Task Force recommends at least eighty hours of either preservice or contemporaneous training before or within one year of assignment. Report of the Task Force, supra at Standard 7.7. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) recommends pre-assignment training in such matters as the "philosophy of police work with children, review of juvenile laws, interdepartmental relations, interviewing techniques, dispositional alternatives, community resources, juvenile records, developing external department relations, and delinquency prevention." Kobetz and Bosarge, supra at 158. While Kobetz and Bosarge, supra recommends that state law enforcement training commissions develop statewide standards for preservice training of specialized police juvenile officers, they also urge the directors of the state law enforcement training commissions to establish, with the assistance of individuals from within the juvenile justice system, national training standards to ensure national compliance with a minimal training requirement. Kobetz and Bosarge, supra at 159. intercity juvenile officer exchange program to enable officers to observe procedures employed by other jurisdictions. See Report of the Task Force, supra at Commentary to Standard 7.7. Such exchanges will broaden the perspectives of officers and lead to more efficient implementation of juvenile services. Intercity training fosters the establishment of better working relationships throughout the entire system and may serve to encourage pre-adjudication disposition and referral to social service agencies as officers become acquainted with more community diversion programs. Report of the Task Force, supra at Commentary to Standard 7.7. Rather than using the exchange as a means to reward service or as an isolated training tool, the intercity exchange could be incorporated as an element into formal training. See IJA/ABA, Police Handling, supra at Commentary to Standard 4.5(b). Inservice training programs can also be developed with an intercity juvenile officer exchange program to enable officers to observe procedures employed by other jurisdictions. See Report of the Task Force, supra at Commentary to Standard 7.7. Such exchanges will broaden the perspectives of officers and lead to more efficient implementation of juvenile services. Intercity training fosters the establishment of better working relationships throughout the entire system and may serve to encourage pre-adjudication disposition and referral to social service agencies as officers become acquainted with more community diversion programs. Report of the Task Force, supra at Commentary to Standard 7.7. Rather than using the exchange as a means to reward service or as an isolated training tool, the intercity exchange could be incorporated as an element into formal training. See IJA/ABA, Police Handling, supra at Commentary to Standard 4.5(b). The training of juvenile officers should continue beyond preservice training by periodic inservice training programs. The IJA/ABA, Police Handling, supra recommends that during their probationary period as specialized juvenile officers, officers should receive full-time inservice training for at least two weeks with the juvenile court, the schools, or with some juvenile social service agency. IJA/ABA, Police Handling, supra at Standard 4.5(b). In this way, the officers will be exposed to the procedures and problems of institutions with which they will have to work. When the officers function in a full-time, independent capacity as juvenile specialists, the Task Force recommends continued inservice training by attendance at one forty-hour training per year. Report of the Task Force, supra at Standard 7.7. Attendance can also be satisfied by participation in a local department program or in Related Standards a regional, state, or national workshop. Officers attending such programs should receive full salary and be considered on duty. Through these programs, practitioners can become acquainted with new court rulings, juvenile procedures and community programs as well as having the opportunity to exchange information in problem areas. See IJA/ABA, Police Handling, supra at Commentary to Standard 4.5(b). Inservice training programs can also be developed with an 2.251 2.252 Police-Juvenile Unit Specialization Within Patrol Units Prevention Strategies Focal Point Social Institutions: 2.3 Intervention by Other Governmental Agencies 2.31 Authority to Intervene Child protective services agencies, public schools and other designated governmental agencies providing services to juveniles and their families should be statutorily authorized to intervene when there is a reasonable belief that any of the circumstances set forth in Standards 2.12 and 2.13 exist. Child protective services agencies should be required to develop and maintain the capacity to respond to reports that a juvenile is in danger at any time of the day or night, sevendays-per-week, and should be specifically authorized to investigate reports of neglect or abuse. Sources: See generall Model Act for a State Administered Program for the Prevention and Treatment of Delinquency and Neglect, §§ 14(a)-(d) and 15 (1975); Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Proposed Model Child Protection Act, §16(a)-(b) (draft, 1977). Commentary The standards in this series set forth the principles governing intervention by public agencies other than law enforcement agencies. They cover public child or family services, as well as welfare, health, and education agencies. Private organizations such as hospitals, are not covered unless they are providing intervention services under contract to a public agency. With the emphasis on use of alternatives to the traditional juvenile justice system, it is essential that both the authority of nonlaw enforcement agencies to intervene, and the criteria, rights, and procedures which should apply upon intervention, be clearly defined. hours-per-day, seven-days-per-week. See Proposed Model Child Protection Act, supra at §16(a). Indeed law enforcement officers should defer to child protective services personnel in making referral and custody decisions when a child is in danger unless immediate action is required to assure the juvenile's safety. The "reasonable belief" called for in the standard is intended to be more than an "inchoate or unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch'." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968). The intervening official must be able "to point to specific and articulable facts which taken together with natural inferences from these facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion." Id. at 21 Standards 2.321 and 2.322 outline the criteria which should be considered in determining whether to refer a child to the intake unit. Standard 2.33 sets forth the criteria to be considered in determining whether to place in emergency protective custody a juvenile in danger of or actually suffering one of the types of harms described in Standard 2.13. Authority to take into custody a juvenile engaging in noncriminal misbehavior is recommended only for law enforcement officers although this is not intended to prohibit taking a runaway to an appropriate shelter facility. Standards 2.341-2.344 specify the procedures which should apply. These criteria and procedures follow closely those recommended elsewhere in these standards for law enforcement officers and intake unit personnel. See Standards 2.221-2.223, and 2.2312.233. Most of the other sets of standards and model legislation which address this issue urge that nonlaw enforcement agencies have authority to intervene, but the extent of the permissible type of intervention varies greatly. Cf. In addition to the source materials, National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Report of the Task Force on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Standards 3.5 and 10.2 (1976); Institute of Judicial Administration/American Bar Association Joint Commission on Juvenile Justice Standards, Standards Relating to Neglect and Abuse, Standard 4.1, and Standards Relating to Schools and Education, Standards 1.11 and 1.12 (tentative drafts, 1977). Standard 2.31 recommends that public agencies other than law enforcement agencies be given statutory authority like that of police and sheriffs' departments to intervene when there is a reasonable belief that a child is in need of protection for any of the reasons specified in Standard 2.13, or that noncriminal misbehavior as defined in Standard 2.12 has occurred. See Standard 2.21. The recommendation would not extend to such agencies the authority to intervene because of delinquent conduct. The fact that law enforcement agencies have authority to intervene when a child is in danger should Related Standards not preclude child protective services agencies from establishing and maintaining the capacity to respond in such cases 24 2.12 Intervention for Noncriminal Misbehavior 2.342 Procedures Following Referral to Intake (Nonlaw Cor. F-3 Crisis Intervention Enforcement Agencies) 2.343 Procedures Upon Taking a Neglected or Abused Juvenile Into Emergency Protective Custody (Nonlaw Enforcement Agencies) 2.32 Decision to Refer to Intake 2.321 Criteria for Referral to Intake-Noncriminal Misbehavior Agencies authorized to intervene under Standard 2.31 should promulgate written regulations for guiding decisions to refer to the intake unit individuals alleged to have engaged in noncriminal misbehavior. In determining whether referral best serves the interests of the juvenile, the family, and the community, agency personnel should consider whether there is probable cause to believe that the individual is subject to the jurisdiction of the family court over noncriminal misbehavior, and: a. Whether a complaint has already been filed; b. The seriousness of the alleged conduct and the circumstances in which it occurred; c. The nature and number of contacts with the law the provisions on referral decisions by law enforcement officers, these standards draw a distinction between the decision to refer a youth to the next level of the juvenile justice system and the decision to take a youth into custody. See Standards 2.33, 2.221-2.223, 2.231-2.233, 3.141-3.145, and 3.151-3.154. It is anticipated that encouraging conscious and separate decisions on referral and custody will result in greater consistency, reduce referrals made solely because of the need to take a child into emergency protective custody, and avoid the taking of youths into custody in conjunction with a referral when a citation or summons would serve. Standard 2.321 recommends criteria for use in making referral decisions in noncriminal misbehavior cases. Serious enforcement agency and the family court which the questions have been raised about the large number of juveniles individual and his/her family has had; d. The outcome of those contacts; and e. The availability of appropriate persons or services outside the juvenile justice system. A juvenile should not be referred to the intake unit solely because he/she denies the allegations or because the complainant or victim insists. Sources: None of the standards or model legislation address this issue directly. See generally Institute of Judicial Administration/ American Bar Association Joint Commission on Juvenile Justice Standards, Standards Relating to the Juvenile Probation Function: Intake and Predisposition Investigative Service, Standards 2.6 and 2.8 (tentative draft, 1977) [hereinafter cited as IJA/ABA, Probation]. Commentary The standards in this series set forth the bases on which decisions to refer a juvenile to the intake unit should be made by the appropriate officials of child protective services agencies, public schools and other governmental agencies providing services to juveniles and their families which have been authorized to intervene pursuant to Standard 2.31. Like alleged to have engaged in noncriminal misbehavior—i.e., unlawful conduct which would not be a crime if committed by an adult-who have been referred to the family court. See, e.g., National Council of Jewish Women, Symposium on Status Offenders: Proceedings May 17-19, 1976, 8-13 (1976); Institute of Judicial Administration/American Bar Association Joint Commission on Juvenile Justice Standards, Standards Relating to Noncriminal Misbehavior, 1-21 (tentative draft, 1977); but see Arthur, "Status Offenders Need Help Too," 26 Juvenile Justice 3 (1975). Consistent with Standard 3.112-Jurisdiction Over Noncriminal Misbehavior, the criteria set forth in this standard seek to limit referrals to the intake unit to those instances in which all available and appropriate noncoercive alternatives for assisting the juvenile and the juvenile's family have been exhausted, and to encourage communities to meet their obligations to juveniles and their families by providing a full range of voluntary services. Like the provisions on referral decisions made by law enforcement officers, Standard 2.321 urges that written regulations should be established to assist personnel of governmental agencies providing services to juveniles and their families in making referral decisions. To the greatest extent possible, agencies in areas served by a single family court should develop regulations cooperatively to promote consistency. The development process should also include consultation and coordination with the family court, law enforcement agencies, programs affected by referral decisions, representative citizen task forces which include juveniles, and youth advocacy groups. The National Advisory Committee recommends the development of rules and guidelines governing intake decisions as an action which agencies can take immediately, without a major reallocation of resources, to improve the administration of juvenile justice. Finally, it should be noted that the standard attempts to balance the need for sufficient information on which to base a decision, and the juvenile's and family's right to privacy. The standard recognizes that too much as well as too little information can inhibit the decision-making process. By specifying the basic factors which should be taken into account by agency personnel at the point of initial intervention, it seeks to assure the fairness and consistency of referral decisions and limit the use of coercive measures in noncriminal misbehavior cases to the greatest extent possible. The standard urges that in making the decision whether or not to refer a noncriminal misbehavior matter to the intake unit, child protective services workers, youth workers, or school officials must first determine that there is probable cause to believe that the conduct falls within the limits of the jurisdiction of the family court over noncriminal misbehavior. Related Standards Hence, before referring a matter for possible submission to the family court, they must be aware of facts and circumstances "sufficient to warrant a prudent . . . [person] in believing that . . ." a. There has been a pattern of repeated unauthorized absences or habitual unauthorized absences from school by a juvenile subject to the compulsory education laws, if any, of the state; or 1.53 Confidentiality of Records 1.531 1.532 Access to Court Records 1.533 Access to Intake, Detention, Emergency Custody, and 1.534 Access to Child-abuse Records 1.54 Completeness of Records 1.55 Accuracy of Records Noncriminal Misbehavior (Nonlaw Enforcement Agencies) b. There have been repeated unauthorized absences for more than twenty-four hours from the place of residence approved by the juvenile's parents, guardian, or primary caretaker; or Intervention for Noncriminal Misbehavior d. There have been acts of delinquency by a juvenile below age ten. See Standard 3.112; Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964). Accordingly, interventions based, for example, on a juvenile's having missed a single day of school without permission, or on asocial or dysfunctional behavior by a juvenile because of excessive use of alcoholic beverages, cannot result in referral of the juvenile to the intake unit. See Standard 2.12. The six criteria listed for consideration following the determination of probable cause are parallel to those recommended for law enforcement officers. See Standard 2.222. In the context of this standard, the term "seriousness" in paragraph (b) refers to such factors as the length of the juvenile's absences from home or from school and the nature of the demand disregarded or misused, rather than to the extent of harm caused to others. In addition, paragraphs (c) and (d) focus on the family rather than the juvenile alone, since many instances of noncriminal misbehavior are a result of family conflict or require the cooperation of the entire family for their resolution. Like the criteria listed in Standards 2.221-2.223, no one factor is intended to predominate. Each should be considered and weighed against the others. |