Twelve Days from Referral to Diversion

In January 1995, Bernardean Broadous took office as the newly elected Prosecuting Attorney of Thurston County, WA and did not waste any time in fulfilling campaign promises. Her first priority was to maximize the potential of the county's existing juvenile diversion program. By October, after months of work and discussions with law enforcement, school officials, the Community Youth Service (CYS), and the administration of the juvenile court, Prosecuting Attorney Broadous developed and presented a 12-day plan for the processing of juvenile diversion cases. The goals of the plan are to eliminate procedural delays and to realize full implementation of community involvement in the diversion process.

Since 1977, Washington's Juvenile Justice Act (JJA) has mandated diversion services for minor and first-time offenders. The intent of the JJA was to hold youth accountable for their offenses, involve local citizens in the process, provide for the victim, and save more expensive court services for chronic and repeat offenders. The county contracts the CYS, an outside agency, to provide juvenile diversion services. One of the provisions of the JJA is that community volunteers be involved in determining the punishment for diverted juveniles. This is accomplished through the use of Community Accountability Boards (CAB). The CAB volunteers are recruited and trained through CYS, and each CAB is comprised of persons from the offender's community.

When Prosecuting Attorney Broadous took office, only 20% of diverted juveniles appeared before a CAB. The vast majority were interviewed by a CYS staff member to determine the appropriate diversion agreement. As a result, the system restricted community involvement and limited the victim's ability to participate in the process. The system became so backlogged due to delays in response to offenses that juveniles were sent the message that they would not be held accountable for their actions.

That was then, this is now. Under the 12-day plan, the Prosecuting Attorney's Office Juvenile Division opens a file, checks the criminal history, screens for diversion eligibility and sends a letter to the juvenile notifying him or her of the date of a CAB hearing within two to four days of receipt of referral from law enforcement. (In the past, this process averaged several months.) The scheduled hearing date is not to be more than 8 working days after the date of the letter. the total time from the date of referral to the prosecutor's office to the date of the CAB hearing is 10 to 12 working days. This swift response holds juveniles accountable for their actions by conveying the message that consequences will follow delinquent behavior.

Each CAB team includes four community members. A CYS representative also attends and briefs the board of the particulars of the offense before the youth participates in the hearing. When the youth appears, CAB members question the offender, his family, and the victim, if present. The youth and family then leave and the board decides on the appropriate punishment. The youth can accept and sign the diversion agreement or reject it and be referred back to the Prosecuting Attorney's office for prosecution.

Prosecuting Attorney Broadous believes that, "At the very least the Thurston County diversion process now gives members of the community a unique opportunity to participate in the juvenile justice system, requires juvenile offenders just punishment in an effort to redirect their future choices."

D.C.'s Curfew Law Held Unconstitutional

On June 20, 1995, the Council of the District of Columbia enacted a curfew law entitled the "Juvenile Curfew Act of 1995" which took effect on September 20, 1995. According to the law, "persons under the age of 17 years of age commit an offense if they [remain] in any public place or on the premises of any establishment within the District of Columbia after 11:00 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday nights (12:01 a.m. during the months of July and August), or after 12:01 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday." It was a defense under the law if the minor was: (1) accompanied by a parent; (2) on an errand at the parent or guardian's direction without any detour or stop; (3) in a motor vehicle, train or bus involved in interstate travel; (4) engaged in employment activity, or going to, or returning home from, an employment activity, without any detour or stop; (5) involved in an emergency; (6) on the sidewalk abutting his or her house or the next-door neighbor's house and the next-door neighbor has not complained about the minor's presence; (7) attending an "official school, religious, or other recreational activity" sponsored by the District of Columbia, a civic organization, or another similar entity "that takes responsibility for the minor," or going to, or returning home from, such an activity; or (8) exercising First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution.

Although the curfew focuses on the activities of minors, others may be in violation of the law. A parent violates the law by knowingly permitting or by insufficient control allowing the minor child to violate the curfew law; and the owner, operator, or any employee of an establishment violates the law by allowing a minor to remain in any public place or on the premises of that establishment during curfew hours.

An action challenging the constitutionality of the curfew was brought, not by anyone arrested for violation of the law, but by minors, parents, and a business owner. Their principal arguments included: (1) the curfew law violates the minors' Fifth Amendment equal protection and due process rights to free movement; (2) the curfew law violates the parents' Fifth Amendment due process rights to exercise parental discretion and control over their children; (3) the curfew law is overbroad and unconstitutionally vague in violation of the First Amendment; and (4) the curfew law violates the minors' Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

In defending its constitutionality, the District argued that the law was not vague or overbroad and did not infringe upon any due process or fundamental rights of any of the plaintiffs. It further argued that it did not violate equal protection guarantees because it was narrowly tailored to serve the District's compelling interests in: (1) protecting children from becoming victims or perpetrators of crime; (2) assisting parents to exercise their supervisory responsibility over minors; and (3) protecting all persons from what it contended were the dangers posed by unsupervised minors out late at night and during the early morning hours.

The District presented statistics to support its position, but the court found them to be flawed for the following reasons:

1. They were over-inclusive in that they included juveniles over the age of 17 (the curfew only applies to 17 and younger);
   
   
2. They did not show the time of day or night that the crimes occurred, nor did they include the ages of the perpetrators and victims;
   
   
3. They cited lower juvenile arrest rates for the period when the curfew had been imposed, but did not account for other variables such as a decrease in the police force; and
   
   
4. The District ignored statistics that show that more than 90% of all juveniles committed no crimes at all and were not arrested at night or at any other time.

The court, finding the curfew law unconstitutional, held that it violated the equal protection and due process rights of the minors; violated the due process rights of the parents; and was not narrowly tailored to further the compelling interests of the District in protecting District residents.

RESOURCES

In March of 1996, OJJDP published "Combating Violence and Delinquency: The National Juvenile Justice Action Plan" (Action Plan). The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (the Coordinating Council) and its working group developed the Action Plan. The Coordinating Council was established by the JJDP Act of 1974. It is an independent organization in the executive branch of the federal government whose primary function is to coordinate all federal programs that address juvenile delinquency, detention or care of unaccompanied juvenile, and missing and exploited children. The council is composed of an equal number of federal and practitioner members. The working group of the council included state and local juvenile justice professionals from law enforcement.

The Action Plan "is an eight-point statement of objectives and strategies designed to strengthen state and local initiatives to reduce juvenile violence, increase the capacity of the juvenile justice system to respond, and prevent delinquency. The primary audiences for the Action Plan are state and local leaders, juvenile justice practitioners, and community members who are initiating or engaging in these activities and are seeking guidance, support, and resources."

The eight objectives are:

1. Provide immediate intervention and appropriate sanctions and treatment for delinquent juveniles.
   
   
2. Prosecute certain seriuos, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders in criminal court.
   
   
3. Reduce youth involvement with guns, drugs, and gangs.
   
   
4. Provide opportunitites for children and youth.
   
   
5. Break the cycle of violence by addressing youth victimization, abuse, and neglect.
   
   
6. Strengthen and mobilize communities.
   
   
7. Support the development of innovative approaches to research and evaluation.
   
   
8. Implement an aggressive public outreach campaign on effective strategies to combat juvenile violence.

In addition to the objectives, the Action Plan also includes a list of resources, including training and technical assistance, financial assistance, research, evaluation, legislation, and information dissemination; a summary of research that supports the objectives which can be used by states and communities to guide their policy, planning, and communication activities and model program examples that can be adapted to meet local needs.

You can get a copy of the Action Plan Report (NCJ 157106; 200 pages) or its summary (NCJ 157105; 36 pages) by writing the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, Department F, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000; calling 800-638-8736; or e-mailing askncjrs@aspensys.com.