Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 20-501 (2026)
Legislative intent.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Legislative intent.
(1) It is the policy of the state of Idaho that the juvenile corrections system will be based on the following principles: accountability, community protection, and competency development. Where a juvenile has been found to be within the purview of the juvenile corrections act, the court shall impose a sentence that will protect the community, hold the juvenile offender accountable for his actions, and assist the juvenile offender in developing skills to become a contributing member of a diverse community. It is the further policy of the state of Idaho that the parents or other legal guardians of the juvenile offender participate in the accomplishment of these goals through participation in counseling and treatment designed to develop positive parenting skills and an understanding of the family’s role in the juvenile offender’s behavior. It is the further intent of the legislature that the parents of the juvenile offender be held accountable, where appropriate, through monetary reimbursement for supervision and confinement of the juvenile offender and restitution to victims of the juvenile offender’s delinquent acts. In enacting this legislation, the legislature finds that the juvenile corrections system should encompass the following aspects: diversion, day treatment, community programs, observation and assessment programs, probation services, secure facilities, aftercare, and assistance to counties for juvenile offenders not committed to the custody of the department of juvenile corrections.
(2) The following is a brief description of what the legislature intends to become the components of Idaho’s juvenile corrections system:
(a) Diversion. An alternative to formal prosecution of a juvenile offense. Diversions seek to hold a juvenile accountable for his actions through various interventions while redirecting youth away from formal processing in the juvenile justice system.
(b) Probation. Probation officers have twenty-four (24) hour on-call responsibility for juvenile offenders and monitor their activities on a continual basis. Probation officers are responsible for assisting juvenile offenders and their families in accessing counseling or treatment resources, close supervision of juvenile offenders’ activities, supervision of restitution, and coordination of other services provided to juvenile offenders. Juvenile offenders ordered into the custody of the department of juvenile corrections would be monitored by a county probation officer.
(c) Day treatment. Day treatment programs are time-limited nonresidential treatment and educational programs. Included in these programs may be trackers who provide intensive supervision of juvenile offenders through daily contact and by counseling juvenile offenders regarding employment, education, courts, family, and life skills. Nonresidential alcohol and drug programs provide outpatient assessment and counseling for juvenile offenders with substance abuse problems.
(d) Community programs. It is intended that community programs will exist throughout the state to provide residential supervision and treatment options to juvenile offenders in close proximity to their families and their community. It is intended that these programs will strengthen the juvenile offender’s relationship with family, engender a commitment to school and employment, promote the development of competency and life skills, and help juvenile offenders generalize appropriate behavior into their environment.
(e) Observation and assessment. Regional observation and assessment centers are provided, either directly or on a contract basis, to conduct observation and assessment of the juvenile offender in a short-term residential experience. It is intended that these programs would maintain standardized home and daily routines with intensive daily programming.
(f) Secure facilities. Secure facilities provide secure confinement, discipline, education and treatment of the most seriously delinquent juvenile offenders. Programs at the secure facilities are designed to help juvenile offenders recognize accountability for delinquent behavior by confronting and eliminating delinquent norms, criminal thinking, and antisocial behavior and by making restitution to victims through community service or other restitution programs.
(3) It is the further intent of the legislature that the primary purpose of this act is to provide a continuum of programs that emphasize the juvenile offender’s accountability for his actions while assisting him in the development of skills necessary to function effectively and positively in the community in a manner consistent with public safety. These services and programs will individualize treatment and control of the juvenile offender for the benefit of the juvenile offender and the protection of society. It is legislative intent that the department of juvenile corrections be operated within the framework of the following principles to accomplish this mission:
(a) Provide humane, disciplined confinement to a juvenile offender who presents a danger to the community.
(b) Strengthen opportunities for the juvenile offender’s development of competency and life skills by expanding the juvenile offender’s access to applicable programs and community resources.
(c) Hold juvenile offenders accountable for their delinquent behavior through such means as victim restitution, community service programs and the sharing of correctional costs.
(d) Invoke the participation of the juvenile offender’s parent or legal guardian in assisting the juvenile offender to recognize and accept responsibility for his delinquent or other antisocial behavior and hold the parent accountable, where appropriate, through the payment of detention costs and restitution to victims and through attendance at programs for the development of positive parenting skills designed to promote a functional relationship between the juvenile offender and his family.
(e) Develop efficient and effective juvenile correctional programs within the framework of professional correctional standards, legislative intent and available resources.
(f) Provide for a diversity of innovative and effective programs through research on delinquent behavior and the continuous evaluation of correctional programs. Innovative and effective programs should be evidence-based, as demonstrated through empirical research.
(g) Assist counties in developing meaningful programs for juvenile offenders who have come into the juvenile corrections system but who have not been committed to the custody of the department of juvenile corrections.
(h) Provide programs to increase public awareness of the mission of the juvenile corrections system and to encourage public participation in developing an effective juvenile corrections system designed to aid in reducing juvenile crime in this state.
(i) Develop and maintain a statewide juvenile offender information system.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: State v. Doe, 207 P.3d 974 (Idaho 2009).
State v. Doe, 207 P.3d 974 (Idaho 2009). “Under the Juvenile Corrections Act (JCA), I.C. §§ 20-501 to -549, juvenile courts have "exclusive, original jurisdiction over any juvenile" [5] who engages in an act or omission in the state of Idaho that "is a violation of any federal, state, local or municipal law or ordinance…”
State v. Orozco, 483 P.3d 331 (Idaho 2021). “” I.C. § 20-501. The JCA emphasizes individualized treatment for juvenile offenders so that they may have the opportunity to return to society as productive members of their communities.”
State v. Doe, 233 P.3d 1275 (Idaho 2010). “Section 4 requires the department to “[ijnvoke the participation of the juvenile offender’s parent .”
State v. Doe, 172 P.3d 1094 (Idaho 2007). “On August 8, 2001, the State filed a petition alleging that Doe came within the purview of the Juvenile Corrections Act (JCA), Idaho Code §§ 20-501 et seq. It alleged that Doe committed an act that would constitute the crime of felony malicious injury to property if it had been…”
State v. Hernandez, 990 P.2d 742 (Idaho Ct. App. 1999). “That action was dismissed on Hernandez’s motion for lack of jurisdiction because the State had not obtained a waiver of jurisdiction under the Juvenile Corrections Act, Idaho Code §§ 20-501 , et seq. (J.C.A.). The State then filed a new juvenile petition alleging aggravated…”
State v. John Doe (2012-10), 322 P.3d 976 (Idaho 2014). “Specifically, this appeal requires this Court to analyze several statutes from Idaho’s Juvenile Corrections Act (JCA), I.C. §§ 20-501 to 549. The first relevant statute is I.”
State v. Doe (13-14), 333 P.3d 858 (Idaho Ct. App. 2014). “” Idaho Code § 20-501 . The legislature further indicated that the services and programs utilized in juvenile corrections “will individualize treatment and control of the juvenile offender for the benefit of the juvenile offender and the protection of society” and indicated that…”
Action Collection Serv., Inc. v. Black, 411 P.3d 312 (Idaho Ct. App. 2017). “I.C. § 20-501(4). This statement indicates the legislature's desire for IDJC to advance parental accountability for a juvenile's action.”
Mabey v. Ellis (In Re Ellis), 224 B.R. 786 (Bankr. D. Idaho 1998). “Idaho Code § 20-501 . Idaho Code § 20-520 (3) does not mention the term “fine” or “penalty,” but does speak in terms of making the victim “whole” with respect to such victim’s “economic loss.”
State v. John Doe (2012-09), 288 P.3d 805 (Idaho 2012). “See I.C. § 20-501 (relied upon by the district court).”
State v. Doe, 52 P.3d 335 (Idaho Ct. App. 2002). “BACKGROUND A juvenile petition charging thirteen-year-old John Doe with the rape of a four-year-old girl was filed in the magistrate division of the district court pursuant to the Juvenile Corrections Act, Idaho Code § 20-501 , et seq. The petition alleged that the rape was…”
State v. John Doe (2012-07), 305 P.3d 543 (Idaho Ct. App. 2013). “” I.C. § 20-501. Because the statute’s classification directly relates to its declared purpose, means-focus scrutiny does not apply.”
— Idaho Code § 20-501(3) — 1 case
State v. Jane Doe (2024-29) (Idaho 2026).
— Idaho Code § 20-501(3)(c) — 1 case
State v. Jane Doe (2024-29) (Idaho 2026).
— Idaho Code § 20-501(4) — 2 cases
Action Collection Serv., Inc. v. Black, 411 P.3d 312 (Idaho Ct. App. 2017). “I.C. § 20-501(4). This statement indicates the legislature's desire for IDJC to advance parental accountability for a juvenile's action.”
Action Collection v. Harmony Black (Idaho Ct. App. 2017).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.