State Statutes on Juvenile Interagency Information & Record Sharing
Current to Spring 2009
To view the state laws, you will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader. If you do not currently have the Reader picked as a helper application in your browser, please do so now or if you do not currently have the Reader you may download it free from Adobe's web site. When you go to the Adobe site, please choose the correct reader for your system.
Download Acrobat Reader from Adobe Site
State Juvenile Agency Records Provisions: (Current Spring 2009)
Please Contact:
Bernard James
Professor of Law
Pepperdine University
School of Law
bjames@pepperdine.edu
(310) 506-4689
Introduction and Overview
This site organizes and presents state laws on juvenile record privacy. The site is a joint project of the United States Department of Justice through its Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) along with the following institutions:
This site is designed to assist state and local officials in determining what state law permits and requires as to juvenile record sharing. In addition, this site is kept current to provide a source of accurate and readily available information that will aid state and local officials seeking to implement interagency agreements in the areas of child welfare juvenile justice.
Not all states will have identical laws. A reader looking for trends in state juvenile record sharing will find this data difficult to navigate. It is possible to determine with some accuracy what the majority of the states prefer in this regard by simply reading through the entire list. However, this data is not designed primarily for this purpose. Agency personnel for a particular state will find the main statutes along with selected provisions that paint a clear picture of the current state of the law.
Current reform is organized around the theme of interagency collaboration. Agencies that share a common interest in the safety of communities and the well being of children are authorized to combine those interests in their day-to-day operations. Some state provisions are mandatory, some are permissive; some state policies are comprehensive, but all provisions have a systemic vision: to improve community response to juveniles in need of services by coordinating the activities of the relevant agencies that exist for this common purpose.
Interagency collaboration is often thought to run counter to the historic assumption that juvenile records are closed to dissemination. Although not strictly part of the systemic vision, most interagency reform maintains the closed nature of juvenile records. "Closed" in this context means non-public. For most of the states depicted herein, juvenile records - even when disseminated among agencies of the government - are closed to the public. However, in a growing number of states, this is no longer true. Although not strictly part of the systemic vision, some states have opened juvenile records to the public - either in whole (for all juveniles who go through the system), or in part (usually making public the records of the serious, violent offender).
Information Sharing and Privacy Concerns
While the information-sharing phenomenon might properly be seen as merely part of a bigger wave of national reform on matters of juvenile justice, the practical legal implications are most profound at the state and local level. Statutory models authorizing cooperation have spawned a climate in which interagency agreements and working memoranda of understanding are becoming commonplace. Multi-disciplinary teams operating under this authority (or under the direction of court orders, or both) are reaching out to build a network through which information about juveniles is routinely shared.
Legal concerns about the scope and legality of record sharing merit separate consideration and analysis. As cities and counties seek to implement their version of a cooperative interagency model, they do so cautiously - against the backdrop of long-standing confidentiality and privacy laws. No state or local agency or community program should risk compromising its reputation or its goodwill with its constituents merely for the sake of implementing an interagency agreement to share information. The recent changes in the law address most of these concerns by creating limited exceptions to traditional confidentiality of agency records in areas of common interest with respect to the welfare of children in the state.
The legal authorization for interagency record sharing is ordinarily set forth unambiguously in the relevant provisions of the reforming state. The legislative provisions prompt the flow of information between agencies through the use of mandated reporting provisions, or through court orders, or merely by authorizing the relevant agency to exercise discretion when cooperating with other state or local agencies in specific programs. Significantly, some juvenile justice information is more routinely being made available to the public, making the interagency question less relevant as to that data. The challenge to most local jurisdictions is to reconcile these provisions with traditional assumptions about the privacy of agency records and to tailor compliance accordingly. Local agencies must also determine whether any internal policies exist in the current interagency climates that serve to frustrate the intent of the legislature in this area of reform.
Part I - State Reform Overview: Legislative Vision
The vision for the interagency component of state juvenile justice reform is a variation on the national theme of cooperation and focused delivery of services to juveniles in need. A majority of the states now have either implemented some version of this model or are now, considering which aspect of the concept best suits their sense of the needs of the known juvenile offenders and the children at risk of becoming delinquent within their jurisdiction.
In general, the recent wave of juvenile justice reform is comprehensive, affecting most every aspect of the interest of a State in the welfare of juveniles. The reform seeks to enhance the impact of the system on the lives of juveniles through either punitive intervention or a rehabilitative prevention emphasis, occasionally utilizing both. The reform strategy rests on two elements:
"(1) preventing youth from becoming delinquent by focusing prevention `programs on at-risk youth; and (2) improving the juvenile justice system response to delinquent treatment alternatives that include immediate intervention, intermediate sanctions, and community-based corrections sanctions, incorporating restitution and community service when appropriate." (Wilson and Howell, 1994).
In most of the reform states, the reform efforts move in both directions. At the punitive end, the law prompts an early determination as to whether an offender is amenable to rehabilitation within the traditional juvenile treatment period. Juvenile courts transfer jurisdiction, through certification or waiver, to the adult criminal court for certain serious, violent or recidivist offenders who are deemed to be beyond the scope of the twin concerns of the system: parens patriae and rehabilitation and treatment of the juvenile. A California study of certification concludes that
"[a] new conceptual framework is emerging that seems to assume contemporary children not only act but reason like adults. Commit a heinous crime, and you are an adult for the purpose of prosecution." (Dowie, 1993).
All states have reformed their systems in this regard with varying approaches and rules for removal to the adult system. This reform has taken place under the wary, but approving eye of the U.S. Supreme Court. (Certification Cases, 1975 - 1996).
At the rehabilitative end of the reform scale the state laws seek to prevent juvenile delinquency by enhancing supervision and improving delivery of needed prevention programs. These prevention efforts reach out to the serious and habitual juvenile offenders (who remain in the system and are not certified as adults) as well as to the juveniles who are identified as being at risk of delinquency.
For example, California law authorizes both early intervention programs (Cal Wel & Inst Code § 601.5 (1999)) as well as serious offender comprehensive action teams (Cal Wel & Inst Code § 503 (1999). The Interagency Children's Services Act, (Cal Wel & Inst Code § 18986 (1999)), seeks to create a general, coordinated children's services system to "Ensur[e] collaboration and countywide planning for the provision of children's services". (Cal Wel & Inst Code @ 18986.14 (1999)). The most recent program, The Community Law Enforcement and Recovery (CLEAR) Demonstration Project, is designed to "provide a flexible and coordinated response to crime perpetrated by criminal street gangs" and "to coordinate prevention and intervention strategies with community-based organizations." (Cal Pen Code @ 14000 (1999)). All four cooperative models are based on the theme of creating a team climate among local agencies with a common interest in effective intervention in the life of a juvenile.
State Reform Overview: The Interagency Network
Throughout the rehabilitative framework lies the basic presumption that local agencies that share a common interest in the welfare of juveniles will establish a system of communication that will promote comprehensive solutions to juvenile delinquency. The "team approach" looks for a synergy between agencies as needs-assessments of a juvenile are made.
The interagency concept has been a subject of serious consideration by federal and state policymakers for some time. Studies of the development of the interagency approach have generally lauded its systemic efficiencies as the main incentives for broader use. These findings underscore the usefulness of one agency knowing the disposition of a case by another group. (Sprague and Hardin, 1996). Legislative analyses of interagency proposals generally emphasize combining agency resources in cases involving parallel proceedings and limiting the nature of disclosure to information of common interest.
Early development of the interagency approach focused on child neglect and abuse. In 1984 the United States Department of Justice began to encourage coordination of units of state and local government. (US Dept. Of Justice, Attorney General's Task Force on Family Violence 14-16 (final report 1984)). About the same time, Congress added its voice by passing The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act which conditions federal funding on the effective use by states of multidisciplinary teams and coordinating councils. (42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(3)(E) (1999)). The root connection to child abuse remains the single most compelling feature of the current wave of juvenile justice reform.
State legislators, while broadening the application of the interagency concept to assist their efforts in reforming the juvenile justice system in general; have never strayed far from the goal of creating a more comprehensive and effective tool for insuring the wellness of children in all areas. State law typically will define "child abuse" broadly enough to support the efforts of a wide range of community based, interagency programs including:
- Serious physical injury inflicted upon the child by other than accidental means;
- Harm by reason of intentional neglect or malnutrition or sexual abuse;
- Going without necessary and basic physical care;
- Willful mental injury, negligent treatment, or maltreatment of a child under the age of 18 by a person who is responsible for the child's welfare under circumstances which indicate that the child's health or welfare is harmed or threatened thereby, as determined in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Director of Social Services; and
- Any condition which results in the violation of the rights or physical, mental, or moral welfare of a child or jeopardizes the child's present or future health, opportunity for normal development or capacity for independence.
As a result, the composition and activities of the state or local interagency "team" will change in relation to the objectives and scope of a particular program. In the case of a violent, or serious offender program the provisions might contemplate a more traditional agency team consisting of law enforcement, prosecutors, probation officers, schools and courts. The statutory description of the team will predictably broaden as the focus of the reform shifts to at-risk early intervention programs. This team might consist of county health and mental health agencies, local and community-based youth and family services providers, the county department of social services along with schools, the court, probation, prosecution and the public defender.
It is within the team framework that state law authorizes information sharing between agencies. Any legal issues that arise typically focus on the workings of the network through which information about juveniles is routinely shared.
State Reform Overview: Information Exchange
In the interagency context "information sharing" is a term of art rather than of law, raising a range of policy issues for each agency not all of which trigger legal confidentiality concerns.
At one end of the scale, disclosure of agency records or "record sharing" represents the primary area for legal concerns. The process of disseminating data taken from a file created and maintained by the disclosing agency goes to the heart of most questions regarding the integrity of the material, the recipient of the information and the uses to which it will be put. State law typically refers to "records", "documents", 'written reports", "transcripts", and "files" to focus the scope of its confidentiality provisions in this regard. The confidentiality expectations are heightened when the compiling agency provides health services within the scope of traditional provider/client privacy guarantees.
The general rule of law as to disclosure of juvenile agency records is that they are closed to both public dissemination and interagency sharing unless statutory exceptions apply. State public records acts place agency records involving juveniles outside the scope of public disclosure. State courts have held that while the legislative expression of privacy as to juvenile proceedings and records is not absolute, it is nonetheless the general rule.
The legal provisions that govern a specific agency's record maintenance also emphasize this climate of confidentiality with respect to records. Education Codes does not allow access to educational records without parental consent unless the state or federal exceptions apply. Law enforcement records of juveniles are given similar treatment, describing the conditions under which dissemination is authorized. Similarly, state laws require confidentiality of the applications and records of public social services that receive federal and state funding grants and lists exceptions to the general rule.
All states previously recognized the conditional nature of juvenile record confidentiality and recognized commonsense exceptions allowing some type of interagency disclosure on a limited basis usually incident driven. For example, agencies have typically disclosed reports that include evidence of child abuse even prior to being required to do so by statute. Record sharing has also always taken place when made in compliance with a court order or valid subpoena. In addition to interagency crime reporting, public emergencies in a variety of contexts gave rise to a general exigency exception to state confidentiality laws.
These traditional methods of interagency communication continue and in fact, compliment the current reform, which expands the incident driven model of disclosure exceptions to one that is team-based, more routine and systematic. There is, in fact, an overlapping dependence between the methods of valid interagency information sharing under the law of the reforming states. Court orders are identified as essential to the participation of some of the agencies in the formal "team" programs mentioned above.
In short, the record disclosure that takes place between agencies under state juvenile justice reform is an exception to the laws of confidentiality of juvenile justice agency records. The state legislators are keenly aware of this even as they expand the bounds of permissible cooperation and disclosure with new interagency programs. When recent amendments to Illinois law expanded mandated reporting requirements of juvenile delinquency to local agencies it noted:
"The General Assembly finds that a substantial and disproportionate amount of serious crime is committed by a relatively small number of juvenile offenders, otherwise known as serious habitual offenders. By this amendatory Act ... the General Assembly intends to support the efforts of the juvenile justice system comprised of law enforcement, state's attorneys, probation departments, juvenile courts, social service providers, and schools in the early identification and treatment of habitual juvenile offenders. The General Assembly further supports increased interagency efforts to gather comprehensive data and actively disseminate the data to the agencies in the juvenile justice system to produce more informed decisions by all entities in that system.
"The General Assembly finds that the establishment of a Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program throughout the State of Illinois is necessary to effectively intensify the supervision of serious habitual juvenile offenders in the community and to enhance current rehabilitative efforts. A cooperative and coordinated multidisciplinary approach will increase the opportunity for success with juvenile offenders and assist in the development of early intervention strategies."
(Ill Juv Court Act; 405 ILCS 405/1-8.1 (1999)
A similar statement also appears in the recent expansion of California law regarding interagency record sharing with schools:
"While the Legislature reaffirms its belief that juvenile criminal records, in general, should be confidential, it is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section to provide for a limited exception to that confidentiality in cases involving serious acts of violence. Further, it is the intent of the Legislature that even in these selected cases the dissemination of juvenile criminal records be as limited as possible, consistent with the need to work with a student in an appropriate fashion, and the need to protect potentially vulnerable school staff and other students over whom the school staff exercises direct supervision and responsibility."
(Cal Wel & Inst Code § 828.1 (1999)).
This is the formula for the juvenile justice reform taking place in the various states. These provisions typically specify which agencies may be in the sharing network and the objectives and uses to which the information may be put. Within this equation some information exchanges are mandated or required as a part of the essential foundation of the reform and others vest discretion with the affected agencies to determine the scope and manner of participation. In still a third set of interagency exchanges, court orders are authorized to support the record dissemination.
It is important to note that as to "record sharing" it should be irrelevant, for purposes of resolving legal questions, whether or not the physical file is a hard copy or some other form of database storage and retrieval. Since the information exchange is based on and relies upon the contents of the file or record one can hardly argue for an exemption of state or federal record confidentiality laws on the basis of novelty or technological innovation with respect to the recording device. However, as discussed next, it is highly relevant to the legal question whether the information exchange relies on a "record" at all.
At the other end of the scale of legal issues "oral communications" and "oral referrals" raise fewer, if any, legal concerns for most interagency teams, with the possible exception of medical and health service provider discussions of client findings. These exchanges of information are part of the routine of daily government operations. They represent contemporaneous discussions of information personally known or observed by one agency official to another and do not rely upon existing agency records for their content or vitality. Such discussions still exclude the public, but are properly outside of the reach of the record confidentiality laws summarized above to avoid the unintended consequence of effectively imposing a gag order on routine communications between local agencies of the same governmental unit. While often ignored as a tool for effective utilization of multiagency resources, the oral contemporaneous referral may be the most effective way to promote timely coordinated intervention into the life of a juvenile in need.
Reform Overview: Public Disclosure Provisions
Often overlooked in an assessment of state interagency reform is the degree to which public dissemination of information is included in the reform formula. In many states the disclosure of juvenile record information is seen as compatible with the overall legislative theme of enhanced supervision and prompt intervention. While a serious assessment of the reasons behind the dissemination of juvenile record information to the public is beyond the scope of this report, it is, however, a recurring theme on the national reform landscape with important implications on interagency activities.
Some States, in fact, rely heavily on this element in their reform efforts. For example, Washington State has for over a decade opened its official court file to public inspection. (Washington Juvenile Code § 13.50.050 (19999)). The "official court file" includes the petition or information, motions, memorandums, briefs, findings of the court and court orders. Other such open record states include Michigan, (Probate Code, § 712A.28 (1999)), and Arizona, (Juvenile Court Code § 8-208 (1999)). The Arizona law is the most far reaching:
§ 8-208. Juvenile court records; public inspection; exceptions
A. The following records relating to a juvenile who is referred to juvenile court are open to public inspection:
- Referrals involving delinquent acts, after the referrals have been made to the juvenile court or the county attorney have diverted the matter according to § 8-230.
- Arrest, after the juvenile has been accused as defined by § 13-501.
- Delinquency hearings.
- Disposition hearings.
- A summary of delinquency, disposition and transfer hearings.
- Revocation of probation hearings.
- Appellate review.
- Diversion proceedings involving delinquent acts.
Most other states are far behind this movement, reluctantly disclosing juvenile court records to the public for only the serious, violent and habitual offenders. California law provides that "the charging petition, the minutes of the proceeding, and the orders of adjudication and disposition of the court that are contained in the court file shall be available for public inspection" for those juveniles who commit any of the serious crimes listed in the provision. (Cal Wel & Inst Code @ 676 (1997)). These offenses are typically acts, which would be a felony if committed by an adult.
The implications of dissemination of juvenile record information to the public are far reaching. At a minimum, it establishes two main branches of juvenile records disclosure reform:
- disclosure to the public at large; and
- nonpublic, interagency record sharing and cooperation.
The public nature of some juvenile records also establishes this information as an essential part of the interagency network since it is readily available and pertinent to the work of most juvenile agencies.
Part II - Model States: “Best Practice” States
and Model Provisions
The basis for the great interest in legislation that promotes greater interagency collaboration is the belief that state and local agencies make better decisions when the quality of the information regarding juveniles is available in a timely fashion. This notion complements another tenet that local agencies should share relevant information as to juveniles toward whom they have a common interest. The aim of the emerging legislation is to make available information already believed to exist regarding juveniles with significant risk factors tending toward delinquency (for whom the goal is effective prevention services) and as to juveniles already known to be criminal offenders (intervention services).
States that have successfully implemented comprehensive juvenile record sharing statutes provide an effective model for policymakers in other states. These state laws also represent important data for social science and public policy researchers. The following list of “best practice” states attempts a descriptive assessment (rather than a normative analysis) of juvenile record sharing provisions to further substantive examination of the public policy implications of current reform.
The emerging pattern present in the laws of the model states suggest that effective juvenile records laws will have some, if not all of the following components:
- provisions clearly authorizing or requiring collaboration among state and local juvenile justice agencies;
- statutes requiring record sharing among agencies who provide supervision and intervention services as to known juvenile offenders under court supervision;
- laws mandating the inclusion of schools (public and private) in the interagency team as to both known offenders and juveniles considered at-risk; and
- policies that authorize or require school-based collaboration between schools (public and private) and law enforcement, for the purpose of maintaining safe campuses.
- programs that broaden interagency collaboration into proactive efforts that compile risk factors of juveniles who are (or may be) at-risk for delinquent behavior.
General Authorization
The provisions of the model states may vary in terms of the phrasing or wording, however, the intent of the legislature is clear as to the nature of the authorization. For example, a model provision that clearly authorizes or requires interagency collaboration might contain the following language:
“Within each county the following agencies [may or shall] enter into a written agreement to share information about juvenile offenders…”
California law expresses the authorization in this manner:
§ 827.1. Computerized data base system; authorized access;
security procedures
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a city, county,
or city and county may establish a computerized data base system
within that city, county, or city and county that permits the
probation department, law enforcement agencies, and school districts
to access probation department, law enforcement, school district,
and juvenile court information and records which are nonprivileged
and where release is authorized under state or federal law or
regulation, regarding minors under the jurisdiction of the juvenile
court pursuant to Section 602 or for whom a program of supervision
has been undertaken where a petition could otherwise be filed
pursuant to Section 602.
The statutory authorization may also include record sharing as to at-risk juveniles or juveniles engaged in delinquent behavior prior to their arrest and disposition.
Known Offender Collaboration
Florida law contains a model provisions that provides structure for interagency information sharing.
§ 985.06. Statewide information-sharing system; interagency workgroup
(1) The Department of Education, the
Department of Juvenile Justice, and the Department of Law Enforcement
shall create an information-sharing workgroup for the purpose
of developing and implementing a workable statewide system of
sharing information among school districts, state and local law
enforcement agencies, providers, the Department of Juvenile Justice,
and the Department of Education. The system shall build on processes
previously authorized in statute and on any revisions to federal
statutes on confidentiality. The information to be shared shall
focus on youth who are involved in the juvenile justice system,
youth who have been tried as adults and found guilty of felonies,
and students who have been serious discipline problems in schools.
The participating agencies shall implement improvements that
maximize the sharing of information within applicable state and
federal statutes and rules and that utilize statewide databases
and data delivery systems to streamline access to the information
needed to provide joint services to disruptive, violent, and
delinquent youth.
(2) The interagency workgroup shall be coordinated through
the Department of Education and shall include representatives
from the state agencies specified in subsection (1), school superintendents,
school district information system directors, principals, teachers,
juvenile court judges, police chiefs, county sheriffs, clerks
of the circuit court, the Department of Children and Family Services,
providers of juvenile services including a provider from a juvenile
substance abuse program, and circuit juvenile justice managers.
(3) The interagency workgroup shall, at a minimum, address
the following:
(a) The use of the Florida Information Resource Network
and other statewide information access systems as means of delivering information
to school personnel or providing an initial screening for purposes of determining
whether further access to information is warranted.
(b) A statewide information delivery system that will
provide local access by participating agencies and schools.
(c) The need for cooperative agreements among agencies
which may access information.
(d) Legal considerations and the need for legislative
action necessary for accessing information by participating agencies.
(e) Guidelines for how the information shall be accessed,
used, and disseminated.
(f) The organizational level at which information may
be accessed and shared.
(g) The specific information to be maintained and shared
through the system.
(h) The cost implications of an improved system.
(4) The Department of Education, the Department of Juvenile
Justice, and the Department of Law Enforcement shall implement
improvements leading to the statewide information access and
delivery system, to the extent feasible, and shall develop a
cooperative agreement specifying their roles in such a system.
(5) Members of the interagency workgroup shall serve without
added compensation and each participating agency shall support
the travel, per diem, and other expenses of its representatives.
Intervention and Prevention Programs
Florida law also provides a model provision for collaborative outreach for the purpose of prevention and intervention.
§ 985.305. Early delinquency
intervention program; criteria
(1) The Department of Juvenile Justice shall, contingent
upon specific appropriation and with the cooperation of local law enforcement
agencies, the judiciary, district school board personnel, the office of the
state attorney, the office of the public defender, the Department of Children
and Family Services, and community service agencies that work with children,
establish an early delinquency intervention program, the components of which
shall include, but not be limited to:
(a) Case management services.
(b) Treatment modalities, including substance abuse
treatment services, mental health services, and retardation services.
(c) Prevocational education and career education services.
(d) Diagnostic evaluation services.
(e) Educational services.
(f) Self-sufficiency planning.
(g) Independent living skills.
(h) Parenting skills.
(i) Recreational and leisure time activities.
(j) Program evaluation.
(k) Medical screening.
(2) The early delinquency intervention program shall consist
of intensive residential treatment in a secure facility for 7
days to 6 weeks, followed by 6 to 9 months of additional services.
An early delinquency intervention program facility shall be designed
to accommodate the placement of a maximum of 10 children, except
that the facility may accommodate up to 2 children in excess
of that maximum if the additional children have previously been
released from the residential portion of the program and are
later found to need additional residential treatment.
(3) A copy of the arrest report of any child 15 years of
age or younger who is taken into custody for committing a delinquent
act or any violation of law shall be forwarded to the local operating
circuit office of the Department of Juvenile Justice. Upon receiving
the second arrest report of any such child from the judicial
circuit in which the program is located, the Department of Juvenile
Justice shall initiate an intensive review of the child's social
and educational history to determine the likelihood of further
significant delinquent behavior. In making this determination,
the Department of Juvenile Justice shall consider, without limitation,
the following factors:
(a) Any prior allegation that the child is dependent
or a child in need of services.
(b) The physical, emotional, and intellectual status
and developmental level of the child.
(c) The child's academic history, including school attendance,
school achievements, grade level, and involvement in school-sponsored activities.
(d) The nature and quality of the child's peer group
relationships.
(e) The child's history of substance abuse or behavioral
problems.
(f) The child's family status, including the capability
of the child's family members to participate in a family-centered intervention
program.
(g) The child's family history of substance abuse or
criminal activity.
(h) The supervision that is available in the child's
home.
(i) The nature of the relationship between the parents
and the child and any siblings and the child.
(4) Upon determination that a child is likely to continue
to exhibit significant delinquent behavior, the department may
recommend to the court that the child be placed in an early delinquency
intervention program, and the court may order the program as
the dispositional placement for the child. At the discretion
of the department or its designee, or upon order of the court,
a child who is 11 years of age or younger may be excused from
the residential portion of treatment.
(5) Not later than 18 months after the initiation of an
early delinquency intervention program, the department shall
prepare and submit a progress report to the chairs of the appropriate
House and Senate fiscal committees and the appropriate House
and Senate substantive committees on the development and implementation
of the program, including:
(a) Factors determining placement of a child in the
program.
(b) Services provided in each component of the program.
(c) Costs associated with each component of the program.
(d) Problems or difficulties encountered in the implementation
and operation of the program.
Mandated Notification to Educators
Connecticut law provides requires notice to educators as part of an “early warning” that allows school officials to determine how, if at all, to respond to the delinquency of a juvenile who is also a student.
§ 10-233h. Arrested students. Reports by police, disclosure, confidentiality. Police testimony at expulsion hearings.
If any person who is at least seven years of age but less than twenty-one years of age and an enrolled student is arrested for a violation of section 53-206c, a class A misdemeanor or a felony, the municipal police department or Division of State Police within the Department of Public Safety that made such arrest shall, not later than the end of the weekday following such arrest, orally notify the superintendent of schools of the school district in which such person resides of the identity of such person and the offense or offenses for which he was arrested and shall, within seventy-two hours of such arrest, provide written notification of such arrest, containing a brief description of the incident, to such superintendent. The superintendent shall maintain such written report in a secure location and the information in such report shall be maintained as confidential in accordance with section 46b-124. The superintendent may disclose such information only to the principal of the school in which such person is a student or to the principal or supervisory agent of any other school in which the superintendent knows such person is a student. The principal or supervisory agent may disclose such information only to special services staff or a consultant, such as a psychiatrist, psychologist or social worker, for the purposes of assessing the risk of danger posed by such person to himself, other students, school employees or school property and effectuating an appropriate modification of such person's educational plan or placement, and for disciplinary purposes. If the arrest occurred during the school year, such assessment shall be completed not later than the end of the next school day…
School-based Collaboration
A model provision that requires close collaboration between school and law enforcement and other agencies will usually specify the scope and purpose of the interagency agreement.
Colorado law uses the following approach:
22-32-109.1. Board of education - specific powers and duties
- safe schools
(3) Agreements with state agencies.
Each board of education shall cooperate and, to the extent possible,
develop written agreements with law enforcement officials, the
juvenile justice system, and social services, as allowed under
state and federal law, to keep each school environment
safe. Each board of education shall adopt a policy whereby procedures
will be used following instances of assault upon, disorderly
conduct toward, harassment of, the making knowingly of a false
allegation of child abuse against, or any alleged offense under
the "Colorado Criminal Code" directed toward a schoolteacher
or school employee or instances of damage occurring on the premises
to the personal property of a schoolteacher or school employee
by a student. Such procedures shall include, at a minimum, the
following provisions:
(a) Such schoolteacher or school employee shall file a complaint
with the school administration and the board of education.
(b) The school administration shall, after receipt of such report
and proof deemed adequate to the school administration, suspend
the student for three days, such suspension to be in accordance
with the procedures established therefor, and shall initiate
procedures for the further suspension or expulsion of the student
where injury or property damage has occurred.
(c) The school administration shall report the incident to the
district attorney or the appropriate local law enforcement agency
or officer, who shall, upon receiving such report, investigate
the incident to determine the appropriateness of filing criminal
charges or initiating delinquency proceedings.
Iowa law broadens the role of educators on the interagency team with the following provisions:
280.25 Information sharing -- interagency agreements.
1. The board of directors of each public school and the authorities
in charge of each accredited nonpublic school shall adopt a
policy and the superintendent of each public school shall adopt
rules which provide that the school district or school may
share information contained within a student's permanent record
pursuant to an interagency agreement with state and local agencies
that are part of the juvenile justice system. These agencies
include, but are not limited to, juvenile court services, the
department of human services, and local law enforcement authorities.
The disclosure of information shall be directly related to
the juvenile justice system's ability to effectively serve,
prior to adjudication, the student whose records are being
released.
2. The purpose of the agreement shall be to reduce juvenile crime
by promoting cooperation and collaboration and the sharing of
appropriate information among the parties in a joint effort to
improve school safety, reduce alcohol and illegal drug use, reduce
truancy, reduce in-school and out-of-school suspensions, and
to support alternatives to in-school and out-of-school suspensions
and expulsions which provide structured and well-supervised educational
programs supplemented by coordinated and appropriate services
designed to correct behaviors that lead to truancy, suspension,
and expulsions and to support students in successfully completing
their education.
3. Information shared under the agreement shall be used solely
for determining the programs and services appropriate to the
needs of the juvenile or the juvenile's family, or coordinating
the delivery of programs and services to the juvenile or the
juvenile's family.
4. Information shared by the school district or school under
the agreement is not admissible in any court proceedings which
take place prior to a disposition hearing, unless written consent
is obtained from a student's parent, guardian, or legal or actual
custodian.
5. Information shared by another party to the agreement with
a school district or school pursuant to an interagency agreement
shall not be used as a basis for a school disciplinary action
against a student.
6. The interagency agreement shall provide, and each signatory
agency to the agreement shall certify in the agreement, that
confidential information shared among the parties to the agreement
shall remain confidential and shall not be shared with any other
person, school, school district, or agency, unless otherwise
provided by law.
7. Juvenile court social records may be disclosed in accordance
with section 232.147, subsection 6.
8. A school or school district entering into an interagency agreement
under this section shall adopt a policy implementing the provisions
of the interagency agreement. The policy shall include, but not
be limited to, the provisions of the interagency agreement and
the procedures to be used by the school or school district to
share information from the student's permanent record with participating
agencies. The policy shall be published in the student handbook.
MODEL STATES:
| California Colorado Florida Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas |
Kentucky Maine Montana Oklahoma Oregon South Carolina |
Texas Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming |