SPECIAL REPORT: Study shows that relatively few youths caught on L.A. County campuses with firearms serve time. Most get probation, leaving some experts wanting to correct flaws . . . : When Guns Are Brought to School

Although juveniles caught with guns at school in Los Angeles County are more likely to receive harsher sentences than ever before, most still avoid confinement as a punishment, a Times study of court records shows.

A first-ever analysis of juvenile arrests for gun possession on campuses from 1988 through 1997 found that more than half of the youthful offenders were sent home on probation or allowed to enter diversion programs.

Arrests declined sharply during the later years of the study period. Yet more than half of the 1,893 youths caught carrying guns were later arrested for another crime before reaching age 18.

Legal experts, criminologists and local juvenile justice officials were struck by the results of The Times’ analysis, which many said uncovered flaws in the handling of a serious criminal matter.

Peter Greenwood of the Rand Corp. said the high rate of probationary sentences in gun possession cases is symptomatic of the larger problem of a juvenile justice system that focuses on violent crime and career offenders and “sweeps aside” what are considered more minor offenses.

“We’re busy keeping up with the hard-core stuff, and we haven’t taken a lot of time to deal with the less serious stuff,” Greenwood said. “What you’ve got to stop is kids carrying guns.

“There should be consequences,” he added. “Everybody agrees that the message you send when there are no consequences is that it’s a joke.”

Because no similar studies are known to exist, it is impossible to compare the treatment of offenders by police, prosecutors and judges in Los Angeles County to that elsewhere in California or the nation.

Unlike adult criminal courts, juvenile delinquency courts attempt to balance public safety against what is best for the offender, says Michael Nash, the presiding judge over juvenile courts in Los Angeles.

“Punishment has become an element, but the overriding philosophy of the Juvenile Court has been rehabilitation and treatment,” said Nash, who released the records that made the study possible. “We are trying to balance public safety with a desire to treat the individual child.”

Judges said gun possession alone is usually not enough to merit incarceration. Rather, prior arrests, the quality of supervision at home and the reasons the student gave for carrying the gun play large roles in sentencing.

“It’s not the kind of case, ordinarily, where you’d send the kid to the California Youth Authority unless there were other charges,” said Superior Court Judge Morton Rochman, a longtime juvenile judge who hears criminal matters in the San Fernando Valley. “If he had strong parental support and this is his first time, he’d probably be ordered home on probation with some community service.”

In six out of 10 cases, the study showed, first offenders were placed on probation, which generally lasts a year and involves contact with a probation officer every three months. Probation normally involves a suspended juvenile hall sentence, which can be invoked immediately if probation conditions are broken.

Offenders were more likely to serve a sentence in custody if they already had an arrest record. Not everyone agrees that should be the case. “Every time a kid has a gun, I think there has to be a severe sanction,” Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti said. “I would think that the sanction would at least be some time in custody with some counseling, if not camp.

“That is just too serious an offense, and maybe [incarceration] can’t be done or shouldn’t be done 100% of the time, but it should be pretty darn close to that,” he said.

California Law Demands Expulsion

Since 1997, state law has mandated that schools expel students caught carrying guns on campus. The crime has been a felony for adults since the 1970s. But the law gives Juvenile Court judges much greater sentencing discretion than it gives judges in adult cases.

Criminologists, psychologists and other academics studying violence in schools said a juvenile who carries a gun on campus represents an unmistakable red flag pointing to future violence.

In a guide for schools developed by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education and the National Assn. of School Psychologists, possession of firearms is termed an “imminent warning sign,” one of half a dozen that “require an immediate response.”

Juveniles who fired guns while at school had previously brought firearms onto campus in 90% of the cases studied, according to Ron Stephens, director of the National School Safety Center, which co-authored a 1992 study on school violence with the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“That’s the difference between a fistfight and a gunfight,” Stephens said. “There should be consequences when guns are found on campus. It isn’t a disciplinary issue. It is in fact a criminal offense.”

The Times study found that hundreds of cases never reached a judge because prosecutors, probation officers or police decided they should not proceed to court.

“The fact that these [cases] were all at school and nothing happened is amazing,” said Delbert Elliott, director of the University of Colorado’s Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence and author of a recent book on school violence. “It undermines the whole deterrent effect.”

Most local juvenile justice officials interviewed agreed that many of those cases should have wound up before a judge.

“If you have a gun, at the very minimum, you need to be going to court,” said head Deputy Dist. Atty. Tom Higgins, a supervisor over juvenile prosecution in Garcetti’s office.

“Kids need to know that they’re going to be held accountable for running around with guns.”

The data on convictions in such cases show a recent trend in that direction. Although about two-thirds of all the arrests studied by The Times ended with a conviction, in the last three years the conviction rate rose to about three-fourths.

Sentencing Grows Tougher

Over the whole 10-year span, 10% of juveniles arrested with a gun on campus were placed in diversion programs for first-time offenders, which wiped their records clean. In court-ordered diversion cases, juveniles are supervised for six months, during which they must attend school and stay out of trouble. They can also be required to attend a counseling program, perform community service or pay restitution.

More recently, placement in diversion programs has all but stopped.

Nearly 16% of all the cases ended with court findings that the charges were “not sustained,” or dismissal by deputy district attorneys, juvenile probation authorities or police before reaching court.

In about 6% of the cases, the disposition could not be determined from the court records. Some of the cases involved transfers to other California counties or mental health facilities.

As the conviction rate rose in later years, sentencing also grew tougher. Custody sentences were meted out to about one in four youths arrested before 1995, when the figure jumped to about one in three. The remainder of those convicted got formal probation.

“What becomes difficult is to try to identify which of these youngsters intended to kill or maim,” said Superior Court Judge Robert Martinez, a knowledgeable court veteran who presides over juvenile cases in Pomona. “A judicial officer can play it safe and give a draconian disposition, for lack of a better word, or you can make the best call that you can.”

‘We Have to Have Discretion in System’

James Alan Fox, dean of the College of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University, said the study shows, in many ways, that the system is working properly.

“I’m encouraged that they aren’t being handled in an automatic, blanket way,” said Fox, who has taken the unusual stance of opposing zero-tolerance policies for weapons in school. “We have to have discretion in the system. It’s the only way we can individualize justice.”

Arrests for possessing guns on campus were almost nonexistent in Los Angeles County in the early to mid-1980s, when at most a few dozen juveniles were accused of the crime each year.

Arrests began soaring in the late 1980s and in 1993 reached a peak of 272. In the next four years, they plunged by nearly half, to 146 in 1997.

Criminologists, some lawyers and judges said the decrease probably reflects the general drop in juvenile crime that also began in 1993.

Local school officials also claim credit for the drop.

Two high-profile fatal shootings at local high schools--one accidental, one intentional--within a month in early 1993 led the Los Angeles Unified School District to put metal detectors in all secondary schools and mandate daily random weapon screenings. Policies were also changed to require the expulsion of youths caught with guns on campus.

“It does seem to have a deterrent effect,” said district spokesman Shel Erlich. “The number of weapons recovered has dropped.”

That same year, the Legislature passed a law requiring probation officials to send every case of weapons possession on campus to local prosecutors.

The records used in The Times’ study cover cases originating at all schools--public or private--in Los Angeles County, including 1,719 public schools in 81 districts.

Recidivism Rate Concerns Authorities

A key finding of The Times’ analysis, which was of particular concern to authorities and experts, was the 56% recidivism rate for youngsters arrested with a gun at school. The rate is even higher for youths sent to detention camps--70% were arrested again--and lower for those who were put into diversionary programs, 43%.

The use of juvenile work camps reached its highest level ever in the final three years of the study. Of those arrested, 25% were sentenced to camp in 1995, 29% in 1996 and 28% in 1997.

Nash, L.A. County’s top juvenile judge, said he was troubled with the system’s failure to rehabilitate the majority of offenders and said he will discuss the results with judges and other agencies to ensure that cases are being handled correctly. Nash said his court is also working with school officials on a new program to target juveniles with guns.

“You better believe that I’m concerned,” said Nash, a veteran of nine years in Juvenile Court who became presiding judge last year. “Obviously, I think it’s a serious crime. I think all weapons offenses are serious.”

Times staff writer Doug Smith and data analyst Sandra Poindexter contributed to this story.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

School Gun Cases

Results of arrests of juveniles in Los Angeles County for possession of guns in schools, 1988-97.

Probation: 40.7%

County work camp: 20.4%

Dismiss/close: 15.8%

Diversion: 10.0%

Other: 7%

California Youth Authority: 3.5%

Group home: 2.7%

Treat as adult: 0.6%

Source: Times analysis of Los Angeles County Juvenile Court and Probation Department records