Setting a (Legal) Precedent: Kimberly Larson, JD, PhD Concludes Forensics Study in Los Angeles County

Addressing the unique developmental needs of youth in the justice system has long been a passion for Kimberly Larson, JD, PhD. Since earning her second doctoral degree, she has been using her background—as a psychologist and an attorney—to move beyond data collection and influence policy. It’s a logical extension of what she and Tracy L. Fass, JD, PhD have spent the past four years teaching dissertation students in the Juvenile Justice Research and Policy Lab. “It’s a really effective model to help students learn about the practical day-to-day aspects of conducting research, collecting data, and analyzing statistics,” says Larson who actively practices what she preaches. Ten years ago, having earned a reputation for helping states write appropriate ‘juvenile competence to stand trial’ (JCST) legislation, Larson was tapped by California’s Los Angeles County to conduct a study examining a juvenile competence remediation service she created with her Co-PI, Rebecca Nathanson from UNLV. The pair integrated teaching methods utilized in the special education literature to attempt to help youth found incompetent to stand trial learn the information they needed to know in order to return to court. Later this month, after more than eight years of on-the-ground research, Larson will be in attendance at the launch of a Juvenile Competence to Stand Trial Hub Court in Los Angeles—tangible evidence of her ongoing commitment to research and youth advocacy.  

 TEAMWORK FOR THE WIN

“Kids’ unique developmental needs were not being met within the competence to stand trial process,” says Larson of what initially fueled her postdoc fellowship project in 2007. She set to work penning a guide on how to write developmentally appropriate JCST legislation, aimed at protecting minors’ due process rights and ensuring they have the mental capacity to participate in legal proceedings. When the MacArthur Foundation offered her funding to continue, Larson jumped at the chance. 

“All that existed at that time were adult procedures that didn't make sense for kids and were harmful to them in many ways,” recalls Larson who, once her guide was complete, began traveling around the country helping states develop juvenile competence to stand trial legislation “If one is not competent to stand trial, they cannot, for example, make important legal decisions that could impact the rest of their lives,” says Larson, emphasizing that the right to an attorney also means less if one is not competent and cannot work with them to mount a defense. 

Once states had laws in place, services for these youth were lacking; those that did exist were often too expensive for states to implement, so Larson set out to create something that would not only be cost effective but also backed by research. Underscoring the overlap between youth with disabilities, including mental health issues, and the juvenile justice population quickly became central to her work. 

“If a student with ADHD has trouble learning academic material in the classroom without an IEP, they also have difficulty learning material in the context of a courtroom,” says Larson, who began scouring educational literature for techniques she might apply to individuals in the juvenile justice system. Given her own background in clinical psychology and forensics, Larson sought someone trained in special education. Crossing paths with Rebecca Nathanson, PhD, who was teaching children strategies to minimize the trauma of courtroom testimony at Kids’ Court School (a program of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas) proved a turning point.

“We combined our respective backgrounds to help kids who were found incompetent to stand trial,” says Larson, who was working with California on legislation at the time. Keen on exploring the issue of juvenile competence remediation and establishing an evidence-based service, an initial study—to determine if this new service for youth found incompetent to stand trial worked and for whom—was launched in 2015. Data collection, intended to take two years, was stalled during COVID and concluded just last year. Given her success, the Clinical Psychology Department professor and Forensic Psychology Concentration faculty member has since been tapped to be part of the creation of a new Juvenile Competence Remediation Hub Court, the first of its kind.

“Los Angeles has historically been on the cutting edge of diverse mental health issues, in large part due to an active group of judges, lawyers, and clinicians,” says Larson, emphasizing what the Juvenile Competence to Stand Trial Hub Court will accomplish when it opens in August: A single set of judges and evaluators, through which all competency cases will flow, in an effort to streamline training and expertise while providing better support for kids who need it. During Larson’s most recent visit to California in late May, various stakeholders—spanning the Department of Mental Health and probation to judges and forensic evaluators—convened to discuss how the Court might work. Before the conversation commenced, each person present shared what drives them in their chosen work. 

“My interest lies in making the legal system fair for kids,” says Larson, who points to the juvenile court system which, while rehabilitative in theory, doesn’t always function as intended. “Young people are more complicated developmentally [than adults],” she adds, underscoring that when due process isn’t followed or important issues are overlooked, young people are connected to outcomes that follow them for a lifetime. 

“While adult convictions are serious and real, there can be long-term collateral consequences for individuals who go through the juvenile justice system, too,” says Larson. 

Part of the new Hub Court involves developing a package of services to help support families and ensure they understand what is going on in court as well as before and after proceedings. “Parts can be invested, but, there are obstacles to overcome,” says Larson, who believes decreasing challenges and increasing communication is key in helping to support families in this process.

BLAZING A PATH FORWARD

Larson is not alone at William James College in her work at the intersection of psychology and law. “We have an unusually high concentration of good forensic people and JD/PhDs,” she says of her esteemed colleagues, which includes Fass.   Over the past four years, students in the lab that she co-leads with Tracy Fass, JD, Ph.D., the Juvenile Justice Research and Policy Lab have had an opportunity to participate in this juvenile competence research. The data has been integral to a model she and Dr. Fass have developed to help their students learn about research and complete their dissertations.

“It’s a really effective model to help students learn about the practical day-to-day aspects of conducting research, collecting data, and analyzing statistics,”  says Larson. She also remains a fan of longtime professor and forensics expert Robert Kinscherff, PhD, JD who, in January 2024, contributed to a landmark decision by the State Supreme Judicial Court when Massachusetts became the first state in the country to categorically ban life without parole sentences for individuals under 21 years old. 

On any given day, Larson is guided by a single question—one she asks of herself and poses to students in the lab: What is it that psychology has to offer the law? Her answer, of course, is no surprise. “A lot!” she says, especially when it comes to creating better policy for kids, as evidenced by the tremendous effort put forth by Los Angeles County to be progressive around kids’ mental health. This opens the door to another question: How do we synthesize research in ways that not only make sense but are also usable by policy makers and the larger legal system?

“There's very little in law school that teaches you anything about research—from how to read studies or synthesize them—or kids and their development,” says Larson, sharing two kernels of wisdom she often shares with her students. “One of the things I love about what I do, is that I get to serve that function,” she adds, of bridging the two disciplines. Thankfully, the field of forensic psychology has begun to diversify. “Prior to my generation, women were in the minority,” says Larson, pointing to what was once a male-dominated field. “The demographics have changed over the past decade, and the field is now female-dominated,” says Larson, of another milestone worth celebrating. Alas, there is no time to waste.

“It all boils down to identifying system disconnects, bringing in people with the requisite expertise, and figuring out better solutions than what currently exists—especially when things aren’t working—all by way of research.”

• Tags:
• Research & Advocacy