Evaluation of Pennsylvania's Juvenile Prosecution and Defense Capacity Building Projects, Final Report

• NCJ Number: 227146
• Author(s): David Myers; Dennis Giever; Daniel Lee; Jay Gilliam
• Date Published: June 2008
• Length: 100 pages
• Grant Number(s): 2004-DS-19-16255
• Sponsoring Agency: Pennsylvania Cmssn on Crime and Delinquency
• Corporate Author: Indiana University of Pennsylvania
• Sale Source: Pennsylvania Cmssn on Crime and Delinquency
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Downloaded June 3, 2009; for the appendices to this report, see NCJ-227147.

Annotation

This report presents the methodology and findings of an evaluation of Pennsylvania's Juvenile Prosecution and Defense Capacity Building Projects (JPDCBP), which were implemented in 28 counties of the Commonwealth in an effort to improve their juvenile case processing capabilities, strengthen the coordination of juvenile court operations, and enhance the quality of juvenile advocacy and case preparation.

Abstract

The evaluation's multiple sources of data indicate that the JPDCBP has been implemented effectively and has had a beneficial impact on juvenile prosecution, defense, and case-processing services in the counties that received funding. The JPDCBP has also worked well in combination with the implementation of Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) principles under Pennsylvania's Act 33 of 1995. Official juvenile court data confirm that since the mid-1990s, the number of juvenile court proceedings with public defender representation has increased steadily, from approximately 13,500 in 1996 to nearly 18,000 in 2005. Increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of juvenile case processing has been a consistent goal of participating counties, which have attempted to enhance the quality and speed of juvenile case processing, promote information sharing within the juvenile justice system and the community, and enhance collaboration among various agencies and organizations. The evaluation also identified some areas that need improvement regarding juvenile court operations and evaluation capabilities. In some counties, juvenile public defenders and prosecutors continue to experience excessive caseloads and acknowledge that they cannot do the quality of work they desire due to limited time to prepare cases. Additional public defenders and prosecutors should be hired in order to further reduce juvenile caseloads and provide enhanced juvenile court services. The evaluation reviewed grant applications, conducted phone interviews with project directors and site visits to selected counties, surveyed stakeholders across the State, and analyzed juvenile court data statewide. 34 tables, 5 figures, and 63 references