Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment 2008 Vol 1, Judicial Council of CA, 2008

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment 2008 Vol 1, Judicial Council of CA, 2008

• Aug. 9, 2016 • Locations: United States of America -> California • Topics: Juveniles

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

Document text

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

JUVENILE
DELINQUENCY
COURT
ASSESSMENT
2008

VOLUME 1

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
OF THE COURTS
CENTER FOR FAMILIES, CHILDREN
& THE COURTS

Juvenile Delinquency
Court Assessment 2008
Volume 1
April 2008

Copyright and Contact Information
Copyright © 2008 by Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts.
All rights reserved.
Except as permitted under the Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced in
any form or by any means, electronic, online, or mechanical, including the use of information storage
and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the copyright owner. Permission is granted to
nonprofit institutions to reproduce and distribute for educational purposes all or part of the work if the
copies are distributed at or below cost and if the Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of
the Courts and the Center for Families, Children & the Courts are credited.
This report is also available on the California Courts Web site:
www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/programs/description/delproj.htm.
For additional copies or more information about this report, please call the Center for Families,
Children & the Courts at 415-865-7739 or write to:
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Center for Families, Children & the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102-3688
www.courtinfo.ca.gov
Printed on recycled and recyclable paper.

Foreword
I am pleased to present you with the findings and recommendations of the
Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment. The assessment represents the most
thorough examination of the state’s delinquency court system ever conducted.
This project’s intention is to help improve both the administration of justice and the
lives of youth, victims, and other community members affected by juvenile crime
by helping to establish the baseline that should guide efforts over the coming
years as we work to ensure the very best in the service of justice.
The areas of inquiry included hearings and other court processes; court
collaboration with justice system partners; placement, treatment, and supervision options for youth; the
perspectives of parties and interested groups; education and training; and court accountability. The
methods of inquiry included statewide surveys of judicial officers and justice partners (judges,
commissioners, referees, probation officers, juvenile prosecutors, and juvenile defense attorneys) and
focus groups and interviews in select counties with youth, parents, victims, community members, juvenile
probation officers, juvenile prosecutors and defense attorneys.
I invite the Governor, the Legislature, the judicial branch, state and local policymakers, and all interested
parties to study this assessment’s findings and recommendations and implement improved practices in
the service of quality justice for the people of California.

William C. Vickrey
Administrative Director of the Courts

iii

Judicial Council of California
Hon. Ronald M. George
Chief Justice of California and
Chair of the Judicial Council

Hon. Barbara J. Miller
Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of Alameda

Hon. George J. Abdallah, Jr.
Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of San Joaquin

Hon. Eileen C. Moore
Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal,
Fourth Appellate District, Division Three

Mr. Raymond G. Aragon
Attorney at Law, Bonita

Hon. Dennis E. Murray
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of Tehama

Hon. Marvin R. Baxter
Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court

Ms. Barbara J. Parker
Chief Assistant City Attorney of the City of Oakland

Mr. Anthony P. Capozzi
Attorney at Law, Fresno

Hon. James Michael Welch
Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of San Bernardino

Hon. Ellen M. Corbett
Member of the California State Senate

ADVISORY MEMBERS

Hon. Peter Paul Espinoza
Assistant Supervising Judge of the Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles

Hon. Ronald E. Albers
Commissioner of the Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco

Hon. Terry B. Friedman
Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles

Ms. Deena Fawcett
Clerk/Administrator of the Court of Appeal,
Third Appellate District

Mr. Thomas V. Girardi
Attorney at Law, Los Angeles

Hon. Ira R. Kaufman
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of Plumas

Hon. Brad R. Hill
Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal,
Fifth Appellate District

Mr. Michael D. Planet
Executive Officer of the Superior Court of California,
County of Ventura

Hon. Richard D. Huffman
Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal,
Fourth Appellate District, Division One

Mr. Michael M. Roddy
Executive Officer of the Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego

Hon. Jamie A. Jacobs-May
Assistant Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
of California, County of Santa Clara
Hon. Dave Jones
Member of the California State Assembly

Hon. Nancy Wieben Stock
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of Orange

Hon. Carolyn B. Kuhl
Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles

Ms. Sharol Strickland
Executive Officer of the Superior Court of California,
County of Butte

Hon. Thomas M. Maddock
Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of Contra Costa

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
Mr. William C. Vickrey
Administrative Director of the Courts and Secretary
of the Judicial Council

Hon. Charles W. McCoy, Jr.
Assistant Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles

Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee
Hon. Jerilyn L. Borack, Cochair
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Sacramento

Hon. David L. Haet
Commissioner of the Superior Court of
California, County of Solano

Hon. Robert Alan Schnider
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles

Hon. Susan D. Huguenor, Cochair
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego

Ms. Frances Harrison
Family Law Facilitator of the Superior
Court of California, County of San
Diego

Hon. B. Tam Nomoto Schumann
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Orange

Ms. Antonia W. Agerbek
Senior Staff Counsel of the California
Department of Child Support Services
Hon. Sue Alexander
Commissioner of the Superior Court of
California, County of Alameda
Hon. Brian John Back
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Ventura
Hon. Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian
Associate Justice of the Court of
Appeal, Sixth Appellate District
Ms. Marilyn Barr
Executive Director of CASA of
Tulare County
Ms. Judy Lynn Bogen
Attorney at Law, Beverly Hills
Hon. Charles W. Campbell, Jr. (Ret.)
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Ventura
Mr. L. Michael Clark
Lead Deputy County Counsel of the
County of Santa Clara
Ms. Judith A. Cox
Chief Probation Officer of the Santa
Cruz County Probation Department
Ms. Emberly C. Cross
Coordinating Attorney of the
Cooperative Restraining Order Clinic
Hon. Becky Lynn Dugan
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Riverside

Hon. Margaret Henry
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles
Ms. Sharon L. Kalemkiarian
Attorney at Law, San Diego
Ms. Patricia Kaplan
Court Program Supervisor of the
Superior Court of California, County of
Alameda
Hon. Kurt E. Kumli
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Santa Clara
Ms. Patricia Lee
Managing Attorney of the San
Francisco Public Defender's Office
Hon. Thomas T. Lewis
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles
Mr. Rick Lewkowitz
Juvenile Division Supervisor of the
Sacramento County District Attorney's
Office
Hon. Cindee F. Mayfield
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
of California, County of Mendocino
Hon. James M. Mize
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
of California, County of Sacramento
Hon. Michael Nash
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles

Hon. Sherrill A. Ellsworth
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Riverside

Ms. Charlene Reid
Director of Social Services of the
Marin County Department of Health
and Human Services

Ms. Ana España
Supervising Attorney of the San Diego
County Public Defender’s Office

Hon. Arnold D. Rosenfield
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Sonoma

Hon. Mary Ann Grilli
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Santa Clara

Hon. Frances Rothschild
Associate Justice of the Court of
Appeal, Second Appellate District,
Division One

Hon. Marjorie S. Steinberg
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles
Hon. Dean Stout
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
of California, County of Inyo
Ms. Shannan L. Wilber
Executive Director of Legal Services
for Children
Ms. Claire Williams
Director of Unified Family Court of the
Superior Court of California, County of
San Francisco
Advisory Member
Ms. Caroline Huffman
Court Appointed Special Advocate,
San Diego
Committee Consultant
Hon. Leonard P. Edwards, (Ret.)
Judge-in-Residence
Center for Families, Children & the
Courts
Administrative Office of the Courts
Judicial Council Liaison
Hon. Terry B. Friedman
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles
Ms. Barbara J. Parker
Chief Assistant City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
Court Executives Advisory
Committee Liaison
Mr. Michael M. Roddy
Executive Officer
Superior Court of California, County of
San Diego
Court Technology Advisory
Committee Liaison
Mr. Dennis B. Jones
Executive Officer
Superior Court of California, County of
Sacramento

Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee Cont.
Governing Committee
of the CJER Liaison
Hon. Becky Lynn Dugan
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Riverside
Hon. David L. Haet
Commissioner of the Superior Court of
California, County of Solano
Trial Court Presiding Judges
Advisory Committee Liaison
Hon. Dean Stout
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
of California, County of Inyo
Office of Governmental
Affairs Liaison
Ms. Tracy Kenny
Attorney
Office of Governmental Affairs
Administrative Office of the Courts

AOC Lead Committee Staff
Ms. Jennifer Walter
Supervising Attorney
Center for Families, Children & the
Courts
Administrative Office of the Courts
Ms. Julia Weber
Supervising Attorney
Center for Families, Children & the
Courts
Administrative Office of the Courts
AOC Staff to the Committee
Ms. Kristi Bergen
Administrative Coordinator
Center for Families, Children & the
Courts
Administrative Office of the Courts
Ms. Audrey Fancy
Supervising Attorney
Center for Families, Children & the
Courts
Administrative Office of the Courts

vii

Ms. Patricia Rivera
Administrative Coordinator
Center for Families, Children & the
Courts
Administrative Office of the Courts

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment Working Group Members
Hon. Brian John Back, Chair
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Ventura

Hon. Kurt E. Kumli
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Santa Clara

Ms. Trish Anderson
Attorney, Conflict Criminal Defender’s
Sacramento, Juvenile Unit

Ms. Rosemary Lamb
Legislative Analyst of the California
State Association of Counties

Hon. Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian
Associate Justice of the Court of
Appeal, Sixth Appellate District

Ms. Patricia Lee
Managing Attorney of the San
Francisco Public Defender’s Office

Ms. Judith A. Cox
Chief Probation Officer of the Santa
Cruz County Probation Department

Hon. Jan Greenberg Levine
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles

Hon. Nancy L. Davis
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco

Mr. Rick Lewkowitz
Juvenile Division Supervisor of the
Sacramento County District Attorney’s
Office

Ms. Barbara Duey
Attorney of the Children’s Law Center
of Los Angeles
Hon. Leonard P. Edwards (Ret.)
Judge-in-Residence of the
Administrative Office of the Courts

Ms. Debbie C. Mochizuki
Lead Attorney of the Court of Appeal,
Fifth Appellate District
Hon. Tamara L. Mosbarger
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Butte

Mr. Wesley Forman
Chief Probation Officer of the
Mendocino County Probation
Department

Mr. Harold E. Nabors
Executive Officer of the Superior Court
of California, County of Madera

Mr. Larry Gobelman
Executive Officer of the Superior Court
of California, County of Siskiyou

Hon. Michael Nash
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles

Hon. Lois Haight
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Contra Costa

Mr. Winston Peters
Assistant Public Defender of the Los
Angeles County Public Defender’s
Office

Hon. Susan C. Harlan
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
of California, County of Amador
Hon. Robert Byron Hutson
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Orange
Mr. Philip Kader
Juvenile Probation Division Director of
the Fresno County Probation
Department
Ms. Tracy Kenny
Senior Governmental Affairs Analyst
of the AOC Office of Governmental
Affairs

Hon. Kenneth G. Peterson
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Sacramento
Mr. Jerry Powers
Chief Probation Officer of the
Stanislaus County Probation
Department
Ms. Florence Prushan
Assistant Director, AOC Southern
Regional Office
Mr. Michael M. Roddy
Executive Officer of the Superior Court
of California, County of San Diego

viii

Ms. Sherrie Sperry
Deputy Probation Officer of the
Calaveras County Probation
Department
Hon. Dean Stout
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
of California, County of Inyo
Mr. Richard Scott Stickney
Specialist Assistant of the Los
Angeles County Probation Department
Hon. Denise Lee Whitehead
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Fresno
Former Working Group Members
Hon. Becky Lynn Dugan
Judge of the Superior Court of
California, County of Riverside
Mr. Cregor Datig
Director of the TRSP Program,
California District Attorneys
Association
Ms. Miriam Krinsky
AOC Special Consultant, Policy,
Outreach, and Legislative Initiatives
Mr. Calvin Remington
Chief Probation Officer (Ret.) of the
Ventura County Probation Department
Ms. Jackie Escajeda
Senior Court Services Analyst of the
AOC Northern Regional Office
Ms. Elizabeth Howard
Legislative Representative of the
California State Association of
Counties

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We extend our thanks to all who contributed to the production of this report and assisted in this assessment.

•

First, we are exceedingly grateful to the presiding judges of the juvenile courts in the six study counties, who
graciously agreed to participate in our assessment: Judge Michael Nash, Superior Court of Los Angeles
County; Judge Colleen M. Nichols, Superior Court of Placer County; Judge Christian F. Thierbach and
Judge Becky Lynn Dugan, current and former presiding juvenile court judges of the Superior Court of
Riverside County; Judge Donna J. Hitchens, Superior Court of San Francisco County; Judge John W.
Parker (Ret.), Superior Court of San Joaquin County; and Judge William J. Davis, Superior Court of Siskiyou
County.

•

We are thankful for the assistance of the liaisons in each of our study counties, who arranged site visits,
identified key justice partners to interview, helped coordinate focus groups, provided courthouse space for
our use, took their valuable time to give tours of court and detention facilities, secured access to court users,
and more. This study would not have been possible without their help. Although to preserve the
confidentiality of focus group participants we cannot thank each person individually, we are especially
thankful for their assistance.

•

We would like to express our deep appreciation to all of the judicial officers, court staff, probation officers,
prosecutors, and defense attorneys who participated in interviews, surveys, and focus groups for this study.
Their insight, expertise, and opinions will be a valuable resource to others who may want to improve their
delinquency court systems.

•

It is with particularly heartfelt thanks that we acknowledge the probation youth, parents, victims, and
community members who participated in our focus groups. Their personal stories, opinions, and suggestions
helped shape this report and its recommendations in important ways.

•

We extend our warmest thanks to Mr. John Greacen and the court administrators who provided information
that informed the Developing Effective Practices in Juvenile Delinquency Caseflow Management manual.
Our thanks also extend to the members of the 28 counties who attended the caseflow management
workshops.

•

We are grateful to Mr. Jon Kidde, who organized and conducted focus groups with youth, parents, victims,
and community members in the six study counties.

•

We are sincerely appreciative of the assistance and support provided by our juvenile justice partners,
specifically the California State Association of Counties, the Chief Probation Officers of California, the
California District Attorneys Association, and the California Public Defenders Association.

•

We wish to express our gratitude to the dedicated staff at the Administrative Office of the Courts who
assisted with this endeavor. In addition, we are exceptionally grateful to Ms. Rebecca Pepper for her expert
copyediting.

•

Finally, we are truly grateful to the working group members who guided the assessment. The working group
provided both subject matter expertise and perspectives from a cross-section of the state in terms of
geographic location and county size.

Without the dedication and participation of each of these individuals and organizations, we would not have been able
to gather all of the data and make meaningful recommendations for improvements to the California juvenile justice
system.
— Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee

CONTENTS
Volume 1
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 1
A. Fundamental Principles ................................................................................... 1
B. Summary of Findings ....................................................................................... 2
C. Recommendations........................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 11
A. Background and Charge of the Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment .... 11
B. Report Overview ............................................................................................ 13
C. Unique Nature of Juvenile Court ................................................................... 14
D. Juvenile Justice in California and National Trends........................................ 15
1. Statistical Overview ................................................................................. 16
2. Current Juvenile Justice Efforts, Nationally and in California.................. 17
E. Project Overview............................................................................................ 20
F. Fundamental Principles.................................................................................. 22
CHAPTER 2. Court Hearings....................................................................................... 23
A. Introduction .................................................................................................... 23
B. Hearing Management .................................................................................... 23
C. Quality of Legal Work .................................................................................... 25
1. General Legal Work................................................................................. 25
2. Postdispositional Defense Attorney Representation ............................... 26
D. Quality of Probation Reports ......................................................................... 28
E. Quality of Other Information........................................................................... 29
1. Reports and Recommendations Regarding Crossover Youth ................ 29
2. Judicial Oversight of Title IV-E Activities ................................................. 30
F. Probation Officers’ and Attorneys’ Perspectives on the
Courtroom Environment ................................................................................. 31
G. Case-Level Communication With Youth, Parents, and Victims .................... 32
H. Case-Level Collaboration .............................................................................. 33
I. Other Issues .................................................................................................... 34
1. Interpreters............................................................................................... 34
2. Indian Child Welfare Act .......................................................................... 34
3. Restitution ................................................................................................ 35
4. Record Sealing ........................................................................................ 36
J. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 36
K. Recommendations ......................................................................................... 37
CHAPTER 3. System Responses................................................................................ 39
A. Introduction .................................................................................................... 39
B. Service and Sanction Options ....................................................................... 39
1. Availability of Services and Sanctions ..................................................... 40
2. Perceived Effectiveness of Services and Sanctions................................ 44
C. Supervision Programs ................................................................................... 46
D. Collaborative Courts ...................................................................................... 46
E. Appropriately Matching Youth to Services and Sanctions............................. 49
F. Especially Difficult Service and Sanction Needs............................................ 51
G. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 53
H. Recommendations......................................................................................... 54
CHAPTER 4. Court Management ................................................................................ 57
A. Introduction .................................................................................................... 57

B. Accountability ................................................................................................. 57
C. Collaboration.................................................................................................. 59
1. Dual-Status Cases................................................................................... 60
2. Disproportionate Minority Contact ........................................................... 61
3. Education ................................................................................................. 62
4. Transfer of Cases Between Counties ...................................................... 62
D. Court Resource Needs .................................................................................. 63
E. Court Case Management............................................................................... 64
F. Facilities ......................................................................................................... 66
1. Accessibility ............................................................................................. 66
2. Safety and Security.................................................................................. 67
3. Protection of Rights ................................................................................. 68
4. Adequate Workspace .............................................................................. 68
G. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 69
H. Recommendations......................................................................................... 69
CHAPTER 5. Professionals and Court Users .............................................................. 73
A. Introduction .................................................................................................... 73
B. Court Professionals’ Experience and Background ........................................ 73
1. Judicial Officers........................................................................................ 73
a. Experience and Background ............................................................. 74
b. Juvenile Assignments and Experience ............................................. 74
c. Judicial Officer Education .................................................................. 75
2. Prosecutors.............................................................................................. 75
a. Experience and Background ............................................................. 76
b. Juvenile Assignments and Experience ............................................. 76
3. Defense Attorneys ................................................................................... 77
a. Experience and Background ............................................................. 77
b. Juvenile Assignments and Experience ............................................. 78
4. Probation Officers .................................................................................... 79
a. Experience and Background ............................................................. 79
b. Juvenile Assignments and Experience ............................................. 79
C. Court Professionals’ Experiences With the Juvenile Delinquency System ... 80
1. Experience With the Delinquency Court and Court Professionals .......... 80
2. Working With Youth, Families, and Victims............................................. 81
3. Juvenile Delinquency System.................................................................. 83
D. Court Users’ Experiences With the Juvenile Delinquency System ............... 84
1. Barriers to Participation ........................................................................... 85
2. Lack of Comprehensible Process or Hearings ........................................ 87
3. Purpose of Juvenile Delinquency Court .................................................. 88
4. System Follow-Through........................................................................... 88
E. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 89
F. Recommendations ......................................................................................... 91
CHAPTER 6. Conclusion ............................................................................................. 95
A. Summary of Findings ..................................................................................... 96
B. Study Limitations............................................................................................ 97
C. Next Steps ..................................................................................................... 98
1. Self-Assessment ...................................................................................... 98
2. Court User Assistance ............................................................................. 99
3. Legislative Changes and Other Systemic Approaches ......................... 100
4. California Court Case Management System (CCMS) ........................... 100
5. Juvenile Delinquency Technical Assistance Project.............................. 100
6. Resource Needs .................................................................................... 101
D. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 102
CHAPTER 7. Recommendations............................................................................... 103

xii

CONTENTS
Volume 2

About This Volume
CHAPTER 1 .....................................................................................Methodology Report
CHAPTER 2 ..................................................................................Judicial Officer Report
CHAPTER 3 .............................................................................. Probation Officer Report
CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................Attorney Report
CHAPTER 5 ........................................... Court Users and Community Members Report
CHAPTER 6 ........................................................................................... Facilities Report
CHAPTER 7 ..................................................................................Research Instruments

xiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On behalf of the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee of the Judicial Council of
California, the Center for Families, Children & the Courts (CFCC), a staff division of the
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), conducted the AOC’s first comprehensive
research study of how the superior courts of California handle delinquency matters. With
the guidance of a working group convened by the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory
Committee, the Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment (JDCA) conducted nearly two
years of research on California’s delinquency courts.
The intention of the JDCA is to help improve both the administration of justice and the
lives of youth, victims, and other community members affected by the delinquency
system by helping set an agenda for system improvements over the coming years. The
areas of inquiry included hearings and other court processes; court collaboration with
justice system partners; placement, treatment, and supervision options for youth;
perspectives of parties and interested groups; education and training; and court
accountability. The methods of inquiry included statewide surveys of judicial officers and
justice

partners

(judges,

commissioners,

referees,

probation

officers,

juvenile

prosecutors, and juvenile defense attorneys), and focus groups and interviews in
selected counties with youth, parents, victims, community members, juvenile probation
officers, and juvenile attorneys.

A. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
As the working group developed its recommendations, it became clear that the members
shared certain core beliefs about the juvenile justice system. These fundamental
principles serve as core considerations for an effective system that meets the varied
purposes of the juvenile delinquency court. Key was the belief that the juvenile court
presiding judge must work with justice partners to ensure that the following fundamental
principles are achieved:
1. The delinquency system must adhere to practices and procedures that comply
with the law.
2. The delinquency system must be adequately staffed by judicial officers,
attorneys, probation officers, court staff, and other professionals who have the
tenure, dedication, education, training, and resources necessary to meet the
needs of court users and the public.

Executive Summary

3. The delinquency system must recognize that juvenile offenders are different from
adult offenders and, while ensuring due process and accountability, must also
address the developmental and social factors that contribute to delinquent
behavior.
4. The delinquency system must recognize and respect the rights and role of
victims.
5. The delinquency system must encourage and value community involvement.
6. The delinquency system must improve its effectiveness and accountability by
adopting a practice of continual self-improvement that relies on goals, outcomes,
measures, and reporting.

B. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

•

Additional resources are needed to maintain caseloads at a reasonable level for
judicial officers, attorneys, and probation officers. Both probation officers and
defense attorneys expressed a need for more resources to enable them to
implement court-ordered dispositions and case plans, including accessing
services in the community for the youth they work with.

•

Judicial officers, attorneys, and probation officers who were surveyed expressed
a general dissatisfaction with the sufficiency of information about, and the
availability of, services for youth, most notably drug rehabilitation, mental health
services, gender-specific services, and services for transitional-age youth. They
also indicated that they are not satisfied with the sanction options available to the
court for high-risk youth.

•

Judicial officers, attorneys, and probation officers who were surveyed expressed
frustration concerning the availability of information to them at various points in
the delinquency court process, including mental health assessments, information
on youth’s educational status, and interviews with youth, parents, and victims,
both predisposition and postdisposition.

•

For youthful offenders, parents, victims, and witnesses, court proceedings are
often difficult to follow and understand. These groups find the court experience to
be rushed and without opportunities for them to participate. Court facilities often
do not have the space or the personnel to address the questions of court users.

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

•

There is a need to measure the effectiveness of system responses to youthful
offenders. The juvenile delinquency system needs better ways to measure
outcomes and increase accountability.

•

Courts frequently collaborate with justice partners to work on policies and
procedures, and to respond to problems as they arise. Judicial officers expressed
the need to be better informed about the availability and effectiveness of
dispositional options for youth, and to meet with the community.

•

Many juvenile detention facilities and juvenile court facilities are in need of
improvement or replacement. The nature of the environment in which cases are
heard, and where youth are confined, has a significant impact on the efficiency
and effectiveness of court processes.

•

Juvenile delinquency courts need to be staffed with judicial officers, court staff,
probation officers, and attorneys who are educated in juvenile law issues and are
experienced in and committed to the juvenile delinquency assignment. Longevity
in juvenile assignments should be encouraged.

C. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee sets forth the following
recommendations to the California juvenile justice community.

CASE-LEVEL PERFORMANCE
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

Executive Summary

8. Judicial officers should consider calendar structures and hearing schedules that
enable parents and extended family, victims, and witnesses to provide input.
9. Judicial officers should set the day’s calendar by prioritizing hearings at which
victims or witnesses are present and cases that are short cause matters.
10. When delays are unavoidable, the judicial officer and the attorneys should
explain the reasons for them to the parties involved, so as to maintain
transparency and confidence in the process.
COMPREHENSIBLE HEARINGS

11. Judicial officers should encourage the use of simple yet legally accurate
language so that all parties present for hearings can understand the proceedings.
12. Judicial officers, attorneys, and probation officers should take the time necessary
to help youth, parents, and victims understand the court process, the outcomes
of court hearings, and the orders of the court.
13. The AOC, in conjunction with the courts, should develop educational materials
such as videos and brochures that orient youth and parents to the delinquency
court.

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

SERVICES AND SANCTIONS
INDIVIDUALIZED SERVICES

14. Local jurisdictions should establish a graduated continuum of evidence-based
services and sanctions to respond to the needs of each offender.
15. Courts, to improve the delivery of services, should develop adequate court-based
resources and make them readily and regularly available to court users.
16. Judicial officers should ensure that youth receive appropriate sanctions as well
as the services, guidance, and support that are in the best interest of the youth
while meeting the goals of public safety and victim restoration.
17. Court and counsel should ensure that treatment plans and terms of probation are
complied with by monitoring the progress of youth on probation, regardless of
whether the youth is at home, in out-of-home placement, or committed to a local
or state facility.
18. Courts and probation should ensure that dispositional case plans include
adequate reentry services.
19. Judicial officers should encourage collaborative, problem-solving practices that
provide for the development and implementation of individualized case plans.
20. The courts and probation should encourage the identification and involvement of
positive extended family members in a youth’s rehabilitation.
21. Courts should collaborate with probation departments to ensure that judicial
officers and attorneys understand probation assessment tools and the local
sanction and service options that are available.
22. The courts, probation officers, and other juvenile justice partners should continue
to collaborate in an effort to develop effective practices and methods for
improving the delivery of services.
MEETING DIVERSE NEEDS

Executive Summary

25. Probation officers who supervise youth in placement facilities should be trained
to ensure that the needs of those youth are met and that their probation complies
with title IV-E requirements.
26. The courts and probation should comprehensively examine and address all
aspects of the needs of youth with mental health issues who are involved in the
delinquency system.
27. The AOC should support legislation to address ways to more adequately and
effectively deal with competency issues that come before the courts.
28. The AOC should continue to work with probation and social services to assist
them in working with those youth who appear to come within the jurisdiction of
both the delinquency and dependency systems.

COURT MANAGEMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY

29. Judicial officers should educate the community and the media about the purpose
of the juvenile court, specifically its purpose and role in meeting the complex
needs of youth, their families, victims, and the community.
30. Judicial officers should maintain open communication with the public, provide
avenues for receiving public feedback, and provide information about court
performance or improvements.
31. Local juvenile justice partners should identify the outcomes they hope to achieve
and develop performance measures to monitor their progress.
FACILITIES

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

35. State and local court administrators should ensure that court operations,
modifications to facilities, and AOC design standards protect the confidentiality of
parties and victims while enabling the public to have access to nonconfidential
delinquency hearings when appropriate.
COLLABORATION

36. Judicial officers should exercise leadership in strengthening the relationships
among justice partners and community organizations and in ensuring that local
jurisdictions utilize all available resources to create appropriate outcomes within
the juvenile justice system.
37. The courts and probation should engage schools, mental health, and other
community systems to support the rehabilitation of youth.
38. The AOC and the courts should assess the court’s role in minority
disproportionality within the juvenile justice system and work collaboratively with
state and county-level justice providers to address racial and ethnic disparities.
39. The AOC should continue to support the courts and other agencies in developing
ways to assist youth whose circumstances potentially bring them before both the
dependency and delinquency courts.
CASE MANAGEMENT

40. Courts and juvenile justice partners should develop case management systems
(including the California Case Management System [CCMS]) that promote
coordinated data collection and data exchange between the court and other
justice partners.
41. Courts and juvenile justice partners should develop case management systems
(including CCMS) to permit juvenile delinquency courts to access information
about youth’s and families’ participation in other court cases.
42. The AOC should support courts in their efforts to develop protocols and
procedures to address local issues and challenges involving case management.
43. The AOC should develop tools to help the courts assess their case management
practices and should assist the courts in instituting a process of continual
improvement.

Executive Summary

PROFESSIONALS AND COURT USERS
COMMITMENT

44. Superior court presiding judges should recognize the importance of the juvenile
delinquency system and the need for recruiting and retaining high-quality judicial
officers in juvenile assignments.
45. Court administrators should ensure that courts have adequate numbers of
qualified court staff.
46. District attorneys’ and public defenders’ offices should be encouraged to seek out
and promote attorneys who are committed to serving the delinquency court and
developing expertise in this complex and significant field.
47. Judicial officers should seek out panel and contract attorneys who are committed
to serving youth in the delinquency court and who are willing to develop expertise
in the field.
48. Probation departments should seek out, encourage, promote, and retain staff
who are committed to working with juveniles and developing expertise in this
important area.
EDUCATION

49. The courts should ensure continuity of policy and practice during leadership
transitions by instituting best practices and by supporting the transfer of
knowledge.
50. Probation and social services staff should be adequately trained and should
communicate and coordinate services so as to deal appropriately with those
youth who appear to come within the jurisdiction of both the delinquency and
dependency systems.
51. Judicial officers, attorneys, and probation should be adequately trained and
educated to understand the myriad issues in delinquency court and the
importance of the work.
52. Courts should develop or clarify local protocols that set forth their expectations of
defense counsel in the postdispositional period regarding status reports,
hearings, child visits, legal advocacy, and other activities.
53. The AOC should work with law schools and the State Bar to educate, encourage,
and support attorneys seeking careers in juvenile justice.

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

RESOURCES

54. Courts and juvenile justice agencies should continually monitor and adjust their
caseload guidelines to respond to evolving standards of practice and should seek
additional resources as necessary.
55. Courts hearing delinquency matters should have adequate funding to fulfill their
purpose of guaranteeing public safety, victim restoration, and offender
rehabilitation.
56. The judicial branch should encourage federal, state, and local government
officials to provide probation departments with stable and adequate funding to
protect the public and the rights of victims, to ensure offender accountability and
rehabilitation, and to support the court with the information necessary to make
appropriate findings and orders.
57. Local government officials should fund public defenders’ offices, district
attorneys’ offices, and contract-based defenders at a level that allows them to
adequately fulfill their professional obligations.
58. The Judicial Council should support the improvement of resource allocation in
the courts by conducting a judicial workload study of judicial officers who hear
juvenile delinquency cases and a needs assessment of the court staffing that
supports the court’s management and review of juvenile delinquency cases.

Executive Summary

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
A. BACKGROUND AND CHARGE OF THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY COURT
ASSESSMENT
The Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee of the Judicial Council of California is
charged with advising the Judicial Council on issues related to children and families. The
advisory committee identifies issues and concerns confronting judicial administration
regarding family and juvenile procedure, practice, and case management and makes
recommendations to the Judicial Council for appropriate solutions and responses. On an
ongoing basis the advisory committee (1) reviews pending legislation and makes
recommendations as to whether the Judicial Council should support or oppose it, (2)
reviews suggestions from the public for improving the administration of family and
juvenile cases and recommends appropriate action to the Judicial Council or one of its
committees, and (3) proposes to the Judicial Council changes in rules, forms, and
standards for family and juvenile cases. In the delinquency arena, the advisory committee
works to improve the quality of justice and services available to meet the needs of youth
and families who appear in delinquency court, the victims of juvenile offenders, and the
larger community.
The Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment (JDCA) is the court’s first comprehensive
research study of how the superior courts of California handle delinquency matters. 1
Previous efforts related to delinquency in which
the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee
and the AOC have assisted involved only limited
research focused primarily on probation. In 2002,
CFCC

surveyed

California’s

The Juvenile Delinquency Court
Assessment is the AOC’s first
comprehensive research study of
how the superior courts of California
handle delinquency matters.

probation

departments in an effort to document the prevalence of balanced and restorative justice
practices throughout the state. 2 In 2000 through 2003, the Probation Services Task Force
conducted a study of California’s probation structure, governance, and funding sources.
This effort necessitated retaining consultants to assess key probation measures, both
nationally and in select study counties; surveying court and county leaders, chief

This report refers to superior courts handling juvenile delinquency matters as “juvenile
delinquency courts.”
2
The results of this survey are cataloged, and information about available practices provided, in
Balanced and Restorative Justice: An Information Manual for California (2006),
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/BARJManual3.pdf.

Chapter 1: Introduction

probation officers, district attorneys, and public defenders on the governance of and
services provided by probation; and convening informal focus groups of juvenile and
adult probationers. 3 As a follow-up, CFCC conducted a survey of chief probation officers,
the first of a series of research projects proposed in the Probation Services Task Force
Final Report. The study quantifies the array of juvenile and adult probation services
available across counties, including information on how probation services are staffed
and funded, and uses the task force recommendations to identify gaps in services. 4
In addition, the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee has taken a leadership role
in working with local superior courts to improve the handling of dependency cases. These
efforts include a major research project that culminated in the 2005 California Juvenile
Dependency Court Improvement Program Reassessment (CIP Reassessment). 5 The
federal government required this assessment from all states that receive Court
Improvement Program funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The assessment is a statewide, comprehensive examination of the juvenile dependency
court, with recommendations for system reforms that have been guiding the work of the
Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee, AOC projects, and juvenile dependency
courts since its publication.
The Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee recognized the value of conducting an
in-depth, research-based assessment and requested a similar study of the delinquency
court that would identify the areas that are working well and those issues that pose
challenges for the courts and court users. The goal was to collect statewide empirical
research to establish a baseline of information for court improvement and develop
recommendations for systemic improvements.
This assessment examined the courts’ handling of juvenile delinquency cases in a
comprehensive manner. To guide the assessment, the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory
Committee convened a working group composed of members of the advisory committee,
experts drawn from state entities, and the major participants in the juvenile delinquency
court: judges, court staff, probation officers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys.

Working group members were selected both for their subject matter expertise and to

The AOC, in partnership with the California State Association of Counties, created the Probation
Services Task Force in 2000 to study California’s probation system. A copy of the final report is
available at http://www2.courtinfo.ca.gov/probation/report.htm.
4
The study quantifies the array of juvenile and adult probation services available across counties,
including information on how probation services are staffed and funded, and uses the task force
recommendations to identify gaps in services. The report is available at
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/PSTFSurvey2006.pdf.
5
This assessment is available at
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/CIPReassessmentRpt.pdf.
6
A roster of working group members is located on page viii.
Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

ensure representation from a cross-section of the state in terms of geographic location
and county size. The working group developed the study plan, guided the research, and
interpreted the findings. The committee is grateful for the time and commitment dedicated
by working group members in conducting this assessment.

B. REPORT OVERVIEW
This report is divided into two parts. Volume 1 contains the executive summary and a
comprehensive

final

report

that

brings

together

the

research

findings

with

recommendations. In this volume, chapter 1, the current chapter, provides an introduction
to the assessment and the report. Chapter 2 addresses the quality of court hearings and
other issues at the court case level. Chapter 3 discusses the availability and quality of
services and sanctions available to the court and probation. In chapter 4, managerial and
leadership issues central to the functioning of a well-run court are presented, including
court accountability, collaboration, and facilities. Chapter 5 describes the background of
the key professionals who work in the court system. That chapter also describes how
youth, parents, communities, judicial officers, and justice partners 7 view the juvenile
justice system. Chapter 6 summarizes the report and discusses possible next steps in
implementing the recommendations.
The final recommendations are presented in chapter 7, and they also appear at the end
of the chapter that they best match with. Some recommendations are supported by
preexisting AOC or outside research, as noted in the text. Other recommendations are in
alignment with existing recommended practices, in particular standard 5.40 of the
California Standards of Judicial Administration and the key principles of model juvenile
delinquency courts published in Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines: Improving Court
Practice in Juvenile Delinquency Cases.
Volume 2 contains briefing documents on the various research efforts that informed this
work. These documents focus on the methodology of the study; detailed results of the
judicial officer, prosecutor, defense attorney, and probation officer surveys and focus
groups; a review of juvenile court facilities; and focus groups with court users (youth,
parents, victims, and community members). These data sources served as the
foundation for the findings and recommendations contained in volume 1, and readers are
encouraged to consult these briefing documents for detailed tables and a more in-depth
discussion of the findings. In addition, volume 2 contains the survey instruments and
facilities checklist.

Justice partners refers to all professional groups who are involved in the juvenile delinquency
system. In this report, it often refers only to the justice partners whom we surveyed or interviewed.

Chapter 1: Introduction

C. UNIQUE NATURE OF JUVENILE COURT
Minors under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court as a consequence
of delinquent conduct shall, in conformity with the interests of public
safety and protection, receive care, treatment, and guidance that is
consistent with their best interest, that holds them accountable for
their behavior, and that is appropriate for their circumstances. This
guidance may include punishment that is consistent with the
rehabilitative objectives of this chapter. . . . When the minor is no
longer a ward of the juvenile court, the guidance he or she received
should enable him or her to be a law-abiding and productive member
of his or her family and the community. 8
Courts handling juvenile matters within the superior court system, related to either
dependency or delinquency, are unique in a variety of ways. Juvenile courts handle
cases involving those under age 18, either as alleged victims of abuse or neglect or as
alleged offenders, and proceedings are generally confidential. 9 Juvenile court is the only
division of the superior court that is statutorily required to have a presiding judge oversee
administrative matters. 10 Importantly, judges hearing juvenile matters are guided by
standard 5.40 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration. This standard asks
judges to sit in juvenile court for at least three years, both to allow them to gain expertise
in this ever-changing and complex area of the law and to strive for continuity as a child or
youth’s case proceeds through the system. Further, this standard encourages judges to
actively engage with the local community to ensure that the purpose of juvenile court is
met. Specifically, subsection (e) states that
Judges of the juvenile court, in consultation with the presiding judge of
the juvenile court and the presiding judge of the superior court, to the
extent that it does not interfere with the adjudication process, are
encouraged to
1. Provide active leadership within the community in
determining

the

needs

and

obtaining

and

developing resources and services for at-risk children
and families. At-risk children include delinquents,
dependents, and status offenders.

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 202(b). This statute sets forth the purpose of juvenile court.
Although most juvenile proceedings are confidential, Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 676 opens to the
public hearings concerning petitions related to specifically enumerated offenses (such as murder,
armed robbery, and kidnapping).
10
Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 246.
9

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

2. Investigate and determine the availability of specific
prevention, intervention, and treatment services in the
community for at-risk children and their families.
3. Exercise their authority by statute or rule to review,
order, and enforce the delivery of specific services
and treatment for at-risk children and their families.
4. Exercise a leadership role in the development and
maintenance of permanent programs of interagency
cooperation and coordination among the court and the
various public agencies that serve at-risk children and
their families.
5. Take

active

part

the

formation

communitywide network to promote and unify private
and public sector efforts to focus attention and
resources for at-risk children and their families.
6.

Maintain close liaison with school authorities and
encourage coordination of policies and programs.

7. Educate the community and its institutions through
every

available

means,

including

the

media,

concerning the role of the juvenile court in meeting the
complex needs of at-risk children and their families.
8.

Evaluate the criteria established by child protection
agencies for initial removal and reunification decisions
and communicate the court's expectations of what
constitutes "reasonable efforts" to prevent removal or
hasten return of the child.

Encourage the development of community services
and resources to assist homeless, truant, runaway,
and incorrigible children.

10. Be familiar with all detention facilities, placements,
and institutions used by the court.
11. Act in all instances consistent with the public safety
and welfare.

D. JUVENILE JUSTICE IN CALIFORNIA AND NATIONAL TRENDS
In order to understand California’s delinquency system, one must understand both the
statewide and national context in which this system operates. This section sets forth a
statistical overview of the system, along with current and national trends.

Chapter 1: Introduction

1. Statistical Overview
There were 232,849 juvenile arrests in 2006, or 5,168 per 100,000 youth ages 10–17. 11
Twenty-eight percent of arrest charges were felonies, 56 percent were misdemeanors,
and 16 percent were status offenses. 12 Girls comprised 26 percent of the juvenile
arrestee population in 2006. Fifty percent of arrestees were Hispanic, 27 percent were
white, 17 percent were black, and 6 percent were other racial and ethnic groups. Seventy
percent were ages 15–17, 28 percent were 12–14, and 2 percent were under 12.

Table 1. Arrests Per 100,000 Juveniles Ages 10-17,
1996 - 2006
8,000

7,000

6,000

Total
5,000

Misdemeanor
Felony

4,000

Status Offense
3,000

2,000

1,000

0
1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

In 1996, there were 7,234 juvenile arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10–17. That
population-adjusted arrest rate declined steadily over the decade and ultimately fell by
one-third by 2005 (to a rate of 4,869) before reversing itself in 2006. The felony arrest
rate declined more sharply over the decade, and its rise in 2006 was somewhat steeper
as well. Status offense arrest rates fluctuated slightly over the decade but did not exhibit
the same pattern as felony and misdemeanor arrest rate patterns, suggesting that policy
decisions, rather than juvenile actions only, affect that rate.
Eighty-nine percent of 2006 juvenile arrest were referred to the probation department (the
rest were counseled and released). About three-quarters of the arrests were new for
referrals and the rest were for subsequent referrals. 13 The probation department diverts

11
California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center. Crime in California, 2006;
available at http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/candd/cd06/preface.pdf (accessed Apr. 9, 2008).
12
Ibid. Status offenses were defined as truancy, incorrigibility, running away, and curfew violations.
13
California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center. Data from forthcoming
Juvenile Justice in California, 2006.

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

some cases and refers others to the district attorney’s office. Of the 232,849 arrests in
2006, 104,059 cases were filed with juvenile court. 14
In juvenile court, if a petition is found to be true, dispositions include having the youth
return home under some form of probation supervision; home detention; commitment to a
juvenile hall, camp, or other placement options; 15 or commitment to the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities. 16 In 2006,
721 youth 17 were committed to the Division of Juvenile Facilities. The institution’s overall
population of 2,962 in 2006 marks a steady decrease since 1997, for a total reduction of
two-thirds. 18
In 2006, 654 youth had their cases directly filed in (adult) criminal court. Another 374
youth underwent “fitness hearings” and 263 of those were found unfit to have their cases
heard in juvenile court and were remanded to criminal court. 19

2. Current Juvenile Justice Efforts, Nationally and in California
Recent events, nationally and in California, highlight the varied efforts to improve the
juvenile justice landscape.
In 2005 the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges released Juvenile
Delinquency Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Juvenile Delinquency Cases
(Delinquency Guidelines). 20 This publication is a comprehensive discussion of court
procedures and various policy issues and contains recommendations for courts around
the country to aspire toward. In fall 2005 it was released to the California courts, in

Delinquency court filings have seen a similar pattern to arrests, with the number decreasing from
1997 until 2003, then reversing to increase by 12 percent from 2003–2006. Status offense filings
followed a more volatile pattern, but they account for only about 1–3 percent of the juvenile filings
each year.
15
California Corrections Standards Authority. Juvenile Detention Profile Survey (4th Quarter,
2006). On an average day in 2006, 13,804 juveniles were in a secure local detention placement,
with 50 percent in juvenile halls, 32 percent in camps, and 18 percent in other placements.
16
Effective July 1, 2005, Senate Bill 737 (Romero; Stats. 2005, ch. 10) abolished the Youth and
Adult Correctional Agency, which consisted, in part, of the Department of Corrections and the
Department of the Youth Authority, and created the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
which consists, in part, of the Division of Juvenile Facilities, the Division of Juvenile Programs, and
the Division of Juvenile Parole. In this report, this entity is referred to as DJJ.
17
State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Juvenile Justice Division. First
Commitment Characteristics: Calendar Year 2006 (n.d.).
18
A Comparison of the Division of Juvenile Justice’s Institution and Parole Populations: June 30
Each Year, 1997–2006. (n.d.)
19
California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center. Data from forthcoming
Juvenile Justice in California, 2006.
20
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines:
Improving Court Practice in Juvenile Delinquency Cases (2005),
http://www.ncjfcj.org/content/view/411/411/ (accessed Apr. 9, 2008).

Chapter 1: Introduction

conjunction with a meeting that all juvenile court presiding judges were invited to attend
and a presentation at the annual Beyond the Bench conference. 21
In 2006, the American Prosecutors Research Institute, in collaboration with the National
Center for Juvenile Justice, published the results of a demonstration project designed to
show the value of measuring the performance of juvenile justice systems. The Guide to
Developing and Implementing Performance Measures for the Juvenile Justice System
highlights the results obtained by four jurisdictions that collected data across 10
performance measures. 22 The project has shown that it is possible and desirable to
measure the performance of juvenile justice systems and that doing so is important, not
only to report progress to justice partners and the broader community but also to evaluate
programs, inform funding decisions, and assist in resource allocation. As an example of
this reporting, the probation agency in one jurisdiction publishes an annual report in its
local newspaper identifying the percentage of restitution collected from and community
service hours completed by youth on probation. Many jurisdictions, including some in
California, have looked to this guide as a tool to help improve their local system. Several
of the findings and recommendations in this report address the desire by probation and
other justice partners to incorporate outcome measures and increased accountability to
the public into their systemic improvement efforts.
In addition, the last few years have seen marked changes in the structure of the statelevel youth correctional system. As part of the Farrell v. Hickman 23 lawsuit, in January
2005
The last few years have seen marked
changes in the structure of the statelevel youth correctional system.

the

state

entered

into

stipulated

agreement in which it agreed to remedy serious,
ongoing problems with conditions in juvenile
facilities operated by the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation (DJJ) that have been well documented in the media. The
consent decree requires DJJ to provide wards with adequate and effective care,
treatment, and rehabilitation services, including efforts aimed at reducing violence and
the use of force, improving medical and mental health care, reducing the use of
lockdown, and providing better education programs. On March 31, 2006, a team of
national experts released the first in a series of comprehensive reports describing the

Beyond the Bench is a conference addressing issues related to both juvenile delinquency and
dependency. Typical attendees include judicial officers, court administrators, attorneys, probation
officers, social workers, and other professionals and court-related volunteers.
22
American Prosecutors Research Institute, Guide to Developing and Implementing Performance
Measures for the Juvenile Justice System (2006); available at
http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/performance_measures_jj_system_06.pdf (accessed Apr. 9, 2008). Some
of those measures include process measures, such as youth participation in probation programs;
intermediate outcomes, such as restitution payment, recidivism, and meeting other terms of
probation; and long-term impacts, such as employment outcomes for youth and community crime
rates.
23
Farrell v. Hickman, no. RG 03079344 (Alameda County Sup. Ct., filed Jan. 16, 2003).
Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

problems in California’s DJJ facilities and portraying the system as both overly expensive
and ineffective. The report recommended various reforms, including a new management
structure, and urged the state to focus its efforts on reducing the level of violence in youth
facilities. 24
In 2007 Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 81 and Assembly Bill 191, a major
juvenile justice reform package that shifts nonviolent juvenile offenders out of secure
facilities operated by DJJ and into county facilities and programs. 25 Courts can now send
juveniles to DJJ facilities only if they have committed an offense listed in section 707(b) of
the California Welfare and Institutions Code (such as murder or robbery) or a specified
sex offense (such as forcible rape), and paroled youth who were sent to DJJ facilities for
something other than a section 707(b) offense or specified sex offense will return to the
community under the supervision of local probation rather than DJJ parole. Further, youth
currently in a DJJ facility who were committed for an offense other than a section 707(b)
offense or specified sex offense can be recalled by the committing court and returned to
a local program under probation supervision. This legislation will likely reduce the
population in DJJ facilities, leaving primarily offenders who committed serious offenses
and returning many difficult-to-manage youth with challenging issues to local officials for
treatment and supervision. Because of Board of Corrections money made available in the
late 1990s to build and remodel juvenile halls, some counties now have expanded or
newly built detention facilities with more bed space that can accommodate some of the
offenders who cannot be sent to DJJ and will remain under local jurisdiction.
As part of ongoing efforts to reform DJJ and examine youth corrections on a statewide
basis, DJJ conducted a study in collaboration with the University of Southern California
and the Chief Probation Officers of California. The project included a statewide survey of
probation departments to gather information about the juvenile populations they serve,
the risk and needs assessment tools being used around the state, and the continuum of
services and sanctions available at the local level. The goal of the undertaking was to
understand who is currently being served by the juvenile justice system, what services
and sanctions they are receiving locally, what gaps in services exist, what populations
cannot be served by local probation with current resources, and what the needs are of
the youth being committed to state facilities. The final report is being released in phases,
and relevant results and information from already published portions are included in this
report.

C. Murray, et al., Safety and Welfare Plan: Implementing Reform in California,(2006); available at
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/docs/DJJ_Safety_and_Welfare%20Plan.pdf (accessed Apr. 9, 2008).
25
See Assem. Bill 81 and Sen. Bill 191, which can be accessed at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov.
26
K. Hennigan, et al., Juvenile Justice Data Project, Phase I: Survey of Interventions and Programs
(2007); available at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/docs/JJDPSurveyFinalReport.pdf
(accessed Apr. 9, 2008 ).

Chapter 1: Introduction

At this time of great transition in California, when so much attention is focused on juvenile
justice, it is important to take advantage of the opportunity to make recommendations for
practical, significant, positive change. The Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee
was mindful of these efforts and considered state and national reports and materials as
appropriate while assessing California’s delinquency system. Together, the courts,
probation, and other juvenile justice partners can utilize all the various sources of
information and research to develop and improve the processes, practices, and
resources necessary to serve youth, families, and victims involved in the delinquency
system, as well as the larger community.

E. PROJECT OVERVIEW
The JDCA marks the first major assessment of California’s delinquency courts. The
ultimate goal of the project was to improve both the administration of justice and the lives
of youth, victims, and other community members affected by the delinquency system.
Areas of Inquiry

This report and its recommendations are the
culmination of nearly two years of research

Hearings and court processes
Court facilities
Court collaboration with justice
partners

Sanction and service options for
youth

Perspectives of court users
Education and training

focusing on California’s delinquency courts. The
assessment was designed to gather and provide
information

help

improve

the

juvenile

delinquency system by making recommendations
for

changes

laws

and

rules

court;

improvements in hearing management, judicial
oversight, court facilities, and other aspects of
court

operations;

caseload

changes;

and

Court accountability

improvements in court services for all court users.

Professional background and
experience

The areas of inquiry included hearings and other
court

processes;

court

facilities;

court

collaboration with justice system partners; sanction and service options for youth;
perspectives of involved parties and interested groups (youth, parents, victims,
community); education and training; court accountability; and professional background
and experience of judicial officers and court professionals.
The assessment collected data at both the statewide and local jurisdiction levels.
Statewide surveys were sent to all delinquency court judicial officers,

court

administrators, prosecutors, public defenders, alternate defenders, and contract panel

The term “judicial officers” refers to judges, commissioners, and referees.

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

attorneys 28 who were identified as working in juvenile delinquency courts, and to a
random 20 percent sample of juvenile probation officers. 29
At the local level, the study focused on six study counties. These study counties were Los
Angeles, Placer, Riverside, San Francisco, San Joaquin, and Siskiyou. Although
research in these specific jurisdictions provided more thorough and nuanced information
than the statewide surveys, the unique and diverse nature of the counties and of
delinquency court itself means that individual county-level findings cannot be generalized
to other California jurisdictions. However, these counties represent a mix of small,
medium, and large; north, central, and south; and urban, suburban, and rural, as well as
counties with diverse populations, ones experiencing rapid growth, and ones with
relatively stable population sizes. Within these study counties, more in-depth interviews
and focus groups were conducted with judges, court staff, prosecutors, defense
attorneys, probation officers, youth on probation, parents of youth, victims of juvenile
crime, and diverse groups of community members. 30
One of the first efforts was an examination of caseflow practices. This effort, which began
in 2006, was modeled after the successful Criminal and Family Caseflow Management
projects. The Delinquency Court Caseflow Management project compiled a manual of
effective caseflow practices and workshops on court caseflow management. The manual
served as the curriculum for the workshops as well as a resource for all courts. Part of its
content was gathered from a survey that was sent to all 58 courts. Twenty-eight courts
provided detailed information about how they manage caseflow, with an emphasis on
describing practices that have been especially effective in their courts. Forty-seven courts
responded to the second half of the survey, a series of multiple-choice questions that
describe a variety of court features, such as services ( interpreters, for example), access
to information (via, for example, case management systems), facilities, and calendar
structure. The caseflow workshops presented court teams consisting of judicial officers,
court staff, probation officers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys from all over the state
with the opportunity to learn from one another and evaluate their own processes for
managing delinquency cases and court calendars.
The goal of the project was to provide the participants from each county with an
opportunity to develop an action plan to take back to their county to help improve their
juvenile delinquency caseflow management. To assist with this effort, the workshops

Attorneys working in public defenders’ offices and alternate public defenders’ offices are salaried
county employees. Contract panel attorneys are either salaried employees of law offices that have
contracts with the county to provide these services or are solo practitioners with contracts.
29
A few counties did not submit a list of defense attorneys or juvenile probation officers.
30
Although multiple focus groups were conducted with each group, within each study county only a
select number of focus groups were conducted.

Chapter 1: Introduction

aimed to provide participants with an understanding of the principles of caseflow
management and a knowledge of practices being used in counties of various sizes, as
well as to offer an opportunity for participants performing the same role (judges,
prosecutors, defenders, probation officers, and court staff) a forum to discuss common
problems and identify areas in need of improvement. The caseflow project uncovered
many promising practices for managing court cases and calendars that are contained
throughout this report as well as in the final report, titled Developing Effective Practices in
Juvenile Delinquency Caseflow Management. 31

F. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
Certain beliefs about the juvenile justice system served as the foundation for this project
and its recommendations. These fundamental principles serve as core considerations for
an effective system that meets the varied purposes of the juvenile court. Key was the
belief that the juvenile court presiding judge must work with justice partners to ensure that
the following fundamental principles are achieved:
1. The delinquency system must adhere to practices and procedures that comply
with the law.
2. The delinquency system must be adequately staffed by judicial officers,
attorneys, probation officers, court staff, and other professionals who have the
tenure, dedication, education, training, and resources necessary to meet the
needs of court users and the public.
3. The delinquency system must recognize that juvenile offenders are different from
adult offenders and, while ensuring due process and accountability, must also
address the developmental and social factors that contribute to delinquent
behavior.
4. The delinquency system must recognize and respect the rights and role of
victims.
5. The delinquency system must encourage and value community involvement.
6. The delinquency system must improve its effectiveness and accountability by
adopting a practice of continual self-improvement that relies on goals, outcomes,
measures, and reporting.

Greacen Associates, LLC, Developing Effective Practices in Juvenile Delinquency Caseflow
Management (2006); available at
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/Delinq/DevelopingEffective--JDCM.pdf.

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

CHAPTER 2
Court Hearings
A. INTRODUCTION
This chapter focuses on the essential components of courtroom proceedings.
Indispensable to the fair and appropriate treatment of juvenile delinquency matters are
court hearings that are informed by timely, complete, and high-quality probation and
assessment reports; are strengthened by knowledgeable and zealous legal advocates;
take into account the perspectives of youth, families, and victims; and have sufficient time
and staff to allow judicial officers to make informed and effective findings and orders. The
data in this chapter come primarily from the survey of judicial officers, with some
additional information from focus groups with justice partners and court users.

B. HEARING MANAGEMENT
Hearing continuances and delays can pose problems for the court and court users. They
can cause cases to exceed statutory timelines; lead to unnecessary detention; delay
accountability, rehabilitation, and victim restoration; waste resources such as the time of
paid professionals; and cause youth, parents, and victims to forgo other obligations, such
as school and work, while they wait in court, often for one-half or full days. Delays have
the advantage, however, of allowing late-arriving information to be considered and
enabling required parties to appear in court, thus ensuring that court hearings and orders
are based upon full information and that cases are processed fairly. No empirical
guidance exists for determining when the number of hearing delays becomes excessive,
and assessing whether delays are warranted is a difficult exercise. There is a sense that
too many delays may signify justice denied and too few may signify due process denied,
but there is no precision to those values that can easily guide an assessment.
The survey data suggest that a minority of judicial officers and attorneys consider hearing
delays to be a major problem in the courtroom, although only about one-half of judicial
officers reported that they routinely get through their delinquency calendar to their
satisfaction. Attorneys concurred, in closed-ended survey questions, that hearing delays
are not a major problem in the courts. In focus groups and open-ended survey questions,
however, it became clear that delays, continuances, and simply long waits are
problematic for attorneys, probation officers, and court users.
Among justice partners, prosecutors expressed the most dissatisfaction with hearing
delays. Prosecutors are generally dissatisfied with the number of hours they wait for court
hearings in a day and with the number of hearing continuances. When asked to list the

Chapter 2: Court Hearings

top three ways in which the juvenile delinquency court could help the district attorney’s
office be more effective, a number of respondents commented that they would like the
court to ensure that hearings start on time. Prosecutors also stated that the court should
be more cognizant of the amount of wait time and the number of repeat trips to the
courthouse experienced by victims and witnesses. Defense attorneys were less likely to
indicate that hearing delays are a problem, although they are somewhat dissatisfied with
the number of hours spent waiting for court hearings. Most judicial officers think hearing
delays, per se, are either not a problem or are only a minor problem; however, there is
often not enough time to get through a day’s calendar. Probation officers are split in their
feelings about continuances and other hearing delays. Forty-five percent think that delays
and continuances are not particularly problematic; a similar percentage thinks they are a
moderate or major problem.
There are similarities and differences in how judicial officers and justice partners evaluate
the reasons for hearing continuances. All agree that delays in receiving information about
the youth or case are the primary reason for delay. When asked to choose from a list the
top reasons for continuances in uncontested hearings, judicial officers most frequently
reported, in descending order, that the attorney is not ready; that other reports, persons,
or information is not available; that the youth is not present at the hearing; and that
probation reports are not available or filed in a timely way. The reason cited most
frequently by prosecutors was that the defense attorney is not ready, followed by reports
and other information not being available, other persons or information not being
available, and the youth not being present in court. Defense attorneys reported that the
most frequent causes of hearing delays and continuances are, in descending order,
probation reports not being available, evaluation reports not being available, and other
reports or information not being available. Given these responses, it is possible that a
failure to receive reports on time may affect judicial officers’ and prosecutors’ perceptions
of defense attorney readiness. Responses to open-ended questions on the surveys
tended to indicate that prosecutors are the most disturbed by continuances, which are
often granted at the request of defense counsel.
These survey data and the difficulty of appraising delays and continuance at the
statewide level suggest that local courts should monitor trends in the frequency of, and
stated reasons for, hearing delays and should monitor both how expeditiously hearings
are completed and whether either efficiency or fairness is compromised by resource
limitations. Judicial officers should also grant continuances only when good cause exists
to do so.

As will be explained later in this chapter and elaborated upon in chapter 5,

courts also need to consider how they communicate with court users about hearing

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 682.

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

continuances and delays, since court users often view continuances and poorly explained
reasons for delays as a significant affront.

C. QUALITY OF LEGAL WORK
Because attorney advocacy is such an important component of fairness and justice,
judicial officers were asked to assess it in their surveys. Attorneys reported on some
circumstances that make providing high-quality attorney representation a challenge.

1. General Legal Work
Judicial officers rated their satisfaction with attorney performance on a large number of
activities. Overall, judicial officers are satisfied with the performance of prosecutors and
defense attorneys, and they do not consistently appraise one type of attorney more highly
than another. At least 70 percent were satisfied with attorneys’ pre- and postdispositional
advocacy, appearance for scheduled hearings, knowledge of the facts of the case, and
knowledge of the law. Among the activities that received lower satisfaction ratings, two
are worth special mention: Judicial officers are relatively less satisfied with attorneys’
knowledge about community resources and with the frequency with which defense
attorneys visit with the youth.
Certain constraints make the work of attorneys difficult and could compromise the quality
of their work. Although the assessment did not aim to enumerate all such constraints, it
did ask attorneys some questions about challenges to the efficient processing of cases. 33
The findings suggest that the working conditions are important to attorneys, as their most
frequent responses involved time, space, and caseload. When asked to list the top
measures the court could take to improve their working lives, many defense attorneys
cited the need to reduce large caseloads. Juvenile prosecutors are dissatisfied with the
number of hearing continuances and the number of hours they wait in court every day for
court hearings to commence. About one-third are dissatisfied with the timeliness with
which cases are referred by probation and with the amount of time they have to prepare
cases. In contrast, relatively few defense attorneys are dissatisfied with the number of
hearing continuances; they do, however, share prosecutors’ dissatisfaction with wait
times in court. One-third of defense attorneys are dissatisfied with the timeliness with
which they receive reviews and reports from probation. One-third are also dissatisfied
with the adequacy of meeting rooms available for meeting with clients.

33
The attorney surveys did ask respondents to list ways in which the juvenile court could help them
do a better job. However, most respondents chose to focus their answers on what the courts could
do to improve the juvenile justice system in general.

Chapter 2: Court Hearings

2. Postdispositional Defense Attorney Representation
The JDCA gathered data about issues involving postdispositional representation by
defense attorneys, to determine how rule 5.663 is affecting postdispositional activities.
Effective July 1, 2004, rule 5.663 clarified existing rules governing the responsibilities of
delinquency defense attorneys, including during a case’s postdispositional period. 34
These responsibilities include defending against allegations in all petitions filed in
delinquency proceedings; representing youth at every stage of the proceedings; and
advocating during hearings and after disposition that youth receive care, treatment, and
guidance consistent with his or her best interest. Because the Family and Juvenile Law
Advisory Committee was interested in whether this rule encourages increased
postdispositional attorney representation, the assessment gathered data about these
issues via the judicial officer survey, defense attorney survey, interviews with juvenile
court presiding judges, and defense attorney focus groups. The aggregate data are
somewhat inconsistent, suggesting that there are issues that affect only some
jurisdictions or only some attorneys’ offices.
Judicial officers expressed moderate satisfaction with the work of attorneys and probation
officers during the postdispositional period. More than one-half are satisfied with the
postdispositional review hearing process for nonplacement youth and with probation
review reports. Fewer are satisfied with defense attorney visits and their requests to
modify probation terms during the postdispositional period.
Defense attorneys were asked how frequently they engage in various postdispositional
activities. A majority indicated that they always or often appear at review hearings and
represent clients at violation of probation hearings. A majority also reported that they
represent clients on new petitions.

Although nearly all attorneys reported that they

provide clients with their contact information, only about one-half reported frequently
maintaining client contact, and about one-fourth said that they frequently visit clients.
Contract attorneys who work in juvenile delinquency half time or more reported similar
levels of postdispositional activity, while those with more limited delinquency caseloads
reported less frequent postdispositional activity. 36
34

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.663, Responsibilities of Children’s Counsel in Delinquency
Proceedings. Also see “Effective Representation of Children in Juvenile Delinquency Court,” a
publication of the AOC and State Bar of California, at
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/EffRepChildrenBro.pdf.
35
This practice seems to occur in an effort to ensure continuity of representation once an attorney
has established a relationship with a client. But continued representation occurs only on a voluntary
basis, as a minor’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel is “offense specific” and applies only to the
offense to which the right has attached, unless a new charge or offense is “inextricably intertwined”
or “closely related” to the matter in which the right to counsel has attached. (In re Robert E. (2000)
77 Cal.App.4th 557, 561.)
36
For the purpose of comparisons in this report, the term “contract attorney” is used to describe
contract or panel conflict defenders only, and does not include attorneys who contract as the

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

The defense attorney survey also asked respondents to indicate, by choosing from a list,
what obstacles prevented them from performing more extensive postdispositional
representation. The most frequently reported obstacles were lack of time for follow-up,
lack of funding for the postdispositional period, and lack of other resources. Attorneys
added that they lose contact with clients when they change residences and telephone
numbers.
Among the defense attorney survey respondents who have been practicing in the juvenile
delinquency court since before the adoption of rule 5.663, approximately one-quarter
indicated that they do more postdispositional work now than they did before the rule was
adopted. Public defenders were twice as likely as contract attorneys to report that their
postdispositional work has increased since the rule’s passage (41 percent versus 19
percent). There is no baseline information regarding how many attorneys have needed to
increase their postdispositional representation, so it is difficult to evaluate this finding.
Several illustrations from the assessment’s interview and focus group data show that
there has been a widely varied response to this rule. One public defender’s office has
hired social workers to follow up with youth, families, and service providers
postdispositionally and stated that it is now doing enhanced postdispositional
representation as well as filling in gaps in probation’s responsibilities. One contract
attorney from another office had not heard of rule 5.663 but, based on his description of
his postdispositional representation, it seems to fully conform to the rule. Finally, a public
defender said that her office is unsure of how to respond to the expectation of enhanced
postdispositional representation, from both a substantive perspective and a financial one.
Some attorneys are unclear about the circumstances under which they should follow-up
with youth (wondering, for example, whether they should randomly check in with youth
about their welfare, their legal needs, and whether the terms of probation are effective)
and about which youth to attend to (for example, do they follow-up equally with youth who
are home on probation, received deferred entry of judgment, and are at DJJ?). In courts
where defense attorneys are having difficulty responding to rule 5.663, juvenile court
presiding judges should consider outlining their expectations. Knowing the scope of the
court’s expectations would allow defense attorneys’ offices to evaluate their capacity and
resource needs.

county’s public defender’s office. Alternate public defenders and contract public defenders were not
included in defense attorney comparison analyses, due to the low numbers of attorneys in these
categories.

Chapter 2: Court Hearings

D. QUALITY OF PROBATION REPORTS
Judicial officers make court findings and orders after considering an array of information
on a case, primarily from probation and attorneys, but also from youth, parents, victims,
witnesses, service providers, and others. Judicial officers were asked about their
satisfaction with the information contained in detention and jurisdiction/disposition reports
from probation. They are generally satisfied with the quality of information they receive
from probation, with some exceptions.
Judicial officers are generally more satisfied with the quality of information that is
relatively easy for probation to obtain by the time of the hearing. For example, threequarters of the respondents are satisfied with the information in the detention reports
regarding prior delinquency record, and a slightly lower number are satisfied with
information about alcohol and drug use and parents’ feelings about a youth’s detention.
Judicial officers expressed less satisfaction with the quality of information in these reports
regarding school life and adjustment and home life. By the time of the disposition,
however, more are satisfied with the quality of information about school, home, drug use,
and alcohol use. Dissatisfaction levels are very high regarding the quality of information
at disposition about mental health assessments, individualized education programs
(IEPs), and special needs.
Probation officers were asked about the challenges involved in writing reports or reviews
in the time they are allotted. Among those who write reports or reviews, the most
Top Challenges for Completing
Probation Reports and Reviews in the
Time Allotted

Cannot interview parents
Too much time away from other
responsibilities

Cannot obtain school information
Cannot obtain mental health
information

Cannot interview youth

frequently cited work-related challenges to writing
them in the time allotted were that they cannot
interview parents, that report writing takes too
much time away from their other responsibilities,
and that they cannot obtain information from
schools. Each of these reasons was cited by
about one-half of respondents. One-third cited an
inability to obtain information from mental health
providers or an inability to interview youth as
impediments to timely completion of reviews and
reports. Probation officers and presiding judges of

the juvenile court also commented in focus groups and interviews on the challenges
associated with getting information about youth from schools and mental health agencies.
After youth have received their disposition, the court monitors the progress of those who
have been placed under probation supervision.

Although mandated areas of judicial

Examples include informal probation, probation without wardship, deferred entry of judgment,
and formal wardship.

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

oversight regarding these youth are fairly limited, the judicial officers were asked in the
survey about the quality of information they receive in a broad range of areas, including
general welfare, services received, and progress toward meeting the terms of their
probation. It is probation’s responsibility to provide information about these areas, but
they, in turn, must rely on reports from detention facilities when youth have been sent to
local institutions, and from service providers when youth are home on probation or in outof-home placement. (When youth are sent to DJJ facilities, the facilities’ staff are required
to communicate with the court directly via annual reports. 38 ) Data from the judicial
officers’ survey show that the quality of postdispositional information depends more on
the source of information than on the type of information. Satisfaction is highest with
information about youth who are in foster or group homes, followed by information about
those who are home on probation, in camps and ranches, and finally, in state facilities.
For youth who are home on probation, satisfaction is relatively high with information
regarding their progress in performing community service, paying restitution and fines,
and meeting other terms of their probation. Judicial officers are less satisfied with
information about the youth’s general welfare and the provision and effectiveness of
services. Dissatisfaction is yet higher with the quality of information received
postdispositionally regarding mental health, IEPs, and the special needs of youth who are
home on probation.

E. QUALITY OF OTHER INFORMATION
The quality of information that courts receive is of particular importance when the youth's
family situation presents crossover needs. Equally important is considering whether the
youth is at risk of entering the foster care system.

1. Reports and Recommendations Regarding Crossover Youth
Judicial officers were asked about their satisfaction with various processes involved in
determining how best to respond to youth who have come to the attention of both the
dependency and the delinquency courts. 39 Sixty-two percent are satisfied with the
frequency with which probation and child welfare agree on a recommendation about how
to treat these cases. (In most courts, this means agreeing on which court should take
jurisdiction.)

About

two-thirds

are

satisfied

with

the

appropriateness

the

recommendations, given the offense and the offender’s strengths and challenges.
However, only about one-half are satisfied with information sharing between these
agencies, and less than one-half are satisfied with the information presented to them
when the two agencies’ viewpoints diverge.

38
39

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 1720(e), (f).
Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 241.1.

Chapter 2: Court Hearings

The survey of judicial officers asked respondents what considerations, apart from public
safety and best interest, they used in deciding whether to move a youth from one part of
juvenile court to the other. The two concerns cited most frequently by delinquency judicial
officers were that services are not as extensive in juvenile delinquency as they are in
juvenile dependency (55 percent reported this as a consideration) and that youth can
lose their ability to return to a particular placement after a delinquency adjudication (cited
by 42 percent). Although it was not an option offered in the survey item, several
respondents wrote in that services for juvenile dependents are less extensive in their
counties than are services for juvenile delinquents.

2. Judicial Oversight of Title IV-E Activities
Federal law protects the interests of youth who are both in the delinquency system and in
foster care or at risk of being placed in foster care. Under title IV-E of the Social Security
Act and the California statutes implementing the federal law, the state is required to
provide the same types of services to these youth, as well as their parents, as it does for
the children and their families in the dependency system. The underlying purpose of the
court review system is to ensure the fulfillment of the original goals of the federal
legislation, namely child safety, reunification when feasible, and permanency—a stable
home for the child to grow and develop into a happy and productive adult. The court's
findings and orders are viewed as "important safeguards(s) against inappropriate agency
action" and are to be more than a "mere pro forma exercise in paper shuffling to obtain
Federal funding." 40
Probation reports should describe the activities being undertaken related to federal and
state legal requirements for these youth and their families. The affirmative judicial
findings and orders required to support title IV-E eligibility cannot be made if the evidence
presented to the court is insufficient. The judge needs time to read and evaluate the
probation officer’s report prepared for each hearing and needs time during the hearing to
discuss the contents of the report with the parties. Each report prepared by the probation
officer must contain factual information to support the recommended findings and orders
so that the court can carry out its responsibility.
Respondents to the judicial officers’ survey indicated how often they believe probation is
undertaking a number of title IV-E activities. Many judicial officers (averaging one-fourth
across the questions) reported that they do not know whether probation officers are
involving youth in case planning, trying to locate relatives, helping youth make adult
connections, securing Independent Living Program (ILP) services, or notifying tribes
when a youth’s Indian status is in question. Among those who were aware of probation’s
efforts regarding these mandated activities, a minority think that many of these activities
40

Sen. Report 336, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. (1980).

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

are nearly always happening for foster youth and those at risk of entering foster care.
Judicial officers are largely making the findings and orders required in these cases, but
they may need more time to consider probation reports and make inquiries about their
content.

F. PROBATION OFFICERS’ AND ATTORNEYS’ PERSPECTIVES ON THE
COURTROOM ENVIRONMENT
Although probation officers reported in surveys that they generally have good
relationships with the courts, the public defender’s office, and the district attorney’s office,
they are dissatisfied with how they are treated by the court and by attorneys. A large
majority of probation officers are dissatisfied with the weight the court gives to probation’s
recommendations and with how they are treated in court. Similarly, about 70 percent of
probation officers feel dissatisfied with how they are treated by prosecutors when in court,
although nearly as many reported having a good relationship with the district attorney’s
office. Although probation officers’ satisfaction with prosecutors is higher than it is with
defense attorneys, the pattern there is similar: the majority report having good working
relationships with defense counsel yet are dissatisfied with how these attorneys treat
them in court.
The disjuncture between reporting good relationships in general and poor experiences
when in court may be explained by the fact that in most jurisdictions probation officers
(with the exception of court officers) appear in court only when there is a dispute. In
contrast, judicial officers, prosecutors, and defense counsel work in the courtroom every
day. It is reasonable to surmise, therefore, that probation officers are dissatisfied with
how they are treated when issues are being contested.
In addition, probation officers depend on judicial officers and attorneys in important ways,
which can lead to dissatisfaction when their actions create challenges for probation’s
work. Foremost among these is probation officers’
reliance on the threat of judicial responses to a
youth’s actions as one way to encourage good
behavior. When judicial officers do not follow
through

decisions

threats,

probation officers feel acutely that they lose

“When we’re out there supervising
and we say, ‘Remember the judge
said if you don’t go to school this is
what’s going to happen’ and then
[nothing happens], they’re like, ‘See,
my PO don’t know what she’s talking
about.’”
–Probation officer

leverage, as well as credibility, with the youth.
One probation officer explained the youth’s thinking process in this way: “When we’re out
there supervising and we say, ‘Remember the judge said if you don’t go to school this is
what’s going to happen’ and then [nothing happens], they’re like, ‘See, my PO don’t know
what she’s talking about.’”

Chapter 2: Court Hearings

According to the survey results, both prosecutors and defense attorneys feel that they
have a good relationship with the court, with probation, and with each other. In general,
they do not experience tension in their relationship in general or in their relationship in the
courtroom. Of course, these statistical averages mask variations at the county level and
even the courtroom level. Focus group discussions underscored that courtroom
environments do vary in terms of camaraderie, respect, contentiousness, and juvenile
justice philosophy.

G. CASE-LEVEL COMMUNICATION WITH YOUTH, PARENTS, AND VICTIMS
The need to improve communication between professionals (judicial officers, court staff,
probation, and attorneys) and nonprofessionals (youth, parents, victims, and community
members) is an important finding in this report, as it relates to court accountability and
accessibility, attitudes toward the juvenile justice system, and youth’s perceptions of their
“The numbers confuse me; it’s like
they have their own language or
something.”
–Youth

probation. Some of the findings are consistent
with

the

AOC’s

recent

Public

Trust

and

Confidence study, which shows a lower level of
trust and confidence in high-volume courts. 41

These issues are explored in depth in chapter 5. This section briefly introduces some
findings from the focus groups with youth, parents, and victims regarding court hearings.

•

Most youth who spoke about the courtroom experience said that they rarely
understood what was being said. As one youth put it, “The numbers confuse me;
it’s like they have their own language or something.”

•

Youth reported not being adequately prepared before the court hearing and
feeling discouraged from participating in court, both by the courtroom
environment and sometimes explicitly by their attorney.

•

Parents reported that they did not understand much of what was happening in
court, and they were too intimidated to ask questions or offer insight to the
judicial officer.

•

Victims in focus groups reported feeling excluded from the court process as well.
They reported that court staff sometimes incorrectly interpreted the laws
protecting a youth’s privacy and withheld information to which the victims are
legally entitled. 42 Other times, they received written notice of a hearing but no
communication when the hearing date had been changed.

41
Admin. Office of the Courts, Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase I and II (2006);
available at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/4_37pubtrust.htm.
42
See Cal. Penal Code § 679.02 and Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 656.2 and 676.5.

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

Several structural, environmental, and social factors can inhibit effective communication
with youth, parents, and victims. Large attorney caseloads and inadequate court facilities
can compromise the effectiveness of client-attorney conferences in the courthouse. The
use of technical language in court by attorneys and judicial officers, which may be
expeditious in a rushed courtroom, is often not comprehensible to court users. Defense
attorneys must carry out their professional obligation to represent the best interest of the
youth regardless of the wishes of the parents, but in the process may sometimes appear
not to value the participation of parents. Packed hearing calendars can be incompatible
with helping youth, parents, and victims overcome their intimidation and make reasonable
inquiries in court that not only would ensure that the best findings and orders are made
but also would help augment the understanding of the various parties in court. To protect
the legitimacy of the court in the eyes of youth, victims, and the community, it is important
that courts consider examining processes that may create problems for court users.

H. CASE-LEVEL COLLABORATION
At the case level, collaboration in a delinquency matter can take several forms: the
prosecutor and defense attorney negotiating a plea deal, agreed to by the court, that
permits a youth to participate in drug court following his admission to an amended
petition; a youth, with the agreement of the probation officer and community prosecutor,
performing yard work to repay the victim of an auto burglary for the cost of repairing his
car window; a prosecutor agreeing to withdraw a motion for fitness after the defense
attorney locates an appropriate juvenile rehabilitation facility in which to place his client.
Although these are diverse examples of collaboration, each illustrates the need for
people or agencies with sometimes disparate interests to work together for the purpose
of appropriately meeting the needs of the offender, victim, and community. At what point
in the life of a delinquency case this collaboration should occur is the subject of some
debate.
When considering the appropriateness of broadly applying collaborative principles or
when contemplating referring a case to a collaborative court, 43 both prosecutors and
defense attorneys often express a need to retain the adversarial process, particularly at
the jurisdictional phase. Defense counsel have a responsibility to zealously defend their
clients and protect their due process rights, and that duty will sometimes preclude them
from collaborating fully or allowing a client to speak to the judge in open court or to
probation prior to jurisdiction being established. However, once jurisdiction over a youth
has been established, collaboration among the court, probation, and the attorneys in
determining the most appropriate disposition can be beneficial for all parties.

Collaborative courts are discussed in Chapter 3.

Chapter 2: Court Hearings

I. OTHER ISSUES
The juvenile justice system is also confronted by a myriad of specific considerations. This
section discusses several of them: the need for interpreters, issues related to Indian
children, restitution collection, and appropriate record sealing.

1. Interpreters
Youth in delinquency court have the constitutional right to an interpreter. 44 Forty-five out
of 47 respondents (96 percent) to the survey of court administrators reported that their
court provides youth with an interpreter always or nearly always. Although not required by
Top Six Languages Needing Court
Interpreters in Juvenile Delinquency
Court

law to do so, 42 courts (89 percent) reported

Spanish

quarters of courts reported providing interpreters

Hmong

to witnesses, and two-thirds reported providing

Vietnamese
American Sign Language
Mixteco
Tagalog

providing an interpreter to parents always or
nearly always. In addition, approximately three-

interpreters to victims always or nearly always.
According to the court administrator survey, the
most common language needing interpreter
service in juvenile delinquency court is Spanish,
and nearly three-quarters of courts are able to

provide an interpreter the same day the service is requested. Only one court indicated
that it could take more than a week to find a Spanish interpreter. According to survey
respondents, the need for a Spanish interpreter rarely causes hearings to be postponed.
Following Spanish, the top five languages needing interpreters are Hmong, Vietnamese,
American Sign Language, Mixteco, and Tagalog. Approximately a third of courts
indicated that it takes one to three days to find an interpreter for these languages, and
about 20 percent reported being able to find an interpreter the same day for these
languages.

2. Indian Child Welfare Act
Historically, courts in California have tended not to apply the provisions of the Indian
Child Welfare Act (ICWA) in delinquency matters. 45 During the course of the assessment,
on January 1, 2007, Senate Bill 678 (Stats. 2006, ch. 838) became effective, followed by
new Judicial Council rules and forms implementing SB 678 on January 1, 2008. SB 678
made changes to a number of provisions of the California Welfare and Institutions Code
governing delinquency proceedings and clarified the responsibility of probation
departments and the courts in delinquency matters involving Indian children. This
legislation was passed too recently to be studied in the assessment. The forthcoming
44
A person unable to understand English who is charged with a crime has a right to an interpreter
throughout the proceedings. Cal. Const., art. I, § 14.
45
Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C., ch. 21, title 25.

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

findings and recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster
Care concerning the application of ICWA in dependency matters may be useful to
juvenile delinquency courts as they consider the bill’s content. In addition, the AOC’s
Indian Child Welfare Initiative, part of the Judicial Review and Technical Assistance
program, has developed training programs, resources, and tools to improve compliance
with the ICWA and cooperation between tribes and other agencies.

3. Restitution
Courts should consider examining their restitution processes in light of consistent findings
in the assessment that there are problems with the collection of restitution. 46 In the
surveys of judicial officers and probation officers, relatively few reported that they are
satisfied with restitution collection in their jurisdictions. Judicial officers reported low levels
of satisfaction with youth’s payment of restitution in each of the supervision settings
(informal probation, home, camps, placement, and DJJ), with a satisfaction rate that
never exceeded 46 percent. Probation’s dissatisfaction is interesting since they are
responsible for many aspects of setting and collecting restitution. One-third of the
probation officers surveyed are dissatisfied with restitution collection. Further, of the
probation officers who reported working with
victims, almost one-third indicated that they do
not explain the process of restitution collection to

“A lot of times the victims are put in
the backseat to the kid.”
—Probation officer

victims. In focus groups, probation officers acknowledged that victims are not treated well
by the juvenile justice system and, as one officer put it, “A lot of times the victims are put
in the backseat to the kid.” As will be discussed at greater length later in this report,
victims who participated in focus groups were virtually unanimous in their belief that the
system is doing a poor job of fulfilling its obligations to them to collect restitution.
Courts may have any number of problems with setting and collecting restitution.
Sometimes judicial officers proceed to the disposition hearing without knowing the exact
amount of restitution being requested by the victim and order restitution to be set in an
amount to be determined by the probation department. This is sometimes necessary
because of delays in probation’s communicating with victims or probation’s inability to
collect the information necessary to recommend a restitution amount in court. But courts
then need to monitor whether probation formally requests that the court order and set
restitution. Once restitution is set, collecting it can be challenging. Probation officers
seem to feel discouraged by their limited success in collecting much restitution. Victims,
in turn, reported feeling that unless they are exceptionally persistent, their interest in
receiving restitution is neglected, or even discouraged, by probation officers who pass the
responsibility on to their colleagues or the collections division. When cases are dismissed
46

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 730.7 provides authority for the court to order a minor to pay restitution
to a victim; his or her parents are rebuttably presumed to be jointly and severally liable.

Chapter 2: Court Hearings

without full payment of restitution, it falls to the victims to become acquainted with
methods of collecting restitution through civil court, a task that they think is an
unjustifiably burdensome.
Judicial officers have the discretion to dismiss a juvenile delinquency court case before
the court has collected restitution (because civil court enforcement is available). It is not
known how common such dismissals are. During focus groups with probation officers,
attorneys, and victims, and in interviews with some study county judicial officers, some
expressed the opinion that the system should do more to ensure that victims are fully
compensated.
In addition to the negative consequences victims suffer when restitution is not collected,
youth (and their jointly and severally liable parents) who do not fulfill their obligation to
pay restitution may also be negatively affected. Because restitution orders can be
enforced as civil judgments, 47 failing to enforce orders for the collection of restitution can
result in youth being dismissed from probation but suffering the collateral consequences
of outstanding civil judgments and wage garnishments long after their probation has been
dismissed.

4. Record Sealing
Legislative changes in the last five years have limited the circumstances under which
juveniles may have their records sealed. For those who are eligible, it is a very important
step to take to ensure that past criminality remains confidential. The procedures for
Even if courts and justice partners
explain record sealing at the time of
disposition, youth may not recall this
information at the time of case
dismissal, which is the first
opportunity that they have to petition
to seal a record.

sealing a record vary by county. In survey data in
which defense attorneys and probation officers
selected which types of information are conveyed
well to the youth, few respondents chose recordsealing information. Even if courts and justice
partners explain record sealing at the time of

disposition, youth may not recall this information at the time of case dismissal, which is
the first opportunity they have to petition to seal a record.

J. CONCLUSION
As described in chapter 1 and elsewhere in this report, the court has many important
roles in the juvenile justice system, but its central role is to conduct court hearings. These
hearings should be managed properly and the court given the resources and support that
are required for hearings to be informative, productive, and meaningful.

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 730.7 and Cal. Penal Code § 1214. .

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

The data in this chapter suggest that attorneys and probation officers are fulfilling their
obligations to the court and to their clients in court, and that court hearings benefit from
their advocacy and reporting. Judicial officers are relatively less satisfied with the quality
and availability of some types of information and attorney work, however. Local court
administrators and.judicial officers may wish to review in some detail areas where they
believe there are gaps in information or in advocacy and then work with their justice
partners to improve these shortcomings. Judicial officers may also wish to review
whether they have the time to make the proper judicial inquiries that help ensure that
cases are processed fairly and that the court is monitoring the various factors it needs to
consider, such as the provision and effectiveness of court-ordered services and
sanctions.
Courts may also want to consider examining their hearing management, caseload, and
workload for managerial and resource issues that negatively affect the fair and
expeditious processing of cases on the one hand, and the treatment of court users,
probation, and attorneys on the other. Findings in this chapter suggest that wait time for
hearings and hearing delays and, to a lesser extent, hearing continuances, are
problematic for attorneys, probation officers, and court users. Youth and parents reported
feeling rushed and excluded in court hearings and often received the impression that
nobody had the time to explain court events to them. Victims should be welcome
participants in the court system. The data suggest, however, that victims do not always
receive notification of court hearings or hearing delays, and that they are not always
given the opportunity to exercise their right to address the court, seek restitution, and
receive updates about restitution collection.

K. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Courts should protect the rights and interests of youth, parents, victims, and the
community.
2. Judicial officers should ensure the welfare of youth by inquiring about their
health, safety, and education; the effectiveness of court-ordered services,
restitution, and community service; and other matters regarding their general
welfare and the terms of their probation.
3. Judicial officers should ensure that hearings are completed within statutory
deadlines, granting continuances only for good cause while recognizing that
continuances may be necessary to protect the right to due process and the
opportunity to fully defend against the allegations in a petition.

Chapter 2: Court Hearings

4. Judicial officers, court staff, attorneys, and probation officers should monitor their
practices and procedures to ensure that they meet statutory requirements
regarding confidentiality and open public hearings.
5. Courts should support victims by ordering restitution in a specific amount, making
restitution payment a priority, and encouraging other methods of victim
restoration as appropriate.
6. Probation officers, defense counsel, and judicial officers should ensure that youth
understand their rights regarding record sealing and should provide them with the
information necessary to exercise those rights.
7. The AOC, in conjunction with local courts, should ensure that delinquency court
facilities appropriately protect confidentiality and include private meeting spaces
for court users and juvenile justice partners.
8. Judicial officers should consider calendar structures and hearing schedules that
enable parents and extended family, victims, and witnesses to provide input.
9. Judicial officers should set the day’s calendar by prioritizing hearings at which
victims or witnesses are present and cases that are short cause matters.
10. When delays are unavoidable, the judicial officer and the attorneys should
explain the reasons for them to the parties involved, so as to maintain
transparency and confidence in the process.
11. Judicial officers should encourage the use of simple yet legally accurate
language so that all parties present for hearings can understand the proceedings.
12. Judicial officers, attorneys, and probation officers should take the time necessary
to help youth, parents, and victims understand the court process, the outcomes
of court hearings, and the orders of the court.
13. The AOC, in conjunction with the courts, should develop educational materials
such as videos and brochures that orient youth and parents to the delinquency
court.

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

CHAPTER 3
System Responses
A. INTRODUCTION
In each of the last few years, more than 200,000 law enforcement arrests of youth under
18 have been made in California. 48 A large percentage of these youth never make it into
the delinquency court system because their cases are diverted, either by law
enforcement or through informal handling. Those who do come into the system are
offered a continuum of services and sanctions based upon a variety of considerations,
such as the availability and perceived effectiveness of the service and sanction options
and the individual needs of and risks posed by each offender. Approximately 80 percent
of the law enforcement referrals are sent to the juvenile probation department each year.
Probation diverts many of the youth referred out of the formal system, but some youth
ultimately come under the jurisdiction of the juvenile delinquency court. Of the law
enforcement arrests that were referred to probation in 2005, only 51 percent received a
juvenile court disposition. 49 This chapter discusses the various service and sanction
options that are available to those youth in California who are formally referred to
probation and the court system and the perceptions of juvenile justice system participants
regarding those options.

B. SERVICE AND SANCTION OPTIONS
Effective juvenile justice systems have developed an array of services and sanctions
available to youth who have come to the attention
of

law

enforcement. 50

Youthful

offender

populations present a broad range of risks and
needs

that

must

accompanied

appropriate range of services, sanctions, and
incentives. In matching youth with services, the
best choice will depend on the youth’s individual
mental, educational, and familial strengths and
challenges. Sanctions refer to a range of

Example of a Graduated Sanction
Continuum

Diversion
Home on probation
Electronic monitoring
Juvenile hall
Ranch or camp
Division of Juvenile Justice
commitment

48
Cal. Dept. of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Juvenile Justice in California (2003,
2004, 2005). The actual numbers depend on whether one considers all arrests and referrals as
reported by law enforcement agencies or the number of referrals probation has reported receiving
from law enforcement and other public agencies. For our purposes, we will include only those
referrals reported as received by probation departments.
49
Cal. Dept. of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Juvenile Justice in California (2005).
50
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Comprehensive Responses to Youth at
Risk: Interim Findings from the SafeFutures Initiative (2000).

Chapter 3: System Responses

graduated restrictions or consequences targeted at specific offender profiles or behaviors
and used for accountability and behavior modification purposes. They range from less to
more severe and can move up or down the continuum depending on the performance
and needs of the offender. Incentives are designed to motivate youth to improve their
behavior by rewarding them for positive adjustment and reducing the restrictions placed
upon them by probation and the court. The primary advantage of a range of sanctions,
services, and incentives is that they give probation departments the tools and ability to
respond appropriately to a diversity of offenses and offenders.
The JDCA survey respondents, interviewees, and focus group participants assessed the
quality, availability, and effectiveness of the service and sanction options available in their
jurisdictions. Because juvenile justice systems are administered locally, each jurisdiction
offers different services and sanctions based upon the available, local continuum of
programs. The range of possible sanctions identified in the survey attempted to cover the
spectrum of the most common types available, including informally closing out a referral
(counsel and dismiss); low-level responses such as informal supervision and diversion;
intermediate options such as wardship, electronic monitoring, and intensive supervision;
and high-level, restrictive sanctions such as camps, ranches, placement, and
commitment to DJJ facilities. The possible services listed in the survey included such
options as substance abuse and mental health counseling, parent education, and afterschool programs.

1. Availability of Services and Sanctions
In general, probation officers and judicial officers are slightly more satisfied with the
available sanctions than with the available services in their jurisdictions. Defense
attorneys are less satisfied than either probation officers or prosecutors with the range of
available service options. When all attorney types responded to an open-ended question
asking them to list the delinquency court’s greatest needs, the desire for more quality
sanctions and service options for youth was one of the most frequent responses. Judicial
officers reported the greatest system needs to be, in order of frequency listed,
improvement in probation-supervised services, more probation officers, and improvement
in custody options.
Every group of respondents is, on average, more satisfied with the range of services and
sanctions available to low-risk youth than with those available to high-risk youth (see
tables 1 and 2). Prosecutors are slightly more satisfied than all other groups with the
available services and sanctions for low-risk youth. Among all groups surveyed,
dissatisfaction with the range of services and sanctions rises as the youth’s level of risk
increases. Nearly one-half of the judicial officers reported being dissatisfied with the
available services for high-risk youth. Intuitively, it makes sense that the more complex a

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

youth’s needs or the greater the risk he or she poses to the community, the more difficult
(and arguably the more critical) it becomes to adequately address those needs and risks.
A majority in each of the respondent groups surveyed agreed that there is not a sufficient
range of options to appropriately manage these more challenging high-risk cases.

Table 2. Satisfaction with the Range of Sanction Options
Available for Low-Risk and High-Risk Youth
100%
80%
60%

Low Risk
High Risk

40%
20%
0%
Judicial
Officers

Prosecutors

Defense
Attorneys

Probation

Table 3. Satisfaction with the Range Of Service Options
Available for Low-Risk and High-Risk Youth
100%
80%
60%

Low Risk
High Risk

40%
20%
0%
Judicial
Officers

Prosecutors

Defense
Attorneys

Probation

One type of service that juvenile justice professionals agree is critical, yet is provided
inconsistently, is aftercare or reentry. When a youth is committed to a detention facility or
residential placement, the dispositional case plan should include, and probation should
immediately begin implementing, a reentry plan. Case planning that prepares a youth to
return home and provides early coordination between the youth, his or her family, the
treatment facility, and probation is critical to the youth’s successful return to his or her

Chapter 3: System Responses

community, Youth returning home from a custodial or out-of-home placement need
services during the initial period of adjustment. Making the transition home is difficult;
even if the youth has made great progress on the issues that contributed to the offending
behavior and resulting placement, he or she is often returning to the same family and
community environment, with the same challenges and issues that existed prior to
removal. Further, returning youth suddenly have more freedom and opportunity to make
for themselves some of the decisions that have largely been made for them while in the
custodial setting. If advance planning has not occurred, youth have time on their hands
while they wait to enroll in or begin attending school and while they are waiting to begin
any counseling or outpatient treatment programs they may have been referred to by their
probation officer.
According to the surveys, some of the more common services to which probation officers
refer these youth reentering their communities, listed in order by frequency of referral, are
substance abuse counseling, anger management, family counseling, and mental health
treatment. Almost all placement probation officers reported providing independent living
skills referrals in addition to the aforementioned services. Providing services to assist in
the transition from foster care to independent living is critically important for placement
youth who return to the community but will not be reuniting with their parents. Section
727.2(e)(6) of the California Welfare and Institutions Code mandates that the court must
determine what services are needed for each youth making this transition.

Some counties provide intensive family-focused, community-based treatment programs
that may help meet the needs of youth who are at risk of out-of-home placement due to
delinquent behavior or those who are transitioning home from custodial or other out-ofhome placements. Although not specifically evaluated in this study, some counties
provide intensive family-focused treatment programs, including Functional Family
Therapy (FFT), Multisystemic Therapy (MST), and Multidimensional Treatment Foster
Care (MTFC). 52 Some of the primary goals of these family-focused treatment programs
are to provide parents with the skills and resources to manage their children’s behavior,
to help remove youth from delinquent peer groups, and to provide youth with the skills
they need to avoid future delinquent behaviors. According to several national best
practice lists, these model programs have considerable empirical evidence documenting
their effectiveness at improving youth functioning and reducing recidivism rates in

51
In the case of a minor in foster care “who has reached 16 years of age, the court shall . . .
determine the services needed to assist the minor to make the transition from foster care to
independent living” (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 727.2(e)(6)).
52
These interventions use cognitive and behavioral therapy in a family-based treatment model (or
foster home) to improve parent discipline practices, enhance family relations, reduce negative peer
associations, increase prosocial peer relationships and activities, improve school performance, and
develop a support network of extended family, neighbors, and friends to help the youth and parents
maintain changes.

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

serious, chronic juvenile offenders, including specific delinquent populations such as
juvenile sex offenders and substance-abusing youth. 53 Other family-based treatment
models, such as wraparound services (providing the family with services and assistance
for various challenges and issues from multiple agencies at the same time), are used by
counties to avoid placing youth out of the home as well as to assist youth who are
making the transition home to their families.
The shortage of programs reported by some study participants becomes especially
problematic when youth waiting to be placed in an appropriate residential facility are held
in juvenile hall for long periods of time. During
focus groups, youth discussed this issue; one
youth mentioned kids being in juvenile hall for
seven to eight months waiting for a placement

One youth talked about kids being in
juvenile hall for seven to eight
months waiting for a placement
agency to come in and screen them.

agency to come in and screen them. Often, this unfortunate situation is due to the lack of
appropriate placements, such as those that offer a very particular type of service (such
as for youth with severe mental health needs) or those that will accept youth with certain
offenses that many placements reject (such as youth adjudicated on arson charges). 54
Other times, there may simply be a backlog of youth awaiting placement and an overall
shortage of placements. In any case in which a youth is detained pending placement for
more than 15 days, the court is required to review the case and determine whether the
delay is reasonable. 55 These reviews should continue every 15 days until the youth is
placed. A judge in one study county is considering creating a special placement calendar
so the court can monitor progress in finding appropriate out-of-home placements.
The importance of expanding the available services and sanctions was discussed during
interviews with presiding judges and juvenile probation administrators in the study
counties. Many judicial officers expressed a desire to know more about the available
programs in their jurisdiction—both those that probation is using and those that are
available but that probation is not using. Probation officers expressed frustration over a
lack of consistent funding to ensure that a wide array of effective programs is dependably

Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, “Blueprints for Violence Prevention,”
http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/model/overview.html (accessed Apr. 9, 2008); Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), “SAMHSA Model Programs,”
http://modelprograms.samhsa.gov/model.htm (accessed Apr. 9, 2008); U.S. Dept. of Health and
Human Services, “Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General,” Appendix 5-B,
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence/chapter5/appendix5b.html#ModelProgramsLe
vel1 (accessed Apr. 9, 2008).
54
Sacramento Probation’s Project IMPACT (Integrated Model for Placement Assessment, Case
Management and Treatment) is a collaborative program, located in Sacramento’s juvenile hall and
run by probation and a group home provider, that thoroughly assesses the treatment needs of
youth in juvenile hall waiting for out-of-home placement. The hope is that adequate assessment of
a youth’s needs prior to placement will result in more appropriate placements and fewer runaways.
55
Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 737(b).

Chapter 3: System Responses

available. In one study county, focus groups participants reported disappointment at
losing a collaborative court after the funding was cut.
Study county administrators from the court and probation, staff from prosecutors’ and
defense attorneys’ offices, and presiding judges of the juvenile court were asked about
the availability of restorative programs and the prevalence of restorative justice practices
in each of their jurisdictions. Many delinquency court professionals spoke positively about
the concept of restorative justice, which is described as a balanced response from the
justice system that gives equal consideration to the victim, community, and offender with
a focus on making the victim whole, acknowledging the effect of crime on the community,
and building offender competency while providing accountability. Most study participants,
however, indicated that in practice much of what happens in their counties juvenile justice
systems does not necessarily reflect the application of these concepts and that services
related to restorative justice are available on an ad hoc basis at best. Generally,
respondents indicated that if restorative justice principles are used, it is usually in the
context of low-level offenses such as graffiti, other types of vandalism, and theft. It
appears that restorative justice is viewed as a diversion program, used in lieu of
petitioning, rather than as a philosophy that gives equal weight to the concerns and
needs of the offender, victim, and community and that can be applied in every type of
case, regardless of the offense. 56
Some of the findings and recommendations contained in this report include the use of
restorative practices and are simple approaches to be considered in any type of case.
They include improving the development of empathy in offenders, increasing victim
participation in court when desired, and including the community in court processes when
appropriate.

2. Perceived Effectiveness of Services and Sanctions
In addition to having sufficient services and sanctions available, it is also critical that the
programs available in a jurisdiction be effective. Although the survey respondents have
mixed opinions regarding the effectiveness of the sanctions available, they are generally
dissatisfied with the effectiveness of the available services, particularly mental health
services.
Probation officers indicated general satisfaction with the effectiveness of the sanction
options in their counties, with the exception of DJJ. 57 They reported more satisfaction
56

Examples of restorative practices being used in some California delinquency courts with a variety
of case types are victim-offender mediation, neighborhood accountability boards, sentencing
circles, restorative-focused deferred entry of judgment, and offense-driven community service.
57
Not surprisingly, given DJJ’s reported difficulties and ongoing reform efforts, only one-third of the
probation respondents reported being satisfied with the effectiveness of DJJ. It should also be
noted that nearly one-quarter of probation officers reported that they are neither satisfied nor

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

with the low-level responses such as community service and home on probation.
Prosecutors, although less satisfied overall with the effectiveness of sanctions than
probation officers, are more satisfied with the effectiveness of the sanctions available for
high-risk youth, such as ranches, camps, placement, and even DJJ. They tend to be less
satisfied with the low-end sanctions such as counsel and dismiss and home on probation.
Judicial officers also expressed moderate satisfaction with the more restrictive sanction
options such as ranches and camps. In complete contrast to the other groups, defense
attorneys expressed very low levels of satisfaction with the effectiveness of the more
restrictive sanction options. But like probation officers, defense attorneys are more
satisfied with lower-level interventions.
Probation officers expressed dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of most service
options, including anger management programs, parent education, substance abuse
counseling,

and

particularly

mental

health

services. One probation officer pointed out that
“often it’s very difficult to find really good

“Often it’s very difficult to find really
good counseling for the kids.”
—Probation officer

counseling for the kids.” An exception to this was
that probation officers and prosecutors are generally satisfied with drug testing, which
they seem to perceive as an effective method of preventing illegal substance use. It may
not be surprising, then, that probation officers are more satisfied with it than with other
programs or services. Drug testing is often done directly by probation; the officers can be
confident that it is, in fact, being done; test results make it clear whether the goal of drug
abstinence is being met; and it is something over which officers maintain some level of
control. In contrast, most of the other aforementioned service options are provided by
outside agencies, where probation does not control the quality of service and measures
of success and failure are harder to evaluate.
Prosecutors and defense counsel are also generally dissatisfied with the effectiveness of
service

options,

and

both

are

particularly

dissatisfied with mental health services. One
prosecutor noted, “We have not a lot of dual
diagnosis options because there’s a lot of mental
health issues in a lot of the juvenile delinquency
cases that are long-standing and undiagnosed

“We have not a lot of dual diagnosis
options because there’s a lot of
mental health issues in a lot of the
juvenile delinquency cases that are
long-standing and undiagnosed and
untreated.”
–Prosecutor

and untreated.” Both attorney types are also dissatisfied with parent education services
and after-school programs.

dissatisfied and another quarter responded that they did not know. This lack of opinion may be due
in part to the low numbers of youth sent to DJJ facilities in general, as few probation officers have
personal knowledge of DJJ and, after a youth is sent to DJJ, probation does not usually maintain
contact with the ward.

Chapter 3: System Responses

C. SUPERVISION PROGRAMS
Judicial officers were surveyed in detail about their satisfaction levels with the
performance of youth assigned to various levels of supervision, ranging from informal
supervision to commitment to DJJ. Their perception of youth performance was measured
along a variety of dimensions, some of which included educational progress,
improvement with substance use, payment of restitution, and recidivism.
Judicial officers reported being more satisfied with the performance of youth on the lower
end of the supervision continuum—court-ordered informal supervision and deferred entry
of judgment—and, somewhat interestingly, also with the performance of those youth who
are committed to local ranches, camps, and residential placement. They are least
satisfied with the performance of youth at the highest end of the sanction continuum—
youth sent to DJJ. Judicial officers reported being more satisfied with the performance of
youth who are intensively supervised than with the performance of youth home under
regular probation supervision along almost every dimension, including recidivism,
educational progress, and abstention from drug use.
It is worth noting that the judicial officers frequently reported not receiving information
about the performance of youth committed to DJJ. With regard to youth at DJJ, the
percentage of “do not receive information” answers ranged from 31 to 47 percent for
each of the six performance dimensions, whereas under any of the lower supervision
options the “do not receive information” answer never exceeded 11 percent. This is
particularly unfortunate given that DJJ is required to provide the court and probation
annual review reports, which are to include information verifying a ward’s treatment or
program goals, overall adjustment and responsiveness to treatment, disciplinary history,
and overall estimated time of completion of his or her treatment plan.

Some members

of the working group pointed out that “do not receive information” does not necessarily
equate to “did not send information” and that DJJ reports that reach the local court may
not be routed properly.

D. COLLABORATIVE COURTS
As discussed in chapter 2, informal case-level collaboration is common within the juvenile
delinquency system, with court professionals working with one another and with court
users and justice partners to create effective solutions and to solve practical problems in
a case. Another, more formal way collaboration occurs in the delinquency court process
has been in the development of collaborative justice court models that have a number of
specific elements, including the integration of treatment and social services into the court
process, judicial supervision of the treatment process, a collaborative approach to

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 1720(e) and (f).

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

decision making, interaction between youth and the judicial officer, and community
outreach. 59
Participation in a juvenile collaborative court often occurs after a petition has been
adjudicated. Following disposition, the youth will return to court frequently for progress
reviews, and if he or she successfully completes the requirements of probation, the
petition will be dismissed upon the youth’s graduation from the program. This could mean
the juvenile will have no record of the offense, providing an incentive to complete the
program successfully.
During the past few years, several studies have evaluated the effectiveness of juvenile
collaborative court models. Of the nationwide studies that have been done on juvenile
collaborative courts thus far, most have been evaluations of juvenile drug courts. These
have found generally positive outcomes, including lower rearrest and recidivism rates
among drug court participants 60 and cost savings for drug courts. 61 In 2007 the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) awarded a research grant to
evaluate several juvenile drug courts around the country. A comprehensive national
report should go a long way in further assessing the efficacy of juvenile drug courts.
In California, there are approximately 154 collaborative courts within the juvenile court
system. The two most common types are drug
court and peer court. More than 37 counties have
juvenile delinquency drug courts, and more than

In California, there are approximately
154 collaborative courts within the
juvenile court system.

59
The Collaborative Justice Courts Advisory Committee to the Judicial Council has set forth the
following 11 key components of collaborative justice courts: (1) collaborative justice courts integrate
services with justice system processing; (2) collaborative justice courts emphasize achieving the
desired goals without using the traditional adversarial process; (3) eligible participants are identified
early and promptly placed in the collaborative justice court program; (4) collaborative justice courts
provide access to a continuum of services, including treatment and rehabilitation services; (5)
compliance is monitored frequently; (6) a coordinated strategy governs the court's responses to
participants' compliance, using a system of sanctions and incentives to foster compliance; (7)
ongoing judicial interaction with each collaborative justice court participant is essential; (8)
monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness; (9)
effective collaborative justice court operations require continuing interdisciplinary education; (10)
forging partnerships among collaborative justice courts, public agencies, and community-based
organizations increases the availability of services, enhances the programs' effectiveness, and
generates local support; and (11) effective collaborative justice courts emphasize a team and
individual commitment to cultural competency. Awareness of and responsiveness to diversity and
cultural issues help ensure an attitude of respect within the collaborative justice court setting.
California Collaborative Justice Courts: Building a Problem Solving Judiciary, Judicial Council of
California, Administrative Office of the Courts (2005).
60
NPC Research, Clackamas County Juvenile Drug Court Outcome Evaluation Final Report
(2004); M. L. Miller, E. A. Scocas, and J. P. O’Connell, Delaware Juvenile Drug Court Program
(1998); Saunders, et. al., Orange County Florida Juvenile Drug Court (2001).
61
NPC Research, Harford County Juvenile Drug Court (2006).

Chapter 3: System Responses

35 counties have a peer, teen, or youth court. 62 Other types of collaborative courts are
still developing, and so very little information is available regarding these court models.
They include juvenile mental health court, juvenile family violence/dating violence court,
girls’ court, and truancy court.
In interviews and focus groups that were conducted as part of this study, it was clear that
judicial officers, court managers, and justice partners view collaborative courts
positively. 63 Presiding judges of the juvenile court and court managers suggested that
many courts would like to expand their collaborative court options by enhancing their
existing collaborative courts or establishing new ones in areas such as mental health.
Justice partners who discussed collaborative courts shared some common concerns
about starting new programs. The first of these concerns is the need for stable and
adequate funding. This issue is certainly not limited to collaborative court programs; lack
of adequate funding is considered to be a problem for juvenile programs in general.
However, given the startup costs involved with launching a collaborative court, and
considering the time and staff resources needed to provide collaborative court services,
financial resources are particularly salient for these court programs. Another concern
expressed by some interviewees was that only youth who could truly benefit should be
placed in a collaborative court. Substance use in and of itself does not always indicate
that the underlying reason for the delinquent behavior is drug addiction. As one probation
officer explained, “Just because he said [he] smoked marijuana doesn’t necessarily mean
you got to do drug education or drug prevention or put him in a drug program. What you
want to focus on is the behavior that keeps bringing them back to you.” According to
interviewees, other problems include the demands on the youth in a typical drug court
program (such as weekly court appearances and drug testing) and other practical
considerations, including the distance of the collaborative court from the youth and
families who may need to access this service.
Some of these concerns were echoed in focus groups consisting of youth and parents
who were participating in one county’s juvenile drug court. Youth felt that the supervision
they received from probation was too intensive and intrusive; some youth thought that the
frequent contact they had with their probation officer made the program more difficult to
complete successfully.

For more information, see Center for Court Innovation, California’s Collaborative Justice Courts:
Building a Problem-Solving Judiciary (2005); available at
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/collab/documents/California_Story.pdf
63
There was very little usable opinion data in the assessment’s statewide surveys because so few
judicial officers and justice partners have firsthand experience with collaborative courts. Also,
although peer courts are available in many counties, a large percentage of survey respondents
indicated that they do not know about the effectiveness of these courts.

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

A frequent complaint from parents was that the large number of times they had to come
to court strained relations with their employers and resulted in too much lost income.
They also disliked the fact that their children sometimes had to be taken out of school to
attend court and to take drug tests. Parents also stated that they often did not understand
what was going on in court, and several said they relied solely on their child’s probation
officer for explanations. Some of the parents in the focus group did have positive feelings
about their experiences. One parent commented that as hard as the program was, it
saved her son’s life.

E. APPROPRIATELY MATCHING YOUTH TO SERVICES AND SANCTIONS
Judicial officers reported that youth with mental health issues, those who are beyond
control (for example, continually truant or running away from home), and those who are
developmentally disabled are the most difficult to match with appropriate treatment,
supervision, and placement. Some of these concerns are consistent with those
expressed by other professionals with regard to a lack of adequate mental health
services and the need for the system to more appropriately adjudicate and treat youth
with competency issues. In addition, this issue is consistent with the results of all three
caseflow management workshops, in which participants concluded that mental health
issues, and incompetency procedures in particular, are areas in need of greater attention.
Many of the focus group participants discussed the importance of finding the service and
sanction that most appropriately meets the
individual needs of each youth. One probation
officer suggested that “the bench and probation
and the offender would be better served by
individualizing what the kid needs a lot more than

“The bench and probation and the
offender would be better served by
individualizing what the kid needs a
lot more than it is now instead of
blanket conditions.”
–Probation officer

it is now instead of blanket conditions.” Youth also
consistently reported a desire for the court to look at them as individuals and take the
time to understand their particular situations, strengths, and weaknesses when
fashioning an appropriate disposition. As discussed elsewhere in this chapter, however,
sometimes the unavailability or poor quality of certain programs makes this task
particularly challenging.
Several probation officers in focus groups discussed the efforts underway in their
departments to utilize effective, evidence-based programs and to implement the use of
validated screening tools to assist in the assessment of each youth’s risks and needs
when preparing a case plan. Only about one-third of county probation departments report
using validated risk assessment screening tools,

though many agreed that it is good

64
K. Hennigan, et al., Juvenile Justice Data Project, Phase I: Survey of Interventions and Programs
(2007); available at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/docs/JJDPSurveyFinalReport.pdf
(accessed Apr. 9, 2008).

Chapter 3: System Responses

practice to do so. In focus group discussions, probation officers stressed the need for the
court to individualize a treatment plan and not simply “throw everything but the kitchen
sink” (in terms of services and sanctions) at youth, as one officer put it. However, among
the probation officers who responded to the survey, satisfaction with such assessments
is spread fairly evenly across satisfied, neutral, and dissatisfied. Moreover, attorneys and
judicial officers expressed a desire to be more informed about the screening tools used
by probation and to have more access to them and their results. They indicated that they
want to understand how these tools are used and what kinds of important information can
be gleaned from them to assist in fashioning an appropriate dispositional case plan.
During interviews with local administrators and in focus groups, several interesting issues
arose with regard to the concept of individually tailoring graduated sanctions to the youth
and making appropriate use of the available continuum of services and sanctions in each
county. Some participants indicated that their jurisdiction has an adequate array of
services and sanctions but questioned the quality of the available programs. Probation
officers and prosecutors noted that mental health services in particular were lacking.
Probation officers in one county expressed disappointment in the quality of local
community-based organizations (CBOs) and cited a lack of communication by CBO staff
as a reason they did not refer more youth to some programs. For example, they said that
staff refused to inform probation officers about a youth’s poor performance in a program
or to let them know when a youth had violated terms of probation.
Along these lines, defense counsel in focus groups reported dissatisfaction with
probation’s use of available community-based resources. Whether this nonuse of CBOs
is related to a lack of awareness on the part of the court and probation regarding what is
available or an unwillingness to utilize CBOs due to a perceived lack of efficacy is not
known, but many of the focus group defense attorneys believe that these community
resources are not being used to their full capacity. This theme arose during community
focus groups as well. Some community members expressed frustration with probation’s
unwillingness to use their services more frequently and reported feeling as though CBOs
and probation are on different “sides,” working at cross-purposes rather than together for
the benefit of the youth.
Even in those instances in which justice partners agree that an adequate continuum of
quality services and sanctions exists, there is occasional dissatisfaction with the way in
which the continuum is utilized. In focus groups and interviews, defense counsel,
prosecutors, and probation officers agreed that dispositional options are not always used
effectively. Some reported misuse, or a too rigid use, of the available graduated sanction
continuum. One supervising prosecutor expressed concern that his staff would
inappropriately argue in court for, and that the court would order, the “next step” in the
sanction continuum for a youth only because that step was theoretically the next one in

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

line, in spite of the fact that it did not address the particular needs of the youth or the risk
the youth presented. One defense attorney commented that sometimes “judges do not
really think through, ‘Does this make sense to have all these programs?’ They throw all
the programs at the kid; it’s not graduated, it’s not thought through.” A probation officer
noted, “The bench and probation and the offender would be better served by
individualizing what the kid needs a lot more than it is now instead of blanket conditions.”
In several focus groups and interviews, participants pointed out that a youth’s individual
risks and needs should be assessed and an appropriate disposition fashioned, rather
than just mechanically applying whatever sanction or service is next on the continuum.
These comments highlight the importance of individual case assessment and planning.

F. ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT SERVICE AND SANCTION NEEDS
Probation officers, prosecutors, and defense counsel consistently expressed low levels of
satisfaction with the availability of some very specific sanction and service options. There
is particular concern about the lack of mental health services, residential drug treatment
programs, programs that specifically address the needs of girls, treatment options for sex
offenders, and services for transitional-age youth.
Probation officers, prosecutors, and defense counsel who were interviewed and surveyed
expressed especially high levels of dissatisfaction with the availability and quality of
mental health services. It was very apparent in the surveys, focus groups, and
conversations with study county representatives that juvenile justice system participants,
regardless of county, believe that the dearth of appropriate mental health services is one
of the juvenile justice system’s most significant problems. Many juvenile justice experts
and youth advocates hoped that the passage of Proposition 63 would assist in the
creation of new mental health–related programs for youth in the delinquency system. 65
Unfortunately, actually accessing the money for programs and treatment has proven very
challenging. 66 Through local prevention and early intervention planning processes,
however, funding and resources for services for youth in the delinquency system may be
identified for the future. Courts, along with their justice partners, are encouraged to
continue to be engaged in the planning processes and discussions with local
departments of mental and behavioral health.

65
Proposition 63, Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) (2004). The MHSA expands mental health
care for children, youth, adults, and seniors and provides for prevention services to help them get
care before a mental illness becomes disabling. As it relates to youth, the MHSA is to provide
funding to help create new county mental health programs and to expand some existing programs,
including Children’s System of Care services, “wraparound” services, and prevention and early
intervention programs.
66
CFCC staff attended several Mental Health Services Oversight Committee meetings at which the
criteria for awarding prevention and early intervention funds were discussed. Many youth advocacy
agencies and public commentators argued forcefully for programs working with at-risk youth to be
included in funding awards.

Chapter 3: System Responses

A related, more specific concern raised in all focus groups with study county
professionals and during the caseflow management workshops 67 was that the court
system lacks a well-defined, coherent process for adjudicating the cases of youth with
serious competency issues. Study participants suggested that the AOC collaborate with
other justice partners to sponsor legislation and rules of court to clarify the incompetency
procedures to be followed in delinquency court.
All groups of professional justice partners surveyed and spoken with highlighted the need
for appropriate programs for girls. Girls make up about one-quarter of the arrestee
population, yet some jurisdictions do not have adequate residential placement programs
for girls. One judge noted that the courts need more facilities and programs for girls. Girls
One judge noted that the courts need
more facilities and programs for girls.

enter the juvenile justice system for different
reasons and generally commit different offenses
than do boys, and they need treatment that takes

these differences into consideration.

The consequences of these shortcomings are

noteworthy. In one focus group, participants acknowledged that the lack of a locally run
girls’ camp or ranch means that girls are more often and more quickly sent to out-ofhome placement than boys are. This inequity is compounded by two additional factors:
(1) some counties have few if any local group homes for girls, which means girls are sent
farther away from their families and community than boys are; and (2) placement
programs often take longer to complete than a ranch or camp commitment, and therefore
girls remain out of the home longer than boys. When this happens, girls are denied
access to the services a similarly situated boy would likely receive, in terms both of the
treatment itself and the proximity of the program to the youth’s family.
Another concern expressed in focus groups with probation officers and some attorneys
involves providing adequate services to older youth—those who are close to 18 years of
age. These youth are “aging out” of the system and often do not have a family or
guardian with whom they can reunite. Many placements do not take youth if they are
close to 18 because the treatment program might be too lengthy to be completed prior to
the ward’s birthday. When a ward turns 18, obtaining state and federal funding for a
placement can be difficult, with some specific exceptions or unless an exemption from
state social service regulations is granted. The result is that probation may not
recommend placement as a disposition for these youth and may be inclined to terminate
a youth turning 18 from placement if the probation department will have to pay the costs
and not receive reimbursement from the state. That makes it difficult to find adequate
treatment and services to assist these older youth and especially to prepare them to

See Greacen, Developing Effective Practices in Delinquency Caseflow Management.
See, generally, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile Female
Offenders: A Status of the States Report (1998).
68

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

support themselves, find housing, secure employment, and access adult community
services. This reality makes independent living
skills and transitional programs very important for
older placement youth. As one probation officer
put it, “Even those of us who came from intact

“Even those of us who came from
intact families—at 18, [you’re] still not
ready to take care of yourself.”
–Probation officer

families—at 18, [you’re] still not ready to take care of yourself.”
Adequate and appropriate substance abuse treatment is another area that most survey
respondents and focus group participants found lacking. One problem is that residential
treatment facilities are not available in all jurisdictions. This lack is particularly acute in
smaller and rural counties. Many professionals expressed frustration that in order to
receive residential treatment, youth had to be placed far from home, away from the
support of their family and community. A second issue respondents raised is that not all
jurisdictions have juvenile drug courts available. In some courts this is a result of a lack of
funding; in others it is due to an inability to partner with service-providing agencies such
as county mental health, alcohol and drug counselors, or other therapeutic resources;
and in still other courts the problem is that the county is so large and spread out that
youth from areas outside the city cannot attend court for frequent review hearings, to
meet with counselors, and to submit to regular drug testing.

G. CONCLUSION
Due to the myriad issues presented in delinquency court, a wide array of services and
sanctions are needed. Yet juvenile justice professionals and court users are not
particularly satisfied with the availability and effectiveness of many services and
sanctions, and they are highly dissatisfied with some specific services and sanctions and
with the lack of availability of others. To date, little research has been done on the
efficacy of juvenile collaborative courts, but the existing literature shows moderately
positive results. Future work in this area will provide information critical to evaluating
whether and how to expand this model. Court professionals had mostly positive things to
say about collaborative courts, and youth and parents were dissatisfied with the burdens
the court places on them.
Focus groups underscored the importance of communication between the courts and all
justice partners about the services available and the need for everyone to be educated
about what their jurisdictions have to offer and the most effective way to use what they
have. A desire for the individualized application of services and sanctions was a common
theme for youth, as well as probation and attorneys. And in order to provide appropriate
programming for all youth in the delinquency system, tailored to their specific risks and
needs, the justice partners must work together to develop resources that are readily
available and effective.

Chapter 3: System Responses

H. RECOMMENDATIONS
14. Local jurisdictions should establish a graduated continuum of evidence-based
services and sanctions to respond to the needs of each offender.
15. Courts, to improve the delivery of services, should develop adequate court-based
resources and make them readily and regularly available to court users.
16. Judicial officers should ensure that youth receive appropriate sanctions as well
as the services, guidance, and support that are in the best interest of the youth
while meeting the goals of public safety and victim restoration.
17. Court and counsel should ensure that treatment plans and terms of probation are
complied with by monitoring the progress of youth on probation, regardless of
whether the youth is at home, in out-of-home placement, or committed to a local
or state facility.
18. Courts and probation should ensure that dispositional case plans include
adequate reentry services.
19. Judicial officers should encourage collaborative, problem-solving practices that
provide for the development and implementation of individualized case plans.
20. The courts and probation should encourage the identification and involvement of
positive extended family members in a youth’s rehabilitation.
21. Courts should collaborate with probation departments to ensure that judicial
officers and attorneys understand probation assessment tools and the local
sanction and service options that are available.
22. The courts, probation officers, and other juvenile justice partners should continue
to collaborate in an effort to develop effective practices and methods for
improving the delivery of services.
23. Juvenile justice agencies should continually seek out culturally appropriate
resources in their communities and ensure that youth, families, and victims who
do not speak English receive necessary interpreter and translation services.
24. Probation officers should continually seek out accessible and effective services,
paying particular attention when emerging service gaps are discovered.
25. Probation officers who supervise youth in placement facilities should be trained
to ensure that the needs of those youth are met and that their probation complies
with title IV-E requirements.

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

26. The courts and probation should comprehensively examine and address all
aspects of the needs of youth with mental health issues who are involved in the
delinquency system.
27. The AOC should support legislation to address ways to more adequately and
effectively deal with competency issues that come before the courts.
28. The AOC should continue to work with probation and social services to assist
them in working with those youth who appear to come within the jurisdiction of
both the delinquency and dependency systems.

Chapter 3: System Responses

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

CHAPTER 4
Court Management
A. INTRODUCTION
Every delinquency system has a general structure, many essential components, and a
variety of indispensable participants who contribute to its success. Court users and
professionals spend many hours in the California courthouses. They interact with court
employees, use courthouse equipment and facilities, and participate in court cases and
processes. For a delinquency court system to be effective and successful, it is critically
important that the system have safe and adequate facilities, useful and reliable court
case management systems, accountability to court users and the public, and good
collaboration among justice partners.

B. ACCOUNTABILITY
The court is a public institution and must remain accountable to its citizens. Some of the
ways that courts can remain accountable are to release annual reports and statistical
information; hold regular community meetings, public education programs, and focus
groups; and solicit feedback from the public and court users. Being responsible to the
public requires the courts to seek out and communicate with the public, whether by
explaining their purpose or by making their processes as transparent as possible under
the law. In juvenile court, interacting with the public also extends to securing resources
for youth in the delinquency system. According to standard 5.40 of the California
Standards of Judicial Administration, the juvenile court judge should educate the
community through every available means, including the media, about the juvenile court
and its efforts to meet the complex needs of youth and their families. Remaining
accountable also means being responsive to court users and the public when they have
questions and concerns. By being accessible, available, and answerable to justice
partners, other public and private agencies, and communities, the court can improve both
public trust and confidence and the stature of the delinquency court in the communities it
serves.
Many courts do make an effort to meet with community members. In a focus group of
community members, one participant noted that the court invited clergy members for a
day-long seminar to help them understand the delinquency court process and what the
clergy’s role can be in that process. In another county, the presiding judge of the juvenile
court noted that she opens the court to public organizations and talks to the media
whenever possible to share what the court does. The court’s responsiveness to court
users and the community also extends to court operations and service delivery. In the
court operations survey, every court reported that it tries to ensure quality in customer

Chapter 4: Court Management

service. Twenty-eight out of 47 responding courts reported that they train court staff to
respect the public and that the quality of customer service provided is examined during
periodic reviews of court staff performance.
Nevertheless, the assessment revealed that there may be a need for the courts to have
more interaction with justice partners and the community. In the survey of judicial officers,
a third of the respondents reported that meetings with justice partners should happen
more often than they do, and more than half reported that the courts should collaborate
more with the community than they currently do. Nearly half of respondents agreed that
their court needs more time and opportunity to meet with community members.
The superior court is charged with maintaining the confidentiality of most juvenile
delinquency hearings and court records. 69 For those cases that are not confidential,
courts need to create appropriate processes for providing information and opening
hearings to the public. More importantly,.courts should guard against adopting policies
that needlessly deny access to nonconfidential information since this can reduce
accountability. Some critical focus group observations illustrate the ways in which people
are unhappy with the court’s accountability:

•
•

•

Representatives of community-based organizations that would like to offer
services to the juvenile delinquency court (or to youth) reported that it is
difficult to know how to contact the court if one is not an “insider.”
In one focus group, community members expressed their frustration that, as
one put it, “As these kids go through the court, [the community is] left out of
the justice system. The focus is on the minor . . . but the community doesn’t
feel like they were made whole. The graffiti is still there; the little burglaries
are still going on . . . they don’t know what happened to that kid or what didn’t
happen to that kid. So they feel kind of left out in the process.”
One victim, describing the obstacles she encountered in the juvenile justice
system when seeking information about her offender, said, “The moment a
minor is involved, [it’s] hands off.” 70

Courts should work to educate the public by being accessible, opening the courthouse to
the public and the media when possible, and reaching out to build relationships with
justice partners and the broader community. It is through these efforts that the court can
build support for the juvenile delinquency court and make its purpose and its needs
known to the public. The confidential nature of the juvenile court is important in allowing
youth to avoid the lifelong stigma of a criminal record and in limiting potential collateral
consequences for their youthful offenses. Confidentiality is also challenging for the courts

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 827.
Victims are entitled to some information about the youthful offender that is not available to the
public.

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

because it makes it difficult for the court to seem transparent and accountable to the
public.

C. COLLABORATION
According to many JDCA participants, collaboration is an important component of an
effective delinquency court system. Some collaborations are necessary and required
under the law, but others have developed as ways to solve problems or work on
particularly vexing issues.
Approximately 85 percent of judicial officers reported meeting with justice partners either
regularly or as needed, to discuss issues involving procedures, policies, supervision,
treatment, and placement. Courts also collaborate with other agencies to improve
services for youth and victims. For example, one presiding juvenile judge noted that the
court regularly meets with justice partners to review and work toward adopting
recommendations in the Delinquency Guidelines. In one court, the presiding juvenile
judge

reported

working

particularly

collaborative manner with probation in an effort to
redesign the county’s camp program, and the
judge in another court was working to set up a
mediation program. One judge noted that a

“We always strive to improve our
practices and procedures, internally,
and through collaborative efforts with
agency partners.”
–Judge

strength of his juvenile court is that “we always strive to improve our practices and
procedures, internally and through collaborative efforts with agency partners.” Some
types of collaboration are mandated, such as the requirement in section 225 of the
California Welfare and Institutions Code that each county or region have a juvenile justice
commission. The commission is responsible for inquiring into juvenile court law, including
inspecting institutions and reviewing court records, and assisting in the appointment of
the chief probation officer.
Challenges to collaboration include distrust, reluctance to share information, and
differences in departmental philosophy. For example, one presiding judge of the juvenile
court noted that it is a struggle to get the county office of education and other school
districts to provide information to the probation department. Agencies may be hesitant to
hand over confidential records without parental consent, even with a court order. Another
presiding juvenile judge pointed out that justice partners in some agencies do not
participate in many court-led multidisciplinary collaborations because they have differing
philosophies of juvenile justice. Collaboration is difficult for many reasons: the problems
to be solved are difficult, as is working past organizational barriers and reaching
agreements. It is also ongoing. New problems arise and circumstances and leaders
change. An important way to strengthen and maintain existing collaborative efforts is to
prepare for leadership transitions by having written policies in place and to include

Chapter 4: Court Management

incoming leaders in transitional meetings prior to the departure of current justice partner
leaders or presiding judicial officers.
The rest of this section describes several major efforts that highlight the variety of areas
in which the court and justice partners are collaborating.

1. Dual-Status Cases
For some youth, the court needs to decide whether the case will be handled within the
delinquency system or the dependency system, or both. The probation and child welfare
departments in each county are required to jointly develop a written protocol, often
referred to as a 241.1(a) protocol, to ensure coordination when assessing the cases of
youth who appear to fall within be covered under both section 300 and section 601 or 602
of the California Welfare and Institutions Code. 71 Under section 241.1(a), a youth can be
moved from the dependency system into the delinquency system or vice versa. The two
agencies ultimately make a recommendation as to whether the youth will best be served
by the delinquency or dependency system, and the court then determines which status is
more appropriate for the youth. 72
It is also possible for a youth to be granted dual status—concurrently dependent and
delinquent—rather than being in either one system or the other. Section 241.1(e) permits
probation, child welfare, and the presiding juvenile court judge to adopt a protocol
allowing for the designation of a youth as dual status. 73 Dual status is viewed by its
supporters as a way to provide more comprehensive services to families with multiple
issues—pulling in the resources available to both the probation department and child
welfare services—to allow parents who have been found to be abusive or neglectful to be
held accountable at the same time that their children’s illegal behavior is addressed, or to
allow youth in placement who have successfully completed the terms of their probation
but don’t have parents to reunite with to be placed in foster care and have probation
dismissed. Collaboration among agencies is critical to the effective management of such
Dual-status case assessment is an
example of a collaboration that
benefits both system participants and
youth and their families, in that it
expedites the handling of these cases
and coordinates appropriate
resources.

cases..At the time of this report, seven counties
in California had formally adopted a dual-status
protocol. 74 During the course of the assessment,
other jurisdictions indicated an interested in
having a 241.1(e) protocol.
Dual-status case assessment is an example of a

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 241.1(b).
Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 241.1(a).
73
This provision became law with the passage of Assem. Bill 129 in 2004.
74
Admin. Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, Dual-Status Children:
Protocols for Implementing Assembly Bill 129 (2007); available at
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/AB129REPORT113007-edited.pdf
72

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

collaboration that benefits both system participants and youth and their families, in that it
expedites the handling of these cases and coordinates appropriate resources.
Developing dual-status protocols pursuant to section 241.1(e) requires significant
collaborative effort from many system participants. Even those counties that have chosen
not to adopt a 241.1(e) protocol, but that considered it, collaborated in their review and
determination that their 241.1(a) process works satisfactorily. This type of communication
and collaboration is key to the development of a successful process for handling these
challenging cases, regardless of whether a 241.1(a) or 241.1(e) process is followed.

2. Disproportionate Minority Contact
This assessment did not examine issues related to the disproportionate representation of
youth of color in the juvenile justice system (known as disproportionate minority contact,
or DMC). DMC continues to be a problem that must be addressed. The Family and
Juvenile Law Advisory Committee recommends further study in all areas that potentially
contribute to DMC. Several organizations have done significant work in this area and can
provide a wealth of information on efforts in California as well as nationwide to reduce
DMC. 75
Assessing racial and ethnic disparities will require the collaboration of all justice partners,
including law enforcement, probation, attorneys, judicial officers, court management,
service providers, and facilities management. The courts should work to determine the
extent to which their procedures and processes may exacerbate DMC and then find ways
to alleviate these disparities.
In order for states to participate in the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Formula Grants Program, which provides funds in support of state and local
juvenile justice efforts, states must strive to reduce DMC. Since assuming responsibility
for the Formula Grants Program in January 2004, the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, Corrections Standard Authority has undertaken a number
of efforts to ensure that California addresses DMC. The Enhanced DMC Technical
Assistance Program makes funds available to support training for probation departments
to help them understand and identify DMC issues. It seeks to better equip these agencies
with the tools and resources needed to provide leadership in developing or strengthening
community-based activities aimed at reducing DMC. 76 CFCC staff have recently begun

75
See the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention DMC Publications,
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/dmc/pubs/index.html (accessed Feb. 15, 2008); the Haywood Burns Institute,
http://www.burnsinstitute.org (accessed Apr. 9, 2008); and Building Blocks for Youth,
http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org (accessed Apr. 9, 2008).
76
For further information, go to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
Corrections Standards Authority Web site at
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Divisions_Boards/CSA/CPP/Grants/DMC-TAP/Index.html (accessed Apr.
9, 2008).

Chapter 4: Court Management

participating in some of the technical assistance training events by sharing information
with participants about the Judicial Council’s Access and Fairness Advisory Committee
and other efforts underway throughout California courts to address racial and ethnic
disparities.

3. Education
Education is a critical component in ensuring the development of competency and
preventing recidivism. Standard 5.40(g) and (h) of the California Standards of Judicial
Administration provides guidance to the juvenile court regarding the educational rights of
children in the system. Because juvenile offenders may be eligible for special educational
services, judicial officers and juvenile justice professionals should be knowledgeable
about these needs and the law. 77 In addition, youth in local detention facilities, camps,
ranches, some residential placement facilities, and state correctional facilities attend
school on site. It is critical that this opportunity is maximized to help the youth advance
academically. Although most youth focus group participants were not explicitly asked
about education, girls at one detention center complained about the quality of education,
with one noting that it is geared toward the least proficient students rather than tailored to
the unique educational needs of each youth. Whether a youth receives GED preparation,
academic courses, or vocational training, it is critical that the courts, juvenile justice
partners, and educators collaborate to ensure that he or she receives an adequate and
appropriate education.

4. Transfer of Cases Between Counties
The transfer of cases between counties is a particularly challenging issue that requires
collaboration among jurisdictions. Certain findings and orders need to be made at the
The transfer of cases between
counties is a particularly challenging
issue that requires collaboration
between jurisdictions.

time jurisdiction over an offender is established,
and when not done appropriately, a case that is
transferred in can be received, accepted, and
immediately returned to the sending county for

additional information or findings by the court (such as determination of felony or
misdemeanor charge, or the parents’ correct address not being appropriately verified).
This type of delay in disposing of the case obviously affects the workload of the courts
and probation, but it can also cause a youth to be in custody longer than necessary as a
result of the case transferring back and forth, a situation that is especially unfortunate.
Transferring cases can be particularly difficult when the petition is dealt with in a way that
limits what the receiving county can do at disposition. For example, when a youth is

77
For a more detailed discussion of the issues involved in educating youth in the juvenile justice
system, see recommendation 13 in the Probation Services Task Force Final Report, available at
http://www2.courtinfo.ca.gov/probation/documents/new/fullreport.pdf.

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

already a dependent child of another county’s superior court, communicating with that
court about the section 241.1 assessment and how to handle the petition is crucial.
Sustaining the petition may limit the receiving court’s options with regard to the
disposition of the case, depending upon the court’s dual-status options, and it can also
affect where the youth can be held pending the hearing. 78 Another problem arises when
an admission is taken pursuant to consideration of a youth’s eligibility for deferred entry
of judgment (DEJ) and then the case is transferred. Taking an admission in the sending
county with the recommendation that the receiving county consider DEJ can be
problematic for the county receiving the case. Questions arise regarding jurisdiction and
whether the youth can withdraw the admission if he or she is not found suitable for DEJ
by the receiving county. A group of northern counties 79 has developed a protocol to
assist in communicating about these challenging issues when transfers occur among
these counties. 80

D. COURT RESOURCE NEEDS
Although this study did not survey courts about their resource needs, it became apparent
through responses to other survey questions and focus groups discussions that the
dissatisfaction expressed by court users and professionals may be due in part to the
need for additional court resources in certain areas.
Only one-half of judicial officers surveyed reported that they routinely get through their
delinquency calendar to their satisfaction. That seems to indicate that there are days
when many judicial officers are unable to satisfactorily process the cases they are
scheduled to hear. In their survey responses, prosecutors and defense counsel both
expressed some dissatisfaction with the time spent waiting for hearings and with the
number of continuances.
The many youth, parents, victims, and community members who participated in focus
groups appeared particularly bothered by the number and length of hearing delays and
continuances. They indicated that the court process appears hurried and disorganized,
making them feel as if their case is just being mechanically processed. They reported that
matters are often continued after they have spent hours waiting for a hearing, and that
the new date and time are chosen without any consideration for their schedules. And

78
Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 206 prohibits children alleged or adjudged to be dependents from being
housed with youth alleged or adjudged to be wards of the court pursuant to §§601and 602.
79
As of March 2008, the superior courts, probation departments, and child welfare agencies of
eight jurisdictions had agreed to follow this protocol. These are Amador, El Dorado, Placer,
Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, Yolo, and Yuba. SacJoaquin Valley/Foothills Intercounty
Transfer Protocol (amended March 21, 2007); available at
http://www.saccourt.com/juvenile/Intercounty%20Transfer%20Protocol/Intercounty%20Transfer%2
0Protocol.asp (accessed Apr. 9, 2008).
80
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.610(g), permits courts in a formalized regional collaboration to modify
form JV – 550 to facilitate the efficient processing of transfer cases.

Chapter 4: Court Management

perhaps most importantly, when it comes to their comprehension of delinquency court,
court users feel that no one takes the time or makes it their responsibility to sufficiently
answer their questions or explain what is happening during the hearings. Again, if judicial
officers are often unable to satisfactorily complete their calendars, it is likely that many
matters are continued due to a lack of time to properly hear the case, or if heard, that the
case is rushed through quickly in an effort to get on to the next one. Regardless of
whether this is in reality a common occurrence, it is the perception of court users.
Further, although it would require an expenditure of time by judicial officers outside of the
courtroom, some judicial officers indicated in survey responses their desire to be better
informed about their jurisdiction’s available treatment programs and resources and
indicated that they also would like to learn more about the (risk and need) assessment
tools used by the probation department. Given the difficulties involved in just getting
through the calendar each day, finding the time to become familiar with programs in their
community or the resources available to their probation department presents a formidable
challenge.
Finally, in each victim focus group, one or more persons suggested that the courts would
benefit from having an independent court liaison to work with victims—someone from the
court who could answer questions, notify them of hearings or continuances, explain the
paperwork, and ensure that their rights as victims are enforced. Presiding judges of the
juvenile court may wish to consider whether their courts are providing sufficient services
to meet the information needs of victims and other nonparty court users and explore
whether current court staffing can accommodate improved service to these groups.
Chapter 5 discusses this issue in more detail.

E. COURT CASE MANAGEMENT
During the initial site visits to the six study counties, court administrators and judicial
officers expressed differing levels of satisfaction with their local case management
systems. In a survey of court administrators, more than 90 percent of respondents
reported being able to access delinquency, dependency, and criminal case management
systems, though fewer than a quarter of responding courts reported having access to
probation’s case management system. Courts reported using their delinquency case
management systems mostly to schedule hearings and produce calendars; fewer than a
quarter reported using their systems to generate court management statistics such as
judicial findings and reasons for continuances.
Unlike the dependency system, the juvenile delinquency system does not have a statelevel case management system, and in only very few counties are the local case
management systems of the delinquency courts connected to the local systems of justice

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

partners. 81 At the state level, the AOC collects statistics reported by individual courts, but
reporting is limited to case filings and case closings, with a small number of courts
reporting detailed hearing information. Some courts described their computer systems as
antiquated, and one court administrator compared the current system to working with
“stone tablets.”
As noted in chapter 1, as part of this project assessment a caseflow management project
was undertaken in early 2007. This consisted of both a manual of effective practices and
a series of workshops for interested courts and justice partners. Twenty-eight counties
sent court teams consisting of judicial officers, court staff, probation, prosecutors, and
defense counsel to one of three different workshops held in Burbank, San Francisco, and
Sacramento. The objectives of the juvenile delinquency workshops were to provide
participants with an understanding of the principles of juvenile delinquency caseflow
management, an opportunity to share and learn about juvenile delinquency case
management practices used in other courts of the same size, and an action plan to take
back to their courts to begin improving their juvenile delinquency caseflow management
and their collaboration with their juvenile justice partners.
A couple of themes emerged from the workshops. First, judges, court staff, and other
justice partners do not generally have the accurate, current, and useful information on the
status of their juvenile delinquency cases that they need to manage them effectively.
Second, improving case management in the juvenile delinquency courts requires
effective leadership from the presiding juvenile delinquency judge and from all justice
partner agencies; effective collaboration among all juvenile justice partners; appropriate
application of caseflow management principles to the circumstances of each court and
county; and accurate, complete, and current data on pending juvenile delinquency cases.
The AOC is currently working with court personnel, judges, justice partner
representatives, and others to design a statewide Computer Case Management System
to connect all 58 juvenile courts. The goal is to launch a system by 2012 that will provide
uniform case management, more effective transfer of cases across county lines, venue
transparency, limited public access, accurate data reporting, complete information

In juvenile dependency, courts and justice partners can rely, to some extent, on the statewide
California Department of Social Services case management system, called CWS/CMS (Child
Welfare Services/Case Management System), which is used by child welfare agencies. This
system allows social workers to track individual cases. It also is compiled on a regular basis in
order to generate statistics that are then used by child welfare and the courts to assess and
improve their operations. The costs to develop and maintain this mandatory case management
system are partially supported by the federal government.

Chapter 4: Court Management

gathering and maintenance, and ease of information sharing and access by the courts
and other justice partners. 82

F. FACILITIES
Adequate court facilities are essential to the effective administration of justice. They
convey respect for judicial officers, justice partners, and court users. As California’s Chief
Justice, Ronald George, stated,
Buildings are more than mere physical settings. They signal how we
value what is transacted inside. Courts do not need or want
ornamentation or ostentation in their quarters. But courts—and the
public—do deserve buildings in which the business of administering
justice can be transacted effectively, efficiently, and with appropriate
dignity. 83
Court facilities encompass not only the buildings but also the operations of the court. The
Facilities Checklist was developed to assess the attributes and needs of delinquency
court facilities related to various issues relevant specifically to delinquency courts.
Additionally, throughout the course of the study, many courts and justice partners spoke
about facilities issues in relation to their impact on court effectiveness, efficiency, safety,
and treatment of court users. 84
The primary findings related to facilities were associated with accessibility, safety and
security, protection of rights, and adequate workspace.

1. Accessibility
Having a court that is accessible is crucial for both caseflow management and adequate
participation by court users. Accessibility refers to the features of a court that make it
easy to use, such as access for those with disabilities, adequate hours of operation, and
readable signs. In addition, the proximity of the detention center to the courthouse, the
availability of public transportation to the courthouse, the location of the courthouse in
relation to the city center, and the existence of suitable children’s waiting rooms are
important concerns for delinquency courts.

It should be noted that the Department of Justice is developing data exchange standards based
on a similar project recently completed in the criminal justice area, to ensure that justice partners
with disparate systems are able to exchange data. The standards are being developed by a
working group of juvenile justice partners, including law enforcement, prosecutors, probation,
defenders' offices, the courts, and DJJ.
83
Ronald M. George, Riverside Courthouse Transfer Address, Indio, Oct. 21, 2004.
84
Nine facilities were assessed using the checklist, and many justice partners throughout the state
talked about facilities-related issues during interviews and focus groups. Details on the
methodology and results can be found in volume 2 of this report.

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

Transportation between the detention center and the courthouse is an important
consideration when building new courts. Many believe that the detention center, or
juvenile hall, should be in close proximity or adjacent to the courthouse for efficiency and
cost-effectiveness. If the detention center is not adjacent to the courthouse, in-custody
youth must be transported by bus between the detention center and the courthouse; in
one jurisdiction, they are transported more than 50 miles. The cost of this transportation,
in both dollars and time, can be very high. Often, all youth with cases being heard on a
given day are transported to the courthouse first thing in the morning, where they must
wait in a holding area for their cases to be called. Afterward, they must wait until all of the
other youth’s cases have been heard so that they can all be transported back to the
detention center. This time spent waiting at court could be spent in school or receiving
treatment.
Where possible, the courthouse should be located near the city center so and should be
accessible by public transportation so that victims, out-of-custody youth, and family
members of in-custody youth are able to attend court. Similarly, if services are offered at
or near the courthouse, regardless of the location of the courthouse, it is essential that
youth be able to reach these locations conveniently. As an example, one county’s
services are all offered in the centrally located city in the county, but the county is so
geographically dispersed that many youth cannot reach them. Because of these
transportation issues, it is important for courts, probation, and county boards of
supervisors to work collaboratively when designing new court buildings.
An additional consideration is the availability of children’s waiting rooms. In order for
some parents or out-of-custody offenders to attend court, they may need childcare for
their young children. Three of the facilities visited have children’s waiting rooms that are
safe, secure, and not accessible to the public as recommended in the California
Standards of Judicial Administration.

2. Safety and Security
The safety and security of facilities are important to ensuring that justice partners have a
safe place to work and that court users are not put in harm’s way by coming to court. To
ensure the safety and security of judicial officers, they should have a separate entrance
to both the courthouse and the courtroom. In
addition, survey and focus group participants
believe that victims would be safer if they have a

“[Facilities] need rooms for victims to
be separate from minors and their
families; it can get very volatile.”
–Court administrator

separate waiting area. In the survey of court
administrators, a third of the respondents noted that a separate waiting area for victims is

Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., std. 10.24.

Chapter 4: Court Management

a feature that needs to be developed or improved. One court administrator pointed out,
“[Facilities] need rooms for victims to be separate from minors and their families; it can
get very volatile.” Other areas that survey respondents indicated as needing improvement
were secure holding cells for in-custody youth and a secure, separate, and direct path
from the holding cell to the courtroom. In one courthouse visited, in-custody youth sit
together in an open waiting area near the public waiting area.

3. Protection of Rights
Confidentiality of juvenile delinquency proceedings and court records has been
guaranteed since the founding of the juvenile court, which was created with the premise
that youth should be protected from being stigmatized by the public. 86 In many court
facilities, however, design issues and court practices threaten confidentiality. In the
survey of defense attorneys, approximately one-third of respondents indicated that they
are dissatisfied with the adequacy of the location available for meeting with clients.
Responses to open-ended questions, interviews, and focus groups with defense
attorneys indicated that this dissatisfaction is due to a lack of confidentiality. More than
half of the facilities visited lack a private meeting area for attorneys and out-of-custody
youth. These youth and their attorneys often must confer with each other as quietly as
possible in a potentially crowded hallway or waiting area, where attorneys are essentially
unable to comply with confidentiality laws.
Confidentiality is also an important consideration in the way cases are called into the
courtroom. Nearly all of the courthouses visited broadcast the youth’s names in some
way. In one facility, youth’s full names are broadcast over a loud speaker into the
hallways and the parking lot when their cases are ready to be heard. One courthouse has
avoided this by issuing to youth restaurant-style pagers that vibrate when the youth’s
case is ready to be heard so that they do not have to call out youth’s names. Section 676
of the California Welfare and Institutions Code does allow certain cases to be open to the
public. For these nonconfidential cases, the court should make sure that the calendars
are posted so that the public can attend.

4. Adequate Workspace
As with all court resources, the number of courtrooms dedicated to juvenile delinquency
should match the need. Courts should continually
The number of courtrooms dedicated
to juvenile delinquency should match
the need.

monitor changes in caseload, workload, and other
system needs in order to ensure adequate
resources. One focus group participant noted that

one of the biggest challenges his county faces is a lack of courtrooms. In that county, the

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 827 guarantees confidentiality in juvenile court.

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

court often uses the board of supervisors’ chambers to hear cases; as a result, the “kids
must be paraded through public areas,” one attorney stated. In redesigns and new
construction, courtrooms should be sized adequately to accommodate the youth, his or
her family, the victim, his or her support persons, interpreters if necessary, and any
witnesses.
Since juvenile prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers, and interpreters must
be in the courtroom on a regular basis, and since victims and witnesses often wait in the
district attorney’s office for their cases to be called, locating the offices of justice partners
in or near the courthouse could increase the efficiency of those offices, as well as ease
the burdens of victims and youth.

G. CONCLUSION
In addition to the dedicated professionals who work within it, a successful delinquency
court system depends on many factors. It is critical to conduct hearings in safe and
adequate facilities that respect the privacy and communication needs of youth and
families, attorneys, witnesses, and victims. Additionally, in order to measure system
outcomes and gather needed data, the courts (and justice partners) must be equipped
with useful and efficient court case management systems.
Because of the myriad issues presented by the youth and the complex nature of
delinquency court systems, effective delinquency courts need good collaboration and
communication between the court and all the justice partners. Addressing the wide
variety of delinquency court issues and preparing for new challenges and new leaders
requires preparation and diligence. Ultimately, and in spite of these difficulties, being
accountable to the public is critical, not only for ensuring that court systems are
responsible to the communities they serve, but for building trust and confidence among
court users and the general public.

H. RECOMMENDATIONS
29. Judicial officers should educate the community and the media about the purpose
of the juvenile court, specifically its purpose and role in meeting the complex
needs of youth, their families, victims, and the community.
30. Judicial officers should maintain open communication with the public, provide
avenues for receiving public feedback, and provide information about court
performance or improvements.
31. Local juvenile justice partners should identify the outcomes they hope to achieve
and develop performance measures to monitor their progress.

Chapter 4: Court Management

32. State and local court administrations should ensure that facilities are designed,
maintained, and operated so as to provide both the effective and efficient
administration of justice and the respect and dignity that victims, court users,
professionals, and judicial officers deserve.
33. The AOC, in conjunction with local courts, should design and construct new
facilities, in consultation and cooperation with the other juvenile justice partners.
34. Court facilities in which delinquency matters are heard should have separate
waiting rooms for victims and witnesses to ensure their safety and encourage
their participation in court.
35. State and local court administrators should ensure that court operations,
modifications to facilities, and AOC design standards protect the confidentiality of
parties and victims while enabling the public to have access to nonconfidential
delinquency hearings when appropriate.
36. Judicial officers should exercise leadership in strengthening the relationships
among justice partners and community organizations and in ensuring that local
jurisdictions utilize all available resources to create appropriate outcomes within
the juvenile justice system.
37. The courts and probation should engage schools, mental health, and other
community systems to support the rehabilitation of youth.
38. The AOC and the courts should assess the court’s role in minority
disproportionality within the juvenile justice system and work collaboratively with
state and county-level justice providers to address racial and ethnic disparities.
39. The AOC should continue to support the courts and other agencies in developing
ways to assist youth whose circumstances potentially bring them before both the
dependency and delinquency courts.
40. Courts and juvenile justice partners should develop case management systems
(including the California Case Management System [CCMS]) that promote
coordinated data collection and data exchange between the court and other
justice partners.
41. Courts and juvenile justice partners should develop case management systems
(including CCMS) to permit juvenile delinquency courts to access information
about youth’s and families’ participation in other court cases.

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

42. The AOC should support courts in their efforts to develop protocols and
procedures to address local issues and challenges involving case management.
43. The AOC should develop tools to help the courts assess their case management
practices and should assist the courts in instituting a process of continual
improvement.

Chapter 4: Court Management

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

CHAPTER 5
Professionals and Court Users
A. INTRODUCTION
For the delinquency system to best meet the needs of youth, families of youth, victims,
and other court participants, it is critical to have experienced court professionals who are
well trained and committed to the juvenile delinquency court. The need for all
professional court leaders to recognize the importance of the juvenile delinquency system
underlies

several

the

recommendations

stemming

from

this

report.

One

recommendation states that superior court presiding judges, court administrators, district
attorneys’ offices, public defenders’ offices, and probation departments should ensure
that they recruit and retain professionals who are committed to serving the delinquency
system. Others call for courts to protect the rights and interests of youth, parents, and
victims and to encourage and value community involvement with the juvenile delinquency
court.
To better understand perceptions of the delinquency system’s strengths and
weaknesses, it is important to assess court professionals’ and court users’ experiences
with and opinions about this court system. Through surveys, interviews, and focus
groups, court professionals were asked to evaluate their experiences with the court and
with other system professionals and court users. In addition, focus groups were
conducted with youth in the delinquency system, youth’s parents, victims of juvenile
crime, and community members in order to better understand their experiences with the
juvenile delinquency court system.

B. COURT PROFESSIONALS’ EXPERIENCE AND BACKGROUND
To assess the experience of those professionals working in juvenile delinquency, the
study explored the background and work experience of judicial officers, attorneys, and
probation officers in the court. Topics included experience and background in their
professional positions, including experience in the juvenile delinquency system, and their
workload and training when relevant. Survey respondents were also asked whether they
would like to continuing working in a juvenile setting and how they expected to leave their
current juvenile delinquency assignment.

1. Judicial Officers
One of the recommendations of this report highlights the need for recruiting and retaining
committed judicial officers in judicial delinquency assignments. Based on survey

Chapter 5: Professionals and Court Users

responses, judicial officers have extensive experience and overall tenure. Although some
judicial officers surveyed had been in their current juvenile assignment for a relatively
short time, others have lengthy tenures working in juvenile delinquency, particularly
presiding judges of the superior court and subordinate judicial officers. 87 The vast
majority of judicial officers indicated that they did receive specialized training in juvenile
law, either prior to or within the first year of starting a juvenile assignment.
a. Experience and Background

Responses to the survey suggest that the overall tenure of judicial officers working in
juvenile delinquency is extensive. Overall, the median length of judicial experience is 11.5
years for all judicial officers combined, 11.5 years for judges, and 8.0 years for
subordinate judicial officers.
b. Juvenile Assignments and Experience

Approximately half of the judicial officer respondents have full-time delinquency
assignments. About one-third spend less than half time working on delinquency cases,
and 21 percent work less than a quarter time on delinquency.
Judicial officers have extensive experience overall, and some also have lengthy tenures
working in juvenile delinquency. Standard 5.40 of the California Standards of Judicial
Administration encourages juvenile bench assignments of least 3 years. 88 Survey
respondents have been in their current ongoing juvenile delinquency assignments for an
average of 5 years. One-half have been in their current assignment for 3 years or more.
A small percentage of judicial officers have been in their current delinquency assignment
for lengthy time periods; approximately 15 percent reported having been in their current
assignment for more than 10 years. Data on the length of completed assignments was
not collected; therefore, it can only be said that at least half of the responding judicial
officers have already met the 3-year mark. Most presiding judges of the superior court
who regularly hear delinquency cases, as well as most judges, are in their first
delinquency assignment, while presiding judges of the juvenile court and subordinate
judicial officers are more likely to be in their second or subsequent rotation. When the
time in their current juvenile assignments and the total time in juvenile assignments were
compared across judicial officer categories, some differences emerge. Presiding judges
of the superior court who hear delinquency cases regularly have the longest median
delinquency assignment length, followed by subordinate judicial officers, presiding judges
of the juvenile court, and judges.

Subordinate judicial officers include commissioners and referees.
Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., std. 5.40(a): The presiding judge of the superior court should assign
judges to the juvenile court to serve for a minimum of three years. Priority should be given to
judges who have expressed an interest in the assignment.

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

Survey respondents were also asked about their professional involvement in juvenile
court before becoming a judge or a subordinate judicial officer. Sixty-two percent had
been attorneys who practiced juvenile law. Judges were much more likely to have had no
prior juvenile experience than were subordinate judicial officers, who are often hired to
work in their area of legal expertise. Some respondents with prior experience as juvenile
court attorneys also had other prior professional roles (such as social workers or
probation officers); very few judicial officers had exclusively nonlegal professional roles.
c. Judicial Officer Education

Judicial officers also reported on the education they received in delinquency law at the
start of their first assignment, as well as on their current education and training. The vast
majority of judicial officers received their initial training either prior to or within the first
year of their assignment. Only 17 percent reported not having received specialized
education in the juvenile delinquency field within this time frame. These findings were
equally true for newer judicial officers and for those who have juvenile appointments of
half time or more.
Nearly all respondents indicated that they spent at least some time in specialized juvenile
training in the past year. Judicial officers reported that they spent an average of 22 hours
last year in specialized training related to juvenile delinquency, dependency, and related
subjects. Approximately one-half of the respondents reported one or more work-related
barriers to attending more training. The most frequently cited barriers were that the court
has difficulty covering their time away from the bench and budget constraints.

2. Prosecutors
The need for district attorneys’ offices to recruit and retain prosecutors who are
committed to serving the delinquency court and developing expertise in the juvenile
delinquency field is included in this study’s recommendations. In describing the
qualifications for prosecutors, the National Prosecution Standards section 92.1 on the
Standards for Juvenile Justice recommends that training and experience should be
required for handling juvenile delinquency cases and that entry-level attorneys working in
juvenile delinquency should receive training related to juvenile matters. This standard
also highlights the need to select juvenile prosecutors who are experienced and who
have an interest in working with youth. 89 Data collected from the prosecutor survey show
that although some very experienced attorneys are working in juvenile delinquency, many
prosecutors are relatively new to the district attorney’s office and have minimal prior
experience in juvenile delinquency settings. Attorneys with more years of experience
overall were more likely to say that they would like to continue to work in a juvenile
89

National District Attorneys Association, National Prosecution Standards, Standards for Juvenile
Justice, sections 92.1–92.7 (second edition) (1991).

Chapter 5: Professionals and Court Users

delinquency setting than were newer juvenile prosecutors. However, most attorneys
expected to be reassigned or rotated out of the juvenile division.
a. Experience and Background

Most prosecutors reported handling juvenile delinquency cases full time. The majority
indicated that they handle multiple types of juvenile cases, most frequently listing general
caseloads and cases involving gangs and sex offenders. One-fifth of respondents
indicated that in additional to handling juvenile cases, they also have administrative or
supervisory duties.
A substantial proportion of respondents are relatively new attorneys; more than onefourth passed the bar less than four years ago, and more than one-third have less than
four years’ experience in the position of prosecutor. However, among the respondents
were also a number of very experienced attorneys. Nearly one-third reported having
passed the bar more than 20 years ago, and one-fourth have been a prosecutor for 20
years or more. On average, prosecutors from large counties were newer attorneys than
were prosecutors from small and medium counties.
b. Juvenile Assignments and Experience

Prosecutors frequently reported being quite new to juvenile assignments; most are in
their first juvenile delinquency assignment as prosecutor, and very few had prior
professional roles in juvenile court. They have been in their current juvenile assignment
for two to three years on average; nearly half have been in their current juvenile
assignment for less than one year. Total years of experience handling juvenile cases is
approximately five years on average, with nearly one-third of attorneys reporting less
than one year of total experience in juvenile work. Pairing newer prosecutors with more
experienced attorneys is one method some prosecutor offices may use to ensure the
appropriate handling of juvenile delinquency matters.
When asked where they would like to be working in two years, most respondents
indicated that they want to remain in the district attorney’s office. Approximately one-third
of juvenile prosecutors stated that they would like to remain in the juvenile division of the
district attorney’s office. Compared to more experienced prosecutors, newer prosecutors
were less likely to report wanting to remain in the juvenile division after the next two
years. Specifically, among attorneys with four years’ experience or less in their role as
prosecutors, only 12 percent indicated that they want to remain in juvenile assignments.
In contrast, 43 percent of attorneys who have more than 16 years of experience
expressed an interest in continuing to work in juvenile delinquency. When asked about
the circumstances under which they expect to leave their juvenile assignments,
prosecutors most frequently responded that they would either be reassigned or that their

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

predetermined juvenile rotation would be complete. Very few respondents (15 percent)
said that they expect to remain in the juvenile division.

3. Defense Attorneys
The need to recruit and retain defense attorneys 90 who are committed to serving the
delinquency court is one of the recommendations contained in this report. According to
the National Juvenile Defender Center’s Principles in Practice, legal representation of
children is considered to be a specialized area that requires ongoing, delinquencyspecific training. Although no specific recommendation is made regarding the level of
experience necessary for juvenile delinquency attorneys, the principles do state that new
defenders should be supervised by more experienced attorneys to ensure high-quality
legal work and manageable caseloads. 91
The survey found that although public defenders have more years of experience as
attorneys than do prosecutors, the two groups
have similar levels of experience working in
delinquency

assignments,

with

both

being

relatively new to delinquency work. Contract
attorneys 92 have more years of experience than
do public defenders, including total years as an

The survey found that although
public defenders have more years of
experience as attorneys than do
prosecutors, the two groups have
similar levels of experience working
in delinquency assignments, with
both being new to delinquency work.

attorney and years working in juvenile delinquency settings; however, public defenders
are more likely to be working full time on delinquency-related work.
a. Experience and Background

Defense attorneys generally handle multiple delinquency case types; the ones listed most
frequently were general caseloads, gangs, and sex offenders. The amount of time spent
on delinquency cases varies by defense attorney type. The majority of public defenders
reported working in delinquency full time. Contract defenders, on the other hand, were far
less likely than public defenders to be working full time in juvenile delinquency, with
nearly half indicating that they spend one-fourth of their time or less doing delinquencyrelated work. In fact, contract defenders who work in delinquency a quarter time or less
made up nearly 30 percent of all survey respondents.
90

For the purpose of comparison in this report, the term “defense attorney” refers to all defense
attorneys surveyed, including public defenders, defense attorneys who contract to serve as their
county’s public defender, alternate public defenders, and contract or panel conflict defenders.
Privately retained defense counsel were not surveyed.
91
National Juvenile Defender Center, Principles in Practice: Promoting Accountability, Safety, and
Fairness in Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings (Southern Poverty Law Center, 2007).
92
For the purpose of comparison in this report, the term “contract attorney” is used to describe
contract or panel conflict defenders only and does not include attorneys who contract as the
county’s public defender’s office. Alternate public defenders and contract public defenders were not
included in defense attorney comparison analyses, due to the low numbers of attorneys in these
categories.

Chapter 5: Professionals and Court Users

Juvenile defenders generally have more experience as attorneys than do prosecutors.
The average number of years since passing the bar for defense attorneys is 20, and they
have been defense attorneys for 17.4 years on average. It should also be noted that
public defenders have less experience as defense attorneys on average than do contract
defenders (12.3 years and 19.8 years, respectively).
b. Juvenile Assignments and Experience

On average, defense attorneys have been in their current juvenile assignment for
approximately the same amount of time as prosecutors (an average of 3.2 years and 2.7
years, respectively). However, a comparison of the total number of years spent in juvenile
assignments showed that defense attorneys have much more juvenile experience on
average (13.6 years) than prosecutors (4.9 years). Total years of experience in juvenile
assignments also varies by defense attorney type, with public defenders’ experience
more closely resembling that of prosecutors. Specifically, public defenders had fewer
total years of experience in juvenile assignments on average than all other defense
attorney types.
Defense attorneys are also more likely than prosecutors to have had other professional
roles in the juvenile court system. Sixty percent of defense attorneys reported having had
other roles in juvenile court. The most frequent roles were parent’s attorney in
dependency cases and child’s attorney in dependency cases. Contract defenders were
more likely than public defenders to report having other roles in the juvenile court system.
This is true regardless of the percentage of time they currently spend working on
delinquency-related matters. For the contract attorneys, these responses likely reflect
both prior and current roles in the juvenile court system.
When asked under what circumstances they expect to leave their juvenile assignment,
only 23 percent of public defenders said that they expect to remain in the juvenile
division. Most stated that they would either be reassigned or that their predetermined
juvenile rotation would be complete. However, more than half of defense attorneys
indicated that they would like to continue handling juvenile delinquency cases; this finding
was true for both public defenders and contract defenders. Similar to the findings for
prosecutors, public defenders with more experience were more likely to want to continue
handling juvenile cases than were the newer defense attorneys. Across all experience
levels, public defenders were more likely than prosecutors to indicate that they would like
to remain in their juvenile assignment. As with the prosecutor results, these findings
indicate that there is an experienced group of public defenders who want to continue
handling juvenile cases. Contract defenders show a different pattern of results: newer
attorneys were slightly more likely than more experienced attorneys to say that they
would like to continue to work on juvenile delinquency cases. However, it should be noted

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

that across all experience levels, more than half of the contract respondents indicated
that they would like to continue handling juvenile cases. It is likely that contract attorneys
have a choice in deciding to handle juvenile delinquency cases in the first place, and
those that have chosen this type of work are therefore interested in continuing to do so.

4. Probation Officers
The need to recruit and retain experienced, committed staff in juvenile probation
departments was also among the recommendations enumerated in this report. Based on
survey findings, probation officers have extensive
experiencing

working

juvenile

probation.

Approximately half of the respondents stated that

Approximately half of the probation
officers stated that they would like to
remain in their juvenile assignment.

they would like to remain in their juvenile
assignment. The amount of time spent in various job-related tasks varies by probation
officer role (for example, intake officers spend their time differently than court officers).
a. Experience and Background

The respondents to the probation officer survey included line intake officers, investigation
officers, placement officers, court officers, supervision officers, and deputy probation
officers at institutions or facilities. More than half of the respondents reported having
multiple roles. Of those probation officers who indicated that they have case supervision
duties, almost half reported having a general caseload and more than half reported
handling intensive or informal supervision caseloads.
Most juvenile probation officers have substantial experience working in probation. Nearly
half have been working for probation between 5 and 10 years; the average number of
years working in probation in any capacity is almost 10. Very few respondents have less
than 3 years’ experience working in the probation field.
b. Juvenile Assignments and Experience

Most respondents are also not new to working in juvenile probation; the total time working
in juvenile assignments is about 8 years on average. The average number of years in the
current juvenile assignment is 3.5; about half of the respondents have been in their
current assignments for less than 2 years. Nearly a quarter of respondents have worked
in their current juvenile assignment since they began working in the probation
department.
Approximately half of all respondents reported that they would like to still be in the
juvenile division in two years; an additional 30 percent would like to stay in the probation
department but work in another division. When asked how they expect to leave the
juvenile division, one-third of the respondents stated that they expect to remain in the

Chapter 5: Professionals and Court Users

juvenile division and about 20 percent indicated that they expect to request to leave the
juvenile division.
When asked to rate the frequency with which they engage in various job-related tasks,
differences across probation officer roles emerged. Investigation officers and court
officers spend the most time preparing court reports. Predictably, compared to all other
probation officers, court officers were more likely to report that they frequently attend
court. Service and program coordination is a more frequent activity for both field and
institution supervision officers. Providing services to victims is an infrequent job activity
for most respondents. Nearly half of all probation officers reported that they never or
rarely provide victim services. Investigation officers were somewhat more likely than
other probation officers to provide services to victims; approximately one-fourth indicated
that they do so sometimes or often.

C. COURT PROFESSIONALS’ EXPERIENCES WITH THE JUVENILE
DELINQUENCY SYSTEM
In order to evaluate court professionals’ experiences with the juvenile delinquency
system, the survey asked respondents to evaluate their relationships with the court and
other court professionals, to assess the job performance of those individuals, to describe
what they liked and disliked about their juvenile assignments, and to list the strengths and
needs of the juvenile delinquency court. When relevant, survey respondents and focus
group participants were asked about their work with court users.

1. Experience With the Delinquency Court and Court Professionals
Attorneys and probation officers reported having good relationships with the court and
with justice partners. As described in chapter 2 of this report, attorneys reported having a
Attorneys and probation officers
reported having good relationships
with the court and with justice
partners.

good relationship with the court and with other
court professionals and are generally satisfied
with how they are treated by the court. When
survey respondents were asked to describe what

they like most about their juvenile assignments, one of the most frequent responses from
both attorney groups was that they enjoy the relationship with coworkers and other
juvenile delinquency court professionals. Many stated that they find the nature of these
relationships to be positive and collaborative. Probation officers also reported having
good relationships with the court and with prosecutors and defense attorneys.
For both attorney groups, satisfaction with the relationships they have with other court
professionals is higher than their satisfaction with the job performance of those
professionals. This may be partially due to the different role each court professional has
in the delinquency court system and the adversarial atmosphere that is sometimes
present in delinquency court proceedings. Although not asked directly about their

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

opinions of the juvenile delinquency bench officers, some prosecutors, in response to an
open-ended question about what they would change about their delinquency
assignments, commented that they would like stronger, less lenient bench officers
handling delinquency cases.
Although probation officers reported in the survey that they generally have good
relationships with the courts, the public defender’s office, and the district attorney’s office,
they are dissatisfied with how they are treated by the court and attorneys. They are also
dissatisfied with both prosecutors’ and defense attorneys’ handling of cases. Probation
officers are generally satisfied with the number of times they are required to attend court,
although they are dissatisfied with how well they are trained to testify.
When asked about the top strengths of the juvenile delinquency court, judicial officers
frequently commented on the good working relationship and collaboration within the court
and on the knowledgeable and committed court professionals. Based on survey
responses, judicial officers are also generally satisfied with the performance of
prosecutors and defense attorneys in court and expressed similar levels of satisfaction
across both attorney types for most of the areas assessed. Judicial officers are also
generally satisfied with the quality of information they receive from probation; they are
most satisfied with the quality of information that is easy for probation to obtain by the
time of the hearing. 93

2. Working With Youth, Families, and Victims
When asked to describe the top three things they like most about their juvenile
assignments, one of the most frequent responses from prosecutors and defense
attorneys was the ability to make a difference for the youth in the delinquency system by
helping them change their behavior. Defense attorneys were particularly likely to state
that they enjoy working with kids as well as with their families; this was by far the most
frequently supplied answer to the question of what they like most about their juvenile
assignments. A number of respondents from both attorney groups emphasized the
importance of helping youth in order to reduce future delinquent behaviors and to
improve the youth’s overall functioning. Prosecutors frequently commented that by
helping youth change from a delinquent path, they are also helping to make the
community safer. Probation officers were also likely to rate working and interacting with
youth as one of the things they enjoy most about their juvenile assignment. They
frequently reported that they enjoy seeing positive changes in youth and providing
services to youth. However, they also commented that they do not have as much time to
spend with youth as they would like.

See Chapter 2 for more details on judicial officers’ satisfaction with the quality of attorney and
probation officer work.

Chapter 5: Professionals and Court Users

Defense attorneys and probation officers were asked to indicate how well various types
of information are conveyed to youth and parents. The responses indicate that defense
attorneys feel that certain types of information are explained well. These include possible
outcomes, responsibilities while on probation, ramifications of a plea, what to expect at
court hearings, and the general court process. Defense attorneys were less likely to
indicate that record-sealing information and the process for paying restitution are
explained well to youth or parents. Probation officers also indicated that some information
is conveyed well to youth and parents. The majority of probation officer respondents
agreed that youth’s responsibilities while on probation and possible outcomes are
conveyed well to both youth and parents, and that the parents’ responsibilities while the
child is on probation are also explained well. However, nearly everyone in probation
interviews and focus groups agreed that neither youth nor parents understand what
happened in court. This perception by probation officers is strongly supported by youth
and parent focus group participants, who frequently commented that they did not
understand what was happening while in court and that the process was not explained to
them very well.
When asked to describe their work with victims, most prosecutors indicated that they
work with victims in one or more capacities. The most commonly listed activities included
preparing victims to testify and explaining the court process to victims. Approximately half
of the respondents indicated that their work with victims includes referring victims to
services and explaining the restitution process to victims. Less than 40 percent of
attorneys indicated that they take victim statements or notify victims of hearings. It should
be noted, however, that when an individual survey respondent does not engage in a
particular activity, such as notifying victims of hearings, it does not suggest that this
activity does not happen at all in the respondent’s county. Individual attorneys’
responsibilities may vary from office to office, and not all prosecutors may engage in all
victim-related responsibilities. Some victim-related work may also fall under the job duties
of the county probation department.
In focus groups, probation officers generally reported feeling that they do a poor job of
dealing with victims. Responses from surveyed probation officers show, in fact, that
almost one-third do not work with victims as all. Similar to the earlier comment about
prosecutors’ victim-related work, individual probation officers’ duties may vary with
respect to victim-related responsibilities. Of those
“Every time I deal with the probation
department, it’s like no one knows
nothing, they can’t enforce anything,
and they have no answers for you.”
–Victim

probation survey respondents who indicated that
they do work with victims, fewer than one-third
said that they explain the process of collecting
restitution

victims.

restitution

collection

was

Dissatisfaction
seen

across

with
all

professional groups, and this unhappiness was strongly echoed by the victims who

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

participated in focus groups. Victims commented that the court does not hold youth
accountable for payment of restitution and that it is difficult to obtain information.
According to one victim, “Every time I deal with the probation department, it’s like no one
knows nothing, they can’t enforce anything, and they have no answers for you.”

3. Juvenile Delinquency System
When describing what they would change about their juvenile assignments, prosecutors’
most frequent response was that the juvenile delinquency system is too lenient and
should have a greater emphasis on punishment of and accountability by juvenile
offenders. Prosecutors often feel that a system imbalance exists in case dispositions, one
that

emphasizes

rehabilitation

over

punitive

responses and youth needs over community
safety. As one prosecutor stated, “I would like for
the juvenile system to recognize [the] value of
punitive measures in dispositions, even though

“I would like for the juvenile system
to recognize [the] value of punitive
measures in dispositions, even
though rehabilitation should still be
the focus and the goal.”
–Prosecutor

rehabilitation should still be the focus and the
goal.” There is also a strong belief among prosecutors that the system needs to have
tougher penalties for serious, repeat offenders, including incarceration when warranted.
This sentiment was reflected in prosecutors’ evaluations of the effectiveness of various
sanction options available to juvenile offenders. Prosecutors tend to be more satisfied
with the effectiveness of the more restrictive sanction options, such as camps and
ranches, placement, and DJJ. They are least satisfied with more informal options such as
counsel and dismiss or home on probation. This concern about an overly lenient
delinquency system was raised by participants in prosecutor focus groups as well. It
should be emphasized that most prosecutors who spoke in focus groups and responded
to survey questions are not in favor of punitive measures in lieu of helping to rehabilitate
youth but feel that a better balance between the two needs to be found.
Defense attorneys, on the other hand, see the delinquency system as being overly
punitive, and they expressed concern over the lack of procedural protections afforded
youth in the delinquency court system, given a
perceived increase in the punitiveness of the
delinquency court. One respondent commented

“Juvenile court should not destroy
kids forever.”
–Defense attorney

on the impact of an overly harsh system, stating
that “juvenile court should not destroy kids forever.” When asked what they would change
about their current juvenile delinquency assignment, many defense attorneys commented
that although they like the fact that the juvenile system is generally less harsh than the
adult criminal system, it is still too punitive and not focused enough on youth
rehabilitation. Some defense attorneys think that prosecutors overcharge in many cases
(for example, they may choose to file a felony commercial burglary charge when a

Chapter 5: Professionals and Court Users

defense attorney thinks that a misdemeanor shoplifting charge is more appropriate). A
common theme underlying these responses is that juveniles are being treated like adult
criminals but are not afforded the same legal protections that are present in the adult
criminal system. For example, survey respondents indicated that they would like to have
the option of jury trials in the juvenile system, particularly for serious crimes and strike
offenses. 94 Many defense attorneys feel that an overly harsh system has a detrimental
impact on a youth’s future. Focus group participants from a few counties supported this
sentiment, pointing out that overcharging certain juvenile offenses may affect the youth’s
ability to seal his or her record after reaching adulthood. Defense attorney satisfaction
with sanction options is also substantially different from that reported by prosecutors.
Defense attorneys are very dissatisfied with the more restrictive sanction options and are
most satisfied with the effectiveness of less restrictive options such as home on
probation, informal supervision, community service, and electronic monitoring.
When probation officers were asked to list the top strengths of the delinquency court, the
most frequently listed strengths were that the court holds the youth accountable, focuses
on rehabilitation, and treats people with respect. When asked what the court could
improve upon, many probation officers stated that the court needs to hold the parents of
youth more accountable. This need for parental accountability and responsibility was
mentioned by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and community members as well.

D. COURT USERS’ EXPERIENCES WITH THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
SYSTEM
During the course of this project, youth, parents, victims, and community members
shared their experiences in 15 focus groups. 95 Five focus groups were held with a total of
58 probation youth from different counties. The groups included in-custody and out-ofcustody boys and girls, youth who were enrolled in an alternative school run by a
probation department, and youth who were participating in a drug court program. Three
focus groups were conducted with parents of children who had gone through various
stages of the delinquency court process. Parents included in the focus groups had
children who had experienced a wide variety of court dispositions and levels of probation
supervision. Some parents had children against whom very serious charges had been
filed. Victims of crime and their family members participated in four focus groups. The
offenses that had been committed against these victims or their family members included

“Strike” refers to an offense that can be used for enhancing a sentence under California's “threestrikes law,” contained in Proposition 184, which was passed by voters in 1994. The substantive
provisions of Prop. 184 are codified in Pen. Code §§ 667(e)(2)(A)(ii) (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgibin/waisgate?WAISdocID=69854025223+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve) and 1170.12(c)(2)(A)(ii)
(http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgibin/waisgate?WAISdocID=69858425608+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve). The purpose was to
lengthen prison sentences for repeat criminal offenders.
95
For an in-depth analysis of these individual groups, refer to volume 2.

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

identify theft, assault, robbery, sexual molestation, and, in one case, murder. Focus
groups with community members from three different counties were also held. The
community participants varied widely in their experience with and knowledge about
juvenile delinquency court. They were members of community-based organizations,
municipal agencies, parent support and youth advocacy groups, violence prevention
organizations, and law enforcement agencies, as well as retired juvenile justice
professionals and members of the clergy.
Despite the different perspectives that each of these constituent groups represents within
the delinquency system, their opinions and experiences shared several common themes:
•

Court users would like more opportunities to be heard and to participate in the
process.

•

Court users feel that the delinquency court process is complex and that the
language used in court is difficult to understand.

•

There is a belief among court users that the juvenile justice system has no clearly
defined goal or purpose and exists for no reason other than to process cases.

•

Court users feel that the delinquency system does not follow through on its
promised consequences or services.

1. Barriers to Participation
Youth, parents, victims, and members of the community all expressed great frustration at
the difficulties they encountered when trying to participate in the delinquency court
process.
Youth and parents reported wanting meaningful opportunities to address the court and to
be active participants in their court hearings and cases, so they had difficulty
understanding why the defense attorney sometimes advised them not to speak to the
court. 96 Parents reported that they often felt
ignored and irrelevant to the court process. They
also reported being confused and angry that they
had no ability to participate in decision making in
their

child’s

case

(with

respect

plea

“It’s horrible because you never have
the chance to defend your son. It’s all
going on between the DA and the
public defender, and they’re just
going back and forth.”
—Parent

agreements or negotiated dispositions). They
commented that defense counsel often excluded them from conversations with the youth.
One parent noted, “It’s horrible because you never have the chance to defend your son.

This is likely due to the attorney’s obligation to prevent the youth from making incriminating
statements in court.

Chapter 5: Professionals and Court Users

It’s all going on between the DA and the public defender, and they’re just going back and
forth.” Some parents in the focus groups were unaware that legally, in delinquency
proceedings, the attorney represents only the offender, not the parent. Though there may
be sound legal bases for the attorneys’ handling of these situations, the opinions of both
youth and parents about the court process might improve if the reasons for their limited
participation were communicated to them. As discussed earlier, defense attorneys, in
response to a question about what they like most about their delinquency assignment,
frequently stated that they enjoy working with parents and families of the youth. Some
defense attorneys said they would like more participation and involvement by the youth’s
parents. Thus, it appears that parents and attorneys have similar goals in wanting some
level of parental participation. What that participation should involve may be unclear to
parents and may warrant clearer explanations by defense attorneys.
Victims and community members also expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of
opportunities to participate meaningfully in delinquency court. Victims reported that they
had difficulty getting information about hearing dates and times and about their ability to
attend and participate. They often reported that were it not for their own efforts to find
information, and repeated calls to probation, prosecutors, and the courts, they would
simply have missed hearings and never known what their legal rights were. It is unclear
exactly how often victims are actually provided with this information about hearings.
Victims also expressed frustration at taking time away from work (which amounted to lost
wages or additional business expenses) to attend a hearing only to have the matter
continued, and at not being able to make a statement during the hearing. As was noted in
chapter 2, opinions among court professionals vary regarding the severity of and reasons
for hearing delays and continuances. Clearly, the reason for a delay should be
communicated to any victims and witnesses who have been waiting and now need to
return to court on another day. One victim reported attending court, waiting for two hours,
during which time no one communicated with him, and finally leaving. The invitation to
participate in the JDCA focus group was the next time he was contacted by anyone about
his case. Another victim reported going to court with a written impact statement prepared
and not being allowed to read it.
Community members expressed similar concerns over not being able to get hearing
information, having to spend time waiting for hearings that ended up being delayed, and
not being allowed to participate when hearings did occur. Several focus group members
reported that when a court directed or asked that an offender participate in one of their
community-based programs, they often had difficulty getting information about the youth
and family from probation or the attorneys due to the confidential nature of juvenile court,
and they sometimes had difficulty attending hearings for the same reason. Additionally,
some members of community-based organizations reported feeling that probation did not
want them to participate in certain cases, and if they did, it was only to have

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

documentation of a youth’s failure. Focus group participants reported that they believe
probation is not interested in reports that document when a youth is doing well.
Understandably, they are frustrated when they are asked to provide a service for the
youth and then are made to feel that their input isn’t desired, are excluded from hearings,
or are not informed about proceedings.
A common recommendation from both victim and community focus groups was that it
would be helpful for court users to have a designated contact person for the lifespan of
the case who has the ability to access information
about the court process and about the individual
case. A suggestion that emerged in focus groups
with victims was that a single point of contact for
victims of crime would be helpful. One victim

It would be helpful for court users to
have a designated contact person for
the lifespan of the case who has the
ability to access information about
the court process and about the
individual case.

stated, “I think it would’ve been good to have one
person to talk to, to answer questions instead of us having to call sergeants on the case,
intake officers, the county jail itself, the probation officer.” She suggested that courts
provide “one person who is able to give us the information that we need.” One focus
group populated by victims who had an advocate assist them through the delinquency
court process described a much more positive experience with the juvenile court system
compared to other victims who did not have the benefit of a victim advocate. Victims in
this group reported that they received information about their rights, about the case, and
about all court dates and what they should expect to happen.
Participants in community focus groups also thought it would be beneficial for communitybased organizations and schools to have a designated contact person for the juvenile
delinquency court. They expressed confusion regarding who they should contact
regarding a juvenile case, as well as about the appropriateness of certain actions, such
as contacting the judicial officer involved in a youth’s case. Focus group members
thought that a single, identified contact person would help improve the communication
between their agencies and the delinquency court. They also recommended a designated
contact person for youth and families to get information about the youth’s case.

2. Lack of Comprehensible Process or Hearings
Youth, parents, victims, and community members also expressed confusion with the
unique language used in delinquency court by the professionals. Several focus group
participants recalled feeling that they were listening to a foreign language with terms,
words, code numbers, and acronyms that they did not understand. The majority of focus
group parents and youth reported leaving court with virtually no idea of what had
happened and hoping that, once outside the courtroom, the youth’s attorney or a
probation officer would provide an explanation. In contrast, as described earlier in this

Chapter 5: Professionals and Court Users

chapter, defense attorneys feel that most types of information are conveyed well to
parents and youth. It may be that due to large caseloads and crowded court calendars,
attorneys are not taking the time needed to go over court orders and explain court
processes thoroughly to youth and their parents, to ensure that they really understand
what is happening and what the next steps are.
Victims had similar complaints, and unless they had a victim-witness advocate who
worked closely with them, they reported that their questions and concerns often went
completely unaddressed. They felt that no one took responsibility for helping them, and
they said they were frequently passed from one person to another, with no one who had
knowledge of or responsibility for their case. Many victims reported that at the time of the
JDCA focus groups, which in some instances were being conducted months or even
years after the court cases were processed, their questions still had never been
answered. If allowed to participate in hearings, community members viewed the entire
court process as hurried and disorganized, with professionals who cared little about
taking the time to make sure the youth and families who appeared in court understood
the process.

3. Purpose of Juvenile Delinquency Court
When asked about the purpose or intent of the delinquency court, a few of the
participants in the court users’ focus groups articulated that the system was originally
created to rehabilitate offenders and to punish or hold youth accountable for violating the
law. Some community members expressed the opinion that the system had become too
punitive; society in general, some said, has become too punitive and willing to incarcerate
youth. But the most frequent response by far to the inquiry about the purpose of the
juvenile delinquency court was that the system exists solely to process the cases that
come before the court. In the focus groups, youth, parents, victims, and many community
members expressed the belief that case processing and maintaining employment for the
professionals was the purpose of the system, and that the system, on some level,
purposely set youth up for failure. One victim stated, “My impression on the court system
from my experience is that their intent is just to process and keep the process simple,
quick, and easy.” Youth expressed similar opinions, pointing out that they thought their
probation officers (and the court) noticed only when they did something wrong and failed
to notice successes such as good grades or periods during which the youth was
behaving appropriately.

4. System Follow-Through
A wide range of focus group participants echoed the theme that the delinquency system
lacks follow through. Community members commented that there is no follow-through on
the provision of services to youth. Victims reported that they do not believe that the court

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

holds youth accountable for payment of restitution. In addition, focus group participants
knew of many instances in which an offender violated the terms of his or her probation
and received no consequences. One victim noted, “These kids are just laughing at the
judge and the whole system, because they know the system isn’t capable of [enforcing
what the court] ordered.” Parents felt that this lack of follow-through over a period of time
gave the youth a false sense that they could get away with misbehavior and violations of
probation conditions. Community members and parents also expressed concern that the
system responds inconsistently, failing to impose consequences for minor misbehavior
and then, after a particular offense or violation, and sometimes without warning, seeming
to overreact and mete out excessive punishment. This concern over lack of followthrough was reiterated by probation officers in focus groups, who feel that their credibility
(and the system’s) suffers when they warn youth of consequences that never come.
Although judicial officers should independently assess the facts and circumstances each
time a case comes before the court, in order to have a more effective role in the
rehabilitation of youth, they need to communicate the rationale for their decisions with the
youth and with others when they diverge from past admonishments or statements.

E. CONCLUSION
It is encouraging to note that within all groups of survey respondents there exists a group
of highly experienced professionals working in the California juvenile delinquency court
system, including many who indicate that they would like to continue working in a juvenile
delinquency

setting.

These

findings

would

appear

partially

address

the

recommendations from this report that encourage court leaders to recruit and retain
qualified professionals for the juvenile delinquency system. Probation officers often have
lengthy tenures, including a number of years’ experience working in juvenile probation
assignments. Judicial officers’ level of experience varies by judicial officer position;
however, there are many who have extensive experience working in juvenile court
settings. Findings for prosecutors and public defenders may raise some concerns
regarding the general lack of experience of some attorneys working in the juvenile
delinquency courts. Among survey respondents there are some attorneys who are new
not only to juvenile assignments but also to the district attorneys’ and public defenders’
offices in general. As was noted previously, it may be the case that in many offices, new
attorneys are paired with ones who are more experienced. Given the complexity of the
juvenile delinquency court system, practices such
as this that allow for more experienced attorneys
to handle or supervise delinquency cases should
be encouraged.
The fact that there are many professionals who

The fact that there are many
professionals who are new to the
delinquency system indicates the
importance of early training when
first entering a juvenile delinquency
assignment.

are new to the delinquency system indicates the importance of early training when first
entering a juvenile delinquency assignment. Although the delinquency training of

Chapter 5: Professionals and Court Users

attorneys was not assessed in this current study, it would likely be beneficial for them to
receive delinquency-specific training early in their delinquency assignments, or at least to
receive some level of supervision from other professionals who have more experience in
juvenile delinquency work. When judicial officers were asked about the training they
received, the vast majority indicated that they did receive training in delinquency law
either prior to or during the first year of their assignment.
Many probation officers and attorneys reported that they would like to remain in their
juvenile assignments. Prosecutors and defense attorneys who were new to their
respective offices were less likely to indicate that they would like to continue working in
juvenile delinquency. The majority of respondents from all three of these professional
groups indicated that they expect to rotate out of their juvenile assignments at some point
in the future. If a failure to get promoted underlies some of the hesitation or inability to
remain in juvenile assignments, this may be an area for prosecutors’ and defense
attorneys’ offices to evaluate further. Recommendations from this report encourage the
leadership from all court-related offices to retain and promote qualified professionals who
are interested in working in a juvenile delinquency court setting. Additional efforts to
accommodate those who wish to remain in juvenile assignments need to be considered;
it is up to the leadership within all delinquency offices to initiate these efforts and to relay
the message that juvenile delinquency is an important and worthwhile assignment.
Hearing delays and continuances were cited as a problem by most of the court user
groups. One of the guiding principles of this report is that the delinquency system should
recognize and respect the rights of victims, and two of the report recommendations call
for judicial officers to accommodate the schedules of victims and witnesses whenever
possible. Regardless of the reason for the hearing delays and continuances, court users
should be made aware of the reason that the hearing is being continued. This may help
to alleviate some of the frustration and confusion felt by these court users, who may
otherwise perceive a continuance as an unnecessary and unexplained inconvenience.
Several recommendations stemming from this report revolve around the need for the
court to ensure that hearings are comprehensible to court users. Findings of the current
study regarding court user comprehension of the court process are consistent with those
found in the recent Public Trust and Confidence study.

Both studies indicate that the

public and nonprofessional court users have a low level of understanding of the court
process. A very common statement from focus group participants was that they did not
understand what happened while in court and that nobody bothered to explain it to them
(or did not explain it well) after the hearing was over. One probation officer suggested

Admin. Office of the Courts, Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phase I and II
(2006); available at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/4_37pubtrust.htm.

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

that “having some type of orientation for parents whose kids are involved with our system
when they first come here . . . it could be like a liaison for parents, and [that person]
meets with them and explains to them about the court process.” Victims and parents also
spoke of wanting to be better informed about the case, to be included, and to have the
opportunity to have greater input in the process. Defense attorneys often expressed that
they would like more parental participation in the youth’s case. It seems that parents and
attorneys have similar goals in wanting some level of parental participation. What that
participation should involve may be unclear to parents and may warrant clearer
explanations by defense attorneys.
Perceptions of the purpose and goals of the delinquency court system differ between
court users and court professionals and also differ among the court professionals
themselves. Court users, by and large, think that the juvenile delinquency system exists
for no other purpose than to process the cases that come before the court. Defense
attorneys and prosecutors have very different opinions about the areas of the juvenile
delinquency system that are in need of improvement. Prosecutors’ most frequent
response was that the system is too lenient and should have a greater emphasis on
punishment of and accountability by juvenile offenders. Defense attorneys, on the other
hand, criticized the prosecutors for overcharging cases and for other practices they
perceive as overly punitive. A common theme underlying the defense attorneys’
responses was that juveniles are being treated
like adult criminals but are not afforded the same
legal protections that are present in the adult
criminal system. Probation officers, when asked
what

they

most

about

their

juvenile

assignment, frequently commented on the court’s

One common theme across both
attorney groups and probation
officers is that they enjoy having the
opportunity to work with youth and
having the ability to help them turn
their lives in a more positive
direction.

ability both to hold youth accountable and to rehabilitate youth. One common theme
across both attorney groups and probation officers is that they enjoy having the
opportunity to work with youth and having the ability to help them turn their lives in a
more positive direction.

F. RECOMMENDATIONS
44. Superior court presiding judges should recognize the importance of the juvenile
delinquency system and the need for recruiting and retaining high-quality judicial
officers in juvenile assignments.
45. Court administrators should ensure that courts have adequate numbers of
qualified court staff.

Chapter 5: Professionals and Court Users

46. District attorneys’ and public defenders’ offices should be encouraged to seek out
and promote attorneys who are committed to serving the delinquency court and
developing expertise in this complex and significant field.
47. Judicial officers should seek out panel and contract attorneys who are committed
to serving youth in the delinquency court and who are willing to develop expertise
in the field.
48. Probation departments should seek out, encourage, promote, and retain staff
who are committed to working with juveniles and developing expertise in this
important area.
49. The courts should ensure continuity of policy and practice during leadership
transitions by instituting best practices and by supporting the transfer of
knowledge.
50. Probation and social services staff should be adequately trained and should
communicate and coordinate services so as to deal appropriately with those
youth who appear to come within the jurisdiction of both the delinquency and
dependency systems.
51. Judicial officers, attorneys, and probation should be adequately trained and
educated to understand the myriad issues in delinquency court and the
importance of the work.
52. Courts should develop or clarify local protocols that set forth their expectations of
defense counsel in the postdispositional period regarding status reports,
hearings, child visits, legal advocacy, and other activities.
53. The AOC should work with law schools and the State Bar to educate, encourage,
and support attorneys seeking careers in juvenile justice.
54. Courts and juvenile justice agencies should continually monitor and adjust their
caseload guidelines to respond to evolving standards of practice and should seek
additional resources as necessary.
55. Courts hearing delinquency matters should have adequate funding to fulfill their
purpose of guaranteeing public safety, victim restoration, and offender
rehabilitation.
56. The judicial branch should encourage federal, state, and local government
officials to provide probation departments with stable and adequate funding to
protect the public and the rights of victims, to ensure offender accountability and

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

rehabilitation, and to support the court with the information necessary to make
appropriate findings and orders.
57. Local government officials should fund public defenders’ offices, district
attorneys’ offices, and contract-based defenders at a level that allows them to
adequately fulfill their professional obligations.
58. The Judicial Council should support the improvement of resource allocation in
the courts by conducting a judicial workload study of judicial officers who hear
juvenile delinquency cases and a needs assessment of the court staffing that
supports the court’s management and review of juvenile delinquency cases.

Chapter 5: Professionals and Court Users

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

CHAPTER 6
Conclusion
The charge of the juvenile delinquency court is a complex one that requires the balancing
of many interests as well as the involvement of many actors and institutions. At the case
level, judicial officers supervise the administration of the law. Courts must fashion
responses that optimize public safety; hold youth
accountable; develop competencies; and make
the victim and community whole. To accomplish
this, the court needs accurate and complete

The charge of the juvenile
delinquency court is a complex one
that requires the balancing of many
interests as well as the involvement
of many actors and institutions.

information about the circumstances of the arrest,
informed perspectives about the youth’s strengths and challenges, and an assessment of
the likelihood that the youth will reoffend. To diminish the possibility of recidivism and
adult criminality, judicial officers must also attend to the youth’s educational and social
development while the youth remains under court supervision.
The courts accomplish this in a highly regulated environment, where deriving a solution
based upon the best interests of the youth, public safety, and accountability is both
assisted and constrained by procedural safeguards; statutory regulations governing
findings, orders, and their timeliness; and the complexities of such issues as collateral
consequences, transfers to adult court, substance abuse, competency, and educational
rights. Courts rely upon the participation of zealous and knowledgeable legal advocates,
probation officers, service providers, and court staff, such as clerks, caseworkers,
interpreters, mediators, and research attorneys. Judicial officers also need the time to
consider all of the information presented to them. The resource constraints under which
all of this is to be achieved will have to change before the system can operate optimally.
At the system level, judicial officers and the presiding judge of the juvenile court must
attend to myriad issues, both in the court and in the community, to support the juvenile
delinquency system. To remain confident about findings and orders that are made, they
must engage in such activities as visiting detention facilities, attending cross-training to
understand the adequacy of treatment protocols, and evaluating outcomes for youth.
Managerial issues at the system level must also be addressed. These include but extend
well beyond such activities as regulating caseflow and workload, convening justice
partners to resolve problems in services, improving communication, and exploring how to
improve upon what is functioning well.
The juvenile delinquency system does not operate in a vacuum. The system-level work of
the juvenile delinquency court involves communicating with the community. This includes

Chapter 6: Conclusion

learning whether there are community resources that can benefit the court, victims, and
youthful offenders and their families. It also involves responsiveness to the community’s
sentiments about a host of issues, such as their perceptions of their safety, the system’s
transparency, and their desire to understand the purpose of the juvenile delinquency
court.
These final sections summarize the findings and the study’s limitations. Following that are
several proposed new projects that may assist the juvenile courts and the AOC in
beginning to address the study recommendations as set forth in chapters 1 through 5.
Chapter 7 reprints the recommendations in their entirety.

A. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

•

There is a need to measure the effectiveness of system responses to youthful
offenders. The juvenile delinquency system needs better ways to measure
outcomes and increase accountability.

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

•

B. STUDY LIMITATIONS
This study has several limitations that should be noted. One has to do with the areas of
study. First, because the assessment covered so many areas, it was not possible to
study any one area in depth. Also, some areas were not studied at all. Sometimes, this
was because the topics were too big to be addressed within the study structure (for
example, disproportionate minority contact and mental health services for adjudicated
youth). Largely, though, it was due to a lack of appropriate data for the questions at hand
(such as workload and caseload statistics).
The study also relied on opinion data that were aggregated to the state level. When the
perspectives of judicial officers and different justice partners can be compared, it is
possible to use these data to isolate areas that are in need of improvement or, at least,
further analysis. However, opinion data can be compromised by two problems. One is
that subjective evaluations are influenced by expectations. Survey respondents who
reported being satisfied with a certain court process, for example, may be fairly or
objectively assessing that process as working well. It is also possible, however, that their
satisfaction is due to diminished expectations—that is, they have come to accept a poor
process. The second weakness of opinion data is associated with asking respondents to
recall the frequency of events, something that is difficult to do when the events are
infrequent, unremarkable, or meaningless to the respondent. The assessment avoided
this problem to some extent by not asking respondents to attach quantitative precision to
their observations; however, this also meant that the assessment did without certain
information. Another limitation is that aggregating data to the state level may mask very
strong county-level variation. The strategy of triangulating statewide survey data with
local focus group data was devised, in part, to offset this weakness.

Chapter 6: Conclusion

The final challenge in interpreting the data is that different research methods were
employed for court users and the community on the one hand (focus groups in six
counties) and judicial officers, court staff, attorneys, and probation on the other (focus
groups, interviews, and statewide surveys). For example, judicial officers were surveyed
but, with the exception of presiding judges of the juvenile court, were not interviewed or
convened in focus groups. At the other end, court users spoke about issues in focus
groups, but representative surveys were not conducted with them. This may make the
viewpoints of the two groups seem more different than they are.

C. NEXT STEPS
The Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee recommends that local courts and
justice partners examine this report with an eye toward local reform. One method for
reviewing it might be for juvenile court presiding judges to convene local justice partner
meetings to assess which issues identified in this report are problematic in their
jurisdiction and to come up with local solutions. In addition, the Family and Juvenile Law
Advisory Committee requests that the Judicial Council consider this report in terms of its
implications for statewide reforms efforts. While many of these recommendations can be
implemented immediately, others require future study, statewide consideration, funding,
statutory changes, or rule changes. A few challenges were found repeatedly throughout
the assessment; these are discussed in the sections that follow. Although this list is by no
means exhaustive, it is illustrative of the areas courts and the AOC should examine.
Whether a change is simple or requires a many-pronged solution, it is critical that the
courts and the AOC begin this effort where there are findings to support change. In
addition, many areas require future research, either as identified in this study or as will
arise as a critical issue in the years to come. The committee encourages the AOC to
continually monitor changes and trends in juvenile justice.

1. Self-Assessment
The findings of this statewide assessment strongly suggest that it is at the court and
county level where much of the work for system improvement must take place. Statewide
data cannot suggest what the particular issues are in any one jurisdiction, nor can they
point courts to specific solutions. Much of the data supplied in this study, rather, suggest
areas that local courts and justice partners may wish to examine in their jurisdictions, to
find what is true for them and to join forces to solve challenges that a local assessment
may suggest.
The assessment’s findings show that many courts and justice partners already meet
often to work on problems in the courts. A structured exercise of self-assessment would
present the opportunity for some courts to take an intensive look at their existing local

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

system, determine what it is they want to achieve, and then use local resources and
strengths to reach their goals. As noted in chapter 1, many national jurisdictions have
undertaken a process of open examination of specific benchmarks for their system.
Benchmarks for appraisals can include (1) state statutes and rules, to determine whether
practices are aligned with legal mandates; (2) standards of practice, including the
California Standards of Judicial Administration; and (3) guides that suggest best practices
(such as Delinquency Guidelines, this assessment, and other guides 98 ) to determine
whether current practices are helping achieve the court’s goals. Information gathering for
self-assessments can include legal research, meetings with justice partners, public
hearings or other meetings with the community and court users, and an examination of
court case records. The AOC should assist by creating tools that courts can use for these
purposes. The AOC may also wish to consider convening county teams in local, regional,
or statewide events geared toward assisting local jurisdictions in identifying those areas
of the assessment most applicable to their needs and developing strategies for
improvement.

2. Court User Assistance
One very clear finding in the assessment is that court users have information needs that
are not being adequately addressed in some courts. Many courts, as well as the AOC,
already

produce

delinquency

court

information

for

users.

AOC

The

juvenile
should

continue to produce and distribute informational

One very clear finding in the
assessment is that court users have
information needs that are not being
adequately addressed.

bulletins to the courts for distribution to court
users. Per a request made at the delinquency caseflow meetings, the AOC should work
in conjunction with the courts to produce an informational video about juvenile
delinquency. These media, however, are one-way communication tools. Courts will need
to examine their own environments for ways to increase the opportunities for youth,
victims, and parents to inquire and otherwise communicate with the court about their
specific cases and concerns. Another way to increase understanding, while also
addressing the factor of users’ discomfort in court, is to use legally accurate, plain
language in the courtroom. The AOC, in conjunction with courts, may wish to develop
judicial aids to assist court proceedings.

98
Courts with access to probation data about youth outcomes could also consider including the
question of youth outcomes in their self-assessments. See the recent American Prosecutors
Research Institute, Guide to Developing and Implementing Performance Measures for the Juvenile
Justice System (2006); available at
http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/performance_measures_jj_system_06.pdf (accessed Apr. 9, 2008).

Chapter 6: Conclusion

3. Legislative Changes and Other Systemic Approaches
Many of the findings point to the need for legislative change or systemic improvement. A
priority expressed at the statewide caseflow management workshops and repeated in
focus groups and surveys was the need for significant improvements in the system’s
approach to mental health cases. Caseflow participants suggested that the AOC could
assist courts by developing a statewide model for the delivery of mental health services
to youth in the delinquency court. Due to limitations on the scope of the JDCA, further
study is needed to determine how best to approach this effort. JDCA study participants
identified specific needs for increasing both the number of existing mental health services
and the types of services available (for example, more qualified mental health
professionals to work with youth in their communities, more bed space in regional centers
for delinquent youth, and more locked mental health facilities for youth who are a danger
to themselves or others). In addition, JDCA study participants and those who attended
the caseflow management workshops have asked for AOC leadership in seeking
legislative changes to make legal incompetency procedures more clear.

4. California Court Case Management System (CCMS)
The judiciary is currently developing a case management system to provide uniform case
management, more effective transfer of cases across county lines, venue transparency,
public access, accurate data reporting, complete information gathering and maintenance,
and ease of information sharing and access by the courts and other justice partners. In
addition to judicial officers and court staff, such as clerks, analysts, research attorneys,
and others, the AOC has involved its own delinquency experts in assisting in the
development of the CCMS. Staff also helped develop draft management reports to be
distributed to the courts that should provide many of the statistics that they need to
monitor their performance and resource needs. To help address the courts’ current data
needs until CCMS V4 (which includes the juvenile court component) is developed, the
AOC will work to develop common data definitions for the courts. The AOC should
ensure appropriate staffing to assist the courts both in developing the CCMS and in
supporting local efforts until the CCMS is launched statewide.

5. Juvenile Delinquency Technical Assistance Project
The AOC is staffed with attorneys with expertise in juvenile delinquency law and court
matters, who answer legal questions regarding rules, forms, and procedure that come
from the juvenile delinquency community. Over the course of the assessment, as judicial
officers and justice partners asked technical questions, it has become clear that legal
research done to fulfill individual requests should be broadly disseminated, as other
groups may have similar legal questions. One AOC commitment already made, for
example, is to annually review and distribute to the courts the list of offenses in California

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

100

Welfare and Institutions Code section 676 that open delinquency hearings to the public,
as some courts reported a lack of administrative expertise or resources to do so.
The AOC is also staffed with researchers with expertise in juvenile justice research and
analysis. A second area of technical assistance involves having AOC analysts review
already-published empirical and other literature on effective practices and distribute them
to judicial officers. The desire to understand how certain treatment modalities function
and the circumstances under which they may be effective was expressed strongly by
courts and justice partners during the study. These activities supplement, but do not
substitute for, individualized technical assistance and trainings provided by other AOC
efforts.

6. Resource Needs
Improvements to rule adherence, practice and procedure, and organizational efficiencies
can certainly be expedited through self-assessments, improvement plans, and
collaborative approaches to problem solving. On this road, however, many systems will
eventually be stymied by resource limitations. Resource limitations were not directly
investigated in this assessment, but they do appear to be somewhat responsible for
some of the challenges that the system is experiencing. The Family and Juvenile Law
Advisory Committee recommends that courts hearing delinquency matters, probation
departments, and attorney offices be adequately and stably funded in order to fulfill their
statutory and professional obligations in the juvenile delinquency system, and that courts
communicate their expectations to those agencies to encourage increased accountability.
The methods that other agencies use to determine their needs and seek additional
resources is largely out of the purview of this court-based assessment.
To be properly resourced, courts need to determine, meet, and monitor their resource
needs. Currently, very little is known about judicial workload in juvenile delinquency
matters. Full-time equivalent judicial officers in juvenile delinquency conduct hearings for
about 1,100 filings per year, but the workload that this currently entails is unknown. Also
unknown is the time it takes to hold statutorily mandated hearings and make statutorily
mandated findings and orders. Without baseline knowledge, it is difficult to move beyond
a vague but pervasive notion that more resources are needed. Moreover, without this
baseline, adjustments to workload based upon changes in laws and best practices
cannot be made in a rational fashion. For these reasons, the Family and Juvenile Law
Advisory Committee recommends that the Judicial Council conduct a workload study of
judicial officers presiding over juvenile delinquency proceedings. The Judicial Council
should also consider conducting a court staffing needs assessment to determine the
staffing levels necessary to sufficiently support the court’s management and review of
juvenile delinquency cases.

101

Chapter 6: Conclusion

D. CONCLUSION
This assessment is the judiciary’s first comprehensive research study of how the superior
courts of California handle delinquency matters. It is hoped that this baseline information
will provide courts and justice partners with the information needed to identify areas for
change and guidance in making the needed changes. The Family and Juvenile Law
Advisory Committee encourages statewide policy makers and local leaders to review the
recommendations in the following chapter to help improve both the administration of
justice and the lives of youth, victims, and other community members affected by the
delinquency system by helping set an agenda for system improvements over the coming
years.

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

102

CHAPTER 7
Recommendations
The Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee makes the following specific
recommendations:

CASE-LEVEL PERFORMANCE
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

1. Courts should protect the rights and interests of youth, parents, victims, and the
community.
2. Judicial officers should ensure the welfare of youth by inquiring about their
health, safety, and education; the effectiveness of court-ordered services,
restitution, and community service; and other matters regarding their general
welfare and the terms of their probation.
3. Judicial officers should ensure that hearings are completed within statutory
deadlines, granting continuances only for good cause while recognizing that
continuances may be necessary to protect the right to due process and the
opportunity to fully defend against the allegations in a petition.
4. Judicial officers, court staff, attorneys, and probation officers should monitor their
practices and procedures to ensure that they meet statutory requirements
regarding confidentiality and open public hearings.
5. Courts should support victims by ordering restitution in a specific amount, making
restitution payment a priority, and encouraging other methods of victim
restoration as appropriate.
6. Probation officers, defense counsel, and judicial officers should ensure that youth
understand their rights regarding record sealing and should provide them with the
information necessary to exercise those rights.
7. The AOC, in conjunction with local courts, should ensure that delinquency court
facilities appropriately protect confidentiality and include private meeting spaces
for court users and juvenile justice partners.

103

Chapter 7: Recommendations

COURT PARTICIPATION

SERVICES AND SANCTIONS
INDIVIDUALIZED SERVICES

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

104

18. Courts and probation should ensure that dispositional case plans include
adequate reentry services.
19. Judicial officers should encourage collaborative, problem-solving practices that
provide for the development and implementation of individualized case plans.
20. The courts and probation should encourage the identification and involvement of
positive extended family members in a youth’s rehabilitation.
21. Courts should collaborate with probation departments to ensure that judicial
officers and attorneys understand probation assessment tools and the local
sanction and service options that are available.
22. The courts, probation officers, and other juvenile justice partners should continue
to collaborate in an effort to develop effective practices and methods for
improving the delivery of services.
MEETING DIVERSE NEEDS

23. Juvenile justice agencies should continually seek out culturally appropriate
resources in their communities and ensure that youth, families, and victims who
do not speak English receive necessary interpreter and translation services.
24. Probation officers should continually seek out accessible and effective services,
paying particular attention when emerging service gaps are discovered.
25. Probation officers who supervise youth in placement facilities should be trained
to ensure that the needs of those youth are met and that their probation complies
with title IV-E requirements.
26. The courts and probation should comprehensively examine and address all
aspects of the needs of youth with mental health issues who are involved in the
delinquency system.
27. The AOC should support legislation to address ways to more adequately and
effectively deal with competency issues that come before the courts.
28. The AOC should continue to work with probation and social services to assist
them in working with those youth who appear to come within the jurisdiction of
both the delinquency and dependency systems.

105

Chapter 7: Recommendations

COURT MANAGEMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

106

38. The AOC and the courts should assess the court’s role in minority
disproportionality within the juvenile justice system and work collaboratively with
state and county-level justice providers to address racial and ethnic disparities.
39. The AOC should continue to support the courts and other agencies in developing
ways to assist youth whose circumstances potentially bring them before both the
dependency and delinquency courts.
CASE MANAGEMENT

PROFESSIONALS AND COURT USERS
COMMITMENT

107

Chapter 7: Recommendations

48. Probation departments should seek out, encourage, promote, and retain staff
who are committed to working with juveniles and developing expertise in this
important area.
EDUCATION

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment
Final Report

108

57. Local government officials should fund public defenders’ offices, district
attorneys’ offices, and contract-based defenders at a level that allows them to
adequately fulfill their professional obligations.
58. The Judicial Council should support the improvement of resource allocation in
the courts by conducting a judicial workload study of judicial officers who hear
juvenile delinquency cases and a needs assessment of the court staffing that
supports the court’s management and review of juvenile delinquency cases.

109

Chapter 7: Recommendations

JUVENILE
DELINQUENCY
COURT
ASSESSMENT
2008

VOLUME 21

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
OF THE COURTS
CENTER FOR FAMILIES, CHILDREN
& THE COURTS

Juvenile Delinquency
Court Assessment 2008
Volume 2
April 2008

CONTENTS
Volume 1
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 1
A. Fundamental Principles ................................................................................... 1
B. Summary of Findings ....................................................................................... 2
C. Recommendations........................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 11
A. Background and Charge of the Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment .... 11
B. Report Overview ............................................................................................ 13
C. Unique Nature of Juvenile Court ................................................................... 14
D. Juvenile Justice in California and National Trends........................................ 15
1. Statistical Overview ................................................................................. 16
2. Current Juvenile Justice Efforts, Nationally and in California.................. 17
E. Project Overview............................................................................................ 20
F. Fundamental Principles.................................................................................. 22
CHAPTER 2. Court Hearings....................................................................................... 23
A. Introduction .................................................................................................... 23
B. Hearing Management .................................................................................... 23
C. Quality of Legal Work .................................................................................... 25
1. General Legal Work................................................................................. 25
2. Postdispositional Defense Attorney Representation ............................... 26
D. Quality of Probation Reports ......................................................................... 28
E. Quality of Other Information........................................................................... 29
1. Reports and Recommendations Regarding Crossover Youth ................ 29
2. Judicial Oversight of Title IV-E Activities ................................................. 30
F. Probation Officers’ and Attorneys’ Perspectives on the
Courtroom Environment ................................................................................. 31
G. Case-Level Communication With Youth, Parents, and Victims .................... 32
H. Case-Level Collaboration .............................................................................. 33
I. Other Issues .................................................................................................... 34
1. Interpreters............................................................................................... 34
2. Indian Child Welfare Act .......................................................................... 34
3. Restitution ................................................................................................ 35
4. Record Sealing ........................................................................................ 36
J. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 36
K. Recommendations ......................................................................................... 37
CHAPTER 3. System Responses................................................................................ 39
A. Introduction .................................................................................................... 39
B. Service and Sanction Options ....................................................................... 39
1. Availability of Services and Sanctions ..................................................... 40
2. Perceived Effectiveness of Services and Sanctions................................ 44
C. Supervision Programs ................................................................................... 45
D. Collaborative Courts ...................................................................................... 46
E. Appropriately Matching Youth to Services and Sanctions............................. 49
F. Especially Difficult Service and Sanction Needs............................................ 50
G. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 53
H. Recommendations......................................................................................... 53
CHAPTER 4. Court Management ................................................................................ 57
A. Introduction .................................................................................................... 57
B. Accountability................................................................................................. 57

C. Collaboration.................................................................................................. 59
1. Dual-Status Cases................................................................................... 60
2. Disproportionate Minority Contact ........................................................... 61
3. Education ................................................................................................. 62
4. Transfer of Cases Between Counties...................................................... 62
D. Court Resource Needs .................................................................................. 63
E. Court Case Management............................................................................... 64
F. Facilities ......................................................................................................... 66
1. Accessibility ............................................................................................. 66
2. Safety and Security.................................................................................. 67
3. Protection of Rights ................................................................................. 68
4. Adequate Workspace .............................................................................. 68
G. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 69
H. Recommendations......................................................................................... 69
CHAPTER 5. Professionals and Court Users .............................................................. 73
A. Introduction .................................................................................................... 73
B. Court Professionals’ Experience and Background ........................................ 73
1. Judicial Officers........................................................................................ 73
a. Experience and Background ............................................................. 74
b. Juvenile Assignments and Experience ............................................. 74
c. Judicial Officer Education .................................................................. 75
2. Prosecutors.............................................................................................. 75
a. Experience and Background ............................................................. 76
b. Juvenile Assignments and Experience ............................................. 76
3. Defense Attorneys ................................................................................... 77
a. Experience and Background ............................................................. 77
b. Juvenile Assignments and Experience ............................................. 78
4. Probation Officers .................................................................................... 80
a. Experience and Background ............................................................. 80
b. Juvenile Assignments and Experience ............................................. 80
C. Court Professionals’ Experiences With the Juvenile Delinquency System ... 80
1. Experience With the Delinquency Court and Court Professionals .......... 80
2. Working With Youth, Families, and Victims............................................. 81
3. Juvenile Delinquency System.................................................................. 83
D. Court Users’ Experiences With the Juvenile Delinquency System ............... 84
1. Barriers to Participation ........................................................................... 85
2. Lack of Comprehensible Process or Hearings ........................................ 87
3. Purpose of Juvenile Delinquency Court .................................................. 88
4. System Follow-Through........................................................................... 88
E. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 89
F. Recommendations ......................................................................................... 91
CHAPTER 6. Conclusion ............................................................................................. 95
A. Summary of Findings ..................................................................................... 96
B. Study Limitations............................................................................................ 98
C. Next Steps ..................................................................................................... 99
1. Self-Assessment...................................................................................... 99
2. Court User Assistance ........................................................................... 100
3. Legislative Changes and Other Systemic Approaches ......................... 101
4. California Court Case Management System (CCMS) ........................... 101
5. Juvenile Delinquency Technical Assistance Project.............................. 101
6. Resource Needs .................................................................................... 102
D. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 103
CHAPTER 7. Recommendations............................................................................... 105

CONTENTS
Volume 2

ABOUT THIS VOLUME
This report is divided into two sections. Volume 1 contains the executive summary and a comprehensive
final report that brings together the research findings with recommendations. In Volume 1, Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the assessment and the report. Chapter 2 addresses the quality of court hearings
and other issues at the court case level. Chapter 3 discusses the availability and quality of services and
sanctions available to the courts and probation agencies. In Chapter 4, managerial and leadership issues
central to the functioning of a well-run court are presented, including court accountability, collaboration,
and facilities. Chapter 5 describes the background of the key professionals who work in the court system.
That chapter also describes how youth, parents, communities, judicial officers, and justice partners view
the juvenile justice system. Chapter 6 summarizes the report and discusses possible next steps in implementing the recommendations. The final recommendations are presented in Chapter 7, and they also
appear at the ends of the chapters, according to subject matter.
Volume 2 contains briefing documents on the various research efforts that informed this work. Chapter 1
focuses on the methodology of the study. Chapters 2, 3, and 4 respectively provide detailed results of the
surveys of judicial officers, probation officers, and attorneys. Chapter 5 focuses on the perspectives of
court users gained during focus groups. Chapter 6 provides a review of juvenile court facilities, and Chapter 7 contains the research instruments used for this assessment. These data sources served as the
foundation for the findings and recommendations contained in Volume 1.

CHAPTER 1
Methodology Report

ResearchUpdate

April 2008

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Methodology
Report
The Judicial Council of California’s Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee, in conjunction
with the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), Center for Families, Children & the Courts
(CFCC), conducted the Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment (JDCA). The Family and Juvenile
Law Advisory Committee convened a working group composed of members of the advisory
committee and experts drawn from state entities and the major participants in the juvenile delinquency
court: judicial officers, 1 court staff, probation, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. Working group
members were selected both for their subject matter expertise and to ensure representation from a cross
section of the state in terms of geographic location and county size. The working group helped develop
the study plan, guide the research, and interpret the findings. A list of working group members can be
found at the beginning of volume 1 of the Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment 2008.
The JDCA is the first statewide, comprehensive examination of California’s juvenile delinquency court
system. This report covers information about the research design and methodology that the JDCA
project used. Results from all of the assessment tools used in the JDCA are discussed in volume 1 and
chapters 2 through 6 of volume 2 of the Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment 2008. Copies of all of
the assessment tools can be found in chapter 7 of this volume, Research Instruments.
Research Design

The principal sources of research topics for the JDCA were the Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines 2 and
results of the Juvenile Dependency Court Improvement Program Reassessment. 3 Additional input on
research topics was solicited from various internal AOC meetings and from the Family and Juvenile
Law Advisory Committee, which appointed various delinquency justice partners to form a JDCA
working group. The working group comprised presiding judges; judicial officers; court administrators;
chief probation officers and probation juvenile division leaders; and prosecutors and defense attorneys,
including juvenile division supervisors. These members were selected from a range of small, medium,
and large counties and from rural, suburban, and urban counties. The topic guide was created in
consultation with the working group.

“Judicial officers” refers to judges, commissioners, and referees.
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in
Juvenile Delinquency Cases (2005).
3
Judicial Council of Cal., California Juvenile Dependency Court Improvement Program Reassessment (2005); available at
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/CIPReassessmentRpt.pdf.
2

Research topics were categorized in the following manner:
•
•
•
•

Processes, including quality of hearings, information, and advocacy; court management and
facilities; and services and sanctions.
People, including justice partners and court users. Justice partners include court staff, judicial
officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and probation officers. Court users include youth,
parents, victims, and community members.
Professionals’ backgrounds and work styles, including training, tenure, collaboration, and
relationships.
Court users’ and community members’ experiences and perspectives.

In order to address the research topics in a way that reflects the diversity of the delinquency system in
California, the JDCA project used the following types of data sources:
•
•
•
•

Statewide surveys of professional participants in the delinquency system that addressed issues
concerning experience, training, resources, effectiveness of sanctions and services, and system
collaboration;
Interviews and focus groups with justice partners in the delinquency system to answer
questions related to the research topics;
Focus groups with court users and community members that addressed their experiences with
and perspectives on the delinquency system; and
Assessments of juvenile facilities.

Interviews and focus groups took place in six counties (study counties) in California.
Selection of Local Study Courts

The JDCA project chose six counties to be studied in depth. These six counties were chosen to cover a
wide range of California’s local delinquency courts. 4 The following factors were considered when
choosing the study counties:
•
•

Geographic factors, including urban/rural, physical area, and population size; and
Whether the court’s involvement with other projects would make it burdensome to fulfill the
responsibilities of participation in this study.

After these issues were considered, six courts were contacted to participate in the JDCA: Los Angeles,
Placer, Riverside, San Francisco, San Joaquin, and Siskiyou. For each court, the presiding judge of the
juvenile court and the court executive officer were sent a written description of the project and
requirements for participation and agreed to participate.
Overview of Data Sources

The JDCA project used various methods of collecting data. They included statewide surveys of judicial
officers and other justice partners in the delinquency system, interviews with judicial officers and other
justice partners, focus groups with justice partners, and focus groups with court users and community
members. In addition, a checklist was used to assess juvenile facilities.
4

The six counties were not randomly selected and are not representative of the entire state; however, the qualitative data
from these six counties give a flavor of the experiences that people are having in the delinquency system throughout
California.
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Methodology Report

Statewide Surveys of Justice Partners

Surveys were sent by mail of all juvenile delinquency judicial officers; all court administrators; a
random sample of 20 percent of juvenile probation officers; all prosecutors who handle delinquency
cases; and all court-appointed defense attorneys who handle delinquency cases, including public
defenders, alternate public defenders, and contract attorneys. 5 Details on survey administration and
responses are discussed in detail in the sections that follow and are summarized in table 1. In the table,
the initial population estimate refers to the expected number of each type of survey respondent. The
next number is the estimated number of respondents who were not included because their county
agency declined to participate. Those agency-level refusals were subtracted from the initial population
estimate to yield a final population estimate to send the survey or from which a sample would be
derived. Some of the surveys returned were from people who were not eligible to participate; those
surveys were coded as ineligible and subtracted from the final eligible sample or population. The
coding scheme used for ineligible, unable, and refusal was based on guidelines issued by the American
Association for Public Opinion Research. 6 The number of surveys received was divided by the final
eligible sample or population to determine response rates.
All of the surveys contained questions related to the respondents’ professional backgrounds,
department information, services and sanctions, quality of information and advocacy, crossover or
dual-status processes, courtroom management and caseflow processes, and relationships and
collaboration. The survey of judicial officers contained additional questions on education and training.
The survey of defense attorneys contained additional questions on postdispositional work. The court
operations survey contained questions on facilities and courtroom technology. Copies of all of the
surveys can be found in chapter 7 of this volume, Research Instruments.
Judicial Officer Survey. The survey of judicial officers was piloted by three judges before being
fielded. To create a current directory of judicial officers hearing juvenile cases, all of California’s
juvenile courts were contacted in the spring of 2006. The survey was sent to every judicial officer who
was identified as regularly hearing juvenile cases. Some judicial officers hear both delinquency and
dependency cases; the first part of the survey could have been answered by those who hear dependency
only, delinquency only, or both types of cases, and the remainder of the survey questions focused on
delinquency topics. As table 1 illustrates, a final population estimate of 240 judicial officers received
the survey via postal mail in June 2006. Accompanying the survey was a description of the project;
survey instructions; and a letter requesting participation, explaining the importance of receiving a
timely response, and providing contact information for questions. The deadline for responding to the
survey was approximately three weeks after the survey was sent.
Approximately six weeks after the survey was sent, nonresponders received a postcard reminder. In
August, each nonresponder received up to three reminder telephone calls. 7 Judicial officers who were
no longer hearing juvenile cases were dropped from the pool of eligible participants, and judicial
officers who were not on the current list but did hear delinquency cases were added to the pool of
5

For the defense attorney and probation surveys, not every county submitted a list; some counties declined to participate.
Details about the estimated number of people this includes is listed under “agency-level refusal” in table 1.
6
American Association for Public Opinion Research, Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome
Rates for Surveys; available at http://www.aapor.org/uploads/standarddefs_4.pdf (accessed Nov. 6, 2007).
7
For all surveys, nonresponders were called up to three times. A message was left directly with a clerk or secretary if
answered, but voicemail was not left until the third attempt to contact the nonresponder.
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Methodology Report

eligible participants. Eligible participants were limited to judicial officers who had a regular
appointment to a juvenile court to ensure that participants were responding to questions based on their
own observations of their courtroom. 8 After ineligible participants had been omitted, the population
was 214 judicial officers (see table 1). Of these, 73 hear delinquency cases only, 68 hear delinquency
and dependency cases, 67 hear dependency cases only, and 6 did not report what types of cases they
hear. A total of 191 surveys were received, representing 89 percent of eligible participants. The
analysis of the survey includes only the 141 judicial officers who hear delinquency cases.
Table 2 illustrates that judges were less likely than commissioners to respond to the survey and that
commissioners were less likely than referees to respond to the survey. Table 3 shows that participants
in small courts were less likely to respond than participants in large courts. These differences were not
great and did not affect the analyses.
Court Operations Survey. The goal of the court operations survey was to assess the day-to-day
management and policies of the delinquency courtroom. Three court executive officers (CEOs) piloted
the court operations survey, and it was sent via e-mail to the presiding judges of all 58 juvenile courts.
Accompanying the survey was a description of the project; an instruction sheet with contact
information; and a letter describing the survey, including a suggestion that court staff such as the CEO,
court clerk, or other court administrator may be the appropriate ones to respond to certain sections of
the survey.
The court operations survey was the first part of a two-part examination of court management issues.
The second part was an open-ended survey about caseflow management asking about effective
practices in the respondent’s court. The second part was analyzed as a separate component from this
project. The results of this analysis were used to create a manual of effective practices in delinquency
court and to facilitate caseflow workshops throughout the state. 9
Both surveys were attached to an e-mail as fillable forms and sent in September 2006. After the
deadline for responding had passed, nonresponders received a follow-up e-mail with an extended
deadline. After the second deadline, the remaining nonresponders received a follow-up telephone call.
A total of 47 surveys from 58 courts (81 percent) were received. Table 3 shows that court executive
officers from small counties were slightly less likely to respond to the survey than those from medium
and large counties, which did not affect the analyses.
Probation Officer Survey. Eight juvenile probation officers helped project staff develop survey
questions at a focus group in December 2006. Once a draft survey was completed, an additional seven
probation officers from various counties piloted the survey. Upon reviewing a final draft of the survey,
the Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC) wrote a letter of endorsement for the survey and the
project.
All chief probation officers were contacted in January 2007 to create a database of nonsupervising
juvenile deputy probation officers in the state. Fifty-four of the 58 counties responded with a list that
amounted to 3,428 deputy probation officers. Four counties declined to participate but disclosed the
approximate number of juvenile probation officers in their counties. With those numbers, it was
8

Judicial officers who heard juvenile cases on a backup or fill-in basis only were considered ineligible.
Greacen Associates, LLC, Developing Effective Practices in Juvenile Delinquency Caseflow Management (2006);
available at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/Delinq/DevelopingEffective--JDCM.pdf.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Methodology Report

estimated that the number of probation officers missing from the database was 51, and so that many
placeholders were added to the database for a total initial population estimate of 3,479 eligible
respondents. As table 1 illustrates, a 20 percent random sample of the total number of probation
officers statewide was selected to complete the survey. The sample included 690 probation officers. If
one of the 51 placeholders was selected in the sample, the probation officer was coded as having
refused to participate and not replaced to offset possible selection bias. These agency-level refusals
were not included in the sample size and thus were not included in calculating the response rate. 10
A total of 690 juvenile probation officers from 54 counties received the survey via postal mail in
March 2007. Mailed with the survey were the CPOC endorsement letter, an instruction sheet with
contact information for any questions, and a letter from CFCC requesting participation and explaining
the importance of receiving a timely response.
Surveys were mailed in two separate batches approximately two weeks apart. The first batch was
mailed to 355 probation officers and the second batch was mailed to 335 probation officers. Deadlines
for each batch were three weeks from the mail date. Immediately after the respective deadlines,
nonresponders from each batch received a second complete mailing (survey, CPOC endorsement,
instruction sheet, and letter) with a reminder postcard. In May and June, all remaining nonresponders
received up to three reminder telephone calls.
Because a 20 percent sample was used, respondents found to be ineligible were coded as such and
randomly replaced from the population of 3,479 probation officers. 11 Probation officers who were
unable to complete the survey or who refused to participate were not replaced. Ultimately, 352 of 674
eligible probation officers responded to the survey, a 52 percent rate of response.
Table 3 shows that probation officers from medium-sized counties were less likely than those from
small or large counties to respond to the survey. This difference in responses by county size had no
effect on the analyses.
Table 4 illustrates the random selection of probation officers by county size; there was no county size
bias in selecting probation officers. An approximately equal percentage of probation officers selected
for the sample were from small, medium, and large counties.
Prosecutor Survey. Members of the JDCA working group participated in a focus group in September
2006 to create topics and questions for the surveys of prosecutors and defense attorneys. Three juvenile
prosecutors piloted the prosecutor survey. After survey development was completed, the California
District Attorney’s Association (CDAA) wrote an endorsement letter for the project and the survey.
Each district attorney’s office was contacted in December 2006 to create a current directory of juvenile
prosecutors in the state. All counties responded with a list of prosecutors who handled delinquency
cases at that time. A sample was not drawn; the survey was sent in three separate batches via postal
mail in March and April 2007 to all 291 prosecutors who handled delinquency cases. The first batch
10

Individuals who declined to fill out their surveys were coded as individual-level refusals and were included in calculating
the response rate.
11
Those found to be ineligible were probation officers who did not work in juvenile assignments, who were exclusively
managers or supervisors with no caseload, or who worked in institutions or facilities with no caseload. Those unable were
probation officers who were on leave or vacation during the survey period. Ineligible surveys that were returned after the
last survey deadline were not replaced.
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Methodology Report

was sent to 246 attorneys, the second batch was mailed to 23 attorneys, and the third batch was sent to
22 attorneys. Accompanying the survey was the CDAA endorsement letter, 12 an instruction sheet with
contact information for questions, and a letter from CFCC describing the project and the importance of
a timely response. The deadlines for responding to the survey were approximately three weeks after the
mail date of each batch of surveys.
Immediately following the deadlines, nonresponders received a second complete survey packet
(survey, endorsement letter, instruction sheet, and letter) with a reminder postcard. In May 2007, the
remaining nonresponders received up to three reminder telephone calls. Of a total of 258 eligible
participants, 174 returned a survey, or 67 percent of the eligible prosecutors (see table 1). Table 3
shows that prosecutors from small and medium counties were more likely to respond to the survey than
those from large counties. Some of the survey findings were affected by these county-size differences.
Effects of these differences are detailed in the relevant sections of the Attorney Report in chapter 4 of
this volume.
Defense Attorney Survey. Members of the JDCA working group participated in a focus group in
September 2006 to create topics and questions for the surveys of prosecutors and defense attorneys.
Four defense attorneys piloted the defense attorney survey. Upon completion of survey development,
the California Public Defenders Association (CPDA) wrote an endorsement letter for the project and
the survey.
In December 2006, a directory was created of juvenile defense attorneys by contacting all county
public defenders’ offices, county alternate public defenders’ offices, and the presiding judges of the
juvenile courts requesting a list of county contract attorneys. 13 Thirty-three counties have a county
public defender’s office and six counties have an alternate public defender’s office that handles
delinquency cases. Lists of juvenile defense attorneys were obtained for 31 public defenders’ offices, 4
alternate public defenders’ offices, and 53 counties’ contract attorneys. 14 An initial population estimate
of 819 defense attorneys was established, including an estimated 71 attorneys in the state whose names
were not obtained from their respective agencies. These 71 agency-level refusals were coded as such
and were not included in the sample size and thus not included in the response rate calculation.
The survey was sent in two separate batches via postal mail in May 2007. A sample was not drawn; the
survey was sent to the final population estimate of 748 juvenile defense attorneys, including public
defenders, alternate public defenders, and contract or panel attorneys. The first batch was mailed to
330 attorneys and the second batch was sent to 418 attorneys. Accompanying the survey was the
CPDA endorsement letter, an instruction sheet with contact information, and a letter describing the
project and the importance of a timely response. The deadlines for the surveys were three weeks from
each respective mail date.
Immediately following each deadline, nonresponders were sent a second complete survey packet
(survey, endorsement letter, instruction sheet, and letter) with a reminder postcard. In June 2007, the
12

Prosecutors in one county that is not affiliated with the CDAA were sent a second packet without the CDAA
endorsement letter once the JDCA project staff learned of this lack of affiliation.
13
“Contract attorneys” refer to contract or panel conflict defenders only and does not include attorneys who contract as a
public defender.
14
A partial list was received from one county, resulting in complete lists of contract attorneys from 52 counties and a
partial list from 1 county.
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Methodology Report

remaining nonresponders received a reminder telephone call. Out of 668 eligible participants, 343
defense attorneys (51 percent) returned a survey. Table 3 shows that county size had no bearing on the
likelihood of defense attorneys’ responding to the survey; only about half of the defense attorneys
responded to the survey regardless of county size.
Interviews With Justice Partners

Each of the six study counties was visited two times. During the first round of site visits, in October
through December 2006, interviews were conducted with the presiding judge of the juvenile court,
chief probation officer, supervising juvenile prosecutor, supervising juvenile public defender,
supervising court clerk, and court executive officer. The interviews were used to gather information
about the court and the delinquency system in each county and to recruit other people for focus groups
during the next visit. Generally, information gathered in the interviews served as a basis for refining
focus group guidelines and for preparing logistics for the second site visits.
Interview topics included current local issues and innovations, collaboration with other agencies and
within the court, confidentiality issues, hearing issues, services and sanctions, restorative justice,
victim services, facilities, and information systems. Additional questions related to memoranda of
understanding, logistics for focus groups, obtaining access to hearings, and touring the courthouse
were discussed with the presiding judges of each of the six juvenile courts.
Focus Groups With Justice Partners

In each of the study counties, the chief probation officer and supervising attorneys were contacted to
assemble focus groups. Focus groups with four groups of juvenile probation officers, three groups of
juvenile prosecutors, and three groups of juvenile defense attorneys were organized. The focus groups
ranged in size from 3 to 10 participants and lasted approximately 90 minutes. Each focus group had a
minimum of one facilitator and one note taker.
Before asking the focus group questions, the facilitator described the project. Written information
about the project and contact information were also given to participants. Since names were not taken
at any of the focus groups, a signed confidentiality form was not used; however, participants listened to
a statement of confidentiality read to them that described how the information would be used. Also
described were participants’ rights, including an explanation that participants did not have to answer
any questions that made them uncomfortable and that they could leave at any time with no penalty.
All of the justice partners’ focus groups covered topics related to assessments, services and sanctions,
the court, victims, and relationships and collaboration. The defense attorneys’ focus groups were asked
additional questions related to postdispositional work.
Focus Groups With Court Users and Community Members

A consultant, working with a JDCA project cofacilitator, led additional focus groups with youth,
parents, victims, and community members. Five focus groups were conducted with in-custody and outof-custody youth, three with parents, four with victims, and three with community members.
Participants in the community members’ focus groups consisted primarily of members of communitybased organizations. Participants in all of the court users’ focus groups were recruited through various
agencies in each of the counties, with victims being the most challenging to recruit. The focus groups
ranged in size from 3 to 19 participants and lasted between 90 minutes and 2 hours.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Methodology Report

Before asking the focus group questions, the facilitators described the project and gave out written
information about the project and contact information. Since names were not taken at any of the focus
groups, a signed confidentiality form was not used; however, participants listened to a statement of
confidentiality read to them that described how the information would be used. Also described were
participants’ rights, including an explanation that participants did not have to answer any questions that
made them uncomfortable, that they could leave at any time with no penalty, and that their
participation or nonparticipation would not affect their cases in any way.
Focus groups with parents and victims covered topics related to understanding the system, satisfaction
with the system and process, ease of participation, whether they felt the youth understood how the
crime affected others, what they thought the intention of the delinquency court is, and ideas on how to
improve the delinquency court. Focus groups with community members covered topics related to
participants’ knowledge of and experience with the court, factors that encouraged or discouraged
involvement with the court, collaboration between the court and community-based organizations
(CBOs), how the court could obtain input and information from CBOs, and ideas on how to improve
the delinquency court. Focus groups with youth covered the youth’s perceptions of and experiences in
the delinquency court. The youth answered questions about who, if anyone, helped them or should
have helped them understand the process, how often they see their attorneys and probation officers,
whether anything was a surprise, whether they had agreed to anything that they did not understand, and
whether they understand how their crime affected others. They also discussed what they thought the
purpose of the delinquency court is, what is working well or helping them, and what would make the
delinquency court system work better than it currently does.
Assessments of Juvenile Facilities

The JDCA project, in consultation with the AOC’s Office of Court Construction and Management
(OCCM), developed a checklist to examine the current state of delinquency facilities and to assess the
unique needs of delinquency courts. Information is lacking on the specific needs of juvenile facilities,
and thus this checklist was created to assist in developing expanded standards for juvenile facilities. A
copy of the checklist can be found in chapter 7 of this volume, Research Instruments.
The checklist included a list of optimal features of delinquency courthouses with choices of yes, no,
and do not know and an option for comments. The items on the checklist were based on issues
addressed by the California Trial Court Facilities Standards, 15 adopted by the Judicial Council; the
planning and design guide from the National Center for State Courts; 16 the Juvenile Delinquency
Guidelines; and the JDCA working group.
Items included in the checklist related to building access; safety and security; courtroom configuration;
separate waiting areas for law enforcement, out-of-custody youth, victims, and the public; attorney
interview rooms; colocated juvenile hall and agency offices; and the confidential nature of the
delinquency court.

Judicial Council of Cal., California Trial Court Facilities Standards (2006); available at
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/occm/documents/06_April_Facilities_Standards-Final-Online.pdf.
16
D. Hardenbergh, R. Tobin, and C. Yeh, The Courthouse: A Planning and Design Guide for Court Facilities (National
Center for State Courts, 1998).
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Methodology Report

To complete the checklist, various delinquency facilities throughout the state were toured. Nine courts
were visited, including three courts built in the last 10 years and six that were built before 1997.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Methodology Report

Tables
Table 1
Survey Statistics and Details by Respondent Type
Court
Judicial
Officer
Administrator
Initial population estimate
Agency-level refusal estimate*
Final population estimate
Sample size
Final sample
Not eligible to participate
Replacement**
Unable to participate***
Individual refusal to participate
Surveys not received
Surveys received
Final eligible sample/
population
Response rate****

Probation
Officer

Prosecutor

Defense
Attorney

240
0
240
240
100%
26
0
2
1
20
191

58
0
58
58
100%
0
0
0
0
11
47

3,479
51
3,428
690
20%
114
98
16
19
317
352

291
0
291
291
100%
33
0
2
4
79
174

819
71
748
748
100%
80
0
6
12
304
343

214

674

258

668

89%

81%

52%

67%

51%

*Estimated number of participants in the state whose names were not obtained from their respective agencies and who were not
included in the final population estimate.
**Ineligible surveys returned after the last survey deadline were not replaced.
***Unable to participate were those who were on vacation or leave during the survey response time versus refusals, who
articulated an unwillingness to participate.
****Response rate was calculated by dividing the number of surveys received into the sample size minus those not eligible to
participate. Those who refused or who were unable were included in the final sample size.

Table 2
Survey Response for Judicial Officers by Title
Responding
Count
Percent
Presiding Judge of the Superior
Court
Presiding Judge of the Juvenile
Court
Judge
Commissioner
Referee
Total

Nonresponding
Count
Percent

Total
Count

Percent

89.5

10.5

100.0

97.3

2.7

100.0

68
47
23
191

84.0
88.7
95.8
89.3

13
6
1
23

16.0
11.3
4.2
10.7

81
53
24
214

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Methodology Report

Table 3
Survey Response by County Size
Judicial officers

Responding
Count
Percent

Nonresponding
Count
Percent

Count

Percent

Small
Medium
Large
Total
Court administrators

40
44
107
191
Count

78.4
86.3
95.5
89.3
Percent

11
7
5
23
Count

21.6
13.7
4.5
10.7
Percent

51
51
112
214
Count

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Percent

Small
Medium
Large
Total
Probation officers

21
18
8
47
Count

67.7
100.0
88.9
81.0
Percent

10
0
1
11
Count

32.3
0.0
11.1
19.0
Percent

31
18
9
58
Count

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Percent

Small
Medium
Large
Total
Prosecutors

120
162
70
352
Count

64.9
39.7
67.3
50.5
Percent

65
246
34
345
Count

35.1
60.3
32.7
49.5
Percent

185
408
104
697
Count

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Percent

Small
Medium
Large
Total
Defense attorneys

32
48
94
174
Count

89.0
80.0
58.0
68.0
Percent

4
12
67
83
Count

11.0
20.0
42.0
32.0
Percent

36
60
161
257
Count

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Percent

69
116
158
343

53.0
54.0
50.0
52.0

61
99
156
316

47.0
46.0
50.0
48.0

130
215
314
659

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

Small
Medium
Large
Total

Total

Table 4
Survey Selection for Probation Officers by County Size
Selected
Count
Percent
Small
Medium
Large
Total

56
149
499
704

19.9
20.8
20.1
20.2

Not Selected
Count
Percent

Count

Percent

225
568
1982
2775

281
717
2481
3479

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

80.1
79.2
79.9
79.8

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Methodology Report

Total

Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Hon. Ronald M. George
Chief Justice of California and Chair of the Judicial Council
William C. Vickrey
Administrative Director of the Courts
Ronald G. Overholt
Chief Deputy Director
Diane Nunn
Director, Center for Families, Children & the Courts
Charlene Depner
Assistant Division Director, Center for Families, Children & the Courts
Lee Morhar
Assistant Division Director, Center for Families, Children & the Courts
Authorship
Amy Bacharach (lead author)
Research Analyst
Audrey Fancy
Supervising Attorney
LaRon Hogg-Haught
Associate Attorney
Iona Mara-Drita
Senior Research Analyst
Kimberly Tyda
Research Analyst
Assistance
Jens Zeschky
Administrative Coordinator
CFCC generates and distributes research-based information that has promise for
informing the work of the courts in California and nationwide. To learn more about its
work and to see more Research Updates, visit www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/.
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, California 94102-3688
E-mail: cfcc@jud.ca.gov
Phone: 415-865-7739

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Methodology Report

CHAPTER 2
Judicial Officer Report

ResearchUpdate

April 2008

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment:
Judicial Officer Report
This report covers information about the Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment (JDCA) project and
the 2006 CFCC Survey of Juvenile Judicial Officers. Findings from the survey are related to
professional background and judicial assignments, court management, quality of probation reports and
attorney advocacy, service and sanction needs, system collaboration, and the needs of the juvenile
court:
•
•
•
•

•
•

Juvenile delinquency judicial officers 1 have significant expertise, education, and experience in
juvenile law.
Judicial officers have an average of over 10 years of judicial experience and have been in their
current assignments for more than 5 years.
They receive an average of 22 hours of specialized education in juvenile law and related matters
each year.
Information available to the court at the initial, jurisdiction, and dispositional hearings is largely
adequate. Judicial officers are relatively less satisfied with the quality and availability of
information about youth’s special needs, individualized education programs, and physical and
mental health.
The quality and availability of information about the youth during the postdispositional period
varies by the terms of probation.
Judicial officers are largely satisfied with attorney representation. Two areas in which they are
dissatisfied with attorney performance are the frequency with which defense attorneys confer with
their clients and the frequency with which they physically visit their clients.
Juvenile delinquency is a highly collaborative field, with ongoing multidisciplinary efforts to
respond to policy and program challenges as they arise.
Judicial officers believe that their counties need more probation officers, more services for youth,
and more disposition options in court.

Results from all assessment tools used in the JDCA are discussed in the Juvenile Delinquency Court
Assessment 2008. A copy of the survey can be found in Volume 2, chapter 7, Research Instruments.
About the JDCA

“Judicial officers” refers to judges, commissioners, and referees.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

and the major participants in the juvenile delinquency court: judicial officers, court staff, probation,
prosecutors, and defense attorneys. Working group members were selected both for their subject
matter expertise and to ensure representation from a cross section of the state in terms of geographic
location and county size. The working group helped develop the study plan, guide the research, and
interpret the findings. A list of working group members can be found at the beginning of volume 1 of
the Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment 2008.
The JDCA marks the first major assessment of California’s delinquency courts. This assessment was
designed to gather and provide information to help improve the juvenile delinquency system by
making recommendations for changes in laws and rules of court; improvements in hearing
management, judicial oversight, court facilities, and other aspects of court operations; caseload
changes; and improvements in court services for all court users. The assessment covered the following
general topics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Hearings and other court processes;
Court facilities;
Court collaboration with justice system partners;
Sanction and service options for youth;
Perspectives of court users, including youth, parents, victims, and community members;
Education and training;
Accountability; and
Professional background and experience.

The primary mode of investigation was to communicate directly with justice partners and court users.
The JDCA project conducted surveys with all juvenile judicial officers, all court administrators, a
random sample of juvenile probation officers, all juvenile division prosecutors, and all court-appointed
defense attorneys, including public defenders, alternate public defenders, and contract or panel
attorneys who were identified as handling cases in delinquency court. The JDCA project chose six
counties to study in depth to learn about issues facing delinquency courts: Los Angeles, Placer,
Riverside, San Francisco, San Joaquin, and Siskiyou. These six counties were selected for their size
and geography in order to study a range of California’s local delinquency courts. Interviews were
conducted in each of these study counties with the presiding judge of the juvenile court, the chief
probation officer or the juvenile probation division designee, the managing or supervising juvenile
deputy district attorney and public defender, and court administration staff such as the supervising
juvenile court clerk, court executive officer, or manager. Focus groups were also conducted with
justice partners such as probation officers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, and with court users
such as youth, parents, victims, and community members. An assessment of delinquency court
facilities across the state was also conducted as part of the JDCA project. The ultimate goal of this
project was to improve both the administration of justice and the lives of youth, victims, and other
community members affected by the delinquency system.
About the Judicial Officer Survey

The 2006 CFCC Survey of Juvenile Court Judges, Commissioners, and Referees was mailed in June
2006 to every judicial officer with regular assignments to hear juvenile dependency or delinquency
proceedings. Out of a population of 214 eligible judicial officers, 191 returned a completed survey—an
89 percent response rate. Out of these 214 judicial officers, 73 hear delinquency cases but not
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

dependency cases, 67 hear dependency cases but not delinquency cases, and 68 hear both types., and
we were not able to learn about the caseload of 6 out of the 23 nonrespondents. The figures reported
here are based on the 131 respondents out of the 141 judicial officers in the population with regular
assignments to delinquency cases who responded to the survey. Respondents who hear juvenile
delinquency but not juvenile dependency cases were excluded.
The survey contained questions related to respondents’ professional backgrounds and department
information and asked about satisfaction with and effectiveness of sanctions and services, quality of
information and advocacy, courtroom management and caseflow processes, and relationships and
collaboration. Respondents also answered open-ended questions about their perceptions of the
strengths and challenges of the juvenile delinquency system.
Background and Job Descriptions

In order for the delinquency system to best meet the needs of youth, families of youth, victims, and
other court participants, it is critical that the juvenile delinquency courts be properly staffed and
resourced with experienced judicial officers who are committed to working within that framework of
the juvenile court to meet court users’ needs and are given reasonable caseloads and working
conditions, enabling them to meet those needs effectively. The findings in this section show that the
juvenile court bench has significant expertise, education, and experience in juvenile law. Judicial
officers have an average of over 10 years of judicial experience and have been in their current
assignments for more than 5 years. The majority had some experience as an attorney in the juvenile
law field before their first judicial assignments, and they receive an average of 22 hours of specialized
education in juvenile law and related matters each year.
As table 1 shows, 2 29 percent of judicial officers with regular assignments to hear delinquency
proceedings are subordinate judicial officers, 40 percent are judges, 22 percent are presiding judges of
the juvenile court, 10 percent are presiding judges of the superior court, and 28 percent are subordinate
judicial officers. About one-quarter of all judicial officers work in jurisdictions with county
populations of under 2 million, another one-quarter work in jurisdictions with populations of 2 to 10
million, and half work in jurisdictions with populations of 10 million or more. The proportion of
judges to subordinate judicial officers varies depending on the size of the jurisdiction, with judges in
smaller jurisdictions making up a larger proportion of judicial officers with regular delinquency
calendars than judges in medium and large jurisdictions. This remains true when presiding judges with
regular delinquency assignments are excluded (such judges are rare in medium and large jurisdictions).
We asked judicial officers what their regular time commitment to juvenile delinquency is (table 2).
Slightly more than one-half (53 percent) indicated that they have full-time juvenile delinquency
assignments, 13 percent are between half time and full time, and 34 percent spend less than half time
working on delinquency cases. The 21 percent that reported working on delinquency assignments less
than one-quarter time is somewhat higher than previous estimates have suggested. A possible
explanation is that since the survey was sent to all judicial officers working in juvenile court,
dependency judicial officers who occasionally hear delinquency cases on a backup basis may have
entered “less than one-quarter time” as their average time commitment, while previous estimates may
have tallied only judicial officers with regular delinquency assignments.

This table includes nonrespondents for whom some information was available.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

Based on the reported time commitment to juvenile delinquency cases among survey respondents, and
on the estimated time commitment of nonrespondents, given their county size and job title, we estimate
that there are approximately 95 full-time equivalent judicial positions serving juvenile delinquency.
Each full-time equivalent position is responsible for approximately 1,100 filings per year. 3
Table 3 presents data on the number of years respondents had been in their current delinquency judicial
assignment and in all delinquency judicial assignments in their careers. Respondents reported that, as
of the survey date, they had been in their current, ongoing assignment for an average of five years.
One-half had completed three years or less of their assignment so far, 15 percent were in their third or
fourth year, and about one-third (35 percent) had been in their current assignments five years or more.
Across all juvenile delinquency assignments in their careers, presiding judges of the superior court had
the most experience on average (9 years); however, very few presiding judges of the superior court
have juvenile assignments. Subordinate judicial officers had an average of 7 years of experience in
juvenile assignments, presiding judges of the juvenile court had 6 years, and judges had 3 years.
Standard 5.40 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration encourages juvenile bench
assignments of at least 3 years. 4 Because we do not have data on the length of completed assignments,
we can say with certainty only that one-half of the current assignments have already met the 3-year
mark and that a significant minority have been in their assignments for 5 years or longer. One
respondent commented upon the strengths of his or her court by noting that “judicial officers assigned
to juvenile court want to be here and are not being ‘forced’ to sit in juvenile.” Another added that a
strength was the stability that longer tenures brought their court.
Table 4 shows that the overall tenure of judicial officers working in juvenile delinquency is extensive.
Overall, the median length of judicial experience is 11.5 years for all judicial officers combined, 11.5
years for judges, and 8.0 years for subordinate judicial officers (only 15 judges were once subordinate
judicial officers).
Survey respondents were also asked about their professional involvement in juvenile court before
becoming a judge or subordinate judicial officer (table 5). Sixty-two percent had been attorneys who
had practiced juvenile law. 5 Subordinate judicial officers were much more likely to have had prior
juvenile experience than were judges (86 versus 52 percent), because they are often hired to work in
the area of their legal expertise. Although some respondents with prior experience as juvenile court
attorneys also had prior professional roles as nonattorneys (such as social worker or probation officer),
only 6 percent of delinquency court judicial officers had exclusively nonlegal professional roles.
Judicial officers also reported on the training in delinquency law they received at the start of their first
assignment, as well as on their current education and training (table 6). Seventeen percent reported not
having received specialized education in the juvenile delinquency field, either before they started or
within the first year of their delinquency assignments. Forty-seven percent received it before they
started the assignment, and 48 percent received it within the first year of their assignment. (This totals
to more than 100 percent because some respondents received training during both periods.) The
proportion who received no training does not change appreciably when the analysis is limited to

105,714 602 case filings divided by 95 full-time equivalent judicial positions is 1,113. Source: Administrative Office of
the Courts, Court Statistics Report: 2006.
4
Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., std. 5.40(a): The presiding judge of the superior court should assign judges to the juvenile court to
serve for a minimum of three years. Priority should be given to judges who have expressed an interest in the assignment.
5
The survey did not ask about the extent of prior legal experience in the field.
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

respondents with delinquency appointments of half time or more, or when it is limited to respondents
who had been judicial officers for less than 10 years.
As shown in table 7, judicial officers reported that they spent an average of 22 hours in the previous
year in specialized training related to juvenile delinquency, dependency, and related subjects. Nine
percent participated in no training, 18 percent in 1 to 9 hours of training, 18 percent in 10 to 19 hours,
21 percent in 20 to 29 hours, and 35 percent spent more than 30 hours in training. About one-half (46
percent) reported that there are no work-related barriers to attending more trainings (table 8). Among
those who cited barriers, the most frequently cited barriers were that the court has difficulty covering
their time away from the bench and budget constraints.
Quality of Information Available to the Court

Judicial officers make court findings and orders after considering an array of information on a case,
primarily from probation officers and attorneys, but also from youth, victims and witnesses, service
providers, and others. This information generally comes in the form of written reports and oral in-court
presentations. Orders and findings needed to move a case from one stage to the next are largely
dependent on these reports and the judicial inquiries that follow them. The data in this section are
focused on the quality of information provided by probation reports and reviews. They show that
judicial officers are generally satisfied with the quality of information they receive from probation but
that there are some areas in need of attention. This includes information about mental and physical
health, individualized education programs (IEPs), special needs, and success with meeting the terms of
probation.
Judicial officers were asked to rate their satisfaction with the quality of information that should be
found in detention/initial hearing probation reports (table 9). Their level of satisfaction with
information about the youth’s prior delinquency record is relatively high (75 percent). Satisfaction
levels are somewhat lower regarding information about drug and alcohol use, and about the parents’
views on detaining the youth (59 and 57 percent, respectively). There is appreciable dissatisfaction
with the quality of information regarding school attendance and adjustment, as well as regarding home
life (17 and 20 percent, respectively). More than one-quarter of respondents do not receive information
about the youth’s Indian ancestry. 6
Judicial officers were satisfied with the quality of information available at jurisdictional hearings (table
10) about prior delinquency record, school attendance and adjustment, home life, and drug and alcohol
use (72 to 93 percent). However, only one-half of judicial officers were satisfied with the risk and
needs assessments presented at this stage. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction among judicial
officers with information provided about mental and physical health, IEPs, and special needs. 7
After youth have received their disposition, the court must monitor the progress of those who have
been made wards by assessing information about their general welfare, services received, and progress
toward meeting the terms of their probation. Although it is the probation officers’ responsibility to
provide this information, they, in turn, must rely on reporting from detention facilities when youth
6

Probation officers are not legally required to report on possible Indian ancestry until the court finds that there is a risk of
the youth being removed from the family’s home.
7
The choice “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied” may have been interpreted in more than one way by survey respondents. It
may have been used as a midpoint on the rating scale or it may have been selected by respondents who have no opinion on
the question item.
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

have been sent to local or state institutions. Generally, tables 11 through 14 show that judicial officers’
appraisal of the quality of postdispositional information varies more by the source of the information
than by the type of information. Satisfaction is highest for information about youth in foster or group
homes, followed by youth who are home on probation and those in state DJJ facilities. 8 About 15
percent receive no reports back from camps and ranches, and about 25 percent receive no information
from DJJ facilities.
For youth who are home on probation, about two-thirds of judicial officers are satisfied with
information regarding the youth’s progress in meeting community service, restitution, fines, and other
terms of probation (table 11). Levels of satisfaction drop for information about their general welfare
and the provision and effectiveness of services. Here again, dissatisfaction with information about
mental health, IEPs, and special needs is quite high. The pattern is similar for youth in foster or group
homes, with the addition of a low level of satisfaction (50 percent) with information regarding
independent living services. Satisfaction with information that the court might receive from a DJJ
facility did not rise above 30 percent for any of the 12 categories of information listed in the survey
question (table 14). Respondents are particularly dissatisfied with reports on the provision and
effectiveness of court-ordered services. The survey data could not help determine whether information
from DJJ is not being sent to the court, or whether the court is not effectively forwarding that
information to judicial officers.
Table 15 shows the levels of satisfaction that judicial officers have with various postdispositional
activities. More than two-thirds are satisfied with postdispositional review hearings, 9 and more than
one-half are satisfied with probation review reports. There is less satisfaction regarding probation
officer visits with youth (54 percent satisfied). This table also shows satisfaction rates with two
attorney activities. Only 17 percent are satisfied with attorney visits with the youth, and only 20
percent are satisfied with attorney requests to amend probation terms. Effective July 1, 2004, rule
5.663 clarified existing law governing the responsibilities of delinquency defense attorneys in
representing youth, including during a case’s postdispositional period. 10 These include defending
against allegations in all petitions filed in delinquency proceedings; representing youth at every stage
of the proceedings; and advocating during hearings that youth receive care, treatment, and guidance
consistent with his or her best interest. Although dissatisfaction is high with these activities, the
Attorney Report 11 shows that a sizable 25 percent of defense attorneys reported that their
postdispositional advocacy has increased since the passage of rule 5.663.
Under title IV-E of the Social Security Act and the California statutes implementing the federal law,
the state is required to provide the same types of services to youth who are at risk of entering foster
care and those who are in foster care, as well as to their parents, in the delinquency system as it does
for the children and their families in the dependency system. The evidence required to support the
findings must be provided to the court by the probation department. The judge needs time to read and
evaluate the probation officer’s report prepared for each hearing and time during each hearing to

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice will be referred to as DJJ.
It is difficult to know the meaning of the 12 percent who do not “receive information” about postdispositional review
hearings, because judicial officers are present at those hearing. It is possible that those respondents do not engage in such
hearings because they specialize in predispositional hearings.
10
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.663 (effective July 1, 2004), Responsibilities of Children’s Counsel in Delinquency
Proceedings.
11
See volume 2, chapter 4.
9

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

discuss the contents of the report with the parties. Table 16 summarizes judicial officers’ responses
indicating how often they believe the probation department is undertaking a number of activities
related to federal and state legal requirements for these youth and their families. These activities should
be described in probation reports and considered in hearings. Many judicial officers (averaging 30
percent across the questions) reported that they do not know whether probation officers are involving
youth in case planning, trying to locate relatives, helping youth make adult connections, securing
Independent Living Program (ILP) services, or notifying tribes when a youth’s Indian status is in
question. One possible explanation for this finding is that they cannot tell from the probation reports
they review whether these activities are occurring. Among those respondents who are aware of
probation departments’ efforts concerning these activities, a minority think that many of these
activities are nearly always happening for foster youth and those at risk of entering foster care. 12
Judicial officers are largely making the findings and orders required in these cases, but they may need
more time to consider probation reports and make inquiries about their content.
Judicial officers were asked about their satisfaction with various processes involved in responding to
youth who have come to the attention of both the delinquency and dependency sides of the juvenile
court (table 17). Sixty-two percent are satisfied with the frequency with which the probation
department and child welfare agency agree on a recommendation for how the court should treat the
youth. About two-thirds are satisfied with the appropriateness of the recommendations, given the
offense and the offender’s strengths and challenges. However, only about one-half (52 percent) are
satisfied with the information sharing during the process. Forty-four percent are satisfied with the
information presented to them when the two agencies’ viewpoints diverge.
We asked respondents what, apart from public safety and best interest, were considerations in deciding
whether to move a youth from one part of the juvenile court to the other (table 18). The two concerns
cited most frequently by delinquency judicial officers are that services in juvenile delinquency are not
as extensive as they are in juvenile dependency (55 percent reported this as a consideration) and that
youth can lose their ability to return to placement after a delinquency adjudication (42 percent). Many
of the respondents who checked “other” wrote that in their jurisdictions the services available to
dependent youth are not as extensive as those available to delinquent youth.
Quality of Legal Advocacy

Because attorney advocacy is such an important component of fairness and justice, judicial officers
were asked to assess it in their surveys. They were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with the
performance of prosecutors and defense attorneys by rating them on a large number of attorney
activities (tables 19 and 20). Overall, judicial officers are satisfied with the performance of juvenile
attorneys, and they do not consistently rate one attorney type more highly than the other. The
variations in satisfaction levels for these activities suggest gaps either in attorney performance or in
attorneys’ access to information that judicial officers believe they need in order to arrive at the best
decisions possible.
As shown in table 19, judicial officers are relatively satisfied with prosecutors in terms of their
knowledge of the law, quality of legal arguments, and knowledge of the case (satisfaction levels are 69
12

The percentages in these tables did not change appreciably when the analysis omitted respondents who perhaps seldom
hear title IV-E cases (such as respondents working in delinquency less than half time and respondents from small
jurisdictions).
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

to 89 percent). Although 70 percent are satisfied with prosecutors’ predispositional advocacy, 10
percent are not. Satisfaction is lower with postdispositional advocacy (58 percent satisfied and 12
percent dissatisfied). 13 Respondents were moderately satisfied with prosecutors’ performance in a
number of other areas, including timely discovery, calling witnesses, and direct and cross-examination.
Judicial officers are not satisfied with the level of knowledge about community resources that
prosecutors have: only 30 percent are satisfied, with 31 percent reporting being dissatisfied with their
knowledge of these resources. Satisfaction with motion practices and trial briefs is quite low, in part
because these practices do not occur frequently in juvenile cases.
Judicial officers’ attitudes toward juvenile defense attorneys are similar in some ways to those toward
juvenile prosecutors. For instance, as shown in table 20, respondents are again more satisfied with
predispositional advocacy than with postdispositional advocacy. They are also rather dissatisfied with
defense attorneys’ knowledge of community resources (only 46 percent are satisfied and 21 percent are
dissatisfied). Judicial officers are relatively satisfied with defense attorneys’ knowledge of the facts of
the case and with their appearance for scheduled hearings. They are moderately satisfied with other
court practices, such as calling witnesses and direct and cross-examinations. One area in which judicial
officers are distinctly dissatisfied involves how defense attorneys work with their clients. Less than
two-thirds are satisfied with the frequency with which attorneys confer with clients, and only 39
percent are satisfied with the frequency of attorneys’ physical visits with clients.
Hearing Management

Hearing continuances and delays can pose problems for the court and court users. They contribute to
exceeding statutory timelines; delaying accountability, rehabilitation, and victim restoration; wasting
resources such as the time of paid professionals; and causing youth, parents, and victims to forgo
competing obligations, such as school and work, while they wait in court, often for half-days or full
days. They also benefit cases because they allow late-arriving information to be considered and enable
required parties to appear in court. No empirical guidance exists regarding what is an excessive
number of hearing delays, and assessing whether delays are warranted is a difficult exercise. There is a
sense that too many delays may signify justice denied and too few may signify due process denied, but
there is no precision to those values that can easily guide an assessment.
Only about one-half of the respondents said that they always or almost always get through their
juvenile delinquency calendar and hear each case to their satisfaction. However, only one-quarter of
the respondents said that hearing delays are a moderate or major problem (table 21).
As shown in table 22, a lack of information (such as reports and evaluations) is a major reason for
hearings being held over, according to the observations of judicial officers. In addition to explicitly
noting this problem, many respondents chose the separate reason “attorney not ready,” which is often
related to the lateness or unavailability of information. It is possible that a failure to receive reports on
time may affect judicial officers’ and prosecutors’ perceptions of defense attorney readiness. The only
other major cause of hearing delays in uncontested matters was the youth not being present. In
contested matters (table 23), in addition to the lack of information and youth’s absence noted in
uncontested matters, a significant source of delay involves hearings going over their allocated time.

The role of the prosecutor after disposition is generally limited to advocacy surrounding new violations and responses to
requests for dismissal and other postdispositional amendments.
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

Performance-related reasons for hearing delays (such as probation or attorney not being present or lack
of or improper notice) seem to be relatively uncommon.
These survey data and the difficulty of appraising delays and continuance at the statewide level suggest
that local courts should monitor trends in the frequency of, and stated reasons for, hearing delays and
should examine both how expeditiously hearings are completed and whether justice is compromised by
resource limitations. As is explained in volume 1 and elsewhere in volume 2 of this report, courts also
need to consider how they communicate with court users about hearing continuances and delays, since
court users often view continuances and poorly explained reasons for delays as a significant affront.
Sanctions and Services

Effective juvenile justice systems have developed an array of services and sanctions available to youth
who have come to the attention of law enforcement. 14 Youthful offender populations present a broad
array of risks and needs that must be accompanied by an appropriate range of service and sanction
options. Evaluations must be made regarding how best to match youth with services, depending on the
youth’s individual mental, educational, and familial strengths and challenges. Sanctions range from
less to more severe and can move up or down the continuum depending on the performance of the
offender. The primary advantage of a range of sanctions and services is that they give probation
departments the tools and ability to respond appropriately to different offenses and offenders. There is
a good deal of data in the JDCA report regarding shortcomings in the availability of appropriate
sanctions and services for youth in the juvenile justice system. These shortcomings vary by level of
sanction and by type of treatment. This section describes judicial officer satisfaction with sanctions and
services, and with the performance of youth in different probation settings.
Judicial officers are more likely to be satisfied with the options available to the juvenile court for
sanctioning youth than they are with the options available for mandated services (table 24). They are
also more likely to be satisfied with the sanctions and services available for lower-risk youth than with
those available for higher-risk youth. At 48 percent, the rate of dissatisfaction with services for highrisk youth is strikingly high. 15
Most judicial officers do receive information about youth on court-ordered informal probation and
deferred entry of judgment (DEJ), as shown in table 25. They are most satisfied with the performance
of these youth in their community service (60 percent), avoidance of recidivism (50 percent), and
restitution payment (46 percent). They are less satisfied with the progress these youth may be making
with their education, mental health, and substance abuse problems.
Judicial officers are somewhat less satisfied with the performance of (traditional) probation wards
compared to informal probation and DEJ youth (table 26). Although they are relatively satisfied with
the rate at which these youth complete their community service (65 percent), they are somewhat
dissatisfied with their rate of recidivism, restitution, and improvements to education, mental health,
and substance abuse.

U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Comprehensive Responses to Youth at Risk:
Interim Findings from the SafeFutures Initiative (2000); available at
http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/summary_comp_resp/index.html <last accessed March 17, 2008>.
15
This pattern is similar to what was found in the probation and attorneys surveys (volume 2, chapters 3 and 4).
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

Youth who are intensively supervised are assessed as performing relatively better than probation wards
along almost every dimension (recidivism, educational progress, and substance abuse improvement).
Respondents are more satisfied with the completion of community service for probation wards than for
youth on intensive supervision (65 and 51 percent)(table 27).
The percentage of respondents who are dissatisfied with the various youth performance dimensions is
higher for youth in camps, ranches, and private placement than for youth who are completing their
probation at home (table 28). A sizable percentage of respondents reported not receiving information
about restitution and community service for youth placed in these settings.
Respondents reported the lowest levels of satisfaction with the performance of youth at DJJ facilities
(table 29). Strikingly, one-third or more of the respondents reported that they do not receive any
information about youth’s performance in these facilities.
As shown in table 30, respondents are relatively satisfied with most supervision programs: short stays
in juvenile hall (64 percent), intensive supervision (54 percent), residential treatment facilities (47
percent), and, when they are available, restorative justice programs (50 percent satisfaction among
those that have these programs).
Respondents were asked to indicate the types of youth who are particularly difficult to match with
supervision, treatment, and placements. Table 31 shows that the most difficult youth to match are those
with mental health issues, those who are beyond control, and those who are developmentally delayed.
In open-ended survey questions, respondents thought that more options for girls and for youth who run
away from placement are also needed.
Collaboration

Judicial officers and justice partners routinely collaborate at a number of different levels in order to
improve the juvenile justice system. At the system level, they collaborate to improve court services,
increase service and sanction options, and resolve policy and other managerial issues as they arise. In
an open-ended survey question asking respondents to name the top strengths of their court, many
judicial officers credited the court’s collaborative relationships with justice partners, or the justice
partners’ collaborative relationships with one another.
About 85 percent of judicial officers hearing delinquency proceedings meet with other justice partners
(table 32). About one-half participate in regularly occurring meetings (42 percent), and one-half meet
as needed (44 percent). Of the 43 presiding judges of the juvenile court, about one-half meet with them
regularly, one-quarter meet with them on an as-needed basis, and one-quarter do neither. At the court
level, about three-quarters of courts have at least one delinquency judicial officer who attends regular
justice partner meetings. 16 About one-third of respondents believe that courts should meet with them
more often, and about one-third believe they should meet more often without judicial participation
(table 34).

This calculation excludes courts in which no respondent reported attending regular meetings if that court also had
nonresponding judicial staff. (The reasoning is that the nonrespondent may be the sole judicial representative attending
regular stakeholder meetings.) Of the remaining 49 courts, 36 (or 73 percent) have at least one judicial officer who
regularly attends stakeholder meetings.
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

Table 34 also shows that respondents feel strongly that collaboration with the community and crosstraining should be increased. More than half think that the courts should increase their collaboration
with the community, and about as many think that other agencies should also increase community
collaboration.
Roughly 8 in 10 respondents assessed the court’s relationship with the probation services division of
the probation department, public defender’s offices, and district attorney’s offices as very good or good
(table 35). Fewer respondents rated the working relationship between the court and juvenile hall that
highly. Respondents were more likely to cite poor or very poor relationships with groups that courts do
not routinely work with, such as county mental health (21 percent), child welfare (14 percent), and
school districts (18 percent), as shown in tables 35 and 36.
System Needs

Respondents were given a list of 52 items and asked to check how strongly they agree that there needs
to be improvement in the quality or quantity of these items in order to improve the functioning of the
juvenile justice system. Although the list is long, it is not exhaustive, so the results from this question
should not be interpreted to mean that the neglected dimensions are not thought to be important. The
top 8 selected improvements are discussed here. The full list is shown in Table 37.
The top three areas where judicial officers think that the system needs improvement are all related to
probation services for youth. They include more probation officers, improvements in probationsupervised services, and improvements in juvenile custody options. The next 5 are related to judicial
resources and court services needs. Respondents reported that more judicial positions and more time
and opportunities to visit placement would improve the system. They also agreed that access to mental
health courts, availability of victims’ and restitution services, and access to family group conferencing
could be improved. These are important findings because they suggest areas where some concentrated
improvements to resources may be needed. The other items listed in the table are also important and
may reflect significant needs within local jurisdictions, but at the statewide level, there is relatively less
agreement that significant improvements are needed in these areas.
Conclusion

This report summarizes the findings from the 2006 CFCC Survey of Juvenile Judges, Commissioners,
and Referees, the first statewide survey of all juvenile court bench officers conducted in California.
Because of the limits of centralized, administrative data, little was known about the background of
juvenile court judicial officers. The survey data show that the majority of judicial officers were
involved professionally with the juvenile court prior to their first juvenile assignment, and that they
continue to develop their expertise, with an average of more than 22 hours per year of formal education
in juvenile law and related fields. About one-half have full-time delinquency assignments; the rest
have other assignments as well. About one-half are in the first three years of their delinquency
assignment. Court hearings should continue to be led by experienced judicial officers who are
committed to the goals of the juvenile court and to working within the unique setting of the juvenile
court to meet the needs of youth, victims, and the community.
Respondents are generally satisfied with most aspects of probation officer and attorney work. Several
areas in need of further exploration include judicial officers’ access to knowledge about community
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

resources and their access to important information about the well-being of youth, such as their mental
health, school life, and educational needs. Judicial officers would like to become more knowledgeable
about the availability and effectiveness of treatments and services for youth. Probation officers need
reasonable caseloads in order to generate information that is vital to the court’s role in making findings
and orders and monitoring the postdispositional period. Three-quarters of the respondents agree that
more juvenile probation officers are needed.
Although the ability to continue a hearing is an essential component of guaranteeing that rights are
protected and court outcomes are fair, the ability to process cases without significant delays and
continuances is also a sign of a well-run and adequately resourced court. Judicial officers and court
managers should consider monitoring the reasons for delays and continuances in order to be assured
that the delays are for good cause and in the interest of justice, and so that they can recognize where
they may need either more resources or a different organization of their calendar. Because court users
can find continuances to be a significant affront, particularly if they occur after long waits in the
courthouse, it is important for courts to consider how they communicate their good-cause continuances
to court users, who are largely unfamiliar with legal language.
Most judicial officers reported that they are significantly involved in multidisciplinary justice partner
meetings, either to discuss procedures and policy or to discuss supervision, treatment, and placement
issues. Most believe that they meet sufficiently often. One-half think that there should be more
collaboration with the community. They reported good working relationships with the groups with
whom they collaborate most often (probation and attorneys). When asked to report on what they
consider the strengths of their court, they acknowledged that the expertise of and also the working
relationships between the justice partners contribute significantly to the overall strength of the court.
They recognize that the juvenile justice system needs more resources, particularly probation officers,
services, and custody options.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

Tables
Table 1
Type of Judicial Officer by County Size (N=141)

Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court
Judge
Subordinate Judicial Officer
Total

Under 2 million

2 to under 10
million

10 million or
more

Total

36.1
30.6
27.8
5.6
100%

0.0
37.1
31.4
31.4
100%

1.5
10.3
50.0
38.2
100%

10.1
22.3
39.6
28.1
100%

Table 2
Regular Time Commitment to Juvenile Delinquency
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=128)

Less than 1/4 time
1/4 time
Less than 1/2 time
1/2 time
3/4 time
Full time
Total

Count
27
8
8
11
6
68
128

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

Percent
21.1
6.3
6.3
8.6
4.7
53.1
100%

Table 3
Years in Juvenile Delinquency Assignments
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=130)
Presiding Judge
of the Superior
Court

Presiding Judge
of the Juvenile
Court

Judge

Subordinate
Judicial Officer

Total

Current Assignment
0 to 2.9 years
3 to 4.9 years
5 to 9.9 years
10 years and over
Total

0.0
15.4
53.8
30.8
100%

55.6
11.1
22.2
11.1
100%

64.6
20.8
12.5
2.1
100%

47.1
8.8
14.7
29.4
100%

50.8
14.8
19.7
14.8
100%

Current Assignment
N
Mean
Median
Standard deviation

13
9.0
8.6
3.4

27
5.0
2.7
4.6

48
3.1
2.1
3.6

34
6.8
4.3
5.5

122
5.2
2.8
5.5

Total assignments
N
Mean
Median
Standard deviation

13
9.2
8.5
3.2

31
5.9
5.0
4.4

42
3.2
2.4
3.5

44
6.9
4.9
5.2

130
5.5
3.9
5.2

Table 4
Years Spent in Judicial Officer Positions
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=128)

N
Mean
Median
Standard deviation

As a Judge

As a Subordinate Judicial
Officer

As a Judicial Officer

93
11.3
11.5
6.9

48
10.1
8.0
6.9

128
12.0
11.5
7.1

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

Table 5
Prior Professional Roles Related to the Juvenile Court
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=128)
Presiding Judge
of the Superior
Court

Presiding Judge
of the Juvenile
Court

Judge

Subordinate
Judicial Officer

Total

7.7
7.7
7.7

34.5
3.4
17.2

48.0
2.0
24.0

13.9
22.2
19.4

31.3
8.6
19.5

76.9

34.5

18.0

41.7

34.4

0.0

10.3

8.0

2.8

6.3

100.0%

None
Dependency Attorney
Delinquency Attorney
Dependency and
Delinquency Attorney
Non-Attorney juvenile roles
only
Total

Table 6
Specialized Judicial Training in Juvenile Delinquency
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=127)

Before starting assignment
Within a year of starting assignment
No delinquency training
Do not recall

Count
60
61
21
3

Percent
47.2
48.0
16.5
2.4

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

Table 7
Hours of Specialized Training in the Last Year
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=113)
Count
0 hours
10
1 to 9 hours
20
10 to 19 hours
20
20 to 29 hours
24
30 to 39 hours
15
40 to 49 hours
17
50 hours and over
7
Total
113
Median = 20.0 hours; mean = 22.2 hours; standard deviation = 16.6 hours

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

Percent
8.8
17.7
17.7
21.2
13.3
15.0
6.2
100%

Table 8
Work-Related Barriers to Attending More Training
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=125)
Count
57
21
17
57
10
31
25

No work related barriers to training
Few juvenile trainings available
Travel difficult from location
Trouble covering time away
Available training does not meet needs
Budgets constraints
Other reasons

Percent
45.6
16.8
13.6
45.6
8.0
24.8
20.0

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

Table 9
Satisfaction with Quality of Information in Detention/Initial Hearing Probation Reports
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=123–128)

Prior delinquency record
School attendance and
Adjustment
Home life
Alcohol and drug use
Parent's feeling about
detaining the youth
Risk assessments
Indian ancestry

Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

24.2

50.8

Neither
Satisfied
nor
Dissatisfied
10.9

7.0

39.8

7.0
10.9

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Do not
Receive
Report

Total

8.6

1.6

3.9

100%

29.7

14.8

2.3

6.3

100%

44.5
48.4

24.2
25.8

18.0
9.4

2.3
0.8

3.9
4.7

100%
100%

10.2

46.5

31.5

6.3

0.0

5.5

100%

11.9
6.5

38.9
26.0

24.6
21.1

11.1
13.8

7.1
4.9

6.3
27.6

100%
100%

Table 10
Satisfaction with Quality of Information in Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearing Probation Reports
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=129–130)

Prior delinquency record
School attendance and
Adjustment
Home life
Mental health
Physical health
Alcohol and drug use
Mental health assessments
Risk and needs
Assessments
IEP
Special needs

Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

45.4

47.7

Neither
Satisfied
nor
Dissatisfied
6.2

30.0

46.2

23.8
15.4
20.0
24.6
10.8

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Do not
Receive
Report

Total

0.8

0.0

100%

19.2

4.6

0.0

100%

48.5
38.5
36.9
51.5
33.1

22.3
31.5
33.1
16.2
33.1

4.6
11.5
9.2
7.7
16.9

0.8
3.1
0.8
0.0
4.6

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5

100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

12.3

37.7

33.1

1.0

6.2

0.8

100%

12.4
10.8

26.4
28.5

34.1
36.9

18.6
15.4

7.0
7.7

1.6
0.8

100%
100%

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

Table 11
Satisfaction With Quality of Information in Probation Reports for Postdisposition Youth Who Are at Home
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=125–126)

Progress in community
service, restitution, and fines
Progress in meeting other
terms of probation
Provision of court-ordered
Services
Effectiveness of courtordered services
School attendance and
Adjustment
Home life
Mental health
Physical health
Alcohol and drug use
IEP
Special needs

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied
nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Do not
Receive
Report

Total

11.9

51.6

16.7

10.3

0.0

9.5

100%

12.7

52.4

20.6

4.8

0.0

9.5

100%

8.0

36.8

34.4

10.4

0.8

9.6

100%

6.3

31.0

33.3

12.7

4.0

12.7

100%

11.9

44.4

20.6

12.7

0.8

9.5

100%

7.1
5.6
7.2
11.1
6.4
6.4

44.4
28.6
30.4
50.0
28.0
27.2

27.8
34.9
38.4
23.0
34.4
34.4

8.7
18.3
9.6
6.3
20.0
19.2

1.6
2.4
2.4
0.0
1.6
3.2

10.3
10.3
12.0
9.5
9.6
9.6

100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Very
Satisfied

Table 12
Satisfaction With Quality of Information in Probation Reports for Youth Placed in Foster or Group Homes
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=124–125)

Progress in community
service, restitution, and fines
Progress in meeting other
terms of probation
Suitability to be returned
home
Safety of youth at placement
Provision of court-ordered
services
Effectiveness of courtordered services
School attendance and
adjustment
Connections with family
Mental health
Physical health
Alcohol and drug use
Independent living services
IEP
Special needs

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied
nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Do not
Receive
Report

Total

15.2

46.4

25.6

7.2

1.6

4.0

100%

19.2

47.2

26.4

3.2

0.8

3.2

100%

14.4

52.0

24.0

6.4

0.8

2.4

100%

11.2

34.4

35.2

12.0

2.4

4.8

100%

10.4

40.0

36.0

10.4

0.8

2.4

100%

8.0

39.2

32.8

12.8

2.4

4.8

100%

15.2

45.6

29.6

6.4

0.8

2.4

100%

11.2
7.2
11.2
13.6
11.2
8.8
8.9

44.0
42.4
40.8
48.0
38.4
37.6
33.1

31.2
33.6
35.2
29.6
32.0
35.2
38.7

10.4
12.0
8.0
4.8
12.8
10.4
12.9

0.8
1.6
2.4
1.6
3.2
4.8
4.0

2.4
3.2
2.4
2.4
2.4
3.2
2.4

100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Very
Satisfied

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

Table 13
Satisfaction with Quality of Information in Probation Reports for Youth Placed in Camps and Ranches
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=108–110)

Suitability to be returned
home
Safety of youth at the facility
Provision of court-ordered
services
Effectiveness of courtordered services
School attendance and
adjustment
Connections with family
Mental health
Physical health
Alcohol and drug use
Independent living services
IEP
Special needs

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied
nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Do not
Receive
Report

Total

10.9

39.1

20.9

11.8

1.8

15.5

100%

10.0

29.1

30.0

12.7

2.7

15.5

100%

9.2

28.4

27.5

16.5

3.7

14.7

100%

8.3

30.3

13.8

2.8

14.7

100%

10.0

39.1

24.5

10.9

1.8

13.6

100%

9.1
7.3
8.2
10.0
7.3
7.3
6.5

32.7
25.5
30.0
35.5
22.7
22.0
21.3

30.0
34.5
34.5
27.3
31.8
33.9
32.4

11.8
13.6
9.1
10.0
18.2
17.4
21.3

2.7
4.5
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.7
2.8

13.6
14.5
14.5
13.6
16.4
15.6
15.7

100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Very
Satisfied

Table 14
Satisfaction with Quality of Information in Probation Reports for Youth in State Juvenile Facilities
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=95–96)

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied
nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Do not
Receive
Report

Total

6.3

24.0

30.2

11.5

5.2

22.9

100%

5.2

12.5

33.3

15.6

8.3

25.0

100%

5.2

15.6

34.4

15.6

5.2

24.0

100%

6.3

14.6

34.4

16.7

5.2

22.9

100%

5.2

19.8

37.5

11.5

4.2

21.9

100%

5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
4.2
4.2
4.2

14.6
16.7
18.8
19.8
15.6
17.7
14.7

40.6
37.5
36.5
38.5
36.5
35.4
36.8

12.5
13.5
11.5
9.4
12.5
11.5
13.7

4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
5.2
5.2
4.2

22.9
22.9
24.0
22.9
26.0
26.0
26.3

100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Very
Satisfied

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

Table 15
Satisfaction with Activities Occurring Postdispositionally
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=118–123)

Postdisposition review
hearings for nonplacement
youth
Probation review reports
Probation visits with youth
Child's attorney visits with
youth
Child's attorney requests
to amend probation terms

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied
nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Do not
Receive
Information

Total

15.3

41.5

22.9

7.6

0.8

11.9

100%

9.9
8.1

44.6
32.5

27.3
31.7

8.3
17.1

0.0
2.4

9.9
8.1

100%
100%

3.3

13.8

32.5

19.5

9.8

21.1

100%

5.7

13.8

47.2

8.9

15.4

100%

Very
Satisfied

Table 16
Frequency of Probation Officers' Activities When Working with Youth for whom Title IV-E Money is Drawn
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=125–126)

Involve youth in case
plans
Try to locate relatives
Help youth make adult
connections
Secure ILP services
Notice tribes when Indian
status is in question

Always or
Nearly
Always

Often

Sometimes

Occasionally

Never or
Rarely

Do not
Know

Total

19.0

15.9

22.2

5.6

4.0

33.3

100%

20.0

24.8

19.2

5.6

7.2

23.2

100%

8.7

20.6

27.0

6.3

7.1

30.2

100%

11.1

26.2

22.2

7.9

4.8

27.8

100%

16.8

12.0

4.0

10.4

40.0

100%

Table 17
Satisfaction with Handling of Cases Involving Youth Moving from One Part of the Juvenile Court to Another
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=124)

Satisfaction with frequency
of Probation and Child
Welfare agreements
Satisfaction with information
sharing
Satisfaction with information
presented
Satisfaction with
appropriateness of
recommendations

Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Total

13.7

48.4

25.8

10.5

1.6

100%

8.1

43.5

26.6

18.5

3.2

100%

9.0

35.2

42.6

11.5

1.6

100%

11.3

54.0

21.8

9.7

3.2

100%

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

Table 18
Considerations in Moving Youth from One Part of Juvenile Court to Another
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=123)
Count
43
67
40
52
24
13

Crossover interruption in services
Crossover delinquency services not extensive
Delinquency youth kept on probation
Dependency youth can lose ability to return to placement
None of the above
Other

Percent
35.0
54.5
32.5
42.3
19.5
10.6

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

Table 19
Satisfaction With Performance of Prosecutors
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=125–128)

Predisposition advocacy
Postdisposition advocacy
Appearing for scheduled
hearings
Making sound legal
arguments
Being knowledgeable about
the facts of the case
Being knowledgeable about
the law
Being knowledgeable about
community resources
Providing timely discovery
Calling witnesses
Direct examination
Cross examination
Motion practices
Trial briefs

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied
nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Not
Applicable

Total

21.6
16.0

48.8
42.4

19.2
28.8

10.4
12.0

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.8

100%
100%

40.6

46.1

10.9

2.3

0.0

100%

21.9

51.6

21.1

3.9

1.6

0.0

100%

27.3

44.5

21.9

5.5

0.8

0.0

100%

22.8

45.7

22.0

7.9

1.6

0.0

100%

7.0

23.4

36.7

25.0

5.5

2.3

100%

20.5
19.7
18.4
16.7
12.7
6.3

44.1
45.7
47.2
42.9
38.1
27.0

24.4
26.8
29.6
31.0
31.7
27.0

5.5
6.3
4.0

2.4
0.8
0.0
0.8
3.2
5.6

3.1
0.8
0.8
0.8
6.3
23.8

100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Very
Satisfied

7.9
10.3

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

Table 20
Satisfaction With Performance of Defense Attorneys
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=125–128)

Predisposition advocacy
Postdisposition advocacy
Conferring with child clients
Visiting child clients
Appearing for scheduled
hearings
Making sounds legal
arguments
Being knowledgeable about
the facts of the case
Being knowledgeable about
the law
Being knowledgeable about
community resources
Providing timely discovery
Calling witnesses
Direct examination
Cross examination
Motion practices
Trial briefs

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied
nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Not
Applicable

Total

22.8
20.5
18.9
12.6

52.8
50.4
44.1
26.0

19.7
22.0
26.8
34.6

4.7
7.1
7.9
13.4

0.0
0.0
0.0
4.7

0.0
0.0
2.4
8.7

100%
100%
100%
100%

22.7

48.4

23.4

5.5

0.0

100%

14.8

48.4

31.3

5.5

0.0

100%

21.9

57.8

17.2

3.1

0.0

100%

16.4

53.1

25.8

4.7

0.0

100%

9.4

36.2

33.1

19.7

1.6

0.0

100%

10.2
13.5
15.1
12.7
10.4
4.0

35.4
48.4
51.6
53.2
40.0
27.0

40.9
32.5
29.4
27.0
34.4
32.5

3.1
3.2
2.4
5.6
7.2
8.7

2.4
1.6
0.8
0.8

7.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
4.8
21.4

100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Very
Satisfied

6.3

Table 21
Severity of Problem With Continuances and Delays by Frequency of Getting Through the Day's Calendar to
the Judicial Officers' Satisfaction
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=130)

Not a problem
Minor problem
Moderate problem
Major problem
Total

Always or
Nearly
Always

Often

Sometimes

Occasionally

Never or
Rarely

Total

47.8
40.3
11.9
0.0
100%

29.4
50.0
17.6
2.9
100%

8.3
41.7
41.7
8.3
100%

0.0
20.0
80.0
0.0
100%

14.3
42.9
28.6
14.3
100%

33.8
41.5
22.3
2.3
100%

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

Table 22
Causes of Hearing Delays in Uncontested Matters
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=130)

Attorney not ready
Other reports, persons, or information not available
Youth not present
Probation report not available or filed on time
Evaluation reports not available or filed on time
Lack of or improper notice
Parent not present
Hearings need more than allocated time
Attorney not present
Probation not present
Did not check any

Count
58
55
42
41
38
29
27
24
24
3
3

Percent
17.0
16.1
12.3
12.0
11.1
8.5
7.9
7.0
7.0
0.9
2.3

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

Table 23
Causes of Hearing Delays in Contested Matters, or Trials
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=130)

Evidentiary information or witness not available
Attorney not ready
Other reports, persons, or information not available
Hearing needs more than allocated time
Youth not present
Evaluation reports not available or filed on time
Probation report not available or filed on time
Parent not present
Attorney not present
Lack of or improper notice
Did not check any
Probation not present

Count
87
68
51
34
26
25
17
9
8
7
6
2

Percent
26.0
20.4
15.3
10.2
7.8
7.5
5.1
2.7
2.4
2.1
4.6
0.6

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

Table 24
Satisfaction With Sanctions and Services Options
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=122–123)

Sanctions for low risk youth
Sanctions for intermediate
risk youth
Sanctions for high risk youth
Services for low risk youth
Services for intermediate
risk youth
Services for high risk youth

Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

10.6

43.9

Neither
Satisfied
nor
Dissatisfied
23.6

8.1

35.0

8.9
6.6

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Option not
available

Total

17.1

4.9

0.0

100%

28.5

24.4

4.1

0.0

100%

30.9
35.2

23.6
27.9

26.8
23.0

9.8
6.6

0.0
0.8

100%
100%

4.1

30.1

26.0

34.1

5.7

0.0

100%

6.5

25.2

20.3

29.3

18.7

0.0

100%

Table 25
Satisfaction With Performance of Youth Under Court-Ordered Informal Probation or DEJ
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=127)

Recidivism
Educational progress or
improvement
Mental health improvement
Substance abuse
improvement
Payment of restitution
Completion of community
service

Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

6.3

44.1

Neither
Satisfied
nor
Dissatisfied
33.1

3.1

40.9

3.1

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Do not
Receive
Information

Total

7.9

0.8

2.4

100%

35.4

12.6

0.0

2.4

100%

29.9

41.7

15.7

0.0

3.9

100%

3.9

34.6

33.9

16.5

2.4

3.1

100%

5.5

40.2

33.9

8.7

3.9

2.4

100%

11.0

48.8

29.9

1.6

0.0

3.1

100%

Table 26
Satisfaction With Performance of Youth Under Probation With Wardship
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=121–122)

Recidivism
Educational progress or
improvement
Mental health improvement
Substance abuse
improvement
Payment of restitution
Completion of community
service

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied
nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Do not
Receive
Information

Total

3.3

31.1

36.1

26.2

0.8

2.5

100%

3.3

27.9

45.9

19.7

1.6

100%

2.5

24.8

46.3

24.0

0.8

1.7

100%

2.5

25.5

33.1

25.6

1.7

100%

5.8

25.5

38.0

14.0

5.0

1.7

100%

9.9

55.4

25.6

6.6

0.0

2.5

100%

Very
Satisfied

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

Table 27
Satisfaction With Performance of Youth Under Intensive Supervision or Electronic Monitoring
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=101–102)

Recidivism
Educational progress or
improvement
Mental health improvement
Substance abuse
improvement
Payment of restitution
Completion of community
service

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied
nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Do not
Receive
Information

Total

6.9

40.6

33.7

15.8

0.0

3.0

100%

5.9

36.3

35.3

19.6

0.0

2.9

100%

2.9

24.5

46.1

21.6

1.0

3.9

100%

3.9

35.3

33.3

22.5

1.0

3.9

100%

6.9

31.7

39.6

13.9

2.0

5.9

100%

9.8

41.2

33.3

7.8

1.0

6.9

100%

Very
Satisfied

Table 28
Satisfaction With Performance of Youth in a Camp, Ranch, or Private Placement (in California)
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=110–111)

Recidivism
Educational progress or
improvement
Mental health improvement
Substance abuse
improvement
Payment of restitution
Completion of community
service

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied
nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Do not
Receive
Information

Total

3.6

30.9

37.3

21.8

1.8

4.5

100%

6.3

39.6

27.9

18.0

3.6

4.5

100%

2.7

30.6

39.6

18.0

4.5

100%

4.5

37.8

29.7

20.7

2.7

4.5

100%

1.8

31.5

41.4

15.3

2.7

7.2

100%

3.6

35.1

37.8

10.8

0.9

11.7

100%

Very
Satisfied

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

Table 29
Satisfaction With Performance of Youth at CDCR, DJJ Facilities
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=94–96)

Recidivism
Educational progress or
improvement
Mental health improvement
Substance abuse
improvement
Payment of restitution
Completion of community
service

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied
nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Do not
Receive
Information

Total

0.0

12.5

28.1

12.5

5.2

41.7

100%

0.0

13.7

37.9

10.5

7.4

30.5

100%

0.0

9.5

32.6

13.7

10.5

33.7

100%

0.0

11.6

34.7

13.7

8.4

31.6

100%

1.1

12.8

34.0

7.4

37.2

100%

0.0

7.4

31.6

7.4

6.3

47.4

100%

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Do not
Receive
Information

Total

Very
Satisfied

Table 30
Satisfaction With Supervision Programs
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=117–125)

Restorative justice-focused
programs
Intensive supervision
Day reporting centers
Day treatment centers
House arrest
Short stay in juvenile hall
Foster homes
Group homes
Residential treatment
facilities
Camps
Ranches
CDCR, DJJ facilities

Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied
nor
Dissatisfied

5.0

24.4

18.5

1.7

0.8

49.6

100%

10.7
4.9
1.7
8.0
12.0
4.9
4.0

43.4
22.1
20.0
39.2
52.0
30.9
39.5

20.5
20.5
25.8
30.4
26.4
43.1
40.3

5.7
3.3
3.3
7.2
6.4
8.9
11.3

0.8
0.8
0.8
3.2
1.6
2.4
3.2

18.9
48.4
48.3
12.0
1.6
9.8
1.6

100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

6.6

40.2

31.1

9.0

3.3

9.8

100%

10.4
6.6
0.9

37.6
31.1
18.8

20.0
16.4
36.8

9.6
6.6
15.4

1.6
1.6
12.0

20.8
37.7
16.2

100%
100%
100%

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

Table 31
Youth Who are Difficult to Match With Appropriate Supervision, Treatment, and Placements
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=130)

Youth with mental health issues
Beyond control youth
Developmentally delayed youth
Other
Runaways
High risk/low need youth
Youth with troubled home lives
Very young children
Youth with sex crime backgrounds
Youth with arson backgrounds
Pregnant girls
Girls
Youth with violent backgrounds
Gang youth
Low risk youthful offenders
Native American youth
Did not check any

Count
95
76
72
68
62
61
53
50
47
43
28
25
22
18
17
12
7

Percent
12.6
10.1
9.5
9.0
8.2
8.1
7.0
6.6
6.2
5.7
3.7
3.3
2.9
2.4
2.2
1.6
0.9

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

Table 32
Current Level of Court-Stakeholder Meetings in Which Judicial Officers Are Involved
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=130)

Meet on an as-needed basis
Meet regularly
Never or rarely meet
Did not check any

Count
58
55
19
3

Percent
43.9
41.7
14.4
2.3

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

Table 33
Topics Discussed at Court-Stakeholder Meetings
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=130)

Procedure and policy
Supervision, treatment, and placement issues
Other
Did not check any

Count
102
96
19
18

Percent
47.0
44.2
8.8
13.8

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

Table 34
Beliefs About Collaboration Activities
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=108–121)
Should Happen
More Often

Should Stay As
Is

Should Happen
Less Often

Total

33.9

64.5

1.7

100%

34.3
52.9
51.8

61.1
42.9
46.4

4.6
4.2
1.8

100%
100%
100%

50.0

46.6

3.4

100%

67.8
68.3

30.6
30.0

1.7
1.7

100%
100%

Meetings of stakeholders with courts'
participation
Meetings of stakeholders without the courts
Court collaborating with community
Other agencies collaborating with the community
Court-probation cross training/briefings on
procedures and policies
Training/briefing the court on treatment options
Training/briefing the court on placement options

Table 35
Quality of Working Relationship With Juvenile Justice Stakeholders
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=122–126)

Probation
Public Defender's Office
Alternate Public Defender's
Office
District Attorney's Office
County Mental Health
Child Welfare
Juvenile Hall management
Camps and Ranches
management

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Very Poor

No Working
Relationship

Total

46.0
31.2

37.3
48.0

11.9
12.8

4.0
5.6

0.8
0.8

0.0
1.6

100%
100%

20.5

36.1

12.3

1.6

0.0

29.5

100%

33.3
12.7
17.6
31.2

47.6
23.8
36.0
34.4

15.1
38.1
28.0
18.4

4.0
14.3
11.2
7.2

0.0
7.1
2.4
0.8

0.0
4.0
4.8
8.0

100%
100%
100%
100%

16.9

29.0

22.6

8.1

0.8

22.6

100%

Table 36
Quality of Working Relationship With Other Stakeholders
as Reported by Judicial Officers (N=122–124)

Law enforcement
School districts
Substance abuse service
providers
Domestic violence service
providers

Poor

Very
Poor

Varies
Too
Much to
Say

No Working
Relationship

Total

17.2
27.4

4.1
14.5

0.0
3.2

4.9
4.0

100%
100%

44.7

28.5

7.3

2.4

4.1

100%

29.5

30.3

12.3

2.5

4.9

15.6

100%

Very
Good

Good

Fair

21.3
13.7

47.5
33.1

10.6
4.9

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

Table 37
Agreement with System Improvement Needs
As Reported by Judicial Officers (N=124–125)

More time for hearings
More time for prehearing
preparation
More judicial positions
More research attorneys
More case managers
More probation officers
Improving quality of
probation reports
Improving timeliness of
probation reports
Improving attorney
attendance or performance
Access to victim-offender
mediation
Access to family group
conferencing
Access to court volunteers
Access to juvenile drug court
Access to juvenile mental
health court
Access to juvenile traffic court
Access to truancy court
Access to youth/peer court
Access to same or next day
Spanish interpreters
Access to same or next day
interpreters for other languages
Improvements in juvenile
custody options
Improvements in probationsupervised services
Availability of victim and
restitution services
More time/opportunity to
collaborate with probation and
other stakeholders
More time/opportunity to
meet with community members
More time/opportunity to visit
placements
Improvements in postdisposition
reports
Improvements in postdisposition
review hearings

Agree
Strongly

Agree

27.2

23.2

Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree
30.4

23.2

26.4

40.8
18.4
20.2
49.6

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Total

Mean

Standard
Deviation

12.0

4.8

100%

3.5

1.3

28.8

13.6

4.0

100%

3.4

1.3

20.8
21.6
21.0
28.0

22.4
37.6
33.9
16.0

9.6
15.2
14.5
4.0

4.8
5.6
4.8
0.8

100%
100%
100%
100%

3.8
3.3
3.2
4.2

1.3
1.2
1.4
1.1

27.0

19.0

32.0

18.0

2.0

100%

3.5

1.2

21.0

24.0

30.0

18.0

3.0

100%

3.3

1.3

10.0

28.0

41.0

16.0

2.0

100%

3.2

1.1

14.0

31.0

40.0

10.0

3.0

100%

3.4

1.1

19.0

33.0

37.0

10.0

1.0

100%

3.6

1.0

19.0
20.0

30.0
22.0

37.0
35.0

9.0
15.0

2.0
6.0

100%
100%

3.4
3.3

1.2
1.2

32.0

19.0

35.0

7.0

2.0

100%

3.6

1.3

8.0
12.9
12.8

6.0
12.1
12.8

54.0
49.2
48.0

22.0
15.3
16.0

10.0
8.1
8.8

100%
100%
100%

2.8
3.0
3.0

1.0
1.2
1.1

10.4

13.6

40.8

20.0

13.6

100%

2.8

1.2

14.5

21.0

32.3

22.6

8.9

100%

3.1

1.2

40.8

28.8

24.0

4.0

0.8

100%

4.0

1.1

44.8

36.0

22.4

3.2

0.0

100%

4.1

1.0

20.0

30.4

34.4

5.6

1.6

100%

3.6

1.1

17.6

28.0

32.8

12.8

4.0

100%

3.4

1.2

17.6

31.5

32.8

16.0

3.2

100%

3.3

1.2

26.6

29.0

24.2

11.3

4.0

100%

3.6

1.2

15.2

29.6

36.8

14.4

2.4

100%

3.4

1.1

13.6

24.8

43.2

13.6

3.2

100%

3.3

1.1

Note: For means, Strongly Agree=5, Agree=4, Neither=3, Disagree=2, Strongly Disagree=1

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

Administrative Office of the Courts
Hon. Ronald M. George
Chief Justice of California and Chair of the Judicial Council
William C. Vickrey
Administrative Director of the Courts
Ronald G. Overholt
Chief Deputy Director
Diane Nunn
Director, Center for Families, Children & the Courts
Charlene Depner
Assistant Division Director, Center for Families, Children & the Courts
Lee Morhar
Assistant Division Director, Center for Families, Children & the Courts
Authorship
Iona Mara-Drita (lead author)
Senior Research Analyst
Amy Bacharach
Research Analyst
Audrey Fancy
Supervising Attorney
LaRon Hogg-Haught
Associate Attorney
Kimberly Tyda
Research Analyst
Assistance
Jens Zeschky
Administrative Coordinator
CFCC generates and distributes research-based information that has promise for
informing the work of the courts in California and nationwide. To learn more about its
work and to see more Research Updates, visit www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/.
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, California 94102-3688
E-mail: cfcc@jud.ca.gov
Phone: 415-865-7739

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Judicial Officer Report

CHAPTER 3
Probation Officer Report

ResearchUpdate

April 2008

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation
Officer Report
This report covers information about the Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment (JDCA) project and
the 2007 CFCC Survey of Juvenile Probation Officers. Some key findings of the survey are related to
collaboration and relationships with other justice partners, satisfaction with job functions, services and
sanctions, and feelings about court users:
•

•

•
•
•
•

Probation officers report having generally good working relationships with the court, the public
defender’s office, and the district attorney’s office, although they are generally dissatisfied with
how they are treated by each of those justice partners when in court.
Probation officers report being generally satisfied with the amount of time they spend preparing
reports and reviews, but they feel that paperwork and report writing take too much time away from
interacting with youth.
Probation officers agree that there is a lack of resources available to youth. Specifically, mental
health and substance abuse services are lacking, as are services for girls and very young youth.
There is a general feeling among probation officers that victims are not being treated fairly due to
inadequate restitution collection and insufficient courthouse facilities.
Probation officers and other justice partners agree that youth and parents do not understand the
court process or what is said in court.
Probation officers who work in juvenile delinquency generally enjoy working with youth, seeing
positive changes in them, and providing services to them. They also enjoy working with the
delinquency court and feel that the court cares about youth and treats people with respect.

In order to provide appropriate services for youth, parents, and victims, probation officers must work
collaboratively with the court and other justice partners to develop resources that are available and
effective. Although probation officers feel that both youth and parents should be held accountable for
youth’s actions and behaviors, they also recognize that youth and parents need to be able to understand
what is being said in court as well as what their responsibilities are after they leave court.
Results from all assessment tools used in the JDCA are discussed in the Juvenile Delinquency Court
Assessment 2008. A copy of the survey can be found in chapter 7 of this volume, Research
Instruments.
About the JDCA

working group composed of members of the advisory committee and experts drawn from state entities
and the major participants in the juvenile delinquency court: judicial officers, 1 court staff, probation
officers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. Working group members were selected both for their
subject matter expertise and to ensure representation from a cross section of the state in terms of
geographic location and county size. The working group helped develop the study plan, guide the
research, and interpret the findings. A list of working group members can be found at the beginning of
volume 1 of the Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment 2008.
The JDCA marks the first major assessment of California’s delinquency courts. This assessment was
designed to gather and provide information to help improve the juvenile delinquency system by
making recommendations for changes in laws and rules of court; improvements in hearing
management, judicial oversight, court facilities, and other aspects of court operations; caseload
changes; and improvements in court services for all court users. The assessment covered the following
general topics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Hearings and other court processes;
Court facilities;
Court collaboration with justice system partners;
Service and sanction options for youth;
Perspectives of court users, including youth, parents, victims, and community members;
Education and training;
Accountability; and
Professional background and experience.

The primary mode of investigation was to communicate directly with justice partners and court users.
The JDCA project conducted surveys with all juvenile judicial officers, all court administrators, a
random sample of juvenile probation officers, all juvenile division prosecutors, and all court-appointed
juvenile defense attorneys, including public defenders, alternate public defenders, and contract
attorneys who were identified as handling cases in delinquency court. 2 The JDCA project chose six
counties to study in depth to learn about issues facing delinquency courts: Los Angeles, Placer,
Riverside, San Francisco, San Joaquin, and Siskiyou. These six counties were selected for their size
and geography in order to study a range of California’s local delinquency courts. Interviews were
conducted in each of these study counties with the presiding judge of the juvenile court, the chief
probation officer or the juvenile probation division designee, the managing or supervising juvenile
deputy district attorney and public defender, and court administration staff such as the supervising
juvenile court clerk, court executive officer, or manager. Focus groups were also conducted with
justice partners such as probation officers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, and with court users
such as youth, parents, victims, and community members. An assessment of delinquency court
facilities across the state was also conducted as part of the JDCA project. The ultimate goal of this
project was to improve both the administration of justice and the lives of youth, victims, and other
community members affected by the delinquency system.

“Judicial officers” refers to judges, commissioners, and referees.
“Contract attorneys” refer to contract or panel conflict defenders only and does not include attorneys who contract as a
public defender.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

Probation Officer Survey Method

The 2007 CFCC Survey of Juvenile Probation Officers was mailed to a random sample of 20 percent
of the state’s estimated 3,479 juvenile deputy probation officers (N=690) in March 2007. A detailed
description of the survey method can be found in chapter 1 of the current volume, Methodology
Report.
Probation Officer Survey Findings

The survey of probation officers contained questions related to respondents’ professional backgrounds
and department information and asked about their collaboration and relationships with the courts and
other justice partners, their experiences in their jobs, their satisfaction with the effectiveness of
sanctions and services, and courtroom management. Respondents also answered open-ended questions
about their experience working with the delinquency court. The sections that follow summarize the
findings.
Background and Job Descriptions

The respondents to the survey included supervision officers, investigation officers, intake officers,
deputy probation officers (DPOs) at institutions or facilities, court officers, and placement officers.
Close to 16 percent of probation officers reported having more than one role. Nearly 20 percent of
probation officers reported that they do not supervise any cases. Of the remaining probation officers,
almost half reported having a general caseload and more than half reported handling intensive or
informal supervision caseloads (see tables 1 and 2).
Tables 3 through 5 show how long respondents have been working in probation, in juvenile
assignments in their careers, and in their current juvenile assignment. Most probation officers have
substantial experience working in probation. As of the survey date, nearly half of respondents have
been doing probation work for between 5 and 10 years; the average number of years working in
probation in any capacity is almost 10. The average length of time working in any juvenile assignment
is about 8 years, and the average length of time in their current juvenile assignments is 3.5 years.
About half of respondents have been in their current juvenile assignments for less than 2 years and
about three-quarters of respondents have been in their current juvenile assignments for less than 5
years. Nearly a quarter of respondents (23 percent) have worked only in their current juvenile
assignment since they began working for the probation department.
Many probation officers expressed an interest in staying in the juvenile division. Of those who have
been working in probation for less than five years, nearly half (45.2 percent) reported that they would
like to still be in the juvenile division in two years, and of the probation officers whose only experience
in the probation department has been in the juvenile division, 52 percent reported that they would like
to still be in the juvenile division in two years.
As table 6 demonstrates, nearly half of all respondents also reported that they would like to still be in
the juvenile division in two years; an additional 30 percent would like to stay in the probation
department but work in another division. Only 6 percent of respondents reported that they would like
to be working outside of probation in two years. Table 7 shows that about a third of respondents expect
to remain in the juvenile division and about 20 percent expect to request to leave the juvenile division.
Only 13 percent of respondents reported that they expect to leave the probation department.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

Many probation officers reported spending most of their time preparing court reports. Table 8
illustrates the tasks that each type of probation officer performs on a day-to-day basis, from preparing
court reports to providing victim services. Investigation officers and court officers reported spending
the most time preparing court reports. Not surprisingly, court officers attend court the most frequently;
fewer than 20 percent of both intake and investigation officers attend court often or always, and only
about 8 percent of supervision officers attend court often or always. Supervision officers (both in the
field and at institutions) and intake officers reported spending more time than other types of officers
coordinating services and programs. Nearly half of all responding probation officers reported that they
never or rarely provide victim services; about 6 percent of both intake officers and investigation
officers reported providing victim services often or nearly always.
Collaboration and Relationships

Probation officers are generally satisfied with their relationships with other justice partners and
recognize the importance of communication with them. As shown in table 9, probation officers
reported having good relationships with justice partners such as the court, juvenile hall, camps and
ranches, the public defender’s office, and the district attorney’s office, but poorer relationships with
mental health and child welfare. Although 71 percent of probation officers reported having a good
relationship with the court, 65 percent of probation officers are dissatisfied with the weight the court
gives to probation’s recommendations, and nearly three-quarters of probation officers are dissatisfied
with how they are treated by the court when they are present in court (see table 10). Probation officers
may feel dissatisfied with how they are treated by the court due to their dissatisfaction with the weight
the court gives to their recommendations and to the perceived lack of collaboration and communication
with the court. When asked to write in the top ways the court could help probation be more effective,
15 percent of probation officers indicated that they want the court to follow, support, and back up their
recommendations and probation violations. One probation officer in a focus group felt, however, that
probation shares responsibility with the court, stating,
A lot of how well the court does or does not do falls on probation. The court only knows
what we tell them as far as what a kid has done. I’ve written reports before where the kid
is violated and [I] kind of reminded the court of what they said before. It falls on
probation to be sure the court is well informed with what has happened and what’s going
on in the kid’s life.
Another probation officer noted that if the court met regularly with probation, “they [the court] would
understand better how we go about our job, and if they understood better how we go about our job they
might be more accepting of information that we’re providing them.” In a county where probation
officers meet every day at a set time with other justice partners to share information about referrals, a
focus group participant pointed out, “What’s really valuable about that meeting is that often the
children that we see may not have come to our attention, but they certainly have come to other
disciplines’ attention, so the police department may have a sheet that has service calls to that home that
are dating back years, and we wouldn’t have that information if they weren’t at this meeting.” Another
probation officer stated that regular meetings with justice partners make probation officers feel as
though “we were all on the same page and it made the whole system work smooth[ly].”
Almost three-quarters of probation officers are also dissatisfied with how they are treated by the
prosecutor when in court, although almost 70 percent of probation officers reported having a good

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

relationship with the district attorney’s office. In a focus group, probation officers discussed their
relationship with the district attorney’s office and the fact that their perspectives are based on different
roles. One participant explained why their relationship can be contentious:
The district attorney’s objectives a lot of times are totally contrary to what yours might be
because they’re concerned with prosecution, looking like they’re tough on crime, and so
they have their agenda versus what you have to do. In their hearts they may agree with
us, but on the record their agenda differs.
Probation officers reported having a better relationship with prosecutors than with defense attorneys;
however, they are generally dissatisfied with how they are treated in court by defense attorneys as well
as by prosecutors. They are also generally dissatisfied with both prosecutors’ and defense attorneys’
handling of cases. One explanation for the dissatisfaction may be the relative feeling of being an
outsider in the courtroom despite probation’s and attorneys’ mutual respect for each other. An
additional explanation could be due to their having to justify their recommendations when called to
court.
Probation officers may report better relationships with prosecutors because the district attorney’s office
is responsible for filing cases based on information submitted by probation. For example, the way a
prosecutor decides to file a case may affect the probation officer’s satisfaction. Probation officers seem
to have more day-to-day contact with the district attorney’s office than with the public defender’s
office, which some believe could explain why probation officers report having a better relationship
with prosecutors than with public defenders.
Job Appraisal

Probation officers, responding to questions related to their satisfaction with day-to-day, job-related
issues, reported feeling that they need more training on how to testify and more time to write reports
and meet with youth. Almost a quarter reported being neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with various
issues such as the time they spend preparing reviews, the number of hours they must wait for hearings,
and the number of hearing continuances. 3 Table 11 shows that they are generally satisfied with the
number of times they are required to attend court, although they are dissatisfied with how well they are
trained to testify. This dissatisfaction with training could explain why probation officers are also
dissatisfied with how they are treated in court by attorneys: if probation officers do not know what to
expect when testifying in court, they may be surprised or upset by how attorneys question or challenge
their recommendations in front of the judge. Probation officers are generally satisfied with the time
they spend preparing court reports, although nearly half of probation officers who write reports
indicated that the inability to interview parents is a challenge to writing reports in the time allotted and
that report writing takes too much time away from other responsibilities (see table 12). Additional
challenges to writing reports include the inability to obtain information from schools and mental
health. As one probation officer pointed out, “Mental health services are available . . . the problem is
that oftentimes we don’t have access [to information] because of HIPAA constraints” (referring to the
federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act). The challenge of obtaining information

The choice of “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied” may have been interpreted in more than one way by survey respondents.
It may have been used as a midpoint on the rating scale or it may have been selected by respondents who have no opinion
on the question item.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

from mental health could also explain why probation officers reported having poorer relationships with
mental health than with other justice partners.
A third of probation officers specified that the court could help them be more effective by giving them
more discretion and ability to detain and by creating more resources, services, and programs for youth.
Nearly all of the responding probation officers (95.7 percent) reported that one of the top things they
enjoy about their juvenile assignment is working and interacting with youth. Other things that
probation officers reported enjoying about their juvenile assignment are seeing positive changes in
youth and providing services to youth; however, they do not have enough time with youth (see tables
13 through 15). When asked to write the top things they would change about their juvenile
assignments, 44 percent of probation officers indicated that they do not have enough time to spend
with the youth. In focus groups, probation officers said that there is often not enough time to carefully
assess youth and create case plans for them. One probation officer noted, “I sometimes am not pleased
when I can’t be as thorough as I want to be given the circumstances and the time constraints.” Others
agreed with one participant’s statement that “you get to a point where you’re not really doing any
services; you’re just going there [to visit youth] to get your face-to-face and keep shoveling on.”
Probation officers are generally satisfied with the time it takes the prosecutor to file a petition. They
are less satisfied with the general timeline of cases, however. Probation officers pointed out that it
takes a long time to get a youth into court initially. According to one, “When the kid gets in 60 days or
so after committing an offense, they’re arraigned and then they’re given another two months to come
back for a pre-plea hearing, and then they [bench officers] usually continue the case after the initial
pre-plea is received, so we’re talking six months down the line before a minor is actually dispo’d out
on a case.” One probation officer talked about the need for speedier dispositions:
The time lag is just really detrimental all the way around. We have one judge who will
say, “Let’s see how you do in school over the next few months, let’s see how you do on
your drug testing.” And then by the time the kid starts probation he thinks he’s already
completed.
Probation officers in focus groups noted that by the time the youth get to court, they have forgotten
why they are there. The time between when a youth is cited or arrested and the first hearing may be
long due to delays in processing out-of-custody citations, delays in scheduling a court date, and
difficulty getting youth to report for an interview. Continuances and other hearing delays could create
an additional time lag.
Services and Sanctions

Probation officers responding to the survey assessed the quality, availability, and effectiveness of
services and sanctions in their jurisdictions. Sanctions refer to a range of graduated restrictions or
consequences targeted at specific offender profiles or behaviors and used for accountability and
behavior modification purposes. The advantage of having a range of services and sanctions is that they
give probation departments the tools and ability to respond appropriately to a diversity of offenses and
offenders.
Generally, probation officers are satisfied with the range of service and sanction options for low-risk
youth but dissatisfied with the range for intermediate- and high-risk youth. Table 16 shows that the
higher the risk of the youth, the more dissatisfied probation officers are with the services and sanctions

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

available to them. They are slightly more satisfied with sanctions than with services. Probation officers
are generally satisfied with the effectiveness of sanction options, including community service, home
on probation, and electronic monitoring (see table 17). One exception is their satisfaction with the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Only a
third of respondents reported being satisfied with the effectiveness of DJJ, and nearly a quarter of
probation officers responded that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Another quarter of
probation officers responded that they did not know. This could be because few youth are being sent to
DJJ 4 in each of the last several years; the total number of youth sent has equaled approximately 1
percent of juvenile arrests for that year. 5 Also, if a youth does go to DJJ, the probation officer is
unlikely to know how effective it was since he or she is unlikely to maintain contact with the youth.
A common theme in focus groups and open-ended questions was a need for the court to follow through
with any sanction warning that is given to youth who do not follow their probation conditions. As one
probation officer suggested, “Stay true to your orders. If [the judge says] next time I see you in front of
me this is what’s going to happen, then make it happen.” By not following through, they pointed out,
the court is damaging the credibility of the probation officers. One focus group participant stated,
“When we’re out there supervising and we say, ‘Remember the judge said if you don’t go to school
this is what’s going to happen’ and then [nothing happens], they’re like, ‘See, my PO don’t know what
she’s talking about.’” In a focus group conducted with parents, one parent of a youth in the
delinquency system noted, “According to the last recommendation of the probation officer, if the
young man was to violate again he would be sent to Youth Authority, and then [he] violated a dozen
times afterwards and he was never sent to Youth Authority.” 6
The need for consistency is also a common theme. Probation officers noted that judges should be
consistent in how they sanction youth with similar petitions. One stated that “you have two kids who
basically commit the same offense and they appear before the judge and one is given a 654 [6 months
of informal probation] and the other one is put on formal probation. And that is disturbing because I’ve
seen this happen quite frequently with African-American kids where they get the harsher [sanction].”
On the other hand, probation officers also pointed out in focus groups that court orders should be
individualized for the particular youth. According to one participant, “The bench and probation and the
offender would be better served by individualizing what the kid needs a lot more than it is now instead
of blanket conditions.”
Probation officers are dissatisfied with the effectiveness of service options, including anger
management programs, parent education, substance abuse programs, and mental health services (see
table 18). Overall, there is also a lack of residential drug treatment services available to youth. One
probation officer noted, “Unless you’re 18, there’s no services available to you.” Services for very
young youth seem to be lacking as well. A focus group participant noted, “They’re [the programs]
geared towards 15 and older normally. We have a lot of youth that we’re working for or with that are
much younger than that. So there’s a lot of agencies that haven’t been or don’t address that
population.” Of the services that are available in facilities, probation officers noted that the
4

Following the passage of Sen. Bill 81 (Budget Committee) (Stats. 2007, ch.175), commitments to DJJ are limited to
offenders whose most recent sustained petition was for a Welf. & Inst. Code § 707(b) offense or a specified sexual offense.
5
Cal. Dept. of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Juvenile Justice in California, (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006).
6
California Youth Authority was renamed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of
Juvenile Justice, in 2006, but it is still commonly referred to by its former name.
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

delinquency court would be best served if judges visited the facilities personally. “It goes a long way in
building relationships,” one said. Another pointed out, “I don’t understand why you wouldn’t want to
see . . . you’re ordering somebody to go 4,000 miles away and you have no clue what it’s about.”
Additionally, access to mental health services is lacking in many counties, and the quality of the
services that are available is also a concern among some probation officers. Focus group participants
agreed with one person’s statement that “often it’s very difficult to find really good counseling for the
kids.” Many probation officers indicated that it is also difficult to find mental health services for those
who commit sexually violent crimes. One probation officer noted that it is difficult to transport youth
to services as well: “Oftentimes we’re handicapped by the availability of transportation.” The
exception to the general dissatisfaction with service options is drug testing, with which probation
officers were generally satisfied.
Probation officers are also dissatisfied with the availability of options for girls. A statewide probation
services report confirmed that girls’ programs are the least frequently available programs in the state:
less than 40 percent of all counties offered girl-specific programs. 7 In interviews and focus groups,
probation officers noted the lack of space in camps, the juvenile hall, and other placements for girls.
Without a full continuum of options available for girls, some courts are forced to order girls to
placement more quickly than they would boys because there is no local camp or ranch for them.
Table 19 shows that about a third of responding probation officers are also dissatisfied with restitution
collection, a point that was emphasized in the focus groups. Generally, probation officers reported in
focus groups that they feel they do a poor job of dealing with victims. Table 20, in fact, shows that 30
percent of responding probation officers do not work with victims at all, and, of those who do work
with victims, fewer than one-third of responding probation officers explain the process of collecting
restitution to victims. One probation officer reported that “a lot of times the victims are put in the
backseat to the kid” and that “we do not actively collect [restitution] for the victims.” Methods of
collecting restitution vary by county: in some counties the probation department is responsible for
collecting and in others the county itself is responsible for collecting through the Department of
Revenue and Recovery. Courts also vary in whether they will dismiss a case before restitution is paid.
Some courts will dismiss a case and direct the victim to file a civil judgment against the youth to
collect restitution. Other courts will keep the youth on probation until the restitution is paid. 8 Twenty
percent of judicial officers reported that restitution payment is a condition for dismissal.
Probation officers agreed that obtaining even a small amount of restitution is very difficult for various
reasons. One probation officer noted, “These are the same kids that have parents who are on probation,
have their own fines to deal with, so are they going to pay? Probably not.” Probation officers also
indicated in focus groups that many of the youth with whom they work have parents on fixed incomes.
In focus groups, victims stated that probation can’t or won’t enforce restitution orders. According to
one victim, “Every time I deal with the probation department it’s like no one knows nothing, they can’t
enforce anything, and they have no answers for you.” Probation’s involvement with victim services
should be improved. Probation officers also suggested calling cases in which a victim is present first
rather than forcing victims to wait, sometimes in the same hallway as the youth and their families.
7

Admin. Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, California Probation Services Survey (2006);
available at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/PSTFSurvey2006.pdf.
8
Welf. & Inst. Code § 656.2 gives victims the right to an action for civil damages against the minor and his or her parents.
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

More than 35 counties have a juvenile drug court, and the majority of probation officers are satisfied
with the effectiveness of these drug courts (see table 21). 9 One concern expressed in focus groups and
interviews, however, was that the wrong youth may be referred to drug court. Probation officers
indicated that drug court should be used only for those youth who will be best served by the court
based on evaluations of drug courts. One probation officer pointed out, “Just because he said they
smoked marijuana doesn’t necessarily mean you got to do drug education or drug prevention or put
him in a drug program. What you want to focus on is the behavior that keeps bringing them back to
you.”
Probation officers also identified some of the specific reentry or aftercare services that they provide to
youth. Substance abuse referrals are the most common service provided, followed by anger
management, family counseling, and mental health referrals. Tables 22 and 23 illustrate that the
majority of responding probation officers, regardless of job type, refer youth to these four services,
with substance abuse referrals being the most common. Half of the intake officers reported providing
anger management referrals, and more than half reported providing referrals to family counseling,
mental health services, and substance abuse services. Two-thirds of placement officers provide anger
management and family counseling referrals, and about three-quarters of placement officers provide
mental health services and substance abuse referrals. Almost all placement officers provide
independent living skills referrals, and nearly three-quarters of supervision officers provide anger
management, family counseling, and mental health services referrals. Even with all of these referrals,
there are still gaps in service needs. There are few transition programs for placement youth or youth
who have been in foster care. According to one probation officer,
When they [youth] transition over to juvenile wardship, there’s no real transition program
for these kids when they come back [wardship is dismissed], especially if they’re almost
18 or are 18. Some I have are mental health cases and they were just not offered any kind
of services. And you have kids who’ve been totally dependent, they don’t have families,
and I see that there’s nothing in the current system that really addresses that problem.
And it’s really sad because they turn 18, we cut them loose, DHS says that they’re not
entitled to our services anymore because they’re 18, and they don’t have anybody to fall
back on.
A concern among probation officers is the issue of youth “aging out” of the system without receiving
adequate services. As one probation officer noted, “Even those of us who came from intact families—
at 18 you’re still not ready to take care of yourself.”
Probation officers in approximately a third of the counties in the state use assessments to determine
youth’s risk to the community. 10 Of those probation officers who do use assessments, satisfaction
levels with those assessments are almost evenly distributed across satisfied, neutral, and dissatisfied

In addition to drug courts, probation officers rated their satisfaction levels with mental health courts; truancy courts; and
peer, teen, or youth courts. There were too few respondents to analyze satisfaction with courts other than drug court,
however.
10
K. Hennigan, K. Kolnick, J. Poplawski, A. Andrews, N. Ball, C. Cheng, and J. Payne, Juvenile Justice Data Project,
Phase I: Survey of Interventions and Programs (2007); available at
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/docs/JJDPSurveyFinalReport.pdf.
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

(see table 24). Although many probation officers agreed that it is good practice to use standardized
assessments, counties vary in whether and how they use assessments.
Court Assessment

Probation officers responded to questions concerning how they feel about working with the
delinquency court. They were split in their feelings about continuances and other hearing delays.
Forty-five percent indicated that continuances and other hearing delays are not a problem or a minor
problem and almost 40 percent reported that they are a moderate or major problem. Respondents
reported that the absence of youth and parents are top causes of delays in uncontested matters (see
tables 25 and 26). What the researchers cannot determine is whether hearing delays are a problem for
some because they believe that they happen too often or because they do not happen often enough to
complete reports; table 26 shows that 40 percent of probation officers feel that the top cause of hearing
delays in uncontested matters is reports, people, or other information not being available. Additional
causes of hearing delays in uncontested matters, according to probation officers, are hearings needing
more than the allocated time and the defense attorney not being ready.
When asked about communication with youth and parents, probation officers indicated that some
information is conveyed well (see tables 27 and 28). Almost three-quarters of probation officers
reported that details about youth’s responsibilities while on probation are conveyed well to youth, and
two-thirds of probation officers feel that the possible outcomes are conveyed well to youth. Almost
two-thirds reported that the same information that is conveyed well to youth is also conveyed well to
parents, and more than half of probation officers indicated that parents’ responsibilities are also
conveyed well to the parents. Despite this, nearly everyone in interviews and focus groups agreed that
neither youth nor parents understand what happens in court. One probation officer empathized:
I imagine under similar circumstances I would have difficulty understanding because my
adrenaline level would be high. I’d be all freaked out about what my future was going to
be and if I was going to go to DJJ or all these horror stories you hear. I think it’s just a
difficult situation for a kid to expect them to understand what’s totally alien to their
normal life.
Probation officers feel that some types of information are not communicated well to youth or parents.
Fewer than 20 percent of probation officers reported that information on record sealing is conveyed
well to youth or parents. Fewer than half of probation officers indicated that financial obligations are
conveyed well to youth or parents, which may contribute to the overall dissatisfaction with restitution
collection services among probation officers, attorneys, and victims. Youth and parents also disagreed
that information is conveyed to them well. Youth noted that they had signed papers and agreed to
things without understanding, and said that people used confusing words and referenced codes that
they did not understand, which sounded like a foreign language. One parent said that “there seemed to
be a real lack of any information at all, and no one coming out and saying this is where he is, this is
what’s going to happen next.” Both youth and parents also pointed out that they are not comfortable
asking questions, even if questions are solicited. They and probation officers agreed with one
participant’s suggestion that the court should “educate parents to navigate through the court system,
making the language simpler, allowing more communication between the two.” In a focus group, one
probation officer suggested “having some type of orientation for parents whose kids are involved with
our system when they first come here . . . it could be like a liaison for parents, and [that person] meets

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

with them and explains to them about the court process.” Other probation officers and victims agreed
that it would be nice to have one go-to person. A recommendation is to have a single point of contact
available to parents and victims who would be able to access information about cases and answer
questions about hearings and the court process.
The survey also asked probation officers to write in the top strengths of the delinquency court and the
court’s top needs for improvement (see tables 29 and 30). These open-ended questions revealed that,
according to probation officers, the court’s strengths include holding youth accountable, focusing on
rehabilitation, and treating people with respect. Interestingly, more than half of the probation officers
wrote that one of the court’s top strengths is that it listens to probation and follows its
recommendations. Alternatively, almost half of probation officers indicated that, to improve, the court
needs to follow probation’s recommendations more often than it currently does. One probation officer
noted,
Some courts are very pro-probation and have a lot of faith in probation recommendations.
Other courts, it appears, tend to supervise a little more from the bench and rely a little bit
more on what they see and what they hear than what probation is recommending.
When indicating ways the court could improve, nearly 90 percent of probation officers also wrote that
the court needs to have more respect for and understanding of probation officers, and 60 percent of
probation officers wrote that the court needs to hold parents more accountable.
The idea of holding parents accountable was mirrored in focus groups, in which probation officers
agreed with one statement that “we do a lot of work with the kids and the parent is just left untouched.”
Another participant noted, “Most kids on juvenile probation probably have got some parents with some
issues” and “Their parents are enabling them.”
Many focus group participants also talked about the delinquency system’s goal as being to serve the
best interest of the child, stating that the current process is not meeting that goal. One probation officer
pointed out that in an ideal world the system would not be adversarial:
It wouldn’t be a matter of whether the DA or the public defender gets a win or whatever.
There would be no point, no tracking, just focused on what’s best for this kid and where
does he make the most progress.
Other probation officers agreed. According to one, “We’re all just fighting against each other
sometimes.” Victims also noted that the purpose of the delinquency system seems to be merely to
process cases. One victim pointed out that he didn’t think the system serves the delinquency court the
way it was meant to. Parents of youth in the delinquency system agreed, with one stating,
I think the juvenile system should be to protect the child, should be a system where the
DAs and the public defenders are willing to sit down together and figure out what is best
for the particular child, how can this child succeed in the future . . . And right now the
way it is it’s all a money-making business, it’s all numbers, it’s all a game, and they’re
playing with the lives of our children, and that is our most precious thing in life.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

Conclusion

The 2007 CFCC Survey of Juvenile Probation Officers revealed information related to juvenile
probation officers’ job descriptions, collaboration with the court and other justice partners, and job
appraisal. Also relayed were probation officers’ opinions about services and sanctions and experiences
working with the delinquency court, its justice partners, and youth and their parents.
Approximately 80 percent of probation officers have some type of supervision caseload, and about 11
percent often or always attend court. Many reported being interested in staying in the juvenile division.
Since it is important for youth, families, and victims to have a consistent person to contact who is
knowledgeable about their case, probation departments should encourage, retain, and promote staff
who are committed to working in the juvenile division. By encouraging probation officers who do
want to stay in the juvenile division, probation departments can reinforce the message that delinquency
is an important and meaningful assignment.
Probation officers reported having generally good working relationships with the court, the public
defender’s office, and the district attorney’s office, although they noted a lack of collaboration and
communication with the court. Findings from the surveys of probation officers, prosecutors, defense
attorneys, and judicial officers suggest that when justice partners operate in silos with little
communication among each other, they do not benefit their county’s youth as much as when
communication and collaboration are considered important in the county. The courts, probation
officers, and other justice partners should collaborate to develop methods for improving the delivery of
services to youth. In addition, probation officers should receive adequate training in how to testify in
court.
Report writing seems to be a large part of probation officers’ responsibilities. Probation officers
reported being generally satisfied with the amount of time they spend preparing reports and reviews,
but they feel that paperwork and report writing take too much time away from interacting with youth.
They also feel that there is not enough time to gather the necessary information for reports in the time
allotted. Probation officers reported that interviewing parents and obtaining information from schools,
court-ordered evaluations, and mental health are also challenges to writing reports in the time allotted.
Without an adequate amount of time to spend with youth and gather information for reports, the
benefit of probation officers to youth could be reduced.
Probation officers agreed that there is a need for more resources available to youth. Specifically,
mental health services are lacking, as are substance abuse services and services for girls and very
young youth. These service gaps can hinder rehabilitation and increase the chances of recidivism. By
not adequately addressing the root causes of delinquent behavior, the delinquency court system gives
youth few opportunities to change. Probation departments should seek out accessible and effective
services, paying close attention to any service gaps. In addition, the courts and probation should
engage schools, mental health, and other community systems to facilitate rehabilitation.
Probation officers, as well as attorneys and court users, feel that both youth and parents should be held
accountable for youth’s actions and behaviors, and that restitution collection should be better enforced
than it is presently. There is a general feeling in juvenile probation that victims are not being treated
fairly due to inadequate restitution collection, insufficient courthouse facilities, and a lack of a
knowledgeable point person from whom to obtain information. When victims perceive the system as
not working effectively, they give up on it and the youth it serves. The courts should support victims
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

by ordering restitution in a specific amount, making restitution payment a priority, and encouraging
other methods of victim restoration when appropriate. In addition, for their safety, victims should have
a separate waiting room in courthouses.
Probation officers and other justice partners agreed that youth and parents do not understand the court
process or what is said in court. Youth and parents reported not understanding all of the numbers used
(such as Welfare and Institutions Code sections), and youth reported signing documents without
understanding them. The result of this confusion among court users is noncompliance with court
orders, including restitution orders. Probation officers do feel that some information is conveyed well
to youth and parents, such as youth’s responsibilities while on probation and possible outcomes, but
that other information, such as information on financial obligations and record sealing, is not conveyed
well. When youth fail to have their records sealed, they often are not eligible for certain jobs or
military service when they are older. Judicial officers, attorneys, and probation officers should take the
time necessary to help youth, parents, and victims understand the court process, the outcomes of
hearings, and the court’s orders.
Probation officers who work in juvenile delinquency generally enjoy working with youth, seeing
positive changes in them, and providing services to them. They also enjoy working with the
delinquency court and feel that the court cares about youth and treats people with respect. For the court
to improve, probation officers feel that it needs to have a better understanding of probation’s job and a
greater respect for probation’s recommendations than it currently has. Judicial officers, attorneys, and
probation should be adequately trained in the delinquency court and the importance of all of its
players.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

Tables
Table 1
Respondents to Probation Survey by Current Role (N=351)

Supervision field officer
Investigation officer
Intake officer
Deputy probation officer at institution
Court officer
Placement officer

Count

Percent

198
56
54
47
42
37

56.4
16.0
15.4
13.4
12.0
10.5

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

Table 2
Types of Caseloads Handled
as Reported by Probation Officers (N=287)

General caseload
Intensive supervision
Informal supervision
Gangs
Other caseload type
Placement
Sex offenders
Family preservation
Drug court

Count
133
84
78
63
61
50
44
26
17

Percent
46.3
29.3
27.2
22.0
21.3
17.4
15.3
9.1
5.9

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

Table 3
Time Spent Working in Probation in Any Capacity (N=351)

Less than 1 year
1 to 2.9 years
3 to 5.9 years
6 to 10.9 years
11 to 15.9 years
16 to 20.9 years
More than 20 years
Total

Count

Percent

15
31
63
129
46
40
27
351

4.3
8.8
17.9
36.8
13.1
11.4
7.7
100%

Mean = 9.7 years; median = 8 years; standard deviation = 6.9 years

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

Table 4
Time Spent Working in Juvenile Assignments Throughout Career in Probation
as Reported by Probation Officers (N=328)
Count

Percent

19
40
73
116
41
26
13
328

5.8
12.2
22.3
35.4
12.5
7.9
4.0
100%

Count

Percent

79
124
73
47
9
7
2
341

23.2
36.4
21.4
13.8
2.6
2.1
0.6
100%

Less than 1 year
1 to 2.9 years
3 to 5.9 years
6 to 10.9 years
11 to 15.9 years
16 to 20.9 years
More than 20 years
Total
Mean = 8.3 years; median = 6.8 years; standard deviation = 6.5 years

Table 5
Time Spent Working in Current Juvenile Assignment
as Reported by Probation Officers (N=341)

Less than 1 year
1 to 2.9 years
3 to 5.9 years
6 to 10.9 years
11 to 15.9 years
16 to 20.9 years
More than 20 years
Total
Mean = 3.6 years; median = 2.0 years; standard deviation = 4.0 years

Table 6
Where Juvenile Probation Officers Would Like to Be Working in Two
Years (N=352)

In the juvenile division
In another division of probation
Outside of probation
Out of the workforce (retired)
Other
Do not know
Total

Count

Percent

166
102
20
11
32
21
352

47.2
29.0
5.7
3.1
9.1
6.0
100%

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

Table 7
Circumstances Under Which Probation Officers Expect to Leave the
Juvenile Division (N=352)

Remain in juvenile
Reassigned
Request to leave juvenile
Will leave probation
Do not know
Total

Count

Percent

122
86
67
45
32
352

34.7
24.4
19.0
12.8
9.1
100%

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

Table 8
Time Spent Performing Tasks by Job Type
as Reported by Probation Officers (N=81–345)

Preparing court reports
(N=345)

Preparing review reports
(N=330)

Supervising in community
(N=330)

Supervising in camps and
ranches (N=319)

Supervising in placement
(N=314)

Attending court
(N=333)

Coordinating services and
programs (N=326)

Providing victim services
(N=324)

Other (N=81)

Never, rarely
Occasionally
Sometimes
Often
Nearly always
Never, rarely
Occasionally
Sometimes
Often
Nearly always
Never, rarely
Occasionally
Sometimes
Often
Nearly always
Never, rarely
Occasionally
Sometimes
Often
Nearly always
Never, rarely
Occasionally
Sometimes
Often
Nearly always
Never, rarely
Occasionally
Sometimes
Often
Nearly always
Never, rarely
Occasionally
Sometimes
Often
Nearly always
Never, rarely
Occasionally
Sometimes
Often
Nearly always
Never, rarely
Occasionally
Sometimes
Often
Nearly always

Intake
Officer

Investigation
Officer

Placement
Officer

Court
Officer

13.0
24.1
18.5
31.5
13.0
52.9
15.7
13.7
17.6
0.0
44.9
22.4
14.3
4.1
14.3
87.2
8.5
0.0
2.1
2.1
80.4
15.2
2.2
2.2
0.0
35.4
41.7
6.3
12.5
4.2
40.4
25.5
6.4
12.8
14.9
47.1
39.2
7.8
3.9
2.0
10.5
26.3
21.1
26.3
15.8

3.6
16.4
18.2
29.1
32.7
29.4
25.5
17.6
25.5
2.0
52.9
17.6
9.8
11.8
7.8
87.5
10.4
0.0
0.0
2.1
80.9
12.8
2.1
2.1
2.1
31.4
33.3
17.6
13.7
3.9
43.8
25.0
12.5
12.5
6.3
30.6
44.9
18.4
6.1
0.0
22.2
33.3
0.0
22.2
22.2

8.6
20.0
34.3
34.3
2.9
8.3
22.2
30.6
36.1
2.8
22.9
22.9
22.9
14.3
17.1
71.4
20.0
2.9
0.0
5.7
5.6
19.4
5.6
36.1
33.3
33.3
47.2
11.1
8.3
0.0
13.5
35.1
27.0
16.2
8.1
54.3
37.1
8.6
0.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
40.0

26.8
14.6
12.2
24.4
22.0
42.1
13.2
10.5
31.6
2.6
69.4
8.3
2.8
5.6
13.9
94.4
5.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
83.3
11.1
2.8
2.8
0.0
10.3
17.9
15.4
23.1
33.3
47.2
22.2
11.1
11.1
8.3
41.7
38.9
16.7
2.8
0.0
40.0
20.0
30.0
10.0
0.0

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

Supervision
/ Field
Officer
8.6
25.4
25.9
34.0
6.1
18.0
29.6
23.3
22.8
6.3
6.7
17.4
16.4
29.7
29.7
87.8
6.6
1.1
2.2
2.2
82.2
11.7
2.2
1.1
2.8
41.5
40.4
10.4
5.7
2.1
20.9
28.9
20.3
19.8
10.2
50.3
33.7
11.2
3.2
1.6
14.3
31.0
23.8
16.7
14.3

DPO at
Institution
13.0
32.6
23.9
23.9
6.5
38.6
27.3
15.9
13.6
4.5
67.4
11.6
2.3
14.0
4.7
30.4
4.3
4.3
15.2
45.7
90.7
2.3
0.0
0.0
7.0
53.3
35.6
8.9
2.2
0.0
22.7
25.0
22.7
13.6
15.9
76.7
16.3
7.0
0.0
0.0
41.7
0.0
16.7
0.0
41.7

Table 9
Quality of Working Relationship With Justice Partners
as Reported by Probation Officers (N=343–351)

The court
Juvenile hall
Camps and ranches
Public defender’s office
Alternate public
defender’s office
Contract or panel
attorneys
District attorney’s office
Mental health
Child welfare

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Very Poor

Don't
Know or
N/A

Total

27.0
40.9
24.6
13.2

44.0
43.7
34.3
36.2

20.1
11.1
12.3
30.5

4.9
2.9
1.7
6.0

1.7
0.6
0.3
4.9

2.3
0.9
26.9
9.2

100%
100%
100%
100%

7.0

23.5

27.8

6.4

4.3

31.0

100%

8.2

25.9

24.5

5.2

2.6

33.5

100%

25.2
13.4
8.9

44.4
36.5
29.1

16.3
29.1
31.7

4.3
6.0
8.0

1.7
4.0
4.6

8.0
11.1
17.7

100%
100%
100%

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Don't
Know or
N/A

Total

Table 10
Satisfaction With Various Issues When in Court
as Reported by Probation Officers (N=280)

Weight given by court to
probation's
recommendations
Prosecutors' handling of
cases
Defense attorneys'
handling of cases
How you are treated by
court
How you are treated by
prosecutor
How you are treated by
defense attorneys

Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied
nor
Dissatisfied

3.9

10.4

19.6

47.9

17.1

1.1

100%

2.5

7.5

28.6

46.8

10.4

4.3

100%

2.9

14.3

37.5

35.0

5.7

4.6

100%

2.9

5.4

18.6

46.1

25.4

1.8

100%

1.1

3.9

20.7

49.3

22.1

2.9

100%

3.6

7.5

30.0

40.0

15.4

3.6

100%

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

Table 11
Satisfaction With Various Job-Related Issues
as Reported by Probation Officers (N=343–351)

Time spent preparing
court reports
Time spent preparing
parte reviews
Time spent preparing
mandated reviews
Number of times required
to attend court
How well trained to testify
Time it takes DA to file
petition
Number of hours waiting
for court hearings
Number of continuances

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied
nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Not
Available

Total

8.0

34.0

26.3

16.0

5.7

10.0

100%

6.9

24.6

23.8

12.3

4.6

27.8

100%

4.0

19.9

21.4

12.8

4.8

37.0

100%

14.6

34.4

26.2

4.1

2.9

17.8

100%

7.4

24.9

21.4

16.3

8.6

100%

9.4

32.5

23.9

17.7

4.6

12.0

100%

6.3

16.2

26.2

16.2

8.5

26.5

100%

3.1

19.1

33.0

16.5

9.1

19.1

100%

Very
Satisfied

Table 12
Work-Related Challenges to Writing Reports or Reviews in the Time Allotted
as Reported by Probation Officers (N=295)

Cannot interview parents
Report writing takes too much time from other responsibilities
Cannot obtain information from school
Cannot obtain court-ordered evaluations
Cannot obtain information from mental health
Cannot interview youth in time
Not notified by court in time
Cannot obtain information from placements
Other challenge
Cannot obtain risk or needs assessment

Count

Percent

151
149
142
95
94
85
69
49
49
22

51.2
50.5
48.1
32.2
31.9
28.8
23.4
16.6
16.6
7.5

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

Table 13
Top Things the Court Could Do to Help Probation Officers Be More Effective
(N=230)
Percent
Give probation officers more discretion/ability to detain
Create more resources/programs/services for youth
Hold youth accountable (i.e., enforce things)
Be clear with youth and parents regarding terms and conditions of probation
Better communication between the court and POs
Hold parents accountable
Follow, support, trust, back up probation officers’ recommendations and
violations
Allow more time for reports
Fewer review hearings
Only order reports that are necessary (less paperwork)

33.4
24.5
21.1
21.1
20.7
18.8
15.1
14.3
10.9
10.0

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents wrote in responses.

Table 14
Top Things Probation Officers Enjoy About Their Juvenile Assignment (N=286)
Percent
Working/Interacting with youth
Seeing positive changes in youth
Working with other court stakeholders
Facilitating rehabilitation/Providing services
Flexibility with schedule
Friendly coworkers
Working on prevention
Working in the field
Flexibility/Discretion with work-related choices
Gathering information for court/Preparing reports

95.7
56.7
52.1
44.8
28.3
16.1
14.0
13.9
9.6
9.4

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents wrote in responses.

Table 15
Top Things Probation Officers Would Change About Their Juvenile Assignment
(N=286)
Percent
Amount of paperwork/Report writing
Not enough time with youth
Caseload size/not enough probation officers
Training available
Availability of sanctions and services
Lack of resources for probation officers
Inability to violate/Need backing of court for violation of probation
Lack of administrative support/micro or mismanagement
Need a specific person to do specific things
Relationships/collaboration with other stakeholders

63.5
44.0
42.9
24.6
20.8
18.9
18.5
15.7
14.9
14.2

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents wrote in responses.
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

Table 16
Satisfaction With Sanction and Service Options
as Reported by Probation Officers (N=349–351)

Sanctions for low-risk
youth
Sanctions for intermediaterisk youth
Sanctions for high-risk
youth
Services for low-risk youth
Services for intermediaterisk youth
Services for high-risk
youth

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied
nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Don't
Know or
N/A

Total

10.5

36.8

20.8

16.8

8.3

6.8

100%

5.7

33.7

23.7

22.3

10.0

4.6

100%

6.3

26.3

15.4

30.6

18.0

3.4

100%

7.4

33.2

20.1

22.1

10.0

7.2

100%

4.6

28.9

20.9

30.7

8.9

6.0

100%

4.0

28.7

16.6

30.9

14.9

4.9

100%

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Don't
Know or
N/A

Total

13.0
15.4
15.5
10.3
8.6
14.9
14.0
13.8

7.0
7.7
4.0
3.4
5.5
6.0
2.3
5.5

8.1
10.0
3.7
5.4
14.7
11.5
17.4
24.2

100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Very
Satisfied

Table 17
Satisfaction With the Effectiveness of Sanction Options
as Reported by Probation Officers (N=345–351)

Counsel and dismiss
Informal supervision
Community service
Home on probation
Electronic monitoring
Placement
Camps/ranches
DJJ

Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied
nor
Dissatisfied

8.4
8.0
9.8
9.1
14.1
9.8
11.4
7.5

36.2
35.3
39.4
42.0
38.8
36.2
35.3
24.8

27.2
23.6
27.6
29.7
18.4
21.6
19.7
24.2

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

Table 18
Satisfaction With the Effectiveness of Services
as Reported by Probation Officers (N=346–350)

Outpatient substance
abuse programs
Drug testing
Mental health services
Independent living
programs
Anger management
programs
After-school programs
Parent education
Wraparound
Community service
centers

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied
nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Don't
Know or
N/A

Total

3.4

28.2

21.6

23.3

15.2

8.3

100%

18.1
5.5

47.0
29.6

18.6
25.6

9.2
24.7

2.6
10.3

4.6
4.3

100%
100%

4.0

21.3

24.7

21.0

7.2

21.8

100%

3.7

28.9

27.1

27.4

7.7

5.1

100%

3.7
4.6
9.4

13.4
17.2
26.6

21.4
27.3
27.1

32.9
31.9
12.9

15.7
12.1
4.0

12.9
6.9
20.0

100%
100%
100%

3.5

20.2

27.2

24.9

9.2

15.0

100%

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Don't
Know or
N/A

Total

24.1

9.7

16.8

100%

Very
Satisfied

Table 19
Satisfaction With the Effectiveness of Restitution Collection
as Reported by Probation Officers (N=352)

Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied
nor
Dissatisfied

3.7

19.0

26.7

Table 20
Capacity in Which Probation Officers Work With Victims (N=340)

I recommend restitution to the court
I explain the process of collecting restitution
I explain the court process to victims
I notice victims of hearings
I refer victims to services
Not applicable—I do not work with victims
Other
I organize offender work repayment programs

Count

Percent

188
168
155
136
131
102
21
20

55.3
49.4
45.6
40.0
38.5
30.0
6.2
5.9

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

Table 21
Satisfaction With the Effectiveness of Drug Court
as Reported by Probation Officers (N=350)

Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Don't
Know or
N/A

Total

12.9

26.9

17.1

10.3

4.0

28.9

100%

Table 22
Types of Reentry or Aftercare Services Provided to Juveniles
as Reported by Probation Officers (N=350)

Substance abuse referral
Anger management referral
Family counseling referral
Mental health services referral
School enrollment assistance
Parent education referral
Independent living skills referral
Record sealing assistance
Job training referral
Mentoring referral
Housing referral
Other service
Aftercare not applicable to my job
Do not provide reentry or aftercare services
Did not check any

Count

Percent

237
219
218
213
179
176
126
125
120
99
50
16
88
4
4

67.7
62.6
62.3
60.9
51.1
50.3
36.0
35.7
34.3
28.3
14.3
4.6
25.1
1.1
1.1

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

Table 23
Types of Reentry or Aftercare Service Provided by Job Type
as Reported by Probation Officers (N=345)

Aftercare not applicable
to my job
None
Anger management
referral
Family counseling
referral
Housing referral
Independent living skills
referral
Job training referral
Mental health services
referral
Substance abuse referral
Mentoring referral
Parent education referral
Record sealing
assistance
School enrollment
assistance
Other service
Total

Intake
Officer

Investigation
Officer

Placement
Officer

Court
Officer

Supervision
Field Officer

DPO at
Institution

Total

38.9

37.5

8.1

35.7

18.0

22.2

25.5

0.0

2.7

0.0

1.5

0.0

1.2

50.0

55.4

64.9

61.9

72.2

64.4

63.2

53.7

53.6

67.6

61.9

73.2

53.3

63.2

3.7

3.6

32.4

7.1

14.4

24.4

14.5

31.5

30.4

86.5

35.7

32.0

55.6

36.2

20.4

25.0

37.8

19.0

42.3

35.6

34.8

53.7

58.9

70.3

57.1

71.1

60.0

61.4

55.6
16.7
42.6

58.9
23.2
42.9

78.4
27.0
54.1

61.9
21.4
50.0

78.4
32.5
56.7

68.9
28.9
48.9

68.4
28.7
50.7

40.7

37.5

32.4

42.9

41.2

20.0

36.2

37.0

39.3

62.2

26.2

59.3

55.6

51.6

5.6
15.7

1.8
16.2

0.0
10.7

0.0
12.2

5.7
56.2

2.2
13.0

4.6
100%

Table 24
Satisfaction With Assessments
as Reported by Probation Officers (N=274–289)

Youth's risk to the
community
Youth's risk to
themselves
Youth's service needs

Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Don't
Know or
N/A

Total

4.9

23.9

27.9

19.8

11.5

12.1

100%

4.6

25.3

26.4

17.2

9.8

16.7

100%

4.0

26.2

30.5

18.2

8.1

13.0

100%

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

Table 25
Severity of Continuances and Other Hearing Delays
as Reported by Probation Officers (N=348)

Not a problem
A minor problem
A moderate problem
A major problem
Do not know
Total

Count

Percent

63
95
100
38
52
348

18.1
27.3
28.7
10.9
14.9
100%

Count

Percent

142
131
121
119
117
72
60
40
32
28
10
6
52

40.3
37.2
34.4
33.8
33.2
20.5
17.0
11.4
9.1
8.0
2.8
1.7
14.8

Table 26
Top Causes of Hearing Delays in Uncontested Matters
as Reported by Probation Officers (N=352)

Other reports, persons, or information not available
Youth not present
Parent not present
Hearings need more than allocated time
Defense attorney not ready
Evaluation reports not available
Lack of or improper notice
Prosecutor not ready
Defense attorney not present
Probation report not available
Prosecutor not present
Probation not present
Did not check any

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

Table 27
Information That Is Conveyed Well to Youth
as Reported by Probation Officers (N=350)

Youth's responsibilities while on probation
Possible outcomes
The general court process
What to expect at court hearings
Financial obligations
Ramifications of plea
Process for paying restitution
Record sealing
Other information
Did not check any

Count

Percent

260
236
138
128
103
91
81
58
13
18

74.3
67.4
39.4
36.6
29.4
26.0
23.1
16.6
3.7
5.1

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

Table 28
Information That Is Conveyed Well to Parents
as Reported by Probation Officers (N=352)

Youth’s responsibilities while on probation
Possible outcomes
Parent’s or guardian’s responsibilities while on probation
Financial obligations
The general court process
What to expect at court hearings
Process for paying restitution
Ramifications of plea
Record sealing
Other information
Did not check any

Count

Percent

232
218
188
144
136
130
110
79
51
11
28

65.9
61.9
53.4
40.9
38.6
36.9
31.3
22.4
14.5
3.1
8.0

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

Table 29
Top Strengths of the Delinquency Court
as Reported by Probation Officers (N=229)
Percent
Holds youth accountable
Focus on rehabilitation/Good balance of rehabilitation, accountability, and
treatment
Court treats people with respect/Cares about youth
Timeliness of hearings/Efficient and organized
Good use of graduated sanctions, resources, and services
Court listens to probation and follows probation recommendations
Good relationships/Collaboration among court and stakeholders
Interpreters provided
Understanding of juvenile court process/knowledgeable judges
Gives opportunity for second chance

76.0
72.0
64.0
58.0
56.0
53.0
51.0
45.0
43.0
35.0

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents wrote in responses.

Table 30
Delinquency Court’s Top Needs for Improvement
as Reported by Probation Officers (N=228)
Percent
Need more respect for/understanding of probation officers
Hold parents more accountable
More judges or more juvenile calendar days/lower caseloads
More consistency
Follow POs' recommendations more often and read reports
More efficient use of time
Explain the process better/Talk to youth and families in simple language
Hold youth more accountable
More appropriate sanctions and services (lenient for low risk; harsh for high
risk)
Better scheduling so people aren't waiting in hallway

89.0
60.0
44.0
43.0
43.0
42.0
40.0
36.0
36.0
32.0

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents wrote in responses.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Probation Officer Report

CHAPTER 4
Attorney Report

ResearchUpdate

April 2008

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report
This report covers the information about the Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment (JDCA) project
and the 2007 CFCC Survey of Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys. Some key findings of the survey
are related to attorneys’ experience level, collaboration and relationships with other justice partners,
satisfaction with job-related functions, sanctions and services for youth, and perceptions of the juvenile
delinquency court:

•

Although many attorneys are relatively new to juvenile delinquency, there is also a population
of experienced attorneys who are working in juvenile delinquency and want to continue doing
so.

•

On average, contract attorneys have more years of experience than do public defenders in
juvenile delinquency (16.8 versus 5.8 years) and more years of experience overall (19.8 versus
12.3 years).

•

Experienced attorneys were more likely than new attorneys to express an interest in continuing
to work in juvenile delinquency. The majority of prosecutors and defense attorneys do not
expect to remain in the juvenile division; most indicated that they would be reassigned or
rotated out of their juvenile delinquency assignments.

•

Attorneys reported having good relationships with the court and with other delinquency court
professionals. Satisfaction with the relationships with other justice partners varied somewhat;
the most poorly related relationships were with mental health and child welfare.

•

Many prosecutors and defense attorneys indicated that they really enjoy working with youth
and helping to make a difference in their lives.

•

Prosecutors frequently commented that they think the delinquency system is too lenient; they
often expressed the need for greater accountability on the part of both youth and the youth’s
parents.

•

Defense attorneys see the delinquency system as overly punitive and expressed concerns about
the procedural protections afforded youth in the delinquency system.

•

Prosecutors are more dissatisfied with hearing delays and continuances than are defense
attorneys.

•

Satisfaction with the range and effectiveness of sanctions and services is low for both
prosecutors and defense attorneys. Satisfaction with the effectiveness of mental health services
is particularly low.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

About the JDCA

The Judicial Council of California’s Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee, in conjunction
with the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), Center for Families, Children & the Courts
(CFCC), conducted the JDCA. The Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee convened a
working group composed of members of the advisory committee and experts drawn from state entities
and the major participants in the juvenile delinquency court: judicial officers, 1 court staff, probation
officers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. Working group members were selected both for their
subject matter expertise and to ensure representation from a cross section of the state in terms of
geographic location and county size. The working group helped develop the study plan, guide the
research, and interpret the findings. A list of working group members can be found at the beginning of
volume 1 of the Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment 2008.
The JDCA marks the first major assessment of California’s delinquency courts. This assessment was
designed to gather and provide information to help improve the juvenile delinquency system by
making recommendations for changes in laws and rules of court; improvements in hearing
management, judicial oversight, court facilities, and other aspects of court operations; caseload
changes; and improvements in court services for all court users. The assessment covered the following
general topics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

“Judicial officers” refers to judges, commissioners, and referees.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

such as youth, parents, victims, and community members. An assessment of delinquency court
facilities across the state was also conducted as part of the JDCA project. The ultimate goal of this
project was to improve both the administration of justice and the lives of youth, victims, and other
community members affected by the delinquency system.
About the Prosecutor and Defense Attorney Surveys

Members of the JDCA working group attended a focus group in September 2006 to create topics and
questions for the surveys of prosecutors and defense attorneys. Three juvenile prosecutors and three
defense attorneys piloted the two surveys. After survey development was completed, the California
District Attorneys Association (CDAA) and the California Public Defenders Association (CPDA)
wrote endorsement letters for the project and the surveys.
The attorney surveys included questions about the respondents’ professional backgrounds and asked
about their satisfaction with and the effectiveness of sanctions and services, their collaboration and
relationships with other justice partners, the quality of information and advocacy, courtroom
management, and other job-related activities. In addition, defense attorneys were asked about the work
they do for clients postdispositionally.
Prosecutors

The 2007 CFCC Survey of Juvenile Prosecutors was mailed to all 291 deputy district attorneys who
handled delinquency cases. Surveys were mailed in March and April 2007. The response rate was
determined by dividing the number of surveys received by the total number of eligible surveys (for a
detailed description of the survey method, see volume 2, chapter 1, Methodology Report).
There were a total of 258 eligible deputy district attorneys. Surveys were received from 174, providing
a 67 percent response rate. Approximately half of the respondents are from large counties, 28 percent
are from medium counties, and 19 percent are from small counties (table 1). Prosecutors from small
and medium counties were more likely to respond to the survey than those from large counties (see the
Methodology Report). A comparison between county size groups on survey responses indicate that a
few survey findings were affected by this county size difference. Details regarding any county size
differences are noted in the relevant sections of this report 2 .
Defense Attorneys

The 2007 CFCC Survey of Juvenile Defense Attorneys was mailed in May 2007 to 748 juvenile
defense attorneys, 3 including public defenders, alternate public defenders, and contract attorneys 4 .
Surveys were received from 343 defense attorneys, providing a 52 percent response rate. 5 Sixty-one
2

Comparisons by county size were not done for defense attorneys due to having too few non contracted public defender
offices in small counties. The result of any comparisons would therefore be difficult to interpret.
3
For the purpose of comparisons in this report, the term “defense attorney” refers to all defense attorneys surveyed
including public defenders, defense attorneys who contract to serve as their county’s public defender, alternate public
defenders, and contract or panel conflict defenders. Privately retained defense counsel were not surveyed.
4
For the purpose of comparisons in this report, the term “contract attorney” is used to describe contract or panel conflict
defenders only, and does not include attorneys who contract as the county’s public defender’s office. Alternate public
defenders and contract public defenders were not included in defense attorney comparison analyses due to the low numbers
of attorneys in these categories.
5
For the defense attorney surveys, not every county submitted a list; thus approximately 71 defense attorneys did not
receive a survey.
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

percent of respondents are contract defenders, 30 percent are county public defenders, 7 percent are
defense attorneys who contract to serve as their county’s public defender in counties that do not have a
public defender’s office, and 2 percent are alternate public defenders (table 2). Unlike prosecutors,
county size was unrelated to defense attorney response rates.
Defense attorney type varied by county size. Public defenders and contract defenders are most often
from large and medium size counties; defense attorneys who contract to serve as their county’s public
defender offices are most often from small and medium counties (tables 3 and 4).
Attorney Background and Job Descriptions

Survey respondents were asked to provide information on the types and length of experience they have
as attorneys, and more specifically, about their experience working in juvenile delinquency settings. 6
They were also asked to provide information about their current juvenile delinquency assignment,
whether they would like to remain in the juvenile division, and under what circumstances they expect
to leave the juvenile division.
Findings for both prosecutors and defense attorneys indicate that although many attorneys are
relatively new to juvenile delinquency work, there is also a population of experienced attorneys who
are working in juvenile delinquency and want to continue doing so. For prosecutors and public
defenders, the interest in remaining in a delinquency assignment varied by experience level;
experienced attorneys were more likely than new attorneys to respond that they would like to continue
working in juvenile delinquency. A majority of respondents from both attorney groups said that they
do not expect to remain in the juvenile division; most stated that they would be reassigned or would
rotate into a different assignment.
Prosecutors

Seventy-nine percent of prosecutors indicated that they handle juvenile cases only; 21 percent handle
juvenile cases and also have administrative or supervisory duties (table 5). Most prosecutors reported
doing delinquency work full time (table 6). The majority of respondents indicated that they handle
multiple types of juvenile cases. Table 7 documents caseload types; the most frequent were general,
gangs, and sex offender caseloads.
Experience levels among prosecutors vary considerably. There is a subset of very experienced
attorneys: nearly one-third passed the bar more than 20 years ago. There is also a substantial number of
relatively new attorneys: more than one-fourth passed the bar less than four years ago, and more than
one-third reported that they have less than four years’ experience as prosecutors (tables 8 and 9). The
average number of years since passing the bar is 14.4.
It should also be noted that prosecutors from large counties have fewer years of experience on average
than those from medium and small counties. The average number of years since passing the bar is 12.5
for prosecutors from large counties, 15.8 years for prosecutors from medium counties, and 17.8 years
for prosecutors from small counties. A similar pattern was found for respondents’ number of years as
prosecutor, with prosecutors from large counties having fewer years’ experience on average. The

Numbers reported in some tables for this section include only those who responded to the question. Missing responses
have not been included in the table percentages.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

patterns of experience also varied by county size. For small and medium counties, the percent of
respondents with less than 5 years’ experience as prosecutors is considerably smaller than the
percentages of respondents with intermediate-length (5 to 15 years) or long (16 years or more) tenures.
In the large county respondent group, there are equally high percentages of very new (less than 5
years) and very experienced (over 16 years) prosecutors. Far fewer have intermediate levels of
experience (5 to 15 years).
Prosecutors frequently reported being quite new to juvenile delinquency assignments. On average, they
have a total of approximately 5 years of experience handling delinquency cases, with nearly one-third
reporting less than 1 year of experience (table 10). Respondents from large counties reported having
fewer years of juvenile delinquency experience on average compared to prosecutors from medium and
small counties. Average total years of experience for large county prosecutors is 3 years, compared to
7 years for respondents from medium and small counties. The average amount of time in current
juvenile delinquency assignments is 2.7 years; 45 percent of respondents have been in their current
delinquency assignment for less than 1 year (table 11). Pairing newer prosecutors with more
experienced attorneys is one method that some district attorney offices may utilize in order to ensure
the appropriate handling of juvenile delinquency matters; therefore newer attorneys may be receiving
supervision from prosecutors who have more experience in juvenile delinquency courts. As illustrated
in table 12, the majority of prosecutors also indicated that they had no prior professional roles in
juvenile court matters.
Although most prosecutors indicated that they want to continue working in the district attorney’s
office, few responded that they want to remain in their current juvenile delinquency assignment. When
asked where they would like to be working in two years, most prosecutors (73 percent) indicated that
they want to remain in the prosecutor’s office (table 13). Approximately one-third stated that they
would like to remain in the juvenile division of the prosecutor’s office. Compared to more experienced
prosecutors, newer prosecutors were less likely to report wanting to still be in the juvenile division in
two years (table 14). Of those respondents with less than 5 years’ experience as prosecutors, only 12
percent reported wanting to stay in their juvenile delinquency assignments. The vast majority (82
percent) of the newer prosecutors indicated that they would like to be in another division of the
prosecutor’s office in two years. For those with more than 5 years’ experience as attorneys,
approximately 40 percent said that they would like to remain in the juvenile division. A similar pattern
was found when comparing attorneys who are new to their current juvenile delinquency assignments to
those who have been in their current juvenile assignment for longer periods. Specifically, 59 percent of
prosecutors who have been in their current juvenile delinquency assignment for 3 years or more
indicated that they would like to remain in the juvenile division, compared to only 15 percent of
attorneys who have been in their current juvenile assignment for less than 1 year. These findings may
reflect a belief among many prosecutors that to be promoted they need experience in litigating jury
trials, which would require working outside of the delinquency court setting. These findings also
indicate that there is a population of experienced prosecutors who are working in juvenile delinquency
and want to continue doing so. When asked the circumstances under which they expect to leave their
juvenile delinquency assignments, prosecutors most frequently responded either that they would be
reassigned (37 percent) or that their predetermined juvenile rotation would be complete (28 percent).
Only 15 percent of respondents said that they expect to remain in the juvenile division (table 15).

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

Defense Attorneys

Public defenders are very similar to prosecutors in terms of their total years of experience as attorneys
and in the number of years they have been working in juvenile delinquency assignments. Contract
defenders have considerably more experience than do prosecutors and public defenders, both in total
years of experience as attorneys and in the number of years they have worked in delinquency
assignments. Contract defenders are also more likely to have had other professional roles in the
juvenile courts. Public defenders were more likely than prosecutors to state that they would like to
remain in their juvenile delinquency assignments. Similar to the findings for the prosecutors,
experienced public defenders were more likely to want to remain in their juvenile assignments than
those with less experience. The majority of public defenders expect to be reassigned or rotated out of
their juvenile delinquency assignments.
As illustrated in table 16, defense attorneys generally handle multiple types of juvenile cases. The most
frequently handled case types include general, gangs, and sex offenders. The proportion of time spent
on juvenile delinquency cases varied by defense attorney type. The majority of public defenders (82
percent) reported doing delinquency work full time (table 17). As can be seen in table 18, contract
defenders are far less likely than public defenders to be working full time in juvenile delinquency.
Nearly half of all contract defenders indicated that they spend one-fourth of their time or less doing
delinquency-related work. In fact, it should be noted that contract defenders who work in delinquency
one-fourth of their time or less make up nearly 30 percent of all survey respondents.
Defense attorney respondents have more years of experience on average than do the prosecutors (tables
19 and 20). The average number of years since passing the bar for defense attorneys is 20. As of the
survey date, respondents had been defense attorneys for 17.4 years on average; only 16 percent
reported having less than 4 years of experience in this role. The comparison between attorney types in
table 21 shows that public defenders have less experience as defense attorneys on average than do
contract defenders (12.3 years and 19.8 years, respectively).
On average, defense attorneys have been in their current juvenile delinquency assignments for
approximately the same amount of time as prosecutors (tables 11 and 22). A comparison of the total
number of years spent in juvenile delinquency assignments (tables 10 and 23) showed that defense
attorneys have more years of experience on average (13.6 years) than do prosecutors (4.9 years). Total
years of experience in juvenile delinquency assignments also varies by defense attorney type with
public defenders’ experience more closely resembling that of prosecutors. Specifically, public
defenders have fewer total years of experience in juvenile delinquency assignments on average than all
other defense attorney types (table 24). Only 19 percent of public defenders reported having more than
10 years of experience in delinquency assignments, compared to 72 percent of contract attorneys.
Defense attorneys are also more likely than prosecutors to have had other professional roles in the
juvenile court system. Sixty percent of defense attorneys reported having had other roles in juvenile
court matters. As seen in table 25, the most frequent roles are parent’s attorney in dependency and
child’s attorney in dependency. Contract defenders were more likely than public defenders to report
having other roles in the juvenile court system. This is true regardless of the percentage of time they
currently spend working on delinquency-related matters. For the contract attorneys, these responses
likely reflect both prior and current roles in the juvenile court system.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

When asked under what circumstances they expect to leave their juvenile delinquency assignment,
only 23 percent of public defenders said that they expect to remain in the juvenile division (table 26).
Most stated that they would either be reassigned (35 percent) or that their predetermined juvenile
rotation would be complete (22 percent). As table 27 demonstrates, more than half of defense attorneys
indicated that they would like to continue handling juvenile cases in either the juvenile division of the
public defender’s office or in a private setting; this finding was true for both public defenders and
contract defenders. Similar to the findings for prosecutors, public defenders with more experience were
more likely to want to continue handling juvenile cases than were the newer defense attorneys (table
28). Across all experience levels, public defenders were more likely than prosecutors to indicate that
they would like to remain in their juvenile delinquency assignment. In addition, public defenders who
have been in juvenile delinquency assignments for longer periods of time were more likely to state that
they would like to remain in juvenile for at least the next two years. As with the prosecutor results,
these findings indicate that there is an experienced group of public defenders who would like to
continue handling juvenile cases. Contract defenders show a different pattern of results: newer
attorneys (those with four years’ experience or less) were slightly more likely than attorneys with more
experience to say that they would like to continue to work on juvenile delinquency cases (table 29).
However, it should be noted that across all experience levels, more than half of the contract
respondents indicated that they would like to continue handling juvenile cases.
Collaboration and Relationships

Given that the juvenile delinquency court system is intended to be collaborative, and all parties should
be working toward meeting the same set of goals (such as determining the best interests and needs of
youth balanced with the need for community safety and accountability to victims and the community),
having good collaborative relationships between court professionals and other justice partners is
crucial. Prosecutors and defense attorneys were asked to rate the quality of their relationships with
other delinquency court professionals and justice partners, including the relationships within their own
offices.
Survey data revealed that both prosecutors and defense attorneys feel that they have a good
relationship with the court. Seventy-nine percent of prosecutors and 86 percent of defense attorneys
rated this relationship as very good or good. Both groups of attorneys also reported having good
relationships with each other and between other divisions of their respective offices. Ratings of their
relationships with other juvenile justice partners varied somewhat; the most poorly rated relationships
were with mental health and child welfare (tables 30 and 31). In response to the same question on a
survey of probation officers, the relationships with mental health and child welfare were also the most
poorly rated. It should also be noted that, on average, prosecutors from large counties rated their
relationships with the public defender’s office, juvenile probation, juvenile hall, and child welfare less
favorably than did prosecutors from small and medium counties.
The relationship with juvenile probation was rated favorably by most attorneys, with 78 percent of
prosecutors and 69 percent of defense attorneys indicating a good relationship between their offices
and the juvenile probation department. The relationship with probation’s juvenile hall was rated
somewhat lower; only 56 percent of prosecutors and 65 percent of defense attorneys rated this
relationship as being very good or good. It should be noted that one-fourth of prosecutors indicated
that they do not know about the relationship with juvenile hall. If these respondents are excluded from

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

the analysis, the prosecutor rating of the relationship with juvenile hall is considerably more favorable,
with 75 percent reporting a positive relationship
Both groups of attorneys rated the relationship with juvenile camps and ranches somewhat negatively.
Only 32 percent of prosecutors and 25 percent of defenders indicated that they are satisfied with the
quality of this relationship; however, a substantial percentage of respondents said that this was not
applicable or that they did not know about this relationship (50 percent of prosecutors and 29 percent
of defenders). When respondents who answered not applicable or do not know were removed from the
analysis, the ratings improved slightly, with 65 percent of prosecutors and 35 percent of defense
attorneys reporting a good relationship with these probation facilities.
The most poorly rated relationships for both groups were with mental health and child welfare
agencies. When asked to rate the relationship with mental health, only 11 percent of prosecutors and 29
percent of defense attorneys indicated that they have a good relationship with this agency. Similar
levels of dissatisfaction were reported for the relationship with child welfare (only 14 percent of
prosecutors and 25 percent of defense attorneys rated this relationship positively). If only those
respondents who expressed an opinion are included in the analyses, the satisfaction levels are still low:
only 33 percent of prosecutors and 35 percent of public defenders rated the relationship with mental
health positively, and 34 percent of prosecutors and 32 percent of public defenders indicated a good
relationship with child welfare. These ratings are considerably lower than the ratings for the
relationships with other justice partners.
When asked to describe what they like most about their juvenile delinquency assignments, one of the
most frequent survey responses from both attorney groups was the relationship with coworkers and
other justice partners. One prosecutor commented on the positive, collaborative nature of this
relationship within the county: “We have a great team working together—DAs, PDs & court. It is
nonadversarial, a very positive environment for all involved.” Another prosecutor praised the
relationship among all the delinquency court professionals, indicating that there is a “good relationship
with courts, probation, and defense attorneys.” Prosecutors were particularly likely to highlight the
favorable relationship with juvenile probation.
Defense attorney survey respondents, when asked to describe what they like most about their juvenile
assignments, frequently stated that they enjoy the collegial nature of the relationships with other
delinquency court professionals. One defense attorney stated that the best thing about working in
juvenile delinquency is “working with people in the juvenile court. People who have interest in
juvenile law seem to want to make society better.” Other defense attorneys indicated that they have a
good, cooperative relationship with probation and with court staff and judicial officers.
Some focus group participants expressed dissatisfaction with the communication between their office
and other justice partners. Defense attorneys from one county described a number of barriers in their
relationship with both the prosecutor’s office and the county probation department. Focus group
participants indicated that they are rarely able to meet with the prosecutor prior to the pretrial hearing,
and that because of this they are often unable to review the prosecutor’s offer with their clients before
the time of the pretrial hearing. Several public defenders also commented on the lack of
communication between their office and the probation department prior to the pretrial hearing. Other

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

defense attorneys in this focus group indicated that they do make an effort to contact their client’s
probation officer prior to the hearing to find out what his or her recommendations will be.
Other focus group participants reported that they generally have good relationships with other
delinquency court professionals, including opposing counsel, probation departments, and the juvenile
court bench officers. A prosecutor from one focus group described the relationship between the
prosecutor and public defender offices:
I think as a general rule the relationship is about as good as it normally gets anywhere;
there are some prosecutors and public defenders that work real well together in some of
the courts here, everything’s done informally, everybody trusts everybody, and it’s done.
Other [courts] where it’s done it’s not that way, everything’s on the record, everything’s a
fight, everything’s going to trial, and frankly, from my observation post, a lot of it is
simply nothing more than inexperience and personality issues, and inexperienced
lawyers. . . . We can agree to disagree about all kinds of stuff, but it’s nothing personal,
and we’re just doing our jobs.
Job Appraisal

Attorneys were asked to rate their satisfaction with various court-related job activities. Data from both
attorneys’ surveys indicated that satisfaction levels for most job-related issues are moderate. Responses
to the survey questions on this topic were often fairly equally divided among satisfied, neither satisfied
nor dissatisfied, 7 and dissatisfied. When asked to describe what they like most about their juvenile
delinquency assignment and also what they would change, the responses of both attorney groups
focused primarily on the “bigger picture” of the delinquency system rather than on day-to-day tasks
related to their juvenile assignments. Many prosecutors and defense attorneys indicated that they really
like the fact that they can make a difference for the youth in the court system, and defense attorneys
frequently commented about how much they enjoy working with kids. When asked what they would
change about their juvenile assignments, prosecutors often stated that they think the delinquency
system is too lenient, and they expressed a need for greater emphasis on youth accountability and
punishment. Defense attorneys, on the other hand, see the delinquency system as being overly punitive,
and they expressed concerns about the procedural protections afforded youth in the delinquency court
system.
Prosecutors

When prosecutors were asked to list the top three ways in which the juvenile delinquency court could
help the district attorney’s office be more effective, one of the most frequent responses related to
calendaring issues and hearing delays and continuances. A number of respondents commented that
they would like the court to ensure that hearings start on time. As illustrated by the following
comments, prosecutors would also like to see juvenile cases get processed more quickly and want the
courts to reduce the number of hearing continuances that are allowed:
“Clamp down on defense continuances.”
“Do not allow defense to continue cases needlessly.”
7

The choice of “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied” may have been interpreted in more than one way by survey respondents.
It may have been used as a midpoint on the rating scale, or it may have been selected by respondents who have no opinion
on the question item.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

“Reduce continuances and delays to produce swifter case disposition.”
Ensuring that hearings begin on time and reducing the number of hearing delays are also of concern as
they relate to the accommodation of the schedules of victims and witnesses. Respondents often
commented that the court should be more cognizant of the amount of wait time and number of repeat
trips to the courthouse experienced by victims and witnesses. One suggested, “For the benefit of the
minor and the victims and witnesses, [do] not allow a juvenile case to age (i.e., repeated
continuances).”
When asked to list the top causes of hearing delays and continuances, the most frequently cited reason
was that the defense attorney is not ready. 8 According to prosecutors, other common reasons for
hearing delays include reports and information not being available, other persons or information not
being available, and the youth not being present in court (table 32).
As documented in table 33, this concern about hearing delays and continuances was also seen in the
prosecutors’ ratings of their satisfaction with various court-related activities. The number of hours
spent waiting for court hearings and the number of continuances and delays are seen as problematic; 40
percent responded that they are dissatisfied with the amount of time they wait for court hearings in one
day and 37 percent indicated that they are dissatisfied with the number of continuances and delays.
When asked to rate the severity of these continuances and delays, most respondents indicated that they
consider this to be either a minor or moderate problem (table 34). Prosecutors are somewhat more
satisfied with other job-related activities, including the timeliness with which affidavits are brought by
probation and the amount of time available for preparing cases.
There were differences in satisfaction levels between county size groupings on several court-related
activities. Overall, large county respondents are less satisfied and small county respondents more
satisfied with the timeliness with which affidavits are brought, the amount of time available for
preparing cases, the number of hours spent waiting for court hearings, and the number of continuances.
In describing their work with victims, most prosecutors indicated that they work with victims in one or
more capacities. As can be seen in table 35, the most frequent activities include preparing victims to
testify and explaining the court process to victims. Approximately half of the respondents indicated
that their work with victims includes referring victims to services and explaining the restitution process
to victims. It should be noted that just because an individual survey respondent does not engage in a
particular activity, such as notifying victims of hearings, does not necessarily mean that this activity
does not happen at all. Individual attorney’s responsibilities may vary from office to office, and all
prosecutors may not engage in all victim-related responsibilities. Some victim-related work may also
fall under the job duties of the county probation department.
When asked to describe the top three things they like most about their juvenile delinquency
assignments, the most frequent response from prosecutors was that they enjoy working with youth and
helping them to change their behaviors. A number of respondents emphasized the importance of
helping youth in order to reduce future delinquent behaviors and to improve the youth’s overall
functioning. Respondents often indicated that by helping youth change from a delinquent path, they are
8

Note that defense attorneys often cite failure to receive critical reports and documents as the primary reason for delays and
continuances. See next the section of this report for details.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

also helping to make the community safer. One prosecutor replied that by working in juvenile
delinquency he is able to “impact a life in a positive way before a criminal pattern is set in stone”;
another stated that “prosecuting cases involving juvenile offenders has [the] prospect of community
improvement through rehabilitation of offenders.” As mentioned in the previous section, prosecutors
frequently indicated that they enjoy the relationships they have with their own colleagues and with the
other delinquency court professionals and justice partners. Respondents also stated that they like the
case variety and challenges involved with working in the juvenile delinquency court system. As one
prosecutor commented, “Juvenile delinquency is never boring.”
When describing what they would change about their juvenile assignments, prosecutors’ most frequent
response was that the juvenile delinquency system is too lenient and that it should have a greater
emphasis on punishment of and accountability by juvenile offenders. One respondent commented on
this system imbalance: “I would like for the juvenile system to recognize that value of punitive
measures in dispositions, even though rehabilitation should still be the focus and the goal.” Other
prosecutors felt that the courts need to increase the use of incarceration and thought that judicial
officers need to utilize DJJ (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of
Juvenile Justice) as a disposition option when appropriate. There was also a strong sentiment among
prosecutors that the system needs to mete out tougher penalties for the more serious, repeat offenders.
This perception of an overly lenient delinquency system also applies to prosecutors’ opinions regarding
the bench officers who hear delinquency cases:
“The judicial officers and probation officers [should] be more balanced between ‘touchy-feely’ and
punishment.”
“Often the judges/commissioners are too lenient . . . [they need] stricter, harsher judges.”
“We need a stronger, criminally educated bench.”
Another factor that prosecutors would like to change about their juvenile assignments relates to high
caseloads and staffing shortages in the prosecutors’ offices. They expressed an overall desire for
additional attorneys and clerical staff, but also indicated a need for specialized positions such as victim
advocates and gang prosecutors. One attorney highlighted the impact of these workload issues, stating
that “a very large caseload prevents individualized handling of some very serious cases.”
Defense Attorneys

As can be seen in table 36, defense attorneys are moderately satisfied with most job-related issues.
More than 40 percent responded that they are satisfied with the amount of time available for preparing
cases, the adequacy of time available for meeting with clients, and the adequacy of locations for
meeting with clients. Satisfaction with postdispositional activities fell in the low to moderate range.
Approximately 40 percent indicated that they are satisfied with the frequency of postdisposition review
hearings, and 33 percent are satisfied with the amount of time available to meet with clients
postdispositionally.
Satisfaction with the number of hearing delays also fell in the moderate range; most defense attorneys
said they are either satisfied or neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the number of delays. The most
frequent causes of hearing delays and continuances listed by defenders were probation reports not
being available, evaluation reports not being available, and other reports or information not being
available (table 37). This failure to receive reports on time may affect others’ perceptions of defense
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

attorney readiness, as seen in prosecutors’ responses to the same question on the causes of hearing
delays. When asked to rate the severity of hearing delays, the majority of attorneys responded that
delays either are not a problem or are a minor problem (table 38). Similar to the findings for
prosecutors, 45 percent of defense attorneys are dissatisfied with the number of hours they wait for
court hearings in one day.
There were some differences between public defenders and contract defense attorneys in their
satisfaction with job-related issues. Overall, contract defenders expressed higher levels of satisfaction
than did public defenders. Specifically, more contract attorneys than public defenders reported being
satisfied with the timeliness of probation reports (39 percent versus 22 percent), the time available for
preparing cases (48 percent versus 26 percent), the time available for meeting with clients (47 percent
versus 26 percent), and the amount of time for meeting with clients postdispositionally (35 percent
versus 22 percent). The findings do not appear to be due to the differences between public defenders
and contractors in the proportion of time spent on delinquency, that is, in the frequency of their
exposure to possibly difficult circumstances in the juvenile delinquency court setting. The differences
in satisfaction levels between attorney groups persist even when the analysis is limited to those
attorneys who work in juvenile delinquency half time or more.
When asked what they like most about their juvenile delinquency assignment, many defense attorneys
indicated that they really enjoy working with and helping youth. Similar to the prosecutors’ answers,
this was by far the most frequently supplied response to this question. Many respondents indicated that
by handling juvenile delinquency cases, they are doing work that “really makes a difference” and that
helping youth to turn their lives around is very rewarding and important work:
“Personally impacting how kids might live their lives.”
“Assisting society and kids by obtaining results that are best for kids.”
“[Having the] chance to get kids straightened out early, before they find themselves in ‘real’
trouble.”
“I love working with the children because it is possible to make a difference in their lives.”
Other aspects of the job that defenders said they like include working with families, the positive
relationships with coworkers and other juvenile delinquency court professionals, and the fact that
delinquency court is somewhat less punitive than adult criminal court.
In response to the question of what they would change about their juvenile assignments, many defense
attorneys responded that although the juvenile system is less harsh than the adult criminal system, it is
still far too punitive and is not focused enough on rehabilitation. Defense attorneys also feel that
prosecutors tend to overcharge in many cases (for example, misdemeanor offenses that are filed as
felonies) and that too many juvenile cases are being filed directly to adult criminal court. A very
common theme underlying many of the defense attorneys’ responses was that juveniles are being
treated like adult criminals but are not afforded the same legal protections that are present in the adult
criminal system. One attorney expressed concern that “juvenile cases can be used as strikes without
full procedural protection.” 9 Another respondent commented on the impact of an overly harsh system,
9

“Strike” refers to an offense that can be used for enhancing a sentence under California's “three-strikes law,” contained in
Proposition 184, which was passed by voters in 1994. The substantive provisions of Prop. 184 are codified in Pen. Code §§

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

stating that “juvenile court should not destroy kids forever.” Focus group participants from one county
spoke of the impact that overcharging certain juvenile offenses has on the ability to seal the record
when the youth reaches adulthood. In the words of one participant,
What I see a lot of right now is kids steal each others’ cell phone, they’ll take somebody’s
jacket, somebody’s backpack, now that’s a robbery, right? . . . Because many of these
kids are ending up with this type of a record, and when they’re 26 years old and let’s say
they’ve finished school and done everything right, never had a problem since then, there
should be some way of allowing them to deal with the record.
Focus group participants from another county commented that while the prosecutors do tend to
overcharge, they are also willing to settle on some potential strike offenses:
They do initially overcharge, but there are many, many cases in which they settle for
less . . . and that’s specifically in robberies—our DA is very sensitive to strikes and for
first- and even second-time offenders with legitimate strikes we always settle for
nonstrikes in [this county]. So even though the cases are overcharged, when it comes to
strikes and it really counts, they are very accommodating.
Survey respondents also indicated that they would like to have the option of jury trials in the juvenile
system, particularly for serious crimes and strike offenses. Many commented that strikes as a result of
a juvenile case should be eliminated entirely. Other changes that defense attorneys would like to see
include a greater number of quality services and programs for juvenile delinquents. Mental health
services were the most commonly cited area of need.
Services and Sanctions

Given the ongoing concern regarding limited resources for juvenile services and programs, it is
important to assess court professionals’ opinions regarding the effectiveness of the services and
sanctions 10 that are available to youth in the juvenile delinquency system, and also to identify areas of
need or gaps in the existing services.
One of the most notable findings from both the prosecutor and defense attorney surveys is the overall
low satisfaction with the range and effectiveness of services and sanctions for juveniles, particularly
for juveniles who are considered high risk. Although there were some differences between prosecutors
and defense attorneys in their satisfaction with individual services and sanctions, both groups of
attorneys expressed low satisfaction with services and sanctions overall. Prosecutors and defense
attorneys both reported fairly low levels of satisfaction with the effectiveness of most services. For
nearly all programs, fewer than 40 percent of respondents indicated that they are satisfied or very
satisfied with the service. Mental health services and programs received particularly low ratings. Fortytwo percent of prosecutors and 67 percent of defense attorneys said they are either dissatisfied or very
dissatisfied with the effectiveness of mental health services and programs. Many respondents
667(e)(2)(A)(ii) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/654-678.html) and 1170.12(c)(2)(A)(ii)
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/1170-1170.9.html). The purpose was to lengthen prison sentences for repeat
criminal offenders.
10
Sanctions refer to a range of graduated restrictions or consequences targeted at specific offender profiles or behaviors and
used for accountability and behavior modification purposes. They range from less to more severe and can move up or
down the continuum depending on the performance and needs of the offender.
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

frequently selected the “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied” scale option, which may indicate that they
may not be very familiar with or have no opinion about some programs.
It should also be noted that a large percentage of respondents indicated that they either do not know
about a particular service option or that it is not available in their county. It is possible that the low
satisfaction level for services is at least partially due to an overall dissatisfaction that the service is
unavailable or is not provided at a sufficient level in the county. This dissatisfaction with the range of
service options, specifically mental health services, was also seen in the attorneys’ replies to the openended questions. Many stated that what they like least about their juvenile delinquency assignment is
the paucity of quality programs and service options available to youth. When asked about their courts’
areas of need, both groups of attorneys again cited major gaps in the range of quality services and
sanctions for juvenile offenders. These gaps in services and sanctions were also highlighted by many
of the focus group participants. Some focus group members also discussed the court’s underutilization
or inappropriate application of the services and sanction that are available in their county.
Prosecutors

Prosecutors are generally more satisfied with the range of sanction options for low-risk youth than with
the range of options for intermediate- or high-risk youth (table 39). In terms of specific sanction
options, they are most satisfied with the effectiveness of the more restrictive options: camps and
ranches, placement, and DJJ (table 40). Respondents expressed the lowest levels of satisfaction with
the effectiveness of the counsel and dismiss and home on probation sanctions. As shown in table 41,
prosecutors are also dissatisfied with restitution collection; few respondents said that they are satisfied
or very satisfied with this.
Similar to the finding for sanction options, satisfaction with the range of service options available for
low-risk youth (46 percent) is higher than satisfaction with the range available for intermediate- or
high-risk youth (28 percent and 22 percent, respectively). As can be seen in table 42, overall
satisfaction with the effectiveness of services is relatively low. Respondents expressed particularly
high levels of dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of mental health services. Other services with high
levels of dissatisfaction are parent education programs and after-school programs.
When asked about the juvenile delinquency court’s top needs for improvement, the lack of service and
sanction options available to and utilized by the court was one of the most frequently highlighted areas
of concern. Prosecutors commented on the overall need for more quality services and placement
options. Specific service gaps that were often cited include mental health services, placements for girls,
drug treatment programs and placements, placements for sex offenders, and placements and services
for transitional-age youth. Also frequently mentioned by prosecutors was the need for more resources
for facilities and camps (more beds, more funding, increased staff) and improved facilities. The
following comments illustrate this area of concern for prosecutors:
“More money needs to be allocated to juveniles. We have a new juvenile facility with 120 beds, but
we can only use half of them because there are insufficient funds to staff the juvenile hall.”
“More placement options needed, especially for high-risk youth.”
“Need local facilities to treat and/or rehabilitate minors; juvenile hall, large enough and staffed full
time; local group homes.”

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

Focus group participants were similar in their responses regarding gaps in services and sanctions in
their counties. Services and placement options for girls, sex offenders, transitional-age youth, youth
with serious emotional disturbances, and youth with drug problems were all cited as areas of need.
When asked whether they are satisfied with the range of service and sanction options, focus group
participants from one county highlighted a number of gaps in the available services:
Participant 1: Yeah, there’s gaps. One of the problems is you have somebody close to 18,
what kind of program are you going to be able to put that person in?
Participant 2: Well, we don’t have a residential drug treatment program right now.
Participant 3: We don’t have a lot of options . . . especially for females . . . we don’t have
enough sex offender residential treatment programs, and we get a lot of sex assault cases with
serious facts. . . . We have not a lot of dual diagnosis options because there’s a lot of mental
health issues in a lot of the juvenile delinquency cases that are long-standing and
undiagnosed and untreated.
Participants in another focus group indicated that they do have a good continuum of services and
sanctions; however, they commented on the poor quality of some of the services, particularly mental
health. Participants also thought that the available sanctions were too infrequently imposed by the
court. A few gaps in services were highlighted, specifically counseling services and sex offender
programs.
Defense Attorneys

Like prosecutors, defense attorneys are more satisfied with the range of sanctions and services
available to lower-risk youth than with those available for higher-risk youth (table 43). However,
defense attorneys are less satisfied than prosecutors with the range of service options for all risk groups
overall.
Defense attorneys’ satisfaction with individual sanction options is almost entirely the opposite of that
reported by the prosecutors. Defense attorneys expressed very low levels of satisfaction with the
effectiveness of the more restrictive sanction options (DJJ, camps and ranches, and placement) and are
most satisfied with the effectiveness of less restrictive options such as home on probation, informal
supervision, community service, and electronic monitoring (table 44). Compared to public defenders,
contract defenders are slightly more satisfied with some of the more restrictive sanction options,
including placement (24 percent versus 10 percent) and camps and ranches (30 percent versus 13
percent). These differences persisted even when limited to those defense attorneys who work in
delinquency half time or more.
Like prosecutors, defense attorneys expressed low levels of satisfaction with restitution collection; few
respondents said that they are satisfied or very satisfied with this service (table 45). Defense attorneys
were more likely than prosecutors to indicate that they do not know about restitution collection. This
finding persists even when limited to those defense attorneys who work in delinquency half time or
more.
When asked for their opinions on the effectiveness of specific services and programs, defense attorney
respondents reported low levels of satisfaction with the majority of the programs listed (table 46). They
expressed particularly high levels of dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of mental health services,

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

parent education programs, and after-school programs, which is consistent with the responses given by
prosecutors.
Levels of satisfaction with the effectiveness of services were similar across public defenders and
contract defenders. Contract defenders were somewhat more likely to state that they do not know about
some services (substance abuse, independent living, anger management, wraparound programs, and
community centers). The level of “don’t know” responses decreased slightly when limited to those
attorneys who work half time or more in delinquency.
Consistent with prosecutors’ opinions, defense attorneys feel that an increased range of service options
is needed for youth in the delinquency system. Frequently mentioned gaps in services include mental
health services, placements and camps for girls, alternatives to DJJ, local group homes, sex offender
placements, drug treatment placements, intervention and prevention programs, placements for
transitional-age youth, and treatment services in detention facilities. One respondent made the
following comment regarding the lack of treatment provided in the camp placements: “We need
treatment programs to be implemented at the Juvenile Justice campus and at boot camp. Kids are
incarcerated for months . . . and receive absolutely no treatment.” A number of respondents also
highlighted the importance of involving the youth’s family in the juvenile’s treatment process.
Comments addressing this issue included the following:
“[Need] more community-based programs that incorporate treatment for the entire family.”
“[More] parental/family involvement.”
“More parental support/programs to help in rehabilitation process.”
Focus group participants echoed the concerns about service and sanction needs. Defense attorneys in
one small county described these service gaps:
Participant 1: There is just not enough service for children with mental health problems.
Participant 2: It’s limited, its embarrassing sometimes, we do not have adequate drug
treatment.
Participant 3: We have no live-in for girls.
Participant 2: Zero live-in programs for any of the children here.
Interviewer: So there are actually no drug facilities, residential facilities in the county?
Participant 3: Correct, none, zero, nada . . .
Focus group participants from another county indicated that they do have a good range of service
options for youth; however, they feel that these service options are not used consistently by the court
and that available sanctions are not applied in a graduated fashion:
Participant 1: What I think is happening is that every possible sanction is imposed right then
and there: you’re going to do electronic monitoring, you’re going to do ERC [Evening
Reporting Centers], you’re going to have curfew . . .

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

Participant 2: They throw all the programs at the kid; it’s not graduated, it’s not thought
through.
Defense attorneys in one county commented that the probation department has a poor relationship with
many of the community-based organizations that could potentially provide services to juveniles in the
delinquency system. According to one participant,
The probation department has an ongoing conflict with the community, so they do not refer
generally to community programs; they ignore them. The probation department is
uninformed about what options are available in the community because they’re mostly
ignoring everything except detention as an option. So they do not form or work at forming
good relationships with those agencies.
Satisfaction With Juvenile Drug Court 11

Juvenile drug court is one of several types of collaborative court models available across counties in
California. 12 Collaborative justice, or problem-solving, courts are alternatives to traditional case
processing that address underlying problems that contribute to criminal activity or other court
involvement. Juvenile drug court is one such model available for delinquent youth who have substance
abuse problems. Juvenile drug court requires that the youth participate in substance abuse treatment,
submit to frequent drug testing, appear at regular and frequent court status hearings, and comply with
other court conditions geared to promote accountability, rehabilitation, long-term sobriety, and
cessation of criminal activity. Attorneys were asked to rate their satisfaction with the effectiveness of
juvenile drug courts. A substantial percentage of respondents indicated that they either do not know
about this service or that the service is not available. For those respondents who did express an opinion
about drug court, more are satisfied than dissatisfied with this collaborative court option (table 47).
Thirty-seven percent of district attorneys and 37 percent of defense attorneys indicated they are
satisfied with the effectiveness of drug court. Only 11 percent of district attorneys and 14 percent of
defense attorneys expressed dissatisfaction with drug court. An interviewee from one county stated that
they recently lost the juvenile drug court they had previously had in the county, and expressed the
importance of reinstating it. Lack of funding for the juvenile drug court was cited as a problem.
According to an interviewee from another county, the juvenile drug court in the county is very
effective and includes collaboration between the juvenile court judges and the schools; however,
geography was cited as a barrier to being able to provide this court service to all of the youth who need
it. Given the frequent court appearances and the regular random drug testing, the drug court is difficult
to provide to youth living in outlying areas. Anecdotal reports of the value of drug courts have been
noted in a variety of public venues, including in budget hearings conducted by the Judicial Council and
held around the state. Courts do report funding issues and the need for resources to meet particular
needs in different geographic settings in order to ensure that the benefits of these programs are widely
available.

In addition to drug courts, attorneys rated their satisfaction with mental health courts; truancy courts; and peer, teen, or
youth courts. There were too few respondents to analyze satisfaction with courts other than drug courts.
12
See volume 1, chapter 3, for a more in-depth description of collaborative court models and their availability in California.
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

Court Assessment

As can be seen in tables 48 and 49, both groups of attorneys are generally satisfied with how they are
treated by the court (71 percent of prosecutors and 78 percent of defense attorneys). Overall, they are
also satisfied with how they are treated by other juvenile delinquency court professionals but they
expressed lower levels of satisfaction with how these other professionals handle juvenile cases.
Defense attorneys are also less satisfied than prosecutors with probation officers’ handling of cases and
with how they are treated by probation.
Public defenders are less satisfied than contract defenders across several court assessment measures.
Specifically, they are less satisfied with probation officers’ handling of cases (20 percent versus 41
percent), how they are treated by probation (52 percent versus 75 percent), prosecutors’ handling of
cases (20 percent versus 42 percent), and how they are treated by prosecutors (60 percent versus 75
percent). When limited to those attorneys who work in delinquency at least half time, these differences
persist and, in fact, increase for most of the court assessment measures.
It should be noted that prosecutors from small counties were generally more satisfied across several
court assessment measures. On average, prosecutors from small counties were more satisfied than
those from medium and large counties with how they are treated by defense attorneys and probation
officers. Prosecutors from small counties were also more satisfied with how defense attorneys and
probation officers handle cases. On average, large county prosecutors were the least satisfied with
these professionals handling of cases.
For both prosecutors and defense attorneys, satisfaction with the relationships they have with other
delinquency court professionals is higher than their satisfaction with the job performance of those
professionals. This may be partially due to the different role that each type of court professional has in
the juvenile delinquency system. One participant from a prosecutor focus group commented on the
nature of the roles and relationships between the two offices:
I think our relationship with the public defender is the same as it is in every other office; we have
divergent interests and different jobs to do. . . . That’s okay, that’s part of the system, that’s part of
the game. We don’t have any problem with that.
As discussed in previous sections, in response to several of the open-ended questions about how they
feel about their delinquency court assignment and what they like and do not like about the juvenile
delinquency court process, both groups of attorneys often replied that they enjoy the collaboration with
the other juvenile delinquency professionals but that they are sometimes dissatisfied with how
delinquency cases are handled by the other players within the system. Prosecutors most often stated
that they feel that the delinquency system is too lenient and that judicial officers and other court
professionals need to have a stronger emphasis on punishment of juvenile offenders. Defense
attorneys, on the other hand, frequently criticized prosecutors for overcharging cases and for other
practices they perceive as overly punitive, such as direct filing to adult court.
On the defense attorney survey, respondents were asked to rate how well various types of information
are conveyed to youth and their parents (tables 50 and 51). The responses indicated that attorneys feel
that certain types of information are conveyed well. These include possible outcomes, responsibilities
while on probation, ramifications of a plea, what to expect at court hearings, and the general court

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

process. Respondents were less likely to indicate that record-sealing information and the process for
paying restitution are explained well to youth or parents.
Postdispositional Activities

Effective July 1, 2004, rule 5.663 of the California Rules of Court clarified existing rules governing the
responsibilities of delinquency defense attorneys, including during a case’s postdispositional period. 13
The defense attorney survey included questions about postdispositional representation to determine
how rule 5.663 is affecting postdispositional activities. Most defense attorneys indicated that the
implementation of this rule has not changed their level of postdispositional work (table 52).
Considering only those attorneys who were handling juvenile delinquency cases prior to rule 5.663,
approximately one-fourth indicated that they do more postdispositional work since the rule was
implemented. Public defenders were far more likely than contract attorneys to indicate that their
postdispositional work has increased (41 percent versus 19 percent). Contract attorneys were more
likely to say that their level of postdispositional work has remained the same (60 percent of contractors
versus 41 percent of public defenders).
Defense attorneys were also asked how frequently they engage in various postdispositional job
activities. The majority of respondents indicated that they always or often appear at review hearings,
represent clients on violation of probation hearings, and represent clients on new petitions (table 53).
Although nearly all attorneys responded that they always or often provide the client with their contact
information, far fewer said they frequently maintain contact with the client (53 percent) or visit the
client (25 percent).
The majority of defense attorneys also indicated that they always or often review probation conditions
and treatment plans with the client, but fewer said they frequently maintain contact with the client’s
probation officer, keep track of the probation plan implementation, or schedule hearings to modify
probation conditions or treatment plans.
Compared to public defenders, contract defenders were less likely to say they nearly always or often
engage in certain postdispositional activities. These include appearing at review hearings (88 percent
versus 68 percent), representing clients on violation of probation (95 percent versus 72 percent), and
representing clients on new petitions (95 percent versus 67 percent). Contract attorneys tended to
respond that they either sometimes or occasionally do these postdispositional tasks. When the analysis
is limited to those attorneys who work in delinquency half time or more, the differences between
defense attorney types decreased considerably for the previously mentioned activities. Interestingly,
when only these attorneys are included, contract attorneys reported doing several postdispositional
activities more frequently than public defenders do. Specifically, they were more likely to state that
they maintain contact with the client via phone or e-mail, maintain contact with the client’s probation
officer, and keep track of plan implementation.
As can be seen in table 54, the most frequently reported obstacles to working with clients
postdispositionally were lack of time for follow-up, lack of funding for the postdispositional period,

and lack of other resources available for follow-up work. A number of respondents wrote in additional
obstacles that were not included on the survey. Most of these responses were related to an inability to
locate the client due to the client moving or changing phone numbers. Public defenders were more
likely than contract attorneys to cite a lack of time for follow-up as an obstacle (64 percent versus 31
percent) but were less likely to list a lack of other resources as a primary obstacle (30 percent versus 44
percent).
Defense attorneys are generally satisfied with the information they receive about youth who are home
on probation (table 55). Overall, however, defense attorneys reported low levels of satisfaction with the
information they receive about youth in placement, camps or ranches, or foster or group homes.
Satisfaction with information received about youth in DJJ is very low, with only 9 percent indicating
that they are very satisfied or satisfied with the information received.
Conclusion

This report summarizes the findings from the 2007 CFCC Surveys of Prosecutors and Defense
Attorneys. Response rates for both surveys were fairly high: surveys were received from 67 percent of
prosecutors and 52 percent of defense attorneys.
Results from both surveys indicate that many prosecutors and defense attorneys are new to juvenile
delinquency. This is particularly true for prosecutors and public defenders; many are in their first
juvenile delinquency assignment and few reported having prior professional roles in the juvenile
system. These findings may raise some concerns regarding the general lack of experience of some
attorneys working in the juvenile delinquency courts. In describing the qualifications for prosecutors,
the National Prosecution Standards section 92.1 on the Standards for Juvenile Justice recommends that
training and experience should be required for handling juvenile delinquency cases and that entry-level
attorneys working in juvenile delinquency should receive training related to juvenile matters.14
According to the National Juvenile Defender Center’s Principles in Practice, legal representation of
children is considered to be a specialized area that requires ongoing, delinquency-specific training.
Although no specific recommendation is made regarding the level of expertise necessary for juvenile
delinquency attorneys, the principles do state that new defenders should be supervised by more
experienced attorneys to ensure high-quality legal work and manageable caseloads. 15
Given the complexity and the unique nature of the juvenile delinquency court setting, having
experienced, well-trained attorneys is critical in order to ensure the fair processing of delinquency
cases and quality representation for youth who enter the delinquency system. The fact that there are
many professionals who are new to the delinquency system indicates the importance of early training
when first entering a juvenile delinquency assignment. Training, along with other practices that allow
for attorneys with delinquency-related experience to handle or supervise delinquency cases, should be
encouraged by district attorneys’ and public defenders’ offices.
It should be pointed out that the survey results indicate that there is also a population of very
experienced attorneys working in the juvenile delinquency field, including a subset who would like to
14

National District Attorneys Association, National Prosecution Standards, Standards for Juvenile Justice, sections 92.192.7 (second edition) (1991).
15
National Juvenile Defender Center, Principles in Practice: Promoting Accountability, Safety, and Fairness in Juvenile
Delinquency Proceedings (Southern Poverty Law Center, 2007).
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

continue working in juvenile delinquency. Contract attorneys have the most experience, on average,
and are particularly likely to have lengthy tenures in delinquency settings and also to have other
professional roles in the juvenile court system. A sizable minority of prosecutors and defense attorneys
also have lengthy tenures of 20 years or more.
It would benefit the delinquency system not only to have tenured professionals handling cases but also
to retain those attorneys who truly have an interest in delinquency-related work. Many attorneys
reported that they would like to remain in their juvenile delinquency assignments; however, the
majority indicated that they expect to be reassigned or to rotate out of their juvenile assignments at
some point in the future. Compared to those with longer tenures, newer attorneys are less likely to
indicate that they want to remain in their juvenile delinquency assignments. If the failure to get
promoted underlies some of the hesitation or inability to remain in juvenile delinquency assignments,
this may be an area for district attorneys’ and public defenders’ offices to evaluate further. Additional
efforts to accommodate those who wish to remain in delinquency assignments should be considered.
One of the most notable findings from both attorney surveys is the overall low satisfaction with the
range and effectiveness of services and sanctions for juveniles, particularly for juveniles who are
considered high risk. The effectiveness of mental health services and programs was also rated
particularly low. This dissatisfaction with the range of service options, specifically mental health
services, was also seen in the attorneys’ replies to the open-ended questions and in attorney focus
groups. When asked about their courts’ areas of need, both groups of attorneys again cited major gaps
in the range of quality services and sanctions for juvenile offenders. Due to the wide range of issues
present in delinquency court matters and to the variation in youths’ needs, having a wide array of
effective services and sanctions is crucial. Matching youth to appropriate services and sanctions is
critical for maximizing youths’ ability to meet court- and probation-related mandates. Without
appropriate services, underlying problems that may be contributing to youths’ delinquent behavior
(such as mental health or substance abuse issues) may go unaddressed, which may increase the
likelihood of future recidivism.
Given that the juvenile delinquency court system is intended to be collaborative, and all parties should
be working toward meeting the same set of goals (such as determining the best interests and needs of
youth balanced with the need for community safety and accountability to victims and the community),
having good collaborative relationships among court professionals and other justice partners is
important. Survey data on collaboration and working relationships between delinquency court
professionals are encouraging—the data reveal that both prosecutors and defense attorneys feel that
they have a good relationship with the court, and most are satisfied with how they are treated by the
court. Both groups of attorneys also reported having good relationships with each other and among
other divisions of their respective offices. Relationships with other justice partners are rated less
positively; the most poorly rated relationships are with mental health and child welfare.
In both the satisfaction scale rating and the open-ended questions, prosecutors expressed dissatisfaction
with the number of hearing delays and continuances. According to prosecutors, the most frequent
cause for these delays is that the defense attorney is not ready. For their part, defense attorneys cited
the absence of reports or other information as the primary reason for hearing continuances. In focus
groups with court users, many commented on the repeated trips to the courthouse they had to endure
due to hearing continuances. It should be noted that although continuances may pose problems for
some court professionals and court users, in some instances they may be necessary for fair processing
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

of the case. Regardless of the reason for the hearing delay or continuance, court users should be made
aware of the reason the hearing is delayed or continued. If this communication does not happen, it may
lead to frustration and misunderstandings by court users, which may affect their perceptions of the
fairness of the court process.
When defense attorneys were asked about the impact of rule 5.663 on their postdispositional work,
public defenders were far more likely than contract attorneys to indicate that their postdispositional
work has increased. The most frequently reported obstacles to working with clients postdispositionally
were lack of time for follow-up, lack of funding for the postdispositional period, and lack of other
resources available for follow-up work. Some attorneys also cited an inability to locate the client as
one of the barriers they faced. Compared to public defenders, contract defenders were less likely to say
that they frequently engage in certain postdispositional activities. Interestingly, when only those
attorneys who work in delinquency half time or more are included, conflict attorneys reported doing
several postdispositional activities more frequently than do public defenders.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys differ in their perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of the
juvenile delinquency court system and what they like and dislike about their juvenile assignments.
When asked about their perceptions of the juvenile delinquency system, prosecutors’ most frequent
response was that the system is too lenient and should have a greater emphasis on punishment of and
accountability by juvenile offenders. Defense attorneys, on the other hand, see the delinquency system
as being overly punitive, and they expressed concerns that youth are being treated like adult criminals
but are not afforded the same legal protections that are present in the adult criminal system. One theme
that was consistent across both prosecutors and defense attorneys was the fact that they enjoy working
with youth and helping them to turn their lives around.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

Tables

Table 1
Size of Counties Represented by Prosecutor Survey Respondents (N=173)

Small
Medium
Large
Total

Count

Percent

32
48
93
173

18.5
27.7
53.8
100%

Table 2
Respondents to Defense Attorney Survey by Current Role (N=342)

Public defender
Contract public defender
Alternate public defender
Contract defender
Total

Count

Percent

102
26
7
207
342

29.8
7.6
2.0
60.5
100%

Table 3
Size of Counties Represented by Defense Attorney Survey Respondents (N=342)

Small
Medium
Large
Total

Count

Percent

67
117
158
342

19.6
34.2
46.2
100%

Table 4
Size of Counties by Defense Attorney Type (N=342)
Public Defender
(N=102)

Small
Medium
Large

Count

Percent

10
27
65

9.8
26.5
63.7

Contract Public
Defender
(N=26)
Count Percent
15
11
0

Alternate Public
Defender
(N=7)
Count
Percent

57.7
42.3
0.0

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

1
5
1

14.3
71.4
14.3

Contract Defender
(N=207)
Count

Percent

41
74
92

19.8
35.7
44.4

Table 5
Respondents to Prosecutor Survey by Current Role (N=173)

Administrative/supervisor and I handle juvenile cases
I handle juvenile cases only
Total

Count

Percent

36
137
173

20.8
79.2
100%

Table 6
Prosecutors: Time Spent Doing Delinquency-Related Work (N=173)

Full time
Half to full time
About half time
One-fourth to half
About one-fourth time
Less than one-fourth time
Total

Count

Percent

126
11
10
5
6
15
173

72.8
6.4
5.8
2.9
3.5
8.7
100%

Count

Percent

161
127
130
66
18
56
29
16

93.1
73.4
75.1
38.2
10.4
32.4
16.8
9.2

Table 7
Types of Cases Handled by Prosecutors (N=173)

General
Gangs
Sex offenders
Truancy
Mental health court
Drug court
Informal juvenile and traffic
Other

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

Table 8
Prosecutors: Years Since Passing the Bar (N=173)
Count

Percent

5
44
23
19
29
53
173

2.9
25.4
13.3
11.0
16.8
30.6
100%

1 year or less
2 to 4 yrs
5 to 10 yrs
11 to 15 yrs
16 to 20 yrs
More than 20 years
Total

Mean = 14.4 years; median = 14 years; standard deviation = 10.2 years

Table 9
Years Since Becoming a Prosecutor (N=173)
Count

Percent

15
46
22
21
28
41
173

8.7
26.6
12.7
12.1
16.2
23.7
100%

1 year or less
2 to 4 yrs
5 to 10 yrs
11 to 15 yrs
16 to 20 yrs
More than 20 years
Total

Mean = 12.2 years; median = 12 years; standard deviation = 9.8 years

Table 10
Prosecutors: Total Number of Years in Juvenile Assignments (N=135)
Count

Percent

41
33
18
22
7
8
6
135

30.4
24.4
13.3
16.3
5.2
5.9
4.4
100%

Less than 1 year
1 to 2.9 years
3 to 4.9 years
5 to 9.9 years
10 to 14.9 years
15 10 19.9 years
20 years or more
Total
Mean = 4.9 years; median = 2.3 years; standard deviation = 6.3 years

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

Table 11
Prosecutors: Number of Years in Current Juvenile Assignments (N=172)
Count

Percent

77
44
22
22
2
1
4
172

44.8
25.5
12.8
12.8
1.2
0.6
2.3
100%

Count

Percent

135
14
15
6
5
2
1
2
7
4

78.5
8.1
8.7
3.5
2.9
1.2
0.6
1.2
4.1
2.3

Less than 1 year
1 to 2.9 years
3 to 4.9 years
5 to 9.9 years
10 to 14.9 years
15 to 19.9 years
20 years or more
Total
Mean = 2.7 years; median = 1.0 years; standard deviation = 4.2 years

Table 12
Other Professional Roles in Juvenile Court Matters
as Reported by Prosecutors (N=172)

None
Defense attorney
Child’s dependency attorney
Parent’s dependency attorney
County counsel or city attorney
Probation officer
Social worker
CASA volunteer
Other
Did not check any

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

Table 13
Where Prosecutors Would Like to Be Working in Two Years (N=171)

Juvenile division of the district attorney’s office
Another division of the prosecutor’s office
Practicing in the private sector
Working as a judicial officer
Out of the workforce
Other
Do not know
Total

Count

Percent

53
72
1
9
12
7
17
171

31.0
42.1
0.6
5.3
7.0
4.1
9.9
100%

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

Table 14
Where Prosecutors Would Like to Be Working in Two Years, by Prosecutor Experience
4 Years or Less
Juvenile division of the
district attorney’s office
Another division of the
district attorney’s office
Practicing in the private
sector
Working as a judicial
officer
Out of the workforce
Other
Do not know
Total

5 to 15 Years

16 Years or More

Count

Percent

Count

Percent

Count

Percent

11.5

39.5

43.3

82.0

34.9

10.4

0.0

0.6

0.0

7.0

9.0

0
1
3
61

0.0
1.6
4.9
100%

2
1
5
43

4.7
2.3
11.6
100%

10
5
9
67

14.9
7.5
13.5
100%

Table 15
Circumstances Under Which Prosecutors Expect to Leave the
Juvenile Division (N=171)

I expect to remain in the juvenile division
My predetermined rotation will be complete
I will request a different assignment
I will be reassigned; we do not have predetermined rotations
I will leave the district attorney’s office for another position or
to leave the workforce
Do not know
Total

Count

Percent

25
47
8
64

14.6
27.5
4.7
37.4

7.6

14
171

8.2
100%

Count

Percent

334
224
220
81
37
84
79
37

98.2
65.9
64.7
23.8
10.9
24.7
23.2
10.9

Table 16
Types of Cases Handled by Defense Attorneys (N=340)

General
Gangs
Sex offenders
Truancy
Mental health court
Drug court
Informal juvenile and traffic
Other

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

Table 17
Defense Attorneys: Time Spent Doing Delinquency-Related Work: (N=339)
Count

Percent

109
43
39
36
42
70
339

32.2
12.7
11.5
10.6
12.4
20.6
100%

Full time
Half to full time
About half time
One-fourth to half time
About one-fourth time
Less than one-fourth time
Total

Table 18
Time Spent Doing Delinquency-Related Work, by Defense Attorney Type (N=339)
Public Defender
(N=102)

Full time
Half to full time
About half time
One-fourth to half time
About one-fourth time
Less than one-fourth time

Count

Percent

84
9
5
3
1
0

82.4
8.8
4.9
2.9
1.0
0.0

Contract Public
Defender
(N=26)
Count Percent
4
5
1
7
3
6

Alternate Public
Defender
(N=7)
Count
Percent

15.4
19.2
3.8
26.9
11.5
23.1

3
1
1
0
0
1

42.9
14.3
14.3
0.0
0.0
28.6

Contract Defender
(N=207)
Count

Percent

18
28
32
26
38
62

8.8
13.7
15.7
12.7
18.6
30.4

Table 19
Defense Attorneys: Years Since Passing the Bar (N=340)
Count

Percent

5
26
50
45
52
162
340

1.6
7.6
14.7
13.2
15.3
47.6
100%

1 year or less
2 to 4 years
5 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
16 to 20 years
More than 20 years
Total
Mean = 20 years; median = 20 years; standard deviation = 11.1 years

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

Table 20
Years Since Becoming a Defense Attorney (N=339)
Count

Percent

16
37
54
51
54
127
339

4.7
10.9
15.9
15.1
15.9
37.5
100%

1 year or less
2 to 4 years
5 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
16 to 20 years
More than 20 years
Total

Mean = 17.4 years; Median = 17 years; Standard Deviation = 11.2 years

Table 21
Years Since Becoming a Defense Attorney by Defense Attorney Type (N=339)
Public Defender
(N=102)

1 year or less
2 to 4 years
5 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
16 to 20 years
More than 20 years

Count

Percent

5
20
22
16
24
15

4.9
19.6
21.6
15.7
23.5
14.7

Contract Public
Defender
(N=25)
Count Percent
3
1
5
2
2
12

Alternate Public
Defender
(N=7)
Count
Percent

12.0
4.0
20.0
8.0
8.0
48.0

0
0
0
2
1
4

0.0
0.0
0.0
28.6
14.3
57.1

Contract Defender
(N=205)
Count

Percent

8
16
25
33
27
96

3.9
7.8
12.2
16.1
13.2
46.8

Mean = 12.3

Mean = 17.6

Mean = 21.9

Mean = 19.8

Median = 11
Standard
deviation = 8.3

Median = 20
Standard
deviation = 11.2

Median = 21
Standard
deviation = 12.3

Median = 19
Standard
deviation = 11.6

Table 22
Public Defenders: Number of Years in Current Juvenile Assignments (N=83)
Count

Percent

19
31
17
9
6
1
0
83

22.9
37.3
20.5
10.8
7.2
1.2
0.0
100%

Less than 1 year
1 to 2.9 years
3 to 4.9 years
5 to 9.9 years
10 to 14.9 years
15 to 19.9 years
20 years or more
Total
Mean = 3.2 years; median = 2.0 years; standard deviation = 3.4 years

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

Table 23
Defense Attorneys: Total Number of Years in Juvenile Assignments (N=322)

Less than 1 year
1 to 2.9 years
3 to 4.9 years
5 to 9.9 years
10 to 14.9 years
15 to 19.9 years
20 years or more
Total

Count

Percent

23
41
35
43
47
34
99
322

7.1
12.7
10.9
13.4
14.6
10.6
30.7
100%

Mean = 13.6 years; median = 11 years; standard deviation = 11.2 years

Table 24
Total Number of Years in Juvenile Assignments, by Attorney Type (N=322)
Public Defender
(N=102)

Less than 1 year
1 to 2.9 years
3 to 4.9 years
5 to 9.9 years
10 to 14.9 years
15 to 19.9 years
20 years or more

Count

Percent

14
21
20
21
8
6
4

14.9
22.3
21.3
22.3
8.5
6.4
4.3

Contract Public
Defender
(N=25)
Count Percent
3
1
2
4
1
1
14

Alternate Public
Defender
(N=7)
Count
Percent

11.5
3.8
7.7
15.4
3.8
3.8
53.8

0
0
1
1
0
2
3

0.0
0.0
14.3
14.3
0.0
28.6
42.9

Contract Defender
(N=205)
Count

Percent

6
19
12
17
38
25
78

3.1
9.7
6.2
8.7
19.5
12.8
40.0

Mean = 5.8

Mean = 16.8

Mean = 19.3

Mean = 16.8

Median = 3.5
Standard
deviation = 6.2

Median = 20
Standard
deviation = 11.7

Median = 15.5
Standard
deviation = 12.4

Median = 15
Standard
deviation = 11.1

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

Table 25
Other Professional Roles in Juvenile Court Matters
as Reported by Defense Attorneys (N=342)

None
Prosecutor
Child’s dependency attorney
Parent’s dependency attorney
County counsel or city attorney
Probation officer
Social worker
Pro-tem
CASA volunteer
Other
Did not check any

Count

Percent

130
31
148
161
9
5
5
26
6
32
7

38.0
9.1
43.3
47.1
2.6
1.5
1.5
7.6
1.8
9.4
2.0

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

Table 26
Circumstances Under Which Defense Attorneys Expect to
Leave the Juvenile Division (N=101)

I expect to remain in the juvenile division
My predetermined rotation will be complete
I will request a different assignment
I will be reassigned; we do not have predetermined rotations
I will leave the public defender's office for another position or
to leave the workforce
Do not know
Total

Count

Percent

23
22
5
35

22.8
21.8
4.9
34.7

9.9

6
101

5.9
100%

Note: Only responses from those working in the county public defender’s office are included.

Table 27
Where Defense Attorneys Would Like to Be Working in Two Years (N=336)

Juvenile division of the public defender’s office
Handling juvenile cases in a private setting
Other public sector work
Other private sector work
Working as a judicial officer
Out of the workforce
Other
Do not know
Total

Count

Percent

67
122
16
17
28
21
10
55
336

19.9
36.3
4.8
5.1
8.3
6.3
3.0
16.4
100%

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

Table 28
Where Public Defenders Would Like to Be Working in Two Years, by Public Defender Experience
4 Years or Less
Juvenile division of the
public defender’s office
Handling juvenile cases
in a private setting
Other public sector work
Other private sector work
Working as a judicial
officer
Out of the workforce
Other
Do not know
Total

5 to 15 Years

16 Years or More

Count

Percent

Count

Percent

Count

Percent

41.7

59.5

61.6

0.0

2.7

0.0

6
0

25.0
0.0

3
1

8.1
2.7

3
0

7.7
0.0

4.2

5.4

5.1

0
4
4
24

0.0
16.7
16.7
100%

0
1
7
37

0.0
2.7
18.9
100%

7
0
3
39

17.9
0.0
7.7
100%

Table 29
Where Contract Defenders Would Like to Be Working in Two Years, by Contractor Experience
4 Years or Less
Juvenile division of the
public defender’s office
Handling juvenile cases
in a private setting
Other public sector work
Other private sector work
Working as a judicial
officer
Out of the workforce
Other
Do not know
Total

5 to 15 Years

16 Years or More

Count

Percent

Count

Percent

Count

Percent

0.0

1.8

1.7

66.7

56.1

52.1

0
0

0.0
0.0

3
4

5.2
7.0

0
10

0.0
8.3

4.2

7.0

11.6

1
2
4
24

4.2
8.3
16.6
100%

1
1
11
57

1.8
1.8
19.3
100%

10
2
20
121

8.3
1.7
16.5
100%

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

Table 30
Quality of Working Relationship With Stakeholders
as Reported by Prosecutors (N=169–172)

The court
Probation, juvenile
division
Probation, juvenile hall
Probation, camps and
ranches
Public defender's office
Alternate public
defender's office
Contract or panel
attorneys
District attorneys office,
other divisions
Mental health
Child welfare

1.2

Don't
Know or
N/A
0.0

100%

4.7

1.2

0.6

100%

12.4

4.1

1.8

25.4

100%

24.0

14.0

2.3

1.2

50.3

100%

18.8

47.1

21.8

9.4

1.2

1.8

100%

14.7

32.9

12.9

3.5

0.6

35.3

100%

26.6

48.5

18.3

2.4

0.0

4.1

100%

55.2

35.5

6.4

0.0

2.9

100%

1.8
3.5

9.4
10.5

26.3
24.0

12.9
12.3

4.7
7.0

45.0
42.7

100%
100%

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Very Poor

37.3

41.4

17.8

2.4

32.7

45.6

15.2

21.3

34.9

8.2

Total

Table 31
Quality of Working Relationship With Stakeholders
as Reported by Defense Attorneys (N=291–340)

0.6

Don't
Know or
N/A
0.3

100%

7.4

1.2

0.9

100%

22.6

5.6

2.1

4.7

100%

20.2

31.0

11.7

3.0

29.2

100%

40.5

37.1

7.8

1.9

0.3

12.5

100%

19.6

23.0

6.5

0.3

0.7

49.8

100%

34.7

44.1

12.2

1.8

1.5

5.8

100%

27.4
6.8
6.8

46.8
21.8
18.6

18.5
25.9
28.1

5.6
17.6
16.0

1.5
8.5
10.4

0.3
19.4
20.1

100%
100%
100%

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Very Poor

43.4

42.8

9.7

3.2

22.4

46.2

22.1

22.6

42.4

4.8

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

Total

Table 32
Top Causes of Hearing Delays in Uncontested Matters
as Reported by Prosecutors (N=173)

Defense attorney not ready
Other reports, persons, or information not available
Evaluation reports not available
Probation report not available
Youth not present
Hearings need more than allocated time
Parent not present
Defense attorney not present
Lack of or improper notice
Prosecutor not ready
Probation not present
Prosecutor not present
Did not check any

Count

Percent

103
73
64
53
50
32
25
24
21
8
2
0
10

59.5
42.2
37.0
30.6
28.9
18.5
14.5
13.9
12.1
4.6
1.2
0.0
5.8

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

Table 33
Satisfaction With Various Job-Related Issues
as Reported by Prosecutors (N=169–171)

Timeliness with which
affidavits are brought by
probation
Amount of time available
for preparing cases
Number of hours you wait
for court hearings in one
day
Number of hearing
continuances

Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Don't
Know or
N/A

Total

10.7

30.8

24.9

23.1

7.1

3.6

100%

7.0

36.3

31.0

17.5

8.2

0.0

100%

7.0

20.5

27.5

28.1

12.3

4.7

100%

4.1

21.2

35.9

25.3

11.2

2.4

100%

Table 34
Severity of Continuances and Other Hearing Delays
as Reported by Prosecutors (N=171)

Not a problem
A minor problem
A moderate problem
A major problem
Do not know
Total

Count

Percent

33
62
43
30
3
171

19.3
36.3
25.1
17.5
1.8
100%

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

Table 35
Capacity in Which Prosecutors Work With Victims
as Reported by Prosecutors (N=173)

I prepare victims for testifying
I explain the court process to victims
I refer victims to services
I explain the process of collecting restitution
I take statements from victims
I notice victims of hearings
I do not work with victims
Other
Did not check any

Count

Percent

146
140
93
86
68
63
6
6
2

84.4
80.9
53.8
49.7
39.3
36.4
3.5
3.5
1.2

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

Table 36
Satisfaction with Various Job-Related Issues
as Reported by Defense Attorneys (N=338–341)

Timeliness with which
you receive reviews and
reports by probation
Amount of time available
for preparing cases
Adequacy of time
available for meeting with
clients
Adequacy of location for
meeting with clients
Number of hours you wait
for court hearings in one
day
Number of hearing
continuances
Frequency of postdisposition review
hearings for nonplacement youth
Amount of time available
to meet with clients
postdispositionally

Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Do Not
Know or
N/A

Total

4.1

29.9

27.3

30.5

7.3

0.9

100%

6.5

35.9

29.4

23.2

4.4

0.6

100%

7.9

35.0

28.8

22.4

5.3

0.6

100%

9.8

32.8

23.4

20.1

13.0

0.9

100%

5.0

23.2

25.9

32.6

12.6

0.6

100%

4.5

34.6

45.5

10.8

1.5

3.0

100%

4.1

34.6

37.0

13.3

5.3

5.6

100%

4.1

28.4

34.0

20.1

6.8

6.5

100%

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

Table 37
Top Causes of Hearing Delays in Uncontested Matters
as Reported by Defense Attorneys (N=342)

Probation report not available
Evaluation reports not available
Other reports, persons, or information not available
Hearings need more than allocated time
Youth not present
Prosecutor not ready
Parent not present
Defense attorney not ready
Lack of or improper notice
Probation not present
Prosecutor not present
Defense attorney not present
Did not check any

Count

Percent

143
138
137
92
72
55
45
36
31
16
8
6
46

41.8
40.4
40.1
26.9
21.1
16.1
13.2
10.5
9.1
4.7
2.3
1.8
13.5

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

Table 38
Severity of Continuances and Other Hearing Delays
as Reported by Defense Attorneys (N=338)

Not a problem
A minor problem
A moderate problem
A major problem
Do not know
Total

Count

Percent

181
112
33
8
4
338

53.6
33.1
9.8
2.4
1.1
100%

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

Table 39
Satisfaction With Range of Sanction and Service Options
as Reported by Prosecutors (N=166–169)

Sanctions for low-risk
youth
Sanctions for
intermediate-risk youth
Sanctions for high-risk
youth
Services for low-risk
youth
Services for
intermediate-risk youth
Services for high-risk
youth

Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Don't
Know or
N/A

Total

15.4

47.3

17.2

9.5

4.7

5.9

100%

3.6

30.4

28.6

25.0

7.7

4.8

100%

3.6

16.0

13.6

34.3

27.8

4.7

100%

12.0

34.3

30.1

12.0

6.6

4.8

100%

4.8

23.5

36.1

20.5

9.6

5.4

100%

3.6

18.1

24.7

23.5

5.4

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

16.6
21.6
17.1
30.4
13.0
14.0
8.2
8.8

13.0
9.9
8.8
9.4
11.2
9.4
7.1
15.9

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

24.3

14.8

100%

Table 40
Satisfaction With the Effectiveness of Sanction Options
as Reported by Prosecutors (N=169–171)

Counsel and dismiss
Informal supervision
Community service
Home on probation
Electronic monitoring
Placement
Camps and ranches
DJJ

Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

7.1
7.0
5.9
4.1
3.6
5.8
12.4
12.9

24.3
32.7
31.8
23.4
34.9
41.5
45.3
34.1

Neither
Satisfied nor
Dissatisfied
21.9
24.0
30.6
29.8
28.4
25.7
16.5
14.7

Don't
Know or
N/A
17.2
4.7
5.9
2.9
8.9
3.5
10.6
13.5

Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Table 41
Satisfaction With the Effectiveness of Restitution Collection
as Reported by Prosecutors (N=170)
Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

0.6

18.3

Neither
Satisfied nor
Dissatisfied
27.2

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

Don't
Know or
N/A
14.8

Total
100%

Table 42
Satisfaction With the Effectiveness of Services
as Reported by Prosecutors (N=160–172)

Outpatient substance
abuse programs
Drug testing
Mental health services
Independent living
programs
Anger management
programs
After-school programs
Parent education
Wraparound
Community centers

Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Don't
Know or
N/A

Total

1.3

23.1

27.5

24.4

10.6

13.1

100%

8.7
2.3

44.2
16.3

25.0
27.3

13.4
27.3

3.5
15.1

5.2
11.6

100%
100%

1.2

9.3

35.5

17.4

5.8

30.8

100%

0.6

25.1

36.3

18.7

5.8

13.5

100%

0.0
0.0
5.3
0.6

10.5
11.0
17.5
8.8

20.3
18.0
25.1
21.8

23.3
28.5
11.7
15.9

11.6
16.9
5.8
8.8

34.3
25.6
34.5
44.1

100%
100%
100%
100%

Table 43
Satisfaction With the Range of Sanction and Service Options
as Reported by Defense Attorneys (N=334–337)

Sanctions for low-risk
youth
Sanctions for
intermediate-risk youth
Sanctions for high-risk
youth
Services for low-risk
youth
Services for intermediaterisk youth
Services for high-risk
youth

Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Do Not
Know or
N/A

Total

12.8

32.0

20.8

19.0

9.2

6.2

100%

3.0

28.0

30.4

23.2

9.5

6.0

100%

3.3

15.7

22.6

27.9

24.6

5.9

100%

7.8

23.7

22.2

25.4

15.3

5.7

100%

1.8

16.8

24.6

35.3

16.2

5.4

100%

1.8

9.3

17.4

32.6

33.5

5.4

100%

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

Table 44
Satisfaction With the Effectiveness of Sanction Options
as Reported by Defense Attorneys (N=332–339)

Counsel and dismiss
Informal supervision
Community service
Home on probation
Electronic monitoring
Placement
Camps and ranches
DJJ

Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

13.0
16.0
10.7
10.4
11.8
0.9
3.3
0.9

28.6
45.3
40.2
41.8
39.2
19.2
21.0
5.0

Neither
Satisfied nor
Dissatisfied
21.1
24.0
31.3
31.6
23.3
33.6
28.1
11.8

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

7.8
7.1
10.1
10.4
12.1
30.4
24.0
14.2

7.8
4.1
4.5
3.0
3.2
12.1
15.7
59.8

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

15.0

7.8

Do Not
Know or
N/A
21.7
3.6
3.3
2.7
10.3
3.8
8.0
8.3

Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Table 45
Satisfaction With Restitution Collection
as Reported by Defense Attorneys (N= 333)
Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

2.1

9.9

Neither
Satisfied nor
Dissatisfied
36.6

Do Not
Know or
N/A
28.5

Total
100%

Table 46
Satisfaction With the Effectiveness of Services
as Reported by Defense Attorneys (N=333–339)

Outpatient substance
abuse programs
Drug testing
Mental health services
Independent living
programs
Anger management
programs
After-school programs
Parent education
programs
Wraparound programs
Community centers

Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Do Not
Know or
N/A

Total

3.0

22.8

27.3

23.4

12.6

10.8

100%

5.0
0.6

32.8
9.2

39.3
18.0

13.6
33.4

4.1
32.2

5.0
6.5

100%
100%

1.5

11.5

21.0

25.4

17.2

23.4

100%

1.2

22.9

35.7

21.1

9.8

9.2

100%

1.2

10.9

22.1

26.3

15.6

23.9

100%

0.9

10.7

22.6

29.2

18.2

18.5

100%

5.1
1.2

18.6
11.6

21.6
23.5

14.4
17.6

10.8
14.0

29.4
32.1

100%
100%

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

Table 47
Satisfaction With the Effectiveness of Drug Court

Prosecutor satisfaction
(N=172)
Defense attorney
satisfaction (N=339)

Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Don't
Know or
N/A

Total

8.7

28.5

12.2

7.0

4.1

39.5

100%

10.6

26.8

13.9

10.0

4.4

34.2

100%

Table 48
Satisfaction With Various Issues When in Court
as Reported by Prosecutors (N=171–172)

Weight given by court to
my arguments
Probation officers'
handling of cases
Defense attorneys'
handling of cases
How you are treated by
court
How you are treated by
probation
How you are treated by
defense attorneys

Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Don't
Know or
N/A

Total

16.4

42.1

17.0

19.9

4.1

0.6

100%

12.2

41.9

22.7

18.6

4.1

0.6

100%

4.7

38.6

32.2

19.3

5.3

0.0

100%

30.2

40.7

19.2

7.0

2.3

0.6

100%

38.6

42.1

14.0

3.5

1.2

0.6

100%

21.5

49.4

22.1

5.8

1.2

0.0

100%

Table 49
Satisfaction With Various Issues When in Court
as Reported by Defense Attorneys (N=337–342)

Weight given by court to
my arguments
Probation officers’
handling of cases
Prosecutors’ handling of
cases
How you are treated by
court
How you are treated by
probation
How you are treated by
prosecutors

Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied nor
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Do Not
Know or
N/A

Total

9.5

45.7

26.4

15.7

2.4

0.3

100%

4.2

31.8

28.8

27.0

8.0

0.3

100%

4.7

31.5

30.3

22.8

10.4

0.3

100%

33.8

44.1

13.5

5.0

3.2

0.3

100%

22.6

46.6

19.9

7.9

2.3

0.6

100%

22.8

48.8

20.2

5.3

1.8

0.9

100%

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

Table 50
Information That Is Conveyed Well to Youth
as Reported by Defense Attorneys (N=338)

Possible outcomes
Youth’s responsibilities while on probation
Ramifications of a plea
What to expect at court hearings
The general court process
Financial obligations
Record sealing
Process for paying restitution
Did not check any

Count

Percent

268
267
262
219
204
132
127
108
23

78.4
78.1
76.6
64.0
59.6
38.6
37.1
31.6
6.7

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

Table 51
Information That Is Conveyed Well to Parents
as Reported by Defense Attorneys (N=342)

Possible outcomes
Youth’s responsibilities while on probation
Ramifications of a plea
The general court process
What to expect at court hearings
Financial obligations
Parent’s or guardian’s responsibilities while on probation
Process for paying restitution
Record sealing
Did not check any

Count

Percent

233
231
201
194
193
149
139
122
98
39

68.9
68.3
59.5
57.4
57.1
44.1
41.1
36.1
29.0
11.5

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

Table 52
How Rule 5.663 Changed the Way Defense Attorneys Work Postdispositionally
as Reported by Defense Attorneys (N=332)

The level of postdispositional work has remained the same
I do more postdispositional work now
I am not aware of Rule 5.663
NA; I did not handle juvenile cases before 2004
I do less postdispositional work now
Total

Count

Percent

164
67
50
49
2
332

49.4
20.2
15.1
14.8
0.5
100%

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

Table 53
How Often Defense Attorneys Do the Following After the Disposition Hearing
as Reported by Defense Attorneys (N=333–339)

Appear at review hearings
Represent client on
violation of probation
hearings
Represent client on new
petitions
Provide client with info to
contact me
Maintain contact with client
via phone or e-mail
Maintain contact with
clients’ probation officers
Visit client
Review probation
conditions and treatment
plan with client
Keep track of plan
implementation
Calendar hearings to
modify probation
conditions or treatment
plan
Inform client of record
sealing process
Assist clients or former
clients with record
sealing process
Advocate for clients'
interests beyond the
scope of the juvenile
proceedings

Nearly Always,
Always
55.3

11.5

Never,
Rarely
4.7

100%

11.2

6.5

2.9

100%

19.0

13.9

7.7

1.8

100%

78.6

14.9

3.0

3.3

0.3

100%

28.0

25.3

19.9

17.6

9.2

100%

13.8

18.0

22.5

27.3

18.3

100%

14.7

10.5

21.9

24.6

28.2

100%

55.5

20.9

7.2

9.3

7.2

100%

12.6

21.3

21.6

23.4

21.0

100%

14.3

10.7

22.9

32.7

19.3

100%

48.5

25.7

9.5

10.1

6.2

100%

16.6

13.3

16.3

21.0

32.8

100%

9.2

11.6

18.4

25.2

35.6

100%

Count

Percent

136
135
112
80
38
38
24
23
18
15

40.0
39.7
32.9
23.5
11.2
11.2
7.1
6.8
5.3
4.4

Often

Sometimes

Occasionally

19.8

8.6

60.8

18.6

57.6

Total

Table 54
Obstacles to Working With Clients Postdispositionally
as Reported by Defense Attorneys (N=342)

Lack of time for follow-up
Lack of funding allocated for postdispositional period
Lack of other resources available for follow-up
There are no obstacles
Lack of communication of court's expectations
Other obstacle
I do not believe it is my responsibility
My office does not believe it is my responsibility
Lack of communication of my office's expectations
Did not check any

Note: Percentages may not total 100 because respondents were asked to check all that applied.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

Table 55
Satisfaction With Information Obtained About Youth Given the Following Dispositions
as Reported by Defense Attorneys (N=328–333)

Home on probation
Placement
Camps/ranches
Foster or group homes
CDCR, DJJ

Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

9.9
4.5
3.3
3.3
1.8

41.7
30.9
24.0
24.5
7.3

Neither
Satisfied nor
Dissatisfied
31.8
32.7
30.3
29.3
17.4

Dissatisfied

Very
Dissatisfied

Not
available

Total

8.7
18.9
23.1
25.4
22.3

3.3
7.5
7.8
10.0
31.4

4.5
5.4
11.4
7.6
19.8

100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Hon. Ronald M. George
Chief Justice of California and Chair of the Judicial Council
William C. Vickrey
Administrative Director of the Courts
Ronald G. Overholt
Chief Deputy Director
Diane Nunn
Director, Center for Families, Children & the Courts
Charlene Depner
Assistant Division Director, Center for Families, Children & the Courts
Lee Morhar
Assistant Division Director, Center for Families, Children & the Courts
Authorship
Kimberly Tyda (lead author)
Research Analyst
Amy Bacharach
Research Analyst
Audrey Fancy
Supervising Attorney
LaRon Hogg-Haught
Associate Attoreny
Iona Mara-Drita
Senior Research Analyst
Assistance
Jens Zeschky
Administrative Coordinator
CFCC generates and distributes research-based information that has promise for
informing the work of the courts in California and nationwide. To learn more about its
work and to see more Research Updates, visit www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/.
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, California 94102-3688
E-mail: cfcc@jud.ca.gov
Phone: 415-865-7739

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Attorney Report

CHAPTER 5
Court Users and Community Members Report

ResearchUpdate

April 2008

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users
and Community Members Report
This report covers information about the Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment (JDCA) project and
focus groups conducted in 2007 with probation youth, parents of youth on probation, victims of
juvenile crime, and community members. Together, these are referred to in this report as court users.
Some of the key findings from these focus groups are related to the need for better communication
between professionals and court users, practices that encourage more participation by court users in
court processes, improved court case management to allow more individualized case processing, and
consistent follow-through on system duties and responsibilities to court users.
Despite some differences among the distinctive populations of court users who participated in the
focus groups, several common themes emerged across the four cohorts of focus group participants:
•

Court users feel that the juvenile court is complex and challenging to understand, particularly
the language that professionals use to communicate with each other in court.

•

Court users would like the opportunity to address the court, state their needs, and ask questions.

•

Court users singled out wait times for hearings as an important area for court improvement.
They would like shorter wait times in court, fewer continuances, and more consideration for
their schedules and personal time constraints when scheduling cases.

•

Many court users believe that the delinquency system is primarily a case processing system,
lacking both the time and the resources to address the underlying issues of the youth in court.

•

Court users reported having the perception that the juvenile justice system sets youth up to fail.

•

Youth generally do not understand the impact of their offenses on victims or the community.
Parents, victims, and community members agreed that youth are not being provided
opportunities to learn from or understand the effect that their actions have on others.

•

Youth, parents, victims, and community members reported feeling frustrated about the
perceived lack of follow-through in the system. Victims especially noted the lack of followthrough by professionals when seeking information, hearing notification, or restitution.

Youth, parents, victims, and community members expressed that the juvenile justice system can
improve with better communication and collaboration among both professional and nonprofessional
stakeholders in the juvenile court. For most participants, wanting to improve the system was the
primary motivation for taking part in the research, and for most, this was the first time they had been
given the opportunity to discuss their experiences and perceptions.

About the JDCA

The Judicial Council of California’s Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee, in conjunction
with the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), Center for Families, Children & the Courts
(CFCC), conducted the JDCA. The Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee convened a
working group composed of members of the advisory committee and experts drawn from state entities
and the major participants in the juvenile delinquency court: judicial officers, 1 court staff, probation
officers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. Working group members were selected both for their
subject matter expertise and to ensure representation from a cross section of the state in terms of
geographic location and county size. The working group helped develop the study plan, guide the
research, and interpret the findings. A list of working group members can be found at the beginning of
volume 1 of the Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment Final Report.
The JDCA marks the first major assessment of California’s delinquency courts. This assessment was
designed to gather and provide information to help improve the juvenile delinquency system by
making recommendations for changes in laws and rules of court; improvements in hearing
management, judicial oversight, court facilities, and other aspects of court operations; caseload
changes; and improvements in court services for all court users. The assessment covered the following
general topics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

The primary mode of investigation was to communicate directly with justice partners and court users.
The JDCA project conducted surveys with all juvenile judicial officers, all court administrators, a
random sample of juvenile probation officers, all juvenile division prosecutors, and all court-appointed
juvenile defense attorneys, including public defenders, alternate public defenders, and contract
attorneys who were identified as handling cases in delinquency court. 2 The JDCA project chose six
counties to study in depth to learn about issues facing delinquency courts: Los Angeles, Placer,
Riverside, San Francisco, San Joaquin, and Siskiyou. These six counties were selected for their size
and geography in order to study a range of California’s local delinquency courts. Interviews were
conducted in each of these study counties with the presiding judge of the juvenile court, the chief
probation officer or the juvenile probation division designee, the managing or supervising juvenile
deputy district attorney and public defender, and court administration staff such as the supervising
juvenile court clerk, court executive officer, or manager. Focus groups were also conducted with
justice partners such as probation officers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, and with court users
such as youth, parents, victims, and community members. An assessment of delinquency court

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

facilities across the state was also conducted as part of the JDCA project. The ultimate goal of this
project was to improve both the administration of justice and the lives of youth, victims, and other
community members affected by the delinquency system.
About the Youth, Parent, Victim, and Community Member Focus Groups

Between June and August, 2007, a consultant, working with a JDCA project cofacilitator, conducted a
total of 15 focus groups: 5 with probation youth, 3 with parents of probation youth, 4 with victims of
juvenile crime (or their family members), and 3 with community members. This qualitative component
of the JDCA took place in the 6 study counties. Each of the focus groups was voluntary, and no
attempt was made to recruit participants of any particular racial or cultural demographic. All
participants except one spoke English; 3 however, for some, English was their second language.
The focus group questions were the same within each cohort group, and generally all focus groups had
the opportunity to address the same issues. The topics of discussion included participants’
understanding of what happens in court, levels of participation in court, perceptions of the juvenile
justice system, perceptions of court professionals, opinions about youths’ understanding of the impact
of their crime, and ways that the system can be improved.
The use of focus groups provides an opportunity to gain an in-depth understanding of issues directly
from the people who experience them. This study provides a unique perspective; many of the questions
had not been asked before in the realm of the social sciences. The focus group model provided room
for discussion that is often lacking in other methodologies. The detailed responses can be explored
later through surveys, file reviews, or courtroom observation. This study drew on the perspectives of
youth, parents, victims, and community stakeholders—groups directly affected by the outcomes of
decisions made by the court and by their experience in court, yet whose perspective has been heard on
only a limited basis.
This approach also has limitations that must be acknowledged. The in-depth understanding of the
perspective of a relatively small sample challenges the ability to generalize results to courts and other
court users outside of the sample. In addition, although researchers actively avoided interjecting bias, it
is possible to inadvertently affect the focus group discussion through word choice and nonverbal
responses. When identifying themes from the focus group transcripts, even researchers conscious of
the potential for bias may inadvertently mine the transcripts for desirable data. Despite these
limitations, the study provides important information with implications for policy, practice, and future
research.
Incorporating the perspectives of court users and the community into the work of the courts can help to
improve the delivery of justice. It can increase the legitimacy of court orders in the eyes of youth and
their parents and improve accountability and rehabilitation. It may also help to improve the trust and
confidence that the public has in the courts.
This report is structured into four sections, each focusing on the perspectives of a particular set of
focus group participants: youth, parents, victims, and community members. Each group of participants
discussed their understanding of what happens in court, their participation in court, their perceptions of
the juvenile justice system and court professionals, and how they feel about whether the offender
3

The non-English-speaking participant used another focus group participant to translate for her.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

understands the impact of his or her offense. Participants in all of the focus groups seemed to have
similar suggestions for system improvement.
Youth’s Perspectives

Fifty-eight youth participated in 5 focus groups in 4 different counties. The study sought to gain the
perspectives of youth at different points of involvement in the juvenile justice system. Two focus
groups were conducted with youth in custody at juvenile hall—one with male offenders and another
with female offenders. The other 3 focus groups had both male and female participants, although the
majority were male. One group consisted of youth involved in a juvenile drug court; another involved
youth attending an alternative school program run by the county probation department. The final focus
group recruited youth on probation through the probation department and community-based
organizations; many of the participants in this group reported on their experience in juvenile hall,
camps, and group homes. The majority of the youth in the focus groups were youth of color. Two of
the 5 focus groups consisted primarily of Latino youth; in 2 other focus groups African-American
youth were in the majority. One focus group was made up primarily of Caucasian youth.
Most of the findings were consistent across all 5 focus groups, with many identical themes and issues
raised. There were, however, differences from one county to another on several issues. For example,
the frequency of contact that youth had with their probation officer varied considerably, with some
youth reporting that they saw their probation officer nearly every day and others, particularly in more
urban areas, reporting that they saw their probation officer only once in the course of several months.
Youth in detention reported especially low rates of contact with their probation officer.
Understanding of What Happens in Court

Each of the focus groups with youth began with a question attempting to draw out how much the youth
understood of what was said in court. In all 5 focus groups, youth stated that they had little to no
understanding of what happened in the courtroom.
The adjudication of a juvenile court matter is a complicated process that has developed its own unique
technical language that references sections of the California Welfare and Institution Code and has
particular names for stages in the juvenile court hearing process. Youth consistently indicated that the
use of confusing words and numbers created a different language that no one explained to them. Some
youth reported that if things were explained, it was always after the fact—decisions had already been
made and it was too late for any input. Overall, youth in all focus groups reported feeling distant from
their court proceedings, stating that they did not understand what was happening during their hearings.
In order for them to understand what goes on in the courtroom, judicial officers and other justice
partners must speak in plain language and “translate” any codes, explaining to youth and parents what
is happening, as it is happening, in court.
In all 5 focus groups, youth were also asked who had helped them understand the court process. The
people who helped varied by focus group and county but included the public defender or private
attorney, community-based program staff, staff at juvenile hall, and peers or older siblings who had
some prior experience with court.
When youth were asked where they turned when they had questions, participants in multiple focus
groups reported feeling as though there really was nowhere to get answers; they felt that they could not
ask questions and that they were forced to learn about the court and what to expect on their own.
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

Several youth reported that they went to the Internet. A minority of participants felt that they could ask
the public defender. One incarcerated youth reported that the counselors in juvenile hall and staff from
community-based programs who came to juvenile hall to provide services were good resources.
Participation in Court

Youth were asked about their participation in court and about the factors that encouraged or
discouraged participation. The youth in the focus group consisting of drug court participants reported
that more experienced peers encouraged youth new to the drug court to participate in court. Youth
generally reported that they wanted to participate and to have a voice in their hearings but felt that they
were not allowed to speak. One of the factors that discouraged youth from participating was the feeling
that decisions about them had been made before court began and that their input would not matter.
Youth reported generally feeling that they were not given any options, and several mentioned that their
attorney specifically told them not to speak. 4 Youth want to provide input both at their court hearing
and in their probation terms and conditions. In general, they want a chance to speak and be heard, and
they want defense attorneys who listen.
A majority of youth reported that they verbally agreed to things they did not understand and signed
papers they did not understand. They gave 4 primary reasons or explanations for doing so: (1) Some
youth believed that the charges were accurate even though they did not understand them. (2) Several
reported that they were not given enough time to read the documents they were expected to sign; some
said they later discovered that charges had been added that they did not know about. (3) A number of
youth went along with their attorney’s recommendation to admit to charges that may not have
appropriately characterized their actions without understanding the reasoning behind the
recommendation. (4) Some youth admitted to the charges before them just so they could have the
immediate reward of going home. This last explanation came up in all 5 focus groups.
Youth also reported having to wait outside the courtroom for long periods of time. For their sake as
well as their parents’ sake, youth want hearings to take place soon after they are required to be there.
They recognize that their parents miss work and risk losing their jobs in order to attend their hearings,
and then must wait to be called into the courtroom.
Perceptions About Court Professionals

When youth were asked about specific professionals they encountered, the discussion focused on the
lack of recognition that they felt the professionals gave them for positive choices, job security of
juvenile justice professionals, and the feeling that the probation department being designed for youth to
fail. Some youth expressed a desire to have more of a personal connection with the professionals who
are working with them.
Youth repeatedly expressed their desire for opportunities to address the court and their judge. They
stated that they want judges to understand where they are coming from and who they are but indicated
that these opportunities are rare. Youth reported that judges did not make an effort to get to know them
and remembered feeling as though judges relied only on the reports put before them. As one youth
mentioned, “He [the probation officer] said [that] whatever he recommends the judge is going to do.”

Youth may not fully understand that their attorneys have reasons for asking them not to speak (such as concerns about
incriminating statements).

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

They do not want to be identified only by what they did or by what is in their probation reports.
Another youth stated, “The judge should let us have a chance to talk.”
When probed, a number of youth recalled positive things coming up in court, such as good grades,
internships, and other programs in which they were involved. Remembering the times when the focus
was on their poor choices, mistakes, and risk factors, however, overshadowed these memories.
Youth have far more interaction with their probation officer than with the court. Although some youth
reported having good relationships with their probation officers, the overwhelming sentiment was that
probation officers focus on failure and bad news. One youth remembered his probation officer telling
him, “You could do good for two months straight and then that one day that you mess up, that’s goin’
to blow everything in the two months that you did good.” Although the probation officer in this
example might have been trying to deter the youth from making a poor decision, the message this
youth heard was that the court and probation focus on the bad rather than the good. The sentiment that
there is no point in being good was reiterated and affirmed by other youth in the group: “So that’s why
it’s best to just do nothin’. You just coast. Don’t do nothin’ bad, don’t do nothin’ good.”
In addition to expressing a general feeling that court professionals focus more on the negative, some
youth felt that it goes even further. “Sometimes they test you, and they seem like they want to bring
out the bad part in you,” one stated. Participants in another focus group linked the appearance that
probation wished them to fail to job security:
It’s like they set you up to fail, or try and keep you on probation so they can keep their
job. Without us they haven’t got a job. I know it’s not like that, but it’s what it seems like
to us, you know?
Underlying youth’s sense that probation sets them up to fail is the feeling of being misunderstood by
having been defined by only their mistakes and not by their successes. They reported feeling as though
they are being told who they are rather than asked who they are. One participant stated, “They don’t
ask; they tell you what you’re doing. You know what I’m saying? And I don’t like that.” Mimicking
her probation officer—“you were doing this, you were doing that”—this youth went on to say that half
of what was in the probation report was not accurate. She reported that even her birthday was wrong—
yet correcting the information had its own obstacles. “They just think they just know everything, and
they don’t. And when you do tell them [that something in the report is wrong], you’re being
disrespectful.”
Youth in one focus group even felt as though probation officers deliberately try to confuse them. One
youth stated that her probation officer “likes to come up here and torment me, make me think things
that are not true, trying to get me confused about [my] case.” Youth in other focus groups reported that
probation officers did not inform youth of their recommendations for their cases. Some reported that
they were surprised by what happened once they got to court and believed that their probation officer
had told them things that were different from what was in the report submitted to the court.
Some youth also talked about assumptions that probation officers made about their families. One youth
talked about an experience with her probation officer who compared her own family life to that of the
youth she was supervising, saying, “You’re just like me; my mother was a crackhead.” The young
woman said she wanted to tell her probation officer, “Check this out: I ain’t from no projects, my mom
and my daddy is there for me. Unfortunately, yeah, some people don’t have any parents, but I do, and
it’s like I got my grandma, I got more than just them. I got more.”
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

Youth also discussed their perceptions of the attorneys. Youth in multiple focus groups commented
that, in their view, the prosecutor runs the courtroom, having more control than the judge. Further,
youth in one county felt as though the public defender just goes along with the deputy district attorney.
In some counties, the youth believe that the public defender provides more effective representation
than a private attorney. Alternatively, in one county, youth reported that the public defender seemed
inexperienced and not very committed to their cases; they felt that a private attorney would have been
more committed and more experienced. In other study counties, youth reported having disappointing
experiences with private attorneys.
Perceptions About the Juvenile Justice System

Surfacing in all 5 focus groups was the belief that the juvenile justice system exists to generate money
for itself and to ensure job security for the professionals working in it—judges, attorneys, and
probation officers—and in other services such as group homes. In their discussions, youth paid
attention to money and the costs of services such as detention, probation, court, and group homes. In
talking about group homes and other out-of-home placements, one youth identified the services
provided as helpful—such as counseling for psychological issues and drug rehabilitation—but also
stated that youth should not have to go to a group home to receive such counseling. She said, “You
ought to be at home. I can go home and take those classes. My family’s fine. I don’t have a corrupt
family. And [the court is] paying for this extra stuff.”
Youth spent a fair amount of time discussing group homes and out-of-home placements. They
admitted that some of the services provided by out-of-home placements were beneficial but felt that
almost all of these services and resources could be delivered while they were living with their families.
They see out-of-home placement as a punishment that is counterproductive if the family is functioning
and stable. They also reported wanting more resources, such as programs that can help them find jobs
and living arrangements.
Many also believe that the system as a whole is designed for youth to fail. This belief was woven
throughout the discussions in all focus groups with youth. One example of a tactic that youth see as
leading to failure involves being threatened with harsh punishments or other placement such as the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJJ). Youth
reported feeling as though they need to prepare themselves for DJJ by getting ready to protect
themselves. One youth stated,
You’re going to have to defend yourself in there to survive. . . . They tell you, ‘Oh we
don’t want you to be around gangs,’ but they’re putting you with a group of gang
members, and you’re going to be in there for like two or three years. And then they’re
talking about ‘We want the best for you.’ They don’t want the best.”
In another example, some youth in detention recalled examples of staff placing youth across the table
from rival gang members or someone they were known not to get along with and then directing them
to talk and interact with that person, threatening to drop their program level if they do not do so. In
addition, youth believe that group homes for delinquent youth only encourage them to go deeper into
the system. Some stated that probation officers place youth in group homes knowing that they will
eventually run away and get caught.
A few youth were able to look beyond the system or the professionals as sources of blame but still
focused on external factors for their problems with the law. In one focus group, participants agreed
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

with a youth’s statement that “trouble seems to find you.” Some youth identified getting into trouble as
a habit and an attraction and alluded to the challenges they have in following the law, but once
someone mentioned that the system is a setup for failure, multiple youth agreed.
A statement by another youth covered a few themes, but in the end she seemed to conclude that the
purpose of the juvenile court system is just to process cases and that the consequences and court orders
seem arbitrary:
I guess it’s [the juvenile court system] for the bad kids, as they call it, but it’s also to help
you do the right thing, and it lets you see . . . the road that you’re going down—if you
just keep coming back. But they don’t technically always do their job, because
sometimes they just call the case, they don’t even ask you what’s up, they just be, like,
okay we’ll do this, going to give this to her, she going to be on 6 months probation, a
year probation, and you’re just sitting here . . . for what? And they give you this just so
you can just get the hell out of their face, and your case will be done, and they get
another case. And I just be like, dang, why? I swear that’s what it is.
The perception that judicial consequences are arbitrary and inconsistent also surfaced in other youth
focus groups. In one, youth were specifically asked if they felt sentences were consistent. “No, heck
no” was the response from the group. “They have different expectations for everyone. That’s what the
PO told me straight up; he was like ‘I have different expectations for everyone. What happens to one
person won’t necessarily happen to another.’ . . . And that’s not right.” When participants were asked if
they understood why people might be treated differently, one youth responded that it might be things
like the charges or the youth’s attitude, but most youth did not respond. Although youth stated their
desire for uniformity in expectations and consequences, they also expressed a desire for the court to
look at them and their offenses, families, and personal issues individually. On one hand, youth want
uniformity, which they equate with fairness; on the other, they clearly want to be seen as individuals.
They also want to be better understood.
Understanding of the Impact of Crime

Just as important to the findings are areas where attempts at discussion failed. Youth were essentially
silent on their understanding of how their offenses had affected victims or the community. In the first
focus group, the facilitators asked youth during the first half of the discussion whether they understood
the impact their offenses had on others. Even with probing, there were few responses, and the
facilitators assumed that the group did not have enough time to warm up to the difficult topic of victim
impact and having empathy for others. In subsequent focus groups, the questions were not asked until
the latter half of the discussion in the hope that youth would feel more comfortable talking about this
topic. Repositioning the questions had little effect, however. Youth were not able to express any
understanding of the impact their offenses had on their victims. The youth in one focus group
identified their primary responsibility to victims as making sure it does not happen again. Youth also
did not seem to think much about the impact that crime has on the overall community. Their focus was
on themselves and their families. In-custody youth talked of the hardship and disappointment that
being in custody had caused their families, particularly their younger siblings. Discussions of the
impact on the family were common. Some youth better recognized the hardship they had caused their
own families after they heard the stories from other youth in the group.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

Youth did express a desire to have more opportunities to learn from their mistakes. This was
particularly true of youth in juvenile hall. It was also clear that many of them do not feel that they are a
threat to anyone’s safety.
Parents’ Perspective

Focus groups with parents of youth involved in the juvenile court were conducted in 3 counties with a
total of 36 participants. The largest focus group had 19 participants. The majority of participants in this
group were Latino and African American. One Asian-Pacific Island couple participated in the largest
focus group. The smallest focus group consisted of only 6 participants, primarily Caucasian parents
and grandparents. Latino participants in the 2 smaller groups made up about one-third of each group.
Focus groups also included grandparents and other close relatives of youth who were on probation.
One Latina mother did not speak English, and she participated by using another Spanish-speaking
parent to translate. There was little variation in the feelings of participants across the 3 focus groups.
The majority felt left out of the juvenile court process and unsupported in their desire to understand the
events that took place in their child’s case.
Understanding of What Happens in Court

Like the focus groups with youth, each parent focus group began with a discussion of how much the
participants understood in court. In the 3 parent focus groups, parents stated that, like youth, they had
little to no understanding of what happened in the courtroom. Parents in 2 focus groups reported
feeling that their children actually knew more than they did about what went on in the courtroom. One
parent commented,
It seems like a lot of times she has more information about what’s going to happen than I
do . . . because they talk to the other kids, they already know what’s going to happen, and
they seem to be more accurate.
Parents reported receiving minimal to no help in understanding the process—what was said and what
was decided—and feeling as though the court hearings were so short and so rushed that they had
trouble keeping up with the information presented to the court. As a result, parents felt disempowered.
When asked if there was anyone who helped them understand, parents consistently answered “no.”
Parents in one focus group stated that they had a “wonderful judge,” but even with a judicial officer
who made a concerted effort to explain matters, they found the process overwhelming and confusing.
Parents want someone to explain the process and what is happening in court. When asked who would
be the best person to help, answers ranged from attorneys and probation—entities that currently
provide some level of information to parents—to a specially assigned advocate who would help
parents understand what was happening, answer questions, and provide an appropriate means for
parents to be involved with their child’s case.
Parents also stated that the language was foreign to them and that no one explained it:
It’s all talk in code, you know, we don’t know what’s going on. It’s funny, when court
gets out that guy walks out that way, our kids either go in there or come home, and we’re
none the wiser to what really happened.
Along with more education, parents feel that efforts should be made to simplify the language used in
court so that parents and youth can better understand for themselves what is happening.
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

Comprehension is further complicated when English is not the parents’ first language. A Spanish
speaker in one focus group reported through another parent who translated that when in court the
interpreter asked only the parent’s name and whether she was related to the minor; that was the only
information exchanged with the court. The mother reported that the interpreter spoke very quickly,
summarizing what was being said in the court with no time for any questions. After the hearing, her
son explained the little bit that he understood. The mother recognized, however, that the youth’s
account was not necessarily the most accurate report of what happened. Another parent described
communication problems with the probation officer, who spoke only English. Although non-English
speakers without an adequate court interpreter are at a clear disadvantage in terms of understanding a
hearing, English speakers indicated that they did not understand the proceedings much better.
Even though parents in the aggregate reported little to no understanding of what happened due to the
complicated nature of the process and proceedings, a variety of efforts were recognized as attempts to
help court users understand the juvenile court. According to parents, these attempts, such as flyers and
pamphlets, helped only a little. One parent reported that a video explaining the court process that was
running outside the courtroom demonstrated a desire on the part of the courts to aid court users in
understanding the process. That was of limited utility to the parent, though, because she was in need of
information specific to her child’s case.
Parents, like their children, did not feel as though they had the resources to clear up their confusion or
get their many questions answered. They reported that they often felt so in the dark that they did not
even know the right questions to ask. Some parents said that they went to the Internet to learn more
about juvenile court. Parents in different focus groups commented on the challenge of getting
questions answered. In the words of one, “Do we go to our attorney on this? Do we ask probation?
They scare us—do we ask them?”
Even when a judicial officer asked if they had any questions, parents expressed a reluctance to speak
up. One parent commented,
Do you actually stand up in the court when the judge says, ‘Do you have any questions?’
and you’re like, wow, do I cut my losses now, or do I ask the question? We all have
questions when he asks us. Few are brave enough to ask him. I’m usually stupid enough
to do it.
Parents gave the impression that they felt the question by the judge was rhetorical; from their
perspective, the judge did not really want parents to ask, and whoever was on the bench was not really
interested in answering. Although no parents reported any negative consequences as a result of asking
a question, parents said they felt as though they might be perceived as rebellious or disrespectful by
asking the judge a question. Another parent in a different focus group responded similarly: “‘Do you
have any questions?’ It’s like A to Z, yeah, you know, tell us why and what and how and when, and
that kind of stuff.” Another parent said, “I felt like ‘Do you have any questions?’ was the wrong
question. What I wanted to hear was ‘Do you have any comments?’” Parents feel as though they have
few resources available to gain clarity and that there are few avenues to provide input and feedback.
Participation in Court

According to parents, the court experience was not a positive one. Parents found it generally difficult
to identify avenues for participating in their child’s court process. It was clear that some parents did not
realize that in delinquency proceedings the attorney represents the youth, not the parent. Even when
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

the roles were explained, parents expressed frustration because they recognized that their children are
still, in fact, children, and could benefit from their involvement. One of the main things parents want is
for their children to be treated like children and for the court to allow parents to play a more active role
in their child’s experience with court and probation. In general, parents want more communication
with the court before, during, and after hearings.
Parents often reported feeling confused about why their child’s attorney did not necessarily go along
with their decisions and were surprised to learn that the defense attorney represented their child
exclusively. Some parents indicated that they felt left out of their child’s case since they were not
included in decision making. One parent stated, “The public defender represented our son and he
wasn’t really going to share anything with us.” Parents felt that the dynamic among the parent, the
child, and the child’s attorney created barriers to maintaining their parental role. One parent who had a
better relationship with her son’s attorney than most of the parents in the focus group explained that, as
a parent,
You’re really not allowed to participate. You’re not allowed into the process. The only
reason we got involved is, in our case, because our public defender, our lawyer allowed
us, he would sit with us. But once your son is taken into custody, that’s it, you’re not
[involved]—our attorney represented our son. They’re supposed to be in the juvenile
system at that point, but it’s like they’re an adult. I mean, that’s it, you don’t see them,
you can’t; they’re not your child anymore.
Although a few parents did describe being asked about dispositional options for their son or daughter
by the probation officer or the judicial officer, the majority felt that they were not consulted regarding
decisions made in court on behalf of their child. Parents stated that they want an opportunity to present
information on what they see as their child’s nature, strengths, and challenges. They want to be able to
give the court what they feel would be a more balanced perspective. A number of parents reported
making failed attempts to bring in others from the community and their church to provide the court
with more background information. Parents understand that their children are attracted to immediate
gratification (such as being released from custody and returned home), and although the defense
attorney represents only the youth, they expressed a desire to be consulted in any plea bargain options
presented to their child. Parents would like to collaborate both with their child’s attorney and with the
probation officer to advocate for their child’s best interest.
A major barrier to parent participation is schedule conflicts between work and court hearings. Most
parents reported that the judicial officer did not ask if hearings conflicted with the parents’ work
schedules. One parent explained the conflict between juggling work, raising her children, and making
time for court hearings:
The reason we have kids in trouble is because we’re struggling, too. If you had
everything all perfect in your house, maybe your kids wouldn’t have some hard times. I
had two jobs. I’m a teacher. I’m not somebody that doesn’t take care of my kids. I have
seven districts that trust me with their children; I’m not a bad mom. But my kids get in
trouble because I’m gone all the time, and because [they] have a deadbeat dad. I would
like the option to be able to come to court at a time so I don’t lose my job.
This parent went on to describe a snowball effect that results from having to spend long periods of time
at court during working hours. She said that when a parent must miss work to attend court for extended
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

and often unknown amounts of time, it creates the risk of losing a job, which increases stress in the
household. She expressed the fear that the increased household stress could trigger drug use for her
son. From her perspective, the courts don’t see the big picture. “The courts just go, too bad; you’re a
bad mom because you’re not in court.”
Parents also feel as though they waste a lot of time waiting for their child’s case to be called. Once it is
called, they feel as though they are not able to participate, advocate, or represent their child. They also
feel that their child is being judged before the hearing even begins. One parent stated,
It’s horrible, because you never have the chance to defend your son. It’s all going on
between the DA and the public defender, and they’re just going back and forth. . . . You
don’t get to present anything, you don’t get to say, ‘Hey, well look at this’ and then make
the decision. No, it’s all made on the assumption that you’re guilty until proven innocent;
there’s no such thing as innocent until proven guilty.
Parents stated that they felt punished for not showing up to court. All of the parents in each focus
group attended most of their child’s hearings. Many expressed frustration at the expectation that they
should sit and wait hours for a 5-minute hearing, and they were especially aggravated if they received a
court order forcing them to do so. One parent commented, “If you don’t come, you get threatened that
you’re going to be locked up.” 5 A number of parents shared similar experiences. Another parent
reported that after going to court with her daughter she could not make the next hearing because of
work. The court responded with a court order saying the parent must attend.
A factor that can complicate participation by parents is the failure of some courts to notify them of
hearings. Parents collectively reported inconsistencies in notification, even within the same counties.
Although some parents did receive formal notification of court hearings, most recalled receiving it
informally from the probation officer. Many parents stated that they could not recall being notified of
their child’s hearings and said that they had to ask the probation officer when they should expect to be
in court.
Several parents reported having experiences with professionals who did encourage their participation.
Some also reported that they had taken the opportunity to ask questions and as a result felt more a part
of the process. Probation officers who involved parents from the beginning and throughout a youth’s
probation period improved satisfaction among parents. Parents found it comforting when a probation
officer asked their opinion about what should happen to their child during the initial interview and
indicated that this got the court experience started on a positive and productive course. A proactive and
communicative probation officer seems to make a big difference for parents, encouraging their
involvement and increasing their understanding of their child’s case.
Perceptions About Court Professionals

The question about the purpose of the juvenile court led, in all focus groups, to a discussion of the
professionals who work in the juvenile justice system—primarily judicial officers, probation officers,
district attorneys, and public defenders. The views expressed varied greatly, with some parents stating
that they did not think anyone in the system was acting maliciously and others who seemed to believe

It was not clear whether this parent was threatened in some specific way or whether someone in the court made a
reference to potential consequences. Regardless, parents cannot be “locked up” for not attending their child’s hearing.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

that the system as a whole was not acting in the best interest of their child. Comments such as, “You
can’t even trust anybody,” received affirmation from members in the group.
Although there were examples of helpful probation officers, the general feeling among parents in the
focus groups was that probation is primarily punitive; they feel that probation officers don’t really try
to help and are not on the same side as parents. A number of references were made to inaccuracies in
probation reports and the effect that misinformation had on some youth. One parent gave an example:
Well, my experience with ours was very bad. We only saw him twice, then when he sent
the report to court there was nothing in there but lies. He had the wrong school—my son
never even attended that school. He had a thing there that my son had hit me and he was
arrested for beating me up, which never happened. . . . They still transferred him to adult
court, and there was nothing [right], not even the school. He had no information right in
that report but his name and his date of birth—that was it; everything else that was there
was lies.
Attorneys on both sides play important roles, and parents had strong, varying opinions regarding the
impact they had on their child’s experience in court. One parent shared personal observations based on
his son’s experience in court:
You know, we were in court for about 10 months, and we got to observe a lot of the
public defenders, and I think the one thing I noticed about them is they look exhausted.
They’re carrying files like one file after another, and the DAs look like they’re all fresh
and just walking out of the shower when they come in. The public defenders—they’re
just overtaxed, overburdened, and I think it’s just overwhelming for them and that’s why
they’re having a hard time defending the kids because their workload is just extreme.
That’s how it appeared to us.
Other parents echoed this perspective that the public defender is overburdened and the deputy district
attorney has control of the courtroom. Another parent said, “It seems like the DA has all the power—
even above the judge.” Given this perception, parents reporting feeling frustrated in seeing the
prosecutor ignoring positive information about their child. Some parents stated that the district attorney
did not really care about their child’s character or about his or her performance in school or
participation in community programs. Others commented that they felt as though the prosecutor
dismissed facts that could have added an element of doubt to their child’s case. Parents stated that it
seemed as though the district attorney viewed the juvenile court as the playing field for a game and the
goal was to try to get the most punitive sanctions possible, irrespective of the evidence or the child’s
character. Parents also reported that the prosecutor used the threat of charging a youth as an adult as a
bargaining tool.
Parents cited specific examples of individual professionals who kept them informed of what was
happening in court. Among those receiving praise were a defense attorney who took time to explain
things and a probation officer who clarified what was expected while on probation. One parent said
that her son’s attorney took time to ensure that she was kept aware of what was happening, but she
admitted that the picture was still not completely clear. Another parent stated that the probation officer
helped her understand the terms and conditions of her child’s probation, but that the court process
remained confusing:

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

I don’t understand what’s going on in court, but I make sure I follow those rules that
[were] given by her probation officer, like about 20 things that she needs to do. So that’s
the only thing I understand. I don’t understand the court, but I know she’s going to be
there on her court date.
This enabled her to assist the probation officer in holding her daughter to the terms of her probation.
At one point, after participants in one of the larger focus groups expressed frustration with probation
officers, one parent offered a very different experience with her son’s probation officer and public
defender:
I didn’t have any problems. His probation officer and I have a really good relationship
and talk all the time. And his public defender, we spoke all the time. So I mean it went
well for me; I didn’t have the experience that you guys had. It went pretty well.
Parents reported that it was the fact that individuals took the time to explain things to them that helped
them understand. Some parents discussed specific instances in which a public defender or a probation
officer made an effort to talk to them.
Perceptions About the Juvenile Justice System

Parents were asked what they thought was the purpose or intention of the juvenile court in their county.
Although discussions in each focus group on this topic took many different directions, some common
themes arose in all of the focus groups. Parents believe that the court tries to help youth and to have a
positive impact on the youths’ lives, but they also feel that the focus of the court is on punishing youth.
In addition, parents think that the intention of the juvenile court and the juvenile justice system is to
make money and that the purpose of the court has turned from addressing problems to processing
cases. They feel that neither the court nor the professionals working within it appear to be interested in
the root of the problem. Some parents noted a need for more services for youth, particularly in rural
areas. Others focused specifically on the need for services that would help their particular situation or
child. Some parents also reported on the helpfulness and importance of services such as parenting
classes. Several parents mentioned the benefits of classes and counseling in which the parent and child
get together to explore what is going on and ways to work on doing things in a better way.
A few parents in the focus groups reported that they went to probation to seek help for their child,
thinking that probation would assist them in establishing some discipline or would connect them to
substance abuse and mental health services. One parent reported that after asking for help following
her son’s overdose, her call for help was used against her. She reported feeling that, as a result of
asking for help, she has become disconnected from what is happening with her son’s situation and less
able to make supportive decisions for her son. She reported that when she asks the attorney questions,
he replies, “Oh don’t worry about it. I’ll see you next week in court.” This parent said, “I went to them
and asked them for help; they said we’re going to get help. . . . They stuck him in a group home.” The
parent’s idea of help for her 15-year-old son, who is addicted to drugs, “was to get him actual alcohol
and drug treatment. And that isn’t what’s happened. He’s been in the system locked up for four months
with no counseling, no treatment, nothing at all.” She reported feeling shut out of the process despite
the fact that she was the one who initiated contact with probation.
Parents reported feeling like criminals because their role in their child’s case is restricted; this feels like
a punishment to them. They also feel that their children’s involvement in the juvenile court makes
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

them feels as though their ability to parent is being questioned. One parent, talking about feeling
blamed for her child’s behavior, stated that when the court takes over, “it certainly does no better job
with them, because the kids get out worse than [they were] in the first place.”
Some parents expressed a desire for court orders and stated consequences to be enforced consistently.
Parents indicated that it is difficult to hold their child to the terms of probation or to remind him or her
of the consequences mentioned either in court or by the probation officer because their child knows
that many of these threatened sanctions or placements will not be imposed. Parents see this as a large
problem. Youth begin to believe that they can get away with not following the terms of their probation
and with committing minor offenses. Then, seemingly all of a sudden, they may unknowingly cross a
line and be severely punished. In the eyes of parents (and youth), creating a belief that misbehavior
will be tolerated, only to reverse positions and mete out punishment creates an image of a justice
system that is designed for youth to fail.
The lack of understanding, the feeling of oppression, and the perceived ineffectiveness of the court’s
intervention create a sentiment that the purpose of the system is to make money and maintain job
security. Parents questioned the use of the money received from both public taxes and the bills and
fines that they pay. They do not understand where the money goes. Parents that had or have a youth in
juvenile hall reported being shocked when they received a bill for their child’s time spent there. 6
Most parents reported having a dismal view of the juvenile justice system. They believe that the
system is in over its head and that it is just trying to get people in and out and process one case so it
can move on to the next. Some don’t see any real rehabilitation or punishment happening, and they
don’t see any problems being fixed for the offender, the victim, or the community. Some parents
reported that after a couple of days their children don’t really mind juvenile hall.
Understanding of the Impact of Crime

Parents generally feel that youth do not understand the impact that their crime had on others. Some
parents stated that they believe the youth’s normal stage of development is the reason for their child’s
lack of empathy; others cited punishments imposed on the youth that they believe were too harsh:
When the punishment is so out of step with what they have committed, it’s hard to feel
empathy for others because you’re just feeling so oppressed by what you’re going through.
It’s like, why am I going through this, I didn’t do this, why is the system treating me this
way? It’s hard to get to that point where you feel empathy for others. And then if you were
involved in any way [with] a victim it’s almost impossible to get to the point where you’re
feeling for the victim because you feel a victim yourself.
Overall, parents generally do not think their children have much understanding of the impact that the
situation had on their victim(s), their family, or the community at large. Other parents feel as though
their child does recognize the impact to some degree, but that the juvenile justice system does not
create opportunities for youth to understand the impact of their decisions. One parent said that it was
the judge who helped her son understand by explaining the impact the crime might have had on the
victim, who was a neighbor and known to the youth.

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 900 et seq. deal with the financial support of wards and the liability of parents and guardians for
the costs of housing, supervision, legal representation, and other support costs.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

In 2 of the 3 focus groups, parents thought that a dialogue between the victim and offender would be
beneficial to both the victim and their child, even though no one reported having actually participated
in such a dialogue. Parents recognized a need for their children to understand what the victim was
going through as a result of the child’s offense, and also believed that it would help the victim
understand more about what happened.
Some parents believe that many of the youth in juvenile hall are innocent of the crimes of which they
were convicted. They believe these youth are incarcerated because they refused to “snitch” on their
friends; they would rather do the time than face the social and in some cases physical consequences of
doing something that is perceived by their friends as cooperating with law enforcement. One parent
stated,
They’re not going to snitch on their friends; that’s kids. I’m keeping it real: whether your
kids tell you or not, they are not going to tell on their [friend]—especially a boy. “I’m not
telling on him, I don’t care, I’ll do two months, three months in jail.”
Victims’ Perspective

A goal of the JDCA project was to explore what would make the experience better for victims of
crime. Focus groups with victims proved to be a challenge in terms of recruiting participants.
Individuals who had been victimized by crime committed by youth were sought through contacts at
state agencies, county agencies, and community-based victim/witness services in 4 counties. This
cohort included both victims and, in 2 focus groups, victim advocates whose work focused on crimes
committed by youth. A total of 15 participants took part in the 4 focus groups, with group sizes ranging
from 6 participants to one group with only 3 participants—1 victim and 2 victim advocates. Across all
focus groups, participants were split nearly equally between male and female. Compared to the
demographics of victims in the state, the study drew a disproportionate number of Caucasian
participants.
Participants in most of the focus groups indicated that they felt generally frustrated with their
experience in juvenile court and the juvenile justice system. Despite the small number of participants,
information obtained was consistent across 3 of the focus groups. One group proved to be an anomaly.
The 6 participants from this county all reported having superior service and satisfaction. The findings
from this focus group demonstrate ways to better serve this population.
A number of the victims reported being very surprised to have been contacted to participate in the
research. Some said it was the first time anyone from “the system” had actually called them, and they
were impressed that the organizations that recruited them did so, knowing that they would have many
criticisms. “This is the first time we really had a chance to talk about it or discuss these things,” one
said. Yet, with this opportunity to share their experiences and opinions also came another time
commitment. Victims who participated stated that they spent so much time preparing paperwork and
waiting for the case to be heard, which they ended up feeling was wasted, that they understood why
turnout for the focus groups was low.
Understanding of What Happens in Court

When victims receive the necessary information enabling them to attend court, there is still the hurdle
of understanding what happens while there. Once again, participants reported that little help is
available for a layperson to understand what happens in court. One woman stated that her knowledge
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

came from watching the crime drama Law & Order on TV. Others reported that access to friends who
are professionals in the system provided some assistance and helped them understand what had
happened. The victims in one county felt differently because their advocate explained the process,
helping them manage their expectations and feel less isolated.
Victim focus groups began with questions about their general understanding of what happened in
court. Many victims responded by highlighting communication problems that prevented or discouraged
them from even participating in court. Most victims in the focus groups reported receiving limited
information about their offender’s case despite the rights afforded to them by California law. 7 Many of
the victims who actively pursued the information themselves found it challenging to get any response
from the people they contacted. According to many, victim services or the deputy district attorney
assigned to their case never contacted them. A number of the victims were surprised that a victim
services office or advocate even existed. When asked if anyone from the district attorney’s office had
contacted them, one participant said, “There was no information from anybody. So it would be nice to
have that sense that there is somebody who’s going to be an advocate and dispense information.” An
advocate working at the state level in the final focus group with this cohort confirmed what had been
expressed in other focus groups: “Most of the crime victims that I have worked with never had a victim
advocate from the district attorney’s office.” Since no one contacted most victims, one of the primary
issues that surfaced was that victims did not know where to turn or whom to contact. Some felt as
though the appropriate person for a victim to contact was always changing as the offender moved from
one stage in the system to another. In the words of one participant,
I don’t know the system at all. So I don’t even know the roles that these people play in
the system. I mean, I certainly can figure out that a probation officer has to do with
probation. But in terms of much past that, I wouldn’t know. So if I get a form letter that
has a name on there, I think that’s who I call. . . . They say no, now they’re in a different
part of the system. . . . Every step of the way there’s somebody different. There’s
somebody who checks them in. . . .Then it’s somebody different who’s going to do the
other processing. . . . You can’t get information and you don’t know who you can go to
for information because they’re always being handed off to somebody else.
Many victims reported not being notified of any of the hearings. Participants repeatedly stated that they
had initiated all contact that led to any notification of hearing dates. Victims reported having to ask
when the hearings were going to take place even after they had requested notification. One participant
said, “If you didn’t, you’d never hear.”
The probation department was uniformly described as unhelpful. Many of the participants reported
being angry and feeling as though more rights were afforded to the perpetrator than to them. Some
participants attributed their challenges to perceived incompetence on the part of probation. Others felt
that the people they dealt with were very nice but unhelpful—their hands were tied. The belief that the
system exists for job security and money surfaced with victims, just as it did with parents and youth.
One stated,

See Cal. Pen. Code § 679.02 and Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 656.2 and 676.5.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

Well, every time I deal with the probation department, it’s like no one knows nothing;
they can’t enforce anything and they have no answers for you. It’s like they just want to
be a high-priced babysitter and take the money and run.
Victims of crime almost uniformly reported challenges in getting basic information about their
offender’s case.
In sharp contrast, the participants in the fourth focus group felt differently and credited their relative
satisfaction to the outstanding work of their victim advocate. Victims reported that a victim advocate
contacted each of them by phone or letter after being notified of the crime and offered herself as a
reliable contact for information, notification, and support. Victims stated that they were informed of
their rights and information about the case, and they were notified of all court dates and what they
should expect to happen. Having one person to contact who was able to give them information about
their cases was said to be useful.
Participation in Court

When participants who were actively involved in their offender’s hearings were asked what
encouraged them to continue participating in the juvenile justice process, most victims mentioned
internal motivation. One victim said that his initiative came from feeling as though the professionals
were not doing their job; he wanted the offender to understand how the crime had affected him and
wanted him to be held accountable so others would not be victimized. External factors that encouraged
involvement were limited in the counties that did not have active victim advocacy. Some victims
mentioned that being asked about convenient court dates encouraged them to continue being involved.
In most of the focus groups, victims reported that the opportunity to make an impact statement in court
provided motivation to participate. In one county, however, participants reported that they were never
offered this opportunity. Speaking on the value of the victim impact statement, one victim explained,
It feels good to have a voice, or to have a say-so, or at least to have somebody have some
sort of an idea that this person isn’t just a name flowing on a docket. It’s not just a
number coming through on a hearing. This has impacted somebody in some fashion.
Although the primary motivation to become involved seemed to be internal, one victim indicated that
there are a number of internal factors that can discourage participation in the court process. This victim
found it too difficult to attend the hearings. She said, “It’s just a slap in the face every time you attend
those,” and indicated that she felt forced to relive and reexperience one of the most painful events in
her life every time she attended a hearing.
Victims did not report an overall positive experience with the hearings they attended or tried to attend.
They expressed major frustration over long waits, changes to court dates and times without
notification, disorganization, and the lack of attention paid to the rights that are supposed to be
afforded to victims.
Many victims reported that they spent substantial amounts of time waiting to be invited into court. One
victim stated that this situation made him feel as though he was put on the same plane as, or below, the
person who robbed him. He stated,
I’d sit out there in the hall and wait until I got invited in, which frankly didn’t sit well
with me. I mean, I was the victim, and yet I was treated like a criminal basically, or not
treated like I had many rights.
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

Another victim reported that he wanted to attend the disposition hearing and was told to be at court at 9
a.m. By 10:30 a.m. the case still had not been called, so he left. Since that experience, he had not heard
anything until he was offered the opportunity to participate in the focus group. Another participant
talked about being subpoenaed and enduring continuances and the hardship the experience caused him:
All of a sudden I’m getting subpoenaed to court, and I show up to court and I sit around.
I have my own business and this is a real hardship to just take up and leave. . . . I got a
subpoena one time and I had to show up in court the next day. I readjust the whole
schedule so I can be out of [my] store, and I show up and I sit there for like 45 minutes. .
. . The public defender gets some kind of continuance, so let’s just go home, and so I do.
I get subpoenaed again, I show up, and we sit in court and sit in court and sit in court,
because it’s not just me and this kid and his public defender, but there [were] like 15
other kids who come trooping in, and I’m sitting out in the hallway waiting, waiting, and
then finally they call me in and the public defender says we need a continuance, so go
home. This went on and on and on; it’s just to the point it’s ridiculous. When they finally
come up, I said I’m prepared to at least have my day in court, at least be able to say how
they impacted me. . . I never even got that. And then one day we have a restitution
hearing and I got to show up, and they asked me a whole bunch of questions, stick me on
the stand like I’m trying to screw these two kids. All I want is just restitution for what
they did to my store.
Stories such as these were not the exception. Participants did not seem surprised at hearing other
victims’ similar accounts. In many cases, one account generated a comparable story from another
individual. Victims’ descriptions of being on the stand and feeling as though they were the criminal
resonated in all the focus groups, including descriptions from those who reported having had adequate
advocacy and support.
Focus group participants attributed their long waits, changing court dates, and poor communication to
a general disorganization in the juvenile court. Victims reported that this made involvement difficult,
even for those who wanted to actively participate. One said,
It just seems like there wasn’t a lot of coordination between any of the agencies, and,
you know, they’d say that the court date was set for this date and then it was canceled,
or it wasn’t really this date it was this time, you know. I got a business to run, too, and I
wanted to be there, I wanted to be involved in the process, and they made it very
difficult. They certainly weren’t helpful, in my opinion.
Another disappointment expressed by a number of participants was the lack of enforcement of victims’
rights. Those who were informed of their rights or who found information on their own felt embittered
when their rights were not upheld or when they were not provided opportunities to exercise their
rights. One victim, who was told that he would be able to make a victim impact statement but then was
never given the opportunity, stated,
There were certain things I was told that you really could do, like I was told that I would
have a chance to make a victim’s statement in court. I never got that chance. I mean I
came prepared, I had it all written out, I knew exactly what I wanted to say, and I never
was given that opportunity.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

Additionally, some victims reported that probation officers refused to release information to which
they were in fact entitled. In all focus groups, victims reported that juvenile probation officers did not
seem to have a clear understanding of victims’ rights.
When one participant was asked what he would want other victims to know about their rights, the
participant laughed and responded, “Basically, [you] have none. Everything they say you have a right
to is just a bunch of bull.” Later, in the same focus group, a participant who has been a victim advocate
for several years confirmed his statement:
None of their rights are enforceable, not one of them. So if they miss the sentencing
hearing, even because they weren’t informed of it, even if they had requested notification
of it and weren’t able to deliver their impact statement, then—oh well, that’s really an
unfortunate thing.
A number of victims reported feeling as though the rights of the juvenile were more important than
their rights as victims. Even in the county where the victims felt supported, the victim advocate does
not have control over the information she receives from probation, and so she often cannot give
victims the information they are entitled to by law. One unique example of victims not being able to
access information they are entitled to involved a couple who wanted to know the offender’s last name.
They were victims of burglary and identity theft. They reported that no one would provide them with
the offender’s last name or that of his parents. All they received was his first name and last initial.
They stated that someone had made a mistake with the paperwork, and that the victims’ information—
full names, address, telephone numbers, and other personal information—was obtained by the
offender. The victims stated that they received telephone calls every five minutes from a number of
different jails after they reported that they would attend the dispositional hearing. They also stated that
they felt threatened and did not attend the dispositional hearing or any future hearings and have been
traumatized by the event. One of them said, “We would’ve been better off letting those guys just
disappear into the night.”
Some victims felt that the lack of access to information was unique to juvenile cases. One participant
reported that it was “a pervasive attitude across the board. No matter what part of the system you’re
dealing with. It could be someone answering the phone, it could be an investigator. . . . the moment a
minor is involved, it’s hands off.” The lack of cooperation these victims experienced and the feeling
that their rights were not upheld, combined with a generally negative experience, made some victims
feel angry.
Victims reported that costs were another factor that discouraged them from participating in court and
in the juvenile justice process. One victim estimated that he has made “probably about 10 trips” and
spent “maybe 20 hours” on the juvenile court process alone. Victims reported that there are many costs
for participating in court as a result of the crime that are difficult to sum up, such as the time it takes to
complete the restitution paperwork.
Perceptions About Court Professionals

Victims discussed their experiences and perceptions of the professionals they encountered throughout
the process. These discussions ended up being focused on probation officers, but victims did comment
positively on efforts made by judicial officers to bring the human impact of crime into the courtroom.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

Victims generally reported that professionals treated them politely and with respect. This was coupled,
however, with grievances discussed earlier regarding a lack of follow-through, a lack of knowledge, a
failure to provide help or information, and a general feeling that the system as a whole is
uncoordinated. Victims uniformly reported experiences with people not following through, whether it
was related to notification of hearings or final dispositions, getting an answer to a question, or
providing information on the case. All 4 focus groups initiated discussions related to a lack of followthrough on the part of probation. One participant, speaking about the professionals, stated,
They were just going through the motions of their job. . . . They were just way too busy
to really get involved in anything. . . . The end result was—it may sound bitter—but from
Victim Witness to the probation department to the DA’s department, they all batted a
thousand: not one agency or one person in any one of those agencies did anything they
said they were going to do when they said they were going to do it.
The general feeling expressed in the majority of the groups was that there was a façade of help and
support. When one participant was asked how he felt he was treated by probation, he responded,
“Nicely, but there was just no help, no information: ‘I can’t do nothing,’ ‘I don’t know.’ The right hand
doesn’t know the left hand, and when they do meet each other they’re tied, can’t help you anyway.”
Participants in other focus groups related similar experiences. Some victims felt that the people they
dealt with wanted to help but couldn’t due to a lack of knowledge or the lack of communication within
the juvenile justice system. Others complained that the professionals were not doing their job. Still
others described everyone they dealt with as overworked and coming across as though they did not
have time to deal with the victim of the crime.
Victims also discussed the basic challenge of dealing with professionals who may have become inured
to the effects of crime because they work in the system on a day-to-day basis. Disturbed by the idea
that his sister’s death would become just another case, one victim questioned how the professionals
perceive the cases that come across their desks:
We went [to court] because we want there to be a face attached to this. We want
somebody to recognize that my sister was somebody; she’s not just a name coming
across somebody’s desk. Poof—she’s buried, okay, it’s done. Does it become mundane
to them at some point? Does it become routine?
Other victims questioned how the professionals feel when dealing with victims of crime. One said,
“They probably feel pretty darn hopeless or helpless when they respond back to you, ‘Yeah, there’s
nothing you can do, there’s nothing I can do.’”
Amidst all the questions about the perceived lack of empathy of court professionals, victims
acknowledged that probation officers did empathize with them to a degree. And the feeling that
someone cared seemed to be valued almost as much as the more substantive things, such as access to
information and restitution. Although not explicitly stated, the victims who had an advocate to walk
them through the experience seemed to appreciate the empathy as much as the advocacy and
information. One participant referred to the advocate as “a godsend.” Another told the advocate, “I just
could not imagine going through this without you.” In talking about other people they worked with in
the system, one victim stated, “By no means [did others respond on] the same scale and with the same
personal attention that we received from [the advocate] in any capacity.”

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

Perceptions About the Juvenile Justice System

Victims had varied perceptions of the juvenile court’s purpose, most of them negative. One victim
stated,
My impression [of] the court system from my experience is that their intent is just to
process and keep the process as simple, quick, and easy [as possible]. [The juvenile court
is] in the job of processing. Everybody just does their bit of the processing and then a
politician gets up and says we need more money to do better processing and then that’s
the way everything works.
Similarly, a victim in another focus group felt that the courts were “just fulfilling the basic
requirements of the law.” He went on to further explain,
They’re not interested really in rehabilitating these kids. I don’t think they’re really
involved enough in making sure these kids understand the severity of a crime they
commit, and the impact that it has on the victims of that crime. I think they just pretty
much go through the motions of what the law says.
Another victim reporting feeling that the court just defers its responsibility: “I think the court’s whole
mindset is to just pacify the kid until he’s 18, and then it becomes the adult system’s problem.”
Victims also discussed communication problems, inefficiencies, and general disorganization that left
them feeling discouraged. They reported that they have a real lack of knowledge of how the system
operates. When this lack of knowledge is coupled with no help or poor help and disorganization,
people feel revictimized:
You’re into a system that you’re not familiar with, and you’re relying on people like
Victim Witness or the probation department to help you along and give you advice and
feed you through the system, and if you got people who just are just so busy doing their
job they can’t help you, then I guess you just, you become a victim too. And it just, I
don’t know, it’s not a very good situation. It wasn’t very pleasant.
A participant in another focus group put it succinctly: “Unfortunately, the victim gets victimized twice:
once by the person that actually did the crime and then [again] going through the criminal justice
system.”
The theme in many focus groups with victims seemed to be that the system does not go into any depth
in addressing the problem that brought the offender before the court or in understanding what issues
the victim may have. It just goes through the motions and applies fairly standard consequences without
looking at extenuating circumstances and without creating a response that addresses the issues and
needs of either the victim or the offender. One participant stated, “It’s not really about rehabilitation.
It’s not really about punishment. It’s just processing.” In one focus group, participants had no answer
to the question of what they think the purpose or the intent of the juvenile court is. When asked if it
served public safety, the answer was “no.” One participant said, “It shows them they can get away with
anything.” When asked if it focused on the punishment of youth, the answer was “no.”
Some victims expressed a desire for harsher dispositions and for the courts to follow through with
punishments. The idea that youth “just get a slap on the wrist” surfaced for participants advocating
both for harsher punishment and for holding youth accountable or responsible for their actions. One
victim explicitly stated that he had gotten to the point where he did not care about restitution; he just
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

wanted the youth’s probation violated and for the court to follow through with its threats of
punishment, which in his case, it never did. The lack of follow-through appeared to bother victims in
all focus groups. Victims reported from both personal experience and stories they had heard that
judicial officers and probation officers try to scare youth with threats of time at DJJ, the state-run
detention center, if they reoffend or do not follow through on conditions of probation. Victims feel that
these threats are rarely carried out, however, even after multiple violations.
Several victims felt that the punishment for certain crimes was extremely inconsistent, depending on
whether the offender was an adult or a juvenile, and that these inconsistencies need to be addressed.
Some speculated that adults were using and encouraging youth to burglarize homes for them as a result
of the more lenient consequences for youth offenders.
Throughout the focus groups, as the conversations regarding punishment progressed, the desire for
retribution subsided for many participants. In talking about how to make things right for the victim,
one participant went from talking about how his offender “hasn’t been punished enough” to, when
asked specifically what the offender could do, saying,
Get rehabilitated. And, as much and as angry as I am at him, it would put a smile on my
face just to know he’s getting treatment or rehabilitation [to be] a better person, knowing
he won’t go out and hurt other people.
Victims overwhelmingly wanted to ensure that their offender does not victimize someone else in the
same way they were victimized. Although some advocated for punishment to accomplish that goal, the
majority felt that a more rehabilitative approach, if it would ensure that the individual does not
reoffend, would be more effective. “If I could change anything, that’s what I would change. That
would outweigh the punishment for me . . . some type of rehabilitation,” one said. Victims generally
expressed a feeling that the consequences for youth who commit crimes are not adequate. They believe
that the consequences imposed do not hold accountable, adequately punish, or rehabilitate youth.
Victims had a lot to say about what they desired from the services designed to advocate, support, and
assist them. Their self-identified needs focused on safety, protection of personal information, access to
information, opportunities to be heard, restitution, and offender accountability.
Most importantly, victims reported a need to feel safe. In terms of services and professionals who
come in contact with victims, this begins with law enforcement. One victim recalled that, after her
home was robbed, a law enforcement officer said that the people who broke into her house would
probably come back, yet offered no advice or method for regaining a sense of safety or security.
Victims reported the need for some safeguards to protect their personal information. As was mentioned
previously, one couple had their personal information mistakenly released to the offender. They
reported that their lives have not been the same since. They have had to change their telephone number
to an unlisted number. They have become more reclusive. The snowball effect of that one mistake was
enormous for the lives of this couple. They suggested that an advocate, separate from probation, shield
all personal information of victims. This couple now refuses to provide personal information to anyone
in the probation department.
With respect to the court, participants’ wishes were fairly straightforward. They reported wanting
phone calls to be returned, wanting to be kept informed with advance notice of hearings and advance
notice of continuances, and wanting to be heard. One victim was clear that he did not need to have the
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

final say on the offender’s disposition; he just wanted his experience to be known and his opinion to be
heard:
I wish they would have asked my opinion on this sentencing, and, you know, not saying
that I had the right to make the judgment, but some kind of input, they would ask my
opinion of what this has really done to me before the last court date, so maybe I would
have changed someone’s mind and opinion.
A suggestion that emerged in all focus groups with victims was to have a single point of contact for
victims of crime. One victim stated, “I think it would’ve been good to have one person to talk to, to
answer questions, instead of us having to call sergeants on the case, intake officers, the county jail
itself, the probation officer.” She suggested having “one person who is able to give us the information
that we need.” There was no clear consensus regarding which office this single point of contact should
work from, but in one focus group it was suggested that they should work directly for the court, since
there are clear biases with both defense and prosecution-based victim advocacy. One stated,
If the truly neutral player, the court, were to provide a victim service, then regardless of
whether or not the petition is sustained, the victim should still have someplace to go,
somebody to help them, somebody wherever the kid goes—on probation, not on
probation, state care, local care—you’d still have somebody there to help them out.
In the county where focus group participants had a single point of contact, the conversations focused
on ensuring that the probation department provides the victim advocate with up-to-date and accurate
information about the cases so that victims can be kept informed.
Understanding of the Impact of Crime

A major theme throughout all focus groups with victims was the need for victims to have an
opportunity to express how the crime had affected them. Much of the conversation was focused on
increasing opportunities for the youth in particular to understand how the crime had affected their
victim. Some participants also expressed the need for law enforcement and professionals in the court to
understand the impact of the crime. In short, victims want to be heard. Victims also expressed a desire
for a genuine apology. The apology would ideally make it clear that the offender understood the
impact and took responsibility, even if he or she did not have the desire to fix the harm.
Victims would also like the system to do more to enforce the payment of restitution. They reported the
need to know—from the beginning—the many obstacles they will encounter when trying to collect
restitution. Many victims reported that when their case began, they initially believed that a restitution
check would just arrive, but they discovered that the reality is very different. Practically speaking,
victims stated that they would like to receive a monthly amount, no matter how small it is. Regular
payment would demonstrate accountability. If for some reason the payment could not be made in one
particular month, victims feel they should be informed of the extenuating circumstances and told when
they can expect payment to resume.
The desire for restitution seemed, for many victims, to be rooted in the desire for the youth and, in
some cases, the parents to take some form of responsibility for what was done. One victim stated,
It isn’t the money. I knew when I walked out of there I’ll never see a red cent out of these
people. But it would have been nice to have some kind of an outcome that they feel a
little pinched. . . . I mean, financially they hurt me. . . . Maybe he’s going to have to go
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

work his days off at his job and come up with 50 bucks a month; anybody could do that.
It might not be easy, and it might kind of impinge on his free time, you know, where he
can’t sit around drinking beer or something, but I think that’s what they should have
done. And then they should enforce it.
A number of victims commented on the importance of probation upholding the court’s order for
restitution. Many victims came to the conclusion quickly that payment of restitution is, in their words,
“a joke.” Victims feel that the lack of follow-through with restitution and other threatened sanctions
weakens the integrity of the court and thus public safety. They expressed little interest in filing a civil
claim to collect restitution and feel that the courts should do a better job of enforcing restitution orders
rather than making the victim do more work and navigate another confusing court system.
Victims generally have very limited contact with their offenders. In small, rural communities, victims
reported seeing the offenders on occasion. In just about all cases, victims do not believe that their
offender has an understanding of the impact the crime has had on them or the community. In one case,
however, a victim told a different story. A young man who admitted to vehicular manslaughter made a
creative and unique plea deal with the prosecutor, supported by the victim’s family. In addition to
some restrictive sanctions, he talks to students in schools about his offense and its impact. He retells
the story of how he took the life of another person and shares what he went through as a result of the
poor choices he made. The brother of the woman who lost her life reported that he appreciates the
coordination that took place to develop a court disposition that forces the youth to explore his decisions
and possibly influence the decisions of other youth:
I applaud their efforts . . . To hear it out of his mouth and even to hear it more than once,
that’s really—I mean, as much as it’s been kind of tough sometimes, I think for me
personally that makes me feel it’s not in vain.
Community Members’ Perspective

Participants in the focus groups of community stakeholders included a diverse group of individual
community members. Some represented community-based organizations, or CBOs. Others included
people who feel affected by crime in their community, relatives of youth involved in the juvenile
justice system, and representatives from local schools and faith-based institutions. Three focus groups
were conducted in 3 different counties. The average size of these groups was 11. In one focus group,
the majority of the participants were Latino; in another, the majority were Asian; and the third had a
Caucasian majority. No attempt was made to solicit participation by any particular racial or ethnic
group or specific cultural community organization.
Throughout these focus groups, multiple definitions of community emerged. At various points in their
conversations, the focus groups highlighted (1) the community of CBOs, (2) the communities where
youth live, and (3) the broader community—the general public. .
Understanding of What Happens in Court

Community stakeholders in the focus groups recognized the challenges that families face when they
have a child involved in the juvenile delinquency court. Since many of the participants in the
community focus groups work with families, they get to observe them in and around the court.
Participants feel that families in court generally have no idea what is happening there. One participant
who works as a full-time advocate for families remarked, “[Families] need orientation, they need
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

packets, there’s no handouts, they’re just sitting in the waiting room and they have no idea what’s
happening.” A number of participants echoed these sentiments. One stated, “The family doesn’t know
what happened in court, they have no idea—they were in there for 10 seconds.” Another participant
noted, “You have a system that even individuals that are [highly educated] can’t maneuver!” One
community member pointed to the potential for misinformation being given to parents after the court
hearings:
I’ve worked in three different counties in the juvenile justice arena, and for the most part
I’ve noticed that you come into court with the judge, decisions are made, then as the
information trickles down to the child—the youth—and the family it gets really diluted
by staff passing it on—whether it be probation, child welfare—and the more layers it
goes through the more diluted it gets. By the time it gets down to the family, a lot of
times it’s incorrect information.
An important change that participants feel should be made is a greater effort to inform youth and their
families about what is happening in court. Participants in one focus group suggested that an orientation
be developed prior to the youth’s court hearing. When talking about who should educate parents and
youth, some participants felt strongly that it should not be a professional from the court. One
participant with a child previously involved with the juvenile court said, “I think when it’s presented
[by] a professional they feel threatened, not necessarily because the professional’s coming across that
way, but families just are incredibly intimidated, they’re just very intimidated.” Focus group
participants also remembered a book put out by the Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for
Families, Children & the Courts, titled What Is Happening in Court. 8 The book brings the complex
juvenile court process down to a level that a grade-schooler can relate to; participants suggested that
there is a need for a similar publication for teenage youth.
Participants also feel that there should be an effort to use language that the youth and their families can
understand in the courtroom, for both English-speaking and non-English-speaking youth and their
families.
Participation in Court

Supporting the findings in the focus groups with parents, family advocates oppose the way the courts
schedule hearings. They find the long periods of waiting unproductive not only for families but also for
advocates and support people. They reported that the court may schedule cases at 8:30 a.m. and 1:30
p.m. A youth who is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. needs to be present at 8:30 a.m., but the case may not be
heard until noon. One participant stated,
Parents will wait at least an hour, two hours, sometimes even three hours to go into court
for five minutes. . . . If you’re going to be an advocate for the parents—to go into a
hearing, to accompany them for five minutes—you need to wait at least an hour, maybe
three, so your whole morning is there waiting.
This is reported to be a challenge for advocates and parents, and they believe that the juvenile courts
should take family schedules into consideration when setting court dates. Focus groups participants
8

Admin. Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, What is Happening in Court (1999); available at
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/children.htm.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

reported that some judicial officers tend to ask families about time and dates that are convenient and
some do not.
Community focus group participants suggested that the courts work to improve the level of court
users’ engagement with the court and also that the courts become more connected with the community.
To improve the level of involvement by youth and their families, participants said that these
stakeholders need to have access to information about the court and their particular case. Participants
in community focus groups recommended a single point of contact for youth and families to get
information. Participants also feel that schools should have a single point of contact with the courts,
which would allow them to better serve youth in the juvenile justice system, particularly youth in
detention.
Participants in the community focus groups feel that the juvenile court is complicated and that this
makes it inaccessible to most people. Professionals who work alongside the court have an advantage in
that they generally have a better understanding of its structure. One county has developed a policy
management team for the juvenile court, which involves some CBOs. Although not all participants in
this county’s focus group were aware of the policy management team, the general feeling among those
who took part in the discussion was that their juvenile court is generally more accessible than most due
to the increased collaboration between the court and community-based organizations that participate in
the policy management team meetings.
Collaboration With the Court

Participants discussed how well they thought the court collaborated with other potential justice
partners in the community. Discussions focused on the courts’ collaboration with community
organizations serving youthful offenders by providing advocacy and support to families, schools, and
faith-based organizations. Participants also discussed the types of services they can provide. Although
CBOs spent some time critiquing probation’s and the court’s lack of awareness of community
resources, they recognized that they too are often unaware of all the resources that could be of benefit
to the populations with which they work.
Some community focus group participants felt that the need for confidentiality in the juvenile system
hinders collaboration between CBOs and the court. One participant representing a program that
attempts to provide information to families about court reported challenges in getting information from
the court to support the families with whom she works.
Court-Community Relationship. Different communities clearly have different relationships with
their courts. For CBOs, the amount of time they have been in existence seemed to influence the degree
to which they collaborate with the juvenile court. Some individuals in the group pointed out that once a
relationship is developed with the probation department, the probation department tends to use the
program. In some communities, CBOs interested in offering their services to youth who come into
contact with the court did not know whom to contact in order to get youth referred to their program.
There was a general feeling among the organizations already working with probation and the courts
that the relationship should be more collaborative. The organizations do not feel the mutual exchange
and benefit of a true collaboration. CBOs do feel the need to be involved for the benefit of the youth
and families, though. One representative said that his CBO is motivated to participate to ensure that the
court has the correct information on the youth with whom they work. Focus group participants felt that
CBOs need training on the juvenile justice system and the process that youth and victims go through. If
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

CBOs are more informed about the process and understand what the next hearing is about, they can
help in the preparation and thus be more engaged in their client’s experience.
CBO providers talked about the intimidation they feel in court, indicating that it sometimes prevents
them from relaying information to the court. A case manager for a CBO that serves youth on probation
stated that sometimes, when he has information important to the case or what is being discussed, he
refrains from speaking due to the perceived hierarchy in the courtroom: “Sometimes I feel like I can’t
raise my hand. . . . I got to respect this person because he’s higher than me in a sense.” Another person
in a separate focus group, also working for a nonprofit, described her struggle with how to inform the
court about challenges she was having assisting a youth with a condition of probation ordered by the
court:
For a long time I thought about the fact that I wanted to make that communication with
the court. Had it been anyone else or had it been in a corporate environment that letter
would have been out months before. But I didn’t know if it was okay to do that letter.
In some cases, this communication gap was created by the perception of a hierarchy, and in others it
was because the person simply did not know who the appropriate contact was.
Another issue raised in the community focus groups was a sense that CBOs and probation are on
different “sides.” There were involved discussions on the degree to which probation officers check in
with the CBOs that work closely with the youth on probation. Some participants reported that there is a
lack of trust between probation and many CBOs, with one commenting,
It feels like the public defender and the youths’ families and the service providers are on
the side of, sort of at all costs, protecting this kid—so you’re on the kid’s side. And then,
the police officers and the POs are on the other side. I feel like it’s such a this side versus
this side that I’m not going to tell the POs stuff even if I know stuff that’s going on about
a kid that might not be positive. . . . I’m not going to tell that PO because I feel like that
PO does not have the youth’s best interest at heart. I feel like the PO wants to lock up the
kid. . . . I don’t trust them.
When defining community as the area in which youth live, the relationship between the community
and the courts can be seen from 2 different perspectives: (1) the community of people who identify
with the youthful offender and (2) the community of people indirectly affected by the delinquent
behavior. In both cases, focus group participants felt that the relationship between the courts and the
community is strained. On one hand, participants reported that there really is no relationship. They feel
ignored, as explained by one participant in the latter category:
The community feels frustrated because as these kids go through the court, [the
community is] left out of the justice system. The focus is on the minor, on the
defendant—but the community doesn’t feel like they were made whole. The graffiti is
still there, the little burglaries are still going on in the homes, the local grocery stores—
they don’t know what happened to that kid or what didn’t happen to that kid. So they feel
kind of left out in the process.
A person in the same group who has been working with delinquent youth for more than 30 years said
that the juvenile justice system needs to “get the community involved. We can help probation; we can
help probation immensely.”
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

The relationship between the court and the community of people who identify with the youthful
offender is strained for different reasons, according to participants in one focus group. They felt that
many members of some communities don’t want to work with the system. Participants reported that
many people view the whole system as the enemy; the courts are seen as a threat. One participant
stated that the juvenile justice system is seen by some people as something that is taking away the
community’s future “because there’s still a certain level of hope that you could still turn that young
person around and that he’s not going to end up like one of his uncles or tios or father or whoever went
before him.”
These 2 starkly different views were expressed during the same focus groups, and the reality seems to
be that within the same community are individuals who want nothing to do with the system, viewing it
as the enemy, and individuals who want to become more involved.
In each of the community focus groups there was at least one representative who reported working
closely with schools. These participants felt that very little, if any, communication was going on
between the schools and the court or the schools and probation. Participants in one focus group
knowledgeable about Welfare and Institutions Code section 827 stated that the schools do not receive
the information they should according to the statute. 9 They stated that if schools do receive
information, the youth’s probation officer provides it informally and it is not done on a consistent
basis. Participants reported that schools generally do not know who is on probation. According to one
participant, individualized education plans (IEPs) do not get sent to the juvenile hall when a youth is in
custody and therapists are not notified as is required by Assembly Bill 3632 if a youth receiving
certain educational services goes to juvenile hall. 10
In the midst of the discussion about the courts not communicating with the schools, a community
member, speaking as a parent, brought up the perspective that most family members and youth want
some privacy and are not convinced that the sharing of this information is in the best interest of their
child. Many parents are fearful that if the school finds out that their child has been in trouble, he or she
will be treated differently and the situation will create a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure for their
child.
One focus group participant indicated that he believes the same conditions that resulted in the passage
of a bill protecting the educational rights of youth in the dependency system also exist in juvenile
delinquency, and that a similar measure is necessary. 11
Participants in one of the focus groups brought up the communication that does exist between the
schools and law enforcement, which they felt was counter to the interests and rights of youth due to the
9

The intention of the statute is “to promote more effective communication among juvenile courts, family courts, law
enforcement agencies, and schools to ensure the rehabilitation of juvenile criminal offenders as well as to lessen the
potential for drug use, violence, other forms of delinquency, and child abuse” (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 827(b)). This
section also stipulates that the court shall provide written notice to the superintendent of the school district of attendance,
indicating the offense committed and the disposition of the minor’s case.
10
Assem. Bill 3632 took effect on July 1, 1986. It requires that local education agencies create an interagency agreement
with other specified agencies to provide related services for children with disabilities. The bill stipulates that a local plan
that describes the process for coordinating and providing services to children with exceptional needs placed in juvenile
court schools or county community schools must be developed.
11
Assem. Bill 490, passed in 2003, was intended to ensure that youth in foster care, including delinquent youth in foster
care, have access to the same academic resources, services, and extracurricular and enrichment activities available to all
other pupils.
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

pressure a youth may feel to make a statement admitting guilt without consulting an attorney or a
parent. One participant explained,
When something bad happens at school . . . when it turns into a crime, then the school
calls the police and [the youth] gets hauled away to juvenile hall. . . . The kid’s just gone,
no longer at school—they’re maybe detained, maybe they’re at home facing their
sentencing. . . . This is going to be where they do communicate . . . they send the
interviews that they did in the school with the kid and the forms are called “What’s
Happening.” They give it to the kid to write down what they did and they hand that over
to the police and courts. . . . So that is the interaction that I see . . . is that coordination?
A brief discussion in one community focus group paralleled an issue raised in one of the focus groups
with youth in detention. Participants in both focus groups reported that the level of schoolwork
provided in detention and alternative schools is too easy. According to one participant, success in these
schools for expelled youth seems to be defined as simply going to school and not hurting anyone.
Many of these youth are very smart, and “the programs are too easy for them and they have no
homework.”
Participants in focus groups had little knowledge of communication or collaboration between the
courts and faith-based institutions or groups. One participant recalled that in another county the
superior court had reached out to the faith community. “The superior court there invited clergy to
understand for a day, everybody was there, judges were there—everybody.” He recalled,
The room was packed with people. The superior court set aside a chunk of money and
had a lot of people there and used real effort. The point is that the clergy showed up.
There must’ve been 250 people in that room for an entire day.
He went on to indicate that most people present knew little about the juvenile court but obviously had
an interest. The point was to educate leaders in the faith community about the juvenile justice system
and encourage them to get their congregations involved.
This discussion prompted a priest, who initially felt he had nothing to offer, to tell a story about a
family in his congregation. He recalled,
Their children were starting to get into trouble, and then I hear this one is going to
juvenile hall and so I say, “What’s happening?” . . . And the answer always was, “I don’t
know Father, I don’t know.” . . . And it was always the same . . . “I don’t know.” And I
just thought, well, maybe they’re not very together people, I guess. You know, there’s
not much I can do about this, just let it go; but [after participating in the focus group] I’m
realizing that no, that’s not the case—[understanding] really is a problem.
After listening to discussions in the focus group, he realized that the family’s lack of knowledge is the
norm and that he had made an assumption that prevented him from providing support to a family that
needed it. Wondering how to facilitate support among congregation members, he went on,
How do we deal with that? There’s no real sense of involvement in that immediate area
around the church; it’s extremely difficult to get people involved. How do we deal with
that reality? What is it that we do to get people involved?

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

Focus group participants from faith-based organizations felt as though they were a part of a largely
untapped resource for support and guidance. These representatives believe that in order to serve as a
resource, their clergy and congregations needed to be educated about the court.
Providing Services. Some CBOs in one focus group shared another perspective of feeling that they are
doing the work of probation. One participant said,
CBOs are given a lot of the work—case management, treatment, therapy. But you get
very little power in the court system itself. And the power goes much more to the
probation officer but they do less of the work, a lot less of the work.
Other members in this focus group also reported feeling frustrated with this imbalance and illuminated
potential pitfalls of collaborating with the courts and public agencies tied to the juvenile court.
According to one, “The danger of getting involved is that they use your services, and where’s your
money come from to give them these services? I mean, really, they should put this in their budget and
see this as a central component.” This participant felt that the probation department in particular takes
advantage of some of the services the CBO provides, such as cultural competency training and
language translation of specific forms, without paying for them. From the perspective of this
participant, probation is then able to allocate funds in their budget for other uses that should be
available for these important services. This issue surfaced in other focus groups as well. One
participant stated,
Nonprofits, the ones that are doing the good work, the one-on-one [work], run out of
money. They’re doing it on shoestrings, paper clips, you name it. They struggle
constantly for funding, they have no assurance for funding, or they get 12 months of
funding.
Community members felt that the system could improve if the juvenile justice system funded
prevention programs and programs that work closely with people in the neighborhoods. Community
members in one focus group talked a lot about the juvenile justice system and law enforcement funding
crime suppression efforts, but said that such funding is rarely available for prevention programs.
One participant also brought up the need to hold CBOs accountable for the services they say they are
providing. This participant reported, “Unfortunately, some CBOs are taking money to provide these
services, [yet] they’re not providing [the services]—especially to immigrant families. [Immigrant
families] don’t get services, but the CBO gets the money.”
Participants in the community focus groups had a number of suggestions for improving services for
juvenile offenders. The need for opportunities for facilitated dialogue between victim and offender was
suggested as a possible benefit to youth, victims, and the community. Talking about her own son, a
parent in a community focus group said,
He continues to this day to have a very difficult time coming back in the neighborhood
because he feels embarrassed. It would have been really cool to have that face-to-face
and for him to have redeemed himself and said I’m sorry. Because I know that he’s
remorseful and regrets what he had done, but he’s never had that opportunity, and he’ll
never, maybe not in any near point in time will he seek them out and do that on his own.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

With regard to the back end of the system, community participants identified a need for reentry
support, specifically with regard to the hurdles youth face when they are released from detention and
don’t have parents motivated to enroll them in school. One stated,
There’s no structure, we send them right back to the same family, the same chaos, the
same everything and the kid doesn’t know what to do. They don’t want to go back to
juvenile hall, nor do they want to go back to that lifestyle—well, where do they go? A lot
of them call us: ‘Help me—I don’t want to do something.’ But when you have a minor, I
can’t enroll them in school. I have to have a parent come. I can’t enroll them in substance
abuse [counseling] because I need a parent’s permission, so all of that plays a part. So the
support once a young person gets out, it’s not there.
Another participant felt that the court could play a more active role in cases like these and appoint
someone to act as a guardian for the youth. Some community stakeholders took this discussion to a
higher level, advocating for more authority over parents and a need for legislation that would allow the
courts to intervene sooner to work with the parents of youth whom people believe will end up in the
court anyway.
An additional need identified by the focus groups was for mental health services. One participant
reported, “The availability of mental health services, particularly bilingual mental health services—
someone who has a master’s degree in therapy is so hard to find. I’m finding [it’s] the key to not
getting them confined.” She went on to say that access to a therapist willing to work with youth at risk
of incarceration would dramatically increase the chances of a youth being allowed to stay in the home.
Perceptions About Court Professionals

Participants expressed some sympathy for judicial officers, recognizing that many of them have a
desire to help and want to know what the root problems are, but, as one participant remarked, “They
have maybe five minutes with the family and then they’re moving on. They get their analysis of an
entire difficult multigenerational issue in five minutes.” Participants noted that, given the time
constraints in court, the judicial officer is limited in his or her understanding of the case and thus is
limited in his or her understanding of what would truly be in the best interest of the youth.
Community members also spoke of the positive impact that judicial officers and other professionals
can have by including justice partners and community members in the process. In one focus group, a
participant spoke of the positive effect a judge had when she asked if anyone had anything to add, even
during very short hearings.
Participants also want judicial officers and the court to be more community oriented. They expressed
concern about this perceived gap. One participant stated, “It’s time for the courts to have community
specialists who are going to sit at the table with us and say, ‘Okay it’s broken, it’s not working, how do
we fix it together?’” In spite of community members’ awareness of confidentiality issues, they believe
it is possible for the courts to respond collaboratively to community crime committed by youth without
violating confidentiality. One community focus group also discussed the importance of training police
to work with youth, parents, and community members, since they are at the front end of the system.
The feeling that probation officers have a desire for youth to fail, which emerged in both the youth and
parent focus groups, surfaced in the community focus groups as well. One community focus group
concentrated on the topic and identified a number of instances in which probation officers seemed to
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

desire failure over success. For example, participants agreed with one case manager’s observation that
if a youth is ordered to a less restrictive environment than the probation officer wanted, the probation
officer’s “agenda is to prove that they’re right: ‘I told you they should have gone to . . . .’” Case
managers from CBOs and others who advocate for youth and families detect differences in terms of the
level of communication they have with the probation officer. Some participants felt that probation
officers routinely focus on negative behaviors rather than positive ones. One said,
If I have something positive to say, then I don’t really hear from them again. But if it’s
something negative like, oh, she hadn’t shown up for a week or she had to miss this, this,
and this . . . they’ll ask for copies of their timesheets to see the exact dates that they were
at work or whatnot. But if I say such-and-such was real good, very responsible, punctual .
. . sometimes I won’t hear from that PO again.
Community members perceive that arresting and incarcerating youth is a way for professionals to earn
promotions and move on to more “important” and more exciting cases and assignments within their
agencies. They also believe that there are disincentives for professionals to focus on prevention and
rehabilitation within the culture of probation and law enforcement.
Case managers who work closely with youth felt that probation officers should do a better job of
recognizing the small accomplishments of the youth they are involved with. One example they
provided was that if a youth fills out a job application but does not go to the interview, the officer
should focus on the fact that he or she filled out the application, and not on the missed interview.
An added factor that participants felt creates another type of distance is the lack of ethnic and racial
diversity on the bench and among prosecutors. One noted, “When people come and they see
prosecutors and they don’t see anyone that looks like them, or they look at the judiciary and they don’t
see anyone that looks like them, that’s a problem.”
Perceptions About the Juvenile Justice System

Participants in the community focus groups were asked what they see as the purpose or the intention of
the juvenile court. Like other stakeholder groups, these groups felt that the courts are focused on
processing cases. One participant said that the purpose is to “get them in, get them out, do what they
have to do, okay, next! Get them in, get them out, next!” Participants felt that this was largely due to
the courts being overwhelmed. There was acknowledgment that the juvenile court has a challenging
job. One participant said,
I think what they’re trying to do is just manage whatever they have out there. . . . They’re
afraid of kids, so they want to lock them up and put them away. And sometimes rightly
so, because kids are carrying guns, they’re beating each other up . . . there’s just a lot of
stuff that’s going on there, so I think they’re just trying to—they’re in crisis management
is what I think.
The other dominant perspective was that the intention or purpose of the juvenile court is punishment.
Community members said that youth think of the juvenile justice system as being very punitive. A
community member in one group also stated that society, at this point, seems to accept the idea of
incarcerating youth and is willing to pay for it.
Community members partially blame the structure that the professionals must work in for what they
see as an overly punitive system. One participant stated,
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

The best within the police department, within the DA’s office, within some of these
organizations, they aren’t applauded. . . . If you want to move up and be promoted,
you’re going to go to the gang unit where you go ahead and put all the kids away, where
you get as many arrests as you possibly can.
There are also other structural problems that community members feel drive youth deeper into the
system than necessary. Some participants expressed the feeling that the system is beyond its capacity
to be effective. As in the parents’ focus groups, participants in the community focus groups stated that
law enforcement tends to ignore low-level offenses, believing that nothing meaningful will be done
with the youth. After having police contact several times with no repercussions, the youth get a false
sense that no one will hold them accountable. They then go on to commit more serious crimes, for
which the consequences are severe and less inclined toward rehabilitation.
With a macro perspective, community focus group participants see inconsistency in the juvenile justice
system. Some of the inconsistency is created due to the complicated nature of the juvenile delinquency
court. One participant highlighted an unintended consequence of having such a complicated system:
“Unless you’re [a professional]—do you really understand the court system, how it actually works,
what you can do, and how you can intervene?” He continued, explaining that at-risk families are
hopelessly lost when they try to navigate it. “They don’t even know what number to call to find out
information about what’s going to happen to the kid. They don’t even know where to start.” Even if
parents do get to speak to someone, the complicated nature of the system makes them feel hopeless and
they give up. He asked, “What happens to that child? Who advocates for the child? Nobody.” This
participant, receiving group agreement, also said that it seems as though individuals with resources can
pay for an attorney and access to people who know the system and thus receive better advocacy.
Inconsistency within the system can also create feelings of being treated unfairly. With agreement
from the group, one participant who works with both youth and victims stated,
The offenders’ families obviously talk to each other, and if there are inconsistencies that
they’ve experienced in the system, the parents can get indignant and begin to view themselves,
and perhaps even their child who is an offender, as a victim.
Community members said that the juvenile court should actively make an effort to address
inconsistencies in the court.
When English is a second language, community members felt that youth and their families are at even
more of a disadvantage in terms of the advocacy they receive. Participants talked about rights that they
feel get ignored. “I strongly believe they have a right to interpretation, the families do; in court they
don’t get it,” said one. An advocate who spends a considerable amount of time in the court reported
that sometimes 5 cases in need of an interpreter would come before the court. She indicated that “they
just go on and have the hearing anyway, knowing the parents don’t understand what’s going on.” It
was also observed that sometimes families will have an advocate from the community interpret but that
most of these advocates are not properly trained, and the interpreter may not completely understand
what is transpiring due to the complexity of the juvenile court. This “totally shuts out the parents to
even know what’s going on in their child’s case,” according to one participant.
Participants in all focus groups said that the juvenile delinquency court does not pay enough attention
to prevention and intervention. One participant felt as though this is a gaping hole. Another participant
talked about a community that decided to focus resources on prevention:
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

Prevention and intervention works. The reason it works there is because the community has
made it a priority. They put their very best police officers in the schools, they make sure that
they staff youth-type programs with the best. They have come up with a youth master plan—
there’s parks, there’s swimming pools, there’s things for kids to do.
This is not the case everywhere, he reported, stating that in many communities, “prevention is on the
back burner.”
There was also the feeling among some participants that the system is beyond its capacity to be
effective. They observed that the juvenile justice system often threatens punishment and consequences
that it does not follow through on. Participants associate these unfulfilled warnings with youth getting
deeper into the juvenile and adult criminal justice system:
When police officers go out there and they say to a young man or young lady, ‘If you
don’t straighten up, we’re going to put you in the hall,’ the kids very well know that
that’s not going to happen, and so they don’t fear it. And what ends up happening is they
get themselves more and more involved in drugs and alcohol, more involved in gang
activity, until it’s too late and they get filed upon as an adult and then they serve time in a
prison.
Conclusion and Suggestions for System Improvements

This study explored the perspectives and experiences of users of the juvenile delinquency court in
California. Researchers conducted focus groups with stakeholders of the state’s juvenile delinquency
court in 6 study counties. Focus groups with youth, parents, and victims of crime committed by youth
generally covered 6 topics: (1) court users’ ability to understand their experience in court and what or
who influenced their ability to understand, (2) court users’ ability to participate in court, (3) general
satisfaction with the court, (4) offenders’ understanding of the impact of crime, (5) perceptions of the
juvenile court, and (6) suggestions for ways to improve services. Focus groups made up of community
stakeholders in the juvenile court discussed the accessibility of the court, community collaboration
with the juvenile court, community perceptions of the juvenile court, and suggestions for improving
services linked to the court. Discussions in these focus groups also covered all topics from the youth,
parent, and victim focus groups, but from a community perspective. A number of themes emerged
across all 4 types of stakeholder groups and merit further attention.
Although the JDCA is the first comprehensive assessment of juvenile delinquency courts in California,
several findings paralleled those found in the recent Trust and Confidence in the California Courts
study (Trust and Confidence study) conducted by the Administrative Office of the Courts in 2005 and
2006. 12 Both studies indicate that the public’s and nonprofessional court users’ understanding of the
court process is low. Furthermore, both studies suggest that more resources to help court users
understand court processes would be beneficial. The Trust and Confidence study found that having a
sense that court processes are fair is the strongest predictor of whether the public approves of or has
confidence in California courts. Non-English-speaking court users, African Americans,
Latino/Hispanic Americans, low-income court users, and users of high-volume courts such as family
court perceive the courts as less fair than do other court users. The Trust and Confidence study also

Admin. Office of the Courts, Trust and Confidence in the California Courts, Phases I and II (2005, 2006).

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

found that when courts are perceived to be in touch with their communities—a desire that was
expressed by focus group participants in this study—they are also perceived as more procedurally fair.
Lack of Understanding in the Court

Court users reported not being able to understand much of what happens in court. This was true for
adjudicated youth, parents of youth, and victims of crime. In focus groups, the lack of understanding
seemed linked to several poor outcomes for court users, but it also negatively affected perceptions of
the court. A lack of understanding limits one’s ability to participate in a meaningful way, exacerbating
the feeling of powerlessness and magnifying the hierarchy already inherent in the structure of court. As
was expressed in one community focus group, feelings of powerlessness can contribute to the
community’s feeling that the court and the whole justice system are the enemy. A lack of
understanding and the feeling of powerlessness also often lead to misperceptions about the court. For a
number of the court users who participated in this study, it may have led to the conclusion that the
court and the juvenile justice system are just out to make money from those who come into contact
with them.
Being uninformed and not knowing where to obtain information or get answers also has other indirect
and unintended consequences. As demonstrated by the words of a priest in one of the community focus
groups, families who come out of court confused and unable to explain what happened can be
perceived as not caring about their child or as being unintelligent. This observation could just as easily
apply to a victim who appears at a disposition hearing. This perception potentially limits the support
that youth, parents, and victims might receive in a number of ways. Those who provide support may be
less inclined to provide it if the court participant comes across as uninvolved or unconcerned. In
addition, court users may be less likely to ask for help and support when they feel powerless and don’t
know how and from whom to seek help.
Professionals in the juvenile court can immediately benefit court users by using plain language
whenever possible and by explaining the technical words, terms, and code sections that are sometimes
required for legal accuracy. Professionals can also provide court users with an idea of what to expect
prior to entering the courtroom and make an active effort to ensure that court users understand their
rights and the content of court proceedings. More strategic and long-term ways to address the lack of
understanding in the juvenile court include developing and providing resources to help court users
understand the court process, providing improved training for professionals on how to work with court
users, and seeking opportunities to educate and offer outreach to local community groups and the
general public.
Participation and the Desire to Be Heard and Understood

All court users expressed a desire to play a more active role in their experience with the court. Youth
expressed a desire for the court and people working with them to understand where they are coming
from and to know them as individuals rather than by reports outlining the mistakes they have made.
Parents want to continue to play the role of parent, to be consulted, and to be involved in the decisionmaking process. Victims want to be heard as well. They want people to understand what they went
through.
Youth, parents, victims, and community members want notice, information, and also opportunities to
provide their input. They want their needs and experiences to be considered by the court. Professionals
should understand that most court users do not know when they can contribute or ask questions;
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

professionals can help to both identify and create opportunities for court users to provide input and
participate. As participants in several focus groups suggested, an orientation for youth and families
could help them both understand the court process and learn when it is appropriate to be actively
involved in the process. The court should also consider creative ways to involve parents that minimize
interruptions in work schedules and to involve victims while ensuring their sense of safety and
minimizing the impact on their time.
Perceptions About Court Professionals

Members of the community focus groups perceived a division in the interests of the juvenile court with
law enforcement, prosecutors, and probation on one side and defense attorneys, CBOs, and youth and
their families on the other. This split is complex. Probation officers have increasingly become brokers
of services and thus are possibly less connected to the youth they supervise. CBOs from one focus
group felt as though probation officers have an interest in youth failing, especially when it confirms an
initial assessment and they are proven right. Regardless of the reasons for the perception of opposing
interests, efforts to improve communication and collaboration between probation and CBOs providing
services to youth on probation should be explored.
Professionals who come into contact with victims need education on victims’ rights. Courts can
explore alternatives to the norm of housing victim services in the district attorney’s office, which can
be limiting for victims. The court can play a more active role in providing victim support, but
limitations, due to possible ex-parte communication, need to be considered. Community groups can
also play a larger role in meeting the needs of victims.
Perceptions of the Juvenile Justice System

The idea that the court and the probation department are seen by youth, parents, and the community as
a setup for youth to fail needs further exploration. Victims also wondered whether the system’s
inability to hold youth accountable perpetuates the offender’s continued failure. It is clear that a
majority of the court users who participated feel that youth do not receive the support and guidance
they need to encourage success, but it is not clear from the focus groups what might change that
thinking. A couple of focus groups made a connection between seeing a desire on the part of the
system for youth to fail and a belief that the main purpose of the court is to employ the professionals
working within it (for example, a sense that if the court is not effective, its existence must be driven by
money). More research focused specifically on understanding why participants feel that the juvenile
justice system sets youth up to fail is needed.
Focus group participants in each study county and among each cohort felt that the juvenile court was
focused on processing cases rather than addressing the root of any problems or taking steps to prevent
further offenses. Court users are in court due to a difficult and stressful moment in their lives. To see
the event handled like just another case appears to send the message that no one is sincerely concerned
about the case.
A general lack of follow-through within the juvenile justice system was mentioned in a number of
focus groups. Such lapses can send messages damaging to the integrity of the court and can undermine
the sanctions and conditions of probation that are in place. Victims feel that a failure to follow through
allows offenders to ignore court orders and the law. It also demonstrates that the capacity of the
juvenile justice system to respond is limited. Finally, it helps to substantiate the belief that the court is
just processing the cases rather than addressing the problems that come before the court.
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

According to the focus group participants, the current way that cases are calendared in the juvenile
court is inefficient for all court users. Each cohort expressed frustration at the time they wasted waiting
for cases to be called. Courts should consider the unintended consequences of calendaring many cases
in large blocks of time. Parents who are under financial pressure are forced to take considerable time
off from work, which may increase the risk of losing their job. As one parent explained, some youth
may be involved in the juvenile justice system because the parents are not at home and are struggling
to put food on the table and improve the well-being of their families. If long hours waiting for court
during working hours cause them to risk being fired, the courts can be seen as yet another force
negatively affecting their lives. Victims also reported spending hours in the halls with youthful
offenders waiting for their cases to be called and not knowing whether they will have an opportunity to
speak. The uncertainty of whether they will be allowed to participate, what will happen in court, and
what it will be like to see the offender, as well as the extensive amounts of time victims have lost
because of the offense, should all be considered when scheduling hearings and granting continuances.
Courts should also make an effort to provide separate waiting areas for victims and to reduce the time
that victims must wait.
Courts should explore alternative ways of calendaring cases that consider the population they serve and
the potential unintended consequences of keeping court users away from their other responsibilities for
long periods of time. Efforts should be made to reduce the likelihood of continuances. Additional
research on the local level may be required to determine common reasons for continuances in the
juvenile court and the best methods for reducing the number of continuances.
It is interesting that in all the focus groups there was only one story of a disposition imposed by a court
that tried to directly teach a youthful offender about the impact of his or her poor decision. For youth,
imposing sanctions for offenses without the offender understanding the impact on the victim does
nothing to help them empathize with the people they have harmed. Victims also expressed a desire to
have youth and their parents understand the impact of the crime. Juvenile courts should explore
practices that provide both opportunities for victims to express the hardship and harm a crime has
created in their lives and opportunities for offenders to understand the impact of their crime on the
victim. The needs of victims should be considered in offering and developing these opportunities. The
impact that crime committed by youth has on the community should also be taken into account.
Victim-offender dialogue or mediation, restorative conferencing, victim impact panels, impact of crime
classes, and victim impact statements are all practices that can address this concern.
Court users in the focus groups reported being unhappy with their experience in the juvenile
delinquency court; the life event that brings people to the court is not usually a positive one. That said,
it is also clear that the experience for most users was less satisfactory than participants felt it needed to
be. A negative experience for youth and parents may make it difficult for them to empathize with the
victim because they feel somewhat mistreated by the system themselves.
Addressing the concerns expressed here would likely improve the satisfaction of all court users as well
as improve court users’ perceptions of the procedural fairness of the delinquency court system. In
addition, being realistic with victims about restitution but also demonstrating an active effort to collect
it could improve victim satisfaction. Regular restitution payments, even small ones, made by the
offender would demonstrate that both the courts and the offenders are making efforts toward
accountability.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

Court users suggested ways to improve the justice system, but more research is required to
comprehensively understand the needs of court users and to find ways to collaboratively improve the
administration of justice. There is recognition among youth, families, victims, and the community that
the courts alone cannot improve the justice system. The court needs to engage with its users on the
local level to understand their needs and to be aware of and connect with resources in the community

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Hon. Ronald M. George
Chief Justice of California and Chair of the Judicial Council
William C. Vickrey
Administrative Director of the Courts
Ronald G. Overholt
Chief Deputy Director
Diane Nunn
Director, Center for Families, Children & the Courts
Charlene Depner
Assistant Division Director, Center for Families, Children & the Courts
Lee Morhar
Assistant Division Director, Center for Families, Children & the Courts
Authorship
Jon Kidde (co-lead author)
Consultant
LaRon Hogg-Haught (co-lead author)
Associate Attorney
Amy Bacharach
Research Analyst
Audrey Fancy
Supervising Attorney
Iona Mara-Drita
Senior Research Analyst
Kimberly Tyda
Research Analyst
Assistance
Jens Zeschky
Administrative Coordinator
CFCC generates and distributes research-based information that has promise for
informing the work of the courts in California and nationwide. To learn more about its
work and to see more Research Updates, visit www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/.
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, California 94102-3688
E-mail: cfcc@jud.ca.gov
Phone: 415-865-7739

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Court Users and Community Members Report

CHAPTER 6
Facilities Report

ResearchUpdate

April 2008

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Facilities
Report
This report covers information about the Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment (JDCA) project and
its findings about court facilities, which include both buildings and operations. The JDCA explored
issues related to court facilities in various ways, including surveys, interviews, focus groups, and a
checklist designed to assess facilities. Some key findings are related to safety and security, protecting
rights, accessibility, and adequate workspace:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Judicial officers should have a separate and secure entrance to the courthouse and courtrooms.
Delinquency courthouses should have a separate waiting area for victims.
Defense attorneys should have access to confidential, separate meeting space to confer with youth
in the courthouse.
Courts should create policies to call cases in a confidential manner.
Courts and justice partners should consider the proximity of the detention center to the courthouse.
Justice partners should have workspace located in or near the courthouse.

The delinquency court has unique needs, which include needs related to due process and safety. These
needs must be addressed when designing new facilities to ensure that justice is served and court users
are encouraged to participate in the system.
Results from all assessment tools used in the JDCA are discussed in the Juvenile Delinquency Court
Assessment 2008. A copy of the surveys and the facilities checklist can be found in chapter 7 of this
volume, Research Instruments.
About the JDCA

“Judicial officers” refers to judges, commissioners, and referees.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Facilities Report

The JDCA marks the first major assessment of California’s delinquency courts. This assessment was
designed to gather and provide information to help improve the juvenile delinquency system by
making recommendations for changes in laws and rules of court; improvements in hearing
management, judicial oversight, court facilities, and other aspects of court operations; caseload
changes; and improvements in court services for all court users. The assessment covered the following
general topics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

The primary mode of investigation was to communicate directly with justice partners and court users.
The JDCA project conducted surveys with all juvenile judicial officers, all court administrators, a
random sample of juvenile probation officers, all juvenile division prosecutors, and all court-appointed
juvenile defense attorneys, including public defenders, alternate public defenders, and contract
attorneys who were identified as handling cases in delinquency court. 2 The JDCA project chose six
counties to study in depth to learn about issues facing delinquency courts: Los Angeles, Placer,
Riverside, San Francisco, San Joaquin, and Siskiyou. These six counties were selected for their size
and geography in order to study a range of California’s local delinquency courts. Interviews were
conducted in each of these study counties with the presiding judge of the juvenile court, the chief
probation officer or the juvenile probation division designee, the managing or supervising juvenile
deputy district attorney and public defender, and court administration staff such as the supervising
juvenile court clerk, court executive officer, or manager. Focus groups were also conducted with
justice partners such as probation officers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, and with court users
such as youth, parents, victims, and community members. An assessment of delinquency court
facilities across the state was also conducted as part of the JDCA project. The ultimate goal of this
project was to improve both the administration of justice and the lives of youth, victims, and other
community members affected by the delinquency system.
About Court Facilities

Court facilities refer to both buildings and operations, and are important to ensuring the effective
administration of justice and respect for justice partners and court users in the delinquency court
system. As California’s Chief Justice, Ronald George, noted,
Buildings are more than mere physical settings. They signal how we value what is
transacted inside. Courts do not need or want ornamentation or ostentation in their
quarters. But courts—and the public—do deserve buildings in which the business of

“Contract attorneys” refer to contract or panel conflict defenders only and does not include attorneys who contract as a
public defender.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Facilities Report

administering justice can be transacted effectively, efficiently, and with appropriate
dignity. 3
The Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002 transferred the responsibility for court facilities from the
counties to the state. The AOC’s Office of Court Construction and Management (OCCM) is
responsible for the planning and design of court facilities. This includes the renovation or replacement
of delinquency court facilities. According to the judicial branch’s Five-Year Infrastructure Plan, 4 14
juvenile delinquency courts (or juvenile delinquency and dependency courts combined) are scheduled
to be remodeled or replaced. 5 These projects have been grouped into five levels of priority: immediate,
critical, high, medium, and low. The prioritization was calculated using a formula created by OCCM,
which includes criteria such as seismic, security, and physical condition needs.
The OCCM set forth standards for building new courthouses, including those specific to juvenile cases.
Some of these standards involve security, courtroom configuration, and waiting areas for law
enforcement and the general public. The California Trial Court Facilities Standards, adopted by the
Judicial Council effective April 2006, govern the design of new court buildings throughout the state. 6
The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges’ Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines 7 also
have standards for facilities that focus on issues unique to delinquency courts such as confidentiality of
cases, 8 the importance of a colocated juvenile hall, and separate waiting areas for victims, youth, and
families.
Having the necessary components of a court facility is essential in creating effective administration of
justice and conveying respect for judicial officers, court justice partners, and court users. As the
judicial branch’s Five-Year Infrastructure Plan notes, “California’s court facilities are in a state of
significant disrepair . . . 90 percent require significant renovation, repair, or maintenance.” As one
example, a courthouse in one of the study counties was without heat for a portion of winter. In some
facilities visited, youth, parents, victims, attorneys, and probation officers must wait together in a
crowded hallway for cases to be called. Many justice partners believe that closed, small spaces
facilitate tension in an already tense environment. Justice partners who previously worked in this type
of space commented that in the new facility there seems to be a “lack of chaos,” which is spacious and
allows for natural light.
Over the course of the JDCA project, court justice partners and court users also weighed in on issues
related to delinquency facilities in surveys, interviews, and focus groups. For example, a survey of
court administrators identified courthouse features that need to be developed or improved in courts

Ronald M. George, Riverside Courthouse Transfer Address, Indio, October 21, 2004.
Judicial Council of Cal., Judicial Branch (AB 1473) Five-Year Infrastructure Plan, Fiscal Year 2008–2009 (2007);
available at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/occm/documents/final_to_dof_5yr_plan_fy0809_07_06_01.pdf.
5
This number includes only juvenile-specific courthouses, or those that hear delinquency only or delinquency and
dependency cases. Other courthouses that hear many case types, including delinquency, (for example, in small counties)
are also scheduled to be remodeled or replaced.
6
Judicial Council of Cal., California Trial Court Facilities Standards (2006); available at
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/occm/documents/06_April_Facilities_Standards-Final-Online.pdf.
7
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in
Juvenile Delinquency Cases (2005); available at http://www.ncjfcj.org/content/view/411/411/ (accessed Feb. 17, 2008).
8
The Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 827 ensures the confidentiality of youth in juvenile court with an exception for youth who
are at least 14 years old and whose offense is listed in Welf. & Inst. Code § 602.
4

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Facilities Report

across the state, and defense attorneys, in response to an open-ended question, pointed out that to be
more effective they need more meeting rooms than are available.
The Facilities Checklist was developed to assess the attributes and needs of delinquency court facilities
related to various issues relevant specifically to delinquency courts. The items on the checklist are
based on issues addressed by the Trial Court Facilities Standards, the planning and design guide from
the National Center for State Courts, 9 the Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines, and the JDCA working
group. The checklist includes items related to transportation, parking, and accessibility; waiting areas;
separate and secure entrances for judges and courthouse staff; safety and security; proximity to the
detention center; and workspace for judges, bailiffs, clerks, attorneys, and probation officers.
Some court attributes are not included on the checklist but were pointed out by justice partners when
visiting facilities. For example, one facility has designated space to provide appropriate clothing in
various sizes for youth who are not in compliance with the court’s dress code. In addition, Government
Code section 15813 states that “California has a responsibility for expanding public experience with
art,” and a tour guide in one facility highlighted the artwork there in reference to the Code. That court
worked to ensure that the art selected would be meaningful to youth. For example, tiles on the floor
have engraved positive quotes from youth and artwork from youth at a local school is also on display.
Court Facilities Findings

Throughout the course of the JDCA project, many courts and justice partners discussed facilities issues
in relation to their impact on court effectiveness, efficiency, safety, and treatment of court users in
surveys, interviews, and focus groups. Additionally, nine delinquency courthouses were visited for indepth tours to complete the Facilities Checklist. These courthouses were chosen based on convenience;
they were not randomly selected. Two of the nine courthouses visited are considered new—built
within the last five years—and exemplify good models of delinquency court facilities based on the
Trial Court Facilities Standards, the Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines, and delinquency court justice
partners. The results of all of the findings related to delinquency facilities are reported in the sections
that follow.
Accessibility

Although all court facilities should be accessible to court users and to the public, delinquency court
facilities have unique needs. For example, many justice partners believe that the detention center, or
juvenile hall, should be in close proximity or adjacent to the courthouse for efficiency and cost
effectiveness. When the detention center is not adjacent, youth must be transported to the courthouse.
The transportation often occurs first thing in the morning, and youth must wait in a holding room for
their cases to be called. Regardless of whether a youth’s case is called immediately or later in the
afternoon, he or she may have to wait in the courthouse for all of the cases to be called before being
transported back to the detention center. This is time that the youth could be spending in school, in a
vocational program, or receiving treatment. In addition, the cost of transporting youth between
facilities can be considerable. In one of the counties visited, the youth are detained in a neighboring
county approximately 50 miles away. In several other counties, youth must be transported by bus from
the detention center to the courthouse. In both of the new delinquency court facilities, a tunnel system
9

D. Hardenbergh, R. Tobin, and C. Yeh, The Courthouse: A Planning and Design Guide for Court Facilities (National
Center for State Courts, 1998).
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Facilities Report

facilitated the quick, secure transfer of youth from the detention center to the adjacent courthouse so
that the youth are missing school for only the time necessary to go to court.
It is also important for delinquency facilities to be accessible by public transportation since some court
users may not have cars. Most of the facilities visited are accessible by public transportation and have
parking available for court users.
An additional factor that may affect accessibility is supervision of younger children when their family
members are in court. Some judicial officers will not allow young children in the courtroom, and
siblings of detained youth need to be supervised while their parents are in court. The Trial Court
Facilities Standards call for “provision of a safe place for children to play while their parents conduct
court business.” In addition, standard 10.24 of the Standards of Judicial Administration states,
Each court should endeavor to provide a children’s waiting room located in the
courthouse for the use of minors under the age of 16 who are present on court premises as
participants or who accompany persons who are participants in court proceedings. The
waiting room should be supervised and open during normal court hours. If a court does
not have sufficient space in the courthouse for a children’s waiting room, the court should
create the necessary space when court facilities are reorganized or remodeled or when
new facilities are constructed.
Only three facilities visited have a supervised children’s waiting room that is safe, secure, and not
accessible to the public. Two of these three facilities are new facilities. In one of the new facilities, the
waiting room is supervised by a court employee and in the other new facility the waiting room is
supervised by the county’s office of education. According to the National Center for State Courts, only
67 courthouses in California have children’s waiting rooms. 10
Safety and Security

The Facilities Checklist includes items related to the safety and security of the courthouse and its
courtrooms. Some items are also discussed in the Trial Court Facilities Standards, such as security and
weapons screening at the front door, security in the courtrooms, and a separate entrance to the
courthouse and courtrooms for judicial officers. These items are relevant to all courthouses. The Trial
Court Facilities Standards point out that access to and from the courthouse must be safe and
convenient. Judicial officers and at-risk court staff should have secure parking adjacent to the
courthouse and public parking must not be beneath the courthouse. In one interview, a juvenile
presiding judge pointed out the fact that judicial officers in that courthouse do not have a separate
entrance to their courtrooms and that they share a parking lot with the public. This same county
courthouse has a courtroom that cannot be used because its window faces the street and does not have
ballistic-resistant glass, which impedes physical safety. 11
Delinquency court justice partners noted that delinquency courts should have a separate waiting area
for victims, a secure holding area for in-custody youth, and a direct, secure path from the holding area
to the courtroom. These points are also addressed in both the Trial Court Facilities Standards and the

National Center for State Courts, “Day Care in the Courts,”
http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/CourTopics/StateLinks.asp?id=22&topic=DayCar#California (accessed Feb. 25, 2008).
11
The AOC has approved funding for the installation of ballistic-resistant glass for this court, and the installation should be
completed soon.
CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Facilities Report

Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines. In only one of the new court facilities is there a separate waiting area
for victims; in the other new facility, as in other facilities visited, the district attorney’s office is used as
a waiting area for victims. In a statewide survey of court administrators, a third of respondents
indicated that a separate waiting area for victims is a feature that needs to be developed or improved.
Forty percent of court administrators also checked as important a waiting room for out-of-custody
youth. In an interview, a member of the court staff at one of the JDCA study counties noted that
“[facilities] need rooms for victims to be separate from minors and their families; it can get very
volatile.”
In some facilities, the only waiting area for out-of-custody youth and their families is the hallway
outside of the courtrooms. This situation does not provide safety or security as offenders, victims,
witnesses, and their families are crowded into the same waiting space. In addition, youth must confer
with their attorneys in this hallway within earshot of the other people waiting. In one facility, court
users wait for cases to be called in the same hallway where people called for jury duty wait, further
hindering safety and security and violating confidentiality, as discussed in the next section.
Only one of the visited facilities has neither a secure holding cell for in-custody youth nor a secure
path to the courtroom; the other eight facilities have both items. Both new facilities have secure
holding cells for in-custody youth as well as secure paths from the holding cells to the courtrooms as
called for in both the Trial Court Facilities Standards and the Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines. All of
the facilities visited have security in the courtroom. Youth are also often shackled for transportation
while en route and in the courtroom. Having a blanket policy of shackling youth, however, was
recently found to be impermissible by two California Courts of Appeal. 12 The opinion noted, “The
juvenile delinquency court may not, as it did here, justify the use of shackles solely on the inadequacy
of the courtroom facilities or the lack of available security personnel to monitor them.”
Protecting Rights

The Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines call for delinquency facilities to have private meeting space for
youth and their counsel. In addition, the Trial Court Facilities Standards note that interview rooms
should be provided for attorneys and clients and for meeting with victims and witnesses. More than
half of the facilities visited do not have a meeting or interview room for out-of-custody youth to meet
with their attorneys. When asked in a survey what the court’s top needs for improvement are, defense
attorneys noted that they need more meeting rooms for their clients. In a separate survey, 36 percent of
court administrators reported that attorney-youth interview rooms need to be developed or improved. A
common practice in courthouses without meeting space is for attorneys to confer with their juvenile
clients as quietly as possible in a potentially crowded hallway or waiting area, which can hinder
confidentiality. In one interview, a member of the court staff noted that “the attorneys are forced to
interview their clients in public space where everyone waits for court.” In another interview in a study
county, a deputy public defender pointed out that “even when located with the detention facility, they
[youth] don’t have appropriate privacy or setting for interviewing. It’s especially hard with mental
health cases or sex offenders.”
An additional way that facilities are not complying with confidentiality laws is in the means used to
call cases into the courtrooms. In eight of the nine facilities visited, youth’s full names are called out
into the waiting area when their cases are ready to be heard. In one of these facilities, the names are
12

See Tiffany A. v. Superior Court (People) (2007) S.O.S. 2524 and In re DeShaun M. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1384.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Facilities Report

broadcast through a speaker into the hallways and the parking lot. One new courthouse has remedied
this by issuing to youth and their families restaurant-style pagers that vibrate when the youth’s case is
ready to be heard. Interpreters, when necessary, also receive a pager for their cases.
Workspace

The Trial Court Facilities Standards point out that “related justice agencies have significant business
each day within the trial court.” Since juvenile prosecutors, public defenders, probation officers, and
interpreters must be in the courtroom on a regular basis, and since victims and witnesses often wait in
the district attorney’s office for their cases to be called, courthouses in which delinquency matters are
heard should have office space in or near the courthouse for these justice partners. More than half of
the facilities visited do not have colocated offices, or offices inside the courthouse. In a few of the
counties, the district attorney’s and public defender’s offices are located across the street from the
courthouse or within a short walking distance. One courthouse assigns a Spanish interpreter to each
courtroom every day, essentially colocating the interpreters. In one new facility all of the juvenile
division justice partners are colocated, and the probation department is adjacent to the courthouse. In
the other new facility, public defenders and interpreters are colocated and prosecutors and probation
officers have “convenience centers” in the courthouse and access to computers in the courtroom.
Several court users and community members in focus groups noted that having a single point of
contact or court liaison to answer questions about their cases would be helpful. One of the two new
facilities has space set aside for information windows at which court users can obtain information. In
addition, out-of-custody youth and their parents can go to these windows for an explanation of court
orders.
Adequate workspace, including computer access, for the courtroom clerk, judge, and probation officer
was also assessed in the facilities visited. A problem in some facilities is a lack of workspace for the
probation officer in the courtroom. Sometimes the probation officer must sit at the prosecutor’s table,
which may exacerbate the stereotype of probation being aligned with the district attorney’s office. In
one of the new facilities, the probation officer has a workstation in the courtroom that includes a
computer on which he or she can access information for the judge, prosecutor, or defense attorney
immediately. The probation officer can also use the computer to access instant minute orders and
reports and can see which cases will be called next so that those parties in attendance can be called
early and the courtroom can manage its calendar efficiently.
Also addressed in the checklist was adequate space at the defense table for the youth, his or her
attorney, parents, and an interpreter. Courts have varying practices and policies regarding where
parents sit in the courtroom. Court justice partners involved in the JDCA project noted that allowing
parents to sit at the attorney’s table with the youth may help the parents to be an active part of the
system and the youth’s rehabilitation. In two of the facilities visited, defense tables allow room for
only the youth and attorney.
Adequate space for an interpreter on the witness stand is important as well. The Trial Court Facilities
Standards specify that witness boxes should be designed to comfortably seat the witness and an
interpreter in addition to accommodating a wheelchair. Two of the facilities visited do not have
adequate physical space in the witness box for an interpreter. Courtrooms should also be sized
adequately to accommodate the youth, his or her family, the victim, his or her support persons, and any

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Facilities Report

witnesses. Two of the facilities visited have courtrooms that are not adequate to accommodate all of
these people.
Conclusion

The quality of the physical setting of facilities can impact operations and effectiveness of the court.
Issues related to accessibility, safety and security, protecting rights, and adequate workspace are
important to consider when designing or remodeling facilities.
When building new facilities, courts should take into consideration the proximity of the detention
center to delinquency court facilities to avoid unnecessary transportation costs and delays and to
eliminate the need for youth to wait for court in holding rooms for several hours. For safety reasons,
they should also have a separate waiting area for victims, a secure holding area for in-custody youth,
and a direct, secure path from the holding area to the courtroom.
Protecting youth’s confidentiality rights is another common concern when evaluating delinquency
facilities and operations. In addition to having confidential meeting space for out-of-custody youth
and their attorneys, delinquency facilities must provide ways to call cases into court in a confidential
way in accordance with the law. One good example is the restaurant-style pager system that one of
the new courthouses utilizes.
Since justice partners such as prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers, and interpreters play
such an integral role in the delinquency system, they should have workspace in or near the
courthouse. This is especially important if victims do not have a safe and separate area and must wait
in the district attorney’s office for their case to be called, and it will reduce delays in these situations.
Other technology issues, such as data exchange, are important areas of study but are beyond the
scope of this report.
According to the judicial branch’s Five-Year Infrastructure Plan, “The state’s court facilities require a
renewed and continuing investment to ensure that they serve the public safely, efficiently, and
effectively, and that they provide equal access to the law and the judicial system.” The unique needs of
delinquency court facilities must continue to be addressed, and the results of the JDCA project point to
a need for facility designs and operations that ensure safety and confidentiality and encourage victims
to participate in court.

CFCCResearchUpdate | Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment: Facilities Report

CHAPTER 7
Research Instruments

2006 CFCC Survey of Juvenile Court
Judges, Commissioners, and Referees

I. BACKGROUND
1. Are you a:

Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court
Judge
Commissioner
Referee

2. In which county is your court? ____________________________________________
3. Which of the following cases do you hear? Please check all that apply.

Juvenile Dependency
Juvenile Delinquency
Juvenile Traffic
Child Support
Family
Probate
Adult Criminal
Adult Traffic
Civil
Other _________________________

If you do not hear dependency or delinquency cases, please complete this
page only and return it in the enclosed envelope or fax to the AOC at
415-865-7217 so that we can correct our records. You do not need to
complete the remainder of this survey. Thank you for your time.
Please call Iona Mara-Drita at 415-865-7563 with any questions.

4. Please skip to Q. 7 if you do not hear dependency cases.
When did you begin this dependency assignment? _________ (month) _______(year)
5. When do you think it will conclude? _________ (month) _______(year)

Indefinite, or at retirement
Do not know

6. Would you choose to continue past the probable end date if you could?

Yes
No
Not sure

7. Please skip to Q.10 if you do not hear delinquency cases.
When did you begin this delinquency assignment? _______(month) _______(year)
8. When do you think it will conclude? _________(month) _______(year)

Indefinite, or at retirement
Do not know

9. Would you choose to continue past the probable end date if you could?

Yes
No
Not sure

10. What is the total amount of time that you have been in:
Dependency assignments: _________ Years _________ Months
Delinquency assignments: _________ Years _________ Months
11. In total, how many years have you been in the following positions, regardless
of case type (please enter 0 for titles that you have not held):
Judge

______ Years

______ Months

Commissioner

______ Years

______ Months

Referee

______ Years

______ Months

12. Apart from judge, commissioner, and referee, what professional roles have you had in
juvenile court matters? Please check all that apply.

None
Child’s attorney in dependency
Child’s attorney in delinquency
Parent’s attorney in dependency
County counsel or city attorney in dependency
Prosecutor in delinquency
Probation Officer
Social Worker
GAL, in dependency
Pro-tem
CASA volunteer
Other _________________________________________________________________________

13. How much of your time do you spend on delinquency and dependency matters? If it
varies significantly, please estimate based on last month.

Dependency
None
Full time
More than 1/2 time, less than full time
About 1/2 time
More than 1/4 time, less than 1/2 time
About 1/4 time
Less than 1/4 time

Delinquency
None
Full time
More than 1/2 time, less than full time
About 1/2 time
More than 1/4 time, less than 1/2 time
About 1/4 time
Less than 1/4 time

14. What types of juvenile court calendars do you regularly hear? Check all that apply.

Dependency
None
General
Detention or Initial
Drug Court (for youth)
Drug Court (for adults)
Mental Health Court
Other ____________________________

Delinquency
None
General
Detention or Initial
Deferred Entry of Judgment
Traffic
Drug Court
Mental Health Court
Domestic Violence
Youth/Peer Court
Other ______________________

II. CROSSOVER PROCESSES IN YOUR COURTROOM
15. Please rate your satisfaction with how your court handles cases involving children who
are moving from one part of the juvenile court to the other by circling the number that
best corresponds to your satisfaction level.
5: Very satisfied, 4: Satisfied, 3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 2: Dissatisfied, 1: Very dissatisfied

The frequency with which probation and child
welfare reach agreements
Information sharing between the two agencies

Information presented to you when agencies’
viewpoints diverge
The appropriateness of the recommendations,
given youth’s offense, strengths, and challenges

16. In addition to public safety and child’s best interest concerns, which of the following are
considerations when deciding on moving youth from one part of the juvenile court to the
other? Please check all that apply.

There is an interruption in services for dependent youth who enter the delinquency
system
Services for youth in the delinquency system are not as extensive as services in the
dependency system
Delinquent youth who cannot be sent home are kept on probation longer than
delinquent youth who can be sent home
Dependent youth with delinquency referrals can lose their ability to return to their
prior placement
None of the above
Other ___________________________________________________________________________

17. When a dependent youth in your court has a delinquency filing, as a rule, are you
assigned to that case as well?

Yes
No
Not applicable

18. When a delinquent youth in your court has a dependency filing, as a rule, are you
assigned to that case as well?

Yes
No
Not applicable

III. EDUCATION AND TRAINING
19. Did you receive specialized training early in your first dependency assignment? Please
check all that apply.

Yes, before I started the assignment
Yes, within one year of starting the assignment
No
Not applicable
Do not recall

20. Did you receive specialized training early in your first delinquency assignment? Please
check all that apply.

Yes, before I started the assignment
Yes, within one year of starting the assignment
No
Not applicable
Do not recall

21. In the last year, about how many hours of specialized training related to juvenile
dependency, juvenile delinquency, or related subjects did you participate in as a
learner? (Note: please exclude hours spent as an instructor.)
____________ hours

Do not know

22. Which, if any, are significant work-related barriers to your attending more trainings?
Check all that apply.

I have no significant work-related barriers to attending trainings
Few juvenile trainings are available in my area
Travel is difficult from my court’s geographical location
Court has trouble covering my time away
Available trainings do not meet my needs
Court budget constraints
Other work-related reasons
If you hear delinquency cases, please continue with the survey.

If you hear dependency, but not delinquency cases, please stop here. You are
done with the survey.
Thank you for the time you have taken to fill out this important survey. Please return
this survey in the enclosed envelope by June 30, 2006. Please call Iona Mara-Drita
at 415-865-7563 with any questions.

For the remainder of this survey, please consider only your delinquency cases.
IV. HEARING MANAGEMENT
23. Please check the description that best suits your courtroom regarding continuances
and other hearing delays. They are:

Not a problem
A minor problem
A moderate problem
A major problem

24. How often do you have enough time to complete your calendar and hear each
case to your satisfaction?

Always or nearly always
Often
Sometimes
Occasionally

Never or rarely
Not applicable

25. What are the top causes of hearing delays in uncontested matters? Please check
the top 3.

Hearings need more than allocated time
Lack of or improper notice
Youth not present
Parent not present
Attorney not present
Attorney not ready
Probation not present
Probation report not available or filed on time
Evaluation reports not available or filed on time
Other reports, persons, or information not available

26. What are the top causes of hearing continuances in contested matters, or trials?
Please check the top 3.
Hearing needs more than allocated time
Lack of or improper notice
Youth not present
Parent not present
Attorney not present
Attorney not ready
Probation not present
Probation report not available or filed on time
Evaluation reports not available or filed on time
Evidentiary information or witness not available
Other reports, persons, or information not available
27. Which factors must be met before you will terminate wardship? Check all that apply.

None. There are no pre-determined standards for dismissal
No recent re-offenses
No recent violations of probation
Community service fulfilled
Restitution fulfilled
Other court-ordered terms fulfilled
Youth able to return home
Other. Please specify __________________________________________________________

V. QUALITY OF INFORMATION AND ADVOCACY
28. Please check the box that best describes your belief about pre-petition diversion (WIC
654, informal probation).

I believe that diversion is over-utilized. Too many matters that should have judicial
oversight do not come to court.
I believe that diversion is underutilized. I dismiss or order informal supervision for a high
number of cases that should not have come to court.
I believe that diversion is utilized appropriately.

29. Please rate your satisfaction with the quality of information in detention/initial hearing
probation reports by circling the number that best corresponds to your satisfaction level.
5: Very satisfied, 4: Satisfied, 3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 2: Dissatisfied, 1: Very dissatisfied
X: Not applicable (I do not receive this information at all)

Prior delinquency record
School attendance and adjustment
Home life
Alcohol and drug use
Parent’s feeling about detaining the youth
Risk assessments
Indian ancestry

5
5
5
5
5
5
5

4
4
4
4
4
4
4

3
3
3
3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

30. Please rate your satisfaction with quality of information in jurisdiction and disposition
hearing probation reports by circling the number that best corresponds to your
satisfaction level.
5: Very satisfied, 4: Satisfied, 3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 2: Dissatisfied, 1: Very dissatisfied
X: Not applicable (I do not receive this information at all)

Prior delinquency record
School attendance and adjustment
Home life
Mental health
Physical health
Alcohol and drug use
Mental health assessments
Risk and needs assessments
IEP
Special needs

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

31. Please rate your satisfaction with the quality of information in probation review reports for
post-disposition probation youth who are at home by circling the number that best
corresponds to your satisfaction level.
5: Very satisfied, 4: Satisfied, 3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 2: Dissatisfied, 1: Very dissatisfied
X: Not applicable (I do not receive this information at all)

Progress in community service, restitution, and fines
Progress in meeting other terms of probation
Provision of court-ordered services
Effectiveness of court-ordered services
School attendance and adjustment
Home life
Mental health
Physical health
Alcohol and drug use
IEP
Special needs

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

32. Please rate your satisfaction with the quality of information in probation review reports for
youth placed in foster or group homes by circling the number that best corresponds to
your satisfaction level.

I do not send youth to that type of facility at all (skip to next question)

5: Very satisfied, 4: Satisfied, 3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 2: Dissatisfied, 1: Very dissatisfied
X: Not applicable (I do not receive this information at all)

Progress in community service, restitution, and fines
Progress in meeting other terms of probation
Suitability to be returned home
Safety of the youth at the placement
Provision of court-ordered services
Effectiveness of court-ordered services
School attendance and adjustment
Connections with family
Mental health
Physical health
Alcohol and drug use
Independent living services
IEP
Special needs

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

33. Please rate your satisfaction with the quality of information in probation review reports
for youth placed in camps and ranches by circling the number that best corresponds to
your satisfaction level.

I do not send youth to that type of facility at all (skip to next question)

5: Very satisfied, 4: Satisfied, 3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 2: Dissatisfied, 1: Very dissatisfied
X: Not applicable (I do not receive this information at all)

Suitability to be returned home
Safety of the youth at the facility
Whether court-ordered services are being provided
Whether services have been effective
School attendance and adjustment
Connections with family
Mental health
Physical health
Alcohol and drug use
Independent living services
IEP
Special needs

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

34. Please rate your satisfaction with the quality of information in status reports for youth
placed at CDCR, DJJ (formerly,CYA) facilities by circling the number that best corresponds
to your satisfaction level.

I do not send youth to that type of facility at all (skip to next question)

5: Very satisfied, 4: Satisfied, 3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 2: Dissatisfied, 1: Very dissatisfied
X: Not applicable (I do not receive this information at all)

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

35. Thinking now about the range of activities that occur post-dispositionally, please rate
your satisfaction with them by circling the number that best corresponds to your
satisfaction level.
5: Very satisfied, 4: Satisfied, 3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 2: Dissatisfied, 1: Very dissatisfied
X: Not applicable (I do not receive this information at all)

The frequency of post-disposition review hearings
for non-placement youth
Probation review reports
Probation visits with youth
Child’s attorney visits with youth
Child’s attorney requests to amend probation terms

5
5
5
5

4
4
4
4

3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1

X
X
X
X

36. How often do probation officers do the following when working with youth for whom
Title IV-E money is drawn?
5: Always or nearly always, 4: Often, 3: Sometimes, 2: Occasionally, 1: Never or rarely
X: Do not know

Involve youth in case plans
Try to locate relatives
Help youth make adult connections
Secure ILP services
Notice tribes when Indian status is in question

5
5
5
5
5

4
4
4
4
4

3
3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1

X
X
X
X
X

37. Please rate your satisfaction with the performance of prosecutors in the following areas
by circling the number that best corresponds to your satisfaction level.
5: Very satisfied, 4: Satisfied, 3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 2: Dissatisfied, 1: Very dissatisfied
X: Not applicable (Prosecutors do not do this at all)

Pre-disposition advocacy
Post-disposition advocacy
Appearing for scheduled hearings
Making sound legal arguments
Being knowledgeable about the facts of the case
Being knowledgeable about the law
Being knowledgeable about community resources
Providing timely discovery
Calling witnesses
Direct examination
Cross examination
Motion practices
Trial briefs

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

38. Please rate your satisfaction with the performance of defense attorneys in the following
areas by circling the number that best corresponds to your satisfaction level.
5: Very satisfied, 4: Satisfied, 3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 2: Dissatisfied, 1: Very dissatisfied
X: Not applicable (Defense attorneys do not do this at all)

Pre-disposition advocacy
Post-disposition advocacy
Conferring with child clients
Visiting child clients
Appearing for scheduled hearings
Making sound legal arguments
Being knowledgeable about the facts of the case
Being knowledgeable about the law
Being knowledgeable about community resources
Providing timely discovery
Calling witnesses
Direct examination
Cross examination
Motion practices
Trial briefs

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

VI. SANCTIONS AND SERVICES
39. Please rate your level of satisfaction with the range of options available to you for
sanctions and services for the following populations by circling the number that best
corresponds to your level of satisfaction.
5: Very satisfied, 4: Satisfied, 3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 2: Dissatisfied, 1: Very dissatisfied
X: Not applicable (I do not have options for these youth at all)

Sanctions for low risk youth
Sanctions for intermediate risk youth
Sanctions for high risk youth
Services for low risk youth
Services for intermediate risk youth
Services for high risk youth

5
5
5
5
5
5

4
4
4
4
4
4

3
3
3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1

X
X
X
X
X
X

40. Please rate your satisfaction with the performance of youth given a disposition of
court-ordered informal probation or DEJ on the following outcomes:

I do not order these dispositions (skip to next question)

5: Very satisfied, 4: Satisfied, 3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 2: Dissatisfied, 1: Very dissatisfied
X: Not applicable (I do not receive this information at all)

Recidivism
Educational progress or improvement
Mental health improvement
Substance abuse improvement
Payment of restitution
Completion of community service

5
5
5
5
5
5

4
4
4
4
4
4

3
3
3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1

X
X
X
X
X
X
11

41. Please rate your satisfaction with the performance of youth given a disposition of
probation with wardship on the following outcomes:

I do not order this disposition (skip to next question)

5: Very satisfied, 4: Satisfied, 3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 2: Dissatisfied, 1: Very dissatisfied
X: Not applicable (I do not receive this information at all)

Recidivism
Educational progress or improvement
Mental health improvement
Substance abuse improvement
Payment of restitution
Completion of community service

5
5
5
5
5
5

4
4
4
4
4
4

3
3
3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1

X
X
X
X
X
X

42. Please rate your satisfaction with the performance of youth given a disposition of
intensive supervision or electronic monitoring on the following outcomes:

I do not order these dispositions (skip to next question)

5: Very satisfied, 4: Satisfied, 3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 2: Dissatisfied, 1: Very dissatisfied
X: Not applicable (I do not receive this information at all)

Recidivism
Educational progress or improvement
Mental health improvement
Substance abuse improvement
Payment of restitution
Completion of community service

5
5
5
5
5
5

4
4
4
4
4
4

3
3
3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1

X
X
X
X
X
X

43. Please rate your satisfaction with the performance of youth given a disposition of
camp, ranch, or private placement on the following outcomes. Note: please consider
only those placements that are located in California.

I do not order this disposition (skip to next question)

5: Very satisfied, 4: Satisfied, 3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 2: Dissatisfied, 1: Very dissatisfied
X: Not applicable (I do not receive this information at all)

Recidivism
Educational progress or improvement
Mental health improvement
Substance abuse improvement
Payment of restitution
Completion of community service

5
5
5
5
5
5

4
4
4
4
4
4

3
3
3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1

X
X
X
X
X
X

44. Please rate your satisfaction with the performance of youth given a disposition of
CDRC-DJJ (formerly CYA) on the following outcomes:

I do not order this disposition (skip to next question)

5: Very satisfied, 4: Satisfied, 3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 2: Dissatisfied, 1: Very dissatisfied
X: Not applicable (I do not receive this information at all)

Recidivism
Educational progress or improvement
Mental health improvement
Substance abuse improvement
Payment of restitution
Completion of community service

5
5
5
5
5
5

4
4
4
4
4
4

3
3
3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1

X
X
X
X
X
X

45. Please rate your satisfaction with the following supervision programs.
5: Very satisfied, 4: Satisfied, 3: Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 2: Dissatisfied, 1: Very dissatisfied
X: Not applicable (We do not have this program at all)

Restorative justice – focused programs
Intensive supervision
Day Reporting Centers
Day Treatment Centers
House Arrest
Short stay in juvenile hall
Foster homes
Group homes
Residential treatment facilities
Camps
Ranches
CDCR, DJJ (formerly CYA) facilities

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

46. Some youth are particularly difficult to match with appropriate supervision, treatment,
and placements. Which are the most difficult to match in your court? Please check all
that apply.

Low risk youthful offenders
Very young children
Youth with troubled home lives
Developmentally delayed youth
Youth with mental health issues
Pregnant girls
Girls
Native American youth
Immigrant youth

Gang youth
Runaways
Beyond control youth
High risk/low need youth
Youth with violent backgrounds
Youth with arson backgrounds
Youth with sex crime backgrounds
Other ___________________________

VII. ASSESSING NEEDS
47. Regarding collaboration, please indicate which activities you would like to see improve
by circling the number that best describes your belief:
3: This activity should happen more often or its quality should be improved
2: We are doing well regarding this activity and it should stay as it is
1: We should engage in this activity less

Meetings of stakeholders in which the courts participate
Meetings of stakeholders without the courts
Court collaborating with the community (e.g., public relations,
programs for youth and victims)
Other agencies collaborating with the community
Court-probation cross-training/briefings on procedures and policies
Training/briefing the court on treatment options
Training/briefing the court on placement options

3
3
3

2
2
2

1
1
1

3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1

48. Please describe the current level of court-stakeholder meetings (with probation, child
welfare, etc.) that you yourself are involved in. Check all that apply.

I meet regularly with other stakeholders
I meet with them on an as-needed basis
I never or rarely meet with them

49. If you meet, what topics do you confer on? Please check all that apply.

Procedure and policy
Supervision, treatment and placement issues (not case specific)
Other, please specify _____________________________________

50. Please rate the court’s working relationship with the following stakeholders by circling the
number that best corresponds to the quality of the working relationship.
5: Very good, 4: Good, 3: Fair, 2: Poor, 1: Very poor
X: Not applicable (the court does not have a working relationship with this group at all)

Probation
Public Defender’s Office
Alternative Public Defender’s Office
District Attorney’s Office
County Mental Health
Child Welfare
Juvenile Hall management
Camps and Ranches management

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

51. Please rate the court’s working relationship with the following stakeholders by circling the
number that best corresponds to the quality of the working relationship.
5: Very good, 4: Good, 3: Fair, 2: Poor, 1: Very poor
X: Not applicable (the court does not have a working relationship with this group at all)
Y: Varies too much to say (e.g., depends on the specific unit, district, etc.)

Law enforcement
School districts
Substance Abuse service providers
Domestic violence service providers

5
5
5
5

4
4
4
4

3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1

X
X
X
X

Y
Y
Y
Y

52. How strongly do you agree that your court needs these system improvements?
5: Agree strongly, 4: Agree, 3: Neither agree not disagree 2: Disagree, 1: Strongly disagree

More time for hearings
More time for pre-hearing preparation
More judicial positions
More research attorneys
More case managers
More probation officers
Improving quality of probation reports
Improving timeliness of probation reports
Improving attorney attendance or performance

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Access/better access to victim-offender mediation
Access/better access to family group conferencing
Access/better access to court volunteers
Access/better access to juvenile drug court
Access/better access to juvenile mental health court
Access/better access to juvenile traffic court
Access/better access to truancy court
Access/better access to youth/peer court
Access to same- or next-day Spanish language
interpreters
Access to same- or next-day interpreters for other
languages

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Improvements in juvenile custody options
Improvements in probation-supervised services
Availability of victim and restitution services

5
5
5

4
4
4

3
3
3

2
2
2

1
1
1

More time and opportunity to collaborate with
probation and other stakeholders
More time and opportunity to meet with community
members
More time and opportunity to visit placements

Improvements in post-disposition reports
Improvements in post-disposition review hearings

5
5

4
4

3
3

2
2

1
1

53. What, do you believe, are the top three strengths of your juvenile court?

54. What, do you believe, are the top three needs for improvement in your juvenile court?

Thank you for filling out the survey.
CFCC truly appreciates the time and effort that you have spent taking this survey. We will
make the results available to you in reports generated by the Juvenile Delinquency Court
Assessment, in other Center publications, and in upcoming trainings.
Please return by September 7, 2006 to:
Iona Mara-Drita
Center for Families, Children & the Courts
Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3660
Iona.Mara-Drita@jud.ca.gov
415-865-7563
Fax: 415-865-7217

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment Project
PART A: 2006 CFCC COURT OPERATIONS SURVEY

Who should complete this survey?
This survey collects data on a wide range of topics concerning the administration of a
California delinquency court, such as technology, hearings, and staffing. The survey
should be filled out by the person who directly oversees the administration of the
delinquency court.
If you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact Amy Bacharach at
CFCC (415-865-7913). Thank you for your participation.
PLEASE SAVE THIS FILLABLE DOCUMENT BEFORE BEGINNING

1. What is your position in the court?
Chief Executive Officer
Clerk of the Court
Court Administrator/Manager
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court
Other: Specify

2. In what county are you located?

3. What is your court’s usual case assignment procedure for delinquency court?
Check all that apply.
Cases are assigned to judicial officers for the duration of the case prior to or at the
time of the initial hearing
Cases are assigned to judicial officers for the duration of the case after the initial
hearing is complete
Different judicial officers handle cases during different stages of the juvenile
proceedings
Other: Specify
Do not know
17

4. Considering all courthouse locations, please check the top 3 delinquency courthouse
features that need to be developed or improved.
Holding cells for in-custody youth
Secure path from holding cell to courtroom
Waiting rooms for out-of-custody youth
Supervised children’s waiting rooms
Juvenile hall that is near or at the courthouse
Attorney-youth interview room
Separate waiting area for victims
Separate waiting area for witnesses
Separate waiting area for youths’ families
Security at the front door
Security inside each courtroom
Video conferencing
Cafeteria or vending machine area
Other: Specify
5. Please indicate how satisfied you are with the following support for the delinquency
court.
Very
satisfied

Satisfied

Neither
satisfied nor
dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Very
dissatisfied

We do not
have this at
all

Number of courtroom
clerks
Number of other clerk’s
office staff
Number of case
managers in courthouse
Number of research
attorneys
Number of bailiffs

6. For the following hearing types, please indicate how hearings are usually scheduled in
your court.
Full-day
block

1/2-day
block

Less than
1/2-day
block

Time-certain
scheduling

Varies too
much to
say

Not
applicable

Detention
Uncontested hearings
Contested hearings
Progress/Status reviews

7. Which of the following court operations tasks are performed or can be performed
using your delinquency case management system? Check all that apply.
Our system is capable
of performing this task

We regularly use the
system to perform
this task

Assigning cases to judicial officers
Scheduling hearings
Flagging hearings that are out of compliance with
timeliness
Producing completed minute orders
Producing blank minute orders to be filled in by hand
Producing DOJ 8716 forms
Producing completed restraining orders
Producing case/daily calendars
Tracking physical location of hard copy files
Other: Specify

8. Which of the following court management statistics are generated or can be
generated using your delinquency case management system? Check all that apply.
Our system is capable
of generating these
statistics

We regularly use our
system to generate
these statistics

Judicial caseload
Judicial findings and orders
Timeliness of hearings
Reasons for continuances
Other: Specify

9. Can judicial officers or their clerks access any of the following automated systems?
Check all that apply.
Juvenile delinquency court case management system
Juvenile dependency court case management system
Criminal court case management system
Child welfare agency system (CWS/CMS)
Local probation department system
County mental health records
Sheriff or other local law enforcement
CLETS restraining order system
Other: Specify

10. How are parents informed that they may be responsible for costs arising out of their
children’s delinquency case (e.g. fines, fees, cost of restitution)? Check all that apply.
Generally they are not informed of these costs
Printed on the petition
The judge tells them
It is in our informational brochures/videos
Another agency (e.g. probation, defense, prosecution) informs them
Other: Specify
Do not know
11. What types of orders are available to parties before they leave the courtroom? Check
all that apply.
Youth

Victim

None
Minute orders
Restraining or stay away orders
Probation conditions
Notice of future hearing
12. How does your court work towards improving customer service for parties involved in
the delinquency process and members of the public? Check all that apply.
The courthouse has a suggestion box and the court routinely reads submissions
We periodically survey the public about their perceptions
We hold public hearings where the public may discuss their concerns
We have a formal grievance procedure that court users can access
We train our court employees on respectfully working with the public
We train our judicial officers on respectfully working with the public
Performance reviews of court staff include the question of customer service
Other: Specify
13. When does your court primarily use each of the following restorative procedures for
resolving issues in juvenile delinquency proceedings? Please choose one timeframe for
each procedure.
Not
available

As
diversion

Before
jurisdiction

Before
disposition

Post
disposition

Do not
Know

Neighborhood
accountability boards
Victim-offender
mediation
Family group
conferencing
Other: Specify

14. Does your court use any of the following collaborative courts for resolving issues in
juvenile delinquency proceedings? Check all that apply.
Drug court
Mental health court
Peer court
Truancy court
Other: Specify
15. Does your court have an informal juvenile traffic court? If so, what kinds of cases does it
handle? Check all that apply.
No, we do not have an informal juvenile traffic court
Traffic, except DUI & felonies
Infractions
Other select misdemeanors
16. In the last year, which of the following types of professionals have heard cases in
informal juvenile traffic court? Check all that apply.
Not applicable; we do not have an informal juvenile traffic court
Judge
Commissioner
Referee
Attorney (who does not have any of the above appointments)
Probation officer
Retired probation officer
Other: Specify
17. When language interpreter services are needed, how often does your court provide
them for the following people?
Nearly
Always or
Always

Often

Sometimes

Occasionally

Never or
Rarely

Don’t know

Youth
Parents/
Guardians
Witnesses
Victims
Other: Specify

18. Please list the top languages (up to 3) for which people coming into the delinquency
courtroom need interpreters. For each language, how long does it take to find an
interpreter when one is needed?
Not applicable; we do not provide interpreter services
Language

Same Day

1-3 work
days

4-5 work
days

More than
a week

Varies too
much to say

19. Please list the top languages (up to 3) for which people coming into the delinquency
courtroom need interpreters. For each language, how often are hearings postponed
because an interpreter is not available?
Not applicable; we do not provide interpreter services
Language

Nearly
Always or
Always

Often

Sometimes

Occasionally

Never or
Rarely

Don’t Know

Crossover Processes
20. How well do you think your current process for handling cases that come within the
jurisdiction of both the juvenile dependency and delinquency courts works to address
the needs of children in your county?
Very well

Somewhat well

Not very well

Not well at all

Don’t know

21. Which of the following problems exist with your W & I 241.1(a) protocol? Check all that
apply.
None
Returning children from probation to the dependency system
Children are kept in delinquency placement longer than necessary
Continuity of services for the child
Continuity of services for the family
Lack of consequences for the child
Lack of probation oversight
Appropriate services for children
Lack of communication/coordination among child welfare, probation, and the
court
Lack of ongoing coordinated case assessment
Net widening (more children entering the delinquency system)
Lack of structured decision making
Lack of consequences for the child
Lack of services oversight
Other: Specify
22. Has your county developed an AB 129 protocol (a written protocol under W & I
241.1(e) permitting a child who meets specified criteria to be designated as both a
dependent child and a ward of the juvenile court)?
Yes (Please stop here, you are finished with the survey)
No (Continue to #23)
23. Has your county engaged in any discussions about implementing an AB 129 (W & I
241.1(e)) protocol?
Yes (Continue to #24)
No (Please stop here, you are finished with the survey )
24. What were the 3 most challenging issues or concerns that arose during those
discussions? Please respond regardless of whether your county has actually developed
a protocol.
Allocation of responsibilities among the court and agencies
General resources (e.g. services, staff)
Allocation of IVE funds
Information sharing
How to identify or screen for appropriate cases
ASFA issues
Determining the most effective model
Net widening (more children entering the delinquency system)
Resistance from one of the parties required to sign off on the protocol
Other: Specify

25. Has your county decided against implementing a protocol, or are discussions
ongoing?
Decided against implementing a protocol (Continue to #26)
Discussions are ongoing (Please stop here, you are finished with the survey )
Other: Specify
26. What is the primary reason your county has decided against implementing a protocol?
Please select one.
Don’t have enough cases to merit creating a protocol
Could not gain buy in from all parties required to sign off on protocol
Could not agree on specifics of how protocol would work
Unsure how protocol would impact other state or federal requirements
Other: Specify

Please return by Friday, September 29, 2006 to:
Amy Bacharach
Center for Families, Children & the Courts
Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3660
Amy.Bacharach@jud.ca.gov
415-865-7913
Fax: 415-865-7217

ID #

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment Project
2007 CFCC Survey of Juvenile Probation Officers

This anonymous survey is part of a project with the Administrative Office of the Courts, Center
for Families, Children & the Courts (CFCC), that is examining how to improve the juvenile court
process. The questions ask about a wide range of topics concerning juvenile probation
officers’ experiences with the juvenile court. Questions should be answered based on your
own, current experience.
If you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact Amy Bacharach at the CFCC
at 415-865-7913 or amy.bacharach@jud.ca.gov. Thank you for your participation.

What is your current role in your county’s juvenile probation department? Check all that
apply.

Intake officer
Investigation officer
Placement officer
Court officer
Supervision/Field officer
DPO at an institution or facility

Manager/Supervisor (with no caseload) of people who work in juvenile probation
Institutional or Facilities (Detention or Commitment) officer with no caseload
Other (Specify): _________________________________________________________________

I do not work in juvenile

ATTENTION:
IF YOU CHECKED A CIRCLE ABOVE, PLEASE COMPLETE THE REMAINDER OF THIS SURVEY.
IF YOU CHECKED A SQUARE, YOU DO NOT NEED TO FILL OUT THIS SURVEY.
PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE ONLY BY MAIL OR FAX TO 415-865-7217 TO THE ATTENTION OF
AMY BACHARACH SO THAT WE CAN CORRECT OUR RECORDS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.

DEPARTMENT AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1.

In which county do you work? _______________________________________________________

What types of caseloads do you have? Check all that apply.

Not applicable; I do not supervise
General caseload
Placement
Informal supervision
Intensive supervision

_______Months

For how long have you been in juvenile assignments?
Current assignment: _______Years

_______Months

Total in your career:

_______Months

_______Years

Where would you like to be in 2 years?

Drug court
Family preservation
Gangs
Sex offenders
Other (Specify): _____________________

For how long have you been in probation in any capacity?
_______Years

In the juvenile division
Another division of the probation department
Working outside of probation
Out of the workforce
Other (Specify): ______________________________________________________________
Do not know

Under what circumstances do you expect to leave the juvenile division? Check only 1.

I expect to remain in the juvenile division
I will request to leave the juvenile division
I will be re-assigned
I will leave probation (e.g., for another position or to leave the workforce)
Do not know

Approximately how much time do you spend doing each of the following?
Rarely/
Never
0%-5%

6%-35%

Sometimes
36%-65%

Often
66%-95%

Nearly
Always/
Always
96%-100%

Occasionally

Preparing court reports

Preparing review reports

Supervising youth in the community

Supervising youth in camps/ranches

Supervising youth in placement

Attending court

Coordinating services or programs
(e.g., education liaison, aftercare)

Providing victim services

Other (Specify):

In the space below, please indicate the top 3 things you enjoy about your juvenile
assignment.

In the space below, please indicate the top 3 things you would change about your
juvenile assignment.

SANCTIONS AND SERVICES
10.

Please rate your satisfaction with the effectiveness of the following options available to
youth and victims.
5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 1=Very dissatisfied;
X=Not available at all; Y=Not applicable to my role, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

11.

Restitution collection

Victim-offender mediation

Neighborhood/Youth Accountability
Boards

Family group conferencing

Please rate your satisfaction with the range of options available to you for sanctions and
services for the following populations.
5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 1=Very dissatisfied;
X=Not available at all; Y=Not applicable to my role, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

12.

Sanctions for low risk youth

Sanctions for intermediate risk youth

Sanctions for high risk youth

Services for low risk youth

Services for intermediate risk youth

Services for high risk youth

Please rate your satisfaction with the effectiveness of the following sanction options
available to youth.
5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 1=Very dissatisfied;
X=Not available at all; Y=Not applicable to my role, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

Counsel & dismiss

Informal supervision

Community service

Home on probation

Electronic monitoring

Placement

Camps/Ranches

CDCR, DJJ (formerly CYA)

Other (Specify):

13.

Please rate your satisfaction with the effectiveness of the following services available to
youth.
5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 1=Very dissatisfied;
X=Not available at all; Y=Not applicable to my role, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

Outpatient substance abuse programs

Drug testing

Mental health services

Independent living programs

Anger management programs

After school programs

Parent education

Wraparound

Community or youth service centers

Other (Specify):

14.

Please rate your satisfaction with the effectiveness of the following collaborative court
options available to youth.
5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 1=Very dissatisfied;
X=Not available at all; Y=Not applicable to my role, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

Drug court for youth

Mental Health court for youth

Truancy court

Peer, Teen, or Youth court (affiliated
with the court)
Other (Specify):

15.

Please rate your satisfaction with the following types of formal assessments (those that
include a standardized instrument and scoring method, e.g., MAYSI).
5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 1=Very dissatisfied;
X=Not available at all; Y=Not applicable to my role, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

Assessments used to determine youth’s
risk to the community
Assessments used to determine youth’s
risk to themselves
Assessments used to determine youth’s
service needs

16.

What types of re-entry or aftercare services do you provide? Check all that apply.

Not applicable to my role
None
Anger management referral
Family counseling referral
Housing referral
Independent living skills referral
Job training referral

Mental health services referral
Substance abuse referral
Mentoring referral
Parent education referral
Record sealing assistance
School enrollment assistance
Other (Specify): _______________________

CROSSOVER PROCESSES
17.

In the delinquency system, do you see youth with any of the following characteristics?
Check all that apply.

18.

Youth who lack a suitable home or family to which they can go home on probation
or return upon completion of probation
Dependent youth charged with offenses related to their placement (e.g. acting out
in a group home)
Youth who have parents with substance abuse problems
Youth who have parents with mental health problems
I have not encountered youth with these issues

If you see youth with any of the above characteristics, what difficulties, if any, do you face
in serving these youth? Check all that apply.

Not applicable; I have not encountered youth with any of the above characteristics
Finding suitable placement
Holding youth with these particular issues appropriately accountable
Holding parents accountable for their children's behavior/getting parents to
cooperate with case plans
Finding a mechanism to return youth to the dependency system upon completion of
probation (where appropriate)
I don’t face any particular difficulties serving these youth

COURT PROCESSES
19.

Please indicate in what capacity you personally work with victims. Check all that apply.

Not applicable; I do not work with victims
I notice victims of hearings
I explain the court process to victims
I organize offender work repayment programs
I recommend restitution and an amount to the court
I explain the process of collecting restitution
I refer victims to available services (e.g., victim-offender mediation)
Other (Specify): _________________________________________________________________

20.

Please rate your working relationship with the following stakeholders.
5=Very good; 4=Good; 3=Fair; 2=Poor; 1=Very poor; X=Stakeholder not available at all;
Y=Not applicable to my role, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

21.

The court

Probation–juvenile hall

Probation–camps and ranches

Public Defender’s Office

Alternative Public Defender’s Office

Contract or panel attorneys

District Attorney’s Office

County Mental Health

Child Welfare

Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following.
5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 1=Very dissatisfied;
X= Not applicable to my role, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

The amount of time you spend preparing court
reports or social studies
The amount of time you spend preparing
court-ordered parte reviews (e.g., DEJ, drug
test results)
The amount of time you spend preparing
legally mandated reviews (e.g., placement,
IV-E)

The number of times you are generally
required to attend court (if you are not a court
officer)

How well you are trained to testify

The time it takes the DA’s office to file a
petition or notify you of their decision not to file
a petition
The number of hours you wait for court
hearings in one day
The number of hearing continuances

22.

Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following when in court.

Not applicable; I do not go to court
5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 1=Very dissatisfied;
X =Not applicable to my role, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

23.

Weight given by the court to probation
recommendations

Prosecutors’ handling of cases

Defense attorneys’ handling of cases

How you are treated by the court

How you are treated by the prosecutor

How you are treated by defense attorneys

In your opinion, how big of a problem are continuances and other hearing delays in your
county’s juvenile court?

24.

Not a problem
A minor problem
A moderate problem
A major problem
Do not know

What are the top causes of hearing delays in uncontested matters? Check the top 3.

Hearings need more than allocated time
Lack of or improper notice
Youth not present
Parent not present
Prosecutor not present
Prosecutor not ready
Defense attorney not present
Defense attorney not ready
Probation not present
Probation report not available or filed on time
Evaluation reports not available or filed on time
Other reports, persons, or information not available

25.

What are work-related challenges to writing reports or reviews in the time allotted? Check
all that apply.

26.

Youth are informed about court-related matters by probation, attorneys, and the court.
What information do you think is conveyed well to youth? Check all that apply.

27.

Not applicable; I do not write reports or reviews
Report writing takes too much time away from other responsibilities
Not notified by the court in time
Cannot interview the youth in time
Cannot interview parents/guardians
Cannot obtain risk or needs assessment results
Cannot obtain necessary information from school in time
Cannot obtain necessary information from mental health in time
Cannot obtain necessary information from placements in time
Cannot obtain necessary court-ordered evaluations in time
Other (Specify): _________________________________________________________________

The general court process
What to expect at court hearings
Possible outcomes
Ramifications of a plea
Financial obligations
Process for paying restitution
Youth’s responsibilities while on probation
Record sealing
Other (Specify): _________________________________________________________________

What information do you think is conveyed well to parents/guardians? Check all that apply.

The general court process
What to expect at court hearings
Possible outcomes
Ramifications of a plea
Financial obligations
Process for paying restitution
Parents’/guardians’ responsibilities while on probation
Youth’s responsibilities while on probation
Record sealing
Other (Specify): _________________________________________________________________

28.

In the space below, please list the top 3 strengths of the juvenile court.

29.

In the space below, please list the juvenile court’s top 3 needs for improvement.

30.

In the space below, please list the top 3 ways the court could help probation be more
effective.

Thank you for participating. CFCC truly appreciates the time and effort that you have spent
taking this survey. We will make the results available to you in reports generated by the Juvenile
Delinquency Court Assessment, in other CFCC publications, and in upcoming trainings.
Please return survey by April 13, 2007 to
Dr. Amy Bacharach
Administrative Office of the Courts
Center for Families, Children & the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3660
Amy.Bacharach@jud.ca.gov
Phone: 415-865-7913; Fax: 415-865-7217
34

ID #

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment Project
2007 CFCC Survey of Juvenile Prosecutors

This anonymous survey is part of a project of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for
Families, Children & the Courts (CFCC), that is examining how to improve the juvenile court
process. The questions ask about a wide range of topics concerning juvenile prosecutors’
experiences with the juvenile court. Questions should be answered based on your own,
current experience.
If you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact Amy Bacharach at the CFCC
at 415-865-7913 or amy.bacharach@jud.ca.gov. Thank you for your participation.

What is your current role in your county’s district attorney’s office? Check all that apply.

Administrative/Supervisor and I handle juvenile cases
I handle juvenile cases only

Administrative/Supervisor only
I do not work in juvenile

ATTENTION:
IF YOU CHECKED A CIRCLE ABOVE PLEASE COMPLETE THE REMAINDER OF THIS SURVEY. IF YOU
HANDLE BOTH ADULT AND JUVENILE CASES, PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS SURVEY BASED ONLY ON
YOUR JUVENILE CASES.
IF YOU CHECKED A SQUARE, YOU DO NOT NEED TO FILL OUT THIS SURVEY.
PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE ONLY BY MAIL OR FAX TO 415-865-7217 TO THE ATTENTION OF
AMY BACHARACH SO THAT WE CAN CORRECT OUR RECORDS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.

DEPARTMENT AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1.

In which county do you work? _______________________________________________________

What types of juvenile cases do you handle? Check all that apply.

General
Gangs
Sex offenders
Truancy
Mental Health court
Drug court
Informal Juvenile and Traffic court
Other (Specify): ______________________________________________________________

In what year did you pass the bar? _______________________

In what year did you first become a prosecutor? _______________________

For how long have you been in juvenile assignments?

Current assignment: _______Years

_______Months

Total in your career:

_______Months

How much of your time do you spend in delinquency or doing delinquency-related work?

_______Years

Full time
More than 1/2 time, less than full time
About 1/2 time
More than 1/4 time, less than 1/2 time
About 1/4 time
Less than 1/4 time

Apart from prosecutor, what professional roles have you had in juvenile court matters?

Check all that apply.

None
Defense attorney
Child’s attorney in dependency
Parent’s attorney in dependency
County counsel or city attorney in dependency
Probation officer
Social Worker
Pro-tem
CASA volunteer
Other (Specify): ______________________________________________________________

Where would you like to be in 2 years? Check only 1.

The juvenile division of the DA’s office
Another division of the DA’s office
Practicing in another public office
Practicing in the private sector
Working as a judicial officer
Out of the workforce
Other (Specify): ______________________________________________________________
Do not know

Under what circumstances do you expect to leave the juvenile division? Check only 1.

I expect to remain in the juvenile division
My predetermined rotation length will be complete
I will request a different assignment
I will be re-assigned; we do not have predetermined rotations
I will leave the DA’s office (e.g., for another position or to leave the workforce)
Do not know

10.

In the space below, please indicate the top 3 things you enjoy about your juvenile
assignment.

11.

In the space below, please indicate the top 3 things you would change about your
juvenile assignment.

SANCTIONS AND SERVICES
12.

Please rate your satisfaction with the effectiveness of the following outcomes for youth and
victims.
5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 1=Very dissatisfied;
X=Not available at all; Y=Not applicable, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

13.

Restitution collection

Victim-offender mediation
Neighborhood/Youth Accountability
Boards
Family group conferencing

Please rate your satisfaction with the range of options available to you for sanctions and
services for the following populations.
5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 1=Very dissatisfied;
X=Not available at all; Y=Not applicable, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

14.

Sanctions for low risk youth

Sanctions for intermediate risk youth

Sanctions for high risk youth

Services for low risk youth

Services for intermediate risk youth

Services for high risk youth

Please rate your satisfaction with the effectiveness of the following sanction options
available to youth.
5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 1=Very dissatisfied;
X=Not available at all; Y=Not applicable, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

Counsel & dismiss

Informal supervision

Community service

Home on probation

Electronic monitoring

Placement

Camps/Ranches

CDCR, DJJ (formerly CYA)
Other (Specify):

15.

Please rate your satisfaction with the effectiveness of the following services available to
youth.
5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 1=Very dissatisfied;
X=Not available at all; Y=Not applicable, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

16.

Outpatient substance abuse programs

Drug testing

Mental health services

Independent living programs

Anger management programs

After school programs

Parent education

Wraparound

Community or youth service centers
Other (Specify):

Please rate your satisfaction with the effectiveness of the following collaborative court
options available to youth.
5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 1=Very dissatisfied;
X=Not available at all; Y=Not applicable, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

17.

Drug court for youth

Mental Health court for youth

Truancy court
Peer, Teen, or Youth court (affiliated
with the court)
Other (Specify):

Please rate your satisfaction with the following types of formal assessments (those that
include a standardized instrument and scoring method, e.g., MAYSI).
5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 1=Very dissatisfied;
X=Not available at all; Y=Not applicable, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

Assessments used to determine youth’s
risk to the community
Assessments used to determine youth’s
risk to themselves
Assessments used to determine youth’s
service needs

CROSSOVER PROCESSES
18.

In the delinquency system, do you see youth with any of the following characteristics?
Check all that apply.

19.

If you see youth with any of the above characteristics, what difficulties, if any, does the
delinquency system face in serving these youth? Check all that apply.

Not applicable; I have not encountered youth with any of the above characteristics
Finding suitable placement
Holding youth with these particular issues appropriately accountable
Holding parents accountable for their children's behavior/getting parents to
cooperate with case plans
Finding a mechanism to return youth to the dependency system upon completion of
probation (where appropriate)
The delinquency system doesn’t face any particular difficulties serving these youth

COURT PROCESSES
20.

Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following when in court.
5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 1=Very dissatisfied;
X=Not applicable, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

Weight given by the court to my arguments

Probation officers’ handling of cases

Defense attorneys’ handling of cases

How you are treated by the court

How you are treated by probation

How you are treated by defense attorneys

21.

Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following.
5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 1=Very dissatisfied;
X=Not applicable, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

The timeliness with which affidavits alleging
delinquent acts are brought to you by
probation
The amount of time available for preparing
cases
The number of hours you wait for court
hearings in one day
The number of hearing continuances

22.

Not a problem
A minor problem
A moderate problem
A major problem
Do not know

What are the top causes of hearing delays in uncontested matters? Check the top 3.

24.

In your opinion, how big of a problem are continuances and other hearing delays in your
county’s juvenile court? Check only 1.

23.

Please indicate in what capacity you personally work with victims. Check all that apply.

I do not work with victims at all
I notice victims of hearings
I explain the court process to victims
I explain the process of collecting restitution
I take statements from victims
I prepare victims for testifying
I refer victims to available services (e.g., victim-offender mediation)
Other (Specify): _________________________________________________________________

25.

Please rate your working relationship with the following stakeholders.
5=Very good; 4=Good; 3=Fair; 2=Poor; 1=Very poor; X=Stakeholder not available at all;
Y=Not applicable, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

The court

Probation–juvenile division

Probation–juvenile hall

Probation–camps and ranches

Public Defender’s Office

Alternative Public Defender’s Office

Contract or panel attorneys

District Attorney’s Office–other divisions

County Mental Health

Child Welfare

26.

In the space below, please list the top 3 strengths of the juvenile court.

27.

In the space below, please list the juvenile court’s top 3 needs for improvement.

28.

In the space below, please list the top 3 ways the court could help the DA’s office be more
effective.

Thank you for participating. CFCC truly appreciates the time and effort that you have spent
taking this survey. We will make the results available to you in reports generated by the Juvenile
Delinquency Court Assessment, in other CFCC publications, and in upcoming trainings.
Please return survey by April 19, 2007 to
Dr. Amy Bacharach
Administrative Office of the Courts
Center for Families, Children & the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3660
Amy.Bacharach@jud.ca.gov
Phone: 415-865-7913; Fax: 415-865-7217

ID #

Juvenile Delinquency Court Assessment Project
2007 CFCC Survey of Juvenile Defense Attorneys

This anonymous survey is part of a project of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for
Families, Children & the Courts (CFCC), that is examining how to improve the juvenile court
process. The questions ask about a wide range of topics concerning juvenile defense
attorneys’ experiences with the juvenile court. Questions should be answered based on your
own, current experience.
If you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact Amy Bacharach at the CFCC
at 415-865-7913 or amy.bacharach@jud.ca.gov. Thank you for your participation.

What is your current role in your county? Check all that apply.

I handle juvenile cases in the county’s public defender’s office
I contract with the county as the county’s public defender
I handle juvenile cases in the county’s alternate public defender’s office
I handle conflict juvenile cases on a contract basis

Administrative/Supervisor only; Do not handle cases at all
I do not work in juvenile court at all

ATTENTION:
IF YOU CHECKED A CIRCLE ABOVE PLEASE COMPLETE THE REMAINDER OF THIS SURVEY. IF YOU
HANDLE BOTH ADULT AND JUVENILE CASES, PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS SURVEY BASED ONLY ON
YOUR JUVENILE CASES.
IF YOU CHECKED A SQUARE ONLY, YOU DO NOT NEED TO FILL OUT THIS SURVEY.
PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE ONLY BY MAIL OR FAX TO 415-865-7217 TO THE ATTENTION OF
AMY BACHARACH SO THAT WE CAN CORRECT OUR RECORDS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.

DEPARTMENT AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1.

In which county do you work? _______________________________________________________
Note: If you work in more than 1 county, please answer this survey based on the county in
which the majority of your cases are.
45

What types of juvenile cases do you handle? Check all that apply.

General
Gangs
Sex offenders
Truancy
Mental Health court
Drug court
Informal Juvenile and Traffic court
Other (Specify): ______________________________________________________________

In what year did you pass the bar? _______________________

In what year did you first become a defense attorney? _______________________

For how long have you been handling juvenile cases?

Total in your career:

_______Years

_______Months

Current PD or APD assignment:

_______Years

_______Months

Current, as a contractor:

_______Years

_______Months

How much of your time do you spend in delinquency or doing delinquency-related work?

Full time
More than 1/2 time, less than full time
About 1/2 time
More than 1/4 time, less than 1/2 time
About 1/4 time
Less than 1/4 time

Apart from defense attorney, what professional roles have you had in juvenile court
matters? Check all that apply.

None
Prosecutor
Child’s attorney in dependency
Parent’s attorney in dependency
County counsel or city attorney in dependency
Probation officer
Social Worker
Pro-tem
CASA volunteer
Other (Specify): ______________________________________________________________

Where would you like to be in 2 years? Check only 1.

The juvenile division of a public defense office (e.g., PD or APD)
Handling juvenile cases in a private setting
Other public sector work
Other private sector work
Working as a judicial officer
Out of the workforce
Other (Specify): ______________________________________________________________
Do not know

If you work in the public defender’s or alternate public defender’s office, under what
circumstances do you expect to leave your current juvenile assignment? Check only 1.

I do not work in the public defender’s or alternate public defender’s office
I expect to remain in the juvenile division
My predetermined rotation length will be complete
I will request a different assignment
I will be re-assigned; we do not have predetermined rotations
I will leave the public defender’s or alternate public defender’s office (e.g., for
another position or to leave the workforce)
Do not know

10.

In the space below, please indicate the top 3 things you enjoy about handling juvenile
cases.

11.

In the space below, please indicate the top 3 things you would change about handling
juvenile cases.

SANCTIONS AND SERVICES
12.

Please rate your satisfaction with the effectiveness of the following outcomes available to
youth and victims.
5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 1=Very dissatisfied;
X=Not available at all; Y=Not applicable, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

13.

Restitution collection

Victim-offender mediation
Neighborhood/Youth Accountability
Boards
Family group conferencing

Please rate your satisfaction with the range of disposition options available for sanctions
and services for the following populations.
5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 1=Very dissatisfied;
X=Not available at all; Y=Not applicable, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

14.

Sanctions for low risk youth

Sanctions for intermediate risk youth

Sanctions for high risk youth

Services for low risk youth

Services for intermediate risk youth

Services for high risk youth

Please rate your satisfaction with the effectiveness of the following sanction options
available to youth.
5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 1=Very dissatisfied;
X=Not available at all; Y=Not applicable, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

Counsel & dismiss

Informal supervision

Community service

Home on probation

Electronic monitoring

Placement

Camps/Ranches

CDCR, DJJ (formerly CYA)
Other (Specify):

15.

Please rate your satisfaction with the effectiveness of the following services available to
youth.
5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 1=Very dissatisfied;
X=Not available at all; Y=Not applicable, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

16.

Outpatient substance abuse programs

Drug testing

Mental health services

Independent living programs

Anger management programs

After school programs

Parent education

Wraparound

Community or youth service centers
Other (Specify):

Please rate your satisfaction with the effectiveness of the following collaborative court
options available to youth.
5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 1=Very dissatisfied;
X=Not available at all; Y=Not applicable, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

17.

Drug court for youth

Mental Health court for youth

Domestic Violence court for youth

Truancy court
Peer, Teen, or Youth court (affiliated
with the court)
Other (Specify):

Please rate your satisfaction with the following types of formal assessments (those that
include a standardized instrument and scoring method, e.g., MAYSI, RAI).
5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 1=Very dissatisfied;
X=Not available at all; Y=Not applicable, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

Assessments used to determine youth’s
risk to the community
Assessments used to determine youth’s
risk to themselves
Assessments used to determine youth’s
service needs

CROSSOVER PROCESSES
18.

In the delinquency system, do you see youth with any of the following characteristics?
Check all that apply.

19.

Youth who lack a suitable home or family to which they can go home on probation
or return upon completion of probation
Dependent youth charged with offenses related to their placement (e.g., acting out
in a group home)
Youth who have parents with substance abuse problems
Youth who have parents with mental health problems
I have not encountered youth with these issues

If you see youth with any of the above characteristics, what difficulties, if any, does the
delinquency system face in serving these youth? Check all that apply.

Not applicable; I have not encountered youth with any of the above characteristics
Finding suitable placement
Holding youth with these particular issues appropriately accountable
Holding parents accountable for their children's behavior/getting parents to
cooperate with case plans
Finding a mechanism to return youth to the dependency system upon completion of
probation (where appropriate)
The delinquency system doesn’t face any particular difficulties serving these youth

COURT PROCESSES
20.

Weight given by the court to my arguments

Probation officers’ handling of cases

Prosecutors’ handling of cases

How you are treated by the court

How you are treated by probation

How you are treated by prosecutors

21.

In your opinion, how big of a problem are continuances and other hearing delays in your
county’s juvenile court? Check only 1.

22.

What are the top causes of hearing delays in uncontested matters? Check the top 3.

23.

Not a problem
A minor problem
A moderate problem
A major problem
Do not know

Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following.
5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 1=Very dissatisfied;
X=Not applicable, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

The timeliness with which you receive reports
and reviews by probation
The amount of time available for preparing
cases

The number of hours you wait for court
hearings in one day

The number of hearing continuances

The adequacy of time available for meeting
with clients
The adequacy of the location available for
meeting with clients

The frequency of post-disposition review
hearings for non-placement youth
The amount of time available to meet with
clients postdispositionally

24.

How often do you or a designee (e.g., social worker, paralegal) do each of the following
after the disposition hearing?
Occasionally

6%-35%

Sometimes
36%-65%

Often
66%-95%

Nearly
Always/
Always
96%-100%

Rarely/
Never
0%-5%

Appear at review hearings (e.g.,
placement, restitution)
Represent client on violation of
probation hearings
Represent client on new petitions
Provide client with information to
contact me
Maintain contact with client via
phone or e–mail
Maintain contact with client’s
probation officer via phone or
e–mail
Visit client
Review probation conditions and
treatment plan with client
Keep track of implementation of
plan
Calendar hearings to modify
probation conditions or treatment
plan
Inform client of record sealing
process
Assist clients or former clients with
record sealing process
Advocate for clients’ interests
beyond the scope of the juvenile
proceedings (e.g., IEP, immigration)

25.

Has the implementation of Rule 1479 (now Rule 5.663) in 2004 changed the way you (you,
your agency, or your firm) work for youth postdispositionally?

I am not aware of Rule 1479
Not applicable; I did not handle juvenile cases before 2004
Yes, I do more postdispositional work now
Yes, I do less postdispositional work now
No, the level of postdispositional work has stayed the same

26.

What are any obstacles to working with clients postdispositionally? Check all that apply.

27.

There are no obstacles
I don’t believe it is my responsibility
My office does not believe it is my responsibility
Lack of communication of my office’s expectations
Lack of communication of court’s expectations
Lack of funding allocated for postdisposition period
Lack of time available to follow up
Lack of other resources available to follow up
Other (Specify): _________________________________________________________________

Please rate your satisfaction with the information you are able to obtain about youth given
the following dispositions.
5=Very satisfied; 4=Satisfied; 3=Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 2=Dissatisfied; 1=Very dissatisfied;
X=Not applicable, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

28.

Home on probation

Placement

Camps/Ranches

Foster or Group homes

CDCR, DJJ (formerly CYA)

Please rate your working relationship with the following stakeholders.
5=Very good; 4=Good; 3=Fair; 2=Poor; 1=Very poor; X=Stakeholder not available at all;
Y=Not applicable, do not know, or do not have enough experience to answer

The court

Probation–juvenile division

Probation–juvenile hall

Probation–camps and ranches
Public Defender’s Office (other
divisions if you work in the public
defender’s office)
Alternate Public Defender’s Office
(other divisions if you work in the
alternate public defender’s office)
Contract or panel attorneys

District Attorney’s Office

County Mental Health

Child Welfare

29.

Youth are informed about court-related matters by probation, attorneys, and the court.
What information do you think is conveyed well to youth? Check all that apply.

30.

What information do you think is conveyed well to parents/guardians? Check all that apply.

31.

In the space below, please list the top 3 strengths of the juvenile court.

32.

In the space below, please list the juvenile court’s top 3 needs for improvement.

33.

In the space below, please list the top 3 ways the court could help juvenile defense
attorneys office be more effective.

Thank you for participating. CFCC truly appreciates the time and effort that you have spent
taking this survey. We will make the results available to you in reports generated by the Juvenile
Delinquency Court Assessment, in other CFCC publications, and in upcoming trainings.
Please return survey by May 22, 2007 to
Dr. Amy Bacharach
Administrative Office of the Courts
Center for Families, Children & the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3660
Amy.Bacharach@jud.ca.gov
Phone: 415-865-7913; Fax: 415-865-7217

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY COURTHOUSE FACILITIES CHECKLIST
PAGE 1

NAME OF TOURER

DATE OF TOUR

COUNTY

CITY
ADDRESS OR NAME
OF FACILITY

YEAR FACILITY BUILT

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY COURTHOUSE FACILITIES CHECKLIST
PAGE 2
COURTHOUSE ITEM

YES
9

NO
9

DNK
9

COMMENTS
adequacy, special concerns, etc.

Public Transportation available

Parking available

Building wheelchair accessible

Security at front door

Waiting room or lobby for out-ofcustody youth and their families
Supervised children’s waiting
rooms
Separate waiting rooms for
witnesses
Separate waiting rooms for victims

Public restrooms

Separate entrance to courthouse
for judges
Separate entrance to courthouse
for courthouse staff (including
co-located people)
Separate entrance to courthouse
for personnel (not co-located)
Separate entrance to courtroom
for judges
Separate entrance to courtroom
for courthouse staff (including
co-located people)
Separate entrance to courtroom
for personnel (not co-located)

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY COURTHOUSE FACILITIES CHECKLIST
PAGE 3
COURTHOUSE ITEM

YES
9

NO
9

DNK
9

COMMENTS
adequacy, special concerns, etc.

Secure restrooms for personnel

Security in courtroom
Detention Center adjacent to
Courthouse
Secure holding cell for in-custody
youth in Courthouse
Direct, secure path from holding
cell to courtroom
Separate and secure holding cell
for in-custody adults
Witness stand wheelchair
accessible
Adequate physical space for
interpreter on witness stand
Enough space at table for attorney,
youth, interpreter, and parent
Adequate work space and
computer for courtroom clerk
Adequate workspace and computer
for judge
Adequate space and location for
bailiff
Adequate workspace and location
for probation officer
Adequate number of
meeting/conference rooms
Separate interview rooms for incustody youth and attorneys or
probation
Separate interview rooms for outof-custody youth and attorneys or
probation
59

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY COURTHOUSE FACILITIES CHECKLIST
PAGE 4
COURTHOUSE ITEM

YES
9

NO
9

DNK
9

COMMENTS
adequacy, special concerns, etc.
(e.g. Dependency, Family, Criminal)

Other types of cases heard in same
building as delinquency court
Adequate number of courtrooms
for courthouse/county
Courtrooms adequate size
Confidential way of calling cases,
witnesses, etc.

(Hours of operation?)

Juvenile Clerk’s office easily
accessible to public
Records storage area

Cafeteria/Vending area

Videoconferencing

Office/Work space (including computer access) for the following people:

YES
Colocated

Drop in

Colocated

Drop in

Colocated

Drop in

Colocated

Drop in

Colocated

Drop in

Colocated

Drop in

DNK

COMMENTS

Probation Officers

Defense attorneys

Prosecutors

Interpreters

Bailiff

Other (Specify)