8 Chapter 8 – Juvenile Corrections

Chapter Overview

Chapter 8 explores the intersection of juvenile corrections, federal and state law, and the institutional systems that shape how young people experience justice in the United States with a specific focus on practices in Louisiana. While juvenile justice aims to rehabilitate rather than punish, young people across the state often face outcomes that mirror adult corrections, particularly when policies lack coordination or fail to account for trauma, race, disability, and social context.

This chapter breaks down key federal guidelines such as the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Code, constitutional protections for juveniles, and special education mandates under IDEA. It examines the legal pathways youth may follow from status offenses and dependency court to dual-system involvement and secure placements. It also highlights the school-to-prison pipeline, the use of foster care as a justice response, and the implications of labeling youth as “delinquent” instead of identifying unmet needs.

Through case law, Louisiana-specific practices, and reform models, students will gain insight into how law, policy, and institutional culture can either support or hinder a young person’s path to stability. Throughout, Chapter 8 urges readers to reflect on how the juvenile system can better uphold its rehabilitative mission by ensuring fair treatment, due process, and access to services.

8.1: Juvenile Detention

Many jails temporarily detain juveniles pending transfer to juvenile authorities. The federal system recognizes a range of juvenile detention facilities and practices, but conditions vary widely at the state level. In recent years, there has been a growing movement toward decreasing reliance on detention and improving the treatment of youth in custody.

Federal and National Trends

Recent data from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) shows a nationwide decline in juvenile detention. From 2010 to 2012, the juvenile offender population dropped 14%, reaching the lowest levels since 1975. For the first time since 2000, more juveniles were in local facilities than state-operated institutions. This shift reflects a larger policy goal of emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.

Security levels vary among juvenile detention centers, with public agencies more likely to lock youth in their sleeping quarters than private agencies. Facilities range from group homes to residential treatment centers to secure detention facilities. These often include locked doors, surveillance, and isolation conditions that can worsen mental health issues among juveniles.

Louisiana’s Juvenile Detention Landscape

Louisiana’s juvenile detention system includes facilities such as the Bridge City Center for Youth (BCCY), Swanson Center for Youth, and Acadiana Center for Youth. These state-run facilities have faced ongoing scrutiny for understaffing, violence, and use of solitary confinement. In 2022, The Louisiana Office of Juvenile Justice (OJJ) reported critical overcrowding, with youth held in lockdown for up to 23 hours a day due to staffing shortages. Advocacy organizations and watchdogs have documented abuse, poor educational services, and the overuse of force.

One of the most controversial decisions came in 2022 when Governor John Bel Edwards approved the temporary transfer of youth to Angola Prison, the state’s adult maximum-security facility. Critics noted that placing youth in a prison known for its history of violence and harsh conditions violated best practices in juvenile rehabilitation and potentially the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act.

[insert fig 8.1]

Local and Legislative Efforts at Reform

Despite these challenges, Louisiana has seen efforts to reform juvenile detention practices. Programs focused on trauma-informed care, restorative justice, and mental health have gained traction, though implementation is inconsistent across parishes. In Orleans Parish, community-based alternatives to detention are being piloted in partnership with the Juvenile Regional Services (JRS) and the New Orleans Youth Study Center. These programs aim to divert youth from detention using wraparound services, therapy, and education access. 2017, Louisiana passed the Raise the Age Act, which brought 17-year-olds under the jurisdiction of the juvenile system for non-violent offenses. This change aligned Louisiana with national trends, though enforcement has faced funding and logistical hurdles.

Local and Legislative Efforts at Reform

Despite these challenges, Louisiana has seen efforts to reform juvenile detention practices. Programs focused on trauma-informed care, restorative justice, and mental health have gained traction, though implementation is inconsistent across parishes. In Orleans Parish, community-based alternatives to detention are being piloted in partnership with the Juvenile Regional Services (JRS) and the New Orleans Youth Study Center. These programs aim to divert youth from detention using wraparound services, therapy, and education access. In 2017, Louisiana passed the Raise the Age Act, which brought 17-year-olds under the jurisdiction of the juvenile system for non-violent offenses. This change aligned Louisiana with national trends, though enforcement has faced funding and logistical hurdles.

 

[insert fig 8.2]

Located in Monroe, Louisiana, Swanson has long been a central facility in the state’s juvenile system. In 2021, it was the subject of multiple investigative reports detailing youth riots, broken security systems, and lack of staff. The Louisiana Legislative Auditor found that the OJJ failed to maintain adequate staffing levels and that safety protocols were frequently disregarded. The result was an unsafe environment for both staff and detained youth.

While national trends show progress in juvenile detention reform, Louisiana’s system continues to face systemic challenges rooted in underfunding, over-incarceration, and racial disparities. However, efforts at reform such as Raise the Age and localized diversion programs offer a glimpse of what a more rehabilitative juvenile justice system might look like.

[Insert Let’s Talk]

8.2: Federal Juvenile Delinquency Code vs. Louisiana’s Juvenile Justice System

Juvenile justice in the United States operates under a dual framework: the federal system establishes overarching standards through the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Code, while each state maintains its own juvenile code and procedures. The Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (18 U.S.C. § 5031–5042) outlines protections such as the right to counsel, confidentiality, and rehabilitation-oriented detention. However, implementation varies significantly by state, with Louisiana offering a distinct example shaped by regional history, legislative priorities, and social inequalities.

Federal Code Framework

At the federal level, the juvenile justice process emphasizes rehabilitation over punishment. Youth charged under federal law are entitled to legal protections such as:

• The right to a speedy trial (unless waived),
• A presumption toward diversion programs over incarceration,
• Detention in the “least restrictive” environment (OJJDP, 2022).

However, federal jurisdiction applies only in limited situations usually involving federal crimes or offenses on federal property.

Developmental Perspective

A wealth of research in developmental psychology shows that adolescents, including those who commit criminal offenses at age 17, are still undergoing crucial brain development particularly in areas governing judgment, impulse control, and empathy. According to desistance studies, many adolescents “age out” of crime as they psychosocially mature (Mulvey, 2010). This has fueled national debates on whether youth should ever be treated as adults in court.

[Insert fig 8.3]

Louisiana’s Systemic Approach

Louisiana’s juvenile justice system has historically blended punitive and rehabilitative models. While legislative reforms such as the Raise the Age Act (2017) reflect national trends, implementation issues continue to expose gaps in youth protections. In some parishes, minors face adult court proceedings for serious offenses, and detention centers have been criticized for inadequate mental health services, staff shortages, and high rates of solitary confinement.

Key Differences:

• Age Jurisdiction: While the federal code considers individuals under 18 as juveniles, Louisiana, until recently, prosecuted 17-year-olds as adults for most offenses. Raising the Age shifted this, but violent offenses still allow adult transfer.
• Facility Standards: Federal guidelines restrict the use of adult facilities for juveniles. Yet, Louisiana temporarily housed youth at Angola Prison, raising ethical and legal concerns.
• Detention Protocols: The federal system stresses alternatives to detention, while Louisiana continues to struggle with overcrowded and under-resourced juvenile facilities.

Louisiana Spotlight: Raise the Age Act (2017)

The Raise the Age Act extended juvenile court jurisdiction to include 17-year-olds for nonviolent offenses. Though well-intended, implementation delays and lack of funding hampered success. Critics argue that without sufficient resources, the Act’s rehabilitative goals remain unfulfilled.

[Insert fig 8.4]

Relevant Supreme Court Rulings

Several U.S. Supreme Court decisions directly affect Louisiana’s treatment of youth:

• Miller v. Alabama (2012): Prohibited mandatory life without parole for juveniles.
• Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016): Made Miller retroactive, prompting case reviews across the state.
• Jones v. Mississippi (2021): Reaffirmed discretion in sentencing but did not require a finding of permanent incorrigibility.

These rulings shaped parole eligibility and sentencing reviews for juveniles in Louisiana, particularly those serving extreme sentences.

Case Study Contrasting Paths – Two 17 Year Olds

• Jamal, arrested in Mississippi for a nonviolent burglary, was placed in a diversion program and later enrolled in vocational training.
• Tyrone, arrested in Orleans Parish for the same offense, was charged as an adult due to outdated policy delays. He was held in a facility lacking mental health support and later sentenced to an adult court.

The above contrast illustrates the practical impact of jurisdictional differences, especially where federal standards clash with state implementation gaps.

[Insert fig 8.5]

[Insert Let’s Talk]

8.3 Constitutional Protections for Juveniles in Louisiana

Juveniles are not miniature adults, and the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that youth in the justice system are entitled to core constitutional protections. In In re Gault (1967), the Court established a foundational precedent by ruling that juveniles facing delinquency hearings must be afforded essential due process rights. These include timely notice of charges, the right to legal counsel, the right to remain silent, and the ability to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The ruling marked a critical shift in juvenile justice, emphasizing that procedural fairness must extend to all individuals whose liberty is at risk, regardless of age.

[Insert fig 8.6]

Building on Gault, the Court’s decisions in New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) and other cases extended key Fourth Amendment protections to juveniles, ensuring that searches and seizures in school and juvenile settings must still meet constitutional standards of reasonableness. The recognition that juveniles, though not prosecuted in traditional criminal courts, can face incarceration, loss of freedom, and lifelong consequences, led the Court to assert that juvenile proceedings, though civil in form, must be conducted with an awareness of these serious stakes.

Despite these protections, juveniles are not guaranteed the full scope of adult rights. In McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971), the Court ruled that juveniles do not have a constitutional right to a jury trial. The justices reasoned that the jury trial, while fundamental to the adult criminal process, was incompatible with the informal, rehabilitative aims of the juvenile court. They emphasized the intent of the juvenile system to offer individualized justice in a setting that is less adversarial than adult courtrooms.

However, critics argue that the denial of a jury trial, even when incarceration is possible, undermines core democratic principles and exposes juveniles to the unchecked discretion of judges. In Louisiana, this issue is particularly pressing, as youth in some jurisdictions face severe sentences without the benefit of peer adjudication. While the Children’s Code outlines rights and procedures for juveniles, these protections often vary in implementation from parish to parish, creating inconsistencies in the application of justice across the state.

Moreover, Louisiana’s recent legal history especially the use of solitary confinement, transfers to adult facilities like Angola, and limited access to qualified defense counsel, has drawn scrutiny from civil rights organizations and advocates. These practices, combined with the denial of full constitutional safeguards such as jury trials, reinforce systemic inequities and raise ethical questions about the fairness of juvenile adjudications.

In sum, while the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that juveniles are entitled to foundational constitutional protections, significant gaps remain between legal theory and lived reality, particularly in states like Louisiana, where youth justice practices often straddle the line between rehabilitation and punishment.

Louisiana Application: The Paternalistic Approach

In Louisiana, the juvenile court system is heavily shaped by parents’ patriae principles, a belief that the state must act in the best interest of young people. As such, juvenile proceedings are often less adversarial than adult trials. Judges may act in a dual role as legal authority and rehabilitative guide. Yet this can also blur the line between protection and punishment.

Under the Louisiana Children’s Code, juveniles receive procedural protections, but their cases are adjudicated in a non-jury setting. The judge assesses evidence and determines guilt, which can be considered given that the consequences may still include incarceration in youth facilities or transfer to adult court in certain cases.

Due Process in Practice

In Kent v. United States (1966), the Court held that juveniles are entitled to a hearing before being transferred to adult court, and that due process applies to all major decisions involving liberty. Louisiana courts follow this guidance, though with variations by parish. Adjudications are considered “status” determinations, not criminal trials but must meet the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” for guilt, per In re Winship (1970).

Additionally, 18 U.S.C. § 5032–3401 governs how juvenile delinquency proceedings should occur federally, with allowances for judge discretion and, in some cases, the involvement of magistrate judges in misdemeanors.

8.4 Arresting Juveniles

When a youth is arrested for suspected delinquent conduct, their legal rights must be communicated without delay. Federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 5033 mandates that the juvenile be informed immediately of their constitutional rights including the right to legal counsel, the right to remain silent, and a clear explanation of the charges being brought against them. This statute ensures that youth are not subject to coercive or uninformed interrogation practices and affirms that juveniles, despite their age and status, are entitled to the same core protections as adults in custodial settings.

In addition to informing the juvenile, the law requires that the Attorney General be notified of the arrest, a step that ensures oversight and coordination between local law enforcement and federal authorities. Perhaps most importantly, the statute also obliges officers to notify the juvenile’s parent, guardian, or legal custodian not only of the arrest itself, but also of the youth’s legal rights. This provision recognizes the critical role that adult advocates play in safeguarding a child’s access to fair treatment during one of the most vulnerable moments of their life.

These protections apply whether the juvenile is ultimately detained, and they are not conditional on the youth being formally charged. Unfortunately, despite the clarity of the law, the application of these protections can vary significantly in practice, particularly in jurisdictions that lack public defenders, have overburdened probation departments, or maintain a culture of informal law enforcement discretion. In some cases, youth may be questioned without proper legal counsel or may unknowingly waive their rights before a parent or guardian has been contacted.

Courts have consistently found that failing to inform a responsible adult prior to interrogation undermines the fairness of the process. As articulated in United States v. Nash (1985), “Notification made after a statement has been given… cannot retroactively fulfill the juvenile’s right to notify a responsible adult.” This ruling highlights the importance of timing, not just procedure in juvenile justice. A child cannot fully exercise their rights if those rights are explained only after they’ve been placed in a position to incriminate themselves. In essence, the right delayed are rights denied.

[Insert fig 8.7]

Moreover, inconsistent implementation across regions especially in rural or under-resourced areas means that some youth experience a significantly different process than others. This discrepancy disproportionately affects Black, Indigenous, and other youth of color, who are statistically more likely to be arrested, more likely to be interrogated in isolation, and less likely to have access to timely legal support.

To ensure equitable and constitutionally sound juvenile justice practices, law enforcement agencies must receive consistent training on these procedures, and systems must be in place to document compliance. Without these safeguards, the risk remains high that a youth’s rights will be violated at the very moments they most need protection.

Louisiana’s Juvenile Arrest Landscape

In Louisiana, arrest procedures for juveniles are guided by the Children’s Code and shaped by each parish’s law enforcement and court structure. While legal standards exist, inconsistent implementation has led to concerns about over-policing and the funneling of youth particularly Black males, into detention systems prematurely.

• According to OJJ data, Black youth account for a disproportionate number of juvenile arrests in Louisiana, especially in East Baton Rouge, Orleans, and Caddo Parishes.
• Zero-tolerance school policies often result in arrests for minor infractions like classroom disruptions, contributing to the school-to-prison pipeline.
• Louisiana has also faced criticism for instances in which juveniles were handcuffed or interrogated without proper guardian notification.

[Insert fig 8.8]

Data from Louisiana’s law enforcement agencies in 2013 show a disproportionate number of arrests for 17-year-olds, who were 11% more likely to be arrested and 19% more likely to face felony charges compared to 16-year-olds. This evidence fueled advocacy for Louisiana’s “Raise the Age” reform, which aimed to keep 17-year-olds in the juvenile justice system for non-violent offenses.

These statistics challenge the rationale for trying to be 17-year-olds as adults. While 17-year-olds may exhibit slightly higher arrest rates than 16-year-olds, research consistently shows that most adolescents desist from criminal behavior as they mature. Prosecuting 17-year-olds in adult courts ignores developmental science and increases the likelihood of recidivism due to the stigmatizing and punitive effects of adult criminal processing.

In Louisiana, where the Raise the Age Act was enacted in 2017, this data was instrumental in legislative debates. Advocates argued that small statistical differences in arrest rates should not justify harsher legal treatment particularly when 17-year-olds are still legally minors in nearly every other context (school, medical consent, guardianship, etc.).

[Insert Case Example]

8.5 Status Offenders

Historical and Legal Context

When we look at juvenile crime and detention, we must distinguish between criminal offenses and status offenses behaviors that are only considered violations because of a youth’s age. Examples include curfew violations, truancy, running away from home, and being labeled as “incorrigible.” These actions are not crimes for adults, yet historically, they have been grounds for detention or institutionalization.

During much of the 20th century, status offenders could be detained without a court hearing, often under the belief that early intervention would prevent future delinquency. Facilities such as the Future Juvenile Detention Home in Richmond, Virginia (pictured below), reflect this era’s approach: detaining “troubled” youth not because they committed crimes, but because they were seen as deviating from social norms.

[Insert fig 8.9]

While these practices have changed due to legal reforms and increased awareness of youth rights, many elements of the juvenile justice system still disproportionately affect status offenders. In Louisiana, children labeled as “ungovernable” or “habitually truant” may still be referred to court under Families in Need of Services (FINS). This alternative model seeks to divert youth away from incarceration, but implementation varies by parish, and some youth still face restrictive placements despite not having committed crimes.

Scope of the Problem: Why Status Offending Matters

Research by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and other child advocacy groups shows that status offenders are often youth in crisis experiencing neglect, trauma, poverty, or mental health challenges. Their behaviors may signal deeper issues, not willful defiance. Scholars argue that detaining these youths in correctional settings can increase their risk of entering deeper into the justice system.

Status offending behavior, while often perceived as minor, may reflect:

• A lack of parental supervision or family instability
• School disengagement or learning disabilities
• Mental health conditions such as anxiety, depression, or PTSD
• Economic hardship or housing insecurity

Studies show that placing youth in detention for status offenses increases exposure to higher risk peers, reduces access to needed services, and can result in stigmatization by the justice system. Labeling theory suggests that treating these youth as delinquents increases the likelihood of recidivism and self-identification with criminal roles (Kelley et al., 1997; Holman & Ziedenberg, 2006).

Louisiana Lens:

In rural parishes where support services are limited, law enforcement officers sometimes default to arresting status offenders instead of referring them to counseling, educational support, or family mediation. FINS programs aim to address this, but disparities remain in access to care and program funding across Louisiana’s judicial districts.

Why Status Offenders Are at Risk

Institutionalization refers to the process by which young people placed in highly structured and often punitive environments, begin to internalize institutional norms that may hinder their reintegration into society. Research shows that institutional settings can produce long-lasting effects on juvenile development, particularly for young people who were not involved in violent or criminal behavior to begin with.

For status offenders, the risks are especially acute. These youth may be placed in detention with peers who have committed serious crimes, exposing them to negative influences and increasing the likelihood of gang affiliation or antisocial behavior. Incarceration also disrupts educational trajectories, severs community ties, and erodes family relationships all of which are essential for healthy adolescent development.

According to Lipsey and Cullen (2007), confinement does not reduce offending and may increase it for some youth. When status offenders are institutionalized, the impact can be more damaging than the behavior that brought them into custody. Studies show elevated rates of recidivism, emotional detachment, and reentry failure, especially in communities that lack aftercare support.

“Institutionalization can negate positive development and foster psychological harm, especially for youth with trauma backgrounds.” — Holman and Ziedenberg (2006)

Policy Alternatives and Reform Strategies

Effective alternatives to detention focus on community-based support systems, family strengthening programs, and trauma-informed care. Programs like FINS and the Status Offense Reform Center (SORC) promote early intervention through education, counseling, and mentoring, rather than punishment.

In Louisiana, several judicial districts are participating in national reform efforts to reduce confinement for non-criminal youth. These include:

• Youth mental health diversion programs in East Baton Rouge
• Restorative justice pilots in Orleans Parish
• Family support and re-engagement services coordinated through FINS

Policy experts emphasize that reducing institutionalization of status offenders must be a statewide priority, especially considering Louisiana’s high juvenile detention rate and limited access to mental health services in rural areas.

The status offending remains a highly complex and often misunderstood category in juvenile justice. While these behaviors may be minor in isolation, their connection to deeper social and psychological issues means they require thoughtful, supportive responses not incarceration. Louisiana, like many states, has made strides through programs like FINS, but continued disparities in enforcement and service access must be addressed.

From a reform standpoint, diverting youth away from courts and into supportive services not only improves long-term outcomes but also aligns with the original mission of the juvenile justice system to rehabilitate, not punish. As more parishes adopt non-punitive models, educators, counselors, and community leaders must be part of the solution to ensure that status offenders receive the care and second chances they deserve.

8.6 Dual Status: Dependency vs. Delinquency

Understanding Dual Status

To understand the challenges youth face in the juvenile justice system, we must first examine the intersection of child welfare and juvenile justice commonly referred to as dual status. Dual status youth are children who are involved in both systems either simultaneously or sequentially. This means they have been identified as dependent youth (due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment) and have also been labeled as delinquent youth (due to alleged criminal or status-offending behavior).

Often, a young person’s contact with the justice system does not begin with an arrest or criminal offense. Instead, it begins with family dysfunction, neglect, or trauma, prompting state intervention through the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in Louisiana or similar agencies in other states. These children may be placed in foster care, group homes, or with kinship guardians. Over time, the lack of permanency, multiple placements, school instability, and insufficient mental health care can contribute to behavioral challenges that result in juvenile court involvement.

This pathway from dependency to delinquency is not merely anecdotal, it is documented across jurisdictions. Studies show that youth in foster care are significantly more likely to be arrested and detained than their non-system-involved peers, even when controlling offense severity. The dual status designation is not just a label it is a warning sign of a systemic failure to intervene earlier with trauma-informed, community-based support.

[Insert fig 8.10]

The result of overlapping systems is often fragmented case planning, conflicting court orders, and youth caught between agencies with differing missions. Dependency courts focus on child protection and well-being, while delinquency courts focus on accountability and public safety. Without coordination, these systems may inadvertently retraumatize youth through inconsistent services, over-surveillance, or inappropriate placements.

Dependency vs. Delinquency Systems

In legal frameworks, dependency and delinquency systems serve fundamentally different purposes, although they may operate under the same juvenile court infrastructure.

• Dependency Jurisdiction is invoked when a child has been subjected to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or when their home environment poses a substantial risk to safety or well-being. In these cases, the state assumes temporary or permanent custody and the child becomes a “dependent of the court.” The goal of the dependency system is protection, permanency, and reunification when appropriate. In Louisiana, this is governed under Title VI of the Children’s Code.
• Delinquency Jurisdiction, by contrast, applies when a youth is alleged to have committed an act that would be considered a criminal offense if committed by an adult, or a status offense applicable only to minors. These youth are labeled “delinquents” and processed through a system focused on rehabilitation, supervision, and sometimes detention. In Louisiana, these cases fall under Title VIII of the Children’s Code.

The distinction matters not only legally, but developmentally. Children in the dependency system are not offenders; they are victims of circumstance. Yet when they are later charged with delinquency, they may be treated with the same punitive measures as any other offender, without accounting for their history of trauma, loss, or system exposure.

State Comparison: California vs. Louisiana

In California, the distinction is codified in the Welfare and Institutions Code:

• Section 300 governs dependents of the court (due to neglect/abuse)
• Section 602 governs the words of the court (due to criminal offenses)

While Louisiana uses different statutes primarily found in Children’s Code Articles 601–730 the conceptual framework mirrors California’s: dependency for protection, delinquency for misconduct. However, Louisiana lacks uniform policies on how to manage crossover youth, which leads to regional disparities in outcomes for dual status youth.

In practice, a 15-year-old girl in Orleans Parish might receive therapy and housing through a community diversion program, while a similar child in a rural parish might be detained due to a lack of service alternatives. This inconsistency reveals how policy, resources, and geography often shape the treatment of dual status youth more than their actual behavior or needs.

Louisiana Lens: Dual Status Youth in Practice

In Louisiana, children in foster care or DCFS custody who are later arrested may be handled in vastly different ways depending on the parish. For example:

• A youth in Baton Rouge may be placed in a transitional facility with wraparound services.
• In a rural parish, the same child might be detained due to lack of placement options.

This disparity is more than geography, it’s systemic. Children who are already vulnerable due to trauma, instability, or prior system contact are more likely to be labeled as problematic rather than protected. Without proper coordination between Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and Office of Juvenile Justice (OJJ), these youth can be bounced between systems, often without a dedicated advocate.

Research shows that dual status youth:

• Are more likely to experience placement instability
• Have higher rates of mental health issues
• Experience educational disruption
• Face longer stays in detention and are at greater risk of recidivism

“These children fall through the cracks not because no one is responsible, but because too many systems are only partially responsible.”
— National Crossover Youth Practice Model, 2017

Recent national data show that most youth involved in juvenile court for delinquent offenses were previously identified as dependents in the child welfare system. The following chart, averaged across multiple study sites, illustrates these overlapping pathways:

[Insert Case Example]

 

Policy Solutions and Promising Practices

Some Louisiana judicial districts have started implementing Crossover Youth Practice Models (CYPM) to better coordinate services and reduce detention for these vulnerable youth. These models emphasize:

• Shared case management between DCFS and OJJ
• Trauma-informed judicial decision-making
• Increased access to community-based mental health services

In addition, Family Team Conferences, dual court dockets, and case coordination protocols have been piloted in Jefferson and East Baton Rouge Parishes to reduce unnecessary detention and improve case outcomes.

Dual status youth are among the most vulnerable in the juvenile system. Their needs span two major state institutions, child welfare and juvenile justice and too often, neither fully meets those needs. Reform must focus on coordination, trauma support, and alternative placements that prioritize healing over punishment. For these youth, success hinges not just on legal outcomes, but on our willingness to treat them, not as cases to be processed.

8.7 Foster Home Placement

Foster care is a core component of the child welfare system, designed to provide temporary, safe housing for children who cannot remain in their homes due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment. In many cases, these youth have not committed any crimes but are placed in state custody because their caregivers cannot or will not provide for their safety.

Children may also enter foster care through the juvenile justice system if they are declared wards of the court, for instance, if they commit a status offense, are deemed ungovernable, or are involved in delinquency and lack a stable home placement. In such cases, foster care becomes both a protective response and a placement option for justice-involved youth.

In Louisiana, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) oversees foster care, while juvenile court judges determine whether a child should be declared a dependent of the court under Children’s Code Article 606. Judges are required to consider whether “reasonable efforts” have been made to prevent removal before ordering foster care placement.

[Insert fig 8.11]

Foster Care Entry Process

Each state and each parish within Louisiana must operate a 24-hour response protocol for child protection reports. Upon receiving a referral (often through a hotline or mandated reporter), the agency initiates an investigation. Depending on the severity of the report and the risk to the child, investigators may:

• Close the case without services (if allegations are unfounded),
• Offer voluntary family services, or
• File a dependency petition to formally involve the court and initiate placement.

Voluntary services include in-home supervision, parenting support, and short-term case management, often lasting up to 6 months. If safety cannot be assured, the agency may remove the child and file a petition within 48 hours (excluding non-judicial days) for judicial review.

In Louisiana, foster care placements may occur:

• After emergency removal based on imminent risk,
• Due to the child’s behavior (such as running away or defying school attendance),
• Or because of a lack of relative caregivers or specialized services.

Legal Pathways for Placement

Once a petition is filed, the court must decide whether to:

• Keep the child in the home with supervision,
• Temporarily place the child in foster care with family reunification efforts, or
• Move toward a longer-term plan such as guardianship or adoption.

Parents must be notified of the proceedings and allowed to attend all hearings. In some cases, parents may voluntarily relinquish custody, but in others, the court may issue a judicial determination of dependency that overrides parental preference.

Louisiana Focus: System Strains and Reform Needs

In parishes such as Caddo, Orleans, and East Baton Rouge, high case volumes and limited placement availability have led to increased use of emergency shelters, temporary hotel stays, or detention center beds for youth who technically should not be confined. These practices raise serious ethical and legal concerns, particularly when youth have not committed any offenses but are placed in institutional settings due to system shortages.

To address this, Louisiana has begun exploring alternatives, including:

• Relative placement prioritization (kinship care),
• Therapeutic foster care models for youth with behavioral health needs,
• And inter-agency coordination to avoid cross-system placement in OJJ detention centers for DCFS-involved youth.

[Insert Let’s Talk]

8.8 Special Care Placement

Youth with disabilities are significantly overrepresented in the juvenile justice system. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates that schools provide all eligible youth with individualized services to support learning and behavioral needs. However, many youths with emotional, behavioral, or learning disabilities fall through the cracks often referred to by juvenile court without ever having been identified for special education services. The juvenile justice system must ensure compliance with IDEA when handling youth with known or suspected disabilities. The law requires that services continue uninterrupted, and it protects youth from being criminalized due to behaviors stemming from their disabilities. IDEA protections do not disappear once a youth enters juvenile custody. Schools, courts, and detention centers must collaborate to uphold education rights even while youth are justice-involved.

[Insert fig 8.12]

Louisiana’s Legal Landscape

In Louisiana, education services for detained youth fall under the joint responsibility of the Office of Juvenile Justice (OJJ) and the Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE). All secure care facilities must maintain access to IEPs (Individualized Education Programs), academic services, and accommodations.

Challenges remain in implementation:

• Limited behavioral interventionists and IEP support staff
• Delays in school record transfers from home districts
• Lack of qualified special education teachers in detention centers

These barriers mean that youth with disabilities may be punished for behaviors that could have been addressed with educational support in school or through diversion programming.

Special Considerations for Youth Mental Health

Think about it… Should mental illness be treated in jail or in the community?
Youth in states like South Carolina report better mental health outcomes when treated outside of jail walls, closer to families and support services. Could Louisiana benefit from a similar model?

Youth with disabilities often suffer from anxiety, trauma, or sensory processing issues that make traditional detention settings harmful. Courts should consult with school psychologists, counselors, and IDEA advocates to determine whether the youth’s needs are best met through therapeutic placements, not incarceration.

Example: Louisiana Case Management in Practice

In Orleans Parish, juvenile court routinely requests pre-adjudication educational evaluations for youth referred from schools. Local education advocates report that nearly 1 in 3 youth referred to court had previously unidentified learning or emotional disorders. When identified early, these youth were diverted into counseling, education support, and family intervention programs, avoiding further court involvement.

Youth with disabilities deserve care, not criminalization. Through early screening, court-school collaboration, and IDEA-compliant practices, Louisiana can ensure that children are treated with dignity and given a fair opportunity to thrive both in and out of the classroom. Courts must continue to protect these rights, especially when disability-related behaviors risk being misinterpreted as delinquency.

Conclusion

Juvenile justice was created to protect and rehabilitate young people—not to punish them as miniature adults. Yet, as this chapter reveals, many youths in Louisiana and across the nation are subjected to punitive systems that fail to account for trauma, disability, systemic inequality, and unmet needs. From the schoolhouse to the courthouse, from foster homes to detention centers, youth often encounter institutions more focused on control than care.

Throughout this chapter, we examined the structural forces that shape juvenile correctional responses status offenses, dual system involvement, foster care placement, and the criminalization of disability. We also explored the legal protections designed to safeguard youth, including landmark Supreme Court decisions, the IDEA, and Louisiana’s own Children’s Code. These protections matter but they are only as effective as the systems that enforce them.

Louisiana’s reform efforts, such as the Raise the Age Act, Families in Need of Services (FINS), and diversion-based alternatives, offer a foundation for change. Still, challenges remain in ensuring consistent application, racial equity, and youth-centered support statewide. Real reform means shifting resources from punishment to prevention prioritizing education, mental health, and family stability over incarceration.

To uphold the original mission of juvenile justice, we must see youth not as problems to be managed, but as people to be supported. The future of justice in Louisiana and the nation depends on whether we can build systems that truly invest in young people’s growth, dignity, and second chances.

 

References

Beyer, M., Opalack, B., & Puritz, P. (1988). More than meets the eye: Rethinking assessment, competency, and sentencing for youth with disabilities. National Center on Education, Disability and Juvenile Justice.

Coalition for Juvenile Justice. (2012). Unlocking the future: Detention reform in the juvenile justice system. http://www.juvjustice.org

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 34 C.F.R. § 99.30 (2002).

Holman, B., & Ziedenberg, J. (2006). The dangers of detention: The impact of incarcerating youth in detention and other secure facilities. Justice Policy Institute.

Hughes, D. M. (2011). Juvenile justice and the intersection with trauma: Understanding the trauma-exposed child in court. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 62(3), 1–9.

In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).

In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970).

Kendall, J. R. (2007). Juvenile status offenders: Treatment and trends. Journal of Youth Policy, 15(2), 112–130.

Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966).

Levin, D., & Cohen, R. (2014). Reconsidering juvenile detention: A closer look at its effects on recidivism. American Criminal Law Review, 51(2), 311–332.

Lipsey, M. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 297–320.

Logan, J. R. (1992). Teaching children with ADHD: Effective interventions and classroom strategies. Special Education Quarterly, 34(1), 45–59.

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971).

National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2014). The state of learning disabilities. https://www.ncld.org

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (1991). A guide for juvenile court judges on educational advocacy for youth with disabilities.

National Crossover Youth Practice Model. (2017). Improving outcomes for crossover youth. Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown University.

New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985).

Petlicher, M. S., Johnson, T., & Reed, L. (2013). Juvenile status offenses: Paths to diversion. Youth Law Review, 19(4), 209–224.

Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Guckenburg, S. (2010). Formal system processing of juveniles: Effects on delinquency. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 6(1), 1–88.

Salsich, A. W., & Trone, J. (2013). From courts to communities: The right response to truancy, running away, and other status offenses. Vera Institute of Justice.

Sweeten, G., Piquero, A. R., & Steinberg, L. (2013). Age and the explanation of crime: Reconsidering the age–crime curve. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(6), 921–938.

Tremblay, R. E., et al. (2004). Physical aggression during early childhood: Trajectories and predictors. Pediatrics, 114(1), e43–e50.

United States v. Doe, 862 F.2d 776 (9th Cir. 1988).

United States v. Nash, 620 F. Supp. 1439 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).