Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T21:07:03.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

18 - Innovative problem-solving court models for justice-involved youth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2009

By
Carol L. Kessler
Edited by
Carol L. Kessler  and
Louis James Kraus
Carol L. Kessler
Affiliation:
Assistant Clinical Professor in the Department of Psychiatry, New York-Presbyterian, The University Hospital of Columbia and Cornell, 622 West 168 Street Vanderbilt Clinic-Fourth Floor New York, NY 10032 USA
Carol L. Kessler
Affiliation:
Columbia University, New York
Louis James Kraus
Affiliation:
Rush University, Chicago
Get access

Summary

The traditional adjudication process for youth has been wrought with such difficulties as overcrowded detention centers, delay in processing cases, and ineffective case dispositions. The US juvenile justice system, in response to the pressure of an increase in youth crime in the 1980s, resorted to increased detention and transfer to adult court. Punitive models threatened to overtake the heart of the juvenile justice system – a system predicated on the commitment to offer youth rehabilitation and integration into their communities.

Despite a trend toward punishment, committed teams of judges, lawyers, law enforcement officers, probation officers, community leaders, and mental health providers have fashioned creative alternatives to traditional adjudication. They aim to address such root causes of delinquent behavior as mental illness, substance abuse, academic failure, and family disintegration. The process of adjudication is transformed into a therapeutic, rehabilitative approach, wherein young people's needs are assessed and addressed. Youth at risk are seen as youth in need of support – a term that youth advocates coined for themselves at a recent meeting convened by the American Bar Association's Youth at Risk Initiative.

Problem-solving courts search for young people's strengths, and endeavor to support youth with needed educational, vocational, health, and mental health services. They seek to deliver services in a culturally relevant, developmentally appropriate manner, and they strive to link youth to effective aftercare.

These courts embody a model of restorative justice. Reparations are made by the youth to his/her community and by the community to their youth.

Keywords

drug courtsjustice-involved youthjuvenile justice systemmental health courtsyouth courtsproblem-solving courtsrestorative justice conferences
Type
Chapter
Information
The Mental Health Needs of Young Offenders
Forging Paths toward Reintegration and Rehabilitation
 , pp. 385 - 400
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, D. (1999). Kids, Courts and Communities: Lessons from the Red Hook Youth Court. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.
Arredondo, D., Kumli, K., Soto, L.et al. (2001). Juvenile mental health court: rationale and protocols. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, Fall 2001, 1–19.Google Scholar
Belenko, S. (2001). Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review. New York, NY: The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
Blumenthal Guigui, R., Michael, D., Schedler, S.et al. (2004). Best Practice Number Fourteen: An Analysis of the Efficacy of Juvenile Drug Courts for Memphis and Shelby County. Memphis, TN: Memphis Shelby Crime Commission.
Bureau of Justice Assistance (2000). Emerging Judicial Strategies for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal Caseload: Mental Health Courts. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Bureau of Justice Assistance (2003). Juvenile Drug Courts: Strategies in Practice. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Butts, J. & Buck, J. (2000). Teen Courts: A Focus on Research. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile Justice Bulletin.
Butts, J. & Buck, J. (2002). The Sudden Popularity of Teen Courts. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Butts, J., Buck, J. & Coggeshall, M. (2002). The Impact of Teen Court on Young Offenders. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Cooper, C. S. (2001). Juvenile Drug Court Programs. Washington, DC: Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program Bulletin.
Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project (1999). Looking at a Decade of Drug Courts. Washington, DC: Report of Office of Justice Programs, Drug Court Technical Assistance Project at the American University.
Godwin, T. (1996). Teen courts: empowering youth in community prevention and intervention efforts. Perspectives, Winter 1996, 20–24.Google Scholar
Godwin, T., Steinhart, D. & Fulton, B. (1998). Peer Justice and Youth Empowerment: An Implementation Guide for Teen Court Programs. Washington, DC: American Probation and Parole Association.
Gramckow, H. & Tompkins, E. (1999). Enabling Prosecutors to Address Drug, Gang, and Youth Violence. Washington, DC: Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program Bulletin # NCJ178917.
Harris, E. & Seltzer, T. (2004). The Role of Specialty Mental Health Courts in Meeting the Needs of Juvenile Offenders. Washington, DC: Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
Kessler, C. (2000). Youth force in the South Bronx. Newsletter of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. July/August 2000.Google Scholar
Kessler, C. (2005). Alternatives to traditional adjudication: drug courts, mental health courts, peer courts. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Task Force on Juvenile Justice Reform: Recommendations for Juvenile Justice Reform. Washington, DC: American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
Koppelman, J. (2005). Mental Health and Juvenile Justice: Moving Toward More Effective Systems of Care. Washington, DC: The National Health Policy Forum at the George Washington University, Issue Brief No. 805.
Makkai, T. (1998). Drug courts: issues and prospects. Australian Institute of Criminology: Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 95.Google Scholar
McGarrell, E. (2001). Restorative Justice Conferences as an Early Response to Young Offenders. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Bulletin # 187769.
Pearson, S. (2003). Youth Court: A Path to Civic Engagement. Lexington, KY: National Youth Court Center Policy Brief.
Pearson, S. & Jurich, S. (2005). Youth Court: A Community Solution for Embracing At-Risk Youth (A National Update). Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.
Peters, R. H. & Peyton, E. (May 1998). Guideline for Drug Courts on Screening and Assessment. Washington, DC: The American University, Justice Programs Office.
Roberts, M., Brophy, J. & Cooper, C. (1997). The Juvenile Drug Court Movement. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
South Bronx Community Justice Center (1999). This is the Deal on Youth Court. New York, NY: Youth Force.
Steadman, H., Davidson, S. & Brown, C. (2001). Law and psychiatry. Mental health courts: their promise and unanswered questions. Psychiatric Services, 52, 457–458.Google Scholar
Vickers, M. (May 2000). National Youth Court Center. Lexington, KY: National Youth Court Center.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×