y District of Columbia juvenile justice

Jurisdictional boundaries ^[3]

States vary in how each sets the basic playing field for juvenile justice with lower and upper age boundaries. State legislatures further create a range of complex exceptions for transfer to criminal court based on case-by-case, age and offense specifics.

• Delinquency age boundaries 2018

  • Upper age

    17 years old

  • Lower age

    None specified

  • Extended age

    20 years old

• Transfer provisions 2016

  Transfer pathways

  • Discretionary waiver
  • Presumptive waiver
  • Mandatory waiver
  • Statutory exclusion
  • Once/always adult
  • Prosecutor discretion

  Mitigating provisions

  • Reverse waiver (remand)
  • Juvenile blended sentencing
  • Criminal blended sentencing

• Transfer trends

  Loading…
• State details National comparison

Juvenile defense

Much is at stake in a juvenile court action for delinquency, and successful outcomes are influenced by a family's ability to retain effective counsel early-on and retain them until a permanent resolution to all aspects of the legal matter is resolved.

• Defense structure 2017

  • Organization

    Localized

  • Oversight

    Full oversight

• Waiver of counsel 2014

  Factors for consideration in juvenile justice statutes:

  • Age

  • Crime

  • Hearing

  • Placement

• Indigency requirements 2013

  Indigency determination: Judicially

• State details National comparison

Racial/ethnic fairness ^[1][2]

Youth of color are overrepresented in many aspects of the juvenile justice system, from arrest to court referral and confinement. Thus a core requirement of federal juvenile justice policy requires each state to identify where disparities may exist.

• Indicator data 2017

  Reports to federal juvenile justice agency only.

• DMC coordinators 2016

  Part-time or other state-level staff

• Tribal delinquency jurisdiction 2016

  Not applicable

• Monitoring data

  Loading…

  • N/A: Insufficient data to compute arrest rates
  • * Rates used to compute ratio based on fewer than 10 observations
  • † White detained rate is 0
• State details National comparison

Juvenile court

Each state has established a court with juvenile jurisdiction to address the law violating conduct of youth. Explore the structural and procedural differences.

• Judicial selection 2022

  • Elected

  • Appointed

  • Combination

• Judicial specialization 2022

  • All mixed case types

  • Mostly mixed

  • Mostly specialized

• Caseload assignment 2022

  • Mixed assignment methods

  • Individual discretion

  • Statute/State court rules

• Judicial experience, training, and tools 2022

  • Qualification Requirements

  • Required Annual Training

  • Required Risk/Need Assessments and Pre-Dispositional Reports

  • Juvenile Justice Bench Books

• Courtroom shackling 2015

  Courtroom shackling is restricted by the state court

• Competency 2015

  • No juvenile standard

  • Juvenile standard is the adult standard

  • Juvenile justice standard exists

  • JJ standard includes developmental immaturity

• State details National comparison

Juvenile justice services ^[4][5]

Every state has a set of laws establishing a system of juvenile courts and a corresponding intervention system commonly referred to as juvenile justice services. The different frameworks effectively create 51 distinctly different juvenile justice systems.

• Purpose clauses 2016

  • No clause

  • Parens patriae

  • Due process era

  • Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ)

  • Developmental Approach

• Organization structure 2022

  • Overall

    Locally operated

  • Detention

    Locally operated

  • Probation

    Locally operated

  • Reentry

    Locally operated

• Corrections agency 2015

  • Independent juvenile corrections agency

  • Family/child welfare agency or division

  • Broad human services agency

  • Adult corrections agency or division

• Intake and diversion 2016

  Initial intake and court diversion decision is at the discretion of the prosecutor or the juvenile court intake officer and pre-petition court diversion time limit/s exist.

• Solitary confinement 2016

  • Prohibits punitive confinement

  • Limits punitive confinement

  • No limits on punitive confinement

  • Did not respond

• Release decision 2016

  • Agency

  • Court

  • Parole board

  • Agency and court

• Risk assessment 2020

  • Statewide uniform assessment

  • Layered/regional assessment

  • Locally administered assessment

• Sex offense registry 2015

  Does not register

• Risk instruments 2017

  • Statute or agency policy

  • Agency recommended

  Conners Comprehensive Behavior Rating Scale

• Mental health screening 2014

  Required in the following services:

  • Secure detention

  • Probation

  • Corrections

• EBP support center 2014

  Does not have a support center or collaboratives dedicated to coordinating activities around implementing, evaluating, and sustaining EBPs.

• Recidivism indicators 2016

  • Study populations: Supervision, Placement
  • Re-offense events: Arrest, Court action
  • Follow-up periods: 12 months with adult systems reporting
• State details National comparison

Status offense issues

A wide range of non-criminal behaviors by youth are grouped as status offenses. Actions such as truancy, running away or acting stubborn can thrust an adolescent into formal juvenile court actions for services and safety but also where their liberty may be at-risk.

• Labeling 2015

  Spectrum of labels

  Victim Child welfare perspective

  Offender Public safety perspective

  • In need of aid, assistance, or care

  • In need of services

  • In need of supervision

  • Unruly

  • Status offender

• Age boundaries 2016

  • Status offense jurisdiction: Up through 17 years old. (lower age not specified)
  • Delinquency jurisdiction: Up through 17 years old. (lower age not specified)

• Reported data

  Loading…
• State details National comparison

Systems integration ^[6][7]

Youth involved in more than one system require special attention and coordination.  State and local policy-makers are increasingly sharing data concerning dual status youth and establishing a wide range of exciting coordination models.

• Agency integration 2016

  One or all are decentralized

• State coordination 2014

  • Data sharing

  • Committees or advisory groups

  • Formal interagency MOUs

  • Informal interagency agreements

  • Statute and/or court rules

• Reported data

  
  

  Loading…
• State details National comparison

Data sources

1. ^ ^{a b c d} Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics
   For offense category definitions, please see the glossary.
2. ^ ^{a b c d e f g} Easy Access to Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement
   For offense category definitions, please see the glossary.
3. ^ 2014 Annual Report
   District of Columbia Sentencing and Criminal Code Revision Commission
4. ^ Agency Progress Report 2014
   DC Youth Rehabilitation Services
5. ^ Public Safety Indicators (2010-2014)
   Department of Youth Rehabilitative Services
6. ^ Annual Progress and Services Report
   Child and Family Services Agency, District of Columbia Government
7. ^ Annual Progress and Services Report
   Child and Family Services Agency, District of Columbia Government

State resources

Juvenile justice leadership

• Washington DC Juvenile Justice Advisory Group is the state advisory group (SAG).
• Is the federally required, 3-year state juvenile justice federal formula grant plan available on the SAG website? Yes.
• Washington DC Courts, Superior Court (see Judicial Assignments). Its Family Court Social Services Division (FCSSD) provides juvenile probation supervision (links to offices and program contacts).
• Executive Office of Washington DC Courts is the Administrative Office of the Court.
• Washington DC Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS) operates secure correctional facilities and provides related parole/aftercare and other services.

Other stakeholders

• Washington DC Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA)
• Washington DC Criminal Justice Coordinating Council is the statistical analysis center (SAC).
• DYRS and the Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation (CYITC) oversee DC YouthLink (see service coalition member Directory).

Policy (legal) research

• Washington DC Statutes (or here, simplified) contain juvenile-related sections within Title 16, Chapter 23
• Washington DC Regulations Search
• Washington DC Superior Court Rules, Juvenile Proceedings
• District of Columbia Bar

Read more »