The journal of Trauma, Violence, and Abuse published a study this April, “The Justice System for Juvenile Victims: A Comprehensive Model of Case Flow,” analyzing the case flow through the system that responds to juvenile victims of crime and violence. Rather than utilizing the common term “juvenile justice system,” that denotes juveniles who are themselves offenders, the authors coin the term, “juvenile victim justice system,” (JVJS) which encompasses a complex set of agencies and institutions. Many of the agencies and institutions which serve these victims are part of other systems and were rarely created or designed to meet the distinctive needs of juvenile victims.
The JVJS is composed of two subsystems: the criminal justice system and the child protection system. The criminal subsystem includes violent crimes (such as homicide and sexual assault) and non-violent crimes (such as criminal neglect and property crimes). In the criminal justice system, the perpetrator may be family members, acquaintances, or strangers. However, in the child protection system, the perpetrators are parents or caregivers. The child protection subsystem has three categories of maltreatment: physical and sexual abuse, neglect, and emotional maltreatment. Although these subsystems are viewed as distinct, industry professionals are increasingly recognizing the considerable system overlap and their reliance upon each other to achieve their goals.
The authors review each step within the JVJS from the report to an authority, through the investigation, then intervention, and the final disposition of the case. The case flow varies considerably depending upon whether the report is made to the police or child protection.
Child Protection Subsystem of the Juvenile Victim Justice System:
On average, about 67% of the reports made to the child protection system make it through the screening stage to be investigated. About 30% of those cases make the threshold of substantiation. In approximately 18% of the substantiated cases (in 2002), prosecutors initiated a court action. The child protective system can also intervene with removal of the child from the home which occurs in roughly 4% or the total cases reported. However, this removal is by and large temporary where the child is (in 1999) reunified at a median rate of 66% and generally occurs within 12 months. In rare cases, the state will move and subsequently, the court may find termination of parental rights necessary. This action however, only occurs with about 8% of child victims whose cases have been substantiated.
The Criminal Justice Subsystem of the Juvenile Victim Justice System:
In contrast to the child protection system, about 70% of cases that begin with a report to an authority within the criminal justice system are perpetrated by a non-family member. It is this system’s policy to investigate all reports as standard practice. However, there is very little data available to review what the investigations entail. If police find probable cause, an arrest is made, which occurs in approximately 28% of violent crimes committed against juveniles. After an arrest is made, the majority of cases are referred to prosecutors. However, the percentage of those cases which are brought forward for prosecution vary considerably across jurisdictions. Nevertheless, about 79% of those cases are not dismissed. In about 80% of these prosecutions, the offender pleads guilty. Sentences for offenders against younger children were comparable to that of sentences for adults. However, sentences for offenders against adolescents appeared lighter than those given for crimes against adults.
Implications:
The authors outline the implications of their study in the major areas of practice, policy and research. They make three major practice suggestions. First, they suggest more individuals need to understand the juvenile victim justice system so when a decision is made in one part of the system, they can take into account actions that may occur in other parts. Second, support for juvenile victims and their families must be continuous and comprehensive. Third, agencies that provide services to children and families need to be educated as to the juvenile victim justice system as a point of entry or referral source for services.
The authors also focus on policy implications. First, the system as a whole needs to be integrated if we are to expedite the processes, coordinate the decisions, and minimize the impact on the juvenile victims. Second, there needs to be much more of an exchange of information among the components of the system. For example, a child can be involved in 7 agencies and with 12 professionals during the process which may last several years. In the cases where interagency communication is present, it occurs very early in the process and is not maintained. Finally, the stages and transitions that are of the highest importance need to be identified and subsequently receive priority.
The article concludes with suggestions for future research. They suggest the collection of additional data on the interrelationships among the components of the juvenile victim justice system and the collection of data to fill the gaps in information over the system as a whole. The further suggest the study of how the system operates across different communities as an avenue to build on successes and alter dysfunction. The authors highlight the implications in hope to help create a juvenile victim justice system that is more responsive to the needs of the juvenile victims of crime.
1 David Finkelhor et al., The Justice System for Juvenile Victims: A comprehensive Model of Case Flow, 6(2) TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE, April 2005, at 83.
2 Id. at 89.
3 Id. at 90.
4 Id. at 91.
5 Id.
6 Id. at 91-92.
7 Id. at 92.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 93.
10 Id. at 94 (finding a range of 28% - 94% of referred cases lead to prosecution.)
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id. at 94-95.
