MENU TITLE: Challenge Activities Program Areas: Challenge Activity B.
Series: OJJDP
Published: Fall 1995
19 pages
36,745 bytes

Challenge to the States

The 1992 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974 added
Part E, State Challenge Activities, to the programs
funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). The purpose of Part
E is to provide initiatives for States
participating in the Formula Grants Program to
develop, adopt, and improve policies and programs
in 1 or more of 10 specified Challenge areas.

------------------------------

Challenge Activity B

Developing and adopting policies and programs to
provide access to counsel for all juveniles in the
justice system to ensure that juveniles consult
with counsel before waiving the right to counsel.

Background

Juvenile crime trends in America are characterized
by escalating youth violence and use of firearms,
younger offenders committing more serious offenses,
increased use of waiver to criminal court, and
extended sentences. More than ever, juveniles are
facing serious consequences for committing
delinquent acts and should have access to quality
legal representation. All juveniles have the right
to counsel, but many do not understand these rights
or know how to access the legal services they need.

The 1967 landmark case of In re Gault[1]
established due process rights of minors in the
juvenile justice system. The Supreme Court ruled
that in the adjudicatory phase of a delinquency
proceeding that could result in a loss of liberty,
a juvenile is entitled to due process rights,
including adequate notice of the charges pending;
confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses;
representation by an attorney and appointment of
counsel if the juvenile cannot afford to retain an
attorney; and protection against self-incrimination
and advisement of that right prior to presenting
any testimony in the juvenile court proceeding.

The Gault case facilitated the transformation of
the juvenile court in America from a largely
informal institution into a more formal system with
greater similarities to the criminal court. The
spirit and intent of the Gault decision was to
expand the juvenile court's concern about the legal
needs of children to include upholding their basic
constitutional rights. The cornerstone of In re
Gault was the articulation of the right of juvenile
offenders to receive competent and zealous counsel.
The other fundamentals of due process largely flow
from the observance of this basic right.
Consequently, the development of policies and
procedures to secure this constitutional guarantee
is essential to the ultimate achievement of due
process and fundamental fairness within the
juvenile court system.

Problems Encountered

While Gault's due process principles were familiar
and straightforward, there was a great deal of
question about how they were to be implemented in
the juvenile justice system. Across the country,
lawyers were rarely present in juvenile delinquency
proceedings. Indeed, judges often discouraged
juveniles from securing a lawyer, believing that
the presence of attorneys would lengthen the time
needed for trying a delinquency case and that
counsel would introduce undue formality into the
juvenile justice process. There was also a common
perception that the participation of counsel would
undermine the parens patriae model of a
treatment-oriented court, one not particularly
focused on guilt or innocence, but rather on the
needs of the child.

Research in the area of access to counsel for
juvenile offenders has raised concerns that the
rights defined in the Gault decision more than a
quarter of a century ago have not been fully
extended to youth. Researchers have repeatedly
found low percentages of legal representation in
juvenile courts across the country:

o A 1972 study of court records in one affluent
county reflected that only 27 percent of the
juveniles charged with delinquency were represented
by an attorney.[2]

o In 1974 in New York, only 59 percent of the
juveniles appearing in family courts outside New
York City were represented by counsel.[3]

o According to a 1980 report, a North Carolina
juvenile defender project represented only 22
percent of juveniles charged with delinquency in
Winston-Salem, and only 46 percent of youth charged
with delinquency in Charlotte.[4] 

o A 1982 study of a major north-central city found
representation levels at 32 percent.[5] 

o In 1986, representation levels of only 26 percent
and 39 percent were found in two test sites.[6]

o A 1988 study in Minnesota found a majority of
juveniles were unrepresented in delinquency
proceedings, and there was a wide disparity in
practice from jurisdiction to jurisdiction across
the State.[7]

o In 1992, fewer than one-half of all delinquents
received assistance of counsel, and in 5 of 10
Minnesota Judicial Districts, lawyers accompanied
fewer than 40 percent of juveniles.[8] 

Many of these studies found that juveniles were not
advised of their right to counsel in a meaningful
fashion, or were explicitly or implicitly
discouraged from exercising that right once they
were informed. When lawyers were appointed, they
frequently did little or nothing on their clients'
behalf. One study reported that institutional
pressures in juvenile courts have significantly
compromised the representational roles of defense
attorneys. As a result of these findings, some
researchers have advocated the abolition of the
juvenile court because of its perceived incapacity
to protect minors' due process rights.[9]

There are several explanations for the continuing
low levels of legal representation for juveniles
charged with delinquency. Parents are often slow to
retain a lawyer for their child facing delinquency
charges, especially where there is tension between
the youth and the parents. Systems for delivering
defense services to indigent juveniles in rural or
inner-city areas may be inadequate or significantly
overloaded. Judges may decline to appoint a lawyer
for a juvenile where the offense is minor or where
it is highly unlikely that the youth will be
incarcerated or given a severe penalty if
convicted. Other judges may resent the
"interference" that lawyers represent to their
continuing a parens patriae style court. 

Effective representation by a competent attorney at
the earliest possible stage of juvenile justice
processing is extremely important. When legal
counsel is not involved in the pretrial stages of a
case, youthful offenders may be more likely to make
damaging admissions or confessions, or to be
subjected to intrusive police investigation
techniques. Defense attorneys can suggest, to the
intake officer or the court, appropriate
alternatives to formal court handling and
detention.

Several studies have indicated that the presence of
a competent lawyer may indeed enhance outcomes for
delinquent youth. An Australian study suggested
that the involvement of defense attorneys may have
a greater impact on plea bargaining and other
informal practices than on the formal processes in
the courtroom.[10] A San Francisco study of the
impact of a defense-based disposition case advocacy
project found significant reductions in commitments
to secure public institutions and a decrease in the
number of juveniles transferred to adult
courts.[11] Legal representation is also a
consideration for incarcerated youth. The American
Corrections Association standards require
facilities to permit juveniles to access an
attorney through visits, use of the telephone, and
uncensored correspondence.[12]

In addition, recent studies of minority
overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system
show that minority youth may disproportionately
face prejudice because they are less likely to be
represented by counsel. Since many minority youth
are indigent defendants, they are often affected by
the systemic disinterest that accompanies public
defender systems. A Michigan study of minority
overrepresentation found that white youth generally
reported higher levels of satisfaction with their
lawyers than African-American youth. In one
medium-sized city in that State, white juveniles
reported a satisfaction quotient of 9 out of 10
contrasted with 3.9 of 10 for African-American
youth.[13] 

Strategies To Ensure Access to Counsel 

In the wake of the Gault decision, several national
groups developed standards for juvenile justice
that outlined due process rights in juvenile court.
All of these standards addressed the implementation
of the right to counsel and articulated a model for
the role of counsel:

o The Task Force on Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention of the National Advisory
Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals
called for the provision of legal representation
"at the earliest feasible stage," without charge,
if necessary, and urged that counsel should be
adequately trained and should "represent zealously
a client's legitimate interests under the law."[14]

o The Advisory Committee to the Administrator on
Standards for the Administration of Juvenile
Justice recommended that counsel should appear in
all delinquency and noncriminal misbehavior (status
offense) proceedings, and that the right to counsel
should attach as soon as the youth is taken into
custody, a complaint is filed, or the juvenile
appears at intake or at an initial detention
hearing, "whichever occurs first."[15]

o The National Advisory Committee for Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention recommended that
counsel representing a private party should
"represent zealously a client's legitimate
interests under the law."[16]
 
o The Juvenile Justice Standards Relating to
Counsel for Private Parties, issued by the
Institute of Judicial Administration and the
American Bar Association (ABA), provided a
comprehensive set of guidelines for the provision
of legal services for juveniles. They agreed that
the right to counsel should attach at the earliest
possible stage of the proceedings and that the role
of the lawyer was to be a zealous advocate for the
youthful client.[17]

Despite the almost universal praise for these
standards as models for the implementation of the
right to counsel, they seem to have had little
practical effect on representation rates.

There is much debate about the best strategy for
upgrading the quality of legal representation for
juveniles. The two most common methods of
appointing counsel for juveniles are the public
defender and court-appointed counsel systems,
followed by law school clinics specializing in
youth issues, and nonprofit law centers. Some
localities contract with a public interest law firm
or private law firm to provide systemwide defense
services to delinquent youth. Very little research
has been done comparing the effectiveness of the
various models.

While considerable research has been conducted on
the problems of access to counsel, few resources
have been dedicated to developing effective
strategies for improving representation rates. The
1991 Annual Report of the National Coalition for
Juvenile Justice urged that "the Administrator of
the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP) significantly increase interest
in and funding for advocacy on behalf of juveniles
in court." The report recommended more training for
legal counsel and guardians ad litem for juveniles,
examination of the incidence of waiver of counsel
by juveniles, and the development of pilot and
model programs for delivering effective defense
services to juveniles.[18]

Congress amended the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act in 1988 to incorporate
new provisions for youth advocacy programs,
including services that improve the legal
representation of youth.[19] Recognizing that legal
representation for youth continued to be
ineffective or absent, the Act was further amended
in 1992 to "establishing or supporting advocacy
programs and services that encourage the
improvement of due process available to juveniles
in the juvenile justice system and the quality of
legal representation for such juveniles."[20]

As a result of this support, OJJDP awarded a 3-year
grant to ABA's Juvenile Justice Center, in consort
with the Youth Law Center and the Juvenile Law
Center, for a Due Process Advocacy Program
Development initiative. The ABA conducted a
national assessment of defense services for
juveniles charged with delinquency and reviewed
pertinent statutory and case law concerning
juvenile delinquency representation. In addition,
the ABA will address quality and access issues
through the development of training, technical
assistance, and advocacy.[21]

Acknowledging continuing deficiencies in this area,
Congress asked the General Accounting Office in
1992 to study access to counsel for juvenile
offenders. They are in the process of (1) reviewing
State laws for selected States to determine
juveniles' right to counsel, (2) determining the
frequency with which juveniles have counsel in
juvenile courts, (3) determining the impact of
counsel on juvenile dispositions, (4) determining
whether juveniles in adult court have counsel, and
(5) developing insights regarding the quality of
counsel.[22]

Promising Approaches

As a component of their assessment, the ABA
searched for unique programs that would provide
counsel and advocacy services for indigent
juveniles charged with delinquency. Several notable
characteristics shared by many juvenile defense
programs include:

o Creative use of Federal, State, local, and
private funding sources.

o Commitment to manageable caseloads.

o Excellent training and supervision.

o Innovative use of law and other graduate
students.

o Strong community involvement.

o An interagency "team" approach to cases.

The programs cited below are just a sampling of
promising approaches being implemented across the
country that strive to provide effective
representation to juveniles. Additional information
can be found in the Resources section of this paper
or by contacting the ABA Juvenile Justice Center
directly.

Children's Law Center of Massachusetts, Inc. The
goal of the Center is to provide comprehensive
legal representation to youth in the juvenile court
and human services systems. The Center specializes
in complex cases that involve multiple service
agencies addressing such issues as children in need
of services, delinquency, and special education.
Three part-time attorneys handle approximately 200
direct service cases annually. They are also
responsible for processing intakes, limited
representation cases, appeals work, and amicus
briefs. All funding for the organization is
private, with contributions from national and local
foundations. 

Contact:

Anthony DeMarco
Children's Law Center of Massachusetts, Inc.
P.O. Box 710
37 Friend Street
Lynn, MA 01903
617-581-1977

Dade County Juvenile Defender Unit. Part of the
public defender's office in Miami, the Dade County
Juvenile Defender Unit of the 11th Judicial Circuit
Court of Florida is staffed by 28 lawyers serving
in 4 juvenile courts, 4 social workers, and 4
investigators. Juvenile defenders are equipped with
pagers to ensure that they can respond to juveniles
immediately at intake. Juveniles who are not
detained are assigned defense counsel at
arraignment. Critical components of this unit are
dedication to staff development, with training
sessions held weekly, and commitment to maintaining
manageable caseloads.

Contact:

Bennett Brummer
Dade County Juvenile Defender Unit
Dade County Public Defender
11th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida
1320 NW 14th Street 
Miami, FL 33125
305-545-1900

Detention Response Unit (DRU). The Baltimore Office
of the Public Defender for the State of Maryland
designed DRU to minimize overrepresentation of
minorities in juvenile detention. The program is
funded by an OJJDP grant administered by the State
Juvenile Justice Advisory Council. The staff
consists of one full-time attorney, one full-time
social worker, and a part-time assistant who serve
inner-city minority youth. If DRU is involved early
in the adjudication process, it will advocate an
alternative to commitment, such as community
service. If DRU is assigned to an adjudicated case
that is pending placement, it will advocate
placement in a community-based group home. DRU can
also assist youth in secure placements to transfer
out or petition for a reduction in their period of
commitment.

Contact:

Joseph McCormack
Detention Response Unit (DRU)
Office of the Public Defender
State of Maryland
201 St. Paul Place
Baltimore, MD 21202
410-333-4899

Juvenile Special Defense Unit (JSDU). The Defender
Association of Philadelphia has two units for
juveniles. The Juvenile Unit has 18 attorneys who
handle approximately 8,000 delinquency cases a
year. A second unit, JSDU, was established to
handle all of the habitual offenders and serious
cases that are scheduled for trial or for
certification to criminal court. Assigned to
approximately 500 cases per year, JSDU uses a team
approach with an attorney, social worker, and
investigator who follow the case through the
system. Initially supported by OJJDP formula grant
funding, it is now sustained through local funding.
Additional funds have been awarded for staff to
support a Temple University study on the value of
enhanced psychological evaluations of juvenile
defendants.

Contact:

David Rosen
Juvenile Special Defense Unit
Defender Association of Pennsylvania
121 North Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-568-3190

Mandel Legal Aid Clinic. Based at the University of
Chicago Law School, the Mandel Legal Aid Clinic
represents indigent juveniles subject to transfer
to criminal court. In Illinois, juveniles over age
15 who are charged with a serious, violent felony
or narcotics offense are automatically transferred
to criminal court; transfer is discretionary for
juveniles aged 13 to 15. Lawyers handle cases in
both juvenile and criminal court and, depending on
the case, may continue to consult with a client
following disposition. There are plans to expand
the program to include interns from the Divinity
School, the School of Psychology, and the School of
Urban Policy. The clinic is currently staffed by 3
lawyers, 30 law students, an inhouse social worker,
and graduate social work interns. Initially funded
by a grant from the Department of Education, the
University now also provides funding. 

Contact:

Randolph E. Stone
Mandel Legal Aid Clinic
University of Chicago Law School
6020 South University
Chicago, IL 60637
312-702-9611

The Neighborhood Defender Services (NDS) of Harlem.
Early intervention is a hallmark of NDS, which
often provides legal advice to clients before
formal contact with juvenile court. Located in
Harlem, NDS's offices are easily accessible for
local clients. This community-based approach
increases the likelihood that defendants will seek
counsel prior to their first court appearance. NDS
employs a team approach that follows each case
through resolution. The team consists of a leader,
three staff attorneys, two community service
workers, and an administrative assistant. Since NDS
is not affiliated with a particular court system,
defense teams continue to represent juvenile
clients who are transferred to criminal court.

Contact:
Leonard Noisette
Neighborhood Defender Services of Harlem
55 West 125th Street
New York, NY 10027
212-876-5500

The New York Legal Aid Society's Juvenile Rights
Division. Operating since the mid-1960's in all
five boroughs of the city, the Juvenile Rights
Division represents New York City's youth in
delinquency matters, child abuse and neglect,
status offenses, and termination of parental
rights. In delinquency cases, a public defender is
appointed at the first formal appearance in
juvenile court. Within the Juvenile Rights
Division, each case is assigned to a team that
includes a supervising attorney, an investigator, a
social worker, and an administrative assistant.
Training and teambuilding are key components of the
division, with an initial 5-week training course
and periodic mentoring sessions and seminars
supporting a collaborative and comprehensive
approach to youth representation.

Contact:

Gary Soloman
New York Legal Aid Society
Juvenile Rights Division
15 Park Row
21st Floor
New York, NY 10038
212-619-3890
Fax 212-406-0437

Ohio State Public Defender. Ohio's Department of
Youth Services and the Appellate Division of the
Office of the State Public Defender developed a
project to provide better access to legal
representation for juveniles who had been
adjudicated delinquent and committed to State
facilities. Law students conduct interviews with
incarcerated juveniles to determine whether they
had access to representation prior to commitment.
Three attorneys file motions on behalf of indigent
juveniles who have grounds for appeal, and they
also file a motion to appoint counsel for the
youth. Since the program began in May 1994,
approximately 700 committed juveniles have been
interviewed and 64 appeals filed.

Contact:

Pam Conger
Ohio State Public Defender
8 East Long Street
Columbus, OH 43266-0587
614-466-5394

Truancy Intervention Project. Based on partnership
between the Fulton County Juvenile Court and the
Atlanta Bar Foundation, the Truancy Intervention
Project seeks to effect an early, positive
intervention for troubled youth. It matches
volunteer lawyers with youth who have been reported
for excessive school absence. Volunteer lawyers
represent the youth in juvenile court and also
become mentors for the truants and their families.
The volunteer lawyers also direct their clients to
appropriate social service resources such as
clothing and food banks, emergency medical care,
utility services, and tutoring. The Fulton County
Juvenile Court provides funding for three probation
officers who handle truancy cases exclusively; the
court is also considering dedicating a judge to
establish a truancy court. In addition, a local law
firm is donating $175,000 over 4 years to create a
nonprofit organization, Kids In Need of Dreams
(KIND), Inc., and to support a full-time project
director.

Contact:

Gail Harper
Truancy Intervention Project, KIND, Inc.
Georgia Hill Annex
250 Georgia Avenue SW.
Suite 207
Atlanta, GA 30312
404-730-8385

The Youth Advocacy Project (YAP). Created by the
State public defender in Roxbury, Massachusetts, in
1992, YAP was initially designed to provide
representation for juveniles charged with serious
offenses and facing transfer hearings. It has since
expanded to include delinquency cases in juvenile
court and a violence prevention program that
provides tutoring and mentoring for youth not
involved in the juvenile justice system. YAP is
staffed by a full-time attorney and three part-time
attorneys. Matching grants from various private
foundations support a social worker and two
community liaisons. Unique components include
community-based involvement through community
liaisons, reconstruction of juveniles' social
histories for needs assessments and treatment
plans, and extensive use of forensic services.

Contact:

Jay Blitzman
Youth Advocacy Project (YAP)
11 Roxbury Street
Roxbury, MA 02119
617-445-5640

Conclusion

Effective access to counsel strategies support the
underlying principles of Gault; that is, children
are entitled not only to be seen but also to be
heard through the provision of effective legal
representation. The importance of such accessible,
high-quality legal representation for juveniles has
increased with the proliferation of punitive laws,
waivers to criminal court, and minority
overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system.

------------------------------

Resources

Organizations

American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section,
Juvenile Justice Center, 1800 M Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20036; Patricia Puritz, 202-331-
2622; Fax 202-331-2226.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW., Room
3858A, Washington, DC 20548; Jim Blume, 202-512-
8643; Fax 202-512-8692.

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 6000,
Rockville, MD 20849-6000; 800-638-8736.

Juvenile Law Center, 801 Arch Street, Suite 610,
Philadelphia, PA 19107; Robert Schwartz, 215-625-
0551; Fax 215-625-9589.

National Center for Juvenile Justice, 701 Forbes
Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15219; Lisa Szymanski, Esq.,
412-227-6950.

National Center for Youth Law, 114 Sansome Street,
Suite 950, San Francisco, CA 94104; 415-543-3307;
Fax 415-956-9024.

National Council for Juvenile and Family Court
Judges, 1041 North Virginia, Third Floor, P.O. Box
8970, Reno, NV 89507; Joey Binard, 702-784-6012;
Fax 702-784-6628.

National Conference of State Legislators, 1560
Broadway, Denver, CO 80202; Jay Kroshus, 303-830-
2200.

The Spangenberg Group, 1001 Watertown Street, West
Newton, MA 02165; Robert Spangenberg, 617-969-3820.

Youth Law Center, 1325 G Street NW., Suite 1020,
Washington, DC 20005; Mark Soler, 202-637-0377; Fax
202-347-0493.

Additional Bibliographic Sources

"Advocating Access to Counsel for Indigent
Juveniles During Pretrial Detention." 1980.
Clearinghouse Review 14(May):32-33.

Bailey, William S., and Samuel F. Soderling. 1981.
"Born to Lose--Waiver of Fifth and Sixth Amendment
Rights by Juvenile Suspects." Clearinghouse Review
15(June):127-134.

Brewer, Saundra. 1979. "The Youngest Minority: Are
They Competent to Waive Constitutional Rights?"
Journal of Juvenile Law 3:151.

Burr, Scott A. 1987. "Now My Son, You Are a Man:
The Judicial Response to Uncounseled Waivers of
Miranda Rights by Juveniles in Pennsylvania."
Dickinson Law Review 92(Fall):153-191.

"California Welfare and Institutions Code Section
317: Advocating a Change to Require Independent
Counsel for All Children." 1990. Loyola of Los
Angeles Law Review 23(June):1385-1432.

Cavin, Jeffrey D. 1992. "Waiver of a Juvenile's
Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights." Journal of
Juvenile Law 13:27-41.

"A Child's Rights to Independent Counsel in Arizona
Dependency Proceedings: An Analysis of In re the
Appeal in Yavapai County Juvenile Action. . . "
1985. Arizona Law Review 27:565-577.

Duffee, David, and Larry Siegel. 1971. "The
Organization Man: Legal Counsel in the Juvenile
Court." Criminal Law Bulletin 7:544.

Feld, Barry C. 1992. Criminalizing the Juvenile
Court: A Research Agenda for the 1990s. In Juvenile
Justice and Public Policy, ed. Ira M. Schwartz. New
York: Lexington Books.

Feld, Barry C. 1990. "The Right to Counsel in
Juvenile Court: An Empirical Study of When Lawyers
Appear and the Difference They Make." Journal of
Criminal Law & Criminology 79:1185.

Feld, Barry C. 1990. "Right to Counsel in Juvenile
Court: Fulfilling Gault's Promise." Youth Law News
11(3):10.

Ferster, Elyce Zenoff, Thomas F. Courtless, and
Edith Nash Snethen. 1971. "The Juvenile Justice
System: In Search of the Role of Counsel." Fordham
Law Review 39:375.

Flicker, Barbara. 1983. Providing Counsel for
Accused Juveniles. New York: Institute of Judicial
Administration. Washington, DC: Juvenile Justice
Standards Implementation Project, Section of
Criminal Justice, American Bar Association.

Grisso, Thomas F. 1980. "Juveniles' Capacities to
Waive Miranda Rights: An Empirical Analysis."
California Law Review 68:1134.

Grisso, Thomas F. 1981. Juveniles' Waiver of
Rights: Legal and Psychological Competence. New
York: Plenum Press.

Grisso, Thomas F., and Melissa Ring. 1979.
"Parents' Attitudes Toward Juveniles' Rights in
Interrogation." Criminal Justice and Behavior
6:211.

Hayeslip, David W., Jr. 1979. "The Impact of
Defense Attorney Presence on Juvenile Court
Dispositions." Juvenile and Family Court Journal
30(1):9.

Hertz, Randy, Martin Guggenheim, and Anthony
Amsterdam. 1991. Trial Manual for Defense Attorneys
in Juvenile Cases. Philadelphia: ALI-ABA Committee
on Continuing Professional Education. 

Kay, Richard, and Daniel Segal. 1973. "The Role of
the Attorney in Juvenile Court Proceedings: A
Non-Polar Approach." Georgetown Law Journal
61:1401.

Knitzer, Jane, and Merril Sobie. 1984. Law
Guardians in New York State: A Study of the Legal
Representation of Children. Albany: New York State
Bar Association.

Lawrence, Richard A. "The Role of Legal Counsel in
Juveniles' Understanding of Their Rights." Juvenile
& Family Court Journal 34(4):49.

Lefstein, Norman, Vaughan Stapleton, and Lee
Teitelbaum. 1969. "In Search of Juvenile Justice:
Gault and Its Implementation." Law and Society
Review 3:491.

Lyon, George L., Jr. 1979. "Ethical Obligations of
Defense Counsel in the Juvenile Court." Journal of
Juvenile Law 3:135.

McMillian, Theodore, and Dorothy L. McMurtry. 1970.
"The Role of the Defense Lawyer in the Juvenile
Court--Advocate or Social Worker?" St. Louis Law
Journal 14:561.

Melton, Gary B. 1989. "Taking Gault Seriously:
Toward a New Juvenile Court." Nebraska Law Review
68:146.

Orlando, Frank A., and Cary L. Crippen. 1992. The
Rights of Children and the Juvenile Court. In
Juvenile Justice and Public Policy, ed. Ira
Schwartz. New York: Lexington Books.

Platt, Anthony, Howard Schechter, and Phyllis
Tiffany. 1968. "In Defense of Youth: A Case Study
of the Public Defender in Juvenile Court." Indiana
Law Journal 43:619.

Pope, Carl E., and William Feyerhem. 1992.
Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.

Quaintance, Ross. 1985. "Waivers of Counsel in
Juvenile Courts: Do Procedures Guard Against
Invalid Waivers?" William Mitchell Law Review
12:93.

"The Representation of Juveniles Before the Court:
A Look Into the Past and the Future." 1981. Case
Western Reserve Law Review 31(Spring):580-607.

Sanborn, Joseph B., Jr. 1994. "Remnants of Parens
Patriae in the Adjudicatory Hearing: Is a Fair
Trial Possible in Juvenile Court?" Crime &
Delinquency 40:599.

Shepherd, Robert E. 1987. "The Right to Effective
Counsel." Criminal Justice 2(Fall):33-36.

Shookhoff, Andrew J. 1983. "Providing Competent
Counsel in Juvenile Delinquency Cases--Guidelines
for Juvenile Court Practice." Tennessee Bar Journal
19(May):5-9.

Soler, Mark. 1990. Representing the Child Client.
New York: Matthew Bender.

Stapleton, W. Vaughan, and Lee E. Teitelbaum. 1972.
In Defense of Youth: A Study of the Role of Counsel
in American Juvenile Courts. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.

Stuart, John M. 1991. "Right to Counsel: The Unkept
Promise to Our Juvenile Accused." Bench & Bar of
Minnesota 48(August):27-29.

Szymanski, Linda A., Esq. 1993. Juvenile
Delinquent's Right to Counsel (1992 Update).
Pittsburgh: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

------------------------------

Endnotes

1. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).

2. Ferster, Elyce Zenoff, and Thomas F. Courtless.
1972. "Pre-Dispositional Data, Role of Counsel and
Decisions in a Juvenile Court." Law and Society
Review 7:195.

3. Guggenheim, Martin. 1984. "The Right to Be
Represented but Not Heard: Reflections on Legal
Representation for Children." New York University
Law Review 59:76.

4. Clarke, Stevens H., and Gary G. Koch. 1980.
"Juvenile Court: Therapy or Crime Control, and Do
Lawyers Make a Difference?" Law and Society Review
14:263.

5. Walter, James D., and Susan A. Ostrander. 1982.
"An Observational Study of a Juvenile Court."
Juvenile & Family Court Journal 33(August):53.

6. Aday, David P., Jr. 1986. "Court Structure,
Defense Attorney Use, and Juvenile Court
Decisions." Sociological Quarterly 27:107.

7. Feld, Barry C. 1988. "In re Gault Revisited: A
Cross-State Comparison of the Right to Counsel in
Juvenile Court." Crime & Delinquency 34:93.

8. Feld, Barry C. May 1995. "Violent Youth and
Public Policy: A Case Study of Juvenile Justice Law
Reform." Minnesota Law Review vol. 79.

9. Feld, Barry C. 1993. Justice for Children: The
Right to Counsel and the Juvenile Courts. Boston:
Northeastern University Press. See also Guggenheim,
Martin. 1984. "The Right to Be Represented but Not
Heard: Reflections on Legal Representation for
Children." New York University Law Review 59:76.

10. Naffine, Ngaire, and Joy Wundersitz. 1991.
"Lawyers in the Children's Court: An Australian
Perspective." Crime & Delinquency 37:374.

11. Macallair, Dan. 1994. "Disposition Case
Advocacy in San Francisco's Juvenile Justice
System: A New Approach to Deinstitutionalization."
Crime & Delinquency 40:84.

12. Parent, Dale G., and Valerie Lieter. 1994.
Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and
Corrections Facilities. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.

13. School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State
University. 1993. Disproportionate Representation
in Juvenile Justice in Michigan: Examining the
Influence of Race and Gender. Michigan Committee on
Juvenile Justice.

14. Task Force on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. 1976. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. Washington, DC: National Advisory
Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. 

15. Advisory Committee to the Administrator. 1976.
Standards for the Administration of Juvenile
Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration,
National Institute for Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.

16. National Advisory Committee for Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1980. Standards
for the Administration of Juvenile Justice.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.

17. Institute of Judicial Administration-American
Bar Association. 1980. Standards Relating to
Counsel for Private Parties. Cambridge: Ballinger
Publishing.

18. A Unique Partnership For Children. National
Coalition for Juvenile Justice 1991 Annual Report.

19. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
of 1974 (Public Law 93-415), as amended by The
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Title VII, Subtitle F-
-Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Amendments of 1988 (Public Law 100-690), Section
261(a)(3).

20. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
of 1974 (Public Law 93-415), as amended by The
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Amendments of 1992 (Public Law 102-586), Section
261(a)(3).

21. An interim project report will be available
later this year. In addition, training and
technical assistance will be available for States
and local jurisdictions. For more information,
contact Patricia Puritz, 202-331-2622.

22. Results of this study should be published in
late 1995. To be added to a mailing list for this
GAO report, fax your name, address, and telephone
number to 202-512-8692; or call Jim Blume, 202-512-
8643.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention acknowledges the outstanding
contribution made by Barry Feld, of the University
of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis; Patricia
Puritz, director of the American Bar Association
Juvenile Justice Center; and Robert E. Shepherd,
Jr., professor of law, T.C. Williams School of Law,
University of Richmond, Virginia, in the
development of this paper.

------------------------------

This document was prepared under contract number
OJP-94-C-004 from the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), U.S. Department
of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this
document are those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the official position or
policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of
Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice
Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice
Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the
National Institute of Justice, and the Office for
Victims of Crime.