Ahead are the eight general performance areas recommended by the Missouri Standards for the Administration of Juvenile Justice Committee. A brief summary of the rationale behind each performance area, the performance indicators for the standard, and recommended methods for measuring the standard are included.
Every effort should be made to create opportunities for effective and meaningful participation in the justice process without undue inconvenience or hardship.
A means through which designated personnel may be contacted seven days a week, 24 hours a day, should be established.
Personnel should be courteous and responsive to the public and afford respect to all with whom they come in contact.
Sensitivity should be demonstrated toward all persons from different cultures, ethnic groups, and alternative lifestyles.
Performance indicators
Users perceive the juvenile office as accessible and culturally sensitive.
Satisfactory level of participation by participants (witnesses, victims).
Staff perceive juvenile office as accessible and culturally sensitive.
Low number of complaints received by the juvenile office related to inaccessibility and cultural insensitivity.
Potential measurement methods
Systematic observations using trained observers.
Surveys of users and staff.
Focus groups of users and staff.
Structured interviews with users and staff.
Review of written and verbal complaints received.
The juvenile office is a public institution designed to dispense justice and provide services to the children and families that appear before it. Accessibility is vital to public trust and confidence. When the juvenile justice system is accessible, victims, witnesses, and families required to participate in it are more willing to take an active role. “Participants” in child abuse and neglect is a term broader than just victims and witnesses and includes parents, foster parents, child service agency representatives, treatment providers, and others. Juvenile justice proceedings seem less remote and confusing to the public. This standard also seeks to ensure that there are effective avenues of participation for persons of all races, colors and creeds, and for those who are disabled and with alternative lifestyles.
Missouri juvenile justice agencies must operate under certain perimeters as a result of Missouri statutes and Supreme Court rules governing confidentiality. Some official proceedings are still of a non-public nature.
Institutional independence and integrity are of paramount importance. Juvenile justice professionals should be free from undue influence from other components of government or other entities.
Performance indicators
Effective monitoring and enforcement of orders.
Perception of the fairness of recommendations by families, parties, and other community members.
Consistency in decisions across like cases.
Potential measurement methods
Surveys of families, staff, and other community members.
Record reviews (reflecting court order follow-through).
Record reviews (reflecting case outcomes).
Focus groups with families, staff, and other community members.
Structured interviews with families, staff, and other community members.
With this standard, a clear and unequivocal statement is made regarding responsibility for decisions and actions.
This standard reflects the ideal of justice in two ways: through making a statement in regard to independence from undue influence and by affirming that legally relevant factors shall serve as the basis for recommendations made. It further emphasizes the importance of issuing decisions that are enforceable and ensuring that orders are enforced.
Policies should be in place to ensure that case processing and other juvenile office practices are conducted in a timely manner. Compliance with time standards encouraging efficiency and responsiveness should be established and monitored.
Upon receipt, requests for court services from other courts and entities should be date-stamped “received” and responded to within five business days of receipt.
Requests for information from courts, other agencies, families, and members of the public will be responded to in a timely manner.
All court orders should be monitored for compliance.
Performance indicators
Efficient case processing.
Reduced case backlog.
Users perceive actions as timely and responsive.
Potential measurement methods
Surveys of users and staff.
Focus groups with users and staff.
Structured interviews with users and staff.
Review of case files.
This standard is important because it reflects commitment to good business practices. More importantly, it reflects a commitment to public safety and protection of children, fairness, and due process. Delays in actions can have serious ramifications for the children and families that are served, for victims, and for the general community.
For each child referred to the juvenile office, accurate, complete, and up-to-date records should be kept. The information should be both relevant and necessary to a proper purpose. Reasonable safeguards should be established to protect against the misuse, misinterpretation, and improper dissemination of file information.
Juvenile records are generally confidential. Access to and destruction of juvenile records is controlled by section 211.321, RSMo.
Performance indicators
File information is reliable, accurate, and relevant.
Potential measurement methods
Review of case files.
Surveys of file users.
A standard describing proper procedure for maintaining records underscores the importance of documenting juvenile justice processes.
Victims should be recognized as persons with a legitimate interest in the justice system. The child’s family members should be recognized as persons with a legitimate interest in the justice system and the welfare of the child. Juvenile justice professionals should treat family members with dignity and respect while focusing on the safety and well being of the child.
Performance indicators
Satisfactory level of family and victim participation in juvenile justice processes.
Families perceive juvenile office staff as respectful of their rights and responsive to their child’s needs.
Victims perceive juvenile office staff as responsive and respectful of their rights.
Victim advocates perceive juvenile office staff as respectful toward victim rights and responsive to victims.
Families and child advocates perceive juvenile office staff as respectful toward family rights and responsive to children and families.
Potential measurement methods
Systematic observations using trained observers.
Survey of family members and family advocates.
Record reviews (regarding victim participation).
Focus groups with family members and family advocates.
Focus groups with victim and victim advocates.
Structured interviews with family members and advocates.
Structured interviews with victims, family members, and advocates.
Number of contacts made with victims. Number of contacts responded to by victims.
The victim and family rights standard addresses the role of the victim in the juvenile justice process and reflects themes of restorative justice. This standard explicitly recognizes that the victim has an important role in the justice process and a stake in its outcomes. It ensures that victims are not marginalized and that their input is valued and can help inform recommendations.
The standard explicitly recognizes that the family is valued and has an important role in the juvenile and family court process.
Court referral and intake services should be available seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day.
A referral of delinquency or child abuse and neglect shall be date-stamped “received.” If information is received verbally, it shall be reduced to writing as soon as possible.
Review of prior referrals to the juvenile office and past involvement with the child welfare agency, along with a determination of the safety of the child, should be used as a guideline for arriving at the decision to dispose of a referral through the informal process.
Performance indicators
Consistent case recommendations across like cases.
Efficient use of services.
Identified areas of service needs are met.
Identified time standards are being met.
Potential measurement methods
Review/comparison of case recommendations across like cases.
Surveys of service providers (regarding appropriateness of referrals).
Review of case outcomes across like cases.
Surveys/structured interviews with child and parents/guardians.
Review of case files.
Review of management report.
The case processing standards offer a best practice model from the point at which a referral is received until a case is closed. These standards were created to foster consistency in case-processing and to ensure that practices are just and equitable and that actions are timely.
Use of the Missouri Juvenile Offender Risk & Needs Assessment and Classification System is not applicable to child abuse and neglect cases.
Written guidelines should be in place pertaining to the frequency and nature of contacts that should be made with the child during the period of supervision. These guidelines should take into account public safety and be based upon the Missouri risk scale and the severity of the presenting offense. Contact standards should be graduated and may increase or decrease during the period of supervision. The decision to adjust the level should be based on receipt of new referrals, violations of supervision, compliance with treatment service(s), and risk level changes. Recommended minimums for contact standards are provided below.
All sanctions, services and dispositions should be monitored in all cases to ensure compliance.
The juvenile officer should complete progress reports at a minimum of every three months. Progress reports should address compliance with conditions of supervision, services received, new referrals to the court, and changes in risk level.
The progress report should be submitted to the court for formal cases and maintained in the child’s file for all cases. Notification of progress or lack of it should be provided to the child and parent or guardian.
The results of monitoring and outcome(s) should be documented when the case is terminated. This documentation should be maintained in the child’s file.
Informal adjustment should be terminated as required by Rule 112.04.
Formal supervision should be terminated as required by Rule 119.03.
For both formal and informal cases, an exit interview should be conducted with the child and child’s parent or guardian to:
Offense, gender, and cultural-specific services or programs should be utilized.
Performance indicators
Reduced recidivism.
Reduced reports of child maltreatment.
Reduced length of time children remain in alternative care.
Consistent case decisions/recommendations across like cases.
Identified areas of service needs are met.
Reduced delays in case processing.
Potential measurement methods.
Analysis of referrals, numbers, and types.
Review/comparison of case decisions/recommendations across like cases.
Surveys/structured interviews with children, parents/guardians, care providers, victims, and legal representatives, as appropriate.
The disposition standard for delinquency cases puts forth a best practice standard concerned with issues of public safety and the importance of utilizing the least restrictive intervention for the child. Adherence to the supervision level described in this standard is intended to ensure that communities are safer from offenders while habilitation efforts are administered to decrease the likelihood of delinquent behavior by the child.
The disposition standard for child abuse and neglect cases puts forth a best practice standard concerned with issues of child safety, well-being, and timely permanency decision-making, whether through the informal or formal case process.
Procedures for use of detention facilities and polices governing the treatment and rights of detained youth shall be in compliance with Rules 127.01 to 127.11. A sufficiently wide range of detention services should be available so that the least restrictive interim option appropriate to the child’s needs and community safety may be selected. When a detention facility has bedspace available, every effort should be made to accommodate youth regardless of that youth’s county of residence or the court having jurisdiction.
Performance indicators
Enhanced availability of detention facilities and services.
Increased community safety.
Public awareness of availability of detention facilities/services.
Potential measurement methods.
Record review (relevant to decisions to hold and availability of resources).
Analysis of pre-disposition recidivism.
Surveys of local citizens.
This standard was created to ensure that there are sufficient resources available to detain youth that present a significant risk and that detention resources are used judiciously. The standard encourages resource sharing among circuits that have detention facilities and services and promotes development and use of less restrictive options when appropriate.
Mo. R. Prac. P. Juv. Ct. & Fam. Ct. 129 app B
Cross-reference: Missouri Revised Statutes Section 211.141, RSMo, “Child Returned to Parent…” Supreme Court Rule Rule 127.09, “Release from Detention…” Missouri Juvenile Justice Association Detention Standards Section 2, “Administration”, Item 2.13 Section 6, “Intake and Admissions”, Items 6.2 and 6.3 Section 8, “Communication Provisions”, Item 8.7 Section 10, “Juvenile Records”, Items 10.2 and 10.4 Section 14, “Medical Services”, Item 14.16 .