Diversion
One reason we can permit ourselves a measure of guarded optimism over the juvenile justice situation is the introduction of the "diversion project." Diversion projects take many forms, but the basic idea of them all is to divert kids away from the formal juvenile court procedures — to try to help them in the community. Usually, there is some sort of counseling involved, often including parents.
Diverting more kids away from juvenile court will also spare the courts the problem of trying to perform two often contradictory roles. On the one hand, the juvenile bench is expected to be a just, firm court of law that protects both society and the rights of the accused. On the other hand, society also expects juvenile court to be a surrogate parent for wayward kids, guiding treatment and rehabilitation with flexible wisdom and tender loving care.
These often conflicting roles have led to many injustices and inconsistencies. It would be best to divert the petty criminal and status offender away from juvenile court as much as possible. Then the court would have to perform only one role: that of a just, hopefully somewhat firmer-than-at-present protector of society. The court would handle, for the most part, only those juveniles who are dangerous to society or habitually criminal.
Getting Into the Home
There is general agreement within the juvenile justice system that "diversion" is a step in the right direction. The consensus is that society waits too long to offer help.
Frank Jameson, who is youth services coordinator for the Pasadena Police Department and a coordinator for several diversion projects, relates a story that is far more typical than most people imagine. Jameson was asked to investigate the backgrounds of five high school students who had committed unprovoked and seemingly unreasonable acts of violence on a high school campus. The problem was originally presented to Jameson somewhat as follows: Why do five kids "all of a sudden" and "out of the blue" decide to wreak havoc on their school grounds?
What Jameson found was that there was nothing "out of the blue" about the affair. Beginning with their early primary years, all five students, he learned, had repeatedly been identified by school officials as children with severe problems. The five showed up in police records as well. One, in fact, was pictured in police files at the age of eight months, the victim of an unfit home.
Jameson concluded that "it certainly seems ludicrous . . . to wait until a child is forced into a blatantly delinquent pattern of behavior before the system can mobilize itself to pay attention to him."
But even if potentially troubled kids can be identified at a very early age, what can society do about it? Philosophically, how far and under what conditions is society entitled to formally intrude into the workings of the individual family?
Larry Rubin, who coordinates several diversion projects in Orange County, California, says, "I think the key is to get the family involved. And that's the most difficult thing. . . I think there's a need for professionals to give guidance to a family that's trying to regroup and improve itself."
Howard Nariman directs a home for delinquent boys that is sponsored by the Optimist Club. Nariman feels "that sometimes parents are seeking and asking, genuinely asking, for support and help, because they may not have the resources to deal with the problem that they're facing."
Informalization and diversion within the juvenile justice system are encouraging signs. We can reasonably hope that the practice of offering no-strings-attached help to families that request it will gradually emerge.
Family Unity the Key Issue
In the long run, significant improvement in the juvenile justice system will depend more on improvement in the family unit than on any other factor.
It's impossible to say with certainty if the family unit is improving or disintegrating. Some point with concern to the disruptive pressures piled on the family in our changing society. But there is a bright side to the family situation as well: Quickly dying out among young potential parents is the notion that a couple must or should have children. Having a child is more and more coming to be a well-thought-out, well-prepared-for decision to which the couple is highly committed. To such potential parents, a child is not a trinket whose presence defies all explanation except that "doesn't everybody have them?" Rather, a child is something they really want.
Trends, Not Reform
There are no simple answers to the problems of juvenile justice. The "system" will always be burdened to some degree by the often contradictory roles of protecting society and being a surrogate parent. It will always be trying to help, treat, or rehabilitate kids who were short-changed somewhere, usually at home.
Any progress will be in the form of positive trends rather than overnight changes initiated by well-meaning reformers. But we can reasonably expect the following trends:
We can expect to see juvenile courts, now incredibly overcrowded, handling few cases other than the dangerous, hard-core juvenile offender.
We can expect such offenders to receive treatment that more fully impresses them with the seriousness of their deeds.
On the other hand, the petty criminal and status offender will almost always be diverted away from the court and, whenever possible, into the informal "helping hands" of the community.
We can expect similar, informal help to be available not only to the kid in trouble, but also to the family in trouble, with no legal strings attached.
And finally, we can expect — although we may be confusing our expectations with our hopes — to find fewer families in trouble, and more and more homes solving the juvenile justice problem before it even begins. Let's work toward that end in our own families and communities.