In 2005 Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Drayton Nabers, Jr., in response to suggestions from within Alabama’s Juvenile Justice System created a committee to draft a manual that was practical and easy to use for new, as well as veteran, juvenile probation officers. Seasoned juvenile probation officers, respected juvenile and family court judges, circuit clerks, and others were asked by the Chief Justice to lend their support to the effort. Administrative Office of Courts (AOC) staff provided a great deal of assistance to the project. In the summer of 2006, an editor was brought on board to help the committee put its work into a finished product.

The committee has relied greatly on a similar effort undertaken by the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ), which resulted in the widely acclaimed Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Probation Practice in 2002. With permission of the NCJJ, the committee has borrowed extensively from the Desktop Guide and has given this manual an Alabama flavor with references to appropriate Alabama statutes, rules, case law, and opinions as well as ample references to juvenile probation practices widely accepted in the state. There are large portions of the NCJJ Desktop Guide, which are adopted without change. There are some portions which are modified to highlight the Alabama law and experience. Some portions were omitted as not critical to the committee’s desire to make this manual more practical than academic.

This manual is not intended to provide a significant historical account of the evolution of Juvenile Justice in the nation and in Alabama; however, there is some such information. The manual is not intended to be a substitute for precise legal advice about particular legal dilemmas which surface from time to time; however, there are ample references to key statutes and other legal authority throughout the manual. The manual is not intended to serve as a policy statement about various Juvenile Justice issues; however, there are many assertions about what the committee believes to be best practices for probation services.

The 2002 revision of the NCJJ’s Desktop Guide reflects an emerging consensus in favor of a more active, collaborative, results-oriented juvenile probation practice. After thoughtful discussion, the working group addressed these questions with a brief statement of the goals, values, and responsibilities of juvenile probation. These have served as the general principles guiding the updating of the Desktop Guide:
We envision the role of juvenile probation as that of a catalyst for developing safe communities and healthy youth and families. We believe we can fulfill this role by:

The 2002 NCJJ Desktop Guide rejects the closed, passive, negative and unsystematic approach that had too often characterized traditional juvenile probation practice. That approach was not victim friendly, not community conscious and emphasized a litany of “do nots” for clients with little more than passive monitoring. Nobody, under prior probation traditions, was given responsibility for stating the goals and objectives and documenting the performance of outcomes of probation. 1

Good juvenile probation practice is mission-driven, performance-based, and outcome-focused. One of the persistent themes of the Desktop Guide as revised is that the work of juvenile probation must be directed at clearly articulated and widely shared goals. It must be the acknowledged basis, not just for lofty slogans, but for day-to-day procedures, staff assignments, decisionmaking instruments and guidelines, budget allocations, and everything else that structures what a juvenile probation office does.

Good juvenile probation practice is also performancebased. It not only points at general goals, but actually moves from objective to objective toward those goals, designating concrete activities that are calculated to achieve its goals and holding itself responsible for performing them.

Good juvenile probation practice is outcome-focused. Both for individual offenders and for its caseload as a whole, it systematically measures the tangible results of its interventions, compares those results to its goals, and makes itself publicly accountable.

Protecting the public is one of the primary responsibilities of juvenile probation. The revised Desktop Guide reflects the juvenile probation profession’s current recognition of its direct responsibility for community safety. The traditional “offender-centered” point of view—in which the mission and goals of juvenile probation began and ended with the probationer—has clearly given way in recent years to something broader and more inclusive of the public interest. Most in the profession now acknowledge that the public’s main interest is in safety, and that ignoring that interest is the surest way of forfeiting public support.

Sticking with “fortress probation”—the passive, officebound, out-of-touch approach that values bureaucratic convenience over all other goals—is not an option. If juvenile probation is to shoulder its share of responsibility for public safety, juvenile probation line officers will have to work nontraditional hours rather than nine-to-five. Juveniles will have to be supervised in their schools and in their neighbor-hoods, rather than in government offices. Juvenile probation officers will have to begin keeping close track of public safety outcomes that matter to the community.

Juvenile probation’s public safety responsibilities also require its adoption of preventive as well as reactive crime-fighting strategies. Juvenile probation must support and if necessary lead community efforts to create conditions and programs that promote positive youth development and discourage delinquency.

Accountability is an important value both for juvenile offenders and for juvenile probation. Readers of the updated Desktop Guide will find clear indications of the central and growing importance of accountability to juvenile probation’s work and mission. Juvenile accountability requires that the juvenile justice system “respond to illegal behavior in such a way that the offender is made aware of and responsible for the loss, damage, or injury perpetrated upon the victim.” 2 It emphasizes restitution and community service as ways for juvenile offenders to pay their debts to victims and the public. It calls for teaching (and modeling) respect for victims, encouraging victim involvement, and considering victims’ views and interests in all decision-making.

The ideal of accountability advocated here is a broader, more inclusive one—taking in not only a juvenile’s accountability to victims and the community for past offenses, but also a juvenile probation department’s accountability for the way it manages that process. Just as a probation department must be clear and firm in setting expectations for juveniles, it must be publicly accountable for its own performance. It monitors probationers closely to ensure that they meet their obligations. It also continually measures itself in relation to its publicly stated goals.

Among the most important of those goals are fairness, consistency, and rationality in decision-making. The revised Desktop Guide returns again and again to the message that good juvenile probation practice—whether at intake, in connection with detention or diversion decisions, in assessing juveniles for purposes of recommending dispositions, or in post-disposition case planning and supervision—must be based on written procedures evenhandedly applied over time.

Juvenile probation cannot succeed without community involvement and support. In the past, too many juvenile probation offices have had little or no contact with or input from the communities they serve— and they have suffered for it. The public has not understood their work or their importance. They have gotten no information, no ideas, no guidance and no enthusiasm from the people and neighborhood-level institutions best situated to support their efforts.

Local policy councils required by Alabama law have created a vehicle by which Juvenile Courts and probation services can obtain valuable input and feedback from its allied institutions. The most recent edition of the Desktop Guide encourages probation offices to look for ways to encourage community engagement with and ownership of the problem of delinquent juveniles. It will take changes as fundamental as school-based probationwhich involves plugging juvenile probation officers right into the grid of the community’s most important institution. It will take dispensing with the busy-work and time-serving that currently goes under the name “community service”, in favor of work that is actually generated, controlled, and valued by the people in whose name it is done. Most of all, it will take a sustained, neighborhood-by-neighborhood public education campaign-so that ordinary people understand what juvenile probation means, the mission it serves, the sanctions and supports it involves, and the hope it offers.

manual from time to time as laws change or practices evolve. The committee sincerely hopes that this manual will prove to be an invaluable tool for all juvenile court probation officers and that it will be the most dog-eared document in the juvenile probation officer’s office workspace.

1 Maloney, D., Bazemore, G., and Hudson, J. (Summer 2001). “The End of Probation and the Beginning of Community Justice.” Perspectives 25(3). Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association.

2 Maloney, D., Romig, D., and Armstrong, T. (1988). “The Balanced Approach to Juvenile Probation.” Juvenile and Family Court Journal 39(3). Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

Juvenile probation and the juvenile court system developed together in America: both had their roots in optimism about young people.

Those who care about their profession tend to be curious to know something about its origins—at least enough to give them some sort of grounding. How long has juvenile probation been around? Who started it and why? What were its founding ideals? What crises has it weathered over the years? How has it changed since the early days? What about it has remained the same from the beginning?

This Chapter will sketch out some answers to these and other questions concerning from where juvenile probation began, and how it got to where it is today.

The traditional criminal law of England and America recognized only “infants” and adults.

Under American legal traditions inherited from England— from colonial times until around the start of the 20th century— who are now called “juvenile delinquents” fell into three basic categories:

Prosecutors could and did present evidence to counter it—that is, to show that individual children in this age group were capable of criminal intent. When they succeeded, these children were punished just like adult criminals.

It is not surprising that many people, even at the time, found this “infancy defense” system unsatisfactory. It could be barbarically harsh. Often prosecutors, judges, and juries let children go altogether, rather than expose them to the adult punishments authorized by law. However, as one reforming body pointed out in 1827, “If acquitted, they were returned destitute, to the same haunts of vice from which they had been taken, more emboldened to the commission of crime, by their escape from present punishment. If convicted, they were cast into a common prison with older culprits to mingle in conversation and intercourse with them, acquire their habits, and by their instruction to be made acquainted with the most artful methods of perpetrating crime.”2

Long before there were juvenile courts, reformers sought in various ways to isolate young lawbreakers from older criminals, and to deal with them more effectively and humanely.

One common response was to create separate correctional institutions for children who broke the law. Beginning in 1825, “Houses of Refuge,” “Houses of Reformation,” “Reform Schools,” and other institutions for the care and training of juveniles were founded in many places. Eventually, there were state and municipal institutions, public and private ones, special ones just for girls, for Indians, for blacks and for Catholics, some that operated farms, workshops and factories, even nautical ones that turned out sailors for the whaling service and the merchant marine.3

Not all of these “schools” lived up to the hopes of their founders, of course. Many came to be considered more cruel than the laws they were created to soften. However, all were intended at least to treat children as children rather than criminals, to offer them “reformation” and help as well as cells in which to sleep, to teach them values and skills, and to look out for their welfare in something like the way a parent would. In fact, the legal theory went, for the children sent to these institutions, the state was a kind of parent.4

Another response to the inflexibility and potential harshness of the traditional criminal law during the 1800’s consisted of formal and informal efforts to keep delinquent young people out of institutions altogether. Sometimes convicted children were indentured or “bound out” by the authorities, for example, to serve apprenticeships instead of prison terms. Private homes were sometimes found for them by charitable agencies. In some large eastern cities, so-called “placement” or “children’s aid” societies went the system one better, and swept up merely destitute or vagrant children as a preventive measure, shipping them west by the carload to be placed with rural families in “the best of all asylums,” the farm home.5

Juvenile probation actually predated the juvenile court system—its “inventor” was a Boston shoemaker.

Beginning in the 1840’s in Boston, a shoemaker named John Augustus (1785-1859) came up with a less highhanded, and ultimately much more influential method of keeping children out of jail. He simply bailed them out, though he did not know them personally, and asked the court to continue their cases on the strength of their promise to behave and his own undertaking to help them. It was all very unofficial—Augustus never had a title or drew a salary from the court, though he became a fixture there. Nevertheless, he developed a kind of system. He chose suitable candidates on the basis of “the previous character of the person, his age and the influences by which he would in future be likely to be surrounded.” He assured the judge that, if those he had chosen were released, he “would note their general conduct, see that they were sent to school or supplied with some honest employment.” From time to time, he would “make an impartial report to the court, whenever they should desire it.” If their good behavior continued long enough— “I wished ample time to test the promises of these youth to behave well in the future,” Augustus later explained—they would be let off with small fines. Which Augustus himself sometimes paid.6

Counting juveniles and adults, Augustus bailed out over 1,800 people by the time of his death in 1859, making himself liable for a total of $243,234. He was the first to use the word probation in its modern sense (it derives from the Latin for “a period of proving or trial”). By trial and error, he developed most of the features of modern day probation practice, including pre-sentence investigations, conditions of supervision, court reports, and revocation. He died destitute.7

Probation supervision of juvenile delinquents— along roughly the lines laid out by John Augustus— became increasingly common over the next half-century. Professional “visiting agents” in several states took charge of the work, attending court hearings whenever children faced reform school commitments, recommending dispositions, overseeing arrangements for alternative placements, and making frequent supervisory visits to inquire into the treatment, health, associations and general well-being of those who were not placed in institutions.8 By the time truly separate courts for juveniles came along, this basic response to juvenile offending was already well-established. Probation was “a new kind of reformatory,” as one early proponent put it, “without walls and without much of coercion, but nevertheless seeking to bring to bear upon each child the influences which will make for his betterment, and seeking to provide for him, so far as possible in his own home, opportunities and facilities for education and discipline, which we have heretofore provided only in an institution.”9

Juvenile probation officers were entrusted with the work of the very first juvenile courts.

In 1899, the Illinois state legislature established a special court in Cook County (Chicago), one that used broad powers and informal procedures to promote the welfare of children in trouble, whether they were dependent, neglected or delinquent. Its object was to deal with law-breaking children in an entirely new way—to avoid the stigma of crime and criminality altogether—so that, as the new court’s enabling legislation put it, “as far as practical they shall be treated not as criminals but as children in need of aid, encouragement, and guidance.”10 Not everything about the new court was new, but it combined features that had never been combined before, and is now generally regarded as the nation’s—and the world’s—first juvenile court.11

Early probation officers tended to be volunteers. Massachusetts passed the first law providing for a salaried probation officer—to serve both juveniles and adults—in 1878. It was a policeman, Lieutenant Henry C. Hemnenway, working under the supervision of the Chief of Police of Boston, who drew the first probation paycheck. The police-probation experiment was soon abandoned, however. In 1891, Massachusetts revised its law to prohibit police officers from being appointed probation officers. The power to appoint and supervise probation officers was transferred to the courts.

Source: Chute, C. (1930). “Probation Services Today – Progress or Retrogression.” 1930 Yearbook. New York, NY: National Probation association.

Among the juvenile court’s distinctive features was a primary reliance on probation and probation officers to guide and rehabilitate young offenders. As one of the first juvenile court judges wrote at the time, “probation for the child has been established wherever the juvenile court laws have been passed. Without it, there would not be much to juvenile court legislation. If all that we could do were to put the child into a school instead of a prison, we would not have reached a very much higher plane than that on which we stood before; but we have adopted as a fundamental principle the doctrine…that the place for a child is a home, and not an institution, and that the best place, if at all possible, is the child’s own home.”12 In the next few decades, virtually every state established publicly administered juvenile probation services, usually in concert with legislation establishing juvenile courts.

Juvenile probation’s organization, training, professionalism and confidence grew throughout the first half of the twentieth century.

It wasn’t long before juvenile probation officers formed their own professional organization: the National Probation Association held its first modest gathering in a Minneapolis church in 1907.13 By 1914, the group had published the influential Juvenile Courts and Probation, a text which helped shape juvenile probation throughout the twentieth century. Among other points, the book argued that probation should be “an active, constructive force in the lives of the children under its influence,” and that it should be performed by publicly paid, trained, full-time officers.

The National Probation Association was also influential as a standard-setting organization, publishing its first official volume of standards for juvenile probation and juvenile courts in 1923, and the first Model Juvenile Court Act two years later.¹⁵

Meanwhile, state probation commissions were established in many places, probation was made a civil service occupation, and training and pay levels increased.¹⁶ During this period, both the juvenile courts and the juvenile probation profession enjoyed great prestige-and surprisingly little scrutiny. As one observer noted in the 1930’s, “praises abound, and criticism and doubt are rare.”¹⁷

The second half of the twentieth century saw a series of challenges to the juvenile courts and juvenile probation.

The new system of juvenile justice did not entirely live up to its billing, however. It did not result in less institutionalization of children, for instance, but more—in the name of treatment. But its treatment techniques never proved as effective as proponents had hoped either. Eventually, the fairness of its “informal” procedures, and even the benevolence of its overall aims—especially where immigrant and minority juveniles were concerned—were called into question by critics.¹⁸

Some of the most vigorous and significant challenges to the juvenile justice system were legal ones. In a string of landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions, beginning with Kent v. United States in 1966, In re Gault in 1967, and In re Winship in 1970, many of the juvenile court’s traditional approaches and methods came in for stinging criticism.19 The informality and broad discretion that had been the hallmarks of the juvenile court and juvenile probation throughout their existence were now judged in the harshest possible light, and in many instances held to be arbitrary and unfair. This naturally did much to discourage and undermine the confidence of those who believed in the juvenile court’s rehabilitative mission, and whose careers had been spent pursuing it.

The effectiveness of juvenile justice methods was cast into doubt in the research literature during this period as well. To take one prominent example from the 1960’s, a theory of social deviance and control called “labeling” seemed to suggest that the more the juvenile justice system did in response to juvenile offending, the more it would stigmatize offenders, and the less it would accomplish.²⁰ The labeling theory gained wide acceptance and had considerable influence. One of the major recommendations of the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice in 1967 was that youths be diverted from the formal system whenever possible to avoid a stigma that could produce more delinquency.²¹

In 1974, another blow to the image and public standing of juvenile as well as adult corrections came in the form of a sound-byte: “Nothing works.” The phrase can be traced indirectly to a study of the results of 231 separate evaluations of rehabilitation programs for adult and juvenile offenders, which one of the authors summarized in a brief article called “What Works? Questions and Answers About Prison Reform.”²² Unfortunately, although the larger study came to no such broad conclusion, the article was widely misquoted and misinterpreted as a declaration that nothing worked to rehabilitate offenders, including probation. The “nothing works” phrase took on a life of its own—it is still heard sometimes today—casting doubt on the value of treatment and the feasibility of rehabilitation.

The juvenile justice system soon had to contend with formidable political challenges as well. Beginning in the 1980’s, rapid escalation in the volume and seriousness of youth crime, and a growing public perception that juvenile courts were “soft” in their responses, completely altered the atmosphere within which juvenile probation officers did their work. During the most intense period of escalation, from 1988 to 1994, juvenile arrests for violent crimes increased 62%.²³ The public perception of an unchecked juvenile violent crime wave led to new transfer laws—that is, laws permitting or requiring removal of broad categories of juvenile offenders from the juvenile to the adult criminal justice system—in virtually every state.²⁴ At the same time, the juvenile system was itself reshaped to resemble the adult one more closely. Legislatures all over the country took action to restrict juvenile judges’ discretionary powers, to relax confidentiality protections, and to “toughen up” juvenile court sanctions.²⁵

All this did not mean that juvenile probation officers were being given less to do. Public confidence and public investment may have been lacking, but in the 1990’s juvenile probation was still the workhorse of the juvenile justice system, with over half of the nation’s total juvenile court caseload receiving probation as a disposition.²⁶

With the turn of a new century, the juvenile probation profession may be finding a new footing.

Fortunately, a number of recent developments, both internal and external to the profession, have served to renew and reinvigorate juvenile probation in recent years.

One such development has been the emergence of a professional consensus in favor of the “balanced approach” to juvenile probation. First articulated in the late 1980’s, and now widely accepted among juvenile justice professionals, the balanced approach essentially proposes that juvenile probation respond to society’s competing demands (for safety, for punishment of wrongdoers, for redemption of young people gone astray, etc.) by sensibly balancing them: simultaneously pursuing the goals of protecting the community, holding offenders accountable for their acts, and helping them develop the skills and attitudes they need to succeed in becoming law-abiding and productive.²⁷

The victims’ rights movement has helped here, as has the set of new-old ideas that go under the name “restorative justice,” by opening up what had been a closed, offender-focused rehabilitation process to victim and community input and participation. The values associated with the balanced approach, victims’ rights and restorative justice are now formally recognized in the purpose clauses of many states’ juvenile codes.

A stable consensus is developing regarding practical matters as well as philosophical ones. Research examining the effectiveness of juvenile probation has concluded that an overworked juvenile probation officer who sees a client only once a month has little ability either to monitor the client’s behavior or to exert much of an influence over his life²⁸ —and the field is responding to these findings. Rejection of the officebound approach to supervision (“fortress probation”) is now widespread, for example. Many are beginning to embrace community-oriented policing as a useful model for probation. “Community justice” reformers are attempting to enlist the skills and support of ordinary citizens in a problem-solving, preventive approach to offending that involves the sharing of power and responsibility for social control with the local community.²⁹ Localized, flexible approaches are valued in the community justice model over centralized, standardized ones—the aim being not simply to change the behavior and attitudes of the offender, but to recruit the community into the work of supporting and facilitating that change.³⁰

For a century and a half, the juvenile probation profession has remained remarkably faithful to its origins.

To John Augustus and the others who pioneered the practice of juvenile probation, the world today would be all but unrecognizable. However, one thing they would recognize is the work of their successors. Despite all that has changed in a century and a half, juvenile probation still means close supervision, firm expectations, and tangible help—just the way it did in Augustus’s time. Techniques are more sophisticated, and knowledge has certainly advanced. However, it is still “the personal influence of the probation officer,” as one early observer of the profession wrote, that is “the essence of the probation system. The friendly side of the probation officer’s work is its important side.”³¹

Exparte Anonymous 466 So. 2d 81 (Ala. 1984)

The Alabama Supreme Court held that the transfer of the minor defendant from the juvenile court to circuit court did not comply with the due process safeguards set forth in Rule 24 of the Alabama Rules of Juvenile Procedure. The Court noted that the Rule requires that the hearing shall commence with the court verifying that all parties are present and ready to proceed, and that in this case, there was no evidence on the record that this had been done. Rule 24 requires that the court explain the following to the parties:

• The child’s rights during the proceedings
• The substance of the petition
• The specific allegations contained in the petition
• The nature of the proceedings
• The alternatives available to the court should the allegations in the petition be admitted or proven

W.M. v. State 607 So. 2d 1303 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992)

The Court, citing Kent v. United States, held that juvenile transfer hearings must measure up to the essentials of due process and fair treatment. The court further noted, “that a transfer hearing is not a hearing to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of the accused, but instead is a probable cause hearing, to determine whether the juvenile should be transferred out of juvenile court for prosecution as an adult.”

Ex parte Brown 540 So. 2d 740 (Ala. 1989)

The Alabama Supreme Court held that the standard that a juvenile be competent to stand trial is required in juvenile delinquency proceedings. The requirements of due process and fair treatment can be satisfied in juvenile delinquency proceedings only if the defendants are competent to stand trial.

Ex parte S.F.R. 598 So. 2d 1006 (Ala. 1992)

“Serious juvenile offenders”—it is not required as a matter of federal constitutional law under due process or equal protection to receive credit for time served in a county detention facility, even though adults are entitled to such credit.

M.S. v.State 625 So. 2d 1187 (Ala. Crim App. 1993)

The State is no longer required to prove, in adjudicating a juvenile delinquent, that the juvenile has the capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his or her conduct. In this case, the minor argued that he did not have the maturity and judgment necessary to be found guilty of reckless endangerment for shooting his BB gun at a group of people.

S.B.S. v. State 675 So. 2d 1340 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994)

In order to afford due process to the minor in revoking probation, the trial court should have furnished him with written findings as to the evidence it relied on and the reasons for revoking his probation.
The minimum requirements of due process when revoking probation include:

• Written notice of the claimed violations of probation
• Disclosure to the probationer of evidence against him
• Opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence
• The right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses
• A “neutral and detached” hearing body

Ex parte N.W. 748 So. 2d 190 (Ala.1999)

Due process requires, among other things, that the State give juvenile defendants written notice of charges against them. (In this case, harassment was not a lesser included offense included in the crime on menacing for which the juvenile was charged.)

First Juvenile Courts

Alabama’s juvenile justice history is similar to that of the rest of the country. Alabama joined the juvenile court movement in 1911 when a juvenile court was established in Jefferson County by a local action of the Alabama Legislature. Four years later, the Legislature established a juvenile court in Mobile County. Eventually, individual local acts of the Legislature resulted in juvenile courts throughout the state.

County Courts

Originally, the juvenile courts and all other trial courts in Alabama were funded and administered locally. The juvenile courts were governed by whatever laws were specified in the legislation that created them. This resulted in significant differences in jurisdiction and procedures from county to county. One significant example is that the upper age limited for juvenile court jurisdiction was generally 15, but in at least one county, the upper age limit was 15 for males and 17 for females.

The juvenile court judges were county officials with varying degrees of power and legal qualifications. Most were the equivalent of state district court judges today, but many were probate judges for whom a law degree, much less a license to practice law, was not a requirement for their election. In some counties, juvenile probation officers were permitted to serve as juvenile court referees and guardians ad litem for children. Defense attorneys and prosecutors were relatively rare in juvenile court proceedings, and there was no prohibition against juvenile probation officers eliciting testimony. Therefore, it was not uncommon for a juvenile probation officer to assist the juvenile court judge or referee by examining witnesses and offering hearsay testimony for both sides of the case. This was, after all, the parens patriae era in which due process of law and other requirements of the Bill of Rights were not considered necessary in delinquency proceedings.

Juvenile Probation Officers

Juvenile probation officers were county employees, and a few counties did not even provide juvenile probation officers for their juvenile courts. The judges of those juvenile courts sometimes had to obtain investigations and other services from social workers in the “welfare department.” That was the Department of Pensions and Security until it was renamed the Department of Human Resources.

The Legislature created the state’s Department of Youth Services (DYS) by Act of Ala. 1973. p.1261. §3 (now §44-1-20, Ala. Code 1975). It was given responsibility for operating the state’s three training schools and providing other juvenile corrections services. The training schools were originally established as private institutions for delinquent children – one for white males at Roebuck (Birmingham) in Jefferson County, one for white females at Chalkville in Jefferson County, and one for black males and black females at Mt. Meigs in Montgomery County. Of course, all of these had been desegregated by 1975. After desegregation, the Roebuck and Mt. Meigs facilities were for delinquent males and the Chalkville facility was for all delinquent females. These institutions now represent only part of the DYS program. They are known as the Vacca, Mt. Meigs and Chalkville “campuses” of the DYS.

The DYS was also given some oversight responsibility for juvenile probation. It was mandated to establish juvenile probation officers for appointment by the juvenile courts. It was also given responsibility for administering a new state salary subsidy to the counties for juvenile probation officers. For each 15,000 of a county’s population, it was eligible for a subsidy of half the annual salary of a certified juvenile probation officer. This incentive encouraged some counties to provide better support for their juvenile courts, but it never achieved equitable staffing. Some counties failed, refused, or were financially unable to take advantage of all the salary subsidies to which they were eligible. Other counties funded more juvenile probation officers than would be subsidized under the population formula.

Judicial Reforms

The Alabama Legislature reformed the judicial system and created uniform juvenile laws through Act 1205, Acts of Ala. 1975, p. 2384, which became effective in January 1977.

An amendment to the Judicial Article of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901 and Acts of the Legislature resulted in the creation of the Alabama Unified Judicial System. The juvenile courts and all other county trial courts became state district and circuit courts with uniform jurisdictions and powers. The probate courts and municipal courts remained county and municipal courts respectively, but they were included in the Unified Judicial System for limited purposes to make all state and local courts a unified judicial branch of state government.

Juvenile probation officers play a crucial role at virtually every delinquency case processing stage.

A thorough understanding of how delinquency cases are processed through the juvenile justice system from referral to case closure—is essential to good juvenile probation practice. Annually, about 1.5 million delinquency cases are handled by the nation’s juvenile courts. In Alabama, approximately 41 thousand delinquency cases are handled annually by juvenile courts. Virtually every one of the juveniles involved in these cases has contact with juvenile probation officers at some point.1 Juvenile probation officers acting as juvenile intake officers pursuant to Rule 8, Alabama Rules of Juvenile Procedure, screen most of them initially to determine how they should be processed, and make detention decisions on some of them. Juvenile Probation Officers also prepare investigation reports on most of the cases, provide supervision, and deliver aftercare services to many of the clients released from institutions. This chapter provides an overview of delinquency case processing, and briefly describes the critical decisions that must be made at each stage. Subsequent chapters provide more in-depth information on each of these stages.

Cases initiated by filing of petitions by

intake officers.

Cases before the court shall be initiated by the filing of a petition by the intake officer who shall receive verified complaints and proceed thereon pursuant to rules of procedure adopted by the Supreme Court [Section 12- 15-50, Ala. Code 1975].

I n determining whether to “petition” juvenile cases—that is, whether to process them formally—intake officers must ask the following basic question:

From a review of complaints and the evidence, is it clear that complaints against juveniles are legally sufficient? If not, petitions cannot be filed.

If decisions are made neither to petition nor informally adjust a complaint, intake officers may still refer juveniles to the Department of Human Resources and other private or public agencies in their communities if their assistance appears to be needed or desirable [Section 12-15-7(a)(3) Ala. Code, 1975]. These referrals may even take the forms of simple notifications to complainants, juveniles, or their parents of the existence of agencies, which may be of help. These agencies may be faith-based, as well as those agencies such as are listed in the resource guides developed by county children’s policy councils. Copies of these guides should be kept available in juvenile probation offices.

At one time, most cases referred to juvenile court intake officers were handled informally, but the proportion has fallen in recent years. In 1998, 43% of all cases referred were handled without petitions and without judicial involvement.2 Often, in informally processed cases, juveniles are simply placed on “informal” or “voluntary” probation for a period of time, after the successful completion of which the period of supervision is terminated and no court records are created or kept.

Timeliness is an important consideration in making

intake decisions.

Filing of petition and conduct of hearing as to

necessity for continuation of detention or

shelter care.

When a child is not released from detention or shelter care as provided in Section 12-15-58, a petition shall be filed and a hearing held within 72 hours, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays included, to determine whether continued detention or shelter care is required [Section 12-15-60(a), Ala. Code 1975].

Notice of the detention or shelter care or other care hearing, either oral or written, stating the time, place and purpose of the hearing and the right to counsel shall be given to the parent, guardian or custodian if they can be found and to the child if such child is over 12 years of age or if delinquency is alleged. In every case of a dependent child, the Department of Human Resources shall be notified [Section 12-15-60(b), Ala. Code 1975].

At the commencement of the detention or shelter or other care hearing, the court shall advise the parties of the right to counsel and shall appoint counsel as required. The parties shall be informed of the child's right to remain silent with respect to any allegation of delinquency. They shall also be informed of the contents of the petition and shall, except as provided herein, be given an opportunity to admit or deny the allegations of the petition. Prior to the acceptance of an admission of the allegations of the petition, the court shall (1) verify if the child was previously convicted or adjudicated a youthful offender pursuant to Section 12-15-34(h) or (2) rule on any motion of the prosecutor requesting the court to transfer the child for criminal prosecution. The juvenile court shall not accept a plea of guilt or an admission to the allegations of the petition in any case in which the child will be transferred for prosecution as an adult, either by grant of the prosecutor's motion to transfer or pursuant to Section 12-15-34(h) and Section 12-15-60(c), Ala. Code 1975}.

All relevant and material evidence helpful in determining the need for detention or shelter care may be admitted by the court even though not competent in a hearing on the petition [Section 12-15-60(d), Ala. Code 1975].

If the child is not released and no parent, guardian or other custodian has been notified and none appeared or waived appearance at the hearing, upon the filing of an affidavit stating these facts, the court shall rehear the matter within 24 hours, Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays included [Section 12-15-60(e), Ala. Code 1975].

Unless otherwise ordered by the court pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, a child lawfully taken into custody as an allegedly dependent or delinquent child or a child in need of supervision shall immediately be released, upon the ascertainment of the necessary facts, to the care, custody and control of such child's parent, guardian, custodian or other suitable person able and willing to provide supervision and care for such child, except in situations where [12-15-59(a), Ala. Code 1975]:

The criteria for continuing the child in detention or shelter or other care as set forth in subsection (a) of this section shall govern the decisions of all persons involved in determining whether the continued detention or shelter care is warranted pending court disposition and such criteria shall be supported by clear and convincing evidence in support of the decision not to release the child [12-15-59(b), Ala. Code 1975].

A petition may be signed by any person who has knowledge of the facts alleged or is informed of them and believes that they are true [Section 12-15-52(a), Ala. Code 197].

A petition shall be entitled "In the matter of _____, a child" and shall be verified by the person who signs it [Section 12-15-52(b), Ala. Code 1975].

The petition shall set forth with specificity:

The facts which bring the child within the jurisdiction of the court, the facts constituting the dependency, delinquency or need of supervision and that the child is in need of supervision, treatment, rehabilitation, care or the protection of the state, as the case may be [Section 12-15-52(c)(1), Ala. Code 1975];

The name, age and residence address, if any, of the child on whose behalf the petition is brought [Section 12-15-52(c)(2), Ala. Code 1975];

The names and residence addresses, if known to the petitioner, of the parents, guardian or custodian of the child. If no parent, guardian or custodian resides or can be found within the state or if their respective places of residence are unknown, the name of any known adult relative residing within the district or, if there be none, the known adult relative residing nearest to the location of the court [Section 12-15-52(c)(3), Ala. Code 1975]; and

The place of the child's detention and the time he was taken into custody, if the child in custody is delinquent or in need of supervision [Section 12-15-52(c)(4), Ala. Code 1975].

When any of the facts required by subsection (c) of this section are not known, except the facts required by subdivision (4) of subsection (c) of this section, the petition shall so state [Section 12-15-52(d), Ala. Code 1975].

Hearings under this chapter shall be conducted by the court without a jury and separate from other proceedings. The general public shall be excluded from delinquency, in need of supervision, or dependency hearings and only the parties, their counsel, witnesses, and other persons requested by a party shall be admitted. Other persons as the court finds to have a proper interest in the case or in the work of the court may be admitted by the court on condition that the persons refrain from divulging any information which would identify the child or family involved. If the court finds that it is in the best interest of the child, the child may be temporarily excluded from the hearings, except while allegations of delinquency or in need of supervision are being heard. Relatives, pre-adoptive parents, or foster parents who have been approved by the Department of Human Resources providing care to a child shall be given notice and an opportunity to be heard in any hearing to be held with respect to a child in their care, except that no such person shall be made a party to the case by virtue solely of such notice and opportunity to be heard [Section 12-15-65(a), Ala. Code 1975].

After the filing of a petition when the petition alleges or evidence reveals to the court that a child may be a multiple needs child, and that previous plans developed by an agency, or agencies, have not met the needs of the child, the court, on its own motion or motion of a party or party's parent or guardian or upon motion of the Department of Youth Services, a school system, the Department of Human Resources, the Department of Public Health, the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, or juvenile court probation services, may refer the child to the county children's services facilitation team for evaluation and review. This evaluation may occur prior to any hearing, or the court may suspend proceedings during the hearing or prior to disposition to review the findings and recommendations of the county children's services facilitation team [Section 12-15-65(b), Ala. Code 1975].

The parties shall be advised of their rights under law in their first appearance at intake and before the court. They shall be informed of the specific allegations in the petition and given an opportunity to admit or deny the allegations [Section 12-15-65(c), Ala. Code 1975].

If the allegations are denied, the court shall proceed to hear evidence on the petition. The court shall record its findings on whether or not the child is a dependent child or, if the petition alleges delinquency or in need of supervision, as to whether or not the acts ascribed to the child were committed by the child. If the court finds that the allegations in the petition have not been established, it shall dismiss the petition and order the child discharged from any detention or temporary care, theretofore ordered in the proceedings [Section 12-15- 65(d, Ala. Code 1975].

If the court finds on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, based upon competent, material, and relevant evidence, that a child committed the acts by reason of which the child is alleged to be delinquent or in need of supervision it may proceed immediately to hear evidence as to whether the child is in need of care or rehabilitation and to file its findings thereon. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, evidence of the commission of an act which constitutes a felony is sufficient to sustain a finding that the child is in need of care or rehabilitation. If the court finds that the child is not in need of care or rehabilitation, it shall dismiss the proceedings and discharge the child from any detention or other temporary care theretofore ordered [Section 12-15-65(e), Ala. Code 1975].

If the court finds from clear and convincing evidence, competent, material, and relevant in nature, that the child is dependent and in need of care or supervision or from clear and convincing evidence, competent, relevant, and material in nature, that the child is in need of care or rehabilitation as a delinquent child or a child in need of supervision, or from clear and convincing evidence, competent, relevant, and material in nature that parental rights should be terminated, the court may proceed immediately, in the absence of objection showing good cause or at a postponed hearing, to make proper disposition of the case [Section 12-15-65(f), Ala. Code 1975]

If the court enters an order removing a child from his or her home or continuing a child in a placement outside of his or her home pursuant to this title, the order shall contain as specific findings, if warranted by the evidence, all of the following [Section 12-15-65(g), Ala. Code 1975]:

(1) That continuing the placement of a child in his or her home would be contrary to the best interests of the child.

(2) That reasonable efforts have been made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from his or her home, or that an emergency situation exists which requires the immediate temporary removal of the child from his or her home and that it is reasonable not to make efforts to prevent removal of the child from his or her home due to the emergency situation.

(3) That reasonable efforts have been made or will be made to reunite the child and his or her family, or that efforts to reunite the child and his or her family have failed.

In disposition hearings all relevant and material evidence helpful in determining the questions presented, including oral and written reports, may be received by the court and may be relied upon to the extent of its probative value, even though not competent in a hearing on the petition. The parties or their counsel shall be afforded an opportunity to examine and controvert written reports so received and to cross-examine individuals making reports [Section 12-15-65(h), Ala. Code 1975].

A statement made by a child under the age of 12 describing any act of sexual conduct performed with or on the child by another, not otherwise admissible by statute or court rule, is admissible in all dependency cases brought by the State of Alabama acting by and through a local department of human resources if [Section 12-15-65(i), Ala. Code 1975]:

(1) The statement was made to a social worker, child sex abuse therapist or counselor, licensed psychologist, physician, or school or kindergarten teacher or instructor; and

(2) The court finds that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient indicia of reliability. In making its determination the court may consider the physical and mental age and maturity of the child, the nature and duration of the abuse or offense, the relationship of the child to the offender, and any other factor deemed appropriate.

A statement may not be admitted under this section unless the proponent of the statement makes known to the adverse party the proponent's intention to offer the statement and the particulars of the statement sufficiently in advance of the proceedings to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to rebut the statement. This child hearsay exception applies to all hearings involving dependency including, but not limited to, the 72-hour hearing, the dependency hearing, and the disposition hearing.

This exception contained herein shall not apply to a criminal proceeding or charge [Section 12-15-65(j), Ala. Code 1975].

On its own motion or that of a party, the court may continue the disposition hearing under this section for a reasonable period to receive reports and other evidence bearing on the disposition or need for care or rehabilitation. In this event, the court shall make an appropriate order for detention or temporary care for the child, or the child's release for detention or temporary care during the period of the continuance, subject to such conditions as the court may impose [Section 12-15-65(k), Ala. Code 1975].

A proceeding to allow a child to withdraw from school shall be commenced by petition. The petition shall be granted only upon a showing of good cause for withdrawal. No child shall be deemed incorrigible, in need of supervision, or unamenable to treatment based on the filing of the petition [Section 12-15-65(l), Ala. Code 1975].

In the case of any child 14 years of age or older, where the court finds that the school officials have made a diligent effort to meet the child's educational needs and, after study, the court further finds that the child is not able to benefit appreciably from further schooling, the court may excuse the child from further compliance with any legal requirement of compulsory school attendance and authorize the child, notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, to be employed in any occupation which is not legally declared hazardous for children under the age of 18 [Section 12-15-65(l), Ala. Code 1975].

As used in this chapter, "reasonable efforts" refers to efforts made to preserve and reunify families prior to the placement of a child in foster care, to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the child from the child's home, and to make it possible for a child to return safely to the child's home. In determining the reasonable efforts to be made with respect to a child, and in making such reasonable efforts, the child's health and safety shall be the paramount concern. If continuation of reasonable efforts is determined to be inconsistent with the permanency plan for the child, reasonable efforts shall be made to place the child and to complete whatever steps are necessary to finalize the permanent placement of the child. Reasonable efforts shall not be required to be made where the parental rights to a sibling have been involuntarily terminated or where a court of competent jurisdiction has determined that a parent has done any of the following [Section 12-15-65(m), Ala. Code 1975]:

(4) Committed a felony assault which resulted in the serious bodily injury to the child or another child of such parent. The term "serious bodily injury" means bodily injury which involves substantial risk of death, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.

Nothing in the exceptions to making reasonable efforts listed in this subsection shall be interpreted to require the reunification of a child with a stepparent or paramour of a parent under similar circumstances.

If reasonable efforts are not made with respect to a child as a result of a determination made by a court of competent jurisdiction in situations as described above, a permanency hearing, as provided in Section 12-15-62, shall be held for the child within 30 days after the determination. Reasonable efforts shall be made to place the child and to complete whatever steps are necessary to finalize the permanent placement of the child. Reasonable efforts to place a child for adoption or with a legal guardian or custodian may be made concurrently with other reasonable efforts [Section 12-15-65(n), Ala. Code 1975].

The prosecutor may, before a hearing on the petition on its merits and following consultation with probation services, file a motion requesting the court to transfer the child for criminal prosecution, if the child was 14 or more years of age at the time of the conduct charged and is alleged to have committed an act which would constitute a crime if committed by an adult [Section 12- 15-34(a), Ala. Code 1975].

The court shall conduct a hearing on all motions for the purpose of determining whether it is in the best interest of the child or the public to grant the motion. If the court finds and there are no reasonable grounds to believe the child is committable to an institution or agency for the mentally retarded or mentally ill, it shall order the case transferred for criminal prosecution [Section 12-15-34(b), Ala. Code 1975].

When there are grounds to believe that the child is committable to an institution or agency for the mentally retarded or mentally ill, the court shall proceed pursuant to Section 12-15-70 and Section 12-15-34(c), Ala. Code 1975.

Evidence of the following and other relevant factors shall be considered in determining whether the motion shall be granted [Section 12-15-34(d), Ala. Code 1975]:

Prior to a hearing on the motion by the prosecutor, a study and report to the court, in writing, relevant to the factors listed in subsection (d) of this section shall be made by probation services [Section 12-15-34(e), Ala. Code 1975].

When a child is transferred for criminal prosecution, the court shall set forth in writing its reasons for granting the motion, which shall include a finding of probable cause for believing that the allegations are true and correct [Section 12-15-34(f), Ala. Code 1975].

The finding of probable cause by the juvenile court shall preclude the necessity for a preliminary hearing subsequent to the transfer of the case for criminal prosecution, and the court having jurisdiction of the offense or offenses charged may exercise any authority over the case and the child, subsequent to the transfer, which is otherwise applicable to cases involving adult offenders under provisions of laws or rules of procedure adopted by the Supreme Court [Section 12- 15-34(g), Ala. Code 1975].

A child whose case is transferred for criminal prosecution shall not be granted youthful offender status and, if convicted, shall be sentenced as an adult if the act which if committed by an adult would constitute any of the following [Section 12-15-34(h), Ala. Code 1975]:

A child who is transferred to criminal court for criminal prosecution shall be tried as an adult for the offense charged and all lesser included offenses of the offense charged [Section 12-15-34(i), Ala. Code 1975].

A conviction or adjudication as a youthful offender following the transfer of a child for criminal prosecution as provided in this section shall terminate the jurisdiction of the juvenile court over that child with respect to any future criminal acts, offenses, or violations of any nature and with respect to any pending allegations of delinquency which have not been disposed of by the juvenile court at the time of the criminal conviction.

Any pending or future criminal acts committed by the child shall be prosecuted as other criminal charges are prosecuted; however, the juvenile court shall exercise jurisdiction over the child for the purpose of obtaining verification of a previous conviction or adjudication as a youthful offender after being transferred for prosecution as an adult, and for the purpose of authorizing release pending trial on bond or as otherwise provided by law. Termination of the juvenile court's jurisdiction over the child with respect to future criminal charges and pending allegations of delinquency, as provided herein, shall not affect the juvenile court's jurisdiction over the child with respect to any other matter provided in this chapter, specifically including any prior allegations of delinquency which, at the time of the criminal conviction, has been disposed of by the juvenile court either through informal adjustment, consent decree, or adjudication. The juvenile court is specifically authorized, to the extent practicable, to continue exercising its jurisdiction over the child with respect to such previously disposed delinquency cases after the termination of its jurisdiction with respect to other criminal charges [Section 12-15-34(j), Ala. Code 1975].

.Probation supervision is the most common disposition for juveniles adjudicated delinquent.

Slightly more than one-half of all adjudicated delinquency cases are placed on probation supervision in any given year. In 1998, probation was the most severe disposition ordered in 58% of all adjudicated delinquency cases.3 In 2006, probation was the most severe disposition ordered in 65% of all adjudicated delinquency cases in Alabama. However, most juvenile probation dispositions are multifaceted. For example, most cases placed on probation receive other dispositions or conditions of probation including drug testing and counseling, weekend confinement, day reporting, community service, or restitution.⁴

During the period of probation supervision, juveniles remain in their communities and can continue normal activities (e.g., live at home, attend school, work, etc.). In exchange for this freedom, probationers are required to comply with certain conditions, with compliance being monitored by juvenile probation offices. Some of these conditions are of the passive (“thou shalt not”) type.

As is described more fully in the Supervision Chapter, however, good juvenile probation supervision emphasizes “active” probation conditions- activities meant to hold juveniles accountable and address problem areas while maintaining community safety. Failure to comply with conditions of juvenile probation may result in a range of consequences, including the imposition of additional probation conditions, harsher sanctions of various kinds, or the outright revocation of probation. If probation is revoked, the court may order an entirely new disposition, which may include placement in a residential facility.

An alternative approach, and one recommended by the American Probation and Parole Association, is for juvenile probation departments to develop workload rather than caseload standards—that is, standards that distinguish between types of cases that call for differing amounts of time and effort.

For example, a high-intensity case might require a certain number of hours per month, while a mediumintensity case may require less, and a minimal-supervision case even less. Using time estimates for each level of supervision—along with estimates, based on case management assessments, of the number of high, medium, and low supervision cases that must be handled in a given period of time—it is possible for a probation office to calculate the maximum caseload that one juvenile officer can accommodate in the work hours available.

Juvenile probation officers’ role continues even after juveniles are “sent away.” At disposition, judges may order juveniles committed to residential facilities. These facilities may be state-administered or privately operated, secure or nonsecure. In any given year, about one-fourth of adjudicated delinquency cases receive residential placement dispositions. Juvenile probation officers’ involvement with adjudicated delinquents does not end with a residential commitment, however. Juvenile probation offices in many jurisdictions are also responsible for “aftercare,” which is the process of monitoring juveniles’ rehabilitative progress while in placement, participating in prerelease planning and, following juveniles’ release

and reintegration into their communities, monitoring their compliance with the parole-like conditions that are generally imposed. This also includes involvement with after care hearings upon release from the Department of Youth Services to include the recommendations from the facility in the case plan/order.

Juvenile delinquency cases should terminate with case closing reports. Effective delinquency case processing means processing each individual case to some identifiable and measurable end. Just as there is a definitive starting point at intake, there should also be a definitive ending point—a “case closing.”

Cases are most often closed upon successful completion of the terms of the disposition. At that time, juvenile probation officers should prepare a case closing report. Reports should indicate (1) the extent to which specific case plan objectives were met; (2) whether juveniles violated conditions of probation or reoffended while on probation; (3) any sanctions imposed; (4) any treatment received; (5) any skills developed or improved; (6) any restitution paid; and (7) any community service performed.

All of the major standard-setting groups set maximum time limits for the processing of delinquency cases in keeping with principles of efficiency and due process. Alabama has established the following time limits for juvenile cases:

(5) Transfer legal custody to local public or private agencies, organizations or facilities willing and able to assume the education, care, and maintenance of children and which are licensed or otherwise authorized by law to receive and provide care for children.

(6) Transfer legal custody to relatives or other individuals who, after studies by juvenile probation officers, are found by courts to be qualified to receive and care for children;

(7) Make any other orders as the courts deem to be for the welfare and best interests of the children, including but not limited to, drug screens, assessments of fines not to exceed $250; and restitution against the parents, guardians, or children as the courts deem appropriate.

(8) Direct the parents or custodians of the children to perform such reasonable acts as are deemed necessary to promote the best interests of the children [Section 12-15-71(c), Ala. Code 1975].

“Legal custody”: is defined as [a] legal status created by court order which vests in a custodian the right to have physical custody of the child and to determine where and with whom the child shall live within the state and the right and duty to protect, train, and discipline the child and to provide the child with food, shelter, clothing, education, and ordinary medical care, all subject to the powers, rights, duties, and responsibilities of the guardian of the person of the child and subject to any residual parental rights and responsibilities. An individual granted legal custody shall exercise the rights and responsibilities personally unless otherwise authorized by the juvenile court. [12-15- 1(17), Ala. Code 1975].

If legal custody of children is vested in someone other than their parents, after notice and hearings, courts may order that the parents or other legally obligated persons pay reasonable sums that will cover, in whole or in part, the support and treatment of the children [Section 12-15-9, Ala. Code 1975].

In addition, after due notice and hearings, courts may order the parents or other legally obligated persons to pay all or part of the court costs, attorney fees, and expenses with respect to the examination, treatment, care or support of the children incurred in carrying out the provisions of this chapter [Section 12- 15-11, Ala. Code 1975].

In all cases where children have been adjudicated delinquent and granted probation, as condition of probation, courts may order the parents or legal guardians of the children to assist the court in ensuring that the children complies with the terms of their probation. Parents who fail to assist in this matter may be held in criminal contempt and may be fined in an amount not to exceed $300 and imprisonment not exceeding 30 days, or both [Section 12-15-11.1, Ala. Code 1975].

• Transfers to Adult Court

Before hearings on the merits and following consultation with juvenile probation officers, prosecutors may file motions requesting the courts to transfer the children for criminal prosecution. Such motions must be addressed by the court prior to adjudicatory hearings.

• Age of Children

Motions to transfer to adult court may be filed if the children were 14 years of age or older at the time of conduct charged and alleged to have committed acts which would constitute crimes if committed by adults.

• Hearings on Motions

Hearings must be conducted by courts for the purposes of determining whether it is in best interests of children or the public to grant motions unless courts find that there are reasonable grounds to believe the children are committable to institutions or agencies for the mentally retarded or mentally ill. If the latter is the case, courts shall proceed pursuant to Section 12-15-70, Ala. Code 1975.

• Mandatory Factors

Evidence of the following shall be considered by courts in determining whether to grant the motions:

1. the nature of the present alleged offenses;
2. the extent and nature of the prior delinquency records of the children;
3. the nature of past treatment efforts and the nature of the response of the children to the efforts;
4. demeanor;
5. the extent and nature of the physical and mental maturity of the children;
6. The interests of the community and of the children requiring that the children be placed under legal restraint or discipline.

During the 1970’s and 1980’s, partly in response to U.S. Supreme Court decisions challenging traditional juvenile justice practices various national organizations wrote and published standards for the administration of juvenile justice in the United States. Although there is too much legal and practice variation for any one set of standards to meet the needs of every jurisdiction in every state, these standards nevertheless reflect the best attempts of knowledgeable professionals to lay out a basic framework for good practice. As such, they provide a frame of reference from which juvenile probation officers and their departments can examine their own decision-making, policies, and practices.

¹Torbert, P. (1996), “Juvenile Probation: The Workhorse of the Juvenile Justice System.” OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
² Puzzanchera, supra, n.3.
³ Ibid.
⁴ Scahill, M. (2000). Juvenile Delinquency Probation Caseloads,1988- 1997. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile justice and Delinquency Preventions

Intake assessment and decision-making are among juvenile probation officers’ most important responsibilities.

Eligibility criteria for diversion will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The previous chapter on intake decision-making discussed the approach that should be taken and the factors that should be considered in choosing candidates for diversion. Diversion decisions should be structured by explicit guidelines that serve goals. Guidelines should be sufficiently firm and specific to be of practical assistance to decision-makers but flexible to permit the exercise of discretion. Guidelines should seek to maximi2e diversion opportunities for juveniles, without "widening the net" to capture juveniles whose cases might well ultimately be dismissed. Although specific diversion criteria can and should vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, they should result in the diversion of most minor juvenile offenders who have no serious prior involvement with the courts and who along with their families are willing to accept services and sanctions voluntarily.

In all cases where diversion may be considered, the legal sufficiency of the referrals should dictate the nature of the diversionary approach. If legal sufficiency exists, it is appropriate to sanction contingent behavior on the part of juveniles and their families (see section, below, on diversion arrangements). If no legal sufficiency is apparent, it is acceptable for juvenile probation officers to suggest options to address identified problems or issues, but potential sanctions should not be attached to the completion of the recommended options.

All diversion arrangements should be reflected in clear and complete diversion agreements. At what is sometimes called "adjustment conferences," intake officers meet with juveniles, their parents, and their attorneys, if any, to negotiate the conditions under which complaints against juveniles maybe resolved through diversion. The product of this conference should be diversion agreements—written contracts that reflect the terms and conditions under which the case will be diverted. All diversion agreements should clearly state that intake officers will not file petitions in exchange for certain commitments from juveniles and their families with respect to the agreed conditions.

Good diversion agreements share the following characteristics:

¦      Clarity and specificity. Agreements should express objectives that are measurable (deadlines, work hours, sums of money, etc.). They should steer clear of vague or disputable conditions or obligations ("show respect," etc.).

¦ Informed consent. Agreements should clearly reflect that the juveniles and their parents were notified of their right to refuse diversion and to demand adjudication hearings before judges. They should also make clear that the juveniles and parents may terminate agreements at any time and request adjudication hearings.

¦ Definite, limited duration. Diversion agreements should not hold cases open indefinitely. They should state what juveniles have to do and provide for the closure of the cases if they do it. Once diversion agreements have been signed, the subsequent filing of petitions based on the events out of which the original complaints arose should be permitted for a period of time (e.g., three to six months) from the dates of the agreements. If no petitions are filed within that period, then subsequent filing for the present offenses should be prohibited.

Good diversion calls for activity, not just passivity, from juveniles. To be effective, diversion agreements should not just require juveniles to stay out of trouble. They should provide for services and interventions that hold juveniles accountable, focus on their strengths in a positive development framework, satisfy victims5 concerns, and involve the communities in efforts to effectuate positive changes in their lives.

The following are typical features of diversion agreements that are positive/active rather than n egative /pas sive: — Community service. — Restitution.

— Victims' awareness/effects of crime classes.

— Essay/art projects relating to effects of or harm caused by offending.

— Offense-specific support groups or classes (e.g., drug/alcohol, conflict resolution).

— Law-related education.

— Participation in pro-social community activities (e.g., 4-H, Boys & Girls Clubs, scouting, school groups) with opportunities to practice learned skills.

— Mentoring or tutoring programs.

Most diversion programs fall into two broad categories. Although a variety of diversion programs exists, most are either: (1) alternative dispute resolution (ADR) programs, or (2) community-based programs that provide other kinds of services and interventions to juveniles and families.

ADR programs include "participatory" ones, in which parties to disputes allow neutral facilitators to help them discuss issues and develop mutually acceptable resolutions, and "adjudicatory" ones, in which juveniles appear before a panel of citi2ens who hear the cases and determine sanctions.4 Victim/offender mediation, circle sentencing, and family group conferencing are examples of the former. Teen courts, peer juries, Juvenile Conference Committees, citi2en hearing boards, and youth aid panels are all examples of the latter. Some ADR programs do not fit neatly into either of these categories, of course, but all fall somewhere along the adjudicatory — participatory continuum.

Community-based diversion programs can teach new skills while strengthening juveniles' connections with their communities. Community-based diversion of the n on-ADR types may include mentoring programs, work programs, educational programs, skill-development programs, counseling programs, programs that work with families, etc. Any of these may provide juveniles with closer supervision and greater opportunities for sociali2ation and attachment to their communities than the juvenile probation offices alone could provide.

Diversion processes must be fair to all parties. Juvenile courts and juvenile probation offices are responsible for assuring that diversion is fair to everyone involved. Fairness requires all of the following:7

Legitimacy. Diversion should be authorized by state statutes, court rules and/or policies. Juvenile court judges, prosecutors, and attorneys representing children should sanction the programs.

Training. All appropriate staff, service providers, and community volunteers should receive consis­tent training regarding the juvenile justice system, the purpose of diversion, the operational characteristics of diversion programs, the development of diversion agreements or contracts, and appropriate victim/witness issues.

Agreements. The conditions of diversion should be clearly understood and reduced to formal, written agreements between juveniles and specific diversion programs, clearly stating what juveniles need to do to complete agreements.

Monitoring. Formal processes for courts/juvenile probation officers reviewing and monitoring compliance with diversion agreements should be developed and implemented.

Incentives. Agreements must contain adequate incentives for completion, including no official records or findings of delinquency and destruction of records within a certain time after successful completion, assistance in enabling juveniles to avoid future offenses, and eligibility for future diversion consideration.

Sanctions. The consequences of failure to fulfill contract requirements should be clearly stated at the beginning of the processes as well, and appro­priate sanctions for failure to comply should be consistently enforced.

Referral protocols. Formal referral processes should be set up, including clearly articulated eligibility requirements, criteria for acceptance, and decision-making strategies for accepting referrals.

Voluntary participation. Participation in diver­sion should be voluntary for all parties in­volved— juveniles, the juveniles' families, community members, and victims.

Effective diversion requires continual oversight and follow-up.

Referrals to diversion programs should always be in writing, with responses requested. Juvenile courts must have ways not only of assuring that juveniles and their families report for diversion as required, but of keeping track of the appropriateness of referrals as well. This requires good communication and cooperation among intake offices and program staff

Every intake office should have written policies and procedures to aid in planning and monitoring diversion agreements and referrals as well as taking swift, certain actions against noncompliance.¦ Relevant to detention's purposes.

Intake offices should routinely examine their diversion policies and practices. Having clear goals and measurable objectives for diversion (both the overall process and the individual programs) will aid in this examination. For example, do given programs aim to strengthen adolescents' decision-making, problem-solving, or anger-management skills? Are they supposed to improve parent-child communication? Questionnaires aimed at determining progress toward these goals can be administered at the first sessions of the programs and after the programs have concluded. Comparing participants' scores before and after completing programs will provide information about changes in knowledge, attitudes, and behavior.

The results of these and similar monitoring efforts can be used to keep stakeholders informed of both successes and failures, and to guide ongoing reassessment of diversion policy, processes and programs.8

Endnotes

1 Kurlychek, M., Torbet, P., and Boznski, M. (August 1999). "Focus on Accountability: Best Practices for Juvenile Court and Probation." JAIBG Bulletin, Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 2 Puzzanchera, O, Stahl, A., Finnegan, T., Snyder, H., Poole, R., and Tiemey, N. (2002). Juvenile Court Statistics 1998 (Forthcoming). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 3 Snyder, H., and Sickmund, M (1999). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report. Washington DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 5 Dryfoos, J. (1990). Adolescents at Risk: Prevalence and Prevention. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 6 Russell, S., Wood, S, and Domeier, S. (1999) Establishing Juvenile Division in Your Community. Available from University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension online at http:// extension.unl.edu/ 7 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, supra, n.4. 8 Russell et al., supra, n. 6.

This definition of secure detention features the following seven essential characteristics ":

Definition of "Shelter Care" "Shelter care" is defined as "[t]he temporary care of children in group homes, foster care, or other nonpenal facilities." [Section 12-15-1(25), Ala. Code 1975]

Procedure if Children are Taken Into Custody to Detention or Shelter Care and Not Released When children are not released from detention or shelter care petitions shall be filed and shelter care hearings held within 72 hours, Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays included, to determine whether continued detention or shelter care is required. [Section 12-15-60(a), Ala. Code 1975]

Issuance of Notices of Detention or Shelter Care Hearings Notices of detention or shelter care hearings (oral or written, stating the times, places, and purposes of the hearings and the rights to counsel) must be given to the following persons:

(1) the parents, guardians, or custodians, if any of them are found; and (2) children, if children are over the age of 12 years; [Section 12-15-60(b), Ala. Code 1975].

In opinion 92-324, issued 6/11/92, to former Circuit Judge Paul S. Conger, Jr., 6th Judicial Circuit, the Attorney General opined that notice of the 72-hour hearing must be given to both parents.

If a child is not released to the parent or guardian pursuant to Section 12-15-58, Ala. Code 1975, then the notice of a detention care hearing, either oral or written, given pursuant to Section 12-15-60(b), Ala. Code 1975, may include notice by the court that the parent or guardian of his or her rights pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, 12-15-60(c), then the judge, in open court, may inform the parent or guardian that the parent or guardian may be made a party to the juvenile proceedings and inform the parent or guardian of his or her rights. [Rule 31(E), Ala. RJuv.P.]

Appointment of Counsel-Guardians Ad Litem

A "guardian at litem" is defined as [a] licensed attorney appointed by a court to defend or represent a child in any action to which such child may be a party. [Section 12-15-1(12), Ala. Code 1975]

Courts, at any stages of juvenile proceedings, may appoint guardians ad litem for children who are parties to the proceedings if children have no parents, guardians, or custodians appearing on the children's behalf or if the parents, guardians, or custodians' interests conflict with those of the children. Parties to the proceedings or the parties' employees or representatives shall not be appointed guardians ad litem. [Section 12-15-8(a), Ala. Code 1975]

In addition, courts must appoint counsel for children when there are adverse interests between the parents and children or where the parents are unmarried minors; or are married, have been married, and are under the age of 18 years; or when counsel is otherwise required in the interests of justice. [Section 12-15-63(b), Ala. Code 1975]

Attorneys for Parents, Guardians, or Custodians At the beginning of detention or shelter care hearings, courts must advise the parties of their rights to counsel and must appoint counsel if parties cannot afford it [Section 12-15-60(c)]. It is the duty of the appointed counsel, as officers of the courts and as members of the bars, to represent and assist the parties to the best of his or her abilities. [Sections 12-15-63(b), 15-12-21(c)]

Appearance of Counsel Counsel must enter his or her appearance in all proceedings with the clerks of the court or by appearing personally at a court hearing and advising the courts that he or she is representing a party. Once an appearance is entered, counsel shall receive copies of all notices required by statute or rule to be given to parties. If attorneys received notices for the parties, unless the courts order otherwise, the parties need not receive notices. Counsel must not withdraw from a case without consent of the courts. [Rule 14, Ala.R.Juv.P.]

Contents of Petitions

At detention or shelter care hearings, the parties shall be informed of the contents of petitions, the courts shall: (1) verify if children were previously convicted or adjudicated youthful offenders pursuant to Section 12-15-34(j); or (2) rule on any motions of prosecutors requesting courts to transfer children for criminal prosecution. Courts shall not accept pleas of guilt or admissions to the allegations of petitions in any cases in which children will be transferred for prosecution as adults, either by grants of the prosecutors' motions to transfer or pursuant to Section 12-15-34Q. [See also Section 12-15-60(c)]

Evidence

All relevant and material evidence, albeit not competent, may be admitted to aid the court in determining whether there is a need for detention or shelter care. [Section 12-15-60(d), Ala. Code 1975]

Rehearing on Detention or Shelter Care

If the child is not released and no parent, guardian, or custodian has been notified and did not appear or waived appearance at the hearing, upon the filing of an affidavit stating these facts, there must be a rehearing on detention care within 24 hours, Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays included. [Section 12-15-60(e), Ala. Code 1975]

Detention is a process, not a place.

If detention is viewed simply as buildings with certain numbers of beds and locks on doors, it might accommodate almost anybody. The better view is that detention is a process, not buildings.2

As will be seen below, secure detention facilities are also just one part of a continuum of supervision/ custody options. This continuum might include staff-secure congregate care facilities, individual foster care, day or evening reporting centers, electronic monitoring, home detention, intensive tracking, and ordinary community supervision.

Initial detention decision-making is often entrusted to intake officers.

When juveniles are taken to detention facilities at arrest, intake officers should determine whether the alleged facts are legally sufficient, apply detention criteria, and decide whether to detain, release, or opt for some other alternatives to detention. If decisions are made to detain juveniles, intake officers should specify the charges, the reasons for detention, the reasons why release was not an option, the alternatives to detention that were explored, and the recommendations of intake officers concerning interim status. A 72-hour hearing is required to extend detention. §12-15-60(a), Ala. Code 1975.

(c) A person taking a child into custody pursuant to subdivisions (1) and (7) of Section 12-15-56 shall bring the child to the place of detention or shelter care or to the intake office which shall thereupon proceed in accordance with this chapter.

(d) A person taking a child into custody pursuant to subdivision (4) of Section 12-15-56 shall bring the child to a medical or mental health facility designated by the court if the child is believed to be suffering from a serious mental health condition, illness, or injury which requires either prompt treatment or prompt diagnosis for the child's welfare or for evidentiary purposes, and, in the most expeditious manner possible, give notice of the action taken together with a statement of taking the child into custody in writing to the court, the parents, guardian or other custodian and to the intake office and to the Department of Human Resources in the case of a dependency allegation.

Authority and criteria for continuation of detention or shelter care of children taken into custody, Section 12-15-59, Ala. Code 1975. (a) Unless otherwise ordered by the court pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, a child lawfully taken into custody as an allegedly dependent or delinquent child or a child in need of supervision shall immediately be released, upon the ascertainment of the necessary facts, to the care, custody and control of such child's parent, guardian, custodian or other suitable person able and willing to provide supervision and care for such child, except in situations where:

(1) The child has no parent, guardian, custodian or other suitable person able and willing to provide supervision and care for such child;

(2) The release of the child would present a clear and substantial threat of a serious nature to the person or property of others where the child is alleged to be delinquent;

(3) The release of such child would present a serious threat of substantial harm to such child; or

(4) The child has a history of failing to appear for hearings before the court.

(b) The criteria for continuing the child in detention or shelter or other care as set forth in subsection (a) of this section shall govern the decisions of all persons involved in determining whether the continued detention or shelter care is warranted pending court disposition and such criteria shall be supported by clear and convincing evidence in support of the decision not to release the child.

While there may be agreements regarding the general purposes of detention that does not mean it is easy to make rational detention decisions. Besides clear goals, decision-makers need information that is relevant to detention decisions, adequate ranges of decision alternatives, and detailed, explicit guidelines for using the information to choose among the alternatives.

Consistent, reliable decision-making guidelines help to ensure that detention deci­sions serve detention goals. All detention decision-making should be structured by written guidelines that direct the decision-makers' attention to factors in the arrested juveniles or their backgrounds that bear on the risks that they will reoffend or fail to appear for subsequent hearings. Factors isolated by these decision-making guidelines should be:

¦ Relevant to detention's purposes. Factors (such as the need for assessments, the victims'wishes, etc.) that are unrelated to the legitimate purposes of detention should be disregarded.

¦ Easily measured. Guidelines should focus decision-makers on specific, ascertainable conduct or background characteristics (delinquency history, current offenses, uses of weapons, etc.), not psychological slates, attitudes, or personality traits.3

¦ Correlated with risk. The factors chosen should have been shown to be correlated with actual risk levels in the local communities. That is, failure-to appear and rearrest data for a sample of cases should be analy2ed, in order to determine whether factors included in the guidelines are genuinely associated with these risks.

In addition, a disproportionate number of them were minorities. In 1996, secure detention was nearly twice as likely in cases involving black juveniles as in cases involving whites, even after controlling for the type o f o f f en s e ch arge d. A s a re suit, blac k j uvenile s we re severely overrepresented in the detention caseload that year, accounting for 30% of the overall cases processed, but 45% of the detained cases.

Meaningful detention reform efforts target over­crowding and disproportionate minority confinement by providing decision-makers with specific detention criteria, expanding detention alternatives, cutting failure-to-appear rates, and expediting case processing, and reducing lengths of stay.

¹ Aftermath. Whether juveniles were found to be carrying weapons, involved police in high-speed chases, threatened victims, attempted to intimidate witnesses, etc.

¹ Court history. The number of prior referrals, adjudications, and commitments, sometimes weighted differently according to the levels of seriousness of the offenses involved, whether or not they were recent, etc.

¹ Current status. Whether or not juveniles are currently on probation, whether there are other cases pending, outstanding warrants, charges pending in other jurisdictions, etc.

¹ Flight/re offense records. Records of law viola­tions while past charges were pending, previous failures to appear, escapes from placement, arrests while on furlough or subject to home detention, etc.

(a) After a petition alleging delinquency, in need of supervision or dependency has been filed, the court may direct that a predisposition study and report to the court be made by probation services where the petition alleges that the child is delinquent or in need of supervision or by the Department of Human Resources when the petition alleges that the child is dependent concerning the child, his family, his environment and other matters relevant to the need for treatment or disposition of the case.”

     Good Predisposition Investigations and
     Reporting Practices Require:

        In addition, the following duties of juvenile
                 probation officers relate to the
                       preparation of reports:

Appointment, terms of office, etc., of probation officers; designation of chief probation officer, etc.; duties of probation officers generally; powers of probation officers and representatives of Department of Human Resources as to taking into custody and placing in shelter or detention care of children generally; procedure upon taking into custody of child by probation officer or representative of Department of Human Resources generally. [Section 12-15-7(a)(1)-(6), Ala. Code 1975]

(a) For the purpose of carrying out the objectives and purposes of this chapter and subject to the limitations of this chapter or imposed by the court, a probation officer shall perform all of the following duties:

(1) Make investigations, reports, and recommendations to the juvenile court.

(2) Receive and examine complaints and allegations of delinquency, in need of supervision, or dependency of a child for the purpose of considering the commencement of proceedings under this chapter.

(3) Refer to the Department of Human Resources for investigations, reports, and recommendations those complaints and allegations of dependency or other appropriate matters and may refer to the Department of Human Resources for investigations, reports, and recommendations those complaints on children in need of supervision.

(4) Supervise and assist a child placed on probation or in his or her protective supervision or aftercare by order of the court or other authority of law.

(5) Make appropriate referrals to other private or public agencies of the community if their assistance appears to be needed or desirable.

(6) Make predisposition studies and submit reports and recommendations to the court as required by this chapter, except as provided in subdivision (3) of this subsection.

Disposition of dependent children, delinquent children, multiple needs children, or children in need of supervision generally; evaluative role of children's services facilitation team; placement in alternative school Section 12-15-71(c), Ala. Code 1975.

(c) If a child is found to be delinquent or in need of supervision, the court may make any of the following orders or dispositions for the child's supervision, care, and rehabilitation:

(1) Permit the child to remain with the parents, guardian, or other custodian of the child, subject to the conditions and limitations the court may prescribe.

(2) Place the child on probation under conditions and limitations the court may prescribe.

(3) Transfer legal custody to any of the following:

       a. The Department of Youth Services, with or
       without a commitment order to a specific
       institution.

       b. In the case of a child in need of supervision,
       the Department of Youth Services, or the
       Department of Human Resources.

       c. A local, public, or private agency, organization,
       or facility willing and able to assume the
       education, care, and maintenance of the child and
       which is licensed or otherwise authorized by law
       to receive and provide care for children.

       d. A relative or other individual who, after study
       by the probation services, is found by the court to
       be qualified to receive and care for the child.

(4) Make any other order as the court in its discretion shall deem to be for the welfare and best interests of the child, including random drug screens, assessment of fines not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250), and restitution against the parent, guardian, or child, as the court deems appropriate. Costs for court-ordered drug screening may be ordered paid for by the state out of moneys appropriated as "court costs not otherwise provided for." Any costs for drug screening recouped by order of court for drug screening shall be paid to the State General Fund. Restitution against the parent, guardian, or child shall be governed by the same principles applicable in Article 4A of Chapter 18 of Title 15 (commencing at Section 15-18- 65).

(5) Direct the parent or custodian of the child to perform such reasonable acts as are deemed necessary to promote the best interest of the child.

(6) In any case where a child is adjudicated delinquent for possessing a pistol, short-barreled rifle, or shortbarreled shotgun, any pistol, short-barreled rifle, or short-barreled shotgun possessed by that child is forfeited and shall be ordered to be destroyed by the court.”

This Chapter will discuss the timing, conduct, and purpose of predisposition investigations, general principles that should guide the choice of dispositions, and techniques for conveying disposition recommendations clearly, concisely, and effectively.

Juvenile probation offices should avoid conducting
wasteful, unnecessary, or redundant predisposition
investigations.

Most cases referred to juvenile court intake offices will never require full-blown predisposition investigations. Obviously, both in order to save time and expense and to avoid unwarranted intrusions into the privacy of juveniles referred to intake offices, juvenile probation officers should focus their assessment efforts narrowly at the start of cases, gathering only the information that is necessary to make intake decisions, and reserving more extensive predisposition investigations for cases in which juveniles either admit the charges or have already been adjudicated. If predisposition investigations do prove necessary, they should expand and build upon the work done in previous intake assessments and lay firm foundations for case planning that will come later.

Unfortunately, not all juvenile courts allow sufficient time between adjudication and dispositional hearings to permit this orderly approach. Most standards-setting groups call for separate hearings on the two issues, for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, in many jurisdictions, juvenile court judges will turn to the issue of disposition almost immediately after adjudicating juveniles delinquent—with perhaps only a brief recess to read the disposition reports. Accordingly, at least in those jurisdictions, investigations must be conducted and reports prepared before the outcome of adjudication hearings are known.

      Predisposition investigations must focus on
      facts that are pertinent to the goals for the
      juvenile courts

Although the direction and scope of investigations will vary with the nature of the cases and the resources and dispositional alternatives available, all predisposition investigations should be designed to shed light, in addition to, or associated with, the goals established by statute.

These are general goals of disposition decision-making. Obviously, juvenile probation officers conducting predisposition investigations must be sure to gather whatever information is required to be considered under state statute, rule, or guidelines.

Obtaining basic documents, checking records,
conducting interviews, and making collateral
contacts, within legal limits, are standard
predisposition investigation techniques.

As noted above, predisposition investigations must start from the foundation of facts gathered at intake assessments. The “triage” information collected at that stage may have been assembled solely to inform intake decisions, but much of it—such as offense information, court history, victim input, etc.—will be useful for predisposition purposes as well.

In addition, predisposition investigations generally
involve the following steps:

      1. Obtaining copies of the following documents on
          juveniles:

Note: It is important to adhere to the requirements of HIPPA and FERPA when applicable (see Appendix for an overview of these requirements).

            – birth certificates

            – social security cards

            – naturalization cards

            – health insurance or Medicaid cards

          – ALL Kids, (a low-cost, comprehensive healthcare
          coverage for children under age 19. Benefits include
          well child check-ups and immunizations, sick child
          doctor visits, prescriptions, vision and dental care, and
          much more.)

          – immunization records

2. Interviewing juveniles and their parents, legal guardians,
or legal custodians, in the homes for the purposes of:

          – Observing the juveniles’ home conditions
             and neighborhoods consistent with office
             safety policy.

          – Filling in gaps in information regarding
             events surrounding the offenses

          – Assessing family/parenting attributes

          – Determining where additional information can
             be obtained about juveniles and getting
             signed authorizations to release confidential
             information

4. Contacting the following (if not already contacted at the filing of complaint by the district attorney):

Alabama law allows juvenile probation officers
access to the following records

“Section 12-15-100 - Filing and inspection of records, etc.

(a) Social, medical, and psychiatric or psychological records, including reports of preliminary inquiries and predisposition studies, of delinquent, in need of supervision and dependent children, including supervision records of such children, shall be filed separate from other files and records of the court and shall be open to inspection and copying, only by the following:

(1) The judge and probation officers and professional staff assigned to serve the court.

(b) All other court records, including the docket, petitions, motions, and other papers filed with a case, transcripts of testimony, findings, verdicts, orders, and decrees shall be open to inspection by those persons and agencies designated in subsections (a) and (b).

(e) Whoever, except for the purposes permitted and in the manner provided by this section, discloses or makes use of or knowingly permits the use of information concerning a child before the court directly or indirectly derived from the records of the court or acquired in the course of official duties, upon conviction thereof, shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.”

Assessing safety risks posed by juveniles require exploration of the offenses themselves, circumstances and motivations for committing the offenses, and the juveniles’ previous histories.

The public protection goals of disposition decisionmaking call for realistic assessments of risks. What specific risks do juveniles pose to communities? What are communities’ tolerances for these kinds of risks? What can juvenile probation offices do to manage or minimize the risks?

The offenses themselves, along with juveniles’ track records of offending, are the best shorthand indicators of the dangers they may represent to their communities. Details to be explored include not just what juveniles did but why and how, and sometimes even where and when. The duration and seriousness of juveniles’ offense histories—especially any histories of offending while under supervision or participating in community programming— are all relevant as well.

Whether or not juveniles can be safely maintained in communities depends in part on the range and appropriateness of local dispositional alternatives available. The same juveniles may be “safe” in communities with adequate monitoring resources and effective services, but not in communities that lacked them. In general, however, most juveniles cannot and should not be “sent away.” Even from pure public safety standpoints, and without regard to costs, all but small proportions of serious juveniles are better handled in their communities—where they will have opportunities to learn and practice pro-social ways of living—than in secure institutions. See Juvenile Criminal Sex Offenders Section in “Special Populations Chapter.”