Juvenile Justice Reforms: Effective or Not?

Daniel Mears’ (2000) article, “Assessing the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Reforms: A Closer Look at the Criteria and the Impacts on Diverse Stakeholders”, calls for increased attention to and assessment of the effectiveness of the juvenile justice system in Texas. Mears’ (2000) article refers to the “get tough” juvenile justice reform of the 1990s, but many of the points made in the article are relevant in today’s climate of reform and budget cuts as well. Mears (2000) stresses the importance of empirically assessing the effectiveness of the system in a broader sense than has been done before, looking at both intended and unintended effects, goals, and especially diverse stakeholders in the juvenile justice system in Texas. In the article, Mears (2000) points out that “relatively little attention has been given to conceptualizing or operationalizing broadly the effectiveness… ‘in ways that go beyond recidivism rates’” (p.175).

In the 1990s, Texas was one of many states to enact “get tough” juvenile justice reforms. However, Texas differed from many other states in its focus on providing a continuum of sanctioning to connect its juvenile and adult justice systems. The way in which this has been accomplished is through modifying and expanding the determinate sentence statute that was first enacted by the Texas legislature in 1987 (Mears, 2000, p.182). The determinate statute allows for the possibility of a longer sentence for juveniles who are eligible – but not appropriate for – waivers, as well as for tougher sanctions for juveniles ineligible for waivers. These allowances reflect the more retributive – rather than rehabilitative – side of the Texas juvenile justice system (Mears, 2000, p.182).

In the study Mears (2000) conducted, he looked at the potential consequences of these “get tough” Texas reforms for juveniles. Mears (2000) found that “thirty-four percent of survey respondents viewed determinate sentencing as sometimes resulting in a longer or more severe sanction, and 55 percent viewed it as often or usually resulting in a longer or more severe sanction” (p.185). Furthermore, the study found that “plea bargaining in juvenile court clearly can occur to the advantage of practitioners and not necessarily to that of juveniles” (p.187). Both of these results are troubling for the well-being of those involved in the juvenile justice system in Texas and should be taken into account during the budget cut decision-making processes of the 82^nd legislature. As Mears (2000) concludes, “the existence of these types of unintended effects [plea bargaining leverage, disparity and inconsistency within the system]… suggests that a balanced assessment of this sentencing policy… ultimately will require more systematic attention” (p.195).

Mears, D.P. (2000). Assessing the effectiveness of juvenile justice reforms: a closer look at the criteria and the impacts on diverse stakeholders. Law & Policy, 22 (2), 175-202.