U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Perspectives From the Field on the Interstate Compact on Juveniles

NCJ Number
190799
Author(s)
Larry Linke; Barbara Krauth
Date Published
June 2000
Length
35 pages
Annotation
This paper reports on the findings of a 1999 survey of juvenile justice professionals regarding the implementation of the Interstate Compact on Juveniles (ICJ), which was established in 1955 to manage the interstate movement of adjudicated youth, the return of nonadjudicated runaway youth, and the return of youth to States where they were charged with delinquent acts.
Abstract
The survey solicited responses from juvenile compact administrators (n=47), juvenile justice agency administrators (n=44), and field staff of juvenile justice agencies (n=183). The purposes of the survey were to measure general satisfaction with the ICJ, identify the problems of most concern in the field regarding the ICJ, and solicit suggestions for improving ICJ operations. States represented in the response to the survey indicated that approximately one-third of the requests to transfer juvenile cases were denied by the receiving States. On average, 1.59 full-time staff positions were assigned to manage ICJ business at the State level. All three of the surveyed groups rated the overall ICJ performance as slightly above the mid-point, in the "Adequate" range. One common problem cited was that conducting business through the ICJ were too slow and cumbersome. Another common problem identified was that the response of sending States to violations and efforts to return violators to sending States presented a range of conflicts and inconsistent practices. Also, too many youth were allowed to relocate before receiving States had notice of the move or had approved the transfer. The most common recommendations pertained to better enforcement and accountability measures; more training regarding the ICJ for local judges and other State and local juvenile justice officials; and improvement in the quality and speed of communication procedures within the ICJ. 7 figures