U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Planning for the Future of Juvenile Justice

NCJ Number
208962
Journal
Federal Probation Volume: 68 Issue: 3 Dated: December 2004 Pages: 39-43
Author(s)
Alvin W. Cohn
Date Published
December 2004
Length
5 pages
Annotation
This article discusses the process of change in the context of juvenile justice system reforms.
Abstract
Few doubt the need for critical revitalization of the American juvenile justice system. However, lasting organizational change is difficult to achieve and cannot be accomplished by administrators alone. A brief review of historical changes in the juvenile justice system illustrates past changes in the system in terms of the movement from punishment toward rehabilitation of the juvenile offender. As more and more juveniles live under high risk situations, the public and the juvenile justice system have struggled with how to best deter juvenile crime and what to do with juvenile offenders. Many proponents of change believe that tougher penalties for juvenile offenders will reduce rates of juvenile crime. While many different schemes exist for how juvenile offenders should be dealt with it, it is important to understand that juvenile delinquency is a multifaceted problem that needs a multifaceted solution; simply increasing detention rates for juvenile offenders will not affect actual change. The role of planning for change within the juvenile justice system is critically important and must occur within an organizational context. Reform within the juvenile justice system depends on the reform efforts taking on a systems approach that clearly recognizes how particular agencies fit within the larger juvenile justice system. Finally, the author identifies 23 areas in need of reform within the juvenile justice system, including excessive caseloads, inadequate involvement of subordinate staff, and the ongoing failure to evaluate programs. References