolvedincasesearlyintheprocesssotheycanprepareadispositionalplanand
testifyforanalternativetoincarceration.Ifayouthisinvolvedinbothachildprotectionmatteranda
delinquencymatter,aspecialteamiscreatedtocoordinatetheyouthsrepresentation.Teamattorneys
andeducationalconsultantsrepresentyouthinanyschoolsuspensionorotherschool-related
proceeding.Teammembersmeetregularlytodiscusscasesandstrategies.JRDalsohasadelinquency
practicegroupconsistingofrepresentativesfromthefourboroughswhomeettodiscusscitywide
trendsandlegalissues.Thisgroupandtheindividualdelinquencyteamsidentifyissues,suchas
conditionsofconfinement,tobeaddressedbyJRDsspeciallitigationunit.
JRDmaintainsasharedonlinedirectory,whichincludesapracticemanual,recentcaselaw,anda
motionsbank.Thedivisionalsoconductsongoingtrainingforunitstaff,includingspecialized
instructionforchildprotectiveservicesanddelinquencymatters.Thesespecializedresources,
togetherwiththeopportunitytofocusexclusivelyondelinquencycases,enableteamattorneystogain
greaterexpertiseinlegalanddispositionalissuesrelevanttodelinquencymatters.
22
ForadditionalinformationonJRD,contact:
JacquelineDeane
JuvenileRightsDivision
NewYorkLegalAidSociety
304ParkAvenueSouth,SixthFloor
NewYork,NY10010
2124206200
6466547080(fax)
jdeane@legal-aid.org
Criminal Defense Division.CDDrepresentsjuvenileschargedasadults(youthages1315whoare
chargedwithseriousfelonyoffensesandyouth16andolder,whoareconsideredadultsunderNew
Yorklaw).In1996,CDDcreatedajuvenileoffenderteaminitsManhattantrialofficetorepresent
youthages1315whowerechargedinadultcriminalcourtwithviolentfelonyoffenses.Thesecases,
whichareprosecutedunderNewYorksjuvenileoffenderlaw,constituteasmallpercentageof
CDDstotalcaseloadyetrequireagreatdealoftimeandattention.CDDformedaspecializedteamto
handlejuvenileoffendercasesbecauseitrecognizedthateffectivelegalrepresentationfortheseyouth
requiresspecificexpertiseinchildandadolescentdevelopment,psychiatricdiagnosesprevalent
amongyouth,andtheeffectsofchildabuseandneglectareasnotordinarilyfamiliartoattorneys
trainedtorepresentadults.
Themultidisciplinaryjuvenileoffenderteamconsistsofadirector,sevenexperiencedattorneys,an
investigator,aforensicsocialworker,andatherapeuticsocialworker.Theteammeetsbiweeklyto
conferoncases,discusscasestrategy,andshareexperiencesfromthecourtroomandprogram
referrals.TeammembersalsosharetheirspecializedknowledgeincaseconsultationswithCDD
attorneysandsocialworkerswhorepresentolderteenagers.
CDDsteammodelemphasizesearlycaseanalysistoexploretrialandsentencingstrategies.Team
memberscollectsocial,education,andmentalhealthhistoriestoenhancecaseadvocacy.This
approachresultsinspeedierdispositions,fewerandshorterincarcerations,andgreateruseof
alternativestoincarceration.Inthemajorityofcases,theteamsecuresplacementsincommunity-
basedprogramsthatofferalternativestoincarceration.Theteamstherapeuticsocialworker,whose
positionisfundedbygrantsfromtheVanAmeringenFoundationandtheBulovaFund,worksonsite
atacommunity-basedprogramandinclientshomes,providingcounselingandservicestoclientsand
theirfamilies.Thetherapeuticsocialworkerintervenesinfamilycrisesandfocusesonimproving
familymemberscommunicationandself-esteem.
CDDsjuvenileoffenderteamalsoworkswithspeciallitigationunitsinCDDandJRDandwiththe
LegalAidSocietysprisonerrightsprojecttoaddress,throughlitigationandlegislation,issuesfacing
incarceratedyouth.TheteamalsocollaborateswithJRDattorneysandsocialworkerstocoordinate
advocacyforclientsappearinginbothfamilycourtandcriminalcourt.Additionally,CDDjuvenile
offenderteamattorneysrepresentclientsinschoolsuspensionandschoolplacementmatters.The
teamhasalsoformedworkingrelationshipswitheducationadvocacyandyouthservicesgroupsinthe
communityandoverallhassignificantlyimprovedthelevelofadvocacyprovidedtoyoungpeoplein
NewYorkCitysadultcriminalsystem.
23
ForadditionalinformationonCDD,contact:
NancyGinsburg
JuvenileOffenderTeam
CriminalDefenseDivision
NewYorkLegalAidSociety
49ThomasStreet
NewYork,NY10013
2122985000
2125873179(fax)
nginsburg@legal-aid.org
Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia
ThePublicDefenderService(PDS)fortheDistrictofColumbiawascreatedin1960.In1970,the
organizationexpandedandassumeditscurrentname.ThemissionofPDSistoprovideandpromote
qualitylegalrepresentationforindigentadultsandchildrenwhobecomeinvolvedincourt
proceedingsintheDistrict.PDSseekstoprotectsocietysinterestinthefairadministrationofjustice.
Althoughamajorportionoftheagencysworkisdevotedtoensuringthatnoinnocentpersonis
wrongfullyconvictedofacrime,PDSalsoprovideslegalrepresentationforindividualswhoare
facinginvoluntarycivilcommitmentinthementalhealthsystemandforchildreninthedelinquency
systemwhohavedisabilities.ThestrengthofPDShasalwaysbeenthequalityofthelegalservicesit
delivers.PDSconcentratesitsresourcesoncomplexandseriouscasesandhasdevelopedconsiderable
institutionalknowledgeandexpertisethatitleveragestothelegalcommunitythroughtrainingand
consultation.
Sinceitscreationin2002,theFamilyCourtoftheSuperiorCourtoftheDistrictofColumbiahashad
jurisdictionoverchildrenwhoarechargedwithdelinquentacts,aswellasallproceedingsinvolving
neglect,divorce,custody,adoption,andotherfamily-relatedmatters.Undertheonefamily,one
judgerequirementoftheFamilyCourt,thesamejudgeisassignedtoallsuchmattersinvolvingthe
samechildwheneveritispractical,feasible,andlawfultodoso.Thissystemprovidescontinuityfor
juvenilepublicdefenders.TheFamilyCourtjudgesbecomemorefamiliarwiththecases,andthe
defendersarelikelytohavebetteraccesstoguardiansadlitem,educationadvocates,socialworkers,
andothersassignedtoacase.Ingeneral,thesystemisintendedtoprovideamoreteamlike,family-
orientedapproachtochildwelfareandjuvenilejustice.
PDShasincorporatedmanyeffectiveelementsinitsjuveniledefenseactivitiesonbehalfofindividual
clientsandbringsaboutsystemchangelargelybytrainingnon-PDSlawyerswhorepresentjuvenile
clients.PDShasdevelopedaspecialtycurriculumonjuveniledefenseandperiodicallyconducts
comprehensivetrainingforattorneyswhopracticeindelinquencycourt.PDSalsoofferstraining
sessionsandconferencesonspecialeducationadvocacyanddisabilitylawastheyrelatetojuveniles
inthedelinquencysystem.Forexample,in2002,PDSconductedatrainingseriesonHotTopicsin
EducationandCommunity-BasedServicesforChildrenWithDisabilitiesintheJuvenileJustice
System.Participantsinthesetrainingeventsincludedefenseandspecialeducationattorneyswho
practiceinthedelinquencyandneglectcourts,aswellascivillegalserviceslawyers,paralegals,law
students,socialworkers,andyouthadvocatesfromlocaluniversitiesandnonprofitorganizations.
Thematerialsfromthesetrainingeventsincludepracticetips,copiesofpertinentlawsand
regulations,checklists,forms,samplecorrespondenceandpleadings,andinformationonresources
andlocalcontacts.Theresultingtoolboxprovidesapracticalhowtoapproachtoassist
24
attorneysparticularlyeducationadvocatesinworkingcollaborativelywiththeschoolsystemand
otheragenciesresponsiblefordeliveringservicestochildrenwithspecialneeds.
PDSalsocompilesaYouthResourceDirectoryofservicesforyouthinvolvedwiththejuvenile
justicesystem.Publicdefenders,guardiansadlitem,socialworkers,andotherpractitionerscanuse
thedirectorytofindservicesforyouthintheircare.Thedirectoryisorganizedbytypeofservice:
acutepsychiatriccare,alternativeliving,drugeducationandtreatment,educationalandvocational
training,medicalandmentalhealthservices,monitoringprograms,afterschoolandmentoring
programs,andotherservices.ThreemembersofthePDSOffenderRehabilitationDivisionstaffare
expertsinjuvenilementalhealthandareavailableforconsultation.Consultationisalsoavailable
throughtheDivisionsDutyDayservices.
Inadditiontothe8to12defenseattorneysinthePDSJuvenileDivision,2PDSsocialworkersfocus
exclusivelyonjuvenilecasesandassistwithpretrialdetentionalternativesandlong-termprogram
development.PDSattorneysalsorepresentjuvenilesinspecialeducation,childdisability,andother
civilmattersthatarerelatedto(orcollateralconsequencesof)delinquencyproceedings.Twoofthe
PDSspecialeducationattorneypositionsarefundedthroughanawardunderOJJDPsJuvenile
AccountabilityBlockGrants(JABG)program.Thus,PDShasdevelopedateamdefenseapproach
toensurethatjuvenilesreceivequalitydefense,thateducationneedsarerecognizedandrespondedto
asavailableresourcespermit,andthatchildrenwithspecialneedsreceivepublicbenefits,social
services,andcommunity-basedtreatmentserviceswhereappropriate.
In1982,inresponsetoconcernsaboutincarceratedyouthinneedoflegalguidanceandaccessto
counsel,PDScreatedtheJuvenileServicesProgram(JSP)atOakHillYouthCenter,theDistricts
juvenilecorrectionsfacility.In1999,JSPbecameacomponentofthePDSCommunityDefender
Program.TheJSPcoordinatorandstaffattorneydevelopservicesbeyondthegatesofOakHilltohelp
divertyouthfromthefacilityandmeettheneedsofyouthwholeavethefacilityfordistantresidential
placements.JSPalsoworkstofacilitatereentryintothecommunityforyouthatOakHillandfor
childreninanyoftheDistrictsshelters.UndertheJSPcoordinatorssupervision,thestaffattorney
trainsandsuperviseslawclerks,whoworktoensurethatthedueprocessrightsofincarceratedyouth
areprotectedatdisciplinaryhearings.Overtheyears,JSPhasworkedwiththousandsofincarcerated
youth,butnodefinitiveresearchhasbeenconductedontheeventualoutcomesfortheseyouth.
Recently,theMayorsBlueRibbonCommissiononYouthSafetyandJuvenileJusticevotedto
demolishOakHillandreplaceitwithnewfacilitiesandmorecommunity-basedprogramsfor
delinquents(Chan,2001).PDSismonitoringthesedevelopmentsasitcontinuestoofferlegal
servicestopreadjudicated,detained,incarcerated,andcommittedyouth.
ForadditionalinformationonPDS,contact:
AvisBuchanan
Director
PublicDefenderServicefortheDistrictofColumbia
633IndianaAvenueNW.
Washington,DC20001
2026281200
2026268423(fax)
25
TeamChild
Amajorityofyouthinvolvedinthejuvenilejusticesystemarestrugglingwithuntreatedmental
illness,addiction,learningdisabilities,andunsafelivingenvironments.Manyoftheseyouthare
disconnectedfromschool,positiveadultsandpeers,andstablehomes.Onceinvolvedinthejuvenile
justicesystem,theydriftfurtherawayandareoftenexcludedaltogetherfromcommunitysupport.
Manyyouthcanbedivertedfromdelinquencyandviolenceiftheirbasicneedsaremet.Thisbasic
premiseunderliestheworkofTeamChild,aWashington-basedcivillegaladvocacyprojectforyouth
involvedinthejuvenilejusticesystem.
TeamChildgoestotherootsofdelinquencybyprovidingcivillegaladvocacyandmentoringtoyoung
peoplewhoarehavingdifficultygainingaccesstoeducation,treatment,andsafelivingsituations.
Publicdefenders,juvenileprobationofficers,communityserviceproviders,andcourtsreferyouthto
TeamChildforrepresentation.Aspartofitsuniquerelationshipwithyouth,TeamChildactively
engagestheminproblemsolving,givesthemavoiceinplanningfortheirfuture,andhelpsthem
developtheskillstheyneedforadulthoodandindependence.
TeamChildhasbeenproventobeacost-effectiveapproachtoreducingrecidivisminjuveniles.A
studydonebytheWashingtonStateInstituteforPublicPolicyshowedthatTeamChildsaves
taxpayersnearly$4,000foreachchildreceivingfullservices.TeamChildsholisticadvocacyfor
youthhasbeenrecognizednationallyandreplicatedaroundthecountry.
TeamChildwaspilotedin1995throughaTitleIIFormulaGrantfromOJJDP.Theprojectwasborn
outofcollaborationamongColumbiaLegalServices,theSeattle-KingCountyDefenderAssociation,
andtheWashingtonDefenderAssociation.Sinceitscreation,TeamChildhasgrownfromaone-
personofficeinSeattletoanorganizationwithfiveofficesandmorethanadozenstaffmembers
helpinghundredsofyouthinfiveWashingtoncounties.TeamChildssuccessfulexpansionoverthe
past8yearsisbuiltonasolidservicedeliverymodelthatfillsacriticalneedforcommunities
strugglingtosupportyouthintrouble.
ForadditionalinformationonTeamChild,contact:
AnneLee
ExecutiveDirector
TeamChild
1120EastTerraceStreet,Suite203
Seattle,WA98122
2063222444
2063811742(fax)
anne.lee@teamchild.org
Youth Advocacy Project
TheYouthAdvocacyProject(YAP),Roxbury,MA,wasfoundedin1992bytheCommitteefor
PublicCounselServices,thepublicdefenderofficefortheCommonwealthofMassachusetts.YAPs
initialmissionwaslimitedtodefendingindigentjuvenileschargedwithseriouscriminaloffensesand
whofacedthepossibilityofincarcerationinanadultfacility.Themissionwaslaterbroadenedto
encompasstheunderlyingissuesthatcontributetojuvenileoffending.In1993,YAPbeganto
representyouthchargedwithlesseroffensesandtoofferexpandedadvocacyandotherintervention
services.
26
YAPsprimaryfunctionistoprovidecomprehensivelegalrepresentationandadvocacyforyouth
chargedasdelinquentandyouthfuloffendersinBostonsjuvenilecourts.In19992000,YAP
attorneyshandled820delinquencyandyouthfuloffendercasesinvolving525youth.YAPoffers
clinicalassessments,serviceplanning,referrals,andsocialservicesconsultationtohigh-riskyouth.It
alsoworkswithyouthindisciplinaryandadministrativeproceedings,includingschoolsuspension
andexpulsionhearings,specialeducationmeetings,andDepartmentofYouthServicesconferences.
AlthoughYAPservicesareavailabletoyouthages721throughoutBoston,itsconstituencycomes
primarilyfromthepredominantlyAfricanAmericanneighborhoodsofDorchesterandRoxbury.Most
youthreceivingdirectlegalservicesareboys;equalnumbersofboysandgirlsreceiveprevention
services.
TheCommitteeforPublicCounselServices15-personoversightcommittee,whichisappointedby
theMassachusettsSupremeJudicialCourt,overseesYAP.TheYAPstaffincludesadirector,one
supervisingattorney,twosocialworkers,apsychologist,acommunityliaison,aKnowtheLaw
workshopcoordinator,andanadministrativeassistant.Staffmembersareoftenassistedbylaw
students,graduatestudentsofsocialworkandpublichealth,andundergraduateinterns.
YAPisintensivelyinvolvedincommunityeffortsandoutreach.Ithasofferedseveralhundred
trainingsessionsonavarietyofjuvenilejusticeissuesforattorneysandyouthservicesprofessionals
andhasconducted700KnowtheLawworkshopsformorethan10,000participants.TheRoxbury
NetworkandtheDudleyOutreachWorkersNetworkarepartnershipsbetweenYAPandmorethana
dozenRoxburyyouth-servingagencies.Thegoalsofthenetworksaretomaximizetheuseofexisting
resources,workcollaborativelytoimproveexistingservicesandimplementnewones,anddevelopa
strategyforlong-termsystemicchange(YouthAdvocacyProject,2000a;2000b).YAPalsopublishes
aCommunityNotebookdesignedtoassistlawyers,probationofficers,staffintheDepartmentof
YouthServicesandDepartmentofSocialServices,andotheryouthworkersinunderstandingthe
needsoftheirclientsandidentifyingcommunityresourcesavailabletomeetthoseneeds.
InpartnershipwiththeChildrensLawCenterofMassachusetts,Inc.,YAPlaunchedtheEdLaw
ProjectinJanuary2000.Theprojectwasbasedonlocalresearchshowingthatnearly80percentof
YAPsdelinquencyclientsexperiencedschoolfailurepriortocourtinvolvementandonnational
researchindicatingthatlackofappropriateacademicachievementistheleadingindicatorforchronic
courtinvolvement.TheEdLawProjectadvocatesforappropriateeducationservicesforBostons
high-riskchildren,addressingsuchissuesasacademicfailure,suspensionandexpulsion,undetected
specialneeds,inadequateeducationwhileinstatecustody,andreintegrationintheschoolsystem
followingdetentionorincarceration.Theprojecthasgrowntoincludethreeattorneysand,inaddition
todirectadvocacywork,haspartneredwithlocalresidentsandagencies,suchasLaAlianzaHispana,
ParentsPlace,theCenterforLawandEducation,andtheBostonParentsOrganizingNetwork,to
deliveravarietyofworkshopsandconferencesforparentsandyouthworkersonparental
engagement,parentalrightsandresponsibilities,andthecomponentsofaqualitystandards-based
education(ChildrensLawCenterofMassachusetts,Inc.,andYouthAdvocacyProject,2000).
In2003,YAPcreatedtheJuvenileDefenderSupportNetwork.WiththeassistanceofaJABGgrant,
YAPaddedtwostaffmemberstotrainandsupportthe375solopractitionerswhoprovidethebulkof
theindigentdefenseservicestocourt-involvedchildrenthroughoutMassachusetts.
YAPalsohoststheEqualJusticePartnership(EJP),whichconsistsofupper-levelmanagersfrom
mostoftheCommonwealthagenciesinvolvedinMassachusettsjuvenilejusticesystem.Theprimary
goalofEJPistoenhancethecapacityofthejuvenilecourttopromotehealthyoutcomesforcourt-
involvedyouthbyimprovingcommunicationandcollaborationamongjuvenilejusticesystem
27
stakeholders.EJPisdevelopingamodeljob-readinessprogramforyouthonprobation,pilotinga
youthdevelopmentassessmenttool,anddevelopingYouthDevelopmentApproachtraining
curriculumsforagenciesthatworkwithcourt-involvedyouth.
YAPfundingcomesfromavarietyofsources.TheMassachusettslegislatureisthelargestsupporter,
butYAPalsoreceivesgrantsfromfoundationsandprivatedonors.SeveralfoundationsShaw,
PublicWelfare,Boston,BostonBar,MassachusettsBar,andMifflinhaveallprovidedsubstantial
supportoverthepast10years.Theeducationadvocacyinitiativehasreceivedsubstantialsupport
fromseveralprivatedonorsandfoundations,aswellasfromtheCityofBoston.TheHyams
Foundationprovideda2-yeargrantforacoordinatorpositionatLaAlianzaHispana,aneighborhood
organizationthatworkswithYAPinRoxburysHispaniccommunity.
YAPhascompletedanexternalprocessevaluationofitsservices.Ithasalsobeguntheprocessof
designinganoutcomeevaluation.
ForadditionalinformationonYAP,contact:
JoshuaDohan
Director
YouthAdvocacyProject
10MalcolmXBlvd.
Roxbury,MA02119
6174455640
6175410904(fax)
jdohan@publiccounsel.net
Remaining Challenges
Itisevidentfromthisreviewthatseveralstatesareactivelyaddressingtheneedtoprovideaccessto
well-trained,experienced,anddedicateddefenseattorneysforindigentyouthinthejuvenilejustice
system.Severaloftheprogramsdescribedoffertrainingtohelpdefensecounsellearnmoreabout
workingwithyouth.Integrationofsocialservicesandeducationprofessionalsintopublicdefenders
offices,anotherfeatureofseveralprograms,showspromiseinaddressingtheserviceneedsofyouth
whocomeincontactwiththejuvenilejusticesystem.Theuseofvolunteercommunity-based
advocates,asimplementedbytheMesaCounty(CO)Partners,showspromiseininvolvingfamilies,
ensuringthatyouthappearincourtasscheduled,andreducingrecidivism.
Nevertheless,asindicatedbythenationalandstate-levelresearchcited,manyimportantchallenges
remaintobeaddressedbeforejuveniledefendantscancountonreceivingeffectivelegalcounselto
protecttheirrightstodueprocessandfairtreatmentinthejuvenilejusticesystem.Unfortunately,
untilcompensationandworkingconditionsimprove,theearlyexodusofjuveniledefenseattorneys
fromthefieldislikelytocontinue.Withoutmoreskillful,consistent,andzealousrepresentation,too
manyyouthfuloffenderswillbeplacedinmorerestrictivesettingsthanappropriateandwillnot
receivecriticalservices.Statesandcountiesshouldaddressthesechallengesinmeaningfulways,
affordingthejuveniledefensebartherecognitionitdeservesandprovidingfirst-classresourcesthat
enableattorneystodotheirjobswell.
28
Resource Organizations
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
TheNationalAssociationofCriminalDefenseLawyers(NACDL)isthepreeminentorganization
advancingthemissionofthenationscriminaldefenselawyerstoensurejusticeanddueprocessfor
personsaccusedofcrimeorothermisconduct.Itisaprofessionalbarassociationthatincludesprivate
criminaldefenselawyers,publicdefenders,militarydefensecounsel,lawprofessors,andjudges.The
organizationtrackslegislationandpublishesnewsarticlesrelatedtodefenseandindigentdefense
issues.
ForadditionalinformationonNACDL,visittheWebsiteatwww.nacdl.orgorcontact:
NationalAssociationofCriminalDefenseLawyers
115018thStreetNW.,Suite950
Washington,DC20036
2028728600
2028728690(fax)
assist@nacdl.org
National Juvenile Defender Center
Createdin1991withsupportfromOJJDPandprivatefoundations,theNationalJuvenileDefender
Centerisdedicatedtobuildingthecapacityofthejuveniledefensebarandimprovingaccessto
counselandqualityofrepresentationforchildrenindelinquencyandcriminalproceedings.The
centerprovidesjuveniledefenseattorneyswithaforumforaddressingpracticeissues,improving
advocacyskills,buildingpartnerships,exchanginginformation,andparticipatinginthenational
debateaboutjuvenilecrime.ThroughitscentralofficeinWashington,DC,andnineregional
affiliates,thecenterofferstrainingandtechnicalassistance,advocacy,networking,collaboration,
capacitybuilding,andcoordinationservices.ThecenterismanagedbytheAmericanBarAssociation
JuvenileJusticeCenter,inpartnershipwiththeYouthLawCenterandtheJuvenileLawCenter.
ForadditionalinformationontheNationalJuvenileDefenderCenter,visittheWebsiteat
www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/jdc.htmlorcontact:
PatriciaPuritz,J.D.
NationalJuvenileDefenderCenter
74015thStreetNW.,7thFloor
Washington,DC20005
2026621506
2026621507(fax)
juvjus@staff.abanet.org
National Legal Aid & Defender Association
TheNationalLegalAid&DefenderAssociation(NLADA)isanadvocacyorganizationrepresenting
legalaidanddefenderprogramsandindividualadvocates.Itistheoldestandlargestnational,
nonprofitmembershipassociationdevotedentirelytoservingtheequaljusticecommunity.NLADA
conductstrainingfordefenseattorneysingeneral,withsometraininggearedspecificallytojuvenile
defenders.Itcompilesresourcesandpublicationsandprovidestechnicalassistancetoattorneysand
othergroupsinterestedincivillegalaidandindigentcriminaldefense.
29
ForadditionalinformationonNLADA,visittheWebsiteatwww.nlada.orgorcontact:
NationalLegalAid&DefenderAssociation
1140ConnecticutAvenueNW.,Suite900
Washington,DC20036
2024520620
2028721031(fax)
info@nlada.org
Useful Tools
Compendium of Standards
Compendium of Standards for Indigent Defense Systems: A Resource Guide for Practitioners and
Policymakers. Volume V: Standards for Juvenile Justice Defense(U.S.BureauofJusticeAssistance,
2000)bringstogethertheIJA-ABAJuvenile Justice Standardspublishedin1980andstandardsand
guidelinesissuedbypublicdefendercommissionsinConnecticut,Indiana,Massachusetts,Minnesota,
NorthDakota,andWashington.
Thecompendiumisavailableonlineatwww.ojp.usdoj.gov/indigentdefense/compendium/pdftxt/
vol5.pdf.ACDROMmaybeorderedthroughtheBureauofJusticeAssistance(BJA)Clearinghouse
bythefollowingmethods:
E-mail:puborder@ncjrs.org.
Phone:8008513420
Mail:BJAClearinghouse,P.O.Box6000,Rockville,MD208496000.
Delinquency Notebook
TheABAJuvenileJusticeCenterhaspublishedtheJuvenile Defender Delinquency Notebook
(Butterworth,Ree,andScali,2000),acasemanagementandpreparationsystemthatoffersattorneys
whoarenewtothejuvenilejusticeprocessastep-by-stepguidetodefendingajuvenilecase.The
Notebookincludeslawandprocedurechecklists,trialpreparationandstrategyforms,modelforms
andmotions,andsummariesofkeytrialdocuments.ItalsoincludestheIJA-ABAJuvenile Justice
Standardsandalistofresources.
ForadditionalinformationontheDelinquency Notebook,contact:
AmericanBarAssociationJuvenileJusticeCenter
74015thStreetNW.,10thFloor
Washington,DC20005
2026621506
2026621501(fax)
juvjus@abanet.org
From Promising Programs
Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia.MaterialsavailablefromPDSincludeits
YouthResourceDirectoryandspecialeducationadvocacytrainingtoolbox(fordescriptionsand
contactinformation,seepage23).ThePDSWebsite(pdsdc.org)offersacalendarofupcoming
trainingandotherevents,avirtualattorneyforpostinglegalquestions,descriptionsofPDS
services,andlinkstorelatedWebsites.
30
First Defense Legal Aid.TrainthetrainersmaterialsareavailablefromFDLA(fordescriptionand
contactinformation,seepage20).
Legislation
StatelawsrelevanttoindigentdefensecanbelocatedthroughFindlaw.com,afreeInternetservice.
References
Albin,B.,Albin,M.,Gladden,E.,Ropelato,S.,andStoll,G.2003.Montana: An Assessment of
Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in Delinquency Proceedings.Washington,DC:
AmericanBarAssociationJuvenileJusticeCenter.
AmericanBarAssociation.2002.ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.Chicago,IL:American
BarAssociation.
AmericanBarAssociationJuvenileJusticeCenterandNewEnglandJuvenileDefenderCenter.2003.
Maine: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in Delinquency
Proceedings.Washington,DC:AmericanBarAssociationJuvenileJusticeCenter.
Black,H.C.,andGarner,B.A.,eds.2000.Blacks Law Dictionary, Abridged,7thed.Eagan,MN:
WestGroup.
Brooks,K.,andKamine,D.2003.Justice Cut Short: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality
of Representation in Delinquency Proceedings in Ohio.Washington,DC:AmericanBarAssociation
JuvenileJusticeCenter.
Burruss,G.,andKempf-Leonard,K.2000.Attorney Representation and Impact in Serious
Delinquency Cases: An Evaluation of Three Missouri Circuits.St.Louis,MO:Universityof
Missouri-St.Louis,DepartmentofCriminologyandCriminalJustice.
Butterworth,B.,Rhee,W.,andScali,M.A.,eds.2000.Juvenile Defender Delinquency Notebook.
Washington,DC:AmericanBarAssociationJuvenileJusticeCenter.
Butts,J.A.1994.Offenders in Juvenile Court 1992.Bulletin.U.S.DepartmentofJustice,Officeof
JusticePrograms,OfficeofJuvenileJusticeandDelinquencyPrevention.
Calvin,E.2003.Washington: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in
Delinquency Proceedings.Washington,DC:AmericanBarAssociationJuvenileJusticeCenter.
Celeste,G.,ed.2001.The Children Left Behind: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of
Representation in Delinquency Proceedings in Louisiana.NewOrleans,LA:JuvenileJusticeProject
ofLouisiana.
Chan,S.2001.PanelproposeslevelingOakHill. Washington Post(August29):B3.
Chase,T.,andGonnell,F.2003.Law School Debt and the Practice of Law.NewYork,NY:
AssociationoftheBaroftheCityofNewYork.
31
ChildrensLawCenterofMassachusetts,Inc.,andYouthAdvocacyProject.2000.EdLaw Project
2000 Annual Report.Lynn,MA:ChildrensLawCenterofMassachusetts;Roxbury,MA:Youth
AdvocacyProject.
Clark,B.2001.TheAmericanBarAssociationNationalJuvenileDefenderCenter.Presentationatthe
CoalitionforJuvenileJusticeConference,Washington,DC,March30,2001.
ColoradoDepartmentofPublicSafety.2000.ColoradoFY20002002multi-yearcomprehensive
juvenilejusticeanddelinquencypreventionstateplan.Unpublisheddocument.Denver,CO:Colorado
DepartmentofPublicSafety,DivisionofCriminalJustice.
Cooper,N.L.,Puritz,P.,andShang,W.1998.FulfillingthepromiseofIn Re Gault:Advancingthe
roleoflawyersforchildren.Wake Forest Law Review33(3):651679.
Cumming,E.,Finley,M.,Hall,S.,Humphrey,A.,andPicou,I.2003.Maryland: An Assessment of
Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in Delinquency Proceedings.Washington,DC:
AmericanBarAssociationJuvenileJusticeCenter.
Dorfman,L.,andSchiraldi,V.2001.Off Balance: Youth, Race & Crime in the News.Washington,
DC:YouthLawCenter,BuildingBlocksforYouth.
EqualJusticeWorks,NationalAssociationforLawPlacement,andPartnershipforPublicService.
2002.From Paper Chase to Money Chase: Law School Debt Diverts Road to Public Service.
Washington,DC.EqualJusticeWorks,NationalAssociationforLawPlacement,andPartnershipfor
PublicService.
Fritsch,J.,andRohde,D.2001.LegalhelpoftenfailsNewYorkspoor.New York Times(April8):1.
Greene,R.,andDougherty,G.2001.Kidsinprison:Younginmatesreporthighestrateofassault.
Miami Herald(March19):1A.
Grindall,L.2003.North Carolina: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of
Representation in Delinquency Proceedings.Washington,DC:AmericanBarAssociationJuvenile
JusticeCenter.
Harms,P.Detention in Delinquency Cases, 19901999.2003.FactSheet.Washington,DC:U.S.
DepartmentofJustice,OfficeofJusticePrograms,OfficeofJuvenileJusticeandDelinquency
Prevention.
Hawkins,D.F.,Laub,J.H.,Lauritsen,J.L.,andCothern,L.2000.Race, Ethnicity, and Serious and
Violent Juvenile Offending. Bulletin.Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofJustice,OfficeofJustice
Programs,OfficeofJuvenileJusticeandDelinquencyPrevention.
Henry,D.A.1999.Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform. 5. Reducing Unnecessary Delay:
Innovations in Case Processing.Baltimore,MD:TheAnnieE.CaseyFoundation.
IllinoisDepartmentofHumanServices.2000.IllinoisFY20002002multi-yearcomprehensive
juvenilejusticeanddelinquencypreventionstateplan.Unpublisheddocument.Chicago,IL:Illinois
DepartmentofHumanServices,OfficeofPrevention.
32
InstituteforJudicialAdministration-AmericanBarAssociation(IJA-ABA).1980.Juvenile Justice
Standards. Washington,DC:AmericanBarAssociation.
Leiber,M.J.,andStairs,J.M.1999.Race,contexts,andtheuseofintakediversion.Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency36(1):5686.
Luczycki,R.2003.Startingsalariesleveloff.National Jurist13(2):28.
Miller-Wilson,L.S.2003.Pennsylvania: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of
Representation in Delinquency Proceedings.Washington,DC:AmericanBarAssociationJuvenile
JusticeCenter.
NationalCouncilofJuvenileandFamilyCourtJudges.2001.Establishing Juvenile Drug Courts: A
Judicial Curriculum.Reno,NV:NationalCouncilofJuvenileandFamilyCourtJudges.
NewYorkLegalAidSociety.2000.Annual Report 2000.NewYork,NY:NewYorkLegalAid
Society.
Poe-Yamagata,E.,andJones,M.A.2000.And Justice for Some: Differential Treatment of Minority
Youth in the Justice System.Washington,DC:YouthLawCenter,BuildingBlocksforYouth.
Puritz,P.,andBrooks,K.2002.Kentucky: Advancing Justice: An Assessment of Access to Counsel
and Quality of Representation in Delinquency Proceedings.Washington,DC:AmericanBar
AssociationJuvenileJusticeCenter.
Puritz,P.,Burrell,S.,Schwartz,R.,Soler,M.,andWarboys,L.1995.A Call for Justice: An
Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in Delinquency Proceedings.
Washington,DC:AmericanBarAssociationJuvenileJusticeCenter.
Puritz,P.,Scali,M.,andPicou,I.2002.Virginia: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of
Representation in Delinquency Proceedings.Washington,DC:AmericanBarAssociationJuvenile
JusticeCenter.
Puritz,P.,andSun,T.2001.Georgia: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of
Representation in Delinquency Proceedings.Washington,DC:AmericanBarAssociationJuvenile
JusticeCenter.
Puzzanchera,C.2003.Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, 19901999.FactSheet.
Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofJustice,OfficeofJusticePrograms,OfficeofJuvenileJustice
andDelinquencyPrevention.
Redding,R.2003.Theeffectsofsentencingjuvenilesasadults:Researchandpolicyimplications.
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice1(2):2855.
Shepherd,R.E.,Jr.1998.Criminal Justice.Washington,DC:AmericanBarAssociation.
Stahl,A.L.2003.Delinquency Cases in Juvenile Courts, 1999.FactSheet.Washington,DC:U.S.
DepartmentofJustice,OfficeofJusticePrograms,OfficeofJuvenileJusticeandDelinquency
Prevention.
33
Stanfield,R.1999.Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform. Overview. The JDAI Story.Baltimore,
MD:TheAnnieE.CaseyFoundation.
Steinberg,L.2003.Juvenilesontrial,MacArthurFoundationstudycallscompetencyintoquestion.
Criminal Justice18(3):21.Washington,DC:AmericanBarAssociation.
Stewart,C.E.,Celeste,G.,Marrus,E.,Picou,I.,Puritz,P.,andUtter,D.2000.Selling Justice Short,
Juvenile Indigent Defense in Texas.Austin,TX:TexasAppleseed.
U.S.BureauofJusticeAssistance.2000.Compendium of Standards for Indigent Defense Systems: A
Resource Guide for Practitioners and Policymakers. Volume V: Standards for Juvenile Justice
Defense.Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofJustice,OfficeofJusticePrograms,BureauofJustice
Assistance.
U.S.GovernmentAccountingOffice.1995.Juvenile Justice Representation Rates Varied as Did
Counsels Impact on Court Outcomes.GAO/GGD95139.Washington,DC:U.S.Government
AccountingOffice.
Young,M.C.2000.Providing Effective Representation for Youth Prosecuted as Adults.Washington,
DC:U.S.DepartmentofJustice,OfficeofJusticePrograms,BureauofJusticeAssistance.
Young,M.C.,andGainsborough,J.2000.Prosecuting Juveniles in Adult Court: An Assessment of
Trends and Consequences.Washington,DC:TheSentencingProject.
YouthAdvocacyProject.2000a.Fact Sheet.Roxbury,MA:YouthAdvocacyProject.
YouthAdvocacyProject.2000b.19902000 Annual Report.Roxbury,MA:YouthAdvocacyProject.
Acknowledgments
ThisBulletinwaswrittenbyJudithB.Jones,M.A.,Spec.H.S.A.Ms.JonesexpectstoreceiveherJ.D.
degreefromtheCatholicUniversityofAmericaColumbusSchoolofLawin2005.
ThisBulletinwaspreparedunderContractnumberOJP2000298BFwiththeOfficeofJuvenileJusticeand
DelinquencyPrevention.
Pointsofvieworopinionsexpressedinthisdocumentarethoseoftheauthoranddonotnecessarily
representtheofficialpositionorpoliciesofOJJDPortheU.S.DepartmentofJustice.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice
Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the
National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
NCJ 204063
34