1.1 Roles and Responsibility 1.11 Local-Level Participation

1.111 Organization of the Local Juvenile Service System

The local community in conjunction with the state agency described in Standard 1.121, should develop a juvenile justice and delinquency prevention planning and coordinating authority. The planning authority should be responsible for identifying and assessing all of the local juvenile service needs and should possess the capability for developing strategies to meet those needs according to established state standards and guidelines.

The composition of the local authority should consist of youth, the policy-making officials of the major juvenile service agencies including schools, local executive management and budget agencies, other governmental entities, citizen groups, businesses, and private nonprofit organizations providing services for juveniles.

Sources:

See generally National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Report of the Task Force on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Standards 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.5-2.9, and 25.3 (1976) [hereinafter cited as Report of the Task Force]; Report of the White House: Conference on Youth, 722a-722b (1971); Institute of Judicial Administration/American Bar Association Joint Commission on Juvenile Justice Standards, Standards Relating to Planning for Juvenile Justice, Standard 2.4 (A) and (C) (tentative draft, 1977) [hereinafter cited as IJA/ABA, Planning for Juvenile Justice]; R. Kobetz and B. Bosarge, Juvenile Justice Administration (International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1973).

Commentary

The primary emphasis of this standard is the creation of a process by which the local community, be it a municipality, county, or multi-county region, can assess its juvenile service

needs for combating juvenile delinquency and develop appropriate strategies utilizing available and supplemental financial, programmatic, and technical resources. Due to the uniqueness of each local community's political, historic, economic, and social characteristics, and its proximity to the problems caused by delinquency, it is best able and should have the opportunity to prioritize these problems and identify solutions, develop and operate specific programs, and obtain the feedback necessary to ascertain the effectiveness of various programmatic approaches.

State role should be that of a facilitating and supporting agent rather than directly controlling local planning and activities.

Since the standard recommends that the local community should have the primary responsibility and capacity to address the problems of both delinquency prevention and control through a system-wide approach encompassing the entire local juvenile service system, the second paragraph of the standard recommends that composition of the local planning authority be drawn from the policy-making levels of the schools and other major juvenile services agencies (preferably the chief administrative officers), governmental entities, citizen groups, businesses, and youth. To assure that the youth representatives have the opportunity to actively and effectively participate in the decision and policy-making processes, the planning authority should afford appropriate training in such areas as group process, decision-making analysis of social systems, parliamentary procedures, research, and evaluation techniques. It should also encourage the adult members to accept and solicit the youth representatives' participation, share with them their experience and expertise, and advocate for an expanded role for youth in all aspects of the juvenile service systems. See generally Report of the Task Force, supra at Commentary to Standard 2.7.

There are a number of government levels, agencies, and community groups that should be involved in coping with

delinquency. Each of these has an important stake in the prevention effort and each holds resources, legal authority, expertise, and political power necessary to support effective programming in the delinquency area.

The 1976 Standards and Goals Report also recommends a separate local juvenile justice planning agency. See Report of the Task Force, supra at Standard 6.1.

The IJA/ABA standards suggest that states should provide for local juvenile justice boards in each city and county as a final organizational element in a process of decentralizing various aspects of juvenile justice services and planning through state and component regional youth service agencies. Under this plan, the local entity would be responsible for monitoring and supervising juvenile services within the community as well as planning and initiating program proposals in an advisory capacity to the state and regional service agencies. See IJA/ABA, Planning for Juvenile Justice, supra at Standard 2.4(b).

Since the local boards are, for the purposes of planning, the most effective agencies for directly involving those who are concerned with juvenile justice services, this standard provides them a clear role in the planning process either as respondents to other agencies' proposals or as initiators of their own programs. While the effectiveness of the local boards in influencing the outcome of the overall state planning process depends, to a great extent, on the openness of the central and regional agencies to the initiatives and priorities of community, they still appear to be the best opportunity to obtain a meaningful level of citizen involvement in juvenile justice planning. Id. at Commentary to Standard 2.4(b).

While all of the recommendations, including those of the National Advisory Committee, suggest increased policymaking authority for the local community, the IJA/ABA standards limit local participation to an advisory role to a more powerful decentralized State Children's Agency. The Report of the Task Force, supra, as well as Standard 1.121 recommends that the establishment of the local planning authority would necessitate enabling state legislation. The legislation should provide the authority resources, statewide structure, and other assistance necessary to organize the local juvenile service system and provide supportive linkages between local communities and the state and federal govern

ments.

There are many similarities between the recommendations of this standard and those of the Report of the Task Force, supra IJA/ABA Planning for Juvenile Justice, supra, and Kobetz and Bosarge, supra. A recommendation in Juvenile Justice Administration identifies the goal of a similar community planning and coordinating entity.

The primary goal of such a council would be to provide a vehicle for the restructuring of individual agency organizations from independence to interdependency upon each other for the effective delivery of services to youth. Such interdependency would enable the components of the juvenile justice system to treat the child as a 'whole person' rather than as a collection of 'symptoms.' The organization of the present juvenile justice system is haphazard and

fragmented. The proposed Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council would restructure the system into a true 'organization.' Kobetz and Bosarge, supra at 58-59.

The Report of the Task Force, supra, also emphasized the importance of the local community and recommended a planning process for determining what the problems are, suggesting possible solutions, operating specific programs and providing feedback on the success or failure of programmatic approaches.

An Office of Delinquency Prevention Planning should be established within appropriate units of local general purpose government. This office should be responsible for coordination of local prevention efforts on an ongoing and permanent basis. Report of the Task Force, supra at Standard 2.2

Within a general framework of federal and state guidance and support, the principal centers for innovation and action in developing useful delinquency prevention tools appear to be at the local level and particularly at the community level. Report of the White House Conference on Youth, supra at 7.22(a).

If the majority of juvenile service provision is at the local level, then resolution of divergent problems, purposes, methods, and goals should be accomplished by the local agencies responsible for juvenile service provision. See generally Report of the Task Force, supra at Standard 2.1; IJA/ABA, Planning for Juvenile Justice, supra at Standard 2.4; and Kobetz and Bosarge, supra at 57 and 58.

The initial paragraph of the standard, together with Standard 1.21, recommends that the local community, in conjunction with the appropriate executive state agency, organize the various components of the local juvenile service system into a planning and coordinating authority. This cooperative local and state effort, should provide a mechanism through which the decision makers of the community and particularly of the juvenile service agencies, can collaborate among themselves, and when necessary with their state-level counterparts, in the development of interagency, interjurisdictional and interdisciplinary approaches to delinquency prevention and control. While the state agency should assist the local communities in the initiation, maintenance, and evaluation of their planning and coordinating responsibilities, considerable latitude should be given to the local authorities to fulfill their responsibilities in accordance with their needs and resources and established standards and guidelines.

But unfortunately, a mechanism is rarely provided for all the essential participants in successful prevention efforts to unite in a systematic fashion to plot out a comprehensive approach to delinquency prevention.

Capacity for action in any delinquency effort can be expected only after the parties exercising control over necessary resources have come to some agreement about plans of action. Advisory roles in themselves are not sufficient. Report of the Task Force, supra at Commentary to Standard 2.5.

Staff assistance for the local planning units should be available from the state agency. See Standard 1.121. The regular planning staff responsible for assisting the local

1.112 Development of a Local Juvenile Service Plan

The local planning and coordinating authority should develop a juvenile service plan in accordance with the requirements of the state agency described in Standard 1.121.

The local juvenile service plan should address those aspects of the services provided to juveniles related to delinquency prevention, law enforcement, adjudication, and supervision, and should contain the following components:

a. Background data;

b. An inventory of local juvenile service resources; c. Problem identification and analysis;

d. A statement and prioritization of needs;

e. A statement of juvenile service system goals; and f. A description of program strategies.

Sources:

See generally National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Report of the Task Force on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Standards 1.11.5, 1.7, 2.1, 25.2-25.4, 26.1-26.5, and 27.1-27.4 (1976) [hereinafter cited as Report of the Task Force]; Report of the White House Conference on Youth, 772(a)-722(b) (1971); Institute of Judicial Administration/ American Bar Association Joint Commission on Juvenile Justice Standards, Standards Relating to Planning for Juvenile Justice (tentative draft, 1977) [hereinafter cited as IJA/ABA, Planning for Juvenile Justice].

Commentary

This standard outlines the necessary components for the development of a local juvenile service plan. The local-level planning process should follow the state agency guidelines regarding content and format to expedite implementation, statewide coordination and allocation of financial and technical resources. See Standard 1.122.

While the primary objective of the planning process is to provide the local community with a comprehensive plan to meet its problems and needs, particularly in the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention areas, it also affords a means of educating local and state decision makers about the local juvenile service needs as well as the functions, responsibilities, and goals of service providers. The planning process also develops channels of communication and can mediate many

of the interagency disputes, jealousies, and jurisdictional difficulties which arise between service providers due to confusion over roles and responsibilities. Through the collective efforts of the local planning unit in identifying problems, categorizing resources, prioritizing needs, and developing goals and program strategies, conflicts can be resolved and cooperative decisions reached. See Report of the Task Force, supra at Commentary to Standard 1.1.

The local planning process should address those aspects of the services provided to juveniles related to delinquency prevention, intervention, adjudication, and supervision. It is anticipated that this process will bring together many of the separate planning efforts required for various state and federal programs, especially with regard to delinquency prevention. See Standards 1.121-1.125, and 1.131-1.34.

The standard sets forth six essential components which should be included in a juvenile service plan:

a) Background data;

b) An inventory of local juvenile service resources; c) Problem identification and analysis;

d) A statement and prioritization of needs;

e) A statement of juvenile service system goals; and f) A description of program strategies.

The local planning unit should utilize existing juvenile service system data collection efforts whenever possible. Specific guidelines regarding the type, quality, and frequency of information collection should be established by the planning authority. The data should be used initially to identify the scope and trends of the delinquency problem and the availability and use of service provision. The collection process should also be able to coordinate and augment existing data to facilitate specific administrative, planning, coordination, and evaluation decisions and activities relating to advanced phases in the planning process. See Standard 1.21; see generally Report of the Task Force, supra at Standards 1.2 and 25.4. In most cases, this data will not have to be collected in identifiable form. See Standard 1.52. The Report of the Task Force, supra points out that:

There should be estimates of the number of youth who might fall into various target populations for primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention programs. Data should also yield information about the various decision points of the juvenile justice system. A flow chart of the juvenile justice system should be created and base rates calculated for each major decision point in the flow of cases through