JJIE Hub: Reform Trends — Juvenile Indigent Defense

Contents

Click on a topic below or scroll down for more information:

1. Appointment of Counsel
2. Reducing the Number of Youth Who Waive Their Right to Counsel
3. Adopting Standards of Practice
4. Providing Sufficient Resources and Tools for Juvenile Defense Counsel
5. Providing Supervision and Oversight of Juvenile Defenders

1. Appointment of Counsel

Indigency – When Youth Can’t Afford an Attorney

Youth have a constitutional right to counsel in delinquency proceedings.^[1] The right is meaningless, however, if the youth is indigent and lacks the funds to hire an attorney. Consequently, if youth are indigent, courts must appoint counsel.

States handle the appointment of counsel for indigent youth in a number of different ways and have recently begun to reexamine what it means for a youth to be indigent.

• • Most states consider parents’ finances in determining whether a youth is indigent.^[2] This can be problematic because financial pressures can lead youth to be reluctant to ask parents to pay for an attorney, and/or can cause parents to pressure youth to waive their right to counsel.^[3]
  • In determining indigency, most states look at factors such as income relative to the federal poverty guidelines, as well as subjective standards, such as “substantial hardship.”^[4]
  • Youth can be hampered by application fees that some states require to apply for court-appointed counsel. For example, as of 2011, Florida charged $40, Delaware $100, Georgia $50, and Tennessee $50 to apply for a court-appointed attorney.^[5]
  • As a result of the complicated nature of determining indigency, the American Bar Association (ABA)’s juvenile justice standards recommend that the court appoint counsel for all youth who do not hire their own attorney, and not seek reimbursement from the child or their family regardless of their finances.^[6] "The National Juvenile Defense Standards" recommend that counsel advocates for a presumption of indigence for all juvenile clients.^[7]

Making Sure Youth Get Counsel in a Timely Manner

Early appointment of counsel is critical to youth who, even more so than adults, are likely to be unfamiliar with the justice system, and confused and anxious upon arrest. Youth are more vulnerable to coercion by adults and are less able to understand legal rights, such as Miranda warnings.^[13] The ABA juvenile justice standards require counsel to be appointed either as soon as the youth is taken into custody, when the petition is filed, or when the youth first appears at an intake conference— whichever comes first. Unfortunately, assessments of access to counsel in many states have found that many youth are not appointed counsel at an early stage of the proceedings.^[14]

Early appointment of counsel allows attorneys to assist their young clients in many ways, including:^[15]

• • helping their client to understand their rights;
  • protecting them from making incriminating statements or false confessions;^[16]
  • negotiating charging alternatives with the prosecutor;
  • advocating for diversion or dismissal of charges in a timely fashion;
  • investigating alternatives to detention, preparing for the detention hearing, and advocating for a pre-trial release plan to prevent a youth from being securely detained;
  • helping the youth develop a plan of activities that will later demonstrate to the court that there is no need for placement, should the youth be adjudicated delinquent; and
  • helping their client to understand legal options so they can make informed decisions regarding the best course of action in their case.

Late appointment of counsel, such as after the detention hearing, places youth at a severe disadvantage, as they are less likely to gain release without the assistance of counsel. Youth detained prior to trial are more likely to be formally processed, adjudicated delinquent, and placed outside the home at disposition.^[17]

All Stages of Proceedings

Once appointed, attorneys should represent youth at all stages or phases of the delinquency process, including arraignment, pretrial detention hearings, discovery, trial, pleas, and disposition.^[21]

Post-disposition Representation

Once the court orders a disposition for a young person in a delinquency case, he or she still needs a lawyer in many situations, including the following:^[24]

• • ensuring youth are provided services as ordered and needed, which can include educational, medical, and psychological services;
  • assuring that youth are not placed in dangerous conditions of confinement;
  • representing youth at post-dispositional meetings and hearings such as case review meetings, proceedings to review or modify court orders, and probation or parole revocation hearings;
  • sealing and expunging records; and
  • deciding whether to appeal their case.

Accordingly, many national groups—including the American Bar Association, the National Juvenile Defender Center, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges—all recommend that youth have access to counsel post-disposition (this generally means while they are under court supervision or committed to a juvenile justice agency).^[25]

2. Reducing the Number of Youth Who Waive Their Right to Counsel

Nationwide Problem

Foregoing all attorney representation, or “waiver of the right to counsel,” is a nationwide problem in juvenile court.^[32] In some jurisdictions, as many as 80-90% of youth waive their right to counsel, often not understanding the consequences.^[33]

Youth who go without counsel can suffer severe consequences, as was demonstrated in the Luzerne County, Pennsylvania “kids-for-cash” scandal, where from 2003-2008, corrupt judges were committing youth with minor offenses to juvenile facilities in exchange for kickbacks for the placements. During this time period, 54 percent of Luzerne County youth waived their right to counsel—more than 10 times the state average; and 60 percent of these children were removed from their homes.^[34]

National Standards

Due to the dangers involved in going through delinquency proceedings without an attorney, national standards urge that youth be prevented from waiving their right to a lawyer without first having a full discussion with an attorney about the possible consequences:

• • The ABA recommends that juvenile waiver of counsel be prohibited.^[35]
  • "The National Juvenile Defense Standards" oppose juvenile waiver of counsel unless the youth is required to meet with a juvenile attorney to discuss it prior to waiver.^[36]
  • The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) states in its juvenile delinquency guidelines that judges should be “extremely reluctant” to allow youth in delinquency cases to waive their right to counsel, and that youth should first consult with counsel regarding this decision.^[37]

Current State Practices

While youth in most states are allowed to waive the right to counsel, a large number of states have set limits on this practice, creating a national trend to increase protections for youth. The types of limitations states have implemented vary widely and include the following:

• • waiver is prohibited under certain circumstances, based on the youth’s age or type of offense:
  • a presumption against waiver in the law that can only be rebutted by a formal hearing in which the youth is represented by counsel;
  • the youth must have a meaningful consultation with an attorney before waiving the assistance of counsel;
  • parents must be present, concur, or be consulted; and
  • the court must find the waiver to be knowing and voluntary.^[38]

Examples of some of these limitations are detailed below.

3. Adopting Standards of Practice

Juvenile defense practice is a specialized and complex area of law, requiring knowledge of juvenile delinquency laws and practice, child and adolescent development and behavior, and services and programs available to court-involved youth. Unfortunately, assessments of the quality of attorney representation for youth in delinquency proceedings across the country have found serious deficiencies.^[52]

In order to ensure the effective assistance of counsel for youth and to lay a foundation for excellence in juvenile defense, national organizations have set standards of practice for juvenile defenders that an increasing number of state and local lawmakers, agencies, and offices use as guidelines in adopting their own standards.

Standards can also be used as an advocacy tool to persuade public defender systems and the legislature to provide juvenile defenders with adequate resources to do their job effectively.

National Standards

• • The Institute of Judicial Administration (IJA) and the American Bar Association (ABA) undertook a ten-year effort beginning in the 1970s to formulate standards for developing a high-quality juvenile justice system resulting in a 20-volume set of juvenile justice standards that were adopted by the ABA as policy in 1979-80. In 1996, the ABA published a streamlined single volume containing all the juvenile justice standards that were adopted as policy by the ABA, with case annotations showing how courts have used them.^[53]
  • Developed over five years with a group of national experts, the National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC) published the National Juvenile Defense Standards in 2012 to strengthen and clarify juvenile defense practice and policy, with an aim to elevate the practice of juvenile law and improve the quality of legal representation to youth in delinquency proceedings.^[54]
  • NJDC and the National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA) published the “Ten Core Principles for Providing Quality Delinquency Representation through Public Defense Delivery Systems” in 2008. The Core Principles provide guidance to public defense leaders and policymakers regarding the role of public defenders and how to provide high-quality legal representation for youth.^[55]

State and Local Standards

A growing number of jurisdictions have adopted practice standards for juvenile defenders through a variety of mechanisms, including promulgating standards through bar associations and public defender systems, court rules that adopt practice standards, and legislation that incorporates standards or requires an agency to promulgate standards. Below are a number of these examples from across the country:

4. Providing Sufficient Resources and Tools for Juvenile Defense Counsel

The compensation and resources for juvenile indigent defense systems and practitioners have been woefully inadequate for many years, as documented in the American Bar Association’s 1995 report—A Call for Justice—on the state of juvenile indigent defense in this country.^[65] With the economic downturn, funding for public defense has been further slashed in many states in recent years.^[66] Without sufficient funding for defense attorneys and public defense systems, it can be nearly impossible for attorneys to provide effective assistance of counsel, as is required under the Sixth Amendment.

Progress is being made to rectify this situation and these reform trends are detailed below.

Caseload Limits

High caseloads were found to be the “single most important barrier to effective representation” in the 1995 ABA report, "A Call for Justice."^[67] Not only do high caseloads make it difficult for attorneys to do every aspect of their job—such as meeting with clients, investigating each case, and preparing for trial—they also foster attorney anxiety, burnout, and job dissatisfaction.^[68]  Caseload limits are difficult to determine, but several organizations have recommended a limit of 200 juvenile cases per year.^[69] Yet some public defenders report regularly handling much more than that – from approximately 400 cases per year up to 1,400 cases per year.^[70]

Adequate Funding

• • Compensation
    When attorneys or public defender offices are not given adequate compensation to represent indigent youth, it not only is hard to attract and retain skilled attorneys, but it creates a disincentive to devote the time and effort needed to provide quality representation to youth. Unfortunately, the level of indigent defense funding remains “grossly insufficient” in many states, with juvenile clients faring the worst as indigent defense systems often spend the least on juvenile representation.^[80]

• Legal Resources
  Juvenile defense attorneys must have certain basic elements of professional support to conduct an adequate defense, such as online legal research capability; funds to hire expert witnesses like psychiatrists and forensic specialists; and funds to hire investigators to help uncover witnesses and physical evidence. Public defenders have historically operated with “grossly inadequate” resources of this type.^[81]

Recommendations for improving funding (other than just providing more of it) vary depending on the particular jurisdiction. Defense attorneys for the indigent—and juvenile defenders in particular—often have the lowest pay in comparison to other attorneys, and have advocated establishing pay parity between juvenile defense attorneys and adult defense attorneys, and between defense attorneys and prosecutors. Additionally, advocacy has centered on creating a state-based funding stream for juvenile indigent defense in Pennsylvania and Utah, the only states in the country that provide no state money for juvenile indigent defense.^[82]

Examples of strategies for reform are below:

Training Programs and Tools

Juvenile defense is a highly specialized area of law, requiring attorneys to master not only criminal defense litigation but a unique set of skills and knowledge related to representing youth, including understanding the delinquency process and knowledge of adolescent development. To help build the capacity of the juvenile defense bar, the MacArthur Foundation recently partnered with the National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC) to launch the Models for Change Resource Center Partnership on juvenile indigent defense. The center includes a training initiative called the “Juvenile Training Immersion Program (JTIP),” a curriculum designed to help attorneys specialize in the practice of juvenile defense. NJDC has developed a corps of attorneys nationwide who are qualified to deliver the training.

In addition, an increasing number of state and local jurisdictions are implementing training programs and developing resources to help attorneys gain competence in representing youth along with standards of practice to help guide and supervise these attorneys. Examples of some of these programs are detailed below.

See the National Juvenile Defender Center website for examples of many training programs and tools developed by this non-profit organization for juvenile defenders. Examples of state and local programs are detailed below.

There is also a specific need for juvenile defense attorneys representing immigrant youth to understand the consequences (detainment and deportation) of their clients’ involvement in the juvenile justice system. See the National Juvenile Justice Network’s Policy Platform on "Supporting Immigrant Youth Caught in the Crosshairs of the Justice System" for more information on the need for training to prepare juvenile defense attorneys to effectively represent immigrant youth in the juvenile justice system.

Training Programs

Training Resources

5. Providing Supervision and Oversight of Juvenile Defenders

A system of supervision and oversight is essential in order to ensure that indigent defense attorneys are adequately trained, competently handling their cases, and that their caseloads are not excessive. In accordance with the “Ten Core Principles for Providing Quality Delinquency Representation through Public Defense Delivery Systems,” the public defense delivery system is expected to supervise and review juvenile staff “according to national, state, and/or local performance guidelines or standards.”^[99]

States have developed a variety of models to provide a system of training, supervision, and oversight for juvenile defense attorneys including the development of specialized juvenile defender units within public defender offices, state juvenile public defenders, and stand-alone juvenile indigent defense offices. For court-appointed attorneys, this supervision and oversight is sometimes done by implementing the standards that attorneys must meet to be appointed to handle a case.

Below are examples of some of these models:

---

Juvenile Indigent Defense Sections

---

Notes

_{^[1] National Conference of State Legislatures, “Indigent Defense, Counsel & Other Procedural Issues: Juvenile Justice Guidebook for Legislators” (Nov. 10, 2011), http://bit.ly/19tVJYx; PA R. Juv. Ct. P. 151, http://bit.ly/1b00Y4h}

_{^[1] In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).}

_{^[2] Examples include Maine, Massachusetts, and Kentucky. National Conference of State Legislatures, “Indigent Defense, Counsel & Other Procedural Issues: Juvenile Justice Guidebook for Legislators” (Nov. 10, 2011): 4, http://bit.ly/19tVJYx.}

_{^[3] Juvenile Law Center, “Lessons from Luzerne County: Right to Counsel” (undated), accessed Sept. 10, 2018; Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, Report (May 2010): 50, http://bit.ly/1aj5v0L.}

_{^[4] Florida, Georgia, and Texas use both of these factors to determine indigency. See National Conference of State Legislatures, “Indigent Defense, Counsel & Other Procedural Issues: Juvenile Justice Guidebook for Legislators” (Nov. 10, 2011): 4, http://bit.ly/19tVJYx.}

_{^[5] National Conference of State Legislatures, “Indigent Defense,” 4.}

_{^[6] Shepherd, Jr., Robert E., ed., Juvenile Justice Standards Annotated: A Balanced Approach (Chicago: Institute of Judicial Administration/American Bar Association, 1996), 254, Part V, § 5.3 (A)}

_{^[7] National Juvenile Defender Center, National Juvenile Defense Standards (2012): R. 10.3, 155, http://bit.ly/XYgDqU.}

_{^[8] Del. Fam. Ct. R. of Crim. P. 10 (a) (2).}

_{^[9] PA R. Juv. Ct. P. 151, http://bit.ly/1b00Y4h.}

_{^[10] National Juvenile Justice Network, “Seven Ways to Improve Juvenile Indigent Defense” (November 2012): 5, http://bit.ly/UulWBl.}

_{^[11] N.C. GEN. STAT. § 7B-2000 (2012).}

_{^[12] 42 PA. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 6337.1(b) (1) (2013).}

_{^[13] Marsha Levick and Neha Desai, “Still Waiting: The Elusive Quest to Ensure Juveniles a Constitutional Right to Counsel at All Stages of the Juvenile Court Process,” Rutgers Law Review 60:1 (2007):191-193, at http://bit.ly/1aZsChO; National Juvenile Justice Network, “Using Adolescent Brain Research to Inform Policy: A Guide for Juvenile Justice Advocates” (September 2012): 1, http://bit.ly/T1Fp7x.}

_{^[14] National Juvenile Defender Center, Assessments, accessed Sept. 19, 2013, http://bit.ly/1fdm8AZ.}

_{^[15] National Juvenile Defender Center, National Juvenile Defense Standards, R. 3.1, http://bit.ly/XYgDqU.}

_{^[16] Youth are more susceptible to police coercion and more in need of legal counsel when being interrogated by the police. See National Juvenile Defender Center, National Juvenile Defense Standards, R. 3.2, Commentary.}

_{^[17] Katayoon Majd and Patricia Puritz, “The Cost of Justice: How Low-Income Youth Continue to Pay the Price of Failing Indigent Defense Systems,” Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy Vol. XVI, Symposium Issue (2009): 566, http://bit.ly/16tKMD6, citing Barry Holman and Jason Zeidenberg, “The Dangers of Detention: The Impact of Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Secure Facilities” (Justice Policy Institute 2006), 5, http://bit.ly/16uiJn1. A study in Lucas County Juvenile Court found that when counsel were present at the first hearing for youth who had not been detained, 78 percent of the cases were resolved at that point. See National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines (Spring 2005): 86 n. 23,}

_{^[18] 705 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 405/5-415 (2) (West 2013).}

_{^[19] National Juvenile Justice Network, “Seven Ways to Improve Juvenile Indigent Defense” (November 2012): 5, http://bit.ly/UulWBl.}

_{^[20] In re P.M.P., 200 N.J. 166 (2009)}

_{^[21] National Juvenile Defender Center, National Juvenile Defense Standards, R. 1.4 (a), http://bit.ly/XYgDqU.}

_{^[22] DC Code § 16-2304(a) (LexisNexis 2013).}

_{^[23] 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6337 (2013).}

_{^[24] National Juvenile Defender Center, National Juvenile Defense Standards, R. 7.1 – 7.7; Shepherd, Jr., Robert E., ed., Juvenile Justice Standards Annotated: A Balanced Approach, (Chicago: Institute of Judicial Administration/American Bar Association, 1996), 91, Part X “[J]uveniles charged as delinquents must be provided with legal representation throughout the course of their involvement with the juvenile justice system.” Marsha Levick and Neha Desai, “Still Waiting: The Elusive Quest to Ensure Juveniles a Constitutional Right to Counsel at All Stages of the Juvenile Court Process,” Rutgers Law Review 60:1 (2007): 178.}

_{^[25] National Juvenile Defender Center, National Juvenile Defense Standards, R. 7.5; Shepherd, Juvenile Justice Standards, 91, Part X; National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, “Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Juvenile Delinquency Cases” (Spring 2005): 177-78, 181.}

_{^[26] Sandra Simkins, “Out of Sight, Out of Mind: How the Lack of Post-dispositional Advocacy in Juvenile Court Increases the Risk of Recidivism and Institutional Abuse,” Rutgers Law Review, Vol. 60:1 (2007): 214, 216.}

_{^[27] Simkins, “Out of Sight, Out of Mind,” 222-23.}

_{^[28] National Juvenile Justice Network, “Advances in Juvenile Justice Reform: 2009-2011” (July 2012): 33, http://bit.ly/18lDE0d.}

_{^[29] Simkins, “Out of Sight, Out of Mind,” 221-22.}

_{^[30] National Juvenile Justice Network, “Advances in Juvenile Justice Reform,” 32.}

_{^[31] MISS. CODE ANN. § 43-21-201(West 2013).}

_{^[32] National Juvenile Defender Center, National Juvenile Defense Standards, R. 10.4, Commentary, citing Mary Berkheiser, “The Fiction of Juvenile Right to Counsel: Waiver in the Juvenile Courts,” 54 Fla. L. Rev. 577 (2002); Leslie J. Harris et al., “The Oregon Child Advocacy Project, Waiver of Counsel in Delinquency Proceedings (2010); and National Juvenile Defender Center, Assessments, http://bit.ly/1fdm8AZ.}

_{^[33] Judith B. Jones, “Access to Counsel” (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, June 2004): 2, 8}

_{^[34] Juvenile Law Center, “Lessons from Luzerne County: Right to Counsel” (undated), accessed Sept. 19, 2013, http://bit.ly/17XrhXA; Juvenile Law Center, “Luzerne Kids-for-Cash Scandal,” last modified February 2012, accessed September 23, 2013, http://bit.ly/18SVQdO.}

_{^[35] Shepherd, Jr., Robert E., ed., Juvenile Justice Standards Annotated: A Balanced Approach (Chicago: Institute of Judicial Administration/American Bar Association, 1996), 255, Part VI, §6.1 (A).}

_{^[36] National Juvenile Defender Center, National Juvenile Defense Standards, R. 10.4, http://bit.ly/XYgDqU; nine states only allow waiver of counsel after the youth consults with an attorney in certain circumstances. National Juvenile Defender Center, “Waiver of the Right to Counsel,” accessed April 23, 2018.}

_{^[37] National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines (Spring 2005): 25.}

_{^[38] National Juvenile Defender Center, “Waiver of the Right to Counsel,” accessed Sept. 18, 2013, http://bit.ly/16ummcB.}

_{^[39] Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, "Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice Report” (May 2010): 50, http://bit.ly/1aj5v0L.}

_{^[40] Pa.R.J.C.P. No. 152.}

_{^[41] Letter from Patricia Puritz, Executive Director, National Juvenile Defender Center, to Lilia G. Judson, Executive Director, Indiana Supreme Court, Division of State Court Administration (May 10, 2013).}

_{^[42] Waivers are not allowed for a variety of offenses including felonies and offenses where the judge intends to detain or commit the youth. KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 610.060 (2) (2013)}

_{^[43] MONT. CODE ANN. § 41-5-1413 (2013).}

_{^[44] WIS. STAT. ANN. § 938.23 (1m) (a) (West 2013)}

_{^[45] N.Y. FAM. CT. ACT § 249-a (McKinney 2013)}

_{^[46] Letter from Patricia Puritz, Executive Director, National Juvenile Defender Center, to Lilia G. Judson, Executive Director, Indiana Supreme Court, Division of State Court Administration (May 10, 2013).}

_{^[47] ALASKA STAT. ANN. § 47.12.090 (a) (West 2013).}

_{^[48] ALASKA STAT. ANN. § 47.12.090 (a) (West 2013).}

_{^[49] WIS. STAT. ANN. § 938.23 (1m) (a) (West 2013).}

_{^[50] IDAHO CODE ANN. § 20-514 (5) (West 2013).}

_{^[51] In re C.S., 115 Ohio St.3d 267, September 2007.}

_{^[52] American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center, Juvenile Law Center, and Youth Law Center, A Call for Justice: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in Delinquency Proceedings (December 1995), http://bit.ly/1bGPDZN; National Juvenile Defender Center, Assessments, accessed Sept. 19, 2013.}

_{^[53] Shepherd, Jr., Robert E., ed., Juvenile Justice Standards Annotated: A Balanced Approach (Chicago: Institute of Judicial Administration/American Bar Association, 1996), 254, Part V, § 5.3 (A)}

_{^[54] National Juvenile Defender Center, National Juvenile Defense Standards (2012), http://bit.ly/XYgDqU.}

_{^[55] National Juvenile Defender Center and National Legal Aid and Defender Association, “Ten Core Principles for Providing Quality Delinquency Representation through Public Defense Delivery Systems,” (July 2008): R. 2, at http://bit.ly/19xDSP2.}

_{^[56] Annie Balck, “Advances in Juvenile Justice Reform: 2009-2011” (Washington, D.C.: National Juvenile Justice Network, 2012): 33, http://bit.ly/14cfyRU.}

_{^[57] Juvenile Justice Center, “Florida Guidelines of Practice for Attorneys Who Represent Children in Delinquency Proceedings” (January 21, 2010), http://bit.ly/15uDchC.}

_{^[58] Massachusetts Youth Advocacy Division, Committee for Public Counsel Services, “Performance Standards Governing Representation of Indigent Juveniles in Delinquency, Youthful Offender, and Criminal Cases,” accessed September 25, 2013, http://bit.ly/16Arxb1.}

_{^[59] Juvenile Defenders Association of Pennsylvania, “Performance Guidelines for Quality and Effective Juvenile Delinquency Representation” (May 2011), http://bit.ly/1dK9HbI.}

_{^[60] Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Family Court, “Attorney Practice Standards for Representing Juveniles Charged with Delinquency or as Persons in Need of Supervision” (June 2004); Laura Cohen, “New Hope Found in Practice Standards” (Chicago: American Bar Association, 2009): 3, http://bit.ly/1eI1S9u.}

_{^[61] Annie Balck, “Advances in Juvenile Justice Reform: 2009-2011” (Washington, D.C.: The National Juvenile Justice Network, 2012): 32, http://bit.ly/14cfyRU.}

_{^[62] 2012 PA REG TEXT 302573 (August 25, 2012).}

_{^[63] ALA. CODE § 12-15-202 (f) (2013).}

_{^[64] ALA. CODE § 12-15-102 (5) (2013).}

_{^[65] American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center, Juvenile Law Center, and Youth Law Center, A Call for Justice: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in Delinquency Proceedings (December 1995); see also, Eric H. Holder, Attorney Gen., Dep't of Justice National Symposium on Indigent Defense: Looking Back, Looking Forward, 2000–2010 (Feb. 18, 2010),}

_{^[66] Susan Herlofsky and Geoffrey Isaacman, “Minnesota’s Attempt to Fund Indigent Defense: Demonstrating the Need for a Dedicated Funding Source” William Mitchell Law Review, 37:2 (2010): 576-579.}

_{^[67] American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center, Juvenile Law Center, and Youth Law Center, A Call for Justice: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in Delinquency Proceedings (December 1995): 8, http://bit.ly/1bGPDZN.}

_{^[68] Katayoon Majd and Patricia Puritz, “The Cost of Justice: How Low-Income Youth Continue to Pay the Price of Failing Indigent Defense Systems,” Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy Vol. XVI, Symposium Issue (2009): 560, http://bit.ly/16tKMD6.}

_{^[69] Recommended by the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, and the Nevada Indigent Defense Commission. See Katayoon Majd and Patricia Puritz, “The Cost of Justice,” 560, citing Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, “Keeping Defender Workloads Manageable” (2001); also recommended by the American Council of Chief Defenders, “Statement on Caseloads and Workloads, Resolution and Report,” (2007)}

_{^[70] Katayoon Majd and Patricia Puritz, “The Cost of Justice,”560, citing 2 Am. Bar Ass’n et al., “No Exceptions: A Campaign to Guarantee a Fair system of Justice for All,” 3 (2003), available at http://bit.ly/15H24D3; Am. Bar Ass’n Juvenile Justice Ctr. et al., “Washington: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in Juvenile Offender Matters,” 41 (2003); Nat’l Juvenile Defender Ctr. et al., “Illinois: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality Representation in Delinquency Proceedings,” 3 (2007), available at http://bit.ly/GzLKI9; and Nat’l Juvenile Defender Ctr. et al., “Mississippi: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in Youth Court Proceedings,” 118 (2007), at http://bit.ly/1bp5rRG; Judith B. Jones, “Access to Counsel” (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, June 2004): 9; see also Susan Herlofsky and Geoffrey Isaacman , “Minnesota’s Attempt to Fund Indigent Defense: Demonstrating the Need for a Dedicated Funding Source” William Mitchell Law Review, 37:2 (2010): 576-579.}

_{^[71] Katayoon Majd and Patricia Puritz, “The Cost of Justice,” 559, citing Am. Bar Ass’n Standing Comm. on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Opinion 06-441: Ethical Obligations of Lawyers Who Represent Indigent Criminal Defendants When Excessive Caseloads Interfere with Competent and Diligent Representation (May 13, 2006).}

_{^[72] National Juvenile Defender Center, National Juvenile Defense Standards (2012): R. 10.7, http://bit.ly/XYgDqU.}

_{^[73] Mo. Code Regs. Ann. tit. 18, § 10-4.010 (2013).}

_{^[74] This rule provides that attorneys appointed to represent children pursuant to Family Court Act § 249 cannot represent more than 150 at any given time, but this is subject to adjustment based on a variety of factors. 22 NYCRR § 127.5 (2010).}

_{^[75] New York Laws of 2009, Ch 56, Part ZZ: John Eligon, “State Law to Cap Public Defenders’ Caseloads, but Only in the City” (April 5, 2009), http://nyti.ms/151nx7a.}

_{^[76] Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts, §127.7 (April 1, 2010).}

_{^[77] Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, et al. v. Florida, __________ (May 23, 2013), http://bit.ly/1g0OyMB.}

_{^[78] State ex rel. Missouri Pub. Defender Comm’n v. Waters, 370 S.W.3d 592 (Mo. 2012).}

_{^[79] American Council of Chief Defenders, “Statement on Caseloads and Workloads, Resolution and Report” (2007):3, n. 4.}

_{^[80] Katayoon Majd and Patricia Puritz, “The Cost of Justice: How Low-Income Youth Continue to Pay the Price of Failing Indigent Defense Systems,” Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy Vol. XVI, Symposium Issue (2009): 551, http://bit.ly/16tKMD6; citing American Bar Association Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants, “Gideon’s Broken Promise: America's Continuing Quest for Equal Justice” (December 2004): 9,; Judith B. Jones, “Access to Counsel” (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, June 2004): 9-10}

_{^[81] American Bar Association Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants, “Gideon’s Broken Promise: America's Continuing Quest for Equal Justice,” 10; see also National Juvenile Defender Center, Assessments, http://bit.ly/1fdm8AZ; Judith B. Jones, “Access to Counsel,” 11-13. (Juvenile defenders in many states reported lack of access to investigators. In 2002, only 50% of attorneys responding to the American Bar Association survey had online legal research access. Attorneys in Ohio, Virginia, Maryland, Montana, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania reported a lack of support staff, law clerks, investigators, and experts.)}

_{^[82] Juvenile Law Center, “Lessons from Luzerne County: Right to Counsel” (undated), accessed October 22, 2018; Debra Cassens Weiss, “Silver Lining in Threatened Lawsuits Over Indigent Defense, Says Editorial,” ABA Journal (April 11, 2013), accessed October 2, 2013, http://bit.ly/1gYUXtC.}

_{^[83] Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, Report (May 2010): 49, http://bit.ly/1aj5v0L.}

_{^[84] Annie Balck, “Advances in Juvenile Justice Reform: 2007-2008” (Washington, D.C.: National Juvenile Justice Network, 2009): 20, http://bit.ly/GzLOaX.}

_{^[85] Children and Family Justice Center, Bluhm Legal Clinic, Northwestern University School of Law, and the National Juvenile Defender Center, “Illinois: An Assessment of Access to Counsel & Quality of Representation in Delinquency Proceedings” (2007): 64, http://bit.ly/16UYC1u.}

_{^[86] ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 4, § 1801 (2013).}

_{^[87] Annie Balck, “Advances in Juvenile Justice Reform: 2007-2008” (Washington, D.C.: National Juvenile Justice Network, 2009): 20-21, http://bit.ly/GzLOaX.}

_{^[88] National Juvenile Justice Network, “Seven Ways to Improve Juvenile Indigent Defense” (November 2012): 2, http://bit.ly/UulWBl.}

_{^[89] Models for Change, “Innovation Brief: Raising the Standards of Juvenile Indigent Defense” (December 2011): 2, http://bit.ly/16UycB7.}

_{^[90] National Juvenile Justice Network, “Seven Ways to Improve Juvenile Indigent Defense,” 2.}

_{^[91] Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 4, § 1804(2)(B)(2010).}

_{^[92] Virginia Indigent Defense Commission, “Court Appointed Counsel: Statutory Authority and Qualifications,” accessed September 29, 2013, http://1.usa.gov/16ebKmP. (Note that the training requirements can be waived in certain circumstances.)}

_{^[93] Juvenile Justice Center, “Florida New Juvenile Defender Attorney Manual” (2013), http://bit.ly/18qdSYT.}

_{^[94] Northwestern School of Law Bluhm Legal Clinic and National Juvenile Defender Center, “Illinois Juvenile Defender Center Practice Notebook” (Dec. 1, 2008), http://bit.ly/1c1a4kb.}

_{^[95] Models for Change, “Pennsylvania Juvenile Defense Notebook” (Oct. 23, 2011), http://bit.ly/18Liy9U.}

_{^[96] Southwest Regional Juvenile Defender Center, Texas Appleseed, and Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, “Juvenile Practice is Not Child’s Play: A Handbook for Attorneys Who Represent Juveniles in Texas” (January 2004), http://bit.ly/HXgowa.}

_{^[97] National Juvenile Defender Center, “Training” and “Publications,” accessed January 2, 2019.}

_{^[98]
The Juvenile Justice Center, “The Florida Juvenile Collateral Consequences Checklist: A Guide for Understanding the Consequences of Juvenile Court Involvement” (May 21, 2013), Models for Change, “Pennsylvania Juvenile Collateral Consequences Checklist” (May 24, 2010)}

_{^[99] Eric H. Holder, Attorney Gen., Dep't of Justice, 50th
Anniversary Celebration of the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Gideon v. Wainwright (March 15, 2013)}

_{^[100] National Juvenile Defender Center and National Legal Aid and Defender Association, “Ten Core Principles for Providing Quality Delinquency Representation through Public Defense Delivery Systems,” (July 2008): R. 6, at http://bit.ly/19xDSP2.}

_{^[101] Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights, “Who We Are” and “What We Do,” accessed September 30, 2013, http://www.laccr.org/who-we-are/ and http://www.laccr.org/what-we-do/.}

_{^[102] Youth Advocacy Division, “About YAD,” accessed April 23, 2018.}

_{^[103] Office of the Juvenile Defender, “A Look Back and a Vision for the Future” (April 2013), http://bit.ly/17oJFt4.}

_{^[104] Models for Change, “Innovation Brief: Raising the Standards of Juvenile Indigent Defense” (December 2011): 3, http://bit.ly/16UycB7.}

_{^[105] County of Luzerne Pennsylvania, “Juvenile Defender Unit” (undated), accessed August 27, 2018.}