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-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T08:48:34.544Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

20 - Post-adjudicatory assessment of youth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2009

By
Louis J. Kraus  and
Hollie Sobel
Edited by
Carol L. Kessler  and
Louis James Kraus
Louis J. Kraus
Affiliation:
Womans Board Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Chief Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Rush University Medical Center Marshal Field IV Building 1720 West Polk Street Chicago, IL 60612 USA
Hollie Sobel
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Rush University Medical Center 1720 West Polk Street Chicago, IL 60612 USA
Carol L. Kessler
Affiliation:
Columbia University, New York
Louis James Kraus
Affiliation:
Rush University, Chicago
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The first juvenile court in the United States was established in Chicago in 1899. With the realization that children had specific developmental needs different from adults, and in association with a rehabilitative as opposed to punitive focus, juvenile courts developed a parens patriae model. As time progressed, it became evident that such a model needed to be balanced with police power, that is, protecting the constituents of one's state. During this process there were a variety of developments within the juvenile court system. Many of these are not in the best interests of the child; do not take into account developmental and mental health needs; and do not use mental health services in assessing these issues. Examples of these issues include court-by-court variation in determining juvenile competency to stand trial or understand Miranda rights, transfer of youth to adult systems, and mandatory waiver to adult court. With regard to the latter, Grisso (1997) reports on evidence that youths' immaturity creates a substantial risk that they cannot approach their trials in adult court with the requisite understanding and decision-making capacities to assure a fair legal process.

At the present time, there is concern over a shift from juvenile court having a more rehabilitative model to the criminalization of juvenile court (Quinn, 2002). Intensified youth violence and a decrease in public support for youth offenders have contributed to a more punitive concept, certainly from a public perspective. However, jurisdictions are variable, with some juvenile courts continuing to focus heavily on rehabilitation.

Keywords

community facilitiescourt referralpost-adjudicatory evaluationresidential facilitiesyouth
Type
Chapter
Information
The Mental Health Needs of Young Offenders
Forging Paths toward Reintegration and Rehabilitation
 , pp. 423 - 436
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

Abram, K. M., Teplin, L. A., McClelland, G. M. & Dulcan, M. K. (2003). Comorbid psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60(11), 1097–1108.Google Scholar
Achenbach, T. M. & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms and Profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families.
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edn. Washington, DC.
Arroyo, W. (2005). Disproportionate minority confinement. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Juvenile Justice Reform Monograph, October, 2005, 60–68.Google Scholar
Bailey, S. (2005). Meeting the mental health needs of “hard to reach” young offenders. IALMH Congress, Paris, 2005.
Butcher, J. N., Williams, C. L., Graham, J. R.et al. (1992). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – Adolescent (MMPI-A): Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Campbell, M. A. & Schmidt, F. (2000). Comparison of mental health and legal factors in the disposition outcome of young offenders, criminal justice and behavior. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27(6), 688–715.Google Scholar
Carney, M. M. & Bartell, F. (2003). Reducing juvenile recidivism: evaluating the wraparound services model research on social work practice. Research on Social Work Practice, 13(5), 551–568.Google Scholar
Carrington, P. J. & Moyer, S. (1995). Factors affecting custodial dispositions under the Young Offender's Act. Canadian Journal of Criminology, April, 127–162.Google Scholar
Chang, J. J., Chen, J. J. & Brownson, R. C. (2003). The role of repeat victimization in adolescent delinquent behaviors and recidivism. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, 272–280.Google Scholar
Corrado, R. R., Vincent, G. M., Hart, S. D. & Cohen, I. M. (2004). Predictive validity of the psychopathy checklist: youth version of general and violent recidivism. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22, 5–22.Google Scholar
DePrado, D. K. & Hammer, J. H. (2002). Assessment and treatment of juvenile offenders. In Schetky, D. H. and Benedek, E. P., eds., Principles and Practices of Child and Adolescent Forensic Psychiatry. American Psychiatric Publishing Inc., pp. 267–278.
Duits, N. (2005). Quality of diagnostic assessments from juvenile court in the Netherlands. The IALMH Congress. Paris. Abstract.
Feldman, R. A. (1992). The St. Louis experiment: effective treatment of antisocial youths in prosocial peer groups. In McCord, J. and Trembaly, R. E., eds., Preventing Antisocial Behavior: Intervention from Birth Through Adolescence. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 233–252.
Gold, M. & Mann, D. W. (1984). Expelled to a Friendlier Place: A Study of Effective Alternative Schools. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Grande, C. G. (1988). Educational therapy for the failing and frustrated student offender. Adolescents, XXIII (92), 889–897.Google Scholar
Grisso, T. (1997). The competence of adolescents as trial defendants. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 3–32.Google Scholar
Grisso, T. (2000). The changing face of juvenile justice. Law and Psychiatry, 51(4), 425–427.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. D. & Herrenkohl, T. I. (2003). Prevention in the school years. In Farrington, D. P. & Coid, J. W., eds., Early Prevention of Adult Antisocial Behavior, pp. 265–291. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Hayes, L. M. (1999). Suicide Prevention in Juvenile Correction and Detention Facilities: A Resource Guide for Performance-Based Standards for Juvenile Corrections and Detention Facilities. Washington, DC: Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators.
Hemphill, J. F., Hare, R. D. & Wong, S. (1998). Psychopathy and recidivism: a review. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 141–172.Google Scholar
Hengler, S. & Thomas, C. (2001). Recommendations for juvenile justice reform. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Task Force on Juvenile Justice Reform, 14, 67–72.Google Scholar
Hoge, D. H., Andrews, D. A. & Leschied, A. W. (1995). Investigation of variables associated with probation and custody dispositions in a sample of juveniles. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24(3), 279–286.Google Scholar
Home Office, Department of Health, Welsh Office (1995). National Standards for the Supervision of Offenders in the Community. London, UK: HMSO.
Jaffe, P. G., Leschied, A. W., Sas, L. & Austin, G. W. (1985). A model for the provision of clinical assessment and service brokerage for young offenders; the London Family Court Clinic. Psychologie Canadienne, 26(1), 54–61.Google Scholar
Keating, D. (1990). Adolescent thinking. In Feldman, S. and Elliott, G., eds., At the Threshold: The Developmental Adolescent, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 54–89.
Kratcoski, P. E. & Kratcoski, L. E. (1982). The Phoenix Program: an educational alternative for delinquent youths. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 33, 17–24.Google Scholar
Kraus, L. J. (2005). Juvenile justice reform: post adjudicatory assessment. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Recommendations for Juvenile Justice Reform Monograph, October, 2005.Google Scholar
Kupersmidt, J. B., Coie, J. D. & Howell, J. C. (2004). Resilience in children exposed to negative peer influences. In Maton, K. I., Schellenbach, C. J., Leadbeater, B. J. and Solarz, A. L., eds., Investing in Children, Youth, Families, and Communities: Strengths-Based Research and Policy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 251–268.
Lee, Z., Vincent, G. M., Hart, S. D. & Corrado, R. R. (2003). The validity of the antisocial process screening device as a self-report measure of psychopathy in adolescent offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 21, 771–786.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. S., Griffin, G., Quintenz, S., Genuwine, M. & Shasha, M. (2003). Clinical and forensic outcomes from the Illinois Mental Health Juvenile Justice Initiative. Psychiatric services, 54(12), 1629–1634.Google Scholar
Millon, T., Green, C. J. & Meagher, R. B. (1982). Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory Manual. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Service.
Murrie, D. C., Cornell, D. G., Kaplan, S., McConville, D., & Levy-Elkon, A. (2004). Psychopathy scores and violence among juvenile offenders: a multi-measure study. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22, 49–67.Google Scholar
Niarhos, F. J. & Routh, D. K. (1992). The role of clinical assessment in the juvenile court: predictors of juvenile dispositions and recidivism. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21(2), 151–159.Google Scholar
Piscotta, A. (1983). Race, sex, and rehabilitation: a study of differential treatment in the juvenile reformatory – 1825–1900. Crime and Delinquency, 29(2), 254–269.Google Scholar
Quinn, K. (2002). Juveniles on trial. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 11(4), 719–730.Google Scholar
Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J. & Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen Thousand Hours: Secondary Schools and their Effects on Children. London: Open Books; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ryan, J. P., Davis, R. K. & Yang, H. (2001). Reintegration services and the likelihood of adult imprisonment: a longitudinal study of adjudicated delinquents. Research on Social Work Practice, 11(3), 321–337.Google Scholar
Sanborn, J. B. (1996). Factors perceived to affect delinquent dispositions in juvenile court; putting the sentencing decision into context. Crime and Delinquency, 42(1), 99–113.Google Scholar
Seagrave, D. & Grisso, T. (2002). Adolescent development and the measurement of juvenile psychopathy. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 219–239.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, S. J. & Davies, P. L. (2004). Charting the maturation of the frontal lobe: an electrophysiological strategy. Brain and Cognition, 55, 116–133.Google Scholar
Seto, M. C. & Barbaree, H. E. (1999). Psychopathy, treatment behavior, and sex offender recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 1235–1248.Google Scholar
Shaffer, D. M., Fisher, P. W., Lucas, C., Dulcan, M. K. & Schwab-Stone, M. E. (2000). NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Version IV (NIMH:DISC-IV): description, differences from previous versions, and reliability of some common diagnoses. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 28–38.Google Scholar
Snyder, H. & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile Offenders and Victims; 1999 National Report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Vermeiren, R., Schwab-Stone, M., Ruchkin, V., Clippele, A. & Deboutte, D. (2002). Predicting recidivism in delinquent adolescents from psychological and psychiatric assessment. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 43(2), 142–149.Google Scholar
Wasserman, G. A., McReynolds, L. S., Fisher, P. & Lucas, C. P. (2005). The Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children: Present State Voice Version. In Grisso, T., Vincent, G. and Seagrave, D., eds., Mental Health Screening and Assessment in Juvenile Justice, New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 224–239.
Wasserman, G. A., Jensen, P. S., Ko, S. J.et al. (2003). Mental health assessments in juvenile justice: report on the consensus conference. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(7), 752–761.Google Scholar
Whitebread, C. H. & Heilman, J. (1988). An overview of the law juvenile delinquency. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 6(3), 285–305.Google Scholar

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.

  • Post-adjudicatory assessment of youth
    • By Louis J. Kraus, Womans Board Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Chief Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Rush University Medical Center Marshal Field IV Building 1720 West Polk Street Chicago, IL 60612 USA, Hollie Sobel, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Rush University Medical Center 1720 West Polk Street Chicago, IL 60612 USA
  • Edited by Carol L. Kessler, Columbia University, New York, Louis James Kraus, Rush University, Chicago
  • Book: The Mental Health Needs of Young Offenders
  • Online publication: 11 August 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511543913.021
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.

  • Post-adjudicatory assessment of youth
    • By Louis J. Kraus, Womans Board Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Chief Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Rush University Medical Center Marshal Field IV Building 1720 West Polk Street Chicago, IL 60612 USA, Hollie Sobel, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Rush University Medical Center 1720 West Polk Street Chicago, IL 60612 USA
  • Edited by Carol L. Kessler, Columbia University, New York, Louis James Kraus, Rush University, Chicago
  • Book: The Mental Health Needs of Young Offenders
  • Online publication: 11 August 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511543913.021
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.

  • Post-adjudicatory assessment of youth
    • By Louis J. Kraus, Womans Board Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Chief Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Rush University Medical Center Marshal Field IV Building 1720 West Polk Street Chicago, IL 60612 USA, Hollie Sobel, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Rush University Medical Center 1720 West Polk Street Chicago, IL 60612 USA
  • Edited by Carol L. Kessler, Columbia University, New York, Louis James Kraus, Rush University, Chicago
  • Book: The Mental Health Needs of Young Offenders
  • Online publication: 11 August 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511543913.021
Available formats
×