State of the Art Survey of Dispute Resolution Programs Involving Juveniles

• NCJ Number: 82415
• Author(s): E W Vorenberg
• Date Published: 1981
• Length: 72 pages
• Grant Number(s): 79-JN-AX-0018
• Sponsoring Agency: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
• Corporate Author: University of Chicago
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This report examines the history and current state of the art of the use of alternative dispute resolutions for juveniles to avoid traditional court processing.

Abstract

Two forms of dispute resolution have evolved for juveniles: (1) programs that are designed exclusively for juveniles and (2) programs that are designed mainly to handle a large variety of adult civil and criminal complaints, but that hear some juvenile cases as well. The five categories of programs include neighborhood justice centers, which handle both adult and juvenile cases, arbitration programs exclusively for juveniles, community panels using mediation as a technique in juvenile cases, conference committees and community accountability boards, and peer courts. These programs appear to have been influenced by the Scandinavian child welfare boards, the diversion programs developed during the 1960's, the Children's Hearing System, which began in Scotland in 1968, the nonjudicial minor dispute centers that grew rapidly in the 1970's, and the recent Federal initiative to deinstitutionalize status offenders. Case examples and program descriptions illustrate program characteristics such as location, sponsoring agencies, budgets, funding sources, techniques used, types of cases heard, case referral sources, and types of agreements reached. Major issues facing these programs include their costs, sources of financial supports, the potential existence of coercion, due process concerns, the role of confidentiality, the inequality of the parties, and the inclusion of cases that would not have reached the courts. The question of whether these community dispute settlement programs provide an effective alternative to formal adjudication has not been satisfactorily answered. Juvenile arbitration and mediation programs do succeed in diverting juveniles from court and in providing crime victims with greater satisfaction. Tables, 34 references, and appendixes presenting descriptions and forms from Florida programs as well as related materials are provided.