Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1:

Citation: Bryant, A., Matthews, G., & Wilhelmsen, B. (2013). Assessing the legitimacy of competence to stand trial in juvenile court: The practice of CST with and without statutory law. Criminal Justice Police Review, 26(4), 371–399.

Abstract: The requirement that juveniles be competent to stand trial prior to adjudication in juvenile court has only recently been solidified via case law and/or statutory law. It is currently unclear as to whether and how the presence of a specific juvenile competency to stand trial (CST) statute affects how court actors understand and make use of CST in a juvenile court context. Through interviews with 48 juvenile court officials across two states and three juvenile court jurisdictions, we find that the presence or absence of specific juvenile CST guidelines differentially shapes court officials’ perceptions of the legitimacy of CST concerns and consequently, their case processing strategies and decisions. This exploratory study serves to critically question the role of this new due process protection in a juvenile court context that presumes youthfulness or immaturity of offenders.

Journal Article 2:

Citation: Bouffard, J. A., & Bergseth, K. J. (2009). The impact of reentry services on juvenile offenders’ recidivism. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6(3), 295–318.

Abstract: Despite recent decline in juvenile crime, the formal processing and incarceration of juveniles has increased. Many incarcerated juveniles return to their communities with serious risk and need areas unaddressed, complicating their chances for successful reentry. Juvenile aftercare and/or reentry programs have emerged to address these youths’ unique needs and the risk they pose to public safety. This study examined preliminary process and outcome indicators of a unique juvenile offender reentry program, including a strong mentoring component, compared to similar youth not receiving reentry services. The authors examined service delivery, as well as intermediate outcome measures and short-term recidivism outcomes, including time to first new offense and number of new official contacts within 6 months of release. Findings demonstrate that the program was delivered as intended, successfully created intermediate change in participants, and was modestly effective in reducing recidivism likelihood and increasing time to recidivism.