Juvenile Courts Need National Training Standards, Webinar Told

A panel of juvenile court judges and administrators convened Thursday to discuss the findings and recommendations of a 50-state report on juvenile justice and the pursuit of “judicial excellence” in the courts that handle juvenile cases. 

A new study published in May by the The Council of State Governments Justice Center and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) reviewed the state of juvenile courts and judges across the U.S.

Their major finding? The way juvenile court judges are trained, and they way their courts operate, varies wildly across the country. 

Thursday’s panel was moderated by report author and director of CSG Justice Center’s juvenile justice program, Josh Weber.

The report presented five key recommendations for all states to adopt to strengthen their juvenile court, with an emphasis on standardizing some level of training and experience with specific, specialized judges at the helm of juvenile cases.  

“Across states, and even within the same state, the nature of the judge who’s handling a delinquency case, their experience, their level of expertise, their knowledge on juvenile justice research and best practice can vary dramatically from one county and even one courtroom to the next,” Weber said.

“As a result, public safety and outcomes for youth can be determined by geography.” 

The report found that fewer than one-third of states have mostly dedicated family court judges, and less than 5 percent of states have formal or specific background or experience requirements for juvenile court judges on any level. 

“Just like there are pediatricians that are doctors that specialize in providing medical care to kids, just like there are specialized teachers who handle elementary or high school cases, shouldn’t the judges who are making critical decisions on public safety and on youth and families that can affect their entire life be dedicated and specialized because youth are just so developmentally different than adults?” Weber asked. 

Edwina G. Mendelson, Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for Justice Initiatives for the New York State Unified Court System, addressed the elephant in the room.

Juvenile justice reforms and juvenile crime have been under national scrutiny lately, particularly in states like New York, where major cities have seen a recent uptick in crime that has shaken some public and political support for criminal justice reform. 

“In terms of juvenile delinquency cases in our family courts, we have shrunk our juvenile justice system by 70 percent at all touch points over the last 10-20 years,” Mendelson said “But we’re at a point now where we are in danger of losing the gains that we had made.” 

Mendelson said that she and others like her doing the work toward “true system transformation,” are working hard to make sure that this moment is used as an opportunity. With more eyes on juvenile justice, she acknowledged the threat of the moment toward existing and future reforms, but also the chance to get more people involved in discussing and improving the juvenile justice system. 

“Our endeavors in New York State to implement Close to Home and Raise the Age [were] both deeply successful,” Mendelson said. “But it took a great deal of time and meetings and convenings and difficult conversations where we often disagreed, but weren’t disagreeable, and came back again.” 

Close to Home is a New York City reform initiative first launched in 2012 that placed eligible juvenile delinquents in the care of NYC’s Administration for Children’s Services, rather than in state custody, to avoid removing children who don’t need a secure setting from their home communities.

Raise the Age refers to New York State legislation made effective in 2019 that raised the age of criminal responsibility to 18 years, making sure that 16 and 17-year-olds in New York are no longer automatically tried as adults. 

Recently, New York Republicans and even New York City’s democratic mayor, Eric Adams, have pushed back against Raise the Age, proposing changes to exclude 16 and 17-year olds charged with gun possession. 

The report found that states regularly cited the dedicated resources available through the federal Court Improvement Project when explaining the improvements to their child welfare courts.

The highest court of each State that participates in the Court Improvement Program receives a federal grant specifically to address child welfare court needs and improvements. 

Hiram Puig-Lugo, Associate Judge for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and President of the NCJFCJ Board of Directors, proposed bringing the recommendation to form a new federal Court Improvement Project centered on juvenile justice court improvements to Congress. 

“We’re asking the federal government to spend money, which is fine with me, but we’re not the ones making the decisions,” Puig-Lugo said. “Frankly, there would have to be concerted communication with people in Congress to make sure that the program is developed and put in place to support juvenile courts, the same way that federal funds support child welfare courts through the child welfare version of the Court Improvement Project.”

Audrey Nielsen is a TCR Justice Reporting intern.