Functional Deficits in Juveniles Evaluated for Adjudicative Competence

• DOI: 10.1177/00938548221078520
• Author: Christina L. Riggs Romaine
• Date: 01 May 2022
• Published date: 01 May 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2022, Vol. 49, No. 5, May 2022, 638 –659.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221078520

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2022 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

638

FUNCTIONAL DEFICITS IN JUVENILES

EVALUATED FOR ADJUDICATIVE

COMPETENCE

CHRISTINA L. RIGGS ROMAINE

Wheaton College, MA

Evaluations of juvenile adjudicative competence (AC) are frequently ordered, yet significant gaps remain in the field’s under-

standing of referred youth. Using a sample of 277 court-ordered evaluations of juvenile AC, this study provides further sup-

port for the relationship of age and intelligence with competence, but other factors remain inconsistent. In the current study,

developmental immaturity was associated with competence. Youth showed highest rates of deficits in the functional capaci-

ties of rational appreciation, ability to assist counsel, and decision-making. Within factual understanding, the highest rates of

deficits were seen for the understanding of charges, plea bargains, the trial purpose, and juvenile justice commitment. This

study provides the first empirical estimate of the proportion of youth (9%–30%) who demonstrate factual, but not rational

understanding, and highlights areas that may be underreported in reports to the court. Implications for evaluations and

research are described, including a focus on mental health symptoms and rational appreciation.

Keywords: juvenile competence; adjudicative competence; functional deficits; competence to stand trial; juvenile defendants

Evaluations of juvenile adjudicative competence (AC) have increased dramatically since

due process rights were first recognized in the juvenile courts (In re Gault, 1967; Kent

v. United States, 1966). As policy and practice changes have created a system in which

juveniles face serious sanctions and an adversarial process, the competency of youth to

participate in the adjudicative process has become a frequent and important question.

Studies of community, juvenile justice, and evaluated youth have provided important infor-

mation about the general competency-related capacities of youth; however, most research

has focused on factors associated with competency and not examined competency-related

functional abilities—that is, exactly what the youth can or cannot accomplish (Grisso,

2003). This article seeks to address this gap in the literature by examining the specific func-

tional abilities of youth referred for competency evaluations and examining how historical

and diagnostic factors relate not just to the overall opinion on competency but also the

AUTHORS’ NOTE: Thanks to Dr. Thomas Grisso and Dr. Ivan Kruh for their helpful review and formative

input on early drafts of this manuscript. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to

Christina L. Riggs Romaine, Wheaton College, 26 E. Main Street, Norton MA 02766, USA; e-mail: riggsro-

maine_christina@wheatoncollege.edu.

1078520CJBXXX10.1177/00938548221078520Criminal Justice and BehaviorRiggs Romaine / Functional Deficits in Juvenile Competence

research-article2022

Riggs Romaine / FUNCTIONAL DEFICITS IN JUVENILE COMPETENCE 639

specific functional capacities that constitute competency. Results indicate what specific

abilities remediation efforts should be prepared to address.

AC FROM CRIMINAL TO JUVENILE COURT

The need for an accused individual to be competent or able to participate in the legal process

has deep roots in English law (Roesch & Golding, 1980) and can be seen in the early 19th

century in American courts (United States v. Lawrence, 1835). It has long been recognized that

adjudicating only those persons who are competent both protects their constitutional rights and

preserves the real and perceived integrity of the courts (Drope v. Missouri, 1975; Youtsey v.

United States, 1899). The U.S. Supreme Court, in Dusky v. United States. (1960, p. 402), spe-

cifically defined a competent defendant as one who has a “sufficient present ability to consult

with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” and “a rational as well as

factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Scholars have broken this definition

into four functional capacities that together comprise competence: factual understanding, ratio-

nal appreciation, ability to assist counsel, and ability to make relevant decisions (Kruh &

Grisso, 2009), with assisting and making decisions sometimes combined under the idea of

reasoning. Although competence became relevant to youth as due process protections were

extended to the juvenile courts in the 1960s (In re Gault, 1967; Kent v. United States, 1966), it

was not until the “get tough” era of the 1990s, when more and younger youth began facing

more adversarial processes and punitive outcomes, that the question of competence was

increasingly raised in the juvenile courts (Bonnie & Grisso, 2000; Grisso, 2003). Despite this

increase, attorneys may not raise the question of competence as often as they have actual con-

cerns about a youth’s AC (Viljoen et al., 2010), suggesting juvenile AC is neither appropriately

nor sufficiently addressed (Bryant et al., 2015; Grossi et al., 2016; Harvey, 2011).

Today, juvenile courts function very similarly to adult criminal courts, with adversarial

proceedings and the potential for far-reaching consequences. Statutes specific to juvenile

AC are common (37 states) but vary widely in what they include (Panza et al., 2020). Some

statutes are informed by research and resulting best practice recommendations (Larson &

Grisso, 2011). Other states have limited statutory guidance based largely on long-standing

criminal court practice (Rapisarda & Kaplan, 2016). The latter can produce significant chal-

lenges because of the important differences between juveniles and adults in factors impact-

ing AC. Similarly, while there is a large body of research identifying factors typically

associated with adult incompetence, and thus established procedures and related restoration

services (most commonly through psychotropic medication, Zapf & Roesch, 2009), for

juveniles, the picture remains less clear. Youth may be found incompetent to stand trial for

reasons of mental health disorder, cognitive deficits, developmental delays, normal devel-

opmental immaturity, or some combination thereof. Further complicating the picture,

incompetent youth frequently present with a constellation of factors that do not rise to the

level typically associated with inpatient treatment (Kruh & Grisso, 2009) nor would they be

expected to respond as readily to medication. Current understanding of the factors associ-

ated with juvenile AC has been informed by two distinct veins of research.

ADJUDICATIVE CAPACITIES OF JUVENILES

First, studies of community and the general population of juvenile justice youth (i.e., not

youth whose competence was questioned by the court) have provided important information