|
|
Juvenile Justice: Representation Rates Varied As Did Counsel's Impact on
Court Outcomes
(Letter Report, 06/19/95, GAO/GGD-95-139).
Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed juveniles' access to
counsel in state and local juvenile delinquency proceedings, focusing
on: (1) juveniles' right to counsel under 15 states' laws; (2) the
frequency with which juveniles have counsel in juvenile courts in 3
states; (3) the likely impact of counsel on juvenile justice outcomes;
(4) juveniles' access to counsel in adult courts; and (5) the quality of
counsel juveniles receive.
GAO found that: (1) the 15 states reviewed had laws guaranteeing
juveniles' right to counsel in delinquency proceedings which included
provisions for indigent juveniles; (2) 11 states specified the
circumstances under which juveniles could waive their right to counsel
and in 3 states, juveniles could waive their right to counsel although
statutes did not specifically provide for such waivers; (3) juvenile
representation rates varied between 97 percent to 65 percent and between
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas; (4) the impact of counsel on
case outcomes varied by the state and offense, but in 2 states,
juveniles without representation were less likely to receive out-of-home
placements; (5) differences in case outcomes between represented and
nonrepresented juveniles were due more to other variables than to
juveniles' representation status; (6) although there was no existing
data on juveniles' access to counsel in adult courts, state laws provide
for such representation; and (7) prosecutors and juvenile justice
officials were generally satisfied with the quality of counsel juvenile
offenders received and believed that public defenders were at least as
capable as private attorneys, although they had excessive caseloads and
limited resources.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-95-139
TITLE: Juvenile Justice: Representation Rates Varied As Did
Counsel's Impact on Court Outcomes
DATE: 06/19/95
SUBJECT: Juvenile status offenders
Courtroom proceedings
State law
Right to counsel
Right to due process
Lawyers
Juvenile delinquency
IDENTIFIER: California
Pennsylvania
Nebraska
Arizona
Florida
Maryland
Missouri
South Carolina
Utah
Idaho
Kansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
New York
Texas
Ohio
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed product. *
* *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble *
* those in the printed version. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, and the
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunity, House of
Representatives
June 1995
JUVENILE JUSTICE - REPRESENTATION
RATES VARIED AS DID COUNSEL'S
IMPACT ON COURT OUTCOMES
GAO/GGD-95-139
Juvenile Justice
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
DHRS - Department of Health and Rehabilitation Services
DJJ - Department of Juvenile Justice
DJS - Department of Juvenile Services
MSA - Metropolitan Statistical Area
NJCDA - National Juvenile Court Data Archive
NCJJ - National Center for Juvenile Justice
OJJDP - Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention
PMSA - Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area
SAS - Statistical Analysis System
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-259801
June 19, 1995
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
Chairman
The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
The Honorable William F. Goodling
Chairman
The Honorable William L. Clay
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunity
House of Representatives
The 1992 reauthorization (P.L. 102-586) of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-415) mandated that we
study access to counsel in state and local juvenile delinquency
proceedings. Some legal organizations and scholars had raised
concern about the access to counsel afforded to juveniles in juvenile
court proceedings. For example, the American Bar Association; the
Consortium of Children, Families and the Law; and individual law
professors testified in September 1992 to Congress that half of all
juveniles in the United States waive their constitutionally
guaranteed right to counsel without speaking to an attorney.
To meet our legislative requirements, we agreed with your committees
to
review state laws for 15 states that we selected to determine
juveniles' right to counsel,
determine the frequency with which juveniles have counsel in
juvenile courts in three states,
determine the likely impact of counsel on juvenile justice
outcomes,
determine if juveniles who are in adult court have counsel, and
develop insights regarding the quality of counsel.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
Statutes guaranteeing juveniles' right to counsel in delinquency
proceedings were present in the 15 states whose laws we examined.
For juveniles who could not provide counsel on their own, the states
had provisions to provide and compensate counsel for them. Of the 15
states, 11 had laws allowing the waiver of counsel under certain
circumstances but generally had rules to ensure that waivers were
made only when juveniles were aware of their right and voluntarily
gave up that right. According to officials in three other states,
juveniles can waive counsel even though the state statutes do not
specifically address the waiver issue. In the remaining state,
juveniles could not waive counsel.
We could find no national data regarding juveniles' representation by
counsel. However, the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ)\1
had such data for some jurisdictions, and we analyzed its data for
available counties in California, Pennsylvania, and Nebraska for
portions of 1990 and 1991. The results only relate to the
jurisdictions for which we were able to obtain data and therefore
cannot be generalized to other jurisdictions within these states.
Throughout this report, our references to the states apply only to
the counties in the states for which we have data.
Overall representation rates varied widely, from about 97 and about
91 percent, respectively, in California and Pennsylvania to
about 65 percent in Nebraska, and within the states the rates
varied between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.\2
Representation rates by offense category (e.g., violent crimes,
property crimes, drug crimes, etc.) varied, with minimal
variation in California and Pennsylvania (about 83 to almost 100
percent) across all categories and a wider variation across
categories in Nebraska (about 54 to 91 percent); however, 76
percent of all unrepresented cases in Nebraska were for less
serious property offenses.
Overall impact of representation on case outcomes varied according to
the state and the offense category. Sometimes juveniles with
representation were more likely to have their cases adjudicated as
delinquent (i.e., judged to be a delinquent)\3 and sometimes those
without representation were more likely to be adjudicated as
delinquent. In most cases, juveniles without representation were
less likely to receive out-of-home placements (e.g., training
school).
According to our logistic regression\4 models for California,
Nebraska, and Pennsylvania, unrepresented juveniles were generally
about as likely to have their cases adjudicated than represented
juveniles, but characteristics other than representation (e.g.,
detention prior to adjudication and prior offense history) were more
strongly associated with the likelihood of adjudication.
According to our models for placement outcomes for the three states,
juveniles' characteristics other than representation (e.g., detention
prior to adjudication or prior offense history) were more strongly
associated with placement decisions.
We could not locate any databases to determine if juveniles in adult
court had counsel or to compare access to counsel for juveniles in
adult and juvenile court. However, on the basis of our review of
criminal law, juveniles in adult court have the same right to counsel
as adults. In addition, our survey of prosecutors indicated that
juveniles in adult and juvenile court were given the same opportunity
as adults to be represented. (We could not determine the extent to
which juveniles waived their right to counsel in adult court.)
Prosecutors and juvenile justice officials in the eight local
jurisdictions we visited were generally favorable concerning the
quality of counsel provided to juveniles. They also reported that
public defenders were seen to be at least as capable as private
attorneys in representing juveniles, and several officials noted that
public defenders were more knowledgeable in the laws and rules
governing juvenile proceedings. However, these officials noted that
while public defenders had the most experience in juvenile law and
procedures, they also had very high caseloads. These officials
raised concerns over the limited resources and growing caseloads of
public defenders.
--------------------
\1 NCJJ, located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is the research
division of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
\2 NCJJ data from California contained only metropolitan counties.
\3 A delinquent is a youth who has been charged with or had a case
adjudicated for criminal conduct.
\4 Logistic regression analysis is a widely accepted statistical
methodology used when the dependent variable is qualitative, such as
if a juvenile is adjudicated as delinquent. Regression analysis
identifies relationships between the dependent variable and two or
more key variables, such as the use of counsel and the juvenile
offender's current offense category and prior offense history and
supervisory status.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Juvenile justice is primarily the responsibility of state and local
authorities because juvenile courts derive their authority from state
legislatures. The juvenile courts of all 50 states are part of their
states' judicial system but are generally county or city based and
vary in structure, policy, and procedure. Thus, juvenile courts'
jurisdiction and procedures vary widely across and within states.
Appendix I illustrates differences in profiles of the juvenile
justice processes in nine states.\5
--------------------
\5 Arizona, California, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Utah.
MAJOR ELEMENTS OF JUVENILE
COURT PROCEDURE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.1
When juveniles commit crimes, they are usually subject to the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court as a delinquent offender.
Referrals of delinquents come to juvenile court from many sources,
including parents, police officers, victims, and schools. Law
enforcement agencies provide the vast majority of referrals to
juvenile courts. The Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) reported in 1991 that law
enforcement agencies referred 85 percent of all delinquency cases to
the courts.
Referrals generally come to the court's intake department to be
screened by intake staff.\6 The intake staff examine the referral to
determine what type of crime is alleged to have been committed and
how to proceed with the handling of the referral. The intake
decision process has several potential outcomes. Among other things,
intake staff may decide to dismiss the case for insufficient legal
evidence or to resolve the matter informally out of court.\7 These
informal dispositions may include diverting the juvenile to a social
agency for services,\8
informal probation, or the payment of fines or some form of
restitution.
If intake staff decide that the referral should be handled formally,
a petition is drafted and filed to provide notice of the issues that
will be adjudicated. The petition charges the juvenile with a
delinquency offense violation and requests an adjudicatory or waiver
hearing. In some states, petitions may be dismissed before the
actual adjudicatory hearing\9 is held for various reasons, such as
when the case is not viewed by court officials as a particularly
serious offense. For example, in Pennsylvania, less serious
petitioned cases may be disposed of by consent decrees--informal
adjustments\10 without an adjudicatory hearing.
At an adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile may have his or her case
adjudicated, i.e., judged as delinquent and, if so, the case proceeds
to a disposition hearing.\11 The judge is responsible for presiding
over the hearing, including determining placement of the juvenile
during the pending proceedings, making any interim orders that are
necessary to the conduct of the case, and deciding the disposition of
the case if there has been a finding of delinquency. The range of
disposition options available to the juvenile court judge generally
includes (1) commitment to an institution; (2) placement in a group
home or other residential facility; (3) probation; (4) referral to an
outside agency or mental health program; or (5) imposition of a fine,
community service, or restitution order.
A juvenile may be temporarily placed in a detention facility during
various stages of a case as it progresses through the juvenile
justice system. Generally, juveniles alleged to be delinquent may be
placed in secure custody in a physically restrictive facility.
Depending on the state's detention laws, the juvenile may be detained
to protect the community, the juvenile, or both. In addition,
detention may be used to ensure the juvenile's appearance at a
hearing or while the juvenile is awaiting long-term placement in
another facility. A judicial decision to detain or continue
detention may occur before or after adjudication or disposition.
OJJDP estimated that in 1991 juveniles were held in detention
facilities between the time of referral and case disposition in about
20 percent of the 1.3 million delinquency cases.\12
--------------------
\6 We obtained the information in this section from various sources,
such as documents and discussions with juvenile justice officials.
\7 Besides insufficient legal evidence, a referral may be dismissed
because (1) the offense is petty or seen as a low risk, (2) the
referral is a first offense, and the level of its seriousness does
not merit formal consideration, (3) the juvenile and his/her family
have reimbursed a victim for damages, (4) formal processing is seen
as unnecessary, (5) or because family strengths are prominent and the
juvenile is perceived to be responsive to parental controls and
discipline.
\8 Diversion programs were designed to remove first-time offenders
and relatively minor offenders from the formal adjudication process.
To meet the treatment needs of those juveniles, most of whom have not
faced previous juvenile court adjudication, a variety of
community-based programs and agencies have been created.
\9 A hearing where a judge presides over a juvenile court proceeding
to determine if the juvenile actually committed the alleged offense.
\10 The juvenile and the court agree to suspend the case with the
juvenile remaining at home under probation conditions for up to 6
months.
\11 Juveniles can also be adjudicated as status offenders. Juveniles
who have come in contact with the juvenile justice system by
committing an offense (such as running away or truancy) that would
not be a crime if committed by an adult are status offenders. Our
review focused on delinquents and did not include status offenders.
For more information on status offenders, see our report entitled
Noncriminal Juveniles: Detentions Have Been Reduced but Better
Monitoring Is Needed (GAO/GGD-91-65, Apr. 24, 1991).
\12 At the time of our review, 1991 was the most recent data
available.
ROLE OF COUNSEL IN JUVENILE
COURT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.2
Historically, juvenile delinquents subject to the jurisdiction of
juvenile court were not afforded the same constitutional rights
guaranteed to adult criminal defendants. However, in 1967 the U.S.
Supreme Court held that juvenile offenders were entitled to the
assistance of counsel in certain juvenile delinquency proceedings, In
re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).\13 In Gault, the Supreme Court
concluded that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
requires that in proceedings to determine delinquency (e.g.,
adjudication hearings) that may result in commitment to an
institution in which the juvenile's freedom is curtailed, the
juvenile and his or her parents must be notified of the juvenile's
right to be represented by counsel. The Supreme Court also indicated
that if the juvenile and his or her parents could not afford counsel,
counsel must be appointed to represent the juvenile.
With regard to the waiver of counsel, the Supreme Court indicated in
Gault that waiver must be an "intentional relinquishment or
abandonment of a fully known right." The Supreme Court also stated
that the juvenile and his or her parents have a right expressly to be
advised that they may retain counsel. If they are unable to afford
counsel, they are entitled, considering the seriousness of the charge
and the potential commitment, to be appointed counsel. However, they
can choose to waive counsel.
Currently, there are three major approaches to the provision of
defense counsel in juvenile courts:
public defenders, which include private attorneys or law firms
under contract with or granted funds by a governmental entity to
defend juveniles; private agencies, such as legal aid societies
under similar contracts or grants; and government defender
agencies;
private attorneys appointed by the court to represent individual
juveniles and paid from public funds; and
privately paid attorneys.
--------------------
\13 In an earlier case, the U.S. Supreme Court indicated that a
juvenile was entitled to the assistance of counsel in a proceeding to
determine whether the juvenile's case should be waived to the
jurisdiction of the criminal court. Kent v. United States, 383 U.S.
541, 561-62 (1966).
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
To aid us in identifying the issues regarding access to counsel, we
reviewed relevant literature in bibliographies provided by NCJJ and
OJJDP. We developed information on juveniles' rights and access to
counsel through a combination of methods, including (1) an analysis
of statutes, state administrative procedures, and case law in 15
states;\14 (2) an analysis of NCJJ statistical data on 3 states;\15
(3) nationwide surveys of county prosecutors and public defenders;
(4) telephone interviews with selected state and local judges in
Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Texas, and Utah; and (5) visits to four states--Florida, Louisiana,
Pennsylvania, and Utah--to meet with juvenile justice officials to
understand the processes and frequency of when counsel was provided.
We completed our statistical analysis of NCJJ data in two parts.
First, using seven general crime categories (see table 1.), we
developed statistics on case processing outcomes for certain counties
in California, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania for calendar years 1990 and
1991.\16 Specifically, we reported the percentages of juveniles
petitioned to court who received counsel. Second, we computed and
analyzed the probabilities that juveniles with counsel and without
counsel were adjudicated or placed. We analyzed these two decision
points because the Gault ruling focused on these key decisions in
which juveniles were at risk of losing their liberty.
Juvenile facilities are not all the same. For example, facilities
vary in degrees of security. Data were not readily available to
differentiate between types of placement juveniles received or the
security of the facility. Therefore, our analysis only recognized
that the juveniles were either placed or not placed. Also, the data
identified represented and unrepresented juveniles who were
adjudicated as delinquents. However, data were not readily available
to identify those who were represented but during the process had
their charges reduced (e.g., from aggravated to simple assault).
Therefore, our analysis of the data may not recognize the impact of
being represented in terms of impact on reduction in charges.
Table 1
Crime Categories and Types
Crime categories Crime types
------------------ ----------------------------------------
Violent crimes Murder and nonnegiligent manslaughter;
rape; robbery; aggravated assault; other
violent crimes, which include negligent
manslaughter, sexual assault,
kidnapping, and others but excludes
simple assault; and indeterminate
violent offenses (i.e., the crime was a
violent crime, but the type of violent
crime was not known).
Property crimes Burglary, fraud, forgery, and
embezzlement; larceny; motor vehicle
theft; unspecified larceny; other
property (e.g., trespassing and
vandalism); indeterminate property
(i.e., the crime was a property offense,
but the type of property offense was not
known).
Simple assault Generally an attack without a weapon
resulting in minor injury.
Drug crimes Possession, trafficking, and other or
unspecified drug crime.
Weapons Unlawful sale, manufacture,
transportation, distribution, or
possession.
Public order or Disorderly conduct, escape, obstruction
nonviolent crimes of justice, and other public order
crimes (e.g., prostitution).
Indeterminate Crime type not known.
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Definitions of crime types included in the six broader crime
categories may vary across states. Further, certain specific crime
types are excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction in some states,
e.g., murder in Pennsylvania.
Source: Derived from Uniform Crime Report crime classifications,
NCJJ offense categories, and state definitions of crimes.
Because case characteristics, in addition to representation, may
affect case outcomes, we developed logistic regression models to
control for these characteristics. We looked at the relationships
between the type of counsel (i.e., public defender, court-appointed
attorney, or private attorney) in juvenile delinquency proceedings
and key decision points--adjudicated and placed--in the juvenile
judicial process controlling for a number of relevant variables. We
estimated the models separately for the 3 states for up to 10 crime
types yielding 24 adjudication and 24 placement models.
The variables we controlled for in our logistic regression models
measured three types of case characteristics: (1) demographic
variables, such as age, race, and gender; (2) offense-related
variables, such as current crime type, the severity of the current
crime type, and offense history; and (3) juvenile court-status
variables, such as detention prior to adjudication; source of
referral; informal adjustments prior to adjudication; representation
by counsel and the type of counsel representing the case, location of
the courts, and length of time to dispose of a case. See appendix
III for a discussion on how we classified crime types and the
variables used in the models.
Also, to better understand the underlying processes, we developed
profiles of the juvenile justice systems in nine states. We
coordinated our work with OJJDP, NCJJ, the American Bar Association,
the National Legal Aid Defenders' Association, and the Coalition for
Juvenile Justice. Appendix II provides a more detailed discussion of
our objectives, scope, and methodology, including the basis that we
used to select states and identify officials. The details of the
modeling procedures as well as of the results are discussed in
appendix III.
The data we developed, including the results of our interviews with
juvenile justice officials, are not projectable to other locations.
We did our work from March 1993 through November 1994 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Since no
federal agency has responsibility for the issues discussed in this
report, we did not obtain comments on a draft of this report.
However, we did discuss our results with NCJJ and OJJDP officials
and, where appropriate, incorporated their comments.
--------------------
\14 Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland,
Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Utah, and Texas.
\15 The three states are California, Pennsylvania and Nebraska. The
statistical data for all three states were somewhat limited.
California's data only included five counties, albeit five of the
largest counties in the state that represented 40 percent of the
state's juvenile population between ages 10 and 17. Pennsylvania's
data were for 1991 only and did not include Philadelphia county, the
most heavily populated county in the state. Philadelphia county
accounted for about one-third of all petitioned cases in
Pennsylvania; however, Philadelphia petitions all cases to juvenile
court. In the other counties, petitioned cases are limited to the
more serious ones. Therefore, Philadelphia's data are not comparable
with the rest of the counties. In Nebraska, one of the largest
counties' data did not consistently indicate whether juveniles had
representation at the adjudication hearing. However a state official
estimated that about 75 percent of juveniles in this county had
representation when they appeared before a judge at an adjudication
hearing.
\16 In considering the relative severity of crimes, we considered
classes of crimes, such as violent or property, rather than specific
types of crimes within a class or specific offense behaviors within a
type of crime. Therefore, we considered violent crimes as the most
serious class of crimes, followed by property crimes, drug crimes,
simple assault, weapons, and public order. Because we could not
determine what classes of crimes fell into the indeterminate
category, we did not consider it in the ranking of offense severity.
JUVENILES' RIGHT TO COUNSEL CAN
BE WAIVED IN MOST STATES WE
REVIEWED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
To determine juveniles' right to counsel, including the process that
juveniles can use to waive their right to counsel and the provision
of counsel for indigent juveniles, we reviewed the statutes, case
law, and state administrative rules of the court in 15 states.\17
(See app. IV for a table summarizing the state laws.) We found that
each of the 15 states had provisions that provide juveniles charged
with delinquent offenses the right to counsel. Further, most of the
states permitted juveniles, or their parents or guardians, to waive
their right to counsel under certain circumstances.
--------------------
\17 Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland,
Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Texas, and Utah.
JUVENILES' ACCESS TO COUNSEL
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
Each of the states had provisions that provided juveniles access to
counsel. However, the 15 states differed on details of how counsel
is to be provided.\18 See appendix IV for additional information on
juveniles' access to counsel.
--------------------
\18 These provisions go beyond the specific requirements of the Gault
decision, which only dealt with a juvenile's right to counsel at an
adjudication hearing.
JUVENILES' RIGHT TO WAIVE
COUNSEL
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
Eleven of the 15 state statutes that we reviewed specifically
outlined circumstances and procedures under which juveniles or their
parents or guardians could waive the right to counsel. In general,
the waiver had to be knowing and voluntary, i.e., an "intentional
relinquishment or abandonment of a fully known right." In the four
remaining state statutes, waiver was not specifically addressed. In
three of these four states, juveniles can waive counsel. In the
remaining state, juveniles cannot waive counsel.
Eleven states had specific requirements for how the waiver of counsel
was to occur. For example, in Arizona, the waiver had to be in
writing or in the minutes of the courts and could be withdrawn at
anytime. In Florida, even if there is a waiver of counsel, the offer
of counsel must be renewed at subsequent stages during the
proceedings. In Idaho, a juvenile may waive counsel if he or she
does so "intelligently," and the court determines that the best
interest of the juvenile does not require the appointment of counsel.
In Louisiana, the juvenile may waive counsel only after consulting
with an attorney or other adult interested in the juvenile's welfare.
In Missouri, a juvenile may waive counsel only with the approval of
the court. In Pennsylvania, only the juvenile's parent or guardian
can waive the right to counsel on behalf of the juvenile. New York
and Texas only allow waiver under certain circumstances. In New
York, a juvenile can waive counsel only after a law guardian has been
appointed and the court holds a hearing. In Texas, a juvenile cannot
waive counsel at certain proceedings, such as an adjudication hearing
or a disposition hearing.
In four states, the statues did not address waiver. In Kansas, the
statute does not specifically address waiver, but a recent state
Attorney General opinion concluded that juveniles can waive their
right to counsel if it is a "knowing and intelligent waiver." In Utah
and Nebraska, the state law was silent on waiver of counsel by
juveniles. However, Utah and Nebraska officials told us that
juveniles are allowed to waive counsel in these states. In New
Mexico, the state statute requires that juveniles be represented at
all stages of the proceedings. State officials told us that
juveniles are not given the option of waiving counsel.
REPRESENTATION RATES VARIED IN
THREE STATES MORE WITH
GEOGRAPHY THAN WITH OFFENSE
SEVERITY OR OFFENSE HISTORY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
We analyzed cases petitioned to juvenile courts in certain
California, Pennsylvania, and Nebraska counties. Our analysis showed
that the percentage of cases in which juveniles had counsel (1)
varied among the states, (2) varied with the location of the court
within states, and (3) varied somewhat across offense categories or
with offense history within the states.
REPRESENTATION RATES VARIED
AMONG STATES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1
Table 2 shows, for the six major crime categories and the
indeterminable crime category, the number of petitioned delinquency
cases disposed of in 1990 and 1991 for California and Nebraska, and
in 1991 for Pennsylvania. Using the data from table 2, we computed
the percentage of petitioned cases in which juveniles had counsel.
Table 3 shows that the percentage of petitioned cases represented by
counsel varied among states. In California, about 97 percent of the
juveniles were represented. In Pennsylvania, juveniles were
represented in about 91 percent of the petitioned cases. In
Nebraska, juveniles were represented in about 65 percent of the
petitioned cases. In addition, table 3 shows that, for each major
crime category, the percentage of petitioned cases represented was
lowest in Nebraska. For example, about 90 percent of juveniles in
Nebraska referred for violent offenses were represented, as compared
with almost 100 percent in California and 94 percent in Pennsylvania.
Table 2
Number of Cases Petitioned to Juvenile
Court for Calendar Years 1990 and 1991
Pennsylvan
Type of offenses California ia Nebraska
------------------------ ---------- ---------- ----------
All offenses, overall 60,710 14,584 4,507
Violent offenses 12,930 3,087 163
Property offenses 25,962 7,864 3,208
Drug offenses 6,846 963 112
Simple assault 3,529 1,440 396
Weapons offenses 3,474 153 85
Public order or other 7,105 624 85
nonviolent offenses
Indeterminate offenses 864 453 458
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Data were available for five counties in California, which
represented 40 percent of the juvenile population between ages 10 and
17. According to an NCJJ official, the Pennsylvania data, which were
only for 1991, excluded cases from Philadelphia because Philadelphia
petitions all cases, not just the more serious cases, to juvenile
court. According to a Nebraska official, data were not available on
representation rates in one of the state's larger counties. We also
omitted these cases from our analysis. However, he added that an
estimated 75 percent of the juveniles were represented at
adjudication hearings in that county. These limitations apply to all
results using California, Pennsylvania, and Nebraska data. Table 1
and appendix III provides information on the specific types of crimes
falling into each offense category in each state. The figures in
this table were computed after excluding cases in which the type of
counsel was missing in the database. In California, this amounted to
5 percent of 64,275 cases; in Pennsylvania 5 percent of the 15,397
cases; in Nebraska 18 percent of the 6,603 cases.
Source: GAO analysis of NCJJ data.
Table 3
Percentage of Petitioned Cases
Represented by Counsel, by State for
Calendar Years 1990 and 1991
Pennsylvan
Type of offenses California ia Nebraska
------------------------ ---------- ---------- ----------
All offenses, combined 97.2 90.6 64.9
Violent offenses 99.7 94.0 90.2
Property offenses 98.8 88.9 62.6
Drug offenses 99.4 96.4 80.4
Simple assault 98.7 89.4 75.0
Weapons offenses 99.4 90.8 90.6
Public order or other 82.7 86.2 71.8
nonviolent offenses
Indeterminate offenses 98.6 94.3 54.1
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: See note to table 2.
Source: GAO analysis of NCJJ data.
Our results were consistent with studies conducted by Barry C.
Feld\19 and Dean J. Champion,\20 which showed that the rates of
representation varied among states. Feld analyzed the representation
rates in cases disposed of in juvenile court in 1984 for California,
New York, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Nebraska, and North Dakota. He
found that between 85 percent and 95 percent of juveniles were
represented in the large, urban states--Pennsylvania, California, and
New York. By contrast, he found that between 37.5 percent and 52.7
percent of juveniles were represented in the midwestern
states--Minnesota, Nebraska, and North Dakota.
Champion analyzed juveniles' representation rates in California,
Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Montana, and Nebraska between 1980 and
1989. He found wide variation in representation rates among the
states. In California, the representation rates increased from 82
percent to 91 percent between 1980 and 1989. Over the same period,
in Pennsylvania, the percentage represented increased from 55 percent
to 85 percent. Conversely, in Nebraska and North Dakota, the
representation rates varied between 40 percent and 50 percent over
the 1980 to 1989 period.
In another study which analyzed Missouri's juvenile justice system,
the authors found that youths in urban localities were more likely to
be represented by counsel, regardless of their race. When
controlling for factors such as prior criminal history and
demographic characteristics, representation by counsel remained a
significant factor in predicting both detention and petition in rural
jurisdictions, and a significant factor in detention, petition, and
adjudication in urban jurisdictions.\21
We did not evaluate these studies, including any limitations they may
have.
--------------------
\19 Barry C. Feld, "In Re Gault Revisited: A Cross-State Comparison
of the Right to Counsel in Juvenile Court," Crime and Delinquency,
Vol. 34, No. 4, Oct. 1988: pp. 393-424.
\20 Dean J. Champion, Changing Involvement of Counsel by Juveniles
in Five States, 1980 to 1989: A Longitudinal Analysis, Pittsburgh,
PA, National Center for Juvenile Justice, Oct. 15, 1992.
\21 Kimberly Kempf, Scott Decker, and Robert Bing, An Analysis of
Apparent Disparities in the Handling of Black Youth within Missouri's
Juvenile Justice Systems: Technical Report. University of
Missouri-St. Louis, Nov. 1990.
REPRESENTATION RATES VARIED
WIDELY WITH LOCATION OF THE
COURT WITHIN STATES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2
While each of the three states guaranteed juveniles the right to
counsel and permitted them, their parents, or guardian to waive their
right, in practice juveniles were more likely to be unrepresented in
courts located in nonmetropolitan counties than in metropolitan
counties.\22 Table 4 shows the representation rates for Nebraska and
Pennsylvania by metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties.\23
Table 4
Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan County
Representation Rates for Cases
Petitioned to Juvenile Court in
Pennsylvania and Nebraska
Number of Percent of Number of Percent of Rate of
juveniles petitioned juveniles unrepresented juveniles
State petitioned juveniles unrepresented juveniles unrepresented
------- ------------ ------------ ------------- ------------- -------------
Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All 14,584 100.0% 1,374 100.0% 9.4
cases
Metropo 12,717 87.2 1,017 74.0 8.0
litan
Nonmetr 1,867 12.8 357 26.0 19.1
opolit
an
Nebraska
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All 4,449\a 100.0 1,559 100.0 35.0
cases
Metropo 2,034 45.7 240 15.4 11.8
litan
Nonmetr 2,415 54.3 1,319 84.6 54.6
opolit
an
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: See note to table 2.
\a Excludes 58 cases (1.3 percent of total) that were missing values
on variables used in the analysis.
Source: Our analysis of NCJJ data.
In Pennsylvania, about 13 percent of the 14,584 juvenile court
proceedings occurred in nonmetropolitan counties, but 26 percent of
the cases involving juveniles without counsel occurred in
nonmetropolitan counties. In metropolitan counties, 8 percent of all
juveniles were unrepresented, as compared with about 19 percent who
were unrepresented in nonmetropolitan counties. Therefore, juveniles
were more than twice as likely to go without representation in
nonmetropolitan counties as in metropolitan counties in Pennsylvania
(about 19 percent compared with 8 percent).
In Nebraska, more than half of the 4,449 juvenile court proceedings
were disposed in nonmetropolitan counties.\24
However, about 85 percent of all unrepresented juveniles lived in
nonmetropolitan counties. In metropolitan counties about 12 percent
of juveniles were unrepresented. By contrast, in nonmetropolitan
counties about 55 percent of juveniles were unrepresented.
Therefore, juveniles in nonmetropolitan counties were more than 4
times as likely to go unrepresented as those in metropolitan
counties.
In California, our data for the 60,710 juvenile cases came from 5
metropolitan counties. Nevertheless, two of the five counties
accounted for all of the unrepresented juveniles. In the other three
counties, no juveniles were unrepresented. In the two counties
containing the unrepresented juveniles, the percentage of juveniles
unrepresented was about 2 and 18.
Our findings on the variability in representation rates across
nonmetropolitan and metropolitan court settings within states are
consistent with Feld's study of representation in juvenile cases
disposed in 1986 in Minnesota.\25 He found 63 percent of petitioned
juvenile cases in metropolitan counties were represented by counsel,
but only 25 percent of petitioned juvenile cases in nonmetropolitan
counties had representation. He attributed these differences to the
procedural formality and due process orientation of metropolitan
courts as compared with the more traditional and informal processing
in nonmetropolitan courts.
--------------------
\22 For this analysis, we classified counties located within
metropolitan statistical areas as "metropolitan counties," and we
classified counties outside of metropolitan statistical areas as
"nonmetropolitan counties." These distinctions correspond roughly to
(1) more densely populated or more urban and (2) less densely
populated or more rural locations.
\23 NCJJ data from California contained only metropolitan counties.
\24 These data exclude one metropolitan county that contained 56
percent of all unrepresented cases in the state of Nebraska.
\25 Barry C. Feld, "Justice by Geography: Urban, Suburban, and
Rural Variations in Juvenile Justice Administration," Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 82, No. 1, 1991: pp. 156- 210.
PROVISION OF COUNSEL TENDED
NOT TO BE AFFECTED BY THE
TYPE OF CRIME AND PRIOR
OFFENSE HISTORY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3
The juvenile court data from California, Pennsylvania, and Nebraska
indicated that neither the type of offense nor juveniles' offense
history were strongly related to representation rates.
In California and Pennsylvania, juveniles who committed certain
nonviolent offenses, such as property offenses, were generally as
likely to receive representation as juveniles who committed other
more serious offenses, such as violent crimes or drug trafficking.
However, in Nebraska, juveniles who committed less serious crimes
(e.g., property and public order) were less likely to be represented
than those who committed more serious crimes (e.g., violent
offenses).
As shown in table 3, in California, juveniles petitioned to the court
for violent offenses were about as likely to be represented (99.7
percent) as juveniles sent to the court for property offenses (98.8
percent).\26 In Pennsylvania, juveniles with violent and drug
offenses were only slightly more likely to be represented than
juveniles with public order offenses (94.0 and 96.4 percent to 86.2
percent). In Nebraska, the juveniles' representation rates varied
across offense categories. Juveniles with weapons, violent, and drug
offenses were more likely (90.6, 90.2, and 80.4 percent) than those
with property offenses (62.6 percent) to be represented. In
Nebraska, juveniles with property offenses comprised about 71 percent
of all cases and 76 percent of all unrepresented cases. For violent
offenses in Nebraska, 90 percent of the juveniles were represented.
Offense history was not uniformly related to the likelihood of
representation between the states.\27 In Pennsylvania, across all
crime types, those with one or more prior juvenile court dispositions
were more likely to be represented than those with none. The extent
of the difference in representation rates varied across crime type.
For example, 94 percent of violent offenders in Pennsylvania with no
prior referrals were represented, and 98 percent of violent offenders
with one prior offense were represented. For public order or other
nonviolent offenders in Pennsylvania, the difference in
representation rates for those with no prior offenses and those with
one prior offense was more dramatic. Seventy-seven percent of the
public order offenders with no prior offenses were represented
compared with 93 percent of those with one prior offense. In
Nebraska, however, there were no consistent patterns across crime
types, which may be due in part to the small number of cases with
multiple prior offenses. For example, for property offenders in
Nebraska, representation was likely to be increased from 54 percent
(for offenders with no prior offenses) to 86 percent (for offenders
with three prior offenses) before decreasing to 78 percent for those
with five or more prior offenses.
--------------------
\26 The results in this paragraph are based on our analysis of the
broad offense categories given in table 1. We did a more refined
analysis of the more detailed offense types comprising these offense
categories. For details on this analysis, see appendix III.
\27 Offense history was measured differently across the states
because of the way they collected their data. For example, in
Nebraska, offense history was measured by the number of prior
referrals to juvenile court. In Pennsylvania, however, it was
measured by the number of prior juvenile court dispositions. In
California, there was no direct measure of offense history, but
California did indicate whether a juvenile was under probation
supervision at the time of the commission of the current offense.
JUVENILE COURT OUTCOMES VARIED
AMONG THE THREE STATES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
Our analysis of adjudication and placement indicated that decisions
varied.\28 Table 5 shows the number of represented and unrepresented
juveniles who had their cases adjudicated and those who were placed.
Table 5
Number of Represented and Unrepresented
Juveniles Whose Cases Were Adjudicated
and Who Were Placed, for Calendar Years
1990 and 1991
Number Not
State petitioned Adjudicated adjudicated Placed Not placed
---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
California
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 60,710\a 41,985 18,431 21,899 20,086
Represente 58,999 41,039 17,666 21,255 19,784
d
Not 1,711 946 765 644 302
represent
ed
Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 14,584\b 8,488\c 3,977 2,213 6,272
Represente 13,210 8,183\c 3,296 2,174 6,006
d
Not 1,374 305 681 39 266
represent
ed
Nebraska
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 4,507\d 3,861 645 463 3,398
Represente 2,927 2,393 534 404 1,989
d
Not 1,580\d 1,468 111 59 1,409
Represent
ed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: See note to table 2.
\a The number includes one case that had a missing value on the
variable that indicated whether it was adjudicated. It also included
293 cases that were transferred to criminal court. These 293 cases
were excluded from the total number of cases having adjudication
hearings (the sum of adjudicated plus not adjudicated) because
transfer cases do not go to adjudication hearings. All 293 transfer
cases were represented by legal counsel.
\b The number includes 251 cases that were transferred to criminal
court and were handled in the calculations in the manner described
for California. It also includes 1,868 cases that were disposed
without an adjudication hearing. These 1,868 cases also were not
used in tabulating the adjudication outcomes.
\c The numbers include three cases with missing values on the final
disposition variable.
\d The number includes one case with missing values on the variable
indicating the outcome of the adjudication hearing.
Source: Our analysis of NCJJ data.
In addition to these differences in the likelihood of being
adjudicated, overall relatively few adjudicated cases were
unrepresented in California and Pennsylvania. Specifically, of the
41,985 cases adjudicated as delinquent in California, only 946 (or
2.3 percent) were unrepresented. In Pennsylvania, only 305 of the
8,488 cases adjudicated as delinquent (or 3.6 percent) were
unrepresented. Conversely, in Nebraska, 1,468 of the 3,861 cases
adjudicated as delinquent (about 38 percent) were unrepresented.
The differences in the likelihoods of adjudication between
represented and unrepresented juveniles in California was associated
with the location of courts in which cases were heard and in
Pennsylvania with the use of informal adjustments after cases were
petitioned to the court. The higher likelihood of adjudication for
unrepresented cases in Nebraska was associated with juvenile court
cases located in more rural counties.
Our analysis of the placement decision showed that unrepresented
juveniles in Pennsylvania and Nebraska generally were less likely to
receive out-of-home placements than represented juveniles for each
offense category. In California, the overall likelihood of placement
for unrepresented juveniles was higher than represented juveniles.
Of the 21,899 juveniles placed in California, 644 (or 2.9 percent)
were unrepresented. In Pennsylvania, 39 of the 2,213 juveniles that
were placed (or 1.8 percent) were unrepresented. In Nebraska, 59 of
the 463 juveniles placed (or 12.7 percent) were unrepresented.
--------------------
\28 Our review did not include all possible outcomes of juvenile
court proceedings, but focused only on the juvenile being adjudicated
as a delinquent and receiving out-of-home placement.
OVERALL LIKELIHOOD OF
ADJUDICATION FOR JUVENILES
WITHOUT COUNSEL VARIED AMONG
STATES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1
The overall likelihood of a case being adjudicated as delinquent when
a juvenile was not represented varied among states. As shown in
table 6, these percentages ranged from 93 percent in Nebraska to
about 55 percent in California to about 31 percent in Pennsylvania.
The differences in the likelihood of adjudication between
unrepresented and represented juveniles also varied among states.
For example, unrepresented juveniles were less than one-half as
likely as represented juveniles in Pennsylvania to be adjudicated.
In California, unrepresented juveniles were about 80 percent as
likely to be adjudicated as were represented juveniles. (See tables
2 and 3 for the number of juveniles petitioned and the percentage of
juveniles who were petitioned and represented in each state.)
In California and Pennsylvania, comparatively small percentages of
all adjudications (less than 4 percent) involved juveniles that were
not represented. In Nebraska, a relatively large percentage of all
adjudicated cases involved juveniles who were not represented (about
38 percent). See table 5 for the number of juveniles who were
adjudicated and not represented.
Table 6
Percentage of Petitioned Cases
Adjudicated as Delinquent, by State and
Whether Represented or Unrepresented by
Counsel, for Calendar Years 1990 and
1991
Type of With Without With Without With Without
offense counsel counsel counsel counsel counsel counsel
-------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
All 69.9% 55.3% 71.3% 30.9% 81.8% 93.0%
offense
s,
overall
Violent 67.1 61.4 69.9 26.5 74.1 87.5
offense
s
70.4 62.6 73.3 32.1 82.2 93.3
Property
offense
s
Drug 74.6 57.5 74.9 50.0 82.1 100.0
offenses
Simple 66.5 53.3 61.0 31.5 75.1 86.9
assault
Weapons 71.9 52.4 71.6 20.0 76.6 87.5
offense
s
Public 69.9 52.9 65.6 21.1 90.2 87.5
order
or
other
offense
s
Indeterm 65.9 91.7 78.7 33.3 90.7 94.8
inate
offense
s
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: See note to table 2.
Source: GAO analysis of NCJJ data.
These aggregate differences in the likelihood of adjudication between
the two groups of juveniles (unrepresented and represented) tended to
be associated with the location of courts or with the use of informal
adjustments by the court to dispose of cases.
In California, all of the unrepresented juveniles came from two of
the five counties from which we obtained data.\29 In one of these two
counties, the overall likelihood of adjudication was lower than in
counties where no juveniles were reported as unrepresented.
In Pennsylvania, our analysis and discussion with a state official
indicated that the aggregate differences in the likelihood of
adjudication were due largely to the use of consent decrees to
dispose of unrepresented cases. A disproportionate number of cases
involving unrepresented juveniles in Pennsylvania were disposed of by
a consent decree--an informal disposition in which the juvenile and
the court agree to suspend the case providing the juvenile remains at
home under probationary conditions for up to 6 months. According to
a state official, counsel generally is not present or is waived
because juveniles have no risk of adjudication (or placement) if they
comply with conditions of the consent decree. For Nebraska, our
analysis showed that a disproportionate number of cases involving
unrepresented juveniles were processed in nonmetropolitan counties,
and cases involving unrepresented juveniles processed in
nonmetropolitan counties also were more likely to be adjudicated as
delinquent than those processed in metropolitan counties. Thus,
unrepresented juveniles in Nebraska were generally more likely to
have their cases adjudicated as delinquent in nonmetropolitan
counties.
--------------------
\29 All five California counties were located in metropolitan areas.
UNREPRESENTED JUVENILES
GENERALLY WERE LESS LIKELY
TO BE PLACED THAN
REPRESENTED JUVENILES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.2
As shown in table 7, unrepresented and adjudicated juveniles faced
different likelihoods of receiving out-of-home placements in the
three states. California had the highest rate of out-of- home
placement for juveniles without counsel. Pennsylvania and Nebraska
had lower rates of placement for these juveniles, although
unrepresented juveniles in Nebraska were less likely to be placed
than those in Pennsylvania.
Table 7
Percentage of Cases Adjudicated as
Delinquent Receiving an Out-of-Home
Placement, by State and Whether
Represented or Unrepresented by Counsel,
for Calendar Years 1990 and 1991
Type of With Without With Without With Without
offense counsel counsel counsel counsel counsel counsel
-------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
All 51.8 68.1 26.6 12.8 16.9 4.0
offense
s,
overall
Violent 63.2 44.4 29.3 15.4 28.4 0.0
offense
s
45.6 36.2 22.9 11.5 17.2 4.0
Property
offense
s
Drug 51.1 56.5 34.0 9.1 30.1 4.5
offenses
Simple 41.9 50.0 24.7 11.8 11.2 7.0
assault
Weapons 44.3 18.2 19.3 0.0 11.9 0.0
offense
s
Public 66.1 81.0 35.4 31.3 7.3 4.8
order
or
other
offense
s
Indeterm 53.7 54.5 47.5 14.3 14.2 3.0
inate
offense
s
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: See note to table 2.
Source: GAO analysis of NCJJ data.
Among states, the difference in the likelihood of placement between
represented and unrepresented juveniles varied. In California, the
overall difference in placement between represented and unrepresented
juveniles was about 16 percent. Between offense categories, the
differences ranged from about 1 to 26 percent--weapon offenses were
about 26 percent, drug offenses were about 5 percent, and
indeterminate offenses were about 1 percent. In Pennsylvania and
Nebraska, the overall differences between these two groups were about
14 percent in Pennsylvania and 13 percent in Nebraska, and in these
two states the differences also varied.
In California juveniles' overall likelihood of placement, represented
or unrepresented, was the highest of the three states at about 52
percent. However, the likelihood that a juvenile would be
unrepresented and placed was about 3 percent. In contrast, juveniles
in Nebraska had the lowest likelihood of placement--about 12 percent.
However, the risk that a juvenile would be unrepresented and placed
was largest in Nebraska. These differences were due to differences
in the representation rates. In California, more than 97 percent of
juveniles were represented, and the chances that a placed juvenile
was unrepresented was comparatively small (about 3 percent).
However, in Nebraska, about 35 percent of all cases were not
represented. Thus, even though Nebraska placed a smaller fraction of
its juveniles than did California, the overall chances that a placed
juvenile did not have counsel was much higher (about 13 percent).
REGRESSION MODELS FOR THREE
STATES SHOWED THAT VARIABLES
OTHER THAN REPRESENTATION WERE
STRONGLY ASSOCIATED WITH
ADJUDICATION AND PLACEMENT
OUTCOMES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
The differences in outcomes between groups of unrepresented and
represented juveniles were due more to variables other than the
presence of counsel. To control for the variables that were
associated with the likelihood of adjudication or placement and which
might have been distributed unequally between these two groups of
juveniles, we estimated logistic regression models for adjudication
and placement. (See app. III for detailed discussion of our
approach.)
For both the adjudication and placement outcomes, we estimated models
for up to 10 specific crime types, e.g., rape, robbery, and larceny.
We included in our regressions three classes of independent
variables: (1) demographic variables, such as age, race, and gender;
(2) offense and offender-behavior variables, such as current offense,
offense history, supervisory status, and type of counsel; and (3)
court processing variables, such as length of time to disposition,
detention prior to adjudication, the location of the court, and the
type of representation.\30
Overall we estimated 24 adjudication models, 10 for California, 9 for
Pennsylvania, and 5 for Nebraska. We also estimated 24 placement
models for the same sets of crime types in each state. For the
adjudication models, we found that unrepresented juveniles generally
were about as likely as represented juveniles to have their cases
adjudicated as delinquents. Also, although we found that the type of
counsel had effects on the likelihood of juveniles having their cases
adjudicated as delinquent, the effects were not consistent among
states or crime types. In addition, our models showed that
variables, such as being securely detained prior to adjudication, the
juvenile's prior criminal history, and the location of the court,
tended to have the largest impacts on the likelihood of adjudication.
For the placement models, we found that the absence of counsel was
not associated with the likelihood of placement for most crime types.
However, there were exceptions to this general finding.
Specifically, the absence of counsel reduced the likelihood that
juveniles were placed for some crimes in Pennsylvania and Nebraska
but not in California. The type of counsel also influenced placement
outcomes for juveniles. Finally, variables measuring the severity of
the juveniles' offenses and the offense history tended to have the
largest impacts on placement outcomes.
--------------------
\30 For details on the crime type classifications used for each
state's models and on all of the variables analyzed, see appendix
III.
ADJUDICATIONS ASSOCIATED
WITH COURT SUPERVISION,
LOCATION OF COURT, AND
INFORMAL ADJUSTMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1
The results of our modeling of the adjudication decision for the
three states showed that for some crime types the absence of counsel
had an independent effect on the likelihood of adjudication.
The effects of the type of counsel--public defenders, court-
appointed attorneys, and privately paid attorneys--on the likelihood
of adjudication varied among crime types and states. For example, in
California, juveniles represented by court- appointed attorneys were
more likely to be adjudicated than juveniles represented by the other
attorney types for property, weapons, drug, and minor violent (e.g.,
simple assault) offenses. Conversely, they were less likely to be
adjudicated for serious violent crimes such as rape and aggravated
assault. In Pennsylvania, juveniles who were represented by
privately paid attorneys were less likely to be adjudicated than
juveniles represented by other attorney types for aggravated assault
and larceny. In Nebraska, juveniles who were represented by private
court-appointed attorneys were less likely to be adjudicated than
juveniles represented by other attorney types.
The specific variables, other than the presence of counsel, that were
associated with the likelihood of adjudication varied, but there were
some similarities. For example, in California, whether a juvenile
was under court supervision\31 at the time of the offense, the
location of the county in which the case was disposed, and whether
the juvenile was detained prior to adjudication tended to have larger
associations with the likelihood of adjudication, rather than whether
a juvenile was represented. For example, juveniles who were detained
prior to adjudication were from 1.2 to 1.5 times more likely to be
adjudicated than juveniles not detained.
In Pennsylvania, petitioned juveniles who had adjudicatory hearings
in a court in a metropolitan county and were detained prior to their
adjudicatory hearing increased their likelihood of being adjudicated
as delinquent. However, the use of informal adjustments (i.e.,
consent decrees) to dispose of cases resulted in petitioned juveniles
not being adjudicated because they did not have adjudicatory
hearings.
The models showed that unrepresented juveniles were generally as
likely as represented juveniles to have their case adjudicated. For
some crimes and under some conditions, however, this was not always
the situation. For example, unrepresented juveniles with burglary
and weapons offenses in California and Pennsylvania and unrepresented
juveniles with larceny offenses in Nebraska were less likely to have
their cases adjudicated. In addition, in Nebraska juveniles in rural
areas, generally were less likely to have their cases adjudicated
than those in urban areas. To find out possible reasons for these
results, we reviewed relevant literature and talked with an official
in Pennsylvania as well as officials representing the American Bar
Association, juvenile justice systems, and public defenders to obtain
their reactions to these findings. The 1988 and 1991 studies by
Barry C. Feld showed that juveniles may be less likely to have their
cases adjudicated in rural areas because judges in those areas may
have greater familiarity with the juveniles' cases and may handle
them less formally or are less likely to adjudicate them as
delinquent. Consequently they may be less likely to appoint counsel.
The officials whom we interviewed and our review of the literature
offered the following possible reasons why juveniles without counsel
were less likely to have their cases adjudicated:
The judges may be more likely to ensure that juveniles have counsel
when they believe that a juvenile has a greater risk of
receiving a severe disposition (e.g., placement).
The informality of juvenile court processing in some states may be
a reason. Juveniles without representation are
disproportionately found in rural areas. Judges in these areas
may have greater familiarity with cases, and handle them less
formally. For example, for these cases, they may be less likely
to appoint counsel.
Judges may be more lenient to juveniles already under supervision
by the court and may be willing to continue their present
sentence, rather than adjudicating for a new offense.
Recognizing this, the juveniles may decide to waive counsel.
The relationships between judges and attorneys may be a factor.
For example, some judges may have antagonistic relationships
with attorneys. The presence of attorneys, therefore, may
result in more severe dispositions. Judges may also be more
protective of juveniles without counsel and, therefore, less
likely to give them a severe disposition.
--------------------
\31 The juvenile was being supervised as a ward of the court
immediately prior to the referral.
LIKELIHOOD OF PLACEMENT WAS
STRONGLY ASSOCIATED WITH
DETENTION AND PRIOR OFFENSE
HISTORY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.2
In our regression models, we analyzed variables that were associated
with placement outcomes.\32 The models indicated generally that (1)
whether the juvenile was detained prior to adjudication and (2) prior
offense history had a large impact on the likelihood of placement.
In each state, across most crime types, juveniles detained prior to
adjudication were more likely to be placed than juveniles who were
not detained. In general, detention prior to adjudication was viewed
as an indication of the severity of the offense, and juveniles who
were part of more severe cases were more likely to be placed.
Therefore, the positive association between detention and the
likelihood of placement is not surprising.
Similarly, juveniles' prior offense history or prior contact with the
juvenile justice system had strong and positive effects on the
likelihood of placement for most crime types for California and
Pennsylvania. In California, juveniles who were under court
supervised probation for a previous offense when they committed their
current offense were from 2 to 8 times more likely to be placed (for
all crimes except rape and robbery) than juveniles who were not under
court supervision. In Pennsylvania, juveniles with more than 3
priors were from 4 to 27 times more likely to be placed (for all
crimes except weapons) than juveniles with fewer than 3 priors.
We also found that the types of representation influenced the
likelihood of placement. For example, in California and Nebraska
juveniles who were represented by privately paid attorneys were less
likely to be placed than juveniles who were represented by other
attorney types for larceny and drug-related crimes. In Pennsylvania,
juveniles represented by privately paid attorneys were more likely to
be placed than juveniles represented by other attorney types for
aggravated assault and larceny.
--------------------
\32 For a discussion of the constraints imposed on our analysis by
the small number of unrepresented and placed cases, see appendix III.
JUVENILES IN ADULT CRIMINAL
COURT HAD SAME RIGHT TO
REPRESENTATION AS ADULTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
Under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, all defendants,
including juveniles being tried as adults, have the right to "the
assistance of counsel for his or her defense." We could not locate a
database containing information on how frequently juveniles were
represented in adult court. Our review of the law showed that
juveniles tried as adults were to be afforded the same right to
representation as adults tried in criminal court. In addition, the
results of our prosecutor's survey revealed their overall
satisfaction with the quality of counsel juveniles were receiving in
adult court.
QUALITY OF COUNSEL PROVIDED
JUVENILES CONSIDERED ADEQUATE
BY SURVEY RESPONDENTS AND LOCAL
OFFICIALS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9
According to state officials, no criteria existed to determine how
well juveniles were being represented by counsel, either in adult or
juvenile court. For example, we found no national or state databases
designed to define or measure quality within the context of the
juvenile justice system. In the absence of such criteria, we
obtained some perspective of how well juveniles were being
represented in both juvenile and adult court by soliciting the views
of juvenile justice officials around the country. To obtain some
perspective, we conducted a nationally representative survey of
prosecutors that handle juvenile justice matters and interviewed
selected juvenile court judges in eight states. In addition, through
personal interviews, we obtained the opinions of juvenile justice
officials in four states. In our survey of prosecutors and
interviews with judges and various officials, we asked questions
regarding their perceptions of the quality of counsel across several
dimensions, including overall (1) preparation, (2) legal skills, and
(3) effectiveness. The questions were targeted to the three types of
counsel that represent juveniles in both juvenile and adult courts:
public defenders, privately paid attorneys, and court-appointed
attorneys.
The results of our survey and discussions revealed overall
satisfaction with the quality of counsel juveniles were receiving,
both in adult and juvenile courts. Some officials, however, raised
concerns over nonqualitative considerations that were perceived to
affect the quality of counsel, such as high caseloads and limited
state funding.
PROSECUTORS WERE GENERALLY
SATISFIED WITH QUALITY OF
ALL THREE TYPES OF COUNSEL
PROVIDED JUVENILES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1
Our survey showed that while there were some differences in quality
of these three types of counsel, the respondents generally viewed all
three types of attorneys as being sufficiently prepared, possessing
the requisite legal skills, and representing their clients
effectively.\33 For example, as table 8 shows, most prosecutors
responded that all three types of counsel in juvenile court were well
prepared. Similarly, as shown in table 9, most prosecutors responded
that all counsel in adult court were well prepared. (See app. V for
additional details on our survey of prosecutors.)
Table 8
Percentage of Prosecutors Responding in
the Two Most Favorable Categories to
Attorneys' Capabilities in Juvenile
Court
Court-
Public Private appointed
Dimensions defenders attorneys counsel
--------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
Preparation 77 81 78
Legal skills 73 67 71
Effectiveness 81 83 83
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: For all three dimensions, we used a 5-point scale, but the
scale was different for each dimension. For the preparation
dimension, the top two responses were "very well prepared" and
"generally well prepared;" for the legal skills dimension, the top
two responses were "excellent" and " very good;" for the
effectiveness dimension, the top two responses were "very effective"
and "generally effective." We omitted those prosecutors who responded
"no basis to judge," "not applicable," and those not responding. See
appendix V for the tabulation of the questionnaire and appendix II
for sampling errors.
Source: GAO Survey.
Table 9
Percentage of Prosecutors Responding
Favorably to the Attorneys' Capabilities
in Adult Court
Court-
Public Private appointed
Dimensions defenders attorneys counsel
--------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
Preparation 80 90 83
Legal skills 74 74 70
Effectiveness 80 91 79
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: See note on table 8.
Source: GAO Survey.
Finally, we asked prosecutors for their views on the impact of
representation on juvenile dispositions that were "similar" except
for the presence of counsel. Most prosecutors believed that having
counsel did not have a big impact on the eventual outcome of the
case. About 70 percent said that juveniles received similar
dispositions regardless of whether they had counsel. Therefore, in
the views of most prosecutors, having representation in juvenile
court did not produce large, measurable differences in outcomes for
juveniles.
--------------------
\33 We did not obtain a national perspective from other juvenile
justice officials (e.g., judges or public defenders).
JUDGES WERE GENERALLY
SATISFIED WITH QUALITY OF
COUNSEL PROVIDED TO
JUVENILES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.2
We obtained the views of 16 judges regarding the issues related to
the quality of counsel within their jurisdictions in Florida,
Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and
Utah.
Overall, the judges indicated that the quality of counsel provided to
juveniles in juvenile court was adequate. For example, 10 of the 12
judges who commented on the quality of counsel provided juveniles in
juvenile court characterized their perception of quality of counsel
with responses such as "acceptable," "good," and "excellent." In
addition, one of the 12 judges indicated that the counsel afforded
juveniles in juvenile court was as good as the counsel adults receive
in adult court. However, when asked to comment on the quality of
counsel by attorney type (i.e., public defender, private, and
court-appointed), 7 of the 11 judges who responded indicated that
quality of counsel varied by type of attorney. For example, four of
the seven judges noted that, of the three attorney types, public
defenders are generally more knowledgeable about issues such as
juvenile law, court proceedings, and disposition options. One judge
of the four, in noting the public defender's familiarity with
juvenile court law, commented that he perceived public defenders as
"specialists."
In commenting on the dimensions of quality representation in a
juvenile case, judges most often cited (1) legal skills, (2)
knowledge of the law, (3) commitment to the client, and (4)
preparation. Other dimensions cited were experience, a thorough
investigation of the case, knowledge of alternatives, and meeting
with the client.
OFFICIALS IN FOUR STATES
VISITED BELIEVED QUALITY OF
COUNSEL WAS GENERALLY
ADEQUATE, DESPITE LIMITED
RESOURCES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.3
We discussed the quality of counsel issue with various juvenile court
and justice officials--including juvenile prosecutors, judges,
attorneys, service workers, and probation officers--located in eight
jurisdictions in Florida, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Utah.
According to state officials, none of these states had developed
criteria against which quality of counsel provided could be measured.
However, two jurisdictions had established specific qualifications
that attorneys must meet to represent juveniles in certain cases.\34
Overall our discussions with juvenile justice officials revealed
generally favorable responses concerning the quality of counsel
provided to juveniles. Further, several of the officials in Florida,
Louisiana, and Pennsylvania indicated that, in terms of effective
representation, public defenders are at least as capable as the
private attorneys in representing juveniles. The most frequently
cited reasons were the public defenders' familiarity and experience
with juvenile court procedures and available disposition or service
options. For example, several of these officials noted that public
defenders may do a better job than private attorneys because they are
more knowledgeable of the laws and local rules governing juvenile
proceedings. In Utah, one official noted that while some private
attorneys may be more aggressive, court-appointed attorneys develop
more expertise in handling juvenile cases.
However, some of these officials raised nonqualitative considerations
that were perceived to affect the quality of counsel, such as high
caseloads and limited state funding. They recognized that while
public defenders tended to have the most experience in juvenile law
and procedures, the officials also noted that public defenders had
very high caseloads. For example, one official noted that because of
the limited resources, public defenders do not have as much time to
prepare and often must seek continuances while others pointed out
that the number of public defenders had not kept pace with the
increased demand for indigent defense services. Another official
commented that the court-appointed attorneys do not have as many
resources or the time to devote to a case as private attorneys.
--------------------
\34 The two jurisdictions included Tallahassee, Florida, and
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Tallahassee officials told us that the
Second Judicial Circuit required that, when appointing an attorney to
handle a case representing a juvenile in a case in which more than
the one juvenile is involved, the appointed attorney must (1) be an
active member in good standing of the Florida Bar Association; (2)
have at least 1 year of juvenile court practice with demonstrated
competence; (3) have had, within the past two years, some specialized
training in juvenile law or litigation; (4) be familiar with the
requisite court system, including specifically the procedural rules
regarding timeliness of filings and procedural default; and (5) have
demonstrated proficiency in and commitment to quality representation.
The Philadelphia Criminal Rules provide guidance on the appointment
of counsel. The rules required the juvenile court to maintain a list
of attorneys qualified for appointment in both major felony juvenile
and nonmajor felony juvenile cases. The rules also specified that,
major felony juvenile cases (where the juvenile is likely to be
incarcerated as a juvenile or certified to an adult court), the
attorney must (1) have qualified for appointment for adult felony
cases, (2) have prior experience in at least five juvenile cases,
which were tried to completion, and (3) have had at least two major
felony juvenile cases in the past 2 years. For all other juvenile
cases, however, the attorney must have fulfilled the requirements for
appointment of counsel in adult misdemeanor cases. For both major
and nonmajor cases, the Rules specify that attorneys must have
completed at least one continuing legal education course in juvenile
law within the past year, are familiar with the Pennsylvania Juvenile
Act and the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Court Rules,
and are reasonably available to accept appointment.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.4
We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General; the
Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention;
the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested
parties. Copies will also be made available to others upon request.
Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI. If you
have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202)
512-8777.
Laurie E. Ekstrand
Associate Director, Administration
of Justice Issues
PROFILES OF STATE JUVENILE JUSTICE
PROCESSES
=========================================================== Appendix I
Table I.1
Profile of Juvenile Justice Processes in
Arizona, California, Florida, Maryland,
and Missouri
Proces
ses Arizona California Florida Maryland Missouri
------ ------------ ------------ -------------- -------------- ------------
Courts Superior Superior Circuit court 12 district 45 circuit
with court in 15 court in 58 in 20 circuits courts in 24 courts
juveni counties counties counties, 8 in 115
le circuit courts counties\a
jurisd in 24 counties
iction
Intake
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Local Local State State Local
at
which
intake
is
organi
zed\b
Branch Judicial Executive Executive Executive Judicial\d
at
which
intake
is
admini
stered
\c
Agency Juvenile County Department of Department of Probation
or court probation\e Health and Juvenile service
unit probation Rehabilitative Services (DJS) of circuit
of Services court
govern (DHRS)\f
ment
respon
sible
for
intake
Party Juvenile County DHRS intake DJS intake Juvenile
respon court intake probation worker officer officer\g
sible staff intake staff
for
perfor
ming
intake
Party County District State attorney State attorney Juvenile
author attorney attorney officer
ized
to
file
petiti
on
Probation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Local--The Local--the State-- State-- Local
at Administrati county juveniles are probation
which ve Office of executive provided supervision is
probat The Courts funds a probation or administered
ion helps to probation aftercare by DJS
is fund and department supervision
organi monitor that usually through the
zed juvenile supports a Delinquency
probation separate Case
services in probation Management
the state division\h Division of
DHRS\i
Level Judicial Executive Executive Executive Judicial
at
which
probat
ion is
admini
stered
Aftercare\j
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level State State State State State
at
which
afterc
are
is
organi
zed
Level Executive Executive Executive Executive Executive
at
which
afterc
are
is
admini
stered
Agency The The Parole Delinquency DJS The
respon Department Services Case Department
sible of Youth Branch of Management of Social
for Treatment the Division of Services,
afterc and Department DHRS Division of
are Rehabilitati of the Youth Youth
servic on Authority, Services
es Institutions
and Camps
Branch
State Institutions for Delinquents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Executive Executive Executive Executive Executive
at
which
state
instit
ution
servic
es is
admini
stered
Respon The The DHRS is DJS operates The
sible Department Department responsible all of the Department
agency of Youth of the Youth for the state's of Social
and Treatment Authority, administration juvenile youth Services,
type and Institutions of secure centers, Division of
of Rehabilitati and Camps training detention Youth
servic on is Branch is institutions, centers, and Services
e responsible responsible several secure group homes administers
provid for secure for training juvenile institutions
ed juvenile centers, detention and
institutions youth facilities, community-
, community centers, and secure or based
corrections training nonsecure treatment
contracts, schools, and community- centers
and parole conservation based
(aftercare camps treatment
supervision) camps and
services programs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Circuit sizes range from about 1 to 5 counties. Each judicial
circuit has a juvenile court judge, who is appointed by the circuit
court.
\b "Organized" as defined by the National Center for Juvenile Justice
(NCJJ), refers to the level of government from which a service is
organized in a state. NCJJ arrived at this definition by determining
(1) the level of government in a state from which the authority for
the provision of a service originates (e.g., probation services are
delivered at the local level but may not be organized from that
level) and (2) the level of government in a state from which the
delivery of service can be directly affected.
\c "Administered" as defined by NCJJ, refers to the branch of
government that is vested with the responsibility for the day-to-day
provision of a service.
\d In all but three counties, (Kansas City, St. Louis City, and St.
Louis County), every circuit court has an intake unit administered by
probation.
\e The county executive funds a probation department that usually
supports a separate juvenile probation division. The juvenile
probation function often includes intake and investigation services.
\f Florida's Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is an
integrated system that delivers social, health, and rehabilitative
services to children and youth in 11 Children, Youth and Family
districts. Each district maintains a program office that is
responsible for integrated intake and program coordination that
encompass delinquency, child welfare, and health services.
\g In other states, this individual may be referred to as a probation
officer.
\h On the state level, the Department of the Youth Authority,
Community Corrections Branch, has regional offices that work closely
with county probation to run prevention and community corrections
programs. The Department also administers state funds that flow to
county probation.
\i The Division employs Community Control Officers to supervise
juveniles placed on community control (probation supervision) by
circuit courts and to provide aftercare supervision to juveniles
released on "furlough" from juvenile institutions. Several Community
Control Unit Offices are located throughout each District.
\j NCJJ has defined aftercare as the community supervision of youth
released from the state delinquent institution.
Source: We developed this information from discussions with various
state and local juvenile justice officials, court administrators,
juvenile justice advocacy groups, judges, and prosecutors. We also
reviewed federal, state, and local documents on juvenile justice
procedures and processes. We did not verify the accuracy of the
information through a review of state statutes and administrative
rules.
Table I.2
Profile of Juvenile Justice Processes in
Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
and Utah
Processes Nebraska Pennsylvania South Carolina Utah
------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
Courts with 93 county Court of Common Family court, Separate
juvenile courts, Pleas,\b 16 circuit juvenile
jurisdiction in 21 60 districts in courts in court,
districts; 67 counties\c 46 counties 8 juvenile
separate court districts
juvenile courts
in 3 counties\a
Intake
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level at Local Local State State
which intake
is
organized\d
Branch at Judicial Judicial Executive Judicial
which intake
is
administered
\e
Agency or County court County juvenile Department of Intake division
unit of probation Juvenile of juvenile
government department\f Justice (DJJ) court
responsible
for
intake
Party Probation Probation DJJ intake Probation
responsible officer of officer staff officer
for court intake\g
performing
intake
Party County attorney With the With the County attorney
authorized court's court's or district
to file authority, any authority, any attorney
petition individual can individual can
file a petition file a petition
Probation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level at State\h Local--county State--The State--
which governments Department of probation
probation fund juvenile Juvenile officers are
is organized probation Justice, employed by the
services that Community State Court
are operated Division Administrator
under the through local to provide
administrative field offices services in
supervision of judicial
local Courts of districts
Common Pleas
Level at Judicial Judicial Executive Judicial
which
probation
is
administered
Aftercare\i
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level at State Local State State
which
aftercare
is organized
Level at Executive Judicial Executive Executive
which
aftercare
is
administered
Agency The Juvenile County The Department The Department
responsible Parole governments of Juvenile of Human
for Administration fund aftercare Justice, Services,
aftercare of the services that Community Division of
services Department of are operated Division Youth
Correctional under the through local Corrections is
Services, administrative field offices responsible for
Division of supervision of the aftercare
Juvenile the local supervision of
Services Courts of juveniles
Common Pleas released from
secure
institutions by
the Youth
Parole
Authority
State Institutions for Delinquents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level at Executive Executive Executive Executive
which state
institution
services is
administered
Responsible The Department The Department Juvenile The Department
agency and of Correctional of Public correctional of Human
type of Services, Welfare facilities are Services,
service Division of operates youth operated by the Division of
provided Juvenile development Department of Youth
Services centers, secure Juvenile Corrections
treatment Justice, administers the
units, and Institutional state's secure
youth forestry Division; the confinement
camps; the Division's facilities,
counties facilities detention
administer the include secure centers and
detention institutions contracts for
facilities for juveniles residential and
and an nonresidential
assessment/ community-
evaluation based services
facility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a In much of Nebraska, county courts exercise jurisdiction over
juvenile matters. However, in Douglas, Lincoln, and Sarpy counties,
separate juvenile courts exercise jurisdiction. Nebraska statute
authorizes the establishment of separate juvenile courts in counties
with a population greater than 30,000 where authorized by the
electorate. In Nebraska, both county courts and juvenile courts
exercise their jurisdiction over delinquency matters in concurrence
with district courts.
\b A Juvenile Court Judges Commission advises juvenile courts on the
proper care of delinquents, establishes administrative procedures and
standards, examines personnel practices and employment standards used
in probation offices, collects and publishes statistics, administers
a grant-in-aid program to improve county juvenile probation services,
and provides training.
\c In Allegheny and Philadelphia counties, the Family Court Division
of the Court of Common Pleas exercises jurisdiction.
\d "Organized" as defined by NCJJ, refers to the level of government
from which a service is organized in a state. NCJJ arrived at this
definition by determining (1) the level of government in a state from
which the authority for the provision of a service originates (e.g.,
probation services are delivered at the local level but may not be
organized from that level) and (2) the level of government in a state
from which the delivery of service can be directly affected.
\e "Administered" as defined by NCJJ, refers to the branch of
government that is vested with the responsibility for the day-to-day
provision of a service.
\f Juvenile probation services vary widely among counties. The
number of staff and the caseload per probation officer are greatly
affected by the size and wealth of the particular county. Smaller
counties generally maintain a small staff consisting of one to two
people who are likely to handle both adult and juvenile cases.
\g Screening varies among counties. In Douglas County, for example,
the county attorney screens the juvenile over the phone, having never
met the individual. In Sarpy County, on the other hand, Probation
Officers screen the juvenile in person.
\h In 1985, Nebraska's Juvenile probation services transitioned to a
statewide system. Accordingly, juvenile probation services operate
under the Nebraska Probation System of the State Judicial Branch.
\i NCJJ has defined aftercare as the community supervision of youth
released from the state delinquent institution.
Source: We developed this information from discussions with various
state and local juvenile justice officials, court administrators,
juvenile justice advocacy groups, judges, and prosecutors. We also
reviewed federal, state, and local documents on juvenile justice
procedures and processes. We did not verify the accuracy of the
information through a review of state statutes and administrative
rules.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================== Appendix II
The 1992 reauthorization (P.L. 102-586) of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-415) required us to
conduct a study of access to counsel during delinquency proceedings
in juvenile court. In discussions with the staffs of the House
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities (formerly the
Committee on Education and Labor) and the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, we agreed to
review state laws for 15 states that we selected to determine
juveniles' right to counsel,
determine the frequency with which juveniles have counsel in
juvenile courts in three states,
determine the likely impact of counsel on juvenile outcomes,
determine if juveniles who are in adult court have counsel, and
provide insights regarding the issue of quality of counsel.
In addressing these objectives, we met with officials from OJJDP,
NCJJ, and other organizations familiar with juvenile justice issues,
such as the American Bar Association, National Legal Aid Defenders
Association, and the Coalition for Juvenile Justice to determine
their perspectives on juveniles' access to counsel. We conducted a
review of literature identified in bibliographies provided by NCJJ
and OJJDP as well as articles and studies we identified. We used
only those studies that were relevant to addressing our objectives.
We did not evaluate the studies or their limitations. Also, to
better understand state juvenile justice systems, we developed
profiles of juvenile justice processes in nine states: Arizona,
California, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, and Utah. We developed this information from
discussions with various state and local juvenile justice officials,
court administrators, juvenile justice advocacy groups, judges, and
prosecutors. We also reviewed state and local documents on juvenile
justice procedure and processes. We did not verify the accuracy of
the information through a review of state statutes and administrative
rules. These states were selected for their range of urban and rural
locations and their diversity of juvenile justice systems.
To determine the scope of juveniles' right to counsel in selected
states, we analyzed statutes, administrative rules, and case law in
15 states: Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana,
Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Texas, and Utah. We selected these states after
considering such factors as the diversity of each state's juvenile
justice system and the availability of state juvenile court
processing data maintained by NCJJ.\1 In addition to our legal
analysis of statutes in selected states, we reviewed an analysis of
statutes nationwide prepared by NCJJ.
To determine the frequency with which juveniles have counsel in
juvenile court, we used annual juvenile court data sets and case
records compiled and maintained by NCJJ.\2 Specifically, we analyzed
data on petitioned delinquency offenders in juvenile courts in
California, Pennsylvania, and Nebraska. We identified four other
states with NCJJ data on counsel, which we excluded because they were
the subject of another study (Minnesota), had a relatively small
population (North Dakota), or did not have data we needed for other
mandated juvenile justice studies--e.g., Juvenile Justice: Minimal
Gender Bias Occurred in Processing Noncriminal Juveniles
(GAO/GGD-95-56, Feb. 28, 1995). We used the NCJJ data for the
counties in the three states for which data were available to develop
statistics for a 2-year period in California and Nebraska covering
calendar years 1990 and 1991, and for 1991 for Pennsylvania, the most
recent available data at the time of our review. The sample for each
state was limited to petitioned delinquency cases only, excluding
status cases as well as abuse, neglect, and dependency cases, and
routine traffic offenses. We arranged the delinquency offenses into
seven broad categories: violent, property, simple assault, drugs,
weapons, public order, and indeterminate.
To obtain indications of the impact of counsel on dispositions, we
did a two-part analysis. First, we developed statistics on case
processing outcomes for each state. Second, we developed statistical
models that controlled for variables that may affect a juvenile's
disposition, e.g., offense severity or prior history. Specifically,
for each state, we estimated a series of logistic regression models
that investigated the relationships between the type of
representation in juvenile delinquency proceedings and key decision
points in the juvenile judicial process controlling for a number of
relevant variables. We measured four types of representation: (1)
no counsel, (2) privately retained counsel, (3) court-appointed
private counsel, and (4) public defender. We analyzed two key
decision points: (1) whether the juvenile was, in fact, adjudicated
as delinquent and (2) whether the juvenile received an out-of-home
placement as disposition of the case after adjudication. We
estimated the models separately for each of the 3 states for up to 10
crime types.
Data were available for five counties in California which represented
40 percent of the juvenile population between ages 10 and 17. The
Pennsylvania data, which were only for 1991, excluded cases from
Philadelphia because Philadelphia petitions all cases, not just the
more serious cases, to juvenile court. These limitations apply to
all results using California and Pennsylvania data. Table 1 provides
information on the specific types of crimes falling into each offense
category in each state. The figures in this table were computed
after excluding cases in which the type of counsel was missing in the
database. In California, this amounted to about 5 percent of 64,275
cases; in Pennsylvania about 5 percent of the 15,397 cases; in
Nebraska about 18 percent of the 6,603 cases. According to a
Nebraska official, data were not available on representation rates in
one of the state's larger counties. Therefore, we also omitted this
county's cases from our analysis, which amounts to 14 percent of all
of Nebraska's cases. However, the official added that an estimated
75 percent of the juveniles were represented at adjudication hearings
in that county.
Regarding juveniles in adult court, we were unable to locate a
national database containing information on the frequency of
representation. However, we discussed the matter with juvenile
justice officials during our field visits and solicited information
in our survey of prosecutors.
To provide insights regarding the quality of counsel, we surveyed a
national sample of local prosecutors; interviewed juvenile justice
officials, such as judges at the state and local levels; and surveyed
public defender offices.
To gather opinions and experiences of prosecutors concerning access
to counsel in the juvenile court system, we obtained 226 completed
questionnaires from a nationally representative, probability sample
of district prosecutor offices that deal with juveniles in juvenile
courts. We first identified a stratified probability sample of
county prosecutors in 290 of the 3,110 counties in the United States.
To gather information about large and small counties, the sample was
stratified on the basis of the number of felony convictions in 1985.
The 1985 felony convictions were used to first draw this sample of
290 counties in 1986 for the National Judicial Reporting Program.
We developed the questionnaire with advice from experts at NCJJ and
the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics and
pretested it with selected prosecutor offices. The survey was mailed
in March 1994. Two sets of follow-up telephone calls and two
additional mailings were conducted between May and July 1994.
We contacted all 290 selected counties to determine whether they had
juvenile prosecutors and to determine the counties over which the
prosecutors had jurisdiction. We determined that 270 of the 290
counties were eligible members of our study population of prosecutor
offices that dealt with juvenile offenders in juvenile court. After
weighing the probabilities of selection, we estimated that the study
population consisted of approximately 2,118 such juvenile prosecutors
in the United States. This number is less than the number of
counties (3,110), partly because some counties are consolidated under
a single juvenile prosecutor and partly because some jurisdictions do
not have prosecutors that appear in juvenile court. Of the 270
sampled prosecutors from the study population, 226 responded, for a
response rate of 84 percent.
We estimated all figures reported in the text from the returned
questionnaires to the estimated 2,118 juvenile prosecutor offices.
All sample surveys are subject to sampling error. This may occur
because the sample results may differ from what would have been
obtained if the entire population had received and returned the
questionnaire. The size of sampling errors in any survey depends
largely on the number of respondents and the amount of variability in
the data. In this report, all estimates, with two exceptions, are
made at the 95-percent confidence level with a sampling error of plus
or minus 10 percent. This means that, if we drew repeated samples
from the entire study population of prosecutor offices, 19 out of 20
samples would produce estimates within 10 percent of the true
proportion in the total population. In table 9, the estimates of 80
percent and 74 percent have confidence intervals of plus or minus
10.1 and 10.2 percent, respectively.
In addition to the reported sampling errors, any survey may be
subject to nonsampling errors as well. For example, differences in
how a particular question is interpreted, in the sources of
information that are available to respondents or in the types of
people who do not respond, can introduce unwanted variability into
survey results.
We included steps in the data collection and data analysis stages to
minimize such nonsampling errors. We selected the sample from a
complete list of all counties, and we pretested our questionnaire
with experts and members of the target population. Our extensive
follow-up efforts were designed to maximize the response rate, and we
achieved a final response rate of 84 percent. All data were keyed
twice and verified during data entry, and all computer analyses were
reviewed by a second, independent analyst.
We also administered a semistructured interview to 16 judges to
gather information concerning their views on the quality of counsel
provided to juveniles. We asked the judges about their perceptions
related to quality of counsel for the three types of counsel provided
to juveniles--public defenders, private attorneys, and
court-appointed counsel. The judges--located in Florida, Louisiana,
Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah--were
judgmentally selected on the basis of their availability, and their
views do not necessarily represent those of other judges.
We also sent a questionnaire to 26 state-level public defender
offices. We selected those states that, according to officials from
the National Legal Aid Defenders' Association, comprised the universe
of statewide public defender offices that represented juvenile
delinquents. We received 19 responses and followed up with telephone
calls for clarification.
In reporting survey and interview results from juvenile justice
officials, we did not evaluate their responses for possible biases.
To develop comparative information about the availability of counsel
for delinquents, we visited a total of eight jurisdictions within
each of four states. Those jurisdictions included Tallahassee and
Tampa, Florida; Baton Rouge and West Francisville, Louisiana;
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Salt Lake City, Logan, and Ogden,
Utah. We judgmentally selected Florida, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and
Utah on the basis of several factors, such as the large concentration
of juvenile offenders, the diversity of juvenile justice systems, the
range of urban and rural locations, and the availability of state
juvenile court processing data from NCJJ. Generally in each of the
selected states, we interviewed local judges, prosecutors, and public
defenders as well as representatives of juvenile courts, bar
associations, and state child welfare agencies. We selected them on
the basis of their availability at the time of our visits. Where
possible, we obtained statistical information on access to counsel,
which was maintained by the jurisdiction, and observed juvenile
proceedings in session.
--------------------
\1 Each year, NCJJ collects juvenile court processing data for up to
26 states.
\2 We used data that were housed in and made available by the
National Juvenile Court Data Archive, which is maintained by NCJJ and
supported by a grant from OJJDP. These data were originally
collected by the Alameda County, CA, Probation Department; the Los
Angeles County, CA, Probation Department; the San Francisco County,
CA, Juvenile Probation Department; the San Joaquin County, CA,
Probation Department; the County of Ventura, CA, Corrections Services
Agency; the Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal
Justice; and the Pennsylvania Center for Juvenile Justice Training
and Research. Neither the original data collectors nor NCJJ bear any
responsibility for our analyses or interpretations of the data.
METHODS FOR ANALYZING THE
FREQUENCY OF REPRESENTATION AND
IMPACTS OF COUNSEL ON JUVENILE
COURT OUTCOMES
========================================================= Appendix III
This appendix discusses the methods we used (1) to review the
frequency with which juveniles accused of delinquent activities
received counsel and (2) to assess the impact of counsel on two
juvenile court outcomes. For each issue, we restricted our analysis
to cases petitioned to juvenile court that were disposed in calendar
years 1990 and 1991 in California, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania. For
the purposes of this analysis, we used the term case to refer to a
single juvenile defendant. We used petitioned to refer to defendants
who had adjudicatory hearings or who were handled in a formal manner
by the juvenile court.
APPROACH OF THE REVIEW
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1
To review the frequency of representation, we identified cases of
juveniles petitioned to court and then determined if they had legal
representation during the processing of their cases. We looked at
whether represented juveniles differed from those without
representation on three characteristics: (1) the type of crime with
which they were charged, (2) their offense history, and (3) the
location of the court in more urban or more rural counties.
We reviewed the relationship between legal representation and two
juvenile court outcomes--adjudication as delinquent and receiving an
out-of-home placement after being adjudicated as delinquent.
Adjudication refers to the fact-finding hearing in which the juvenile
court determines whether or not there is sufficient evidence to
sustain the allegations in a petition. Out-of-home placement refers
to post-adjudication dispositions that result in the placement of the
juvenile outside his or her own home, regardless of whether such
placement is in a secure or nonsecure facility.
To analyze these relationships we compared the differences in
outcomes for juveniles who were represented against those who were
not, controlling only for the type of crime. Second, to control for
variables other than the type of representation, which may also be
associated with juvenile court outcomes, we conducted regression
analysis of the relationship between the outcomes and juveniles' case
characteristics. Specifically, we estimated separate logistic
regressions for up to 10 crime types in each of the 3 states for each
of the 2 juvenile court outcomes: (1) whether a juvenile was
adjudicated as delinquent and (2) whether an adjudicated juvenile
delinquent was placed out-of-home\1 . In estimating these equations,
we controlled for three classes of characteristics (1) demographic
variables, such as age, race, and gender; (2) offense and
offender-behavior variables, such as current offense, offense
history, and juvenile court supervisory status; and (3) juvenile
court processing variables, such as detention prior to adjudication
and the location of the court.\2
We estimated these regressions to answer three general questions:
(1) What were the independent or main effects of whether a juvenile
was represented on the likelihood either of being adjudicated or of
being placed? (2) What difference did the type of counsel--public
defender, court appointed, and privately paid--have on these
likelihoods? and (3) What independent variables had the largest
impacts on the dependent variables?
--------------------
\1 These two dependent variables--adjudicated and placed--were
dichotomous dependent variables. Each had only two possible values.
Juveniles' cases either were adjudicated as delinquent or they were
not. Similarly, they either were placed out-of-home or they were
not. In our analysis, we looked first at whether a case was
adjudicated and second, only for those cases that were adjudicated,
we looked at whether they were placed. We did not identify types of
placements because of data limitations.
\2 The specific crime types and variables used in the models are
discussed in more detail in the following sections.
APPROACH, DATA, AND METHODS TO
THE ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2
In general, we discuss three types of analyses in this appendix.
First, we analyzed the data to determine the number of cases in which
juveniles were represented or not. Drawing on issues raised in the
literature, we analyzed the representation rates for a number of
characteristics, including type of offense, offense history, and
location of juvenile courts.
Second, we compared juvenile court outcomes--whether adjudicated or
placed out-of-home--of juveniles who were represented with those who
were not represented. We reported the aggregate differences between
these two groups by offense categories.
Third, because juvenile court outcomes depend on more than whether a
juvenile had counsel, we estimated logistic regressions to determine
the independent impacts of the three types of representation on the
likelihood of adjudication and placement controlling for other
characteristics that affect these likelihoods. In addition, we
sought to determine which characteristics were most strongly
associated with these likelihoods.
DATA
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.1
We used juvenile court case-level data from California, Nebraska, and
Pennsylvania for cases disposed in calendar years 1990 and 1991.\3 We
obtained these data from the National Juvenile Court Data Archive
(NJCDA) of the NCJJ. We obtained the data on magnetic tape, and we
performed our own analysis of these data. We consulted with research
staff at NCJJ to obtain assistance in understanding the data and in
classifying certain variables for analysis. For example, we obtained
assistance in categorizing the specific statutory offenses or
behaviors that were recorded on the data tapes into offense
categories and offense types that we could use in the analysis.
The data from California were limited to five of the largest counties
(Alameda, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jaoquin, and Ventura) that
reported their data to the NJCDA. These counties represented about
40 percent of the state's juvenile population between ages 10 and 17.
For Pennsylvania, we used only the 1991 data, and we did not include
data from Philadelphia. In 1991, 14,584 cases were petitioned to
juvenile courts in Pennsylvania in counties other than Philadelphia
county, where there were 8,102 cases. Those petitioned in
Philadelphia county were not directly comparable with those in the
rest of the state because Philadelphia petitions all juvenile cases
to court--regardless of the severity of the offense. In the rest of
the state, petitioned cases are usually limited to the more serious
offenses or more serious offenders. In addition, we limited
ourselves to the 1991 data because in 1990, Pennsylvania did not
report data on the offense history of juveniles, and therefore we
could not analyze representation rates by looking at offense history.
For similar reasons, we did not include data from Philadelphia county
for either year. In addition, Philadelphia also did not report on
the prior offense history of juveniles and certain other variables
that we used in our analysis. We were able to report, however, the
overall representation rates for Pennsylvania in 1990 and
Philadelphia in 1991. (See the notes in table III.3.)
Nebraska reported data from all of its counties in 1990 and 1991.
However, Nebraska had the highest percentage of cases across the
three states in which the type of counsel was not reported (about 18
percent). In addition, we had to omit cases from one of the largest
counties in Nebraska because of the way it measured legal
representation. According to a state official, unlike the other
counties, in that one large county, the type or lack of legal
representation is recorded when a juvenile arrives at intake. At
intake, few juveniles are accompanied by attorneys; therefore, most
cases in that county are reported as not having counsel. However,
the state official indicated that about 75 percent of juveniles who
appeared before judges at adjudicatory hearings in that county were
represented by attorneys even though the reporting system indicated
that they were unrepresented. Because the data systems did not
indicate this change in representation, we deleted these cases from
our analysis. There were 905 cases petitioned to juvenile court in
this county, or about 16 percent of all petitioned cases in Nebraska.
--------------------
\3 These were the most recent data that we were able to obtain from
NCJJ at the time we began our analysis.
SAMPLE SELECTION ISSUES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.2
For all three states, we limited our analysis to those cases that
were petitioned to or formally handled by the juvenile courts for
delinquency offenses. This choice was made irrespective of the final
disposition of cases.
CRIME CATEGORIES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.3
To analyze these data, we classified detailed information on the
offenses for which juveniles were petitioned to court into broader
offense categories. For example, the original California data
identified offenses by the particular California statute and section
that was violated. More than 1,000 potential types of violations
were listed. In Pennsylvania, a few hundred specific offenses were
listed with which a juvenile could be charged. We created seven
broad classes or categories of crimes, which we used in the
descriptive analysis to show representation rates and differences in
juvenile court outcomes between represented and unrepresented
juveniles. Within these broader categories, we defined several
specific crime categories. We used these more specific crime types
in our regression analyses to control for the wide variation in
behaviors that were represented in the general crime categories. See
table 1 for our classification scheme.
For each state we estimated regressions for different sets of crime
types. The specific number and types of crimes were determined by
the available data. In California, we estimated regressions for 10
different crime types. In Pennsylvania, we estimated 9 and in
Nebraska, we estimated regressions for 5 crime types. The
determination as to whether or not a regression could be estimated
was based on the number of cases falling into each crime type.
REGRESSION METHODS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.4
We estimated logistic regressions for two dichotomous dependent
variables: (1) whether a case was adjudicated as delinquent and (2)
whether a case was placed out-of-home.
First, we estimated these regressions to determine the independent
effects of representation on juvenile court outcomes when we
controlled for relevant variables that also might have been
associated with these outcomes. This was a refinement of our
earlier analysis in which we simply reported the aggregated
differences in whether adjudication or placement was likely for
counseled versus uncounseled juveniles.
Second, we estimated the regressions to determine whether variables
representing the presence of counsel or other factors were more
strongly associated with the two outcomes. We did this to
determine the relative importance of counsel in predicting
juvenile court outcomes.
Third, we estimated the regressions to analyze the effects of
different types of counsel on these two outcomes. We estimated
the independent effects of having no counsel, privately retained
counsel, court-appointed private counsel, and public defender
representation on the likelihood of adjudication and placement.
We were able to note differences in the effects or impacts of
the types of counsel for various types of crime across the three
states.
We fit the data using maximum likelihood techniques.\4 We tested
alternative specifications using likelihood ratio tests to arrive at
our final models.\5
We used the parameters from the models and the means of the variables
in the models to estimate probabilities in order to compare the
differences in the likelihood of adjudication or placement resulting
from lack of representation and from different types of counsel. We
made these comparisons by estimating the overall probabilities from
the variables in the models. Then we estimated separate sets of
probabilities for each type of counsel. The differences in the
estimated probabilities give an indication of the differences in the
likelihood of obtaining an outcome for a particular type of counsel,
as compared with the overall estimated likelihood of obtaining that
outcome.
In addition, because the parameters from logistic regressions are not
easily interpretable, we exponentiated the estimated parameters to
form the odds ratio for each variable in the final models. The odds
ratios have a relatively straightforward interpretation. The odds
ratio is an estimate of how much more or less likely it is for the
outcome of interest to be present among those having a particular
characteristic than those not having that characteristic. For
example, an odds ratio of four for a variable indicating that a case
was unrepresented would be interpreted to show that unrepresented
cases were four times as likely as represented cases to have the
outcome of interest. Our discussion of the effects of variables on
the outcomes is based largely on the use of odds ratios.
--------------------
\4 We used the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) logistic procedure
to estimate the parameters in the models. SAS uses iteratively
reweighted least squares to compute its estimates. See, for example,
SAS/STAT User's Guide, Volume 2, GLM-VARCOMP, Version 6, Fourth
Edition. Cary, NC: The SAS Institute, 1990.
\5 As part of this effort, we used stepwise regression procedures to
eliminate variables that did not add to the overall "goodness of fit"
of each of the models.
VARIABLES USED IN THE
REGRESSION ANALYSES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.5
As mentioned, we estimated models for two dependent or outcome
variables: (1) whether a case was adjudicated as delinquent and (2)
whether a case was placed out-of-home. We used three broad
categories of independent variables in these regressions and specific
variables used in the models fell within these categories. On the
basis of existing literature, we used (1) demographic, (2)
offense-related, and (3) court-related broad classes of variables.
Demographic variables included the juvenile's age, race, and gender.
We included these variables in the analysis because the literature on
juvenile court dispositions identifies them either as important
determinants of outcomes or as indicators of important hypotheses
about judicial decisionmaking. For example, age is important in
determining outcomes because judges may not want to commit very young
juveniles to out-of-home placements. Gender and race may be
important indicators of bias.
Offense-related variables included the current offense, more or less
serious offense behavior within offense types, and prior offense
history. These variables give indications of the seriousness of the
behavior for which a juvenile is being judged and the seriousness of
the offender. More serious offenses and more serious offenders
(e.g., "career offenders") generally are viewed as more likely to be
adjudicated as delinquent or to receive out-of-home placements.
Omitting these variables may lead to overestimates of the effects of
types of or lack of counsel on juvenile court outcomes.
Finally, court-related variables included those related to judicial
processing and those related to location or geography. The court
processing variables included whether a case was represented and if
so the type of counsel, detention prior to adjudication, the length
of time it took to dispose of a case, the source of referral to
juvenile court, whether a juvenile was under supervisory status at
the time of referral, and whether charges changed between referral
and disposition. The location variables included whether the court
was in a metropolitan or nonmetropolitan county\6 and the population
density of the county in which the case was heard.
These variables were included for different reasons. The measures on
types of and lack of counsel were related to the key questions of
this analysis. Detention prior to adjudication or placement gave
another indication of the severity of the case or of the need to
ensure that a juvenile would appear for a hearing. The length of
time it took to dispose of a case may indicate the lack of evidence
in a case, the weakness of a case, or the complexity of a case.
Cases disposed of quickly may have been stronger or simpler cases.
Change of charges, particularly a decrease in the severity of the
charges, indicates the severity of the case. Finally, location
variables at a minimum helped to classify courts into types of
counties. The literature suggests that rural courts are
characterized by less formal processes in which a judge may know the
juvenile or juvenile's family personally and use that information in
deciding cases. Urban courts are characterized as having more formal
mechanisms for deciding cases.
Not all variables were available in each state's database and, in
some cases, variables were measured differently across the states
because of the way events were recorded in their juvenile courts.
Table III.1 shows the variables available for use, whether they were
used in a state, and if so, how they were measured in that state.
Table III.1
Variables Used in the Analysis
Variable California Pennsylvania Nebraska
-------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Dependent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjudication Whether a Same as in Same as in
petitioned California. California.
delinquent
offender was
adjudicated as
delinquent.
Placement Whether an Same as in Same as in
adjudicated California. California.
delinquent
received an out-
of-home placement.
Independent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demographic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age Age of the Age of the Age of the
juvenile in years juvenile in years juvenile in years
at the time the at the time the at the time the
case was disposed. case was referred case was referred
to juvenile court. to juvenile court.
Race Two dummy Two dummy Two dummy
variables: variables, as in variables, as in
(1) a variable to California. California.
indicate whether a
juvenile was black
or not black and
(2) a variable to
indicate whether a
juvenile belonged
to the "other"
race category.
Gender A dummy variable Same as in Same as in
to indicate that California. California.
the person in the
case was male.
Offense-related and juvenile court processing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of counsel Dummy variables to Same as in Same as in
indicate that (1) California. California.
the case was
uncounseled, (2)
the case was
represented by
privately retained
counsel, (3) the
case was
represented by
court-appointed
private counsel,
and (4) the case
was represented by
a public defender.
(Public defender
was the reference
category in the
models.)
Current offense Offenses were Offenses were Offenses were
classified into 1 classified into classified into
of 10 categories one of nine one of six
on the basis of categories on the categories on the
the availability basis of the basis of the
of data. These availability of availability of
were data. These were data. These were
--murder --rape --aggravated
--rape --robbery assault
--robbery --aggravated --burglary
--aggravated assault --larceny
assault --burglary --simple assault
--burglary --larceny --weapons
--larceny --simple assault --drugs
--simple assault --weapons
--weapons --drug possession
--drug possession --drug trafficking
--drug trafficking
Offense severity Within types, Same as in N/A
offenses were California.
classified as more
or less severe, on
the basis of
characteristics of
offense behavior
within specific
crime types, e.g.,
attempts versus
completed.
Offense history N/A Number of prior Number of prior
juvenile court referrals to
dispositions. juvenile court.
These were recoded These were recoded
into dummy into dummy
variables: (1) no variables: (1) no
priors, (2) one to priors, (2) one to
two priors, and two priors, and
(3) three or more (3) three or more
priors. (No priors priors. (No priors
was the reference was the reference
category in the category used in
models.) the models.)
Charges changed N/A A dummy variable N/A
(dropped) between to indicate that
time of referral charges filed at
and referral were
disposition different from the
charges at
disposition. (The
change usually
indicated a
decrease in the
severity of the
offense.)
Length of time to N/A Two variables were Two variables were
disposition used to measure used to measure
the length of time the length of time
to disposition: to disposition:
(1) the length of (1) the length of
time between time between
referral and referral and
disposition, in disposition, in
weeks; and (2) the weeks; and (2) the
square of the square of the
length of time to length of time to
disposition. The disposition. The
square of the square of the
length of time was length of time was
used to measure used to measure
nonlinear effects nonlinear effects
of time on the of time on the
placement placement
decision. decision.
Detention prior to A dummy variable Same as in Same as in
adjudication to indicate that a California. California.
case was detained
securely prior to
adjudication.
Source of referral A series of dummy Same as in Same as in
to juvenile court variables to California. California.
indicate the
source of referral
to juvenile court.
These included
variables to
indicate that (1)
the case was
referred by law
enforcement
officials; (2) it
was referred by
family members or
friends; (3) it
was referred by
school officials;
or (4) it was
referred by other
officials, such as
probation or court
officials. ("Other
officials" was the
reference
category.)
Supervisory status A dummy variable N/A N/A
at the time of to indicate that a
referral case was under
ward probation at
the time of
referral.
Geographic Indicators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan status N/A A dummy variable A dummy variable
to indicate that to indicate that
the court in which the court in which
a case was heard a case was heard
was located in a was located in a
county within a county within a
metropolitan metropolitan
statistical area. statistical area.
Population density The population Same as in Same as in
density per 1,000 California. California.
residents of the
county containing
the court in which
a case was heard.
County indicators A series of dummy N/A N/A
variables to
indicate the
county in which a
case was heard.
(These were
created for
California because
its data came from
five counties, all
of which fell in
metropolitan
areas.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these variables, we included other variables to
indicate missing values for the variables measuring type of counsel
and prior offense history for the crime types in which there were
comparatively large numbers of missing cases (e.g., greater than 10
percent of the total number of cases). We included these variables
to determine if missing values were associated with the dependent
variables.
--------------------
\6 We defined metropolitan counties as those counties falling within
a primary metropolitan statistical area (PMSA) or metropolitan
statistical area (MSA), as defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Nonmetropolitan counties fell outside of PMSAs or MSAs. These
designations were chosen as proxies for urban and less densely
populated areas. The data we obtained did not have measures of
location that would have permitted us to identify urban and rural
areas, as defined by Census. For California, all of the cases came
from metropolitan counties. For Pennsylvania, about 90 percent of
the cases were from metropolitan counties. For Nebraska, about 55
percent of all cases were from metropolitan counties.
OMITTED VARIABLES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.6
As in all modeling efforts, the results are interpretable only in the
context of the variables included in the models. Excluding relevant
variables from the models, such as a juvenile's demeanor or a
judges's personal knowledge of a case, could affect the estimates of
the effects of variables in the models. It is not possible, a
priori, to determine the direction or magnitude of such effects of
all potentially relevant variables that may have been excluded from
the models. We tried to produce models that were reasonable, that
is, that included at least some of the important variables identified
in the literature. Ultimately, we were constrained in our efforts by
the variables contained in each state's database.
SAMPLE SELECTION AND CASES
ANALYZED
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.7
We estimated separate regressions for up to 10 crime types for the
adjudication and placement outcomes in each state. Table III.2 shows
the crime types for which we estimated models. We selected these
crime types primarily because of the number of cases available for
analysis with the exception of public order offenses. We did not
estimate models for public order offenses largely because of the
relative lack of seriousness of these offenses. We also did not
estimate models for indeterminate offenses because we could not
ascertain the crime type. We did not estimate models for other
offense categories because of the wide variation in crime types
falling into that category.
For the adjudication models, we selected those cases that were
petitioned to juvenile court or otherwise handled more formally at
the initial processing of the case.\7 For the placement models, we
selected only those cases that were adjudicated as delinquent.
Table III.2
Crime Types Used in the Adjudication and
Placement Regression Models
Crime type California Pennsylvania Nebraska
----------- -- ------------- ------------- -------------
Murder X \a \a
Rape X X \a
Robbery X X \a
Aggravated X X \a
assault
Burglary X X X
Larceny X X X
Drug X X X\b
trafficking
Drug X X X\b
possession
Simple X X X
assault
Weapons X X X
------------------------------------------------------------
\a No model was constructed for this crime type generally because of
the limited number of cases.
\b Drug trafficking and drug possession crimes were combined in
Nebraska.
--------------------
\7 Because states' procedures for handling cases formally and
informally vary, this choice did not necessarily exclude cases whose
final disposition was made by an informal adjustment. For example,
in Pennsylvania, there are differences between Philadelphia county
and the rest of the state in terms of which cases are petitioned to
juvenile court. Philadelphia county petitions all cases, regardless
of seriousness, and then decides whether to dispose of cases formally
through adjudication or informally by another mechanism, such as the
consent decree. Further, regardless of the county in Pennsylvania,
consent decrees are used as informal adjustments after cases are
petitioned to court. In cases disposed of by consent decrees, a
juvenile master, rather than a juvenile court judge, hears the case;
juveniles do not appear for an adjudicatory hearing; and juveniles
tend not to receive legal representation in these cases.
RESULTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3
The results of our analyses are discussed in two sections. First, we
reviewed the findings on the frequency of representation and on the
differences in the probabilities of adjudication and placement for
unrepresented juveniles compared with represented juveniles in the
detailed crime type classifications. Then we discuss three results
from the modeling exercise: (1) the effects of lack of
representation on the likelihoods of adjudication and placement; (2)
the effects of different types of counsel on the estimated
probabilities of adjudication and placement; and (3) the variables
that had the strongest associations with the adjudication and
placement outcomes.
REPRESENTATION RATES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.1
As table III.3 shows, the representation rates varied among the
states. Overall, juveniles in California were more likely to be
represented for all serious crime types. More than 99 percent of all
violent offenders and more than 98 percent of all property offenders
in California were represented. Only for the relatively less serious
crime types, public order offenses, did the representation rate in
California drop below 90 percent. Besides that one crime category,
over 99 percent of juveniles in California would have been
represented.
Table III.3
Number of Cases Petitioned to Juvenile
Courts and Percentage Represented by
Counsel, for Calendar Years 1990 and
1991, by State, for Detailed Crime Types
Percentage Percentage Percentage
Crime Number represente Number represente Number represente
type petitioned d petitioned d petitioned d
-------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Murder\d 1,097 99.7 5 100.0 1 100.0
Rape 319 99.1 171 99.4 0 \i
Robbery 6,003 99.8 508 97.0 32 96.9
Aggravat 4,505 99.6 1,306 93.1 40 85.0
ed
assault
Other 961 99.1 1,064 92.8 0 \i
violent
offense
s
Indeterm 45 100.0 33 93.9 90 90.0
inate
violent
offense
s
Burglary 8,099 99.0 2,450 88.6 389 82.3
Fraud\e 438 98.6 91 83.5 49 59.2
Larceny\ 5,496 98.3 3,769 90.4 1,806 59.5
f
Motor 6,454 99.2 360 88.9 171 66.1
vehicle
theft
Arson 228 98.2 167 94.6 25 72.0
Other 5,247 98.4 1,027 83.4 768 58.9
property
offense
s
Drug 1,456 98.8 277 96.0 112\h 80.4
possess
ion
Drug 4,885 99.6 484 98.6 \h \h
traffic
king
Other 505 100.0 202 91.6 \h \h
drug
offense
s
Simple 3,529 98.7 1,440 89.4 396 75.0
assault
Weapons 3,474 99.4 153 90.8 85 90.6
Public 7,105 82.7 624 86.2 85 71.8
order\g
Indeterm 864 98.6 453 94.3 458 54.1
inate
================================================================================
Totals 60,710 97.2 14,584 90.6 4,507 64.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The figures in this table and in tables III.4 and III.5 were
computed after excluding cases in which the type of counsel was
missing in the database. In California, this amounted to about 5
percent of 64,275 cases and in Pennsylvania about 5 percent of the
15,397 cases. These data are for only those counties for which data
were available.
\a In California, data were available only from five counties. These
included some of the largest counties, and they represented about 40
percent of the juvenile population between ages 10 and 17.
\b Data for Pennsylvania were for 1991 only, and they did not include
Philadelphia county. Philadelphia accounted for an additional 8,102
cases in 1991, and there were no reported cases of unrepresented
juveniles in Philadelphia. (See the text for more details on the
data limitations.)
\c Data for Nebraska exclude one of the larger counties, which
accounted for 906 cases. These cases were excluded because the
variable that indicated whether cases were represented by legal
counsel was incorrectly recorded.
\d The murder category includes the crimes of murder and nonnegligent
manslaughter.
\e The fraud category includes the crimes of fraud, forgery, and
embezzlement.
\f The larceny category includes unspecified larcenies in
Pennsylvania and Nebraska.
\g The public order category includes other nonviolent offenses.
\h Drug crimes in Nebraska were not broken down by type; therefore,
we could not distinguish between drug possession and drug trafficking
there.
\i No cases were reported.
Source: GAO analysis of NCJJ data.
In Pennsylvania, the representation rates were similar, although
slightly lower, than California's. Nevertheless, 94 percent of all
violent offenders in Pennsylvania were represented. Apart from fraud
(with relatively few cases) and other property offenses, more than 88
percent of Pennsylvania's property offenders were represented. As in
California, for comparatively less serious offenses, the
representation rates were slightly lower in Pennsylvania.
In Nebraska, however, representation rates are comparatively low at
about 65 percent overall. These rates seem to decrease as crimes
become less serious. For example, violent offenders in Nebraska
generally are more likely to be represented than property offenders.
COMPARATIVE PROBABILITIES OF
ADJUDICATION
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.2
Table III.4 shows the comparative probabilities of adjudication for
represented and unrepresented juveniles for the detailed crime type
classifications. In general, for California and Pennsylvania,
unrepresented juveniles were less likely to be adjudicated than those
represented. In Nebraska, conversely, unrepresented juveniles were
more likely to be adjudicated as delinquent.
Table III.4
Percentage of Petitioned Cases
Adjudicated as Delinquent, by State and
by Whether Represented or Unrepresented
by Counsel, for Calendar Years 1990-
1991
Crime With Without With Without With Without
type counsel counsel counsel counsel counsel counsel
-------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Murder\d 59.2 100.0\i 80.0\i \k 100.0\j \k
Rape 69.2 33.3\i 57.3 0.0\i \k \k
Robbery 67.2 58.3\i 75.1 41.7\i 74.2 100.0\j
Aggravat 68.2 70.6\i 75.7 23.5 73.5 83.3\i
ed
assault
Other 67.7 44.4\i 62.9 26.5 \k \k
violent
offense
s
Indeterm 82.2 \k 57.1 0.0\i 74.1 88.9
inate
violent
offense
s
Burglary 71.2 53.8 77.4 31.3 77.2 89.9
Fraud\e 64.6 66.7\i 55.1 25.0\i 79.3 100.0\i
Larceny\ 71.0 70.2 72.9 33.8 82.0 93.4
f
Motor 72.9 50.9 76.8 44.4 90.3 89.7
vehicle
theft
Arson 75.3 50.0\i 67.9 75.0\i 83.3 100.0\i
Other 65.7 69.9 65.6 26.4 84.1 93.7
property
offense
s
Drug 70.7 61.1\i 68.4 54.5 81.1\h 100.0\h
possess
ion
Drug 76.1 54.5 79.5 66.7 \h \h
traffic
king
Other 71.3 \k 69.1 20.0\i \h \h
drug
offense
s
Simple 66.5 53.3 61.0 31.5 75.1 86.9
assault
Weapons 71.9 52.4 71.6 20.0\i 76.6 87.5\i
Public 69.9 52.9 65.6 21.1 90.2 87.5
order\g
Indeterm 65.9 91.7\i 78.7 33.3 90.7 94.8
inate
offense
s
================================================================================
Total 69.9 55.3 71.3 30.9 81.8 93.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a In California, data were available only from five counties. These
included some of the largest counties, and they represented about 40
percent of the juvenile population between age 10 and 17.
\b Data for Pennsylvania were for 1991 only, and they did not include
Philadelphia county. Philadelphia accounted for an additional 8102
cases in 1991, and there were no reported cases of unrepresented
juveniles in Philadelphia. (See the text for more details on the
data limitations.)
\c Data for Nebraska excluded one of the larger counties, which
accounted for 906 cases. These cases were excluded because the
variable that indicated whether cases were represented by legal
counsel was incorrectly recorded.
\d The murder category includes the crimes of murder and nonnegligent
manslaughter.
\e The fraud category includes the crimes of fraud, forgery, and
embezzlement.
\f The larceny category includes unspecified larcenies in
Pennsylvania and Nebraska.
\g The public order category includes other nonviolent offenses.
\h Drug crimes in Nebraska were not broken down by type; therefore,
we could not distinguish between drug possession and drug trafficking
there.
\i Percentages were based on 20 or fewer total unrepresented cases.
\j Based on one case.
\k No cases were reported.
Source: GAO analysis of NCJJ data.
Table III.4 shows the relatively few unrepresented juvenile cases in
California and Pennsylvania for many crime types. In California, for
four of the nine crime types--all having fewer than 20 unrepresented
juvenile cases--the probability of adjudication was higher for
unrepresented juveniles. Overall in California, only 946 of the
41,985 adjudicated cases (or 2.2 percent) in table III.3 were
unrepresented. In Pennsylvania, of the 8,488 cases that were
adjudicated, only 305 (or about 3 percent) were unrepresented. The
differences in the likelihood of adjudication between unrepresented
and represented cases in California are based on relatively few
unrepresented juvenile cases. For Pennsylvania, the same caveat
holds true, that is, differences in the likelihood of adjudication
between represented and unrepresented juveniles are based on a
relatively small number of unrepresented cases.
In Pennsylvania, only for arson did the probability of adjudication
for unrepresented juveniles exceed that of represented juveniles, and
there were fewer than 20 arson cases. This suggests that a higher
likelihood of adjudication for unrepresented juveniles as compared
with represented juveniles in California and Pennsylvania was a
relatively rare event. The higher likelihood in these cases may be
due to specific circumstances in the case that may not have been
measured or recorded in the state's juvenile court databases.
In Nebraska, however, the probability of adjudication is higher for
unrepresented juveniles than for represented juveniles for many crime
types, whether or not there are relatively few unrepresented juvenile
cases. Overall, 2,156 of the 4,580 adjudicated cases (47 percent)
were unrepresented in Nebraska.
COMPARATIVE PROBABILITIES OF
PLACEMENT
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3.3
Table III.5 shows the comparative probabilities of placement for
unrepresented and represented juveniles adjudicated in the three
states. For most crime types across the three states, unrepresented
juveniles were less likely to receive out-of-home placements than
represented juveniles, and, as with the adjudication outcomes, there
were a number of crime types with relatively few unrepresented cases
(i.e., fewer than 20 cases) where juveniles faced placement
decisions.
Table III.5
Percentage of Adjudicated Cases
Receiving Out-of-Home Placements, by
State, Whether Represented or
Unrepresented by Counsel, for Calendar
Years 1990-1991
Crime With Without With Without With Without
type counsel counsel counsel counsel counsel counsel
-------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Murder\d 89.1 66.7\i 75.0\h \k 100.0\i \k
Rape 58.2 0.0\j 37.2 \k \k \k
Robbery 67.6 57.1\i 34.4 20.0\i 39.1\i 0.0\i
Aggravat 54.4 33.3\i 26.9 12.5\i 28.0\i 0.0\i
ed
assault
Other 54.8 50.0\i 28.2 15.4\i \k \k
violent
offense
s
Indeterm 73.0 \k 25.0\h \k 23.3 0.0
inate
violent
offense
s
Burglary 44.1 21.4 26.8 10.6 23.9 6.5
Fraud\e 37.1 50.0\i 7.9 0.0\i 21.7\i 10.0\i
Larceny\ 44.7 34.8 21.3 13.0 15.6 3.2
f
Motor 51.5 48.1 25.5 25.0\i 27.5 21.2
vehicle
theft
Arson 36.3 50.0\i 11.2 0.0\i 6.7\i 14.3\i
Other 42.2 41.4 20.9 6.1 13.7 1.7
property
offense
s
Drug 52.0 54.5\i 32.9 16.7\i 30.1\h 4.5\h
possess
ion
Drug 49.8 58.3 35.7 0.0\i \h \h
traffic
king
Other 62.2 \k 23.7 0.0\i \h \h
drug
offense
s
Simple 41.9 50.0 24.7 11.8 11.2 7.0
assault
Weapons 44.3 18.2\h 19.3 0.0\i 11.9 0.0\i
Public 66.1 81.0 35.4 31.3\i 7.3 4.8\i
order\g
Indeterm 53.7 54.5\i 47.5 14.3\i 14.2 3.0
inate
offense
s
================================================================================
Total 51.8 68.1 26.6 12.8 16.9 4.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a In California, data were available only from five counties. These
included some of the largest counties, and they represented about 40
percent of the juvenile population between age 10 and 17.
\b Data for Pennsylvania were for 1991 only, and they did not include
Philadelphia county. Philadelphia accounted for an additional 8,102
cases in 1991, and there were no reported cases of unrepresented
juveniles in Philadelphia. (See the text for more details on the
data limitations.)
\c Data for Nebraska excluded one of the larger counties, which
accounted for 906 cases. These cases were excluded because the
variable that indicated whether cases were represented by legal
counsel was incorrectly recorded.
\d The murder category includes the crimes of murder and nonnegligent
manslaughter.
\e The fraud category includes the crimes of fraud, forgery, and
embezzlement.
\f The larceny category includes unspecified larcenies in
Pennsylvania and Nebraska.
\g The public order category includes other nonviolent offenses.
\h Drug crimes in Nebraska were not broken down by type; therefore we
could not distinguish between drug possession and drug trafficking
there.
\i Percentages were based on 20 or fewer total unrepresented cases.
\j Based on one case.
\k No cases were reported.
Source: GAO analysis of NCJJ data.
Some exceptions occurred in California. In most of the cases in
which unrepresented juveniles were more likely than those represented
to be placed, there were fewer than 20 unrepresented juvenile cases.
The exception to this rule was for other property offenses, but these
cases tend to include relatively minor property offenses, such as
possession of stolen property.
For Pennsylvania and Nebraska, arson in Nebraska was the only crime
type in which unrepresented juveniles were more likely to be placed
than those represented, and that result was based on fewer than 20
unrepresented juvenile cases. The major difference between
California and both Pennsylvania and Nebraska was the prevalence with
which each state used out-of-home placements as a juvenile court
disposition. California used placements at a higher rate than the
other two states. Consequently, unrepresented juveniles in
California face an overall risk of placement that is somewhat higher
than in the other states, despite the fact that there were relatively
few unrepresented juvenile cases being placed in California.
However, because so few juveniles were unrepresented in California,
the likelihood that a juvenile was both unrepresented and placed was
lowest there of the three states.
RESULTS FROM THE REGRESSION
MODELS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4
Because we found differences in the comparative probabilities of
adjudication and placement between unrepresented and represented
juveniles, we looked more closely at the likelihood of receiving
these outcomes as a function of whether a case received legal
representation and the other characteristics of a case that may
determine these outcomes. Thus, we used the regressions first to
determine if the lack of representation had an independent effect on
the likelihood of adjudication and placement.
Second, given the relatively small number of unrepresented cases in
California and Pennsylvania, we analyzed the effect on adjudication
and placement outcomes of the different types of counsel. Third,
given the importance of offense severity and offense history to
judicial decisions, we used the regressions to determine whether
these and other variables had stronger effects on the likelihood of
adjudication and placement than did the lack or type of
representation.
In interpreting the regression results, two caveats should be
considered. First, selection effects can influence outcomes at each
stage. Selection effects refer to the process whereby juveniles
having selected characteristics are the ones who move onto a
particular stage of processing. The characteristics used to select
the juveniles who move onto the next stage are important if they also
are the characteristics used to determine whether or not a juvenile
receives representation. For example, if juveniles who commit less
serious crimes are less likely to be adjudicated and less likely to
receive representation because they are less likely to be
adjudicated, then these selection effects may cause our regressions
to over-estimate the effects of representation on juvenile court
outcomes.
Second, although we used relatively narrow crime types, the crime
types encompass a relatively wide range of behaviors for which data
were not available. For example, data on victim injury in robbery or
assault cases were not available, but victim injury may be important
in judges' decisionmaking. Similarly, these unmeasured behaviors may
also be related to the provision of counsel and thus have some effect
on the estimates of counsel's impact on juvenile court outcomes.\8
--------------------
\8 The data in tables III.3, III.4, and III.5 report probabilities of
various outcomes. Some of these are quite high (e.g., California's
percentage represented). If the grouped data were used in the
regressions, we would encounter problems of restricted variances and
variables would not covary with the dependent variable. By using the
individual-level data and estimating logistic regressions, we
eliminated this potential problem.
ADJUDICATION OUTCOMES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.1
In the following discussion, the results of our analysis of
adjudication outcomes are considered on a state-by-state basis. The
effects of the lack of representation on adjudication are discussed
followed by the effects of different types of representation. The
effects of other variables on adjudication concludes the review of
each state.
CALIFORNIA
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.1.1
In California, almost all adjudicated cases were represented.
Specifically, of the 41,985 cases reported as adjudicated on table
III.3, only 946 were unrepresented. As a result, there were
relatively few unrepresented cases from which to derive estimates of
the effects of lacking representation on the likelihood of
adjudication.\9 Nevertheless, for 7 of the 10 crime types for which
we estimated adjudication models in California, we found that the
lack of representation did not exert independent effects on the
likelihood of adjudication. For burglary, larceny, and weapons, the
lack of representation had an independent effect on the likelihood of
adjudication after controlling for the other relevant variables
identified in table III.1.\10 For burglary and weapons, the lack of
representation was associated with lower likelihoods (as compared
with represented cases), but for larceny it was associated with a
higher likelihood of adjudication. Specifically, unrepresented
burglars were about one-half as likely to have their cases
adjudicated as those represented. Unrepresented juveniles with cases
involving weapons were about four-tenths as likely to have their
cases adjudicated as those represented. Conversely, unrepresented
juveniles with larceny cases were about one and one-half times more
likely to be adjudicated than those represented.
For robbery and drug trafficking cases, the lack of representation
was negatively associated with the likelihood of adjudication, but
the effects were too small to be considered meaningful.
The lack of representation had some independent effects on the
likelihood of adjudication for some crime types in California.
However, the effects operated in opposite directions across crimes,
were not widespread across crime types, and generally were small
relative to the size of the effects of other variables.
The influence of the type of representation was also difficult to
characterize. In California, most cases were represented by either
public defenders or by court-appointed private representation.
Privately paid attorneys represented juveniles in about 3 percent of
the cases. Thus, the main comparisons between types of
representation are between public defenders and court-appointed
private representation. In general, the effects of these two types
of representation on the likelihood of adjudication were mixed.
Juveniles represented by court- appointed private attorneys were more
likely to be adjudicated than those represented by public defenders,
for drugs and simple assault, but less likely for rape and aggravated
assault. Thus, court-appointed private attorneys likely decrease the
chances of adjudication in the more serious crimes. Of course, this
result may be due in part to the public defender workload and other
factors.
The absence of consistent effects of the lack or type of
representation on the likelihood of adjudication indicates that
variables other than representation may be more responsible for
determining judicial decisions than the type of representation. In
fact, this appears to be the case. We used the models to identify
those variables that had consistently large effects across equations.
We found that three variables had large effects on the likelihood of
adjudication across most types of crimes. These variables were
whether a case was under court supervision (ward probation) at the
time of referral, whether a juvenile was detained prior to
adjudication, and the location of the court (i.e., the county in
which a case was heard). A fourth variable, the age of the juvenile,
also was strongly associated with the likelihood of adjudication, but
the effects of age were not as consistent nor strong as these other
variables.
Juveniles "on ward probation"\11 at the time the current offense was
committed were from 1.6 to 3.1 times more likely to have their cases
adjudicated than those not on ward probation for the crimes of
robbery, aggravated assault, simple assault, burglary, larceny,
weapons, drug possession, and drug trafficking. Across crime types,
juveniles detained prior to adjudication were from 1.2 to 1.5 times
as likely as those not detained to have their cases adjudicated.
Across different locations, the likelihood of adjudication varied.
Depending upon the location of the court and the type of crime,
juveniles could be more likely to have their cases adjudicated (from
1.2 to 3.9 times as likely) or less likely to have them adjudicated
(about one-half as likely). Older juveniles were slightly less
likely to have their cases adjudicated than younger juveniles.
Finally, for some specific crime types, other variables, such as race
and gender, were associated with adjudicatory outcomes. For example,
males referred for aggravated assault were slightly less likely to
have their cases adjudicated than females referred for that crime.
In addition, blacks referred for drug possession were less likely
than persons of other races to have their cases adjudicated.
--------------------
\9 The relatively small number of unrepresented cases constrained our
choice of model specification to using a dummy variable to indicate
the absence of counsel. We would have preferred to estimate separate
equations for unrepresented and represented cases and compare the
parameter estimates across the equations for all variables in the
models. This latter approach is equivalent to estimating one model
with a complete set of interactions with the counsel dummy variable.
It has the added advantage, however, of not imposing the assumption
of equal variances between the uncounseled and counseled equations,
as is implicit in the fully saturated model. The implications of
constraining the variances relate mostly to hypothesis tests on
individual variables.
\10 The final equations for each crime type contained a different
subset of the variables listed on table III.1. The final variables
in the models were determined by the contribution of individual
variables to the overall goodness of fit of the model to the data.
The parameter estimates, odds ratios, and variances for variables
used in the 28 adjudication models are available upon request from
us.
\11 Ward probation refers to supervision of a juvenile as a "ward of
the court."
PENNSYLVANIA
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.1.2
As was the case in California, most adjudicated cases in Pennsylvania
were represented. Of the 8,488 adjudicated cases, only about 3
percent were unrepresented. Thus, while we tested for the effects of
the lack of representation on adjudication outcomes, unrepresented
cases were rare, and unrepresented adjudicated cases were even rarer.
For two of nine crime types in our regressions, the lack of
representation exerted an independent and negative effect on the
likelihood of adjudication. Burglary and simple assault cases that
were unrepresented were less likely to be adjudicated than cases in
those crime types that were represented.\12
Unrepresented juveniles in burglary cases were about four-tenths as
likely to have their cases adjudicated as those who were represented;
unrepresented juveniles in simple assault cases were about half as
likely.
There were generally no large differences in the effects of the
various types of representation on the likelihood of adjudication
across the crime types. Thus, type of representation also did not
have consistent effects on adjudicatory outcomes.
In Pennsylvania, the variables that were most strongly associated
with the likelihood of adjudication were whether a consent decree was
ordered and whether a case was detained prior to adjudication. The
type of offense was strongly associated with the likelihood of
adjudication, but its effects were not consistent across crime types.
Consent decrees are used in place of adjudications for certain,
relatively less serious cases in Pennsylvania. Most unrepresented
juvenile cases for robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny,
and simple assault were disposed of by consent decrees. Juveniles
detained prior to adjudication increased the likelihood of having
their cases adjudicated, relative to juveniles not detained, for all
crimes except weapons. Juveniles detained were from two to seven
times more likely to have their cases adjudicated than those not
detained.
In simple assault and burglary cases--where the gap between
unrepresented and represented cases persisted--variables other than
the lack of representation had larger effects on the likelihood of
adjudication than did the lack of representation. Cases disposed of
by consent decrees; cases in which juveniles have been detained prior
to adjudication; and cases where either the location of the court
(for simple assault), the gender, and the length of time before
disposition (for burglary) all produced larger changes in the
likelihood of adjudication than did the lack of representation.
In addition, race exerted independent influences on the likelihood of
adjudication in robbery and rape cases and gender exerted independent
influences on the likelihood of adjudication in burglary, larceny,
and drug possession cases. Black juveniles referred for rape or
robbery were less likely (0.102 and 0.255 times) than other juveniles
to have their cases adjudicated. Males referred for burglary,
larceny, and drug possession were more likely than females (2.63,
1.5, and 2.5 times) to have their cases adjudicated.
Thus, as in California, variables associated with case processing
were more strongly associated with the likelihood of adjudication in
Pennsylvania than with the lack of representation for most crime
types.
--------------------
\12 Unrepresented juveniles in weapons cases also were less likely to
have their cases adjudicated than those who were represented;
however, this finding was based on fewer than 10 cases, 2 of which
were adjudicated. In our view, this was too few cases for a
substantive finding.
NEBRASKA
--------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.1.3
Unlike California and Pennsylvania, juveniles in Nebraska had about
half (47.1 percent) of their adjudicated cases unrepresented.
Further, Nebraska adjudicated about one-ninth as many cases as
California, but Nebraska also had more than twice the number of
unrepresented adjudicated juvenile cases as California. Similar
discrepancies occurred in comparing Nebraska to Pennsylvania. Thus,
Nebraska's case is very different from the other two states.
The results from the regressions show that Nebraska differs from
California and Pennsylvania. First, after controlling for juveniles'
characteristics, unrepresented juveniles were less likely to be
adjudicated only for larceny--a relatively less serious property
offense. In larceny cases, unrepresented juveniles were about
four-tenths as likely to have their cases adjudicated as those who
were represented. For all other crime types, unrepresented and
represented juveniles were about equal in the probability of having
their cases adjudicated, after controlling for juveniles'
characteristics.
Second, the type of representation was not systematically related to
the likelihood of adjudication across crime types. Juveniles
represented by court-appointed private attorneys were about half as
likely to have their cases adjudicated than those represented by
public defenders for simple assault and larceny crimes. Juveniles
represented by privately paid attorneys were half as likely to have
their cases adjudicated in simple assault cases as compared with
those represented by public defenders. In weapons cases, however,
juveniles represented by privately paid attorneys were about 10 times
more likely to have their cases adjudicated than those represented by
public defenders. In general, juveniles represented by public
defenders were more likely to have their cases adjudicated than those
represented by other types of attorneys or those that were
unrepresented (except for weapons cases).
Third, measures of the location of the court in which a juvenile's
case was heard had the largest effect on the likelihood of
adjudication across crime types. The population density of the
county where the court was located had the strongest association with
the likelihood that a case was adjudicated for the crimes of simple
assault, burglary, larceny, and weapons. The association was
negative, that is, as the population density of the county increased,
the likelihood of adjudication decreased within crime categories. In
other words, in less densely populated counties juveniles were more
likely to have their cases adjudicated as delinquent than in more
densely populated counties, controlling for other characteristics.
However, burglary and larceny cases heard in metropolitan counties
were more likely to have their cases adjudicated than those heard in
nonmetropolitan counties. This apparent contradiction may stem from
the fact that within metropolitan counties there may be two classes
of counties in which the outcomes differ. For example, in the most
densely populated metropolitan counties (e.g., those containing the
central city of the PMSA or MSA), the likelihood of adjudication may
be lowest. (This accounts for the negative relationship between
population density and adjudication.) Such a relationship would not
invalidate the fact that, on the whole, juveniles in metropolitan
counties are more likely than those in nonmetropolitan counties to
have their cases adjudicated.
For aggravated assault and drug cases, the length of time before
disposition also had a strong association with the likelihood of
adjudication. For both of these crimes, the longer it took to
dispose of a case, the less likely it was to be adjudicated.
However, in aggravated assault cases, the type of attorney had an
effect. Cases with no attorneys and those with court-appointed
attorneys were less likely to have their cases adjudicated, whereas
in drug cases, there were no differences in the relative likelihood
of adjudication across types of attorneys.
Other variables having large, positive effects on the likelihood of
adjudication included whether a juvenile was detained (for burglary),
prior record (for larceny), and age (for weapons).
PLACEMENT OUTCOMES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.2
In analyzing out-of-home placements, we restricted the sample to
cases adjudicated as delinquent. We estimated equations for the same
crime types as in the adjudication analysis. In general, we found
that the presence or lack of representation was not associated with
the likelihood of placement for most crime types. In part, this was
due to the relatively few cases involving unrepresented juveniles
that were placed in the states, especially in California and
Pennsylvania. For example, in California only 6 of the 2,852 cases
adjudicated for aggravated assault in which a juvenile faced a
placement decision were unrepresented. In Pennsylvania, only 61 of
1,283 cases adjudicated for burglary in which a juvenile faced a
placement decision were unrepresented. In general, where there were
sufficient cases to produce a robust estimate of the effect of
representation on placement outcomes, we estimated models that
included representation variables.
There were exceptions to this general finding of no effect of the
presence or lack of representation on the likelihood of placement.
Specifically, in California, unrepresented juveniles were three to
five times more likely to be placed, in larceny and drug trafficking
cases, than were represented juveniles. In Pennsylvania,
unrepresented juveniles were two and one half to three times less
likely to be placed than those who were represented in burglary and
simple assault cases. In Nebraska, unrepresented juveniles were half
as likely to be placed in burglary cases and about two-fifths in
larceny and one-tenth as likely to be placed in drug cases than were
represented juveniles.
The influence of the type of attorney on the likelihood of placement
varied across the states. In California for all crimes except
murder, juveniles represented by court-appointed private attorneys
were more likely to be placed than those represented by private
attorneys or by public defenders. Juveniles represented by privately
paid attorneys were less likely to be placed than those represented
by public defenders in robbery, larceny, weapons, and drug possession
and trafficking cases.
In Pennsylvania, for all crimes except robbery, simple assault, and
drug trafficking, juveniles represented by private representation
were from slightly more than one to six times more likely to be
placed (depending upon the crime type) than those represented by
public defenders. In addition, juveniles represented by
court-appointed private attorneys were one and one half to two and
one half times more likely to be placed than those represented by
public defenders in burglary, larceny, and simple assault cases.
In Nebraska, juveniles represented by privately paid attorneys tended
to have lower chances of receiving placements than those represented
by public defenders for burglary, larceny, and drug cases.
A few variables tended to have relatively consistent effects on the
likelihood of placement. These included whether a juvenile was
detained prior to adjudication, whether charges were changed between
the time of referral and disposition, offense history and court
supervisory status, and the location of the courts.
In California, for example, for the violent crimes of murder, rape,
robbery, and aggravated assault, the likelihood of receiving
out-of-home placement was highest for juveniles detained prior to
adjudication, as opposed to those not detained. These juveniles were
from 3.1 to 10.5 times as likely to be placed out-of-home. The
likelihood was lowest for juveniles whose charges were changed
between referral and disposition.\13
In such cases, these juveniles were 0.08 to 0.38 times less likely to
be placed than those whose referral charges were not changed.
For the less serious violent crime of simple assault, for property
crimes, such as burglary and larceny, and for weapons and drug
possession the odds of receiving out-of-home placements were highest
for juveniles on ward probation at the time the referral offense was
committed and for juveniles detained prior to adjudication.
Juveniles on ward probation were from 4.1 to 5.8 times more likely to
be placed as compared with those not on ward probation. Juveniles
detained were from 2.4 to 3.2 times as likely to be placed as
compared with juveniles who had not been detained.
In Pennsylvania, across all crime types except rape, detention, prior
dispositions, and population density were consistently among the
variables most likely to influence the likelihood of a juvenile
receiving out-of-home placement. Juveniles detained, for example,
were from 2.6 to almost 10 times more likely to be placed; juveniles
with priors also were from about 3 to more than 10 times more likely
to be placed than juveniles without priors. As the population
density of the county in which the juvenile's case was handled
increased, juveniles tended to be less likely to be placed and more
densely populated counties within metropolitan areas--such as the
county containing the central city of the metropolitan area--were
generally less likely to use out-of-home placements than the other
metropolitan counties.
In Nebraska, across all crime types, prior record, detention prior to
adjudication, location of the court, and the population density of
the county where the court was located were the variables having the
largest impacts on the likelihood of placement. Juveniles with
priors were from 2 to 6 times more likely to be placed than those
without priors, depending on the type of crime, and juveniles
detained prior to adjudication were generally from 5 to 10 times more
likely to be placed than those not detained.
In addition in Nebraska, the effects of the location of the court
influenced the likelihood of receiving an out-of-home placement for
aggravated assault, simple assault, burglary, and larceny. In
nonmetropolitan counties, juveniles who committed these crimes were
less likely to be placed, reflecting, perhaps, the relative scarcity
of placement options. In addition, as the population density of the
county where the court was located increased, juveniles were more
likely to be placed. This is consistent with the view that there may
be more placement options in urban areas and that the availability of
these options influences the likelihood of placement.
Finally, a few other variables had noticeable impacts on the
likelihood of placement in some cases. For example, in Pennsylvania,
race influenced the likelihood of receiving an out-of-home placement
for rape. Blacks were 0.044 times less likely than whites and others
to be placed for rape. Changes (reductions) in charges reduced the
likelihood of placement for rape, robbery and aggravated assault
offenses, but changes in charges had no effect on the likelihood of
placement for property, weapons, or drug offenses. In California,
race and gender affected outcomes for some crime types.
Specifically, for drug possession and drug trafficking, blacks were
2.1 and 1.5 times as likely as other persons to be placed. For drug
possession, males were 2.5 times as likely as females to be placed.
--------------------
\13 In almost all cases, charges were reduced between referral and
disposition.
JUVENILES' RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN 15
SELECTED STATES
========================================================== Appendix IV
Legal
State authority Right to counsel Waiver of counsel
-------------- -------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
Arizona Ariz. Rev. A juvenile has the Waiver is authorized by
Stat. Ann. right to representation statute when the
sec. 8-225; by an attorney in juvenile and the parent
Ariz. R. Juv. delinquency or guardian waive it.
Ct. 6(c). proceedings. The court must find
that the child
knowingly,
intelligently, and
voluntarily waives the
right to counsel,
considering the minor's
age, education,
presence of parents,
and apparent maturity.
Waiver may be withdrawn
at any time.
California Cal. Welf. & If a minor appears in a The statute provides
Inst. Code delinquency proceeding for waiver by a minor
sec. 634; Cal. without an attorney, if the waiver is
R. Juv. Proc. the court must appoint intelligent. The rules
1412(g),(h). one. If the court further state that
determines that the waiver must be knowing
parent or guardian has and intelligent.
the ability to pay for
counsel, the court
appoints counsel at the
expense of the parent
or guardian.
Florida Fla. Stat. A juvenile's right to A juvenile may waive
Ann. sec. counsel applies at all counsel if it is done
39.041; Fla. stages of delinquency freely, knowingly, and
R. Juv. Proc. proceedings. intelligently. If
8.165. waiver is accepted at
any stage of the
proceedings, the offer
of counsel must be
renewed by the court at
each subsequent stage
of the proceedings at
which the juvenile
appears without
counsel.
Idaho Idaho Code As early as possible in A juvenile may waive
sec. 16- the proceedings, and in counsel if he or she
1809A; Idaho any event before the does so intelligently,
Juvenile Rules hearing of the petition and the court
3, 4. on the merits, a determines that the
juvenile must be best interest of the
advised of the right to juvenile does not
counsel. If the require the appointment
juvenile or his parents of counsel.
are financially unable
to afford counsel, the
court shall appoint
one.
Kansas Kan. Stat. A juvenile is entitled The statute does not
Ann. sec. 38- to the assistance of an specifically address
1606. attorney at every stage waiver. However, in
of delinquency April of 1994, the
proceedings. If the Attorney General of
juvenile and his or her Kansas issued a
parents do not retain nonbinding legal
an attorney, the court opinion which concluded
must appoint an that a juvenile may
attorney to represent waive his or her right
the juvenile. The court to counsel provided
may assess the expense that it is a knowing
of the appointed and intelligent waiver
attorney against the on the basis of the
juvenile or his/her totality of
parent as part of the circumstances.
expenses of the case.
Louisiana La. Rev. Stat. A juvenile has a right A juvenile may waive
Ann Ch. C. to an attorney at every counsel at any point in
art. 809, stage of delinquency the proceedings if the
810(A). proceedings. court determines that:
(1) the child has
consulted with an
attorney or other adult
interested in the
child's welfare;
(2) both the child and
the adult have been
informed of the
juvenile's rights by
the court, and the
possible consequences
of waiving the right to
an attorney; and
(3) the waiver is
voluntary.
Maryland Md. Code Ann. A minor is entitled to The right to an
Cts. & Jud. representation at every attorney may be waived
Proc. sec. stage of a juvenile by the child or his or
3-821; Md. R. proceeding. Unless her parent if the court
Juv. Proc. counsel is knowingly finds that the person
906. and intelligently waiving the right
waived, or otherwise understands: (1) the
provided, an indigent nature of the
child whose parents are allegations and
either indigent or proceedings, and the
unwilling to employ range of allowable
counsel, shall be dispositions; (2) that
entitled to be counsel may be of
represented by the assistance in
Office of the Public determining and
Defender. presenting any defenses
to the allegations, or
other mitigating
circumstances; (3) that
the right to counsel
includes the right to
the prompt assignment
of an attorney, without
charge to the party if
he is financially
unable to obtain
private counsel; (4)
that even if the party
intends not to contest
the charge or
proceeding, counsel may
be of substantial
assistance in
developing and
presenting material
that could affect the
disposition; and (5)
the other procedural
rights available.
Missouri Mo. Ann. Stat. A child has a right to A child may waive
sec. 211.211; be represented by counsel only with
Mo. Juv. Ct. counsel in all approval of the court.
Rule 116. delinquency Waiver of counsel may
proceedings. A lawyer be withdrawn at any
shall be appointed stage of the
prior to the filing of proceeding.
a petition if the child
is indigent and has
made a request for an
attorney. After the
petition has been
filed, the court shall
appoint an attorney if
it feels that the
attorney is necessary
for a full and fair
hearing.
New Mexico N.M. Stat. The child shall be The statute does not
Ann. sec. 32A- represented by counsel expressly address
2-14; New at all stages of the waiver of counsel by a
Mexico Child proceedings on a juvenile. However, the
Ct. Rule 10- delinquency petition. statute requires that
205. Unless counsel has if counsel is not
entered an appearance retained, counsel shall
on behalf of the be appointed for the
juvenile within 5 days child. In addition, the
after petition is filed statute indicates that
or at the conclusion of the child shall be
the detention hearing, represented at all
the public defender stages of the
will be appointed to proceeding. Therefore,
represent the juvenile. the juvenile does not
have the option of
waiving counsel.
Nebraska Neb. Rev. When a juvenile is There are no specific
Stat. sec. 43- brought before a statutory provisions
272. juvenile court, he or for the waiver of
she must be informed of counsel by or for a
his or her right to juvenile. However,
retain an attorney. If Nebraska officials told
the juvenile desires to us that juveniles can
have counsel, and waive the right to
neither the juvenile counsel.
nor his or her parent
or guardian can afford
to hire an attorney,
then the court shall
appoint an attorney to
represent the juvenile
in all proceedings.
New York N.Y. Jud. Law Juveniles who are A juvenile can waive
secs. 241, subjects of delinquency counsel only after a
249, 249-a. proceedings should be law guardian has been
represented by counsel appointed, and the
of their own choosing court holds a hearing.
or by a law guardian The law guardian must
(required by statute to appear and participate
be an attorney). The at the hearing and the
court shall appoint a court must find by
law guardian for a clear and convincing
juvenile who is the evidence that (1) the
subject of delinquency minor understands the
proceeding if nature of the charges,
independent legal the possible
representation is not dispositional
available. alternatives, and
defenses, (2) the minor
possesses the maturity,
knowledge, and
intelligence necessary
to conduct his own
defense, and (3) the
waiver is in the best
interest of the minor.
However, in a
proceeding to extend or
continue placement of a
juvenile delinquent,
the court shall not
permit waiver of
counsel or of a law
guardian.
Pennsylvania 42 Pa. Cons. A juvenile is entitled A juvenile may not
Stat. Ann. to an attorney at all waive his or her right
sec. 6337. stages of delinquency to counsel. However,
proceedings. An the juvenile's parent,
attorney will be guardian or custodian
appointed if the court may waive the right if
determines that the their interests do not
juvenile is unable to conflict with that of
hire counsel. If the the juvenile.
juvenile appears
without a lawyer, the
court must ensure that
the juvenile knows of
his or her right to
have an attorney.
South S.C. Code Ann. A juvenile has the If the juvenile wants
Carolina secs. 20-7- right to be represented to waive his or her
600; 20-7- by an attorney in any right to counsel, he or
740. delinquency she must explicitly do
proceedings. A juvenile so. However, the
must be informed of juvenile must consult
that right when he or with an attorney at
she is brought to least once prior to a
court. If the juvenile detention hearing.
or his/or her parent or
guardian are unable to
employ counsel, counsel
will be appointed.
Texas Tex Fam. Code A juvenile has a right A juvenile cannot waive
Ann. sec. to be represented by an the right to counsel in
51.09, 51.10. attorney at every stage the following
of a delinquency proceedings: a hearing
proceeding. If the to consider transfer to
juvenile's parent or criminal court; an
guardian is financially adjudication or
unable to pay for an disposition hearing; a
attorney, the court hearing prior to
will appoint one. In commitment to the Texas
addition, the court may Youth Commission; or a
appoint an attorney in hearing required
any case in which it because it is a
deems representation proceeding regarding a
necessary to protect child with mental
the interests of the illness, retardation,
juvenile. disease or defect. In
all other
circumstances, a
juvenile may waive
counsel if the waiver
is made by the juvenile
and his or her
attorney; they are both
informed of and
understand the right
and the possible
consequences of waiving
it; the waiver is
voluntary; and the
waiver is made in
writing or in court
proceedings that are
recorded.
Utah Utah Code Ann. There is a statutory The statute does not
sec. 78-3a- right for a child to address waiver of
35. have an attorney at counsel. However, Utah
every stage of the officials told us that
delinquency juveniles can waive the
proceedings. Upon a right to counsel.
request for an
attorney, or upon the
court's own motion, in
addition to a finding
that the juvenile is
indigent, the court
shall appoint counsel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix V
SURVEY OF PROSECUTORS
========================================================== Appendix IV
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix VI
GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
James M. Blume, Assistant Director, Administration of Justice
Issues
Barry Jay Seltser, Assistant Director
Thomas L. Davies, Senior Evaluator
William J. Sabol, Senior Social Science Analyst
Barbara A. Stolz, Senior Social Science Analyst
Joanne M. Parker, Senior Social Science Analyst
Bonita J. Vines, Computer Specialist
Brenda I. Rabinowitz, Evaluator
Maria D. Strudwick, Evaluator
Pamela V. Williams, Communications Analyst
Michelle D. Wiggins, Information Processing Assistant
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Jan B. Montgomery, Assistant General Counsel
Rachel A. Ramsey, Legal Intern
Matthew L. Robey, Legal Intern
ATLANTA REGIONAL OFFICE
Frankie L. Fulton, Regional Management Representative
Cynthia C. Teddleton, Evaluator-in-Charge
Veronica O. Mayhand, Senior Evaluator
|
