[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT: OVERVIEW AND
PERSPECTIVES
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTHY
FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
and the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 12, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-55 Serial No. 110-68
(Committee on Education and Labor) (Committee on the Judiciary)
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
and the Committee on the Judiciary
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html and
http://www.house.gov/judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
36-466 WASHINGTON : 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman California,
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Ranking Minority Member
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Judy Biggert, Illinois
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Wu, Oregon Ric Keller, Florida
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California John Kline, Minnesota
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Kenny Marchant, Texas
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Tom Price, Georgia
Linda T. Sanchez, California Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Louisiana
David Loebsack, Iowa Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania York
John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky Rob Bishop, Utah
Phil Hare, Illinois David Davis, Tennessee
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Timothy Walberg, Michigan
Joe Courtney, Connecticut Dean Heller, Nevada
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTHY FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES
CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York, Chairwoman
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania,
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire Ranking Minority Member
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona California
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Kenny Marchant, Texas
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky David Davis, Tennessee
Dean Heller, Nevada
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida RIC KELLER, Florida
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California DARRELL ISSA, California
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MIKE PENCE, Indiana
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio STEVE KING, Iowa
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM FEENEY, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York JIM JORDAN, Ohio
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Joseph Gibson, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman
MAXINE WATERS, California J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
JERROLD NADLER, New York F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia Wisconsin
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
Bobby Vassar, Chief Counsel
Michael Volkov, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 12, 2007.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Altmire, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of............... 71
Forbes, Hon. J. Randy, ranking minority member, Subcommittee
on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, Committee on
the Judiciary.............................................. 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
McCarthy, Hon. Carolyn, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Healthy
Families and Communities, Committee on Education and Labor. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Platts, Hon. Todd Russell, ranking minority member,
Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities, Committee
on Education and Labor..................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby,'' Chairman, Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, Committee on the
Judiciary.................................................. 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
``Juvenile Justice,'' editorial from the New York Times,
July 12, 2007.......................................... 65
Statement of Witnesses:
Freed, David, Cumberland County District Attorney............ 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
Johnson, Derrick, vice-chair, Arizona Juvenile Justice
Commission................................................. 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Questions for the record................................. 72
Responses for the record................................. 72
Additional submissions:
JJDPA Statement of Principles........................ 83
Internet link to the Coalition for Juvenile Justice
report, ``Childhood on Trial: The Failure of Trying
& Sentencing Youth in Adult Criminal Court,'' dated
2005............................................... 88
Jones, Shannon, former participant in the Community Intensive
Supervision Program........................................ 30
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Additional submissions................................... 88
Lawrence, Hon. Paul, Goffstown District Court, New Hampshire
State Juvenile Justice Advisory Group...................... 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Questions for the record................................. 116
Responses for the record................................. 116
Additional submissions:
Internet link to Coalition for Juvenile Justice 2003
annual report: ``Unlocking the Future: Detention
Reform in the Juvenile Justice System''............ 118
Internet links to Coalition for Juvenile Justice
briefs, parts I and II, ``What Are the Implications
of Adolescent Brain Development for Juvenile
Justice?''......................................... 118
Shepherd, Robert E., Jr., emeritus professor of law,
University of Richmond School of Law....................... 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 34
Questions for the record................................. 118
Responses for the record................................. 119
Woolard, Jennifer L., Ph.D., assistant professor of
psychology, Georgetown University.......................... 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 41
Additional submissions:
``Effects on Violence of Laws and Policies
Facilitating the Transfer of Juveniles from the
Juvenile Justice System to the Adult Justice
System,'' 2007, American Journal of Preventive
Medicine........................................... 120
Internet link to Campaign for Youth Justice report,
``The Consequences Aren't Minor,'' dated March 2007 142
Internet link to International Journal of Forensic
Mental Health article, ``Juveniles Within Adult
Correctional Settings: Legal Pathways and
Developmental Considerations,'' Vol. 4, No. 1, 2005 142
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND
DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT:
OVERVIEW AND PERSPECTIVES
----------
Thursday, July 12, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities
Committee on Education and Labor
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carolyn McCarthy
[chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and
Communities] presiding.
Present from Subcommittee on Healthy Families and
Communities: Representatives McCarthy, Clarke, Shea-Porter,
Grijalva, Sarbanes, Yarmuth, Platts, and Davis of Tennessee.
Present from Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security: Representatives Scott, Johnson, Jackson Lee, Forbes,
Gohmert, Coble, and Chabot.
Also present: Representative Kennedy.
Staff present from Subcommittee on Healthy Families and
Communities: Aaron Albright, Press Secretary; Tylease Alli,
Hearing Clerk; Denise Forte, Director of Education Policy;
Lamont Ivey, Staff Assistant, Education; Deborah Koolbeck,
Policy Advisor for Subcommittee on Healthy Families and
Communities; Lisette Partelow, Staff Assistant, Education;
Rachel Racusen, Deputy Communications Director; James Scholl;
James Bergeron, Deputy Director of Education and Human Services
Policy; Kathryn Bruns, Legislative Assistant; Kirsten Duncan,
Professional Staff Member; Taylor Hansen, Legislative
Assistant; Victor Klatt, Staff Director; Susan Ross, Director
of Education and Human Resources Policy; and Linda Stevens,
Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel.
Staff present from Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and
Homeland Security: Bobby Vassar, Chief Counsel; Rachel King,
Counsel; and Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member.
Chairwoman McCarthy [presiding]. A quorum is present. The
hearing of the subcommittee will come to order.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 12A, any member may submit an
opening statement in writing, which will be made part of the
permanent record.
Before we begin, I would like everyone to take a moment to
ensure that your cell phones and BlackBerrys are on silent. So,
I will give you a second to turn everything off, please--
members, also.
I now recognize myself, followed by the ranking member, Mr.
Platts from Pennsylvania, for an opening statement.
I am pleased to welcome all of you to the Subcommittee on
Healthy Families and Communities joint hearing with the
Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland
Security, chaired by my colleague, Representative Bobby Scott
from Virginia.
We appreciate the subcommittee's participation today and
his personal desire to demonstrate the importance of the
Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act, or J.J.
I would also like to thank my ranking member, Mr. Platts,
my colleague on the Healthy Families Subcommittee, and Ranking
Member Forbes, for their interest and supporting the hearing.
Finally, I want to recognize Chief Joseph Wing, from the
Hempstead Police Department in my district. We met yesterday
with Detective Thomas Doran, talking about the projects that we
have in my district on helping juveniles.
I met with Chief Wing. And also, we talked about Project
CeaseFire, Project Impact and the Nurse and Family
Partnership--some effective juvenile programs they are working
with, with our D.A. in Nassau County.
So, I want to thank you both for being here this afternoon
and thank you for coming down to see me.
Today's hearing serves as an overview of the legislation
and will also offer perspectives for the Subcommittee on
Healthy Families and Communities to consider as we move through
the reauthorization process.
Although this is our first hearing on this topic in
Washington, last month our subcommittee held a hearing on gang
prevention in my district, with Ranking Member Platts and Ms.
Clarke in attendance.
We heard about the challenges faced by law enforcement, the
courts and local communities in dealing with the juvenile
justice system. Ideally, we would like to prevent youth from
entering the juvenile justice system, but we must also look at
how to serve those young people already in the system and
develop ways to help them get involved in their communities
after they have served their time.
J.J. began with a focus on prevention and rehabilitation,
and has shifted its focus towards accountability and
sentencing. Unfortunately, many of us think that is just not
working.
During a trip to Northern Ireland in May, I had the
privilege of meeting a number of young people, that they have
the same rates of crime as we do here. But their system over
there, president with myself, showed me a play that they wrote.
And it happened to be about two young women, young girls. They
were both about 14 at the time.
And it went through where they got into a little bit of
trouble. One judge took one young lady and said, you know, this
is your first offense, and we think that, you know, we want to
work with you. And she did not go to prison.
The other young woman, unfortunately, got another judge,
and he put her into prison. Their paths certainly separated,
but their lives changed dramatically.
The young woman that did not go to prison was doing
community service, got involved in the right agencies and went
on and finished high school, went on to college and certainly
had a productive life.
The other young woman, every time she came out of prison
ended up doing a criminal act. And in the end, unfortunately,
ended up killing someone and ended up going to prison for the
rest of her life.
What the play showed, and what we know in life, depending
on how we handle our young people, that is going to be how
their lives are going to go. And I think that is important for
us to remember as we go through all the testimony that we are
going to be hearing.
Sorry, I adlibbed on that one.
Young people who do not feel connected to society will look
to other sources such as gangs for acceptance, stability,
companionship and a sense of identity.
For these at-risk children and teenagers, we must invest in
their education and their personal development. Communities
must come together to address these challenges. Leaders in
government, law enforcement, education, business and
communities must work with kids, parents and citizens to
address the needs of our young people so they do not enter into
the juvenile justice system.
Far too many youth prevention efforts have fallen short,
and our goal is to reverse that trend.
The overview today will be to educate members on J.J. and
raise questions such as, what is the appropriate federal role
in juvenile justice? Is the coordinating council effective? Do
we need to update the core mandates?
What is research telling us about effective programs and
interventions? What does research into early childhood
development tell us?
We will hear testimony today that will help the
subcommittee answer these questions, as we move to reauthorize
this important legislation.
I want to thank you all for joining us today. And now I
yield to Ranking Member Platts for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. McCarthy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Carolyn McCarthy, Chairwoman, Subcommittee
on Healthy Families and Communities
I am pleased to welcome you to the Subcommittee on Healthy Families
and Communities Joint hearing with the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security, chaired by my colleague,
Representative Bobby Scott from Virginia.
We appreciate his Subcommittee's participation today and his
personal desire to demonstrate the importance of the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act, or ``JJ''.
I would also like to thank Ranking Member Platts, my colleague on
the Healthy Families Subcommittee and Ranking Member Forbes for their
interest in this important hearing.
Finally, I want to recognize Chief Joseph Wing from the Hempstead
Police Department in my district.
I met with Chief Wing yesterday and he told me about Project
Ceasefire, Project Impact and the Nurse and Family Partnership, some
effective juvenile programs they are working on in Nassau County.
Thank you Chief for the hard work you and your officers are doing.
Today's hearing serves as an overview of the legislation and will
also offer perspectives for the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and
Communities to consider as we move through the reauthorization process.
Although this is our first hearing on this topic in Washington,
last month our Subcommittee held a hearing on gang prevention in my
district with Ranking Member Platts and Ms. Clarke in attendance.
We heard about the challenges faced by law enforcement, the courts,
and local communities in dealing with the juvenile justice system.
Ideally, we want to prevent youth from entering the juvenile
justice system, but we must also look at how to serve those young
people already in the system and develop ways to help them get involved
in their communities after they have served their time.
JJ began with a focus on prevention and rehabilitation and has
shifted focus towards accountability and sentencing.
Unfortunately, it may not be working. During a trip to Northern
Ireland, which has had its share of juvenile crime, I saw a play
written about 2 young girls who commit the same crime.
One of the girls received a sentence that didn't involve jail time.
She learned from her mistake and lived a normal crime-free life.
The other girl was sent to prison. While in prison, she became more
involved with the crime world, and there were no efforts to educate or
train her. When she left prison, she was well educated, however--in
crime. She eventually killed another person. Not only was her life
destroyed, but she has destroyed other lives as well. This story
highlights how a single decision in the court system can directly
affect the outcome of a person's life.
We heard similar stories to this at our field hearing from former
gang members, and we need to remember this as we consider JJ. We know
there are factors which will lead to crime. Young people who don't feel
connected to society will look to other sources, such as gangs, for
acceptance, stability, companionship, and a sense of identity.
For these at-risk children and teenagers, we must invest in their
education, and their personal development. Communities must come
together to address these challenges. Leaders in government, law
enforcement, education, businesses, and communities, must work with
kids, parents and citizens to address the needs of our youth so they do
not enter the juvenile justice system.
Far too many youth prevention efforts have fallen short and our
goal is to reverse that trend.
The overview today will educate Members on JJ and raise questions
such as what is the appropriate Federal role in juvenile justice? Is
the Coordinating Council effective? Do we need to update the Core
Mandates? What is research telling us about effective programs and
interventions? What does research into early childhood development tell
us? We will hear testimony today that will help the Subcommittee answer
these questions as we move to reauthorize this important legislation.
Thank you all for joining us today, and I now yield to Ranking Member
Platts for his opening statement.
______
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you and
Chairman Scott hosting this hearing and starting the ball
rolling on the reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act. I also appreciate having Ranking
Member Forbes with us.
To each of our witnesses, we very much appreciate the time
you have taken from your schedules to be here today, and in
preparation of your testimonies and the first-hand knowledge
you bring to this topic. And today's hearing is very much about
us learning from you. And each of you in your respective fields
are, in some fashion, on the front lines of this issue.
We appreciate your participation and the expertise you
bring to us. Your presence will help to ensure that we are more
dutiful and informed as we move forward with reauthorization.
I am going to submit my written statement for the record.
And as we get into introductions, I will recognize one of my
constituents, our district attorney, at the appropriate time.
So, thank you, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Platts follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Russell Platts, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities
Good afternoon. I'd like to welcome each one of you to this joint
hearing entitled ``Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act:
Overview and Perspectives.'' I am pleased that the House Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security is able to join
us today in learning about the very important issue of juvenile crime
prevention.
Over 30 years ago, Congress enacted the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) to coordinate the federal
government-wide response to juvenile delinquency. The JJDPA provides
grants to states so that they can effectively implement juvenile
justice systems within their borders. In order to receive these funds,
states must formulate comprehensive plans of administration that meet
specific requirements outlined by JJDPA. The states then use these
funds to implement community based alternatives to detention,
counseling and mentoring programs, substance abuse prevention programs,
or other delinquency treatment programs.
In addition, JJDPA provides federal grants to programs aimed to
prevent juvenile delinquency through the Juvenile Delinquency
Prevention Block Grant. Block grant funds can be used to encourage
juveniles to stay in school, prevent gang activity, or research new
approaches to prevent school violence and vandalism.
The purpose of today's hearing is to learn more about current
efforts that are being taken to effectively treat juvenile delinquents,
as well as to gain a better understanding of the prevention efforts
employed around the country. It is important that we take the wisdom
that will be shared with us by these experts in the field and use it to
improve the juvenile justice system.
I am glad that we are holding this hearing today and look forward
to hearing testimony from this expert panel. I believe that one of the
most important things that we can do as legislators is to craft
legislation that prevents juvenile delinquency and encourages healthy
child development.
We know that investing in prevention methods now, saves substantial
resources in the future. For that reason, I am a strong advocate for
quality home visitation programs. Home visitation programs connect
nurses or teachers with new families to educate them on healthy child
development and school readiness, as well as connect them to critically
needed services. Home visiting is a bridge that links the resources of
the community with the safety of the home environment, empowering even
the most vulnerable parents to build a better future for themselves and
their children. Research shows that families that participate in home
visitation services rely less on public assistance, have fewer problems
with substance use, and have substantially less involvement with the
criminal justice system. With that, I yield back to Chairwoman
McCarthy.
______
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Platts.
I now yield to the chairman of the House Committee on
Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland
Security, Mr. Bobby Scott, for his opening statement.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would
like to thank you for holding this afternoon's hearing on the
reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act.
Both of our subcommittees have jurisdiction over juvenile
justice. However, the Subcommittee on Crime does not have
jurisdiction until they actually commit a crime. And therefore,
the Crime Subcommittee has an interest in helping the Healthy
Families Subcommittee prevent crime and keep those youths out
of my subcommittee. [Laughter.]
Over 100 years ago, differing needs of juveniles and adults
in the criminal justice system were recognized with the
establishment of separate juvenile courts. This system has
since been confirmed by brain development research showing that
treating juveniles as adults is not physiologically or fiscally
sound.
Since 1974, JJDPA has turned this concept into separate
systems and to national standards for the states. The act
creates two federal agencies--the Office of Juvenile Justice
Delinquency Prevention and the Coordinating Council for
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention--and authorizes
several grant programs, including state formula grants and
delinquency prevention block grants.
Although JJDPA's original focus was on prevention and
rehabilitation, in recent years, juvenile justice policies have
reflected an increasing trend towards punishment and
lengthening incarceration. I hope we can help shift juvenile
justice policy back towards prevention and rehabilitation
programs, which have been proven to reduce crime and save
money.
This shift towards prevention and rehabilitation would be
in line with research-driven crime prevention strategies.
Research has consistently shown that continuum of services can
significantly reduce crime.
Those kinds of services would start with teen pregnancy
prevention, prenatal care, parental training for teen parents,
nurse home visits, early childhood education, things like Head
Start and after-school activities, substance abuse treatment,
dropout prevention and access to college--getting them on the
right track and keeping them on the right track.
Many of these strategies are contained in the state formula
grant program, which requires state juvenile justice agencies
to use this money for a wide variety of programs, including
services that focus on child abuse and neglect, mental health
services and community-based alternatives to incarceration.
In order for states to receive the formula grant money,
they must agree to abide by four, core mandates. These mandates
require states to address the de-institutionalization of status
offenders. They talk about how long and under what conditions
juveniles can be detained and the over-incarceration of
minorities. These mandates were milestone achievements in
juvenile justice.
Unfortunately, in recent years, we have seen an influx of
juveniles into the adult system. And since 1990, the number of
youth in adult jails has increased by over 200 percent.
But research has shown time and time again that treating
more juveniles as adults does not work. At juvenile facilities,
youth offenders receive education and other services, such as
counseling, and the judge may even order family services.
However, juveniles going to the adult system get no such
program, but they do have new role models--the hardcore, adult
criminal offenders.
Moreover, studies show that juveniles in adult facilities
are five times more likely to be sexually assaulted and eight
times more likely to commit suicide than in juvenile
facilities. So, it comes as no surprise that studies show that,
if we treat more juveniles as adults, we will create more
crime, those crimes will be created sooner and are more likely
to be violent.
As we move towards the JJDPA reauthorization in the 110th
Congress, I hope that we can continue using evidence-based
research practices that cost-effectively reduce crime. In
addition, I hope that we can continue to recognize the benefits
of treating youth as youth and not as adults.
So, thank you, Madam Chairwoman for holding the hearing,
and I look forward to the testimony today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Scott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Thank you, Chairwoman McCarthy. I would like to thank you for
holding this afternoon's joint hearing on the reauthorization of the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Both of our
subcommittees have jurisdiction over juvenile justice; however, the
Crime subcommittee doesn't have jurisdiction until after a crime is
committed. Therefore, the Crime subcommittee has an interest in helping
the Healthy Families subcommittee prevent crime and keep these youths
out of the criminal justice system--and out of our subcommittee.
Over 100 years ago, the differing needs of juveniles and adults in
the criminal justice system were recognized with the establishment of
separate juvenile justice courts. This separation has since been
confirmed by brain development research showing that treating juveniles
as adults is not physiologically--or fiscally--sound.
Since 1974, JJDPA has turned this concept of separate systems into
national standards for the states. JJDPA creates two federal agencies--
the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the
Coordinating Council for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention--
and authorizes several grant programs, including state formula grants
and delinquency prevention block grants.
Although JJDPA's original focus was on prevention and
rehabilitation, in recent years juvenile justice policies have
reflected increasing punishment and lengthening incarceration. I hope
we can help shift juvenile justice policy back towards strategies
proven to reduce crime and save money.
This shift towards prevention and rehabilitation would be in line
with research-driven crime prevention strategies. Research consistently
shows that a continuum of services can significantly reduce crime;
these services include teen pregnancy prevention, prenatal care,
parental training for teen parents, nurse home visits, early childhood
education programs like Head Start, afterschool activities, substance
abuse treatment, drop out prevention, and access to college.
Many of these strategies are contained in the state formula grant
program, which requires state juvenile justice agencies to use this
money for a wide variety of prevention programs including services that
focus on child abuse and neglect, mental health services, and
community-based alternatives to incarceration.
In order for states to receive state formula grant money, they must
agree to abide by four core mandates. These mandates require states to
deinstitutionalize status offenders, to outline how long and under what
conditions juveniles can be detained, and to address any over-
incarceration of minorities. These mandates were milestone achievements
in juvenile justice. Unfortunately, in recent years, we have seen an
influx of juveniles into the adult criminal system--since 1990 the
number of youth in adult jails has increased by over 200% .
Research has shown time and time again that treating more juveniles
as adults doesn't work. At juvenile facilities, youth offenders receive
education and other services, such as counseling, and judges can even
order family services. However, juveniles going to adult prison get no
such programs and have new role models--hard core adult criminal
offenders. Moreover, studies show that juveniles in adult facilities
are 5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted and 8 times more
likely to commit suicide than those in juvenile facilities. So it comes
as no surprise that studies show that if we treat more juveniles as
adults, we will create more crime, those crimes will be committed
sooner and are more likely to be violent.
As we move forward with JJDPA reauthorization in the 110th
Congress, I hope we can continue using evidence-based research
practices to cost-effectively reduce crime. In addition, I hope we can
continue to recognize the benefits of treating youths as youths, not
adults. Thank you again, Chairwoman, for holding this hearing and I
look forward to today's testimony on JJDPA is working.
______
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
I now would like to yield to ranking member of the House
Committee on Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and
Homeland Security, Mr. Randy Forbes, for his opening statement.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you,
Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Platts. It is great to be
here today. And I want to thank all the witnesses for being
here.
Certainly, the Juvenile Justice and Juvenile Delinquency
Prevention Act, which was enacted in 1974 and reauthorized in
2002, established an important framework for juvenile justice
in America. And I am pleased that we are going to be looking to
reauthorize the act again and take a meaningful look at how the
act works, what other strategies and approaches might work and
possible revisions to the act.
One of the things that seems clear to us is that the stakes
could never be higher. We are looking at alarming gang rates
across the country now, probably about 850,000 gang members,
25,000 gangs, and they operate in about 3,000 communities
across the country.
At the same time, we realize that we spent about $2 billion
between 2001 and 2004 on things that we described as juvenile
gang prevention programs. A lot of times, what we have got to
do in this committee is try to get apples and oranges and
separate the two of them, because almost everything everybody
says we are going to agree with.
Nobody is going to say that we should not give young people
opportunities and chances. We should do that. Nobody is going
to say we should not have prevention programs. We should do
that.
The question for us is how we strike the right balance
between these programs with the limited number of dollars that
you have to spend on federal--federal dollars that we have to
spend, because we have to strike that balance.
And one of the balances we have to realize is, prevention
programs do not reach everybody. They reach a lot of people,
and we should do those prevention programs. But we have got to
find that mix.
For example, if you take an individual--and some of our
criminal gangs that we have testimony in, where we had 60 to 85
percent of the members who are here illegally--as part of that
gang member, those intervention dollars are not getting to the
people that we want to stop.
And so, for those particular gangs, we have got to ask, how
do we pull down the gang networks? And part of that is doing
prevention programs early on to stop individuals who may want
to be recruited by gangs.
But the other part of it is, how do we formulate the
coalitions between local law enforcement, state law enforcement
and federal law enforcement to rip those recruiting machines
down, which is exactly what some of these gang networks are, so
that we can strike that right balance. And that is what we are
hoping to be able to do today, is to be able to strike that
balance.
And one of the other things. My dear friend from Virginia,
Bobby Scott, will always talk about evidence-based studies. But
I still remember years ago I had a good friend of mine in the
Virginia General Assembly. He was a great trial lawyer. And he
was telling us about a case--and Bobby would know this guy. He
has since died.
But he said he went into a trial one day, and he looked at
the jury. And there were some people on the jury that he knew.
And he was just excited, with his client, came back and sat
down and said, ``We are going to be okay with this trial.''
They go through the trial. And at the end he is doing the
summation and he is telling the jury, ``Now, listen to all the
evidence that has been presented. And when you do, I know you
are going to acquit my client.''
Well, they found his client guilty. And afterwards he was
asking the jurors, especially the one he knew. He said, ``Why
did you let this guy go?''
And the juror said, ``Well, based on the evidence, he was
guilty.''
And he said, ``No, I did not mean all the evidence. I mean
the evidence that I put in that you are supposed to look at.''
[Laughter.]
And that is sometimes the way we all are. We listen to our
evidence and we say, this is an evidence-based program.
But what we have got to try to do is to realize that most
of the people we will hear testify here are right, you know.
And the question, though, is striking the balance and how we
get that balance. And I am just appreciative, Mrs. Chairman,
that you are having this hearing today, and hope we will be
able to strike that right balance.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Randy Forbes, Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
Thank you, Chairwoman McCarthy, Chairman Scott, and Ranking Member
Platts. I appreciate this joint hearing on such an important topic.
The Juvenile Justice and Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act, which
was enacted in 1974, and reauthorized in 2002, established an important
framework for juvenile justice in America.
I am pleased that we are looking to reauthorize the Act again, and
taking a meaningful look at how the Act works, what other strategies
and approaches might work, and possible revisions to the Act.
The stakes could not be any higher--while it is true that the
number of violent crimes committed by juveniles has declined in the
last 25 years, juveniles continue to commit violent crimes at an
alarming rate. Moreover, recent statistics show that youth gang
membership is on the rise.
Gang members today are younger and younger--that is a most
troubling development. Now, we hear about gang recruitment that occurs
with children as young as 8 years old. Young gang members now graduate
in their teens to be violent shooters, violent robbers and carjackers
who terrorize our law-abiding communities. According to recent FBI
crime statistics, nearly one in every three gang homicide murders is
committed by offenders under the age of 18. Gang members know that
juveniles are unlikely to be prosecuted and punished as adults,
especially in the federal system.
According to the most recent survey, gang membership has grown to
750,000--850,000 in 25,000 gangs operating in 3,000 communities across
the country. Conservative estimates show that we spent over $2 billion
dollars between 2001 and 2004 on juvenile and gang prevention programs.
From 1999 to 2005 Congress appropriated over $3.3 billion for juvenile
justice programs. Yet, juvenile gang violence is on the rise, including
the number of gang murders committed by juveniles.
The Juvenile Justice and Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act
created a mix of enforcement, intervention and prevention programs. We
must make sure that the balance is appropriate--meaning that violent
juvenile offenders who commit serious crimes must be removed from the
community. At-risk youth must be identified and effective intervention
strategies must be implemented. We can no longer afford to provide
``feel good'' intervention strategies and programs and hope for the
best. We must ensure that State and local governments provide cost-
effective programs that have been evaluated using valid statistical
techniques and found to reduce juvenile crime.
To me, it makes little sense to waste federal dollars on an
intervention strategy unlikely to succeed. Consider a 15 year-old MS-13
gang member who is an enforcer for this international gang and whether
he really is an appropriate candidate for a juvenile intervention
strategy.
I also am gratified to see the research on the effectiveness of
intervention programs based on graduated sanctions. Whether it is the
drug court, reentry court or juvenile court context, we have seen time
and again research that shows that such programs are cost effective and
reduce the risk of recidivism. I am interested in how such programs can
be expanded in the juvenile justice context.
To be sure, reducing the rate of recidivism among juvenile
offenders should be a high priority for federal, state and local
governments. The burden of a high number of career juvenile offenders
is mind-boggling when you consider the cost of incarceration, the harm
to victims and communities, and the impact on families.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses and working
together on this important issue.
______
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Forbes.
Without objection, all members will have 14 days to submit
additional materials or questions for the hearing record. Let
me introduce our witnesses.
Today we will hear from a panel of witnesses. Your
testimonies will proceed in the order of your introduction.
Now, I wish to recognize the distinguished gentleman from
Arizona, Mr. Grijalva, to introduce our first witness, Mr.
Derrick Johnson.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Chairman
Scott, Ranking Members Platts and Forbes, for this hearing--
indeed, a very important hearing--on the reauthorization of
this very important act.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, as we
explore what works and what does not for youth in our justice
system, looking at juvenile justice as a whole, prevention,
management, and a special and important topic to me that I hope
to work with the committee on, programs and initiatives on re-
entry, which deals with recidivism as much as prevention--very
important.
What do we do with these 200,000 young men and women being
released from our correctional facilities on a yearly basis?
And what programs do we have in place for them, to assure that
they stay in the community and go about leading a quality life
and not return to the process of incarceration?
But today, I honor I have is to introduce Captain Derrick
Johnson, with the Phoenix Fire Department, and vice-chair of
the Arizona State Advisory Group on Juvenile Justice.
Captain Johnson has been a member of ASAG since October
1998, was appointed by then-Republican Jane Hull, and
reappointed by our current governor, Janet Napolitano.
He also serves on the Governor's Task Force on Juvenile
Correction Reform, served on the Governor's Juvenile Justice
Federal Advisory Board from 2003 to 2006.
Throughout his tenure as a civil servant, Captain Johnson
has been dedicated to being an active member of his community
and a champion for child welfare. He has been involved in many
children's welfare issues, such as gang prevention and youth
mentoring programs.
The Arizona Governor's School Readiness Board, he is a
member of, an early childhood development nonprofit
organization, and has served on served on several local and
county government commissions.
I sincerely want to thank Captain Johnson for being here,
for his commitment to youth, and look forward to his testimony.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you.
Now I wish to recognize the distinguished ranking member,
Mr. Platts from Pennsylvania, who will introduce our next
witness, the Honorable David Freed.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a great pleasure
and honor to introduce our district attorney for Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania, David Freed.
Prior to being district attorney, David was first assistant
district attorney in Cumberland County, as well as a deputy
prosecutor in my home county of York County, Pennsylvania.
Through his work in these various positions, he is certainly
well familiar with the juvenile justice system and the
challenges and importance of prevention.
He also is here as an active member of the Fight Crime:
Invest in Kids effort, which is, across the nation, a great
organization of law enforcement officials--district attorneys,
such as David, sheriffs, chiefs of police and others--who, when
I talk about being out there on the front lines, truly know
what is impacting our youth and what will have an impact on
preventing juvenile delinquency.
So, we are delighted, David, to have you here and to have
your expertise shared with the committees.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Platts.
Now I would like to introduce Congresswoman Shea-Porter
from New Hampshire. She is going to introduce our next witness,
the Honorable Paul Lawrence.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you.
I am pleased to introduce the Honorable Paul Lawrence, the
presiding judge of the Goffstown district court in my home
state of New Hampshire, a position he has served in since 1988.
Judge Lawrence received his B.A. degree at the University of
Denver, and also his juris doctorate from the University of
Denver College of Law.
Throughout his impressive career, Judge Lawrence has worked
as an advocate for true social justice for juveniles, with a
real understanding of the special considerations that must be
taken into account when addressing youth in our judicial
system.
In my state of New Hampshire, Judge Lawrence has served
since 1991 on the board of directors for PlusTime New
Hampshire, which provides technical assistance to organizations
and communities for the development of after-school programs.
And we know how essential they are for juveniles.
Since 1994, he has been a member of the State Advisory
Group on Juvenile Justice, which oversees the development of
statewide juvenile justice programs. He has also served as the
co-chair of the New Hampshire Juvenile Detention Alternatives
Initiative, an organization involved in statewide,
comprehensive detention reform efforts.
The judge's efforts on the national level include his
tenure as chair of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, his
continued service as a member of the national steering
committee of the coalition. And further, since 1993, he has
served as a member of the National Council of Juvenile and
Family Court Judges. And we can certainly see where his talents
and where he chooses to place his heart's interest for the
interests of the juveniles.
We certainly thank you for your service, and we are
delighted to have you here today. Thank you.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you.
Our next witness is Mr. Jones. He comes to us from
Pennsylvania. Mr. Jones is an assistant teacher at a parental
stress center, but is here today to share with us his
experience in the Community Intensive Supervision Program, a
program that is an alternate to incarceration.
Those participating in the program remain in their
communities, continue to go to school, complete the community
service, are connected with positive community resources.
As he moved through the program, Mr. Jones mentored younger
and newer entries into the program and completed his high
school. In fact, he graduated with honors.
We are very pleased to have you here with us, and we are
looking forward to your testimony.
I would like to recognize the chairman of the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, a
member of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. Bobby Scott,
to introduce our next witness, Mr. Robert Shepherd.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and it is my pleasure
to introduce Robert Shepherd, emeritus professor of law,
University of Richmond Law School.
Bob Shepherd holds both undergraduate and law degrees from
Washington and Lee University and has truly worked in all
fields of juvenile justice, from the Attorney General's Office
to directing a youth advocacy clinic.
He is well respected in his field and has earned numerous
accolades and awards, including the Juvenile Justice Community
Service Award from the Virginia Juvenile Officers Association
and the Livingston Hall Award in Juvenile Justice from the
American Bar Association.
He is a nationally recognized expert on juvenile justice
law, and I would like to thank him for being with us today to
talk about the importance of integrating research-based
practices into JJDPA, and look forward to his recommendations.
So, Bob, it is good to see you here.
And thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to
introduce him.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thanks, Mr. Scott.
Our last witness today is Dr. Jennifer Woolard. She is an
assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at
Georgetown University. Her current research with juvenile
defendants addresses police interrogation, the attorney-client
relationship and the role of parents in adolescents' legal
decision-making.
She also works with local nonprofit agencies to study
community change and youth violence prevention. Her recent
research collaborations include membership on the John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on
Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice.
She has presented her research findings to a wide variety
of academic, legal and policy audiences, and won several awards
for undergraduate teaching excellence.
We thank you for being here. We thank all of you for being
here.
For those of you who have not testified before this
subcommittee, let me explain our lighting system.
When it is your turn--and certainly, even the members'
turn--you get 5 minutes. That will be a green light. When the
yellow light goes on, that means that you have 1 minute to
finish up.
When you hear me start tapping, I will start tapping
lightly, and then I will get louder. We have to cut you off.
We are going to have votes probably around 4:30, so this
should be good, because we will probably get through all the
testimony and questions by that time. So, again, when we start,
your light will go on.
We will now hear from our first witness, Mr. Derrick
Johnson.
STATEMENT OF DERRICK JOHNSON, VICE-CHAIR, ARIZONA JUVENILE
JUSTICE COMMISSION
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member
Platts. And thank you, Congressman Grijalva, for your
introduction and also for your welcome, and also, the committee
as a whole and subcommittee for listening to us today and
listening to what we have to say about this issue.
Some people have asked me, well, how did a firefighter get
involved in juvenile justice? My experience started with
working in the inner city of Phoenix, and I currently still do,
where I was seeing young people, and unfortunately, as recently
as the last 2 months, have seen four young people who have been
shot to death and also seriously injured.
I wanted to know why this was going on, because not only
were the lives of these children being destroyed, but also
their families and the community.
So, that led me into actually going out and spending time
with the kids and listening to their families and to their
issues, and finding out that a lot of these children were
misinformed. They had certainly had the wrong view of the
world, in the sense that they felt like they were invincible.
And when you looked at the influences involved with these
children--and there is certainly a lot of social, economics and
values and beliefs--what was common to me was that, most
children did not want to be in that process, if they had an
alternative.
That led me to being involved with children's issues, as my
testimony spoke about. And what I found myself looking at was a
systematic way of dealing with these children and these
families.
You could fix a neighborhood. You can maybe even fix a
certain part of the city, but it seemed to just move around and
be very pervasive.
So, when I looked at and was asked by former Governor Jane
Hull to sit on the SAG, I did not know much about it. It said
for state advisory group, and I thought that was kind of a
catchy name, and so, I started looking into it.
What I found out was that the core principles--the four
principles that were very important to this--and what was very
important to me was that it came from a federal level. It just
did not allow states to decide what they wanted to do, because
collectively as a nation, we decided that kids should be
treated differently.
And we may go back and forth on how that should be and why
that should be, but we all agree as a country that kids are
different than adults.
And some of those principles were: to prevent juvenile
delinquency and keep kids out of the criminal justice system--I
think we all know that that, as you go through life, no one
wants to stay in that process their entire life; reduce racial
and ethnic disparities at all points of the system; provide
age-appropriate and developmentally appropriate programs, as
well as punishments, for children; and then also to invest in
the resources, which is our children.
At a state level, what that did--this particular act did--
was it allowed the state advisory groups to be made up of
people across the community. And that is how I actually was
involved in this.
It also requires that there is federal funding for
delinquency programs and improvement in local and juvenile
justice programs, if there is a coordination. And it also
created the OJJDP, the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
The four requirements are DSO, which is de-
institutionalization of status offenders, which simply just
means you cannot lock kids up for things that an adult would do
that would not be considered a crime, such as smoking, truancy,
tobacco use, things like that.
Adult in jail lockup removal. What we found through
research is that, when kids are put in with adults, they are
easily influenced. But they also become victims of adults that
are in the system.
Sight and sound separation, which just means keep kids and
adults away from each other, so they cannot be intimidated, and
they certainly cannot be touched.
And disproportionate minority contact with youth. And that
just meant making sure that kids that are in the system that
are minorities are just treated with equity. It is just as
simple as that.
The money that comes down to the states is very important.
And I wanted to share a few successes that have happened in our
state of Arizona.
We have, through this group, we all collectively look at
this and we decide how these monies should be spent, based on
these programs, and one is alternatives to detention.
In our state, in 2006, approximately 3,400 youth were going
through the system that would have gone through the law
enforcement system, but actually went to detention programs.
And this keeps kids out of the system.
And these were very simple things in the sense that kids
just did not have to go through the criminal system. They could
go through alternatives. And that was good for the family.
General prevention. And out of that, we had 1,500 youths
that were served in these delinquency programs.
Some of the outcomes were that 85 percent of the youths
reported a positive change in their school attendance. Also, 86
percent of the youths served reported a positive change in
their anti-social behavior. And then DMC, and we looked at
doing different practices.
And I wanted to share that with you, just to say that this
is a very important act. I certainly hope that you reauthorize
it, and I would just ask you to support this program.
And that is all I have to say.
[The statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Derrick Johnson, Vice-Chair, Arizona Juvenile
Justice Commission
Introduction
Good afternoon. I am honored to have been asked by Chairwoman
McCarthy to speak on behalf of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act , better known as the JJDPA.
My name is Derrick Johnson and I am Vice-Chair of the Arizona
Juvenile Justice Commission, which is Arizona's State Advisory Group on
Juvenile Justice as required by the JJDPA and which comprises 24
members appointed by the Governor, each of whom has training,
experience and special knowledge concerning the prevention and
treatment of juvenile delinquency and the administration of juvenile
justice. Our membership includes representation from juvenile justice
agencies, other child- and family-serving agencies, private nonprofit
organizations, locally elected officials, citizen-volunteers and youth.
Through the Arizona SAG, I am also a member of the Coalition for
Juvenile Justice (CJJ), which is the national leadership association of
State Advisory Groups under the JJDPA.
I have been a member of the Arizona SAG since 1998. I also serve on
the Governor's Taskforce on Juvenile Corrections Reform and previously
served as Governor Napolitano's appointee to the Juvenile Justice
Federal Advisory Board from 2003--2006. My background, however, does
not begin in juvenile justice.
I am currently a Captain and Paramedic with the Phoenix Fire
Department where I have served for 24 years in the central/downtown
areas of the city. Early in my career, I found myself responding to
homeless children and families in crisis. I would soon learn that there
were an estimated 5,000 children in the Metro Phoenix area who were not
in school because of homelessness. Beginning in the 1990s, I also found
myself responding to a number of homicides of children and youth that
were linked to gang violence. This experience led me to begin looking
at gangs and ways to prevent gang violence.
Thus, in addition to my service with the Arizona SAG, I have been
extensively involved in children's issues such as the development of
the Thomas J. Pappas (Public) School for homeless children in Central
Phoenix, gang prevention and youth mentoring programs, the Arizona
Governor's School Readiness Board and early childhood development non-
profit organizations. I bring my experiences and perspectives on all of
these issues with me as I talk to you about the importance of the JJDPA
and its reauthorization.
Reauthorization of the JJDPA
Established in 1974 by bi-partisan legislation and most recently
reauthorized in 2002, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Act (JJDPA) embodies a partnership between the federal government and
the U.S. states, territories and the District of Columbia (``the
states'').
For more than 30 years, the JJDPA has provided protection to
children and youth who come in contact with the juvenile and criminal
justice systems, transformed the lives of young people and contributed
to historic lows in juvenile crime and delinquency rates nationwide.
Unfortunately, the federal government's wavering commitment to this
partnership--evidenced by a 55% decrease over the last five years in
federal funding to the states for improvement of their juvenile justice
systems--may undo the good work that we have accomplished together and
hinder future advancements and achievements for young people, their
families and our communities.
Therefore, as the 110th Congress approaches the 2007
reauthorization of this important legislation, the Arizona Juvenile
Justice Commission and the Coalition for Juvenile Justice (CJJ) look to
you to affirm the federal-state partnership around juvenile justice and
delinquency prevention and strengthen that partnership so that together
the federal government and the states more effectively prevent and
reduce juvenile delinquency. In doing so, the Arizona Juvenile Justice
Commission and the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, along with 150
organizations under the Act 4 Juvenile Justice Campaign, urge Congress
to adhere to the following four principles:
1. Prevent juvenile delinquency and keep children and youth out of
the juvenile and criminal justice systems;
2. Reduce racial and ethnic disparities at all points with the
juvenile justice system;
3. Provide age- appropriate and developmentally-appropriate
sanctions and interventions for young people who come into contact with
the juvenile justice system; and
4. Invest adequate financial resources in evidence-based programs
and practices that yield immediate and long-term results.
Brief history and overview of the JJDPA
As early as 1909, Congress recognized a role for the federal
government in supporting and improving juvenile justice systems at the
state and local level. This role, which would evolve over the next 60
years, culminated with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) in 1974.
In short, the JJDPA provides for:
1) A state-level juvenile justice planning and advisory system via
the establishment of governor-appointed State Advisory Groups (SAGs)
comprised of volunteer citizens in all U.S. states, territories and the
District of Columbia to determine state needs, craft state juvenile
justice and delinquency prevention plans and meet federal mandates;
2) Federal funding for delinquency prevention and improvements in
state and local juvenile justice programs conditioned upon the states'
compliance with four core requirements/protections (explained in
further detail below); and
3) Operation of a federal agency--the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)--dedicated to training, technical
assistance, model programs, and research and evaluation to support
state and local juvenile justice and delinquency prevention efforts.
Core Requirements/Protections
To be eligible for the Title II state formula funds provided under
the JJDPA, each state must comply with the following core requirements/
protections:
1. Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO). Under Sec.
223(a)(11) of the JJDPA, status offenders--children under the age of 18
who commit acts that if done by an adult would not be considered crimes
such as skipping school, running away, breaking curfews and possession
or use of tobacco and/or alcohol--may not be held in secure detention
or confinement, with a few exceptions. The DSO provision seeks to
ensure that status offenders who have not committed a criminal offense
are not held in secure juvenile facilities for extended periods of time
or in secure adult facilities at all.
2. Adult Jail and Lock-up Removal (Jail Removal). Under Sec.
223(a)(13) of the JJDPA, youth may not be detained in adult jails and
lock-ups with limited exceptions. However, the ``jail removal''
provision does not apply to children who are tried or sentenced in
adult criminal court. This provision is designed to protect children
from psychological abuse, physical assault and isolation.
3. Sight and Sound Separation (Separation). Under Sec. 223(a)(12)
of the JJDPA, when children are placed in an adult jail or lock-up for
any period of time, not matter how limited, ``sight and sound'' contact
with adults is prohibited. This ``separation'' provision requires that
children cannot be housed next to adult cells, share dining halls,
recreation areas or any other common spaces with adults, or be placed
in any circumstance that could expose them to threats or abuse from
adult inmates.
4. Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC). Under Sec. 223(a)(22)
of the JJDPA, states are required to assess and address the
disproportionately high contact of youth of color with the juvenile
justice system at all points of contact--from arrest to detention to
confinement. The DMC provision requires states and local jurisdictions
to gather data to determine whether and what extent DMC occurs and to
address the reasons for disproportionate minority contact and racial/
ethnic disparities.
Funding
Under the JJDPA, three major streams of funding support the
federal-state partnership:
1. The State Formula Grants Program, authorized under Title II of
the JJDPA, supports state efforts to implement comprehensive state
juvenile justice plans based on detailed studies of needs in their
jurisdictions and achieve compliance with the core requirements of the
JJDPA.
2. The Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Program,
commonly known as the Community Prevention Grants Program and
authorized under Title V of the JJDPA, provides funding to the locals
for collaborative, community-focused and community-based delinquency
prevention efforts to reach youth in high-risk situations before they
make poor choices.
3. The Delinquency Prevention Block Grant Program (DPBG), created
during the 2002 JJDPA Reauthorization, but only funded for one year,
was meant to provide funding directly to the local jurisdictions in
order to prevent and reduce juvenile crime including projects that
provide treatment to juvenile offenders and juveniles who are at risk
of becoming juvenile offenders.
In addition, the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program
(JABG), authorized under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
of 2002 and administered by OJJDP, supports state and local units of
government, particularly law enforcement, in their efforts to support
the state plan and strengthen their juvenile justice systems. JABG
provides funding for a variety of different programs, including but not
limited to, gang prevention and anti-bullying initiatives; graduated
sanctions programs that include counseling, restitution, community
service, and supervised probation; substance abuse programs; mental
health screening and treatment; reentry; and restorative justice
programs.
The importance of the JJDPA
The JJDPA has always enjoyed bi-partisan support and is viewed as
legislation that benefits children and youth, families and communities.
At its heart, the JJDPA is a prevention Act. What the JJDPA has
accomplished, it has accomplished quietly. The accomplishments
themselves, however, speak volumes and underscore the importance of the
Act.
First, justice-involved youth are safer because of the core
requirements/protections in the JJDPA. Under the DSO core requirement/
protection, Sec. 223(a)(11), youth charged with non-criminal status
offenses, such as skipping school, running away or breaking curfew, are
kept out of secure facilities, which should be reserved only for those
youth who pose a direct safety risk to themselves and the community.
Furthermore, under the Jail Removal and Separation core requirements/
protections, Secs. 223(a)(12) and (13), youth who are detained in
secure facilities are protected from the psychological abuse, physical
assault and isolation of adult jails where they have been found to be
eight times more likely to commit suicide,\1\ two times more likely to
be assaulted by staff \2\ and 50 percent more likely to be attacked
with a weapon than children in juvenile facilities.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Michael G. Flaherty, An Assessment Of The National Incidence Of
Juvenile Suicide In Adult Jails, Lockups And Juvenile Detention
Centers, The Community Research Forum of the University of Illinois 10
(1980).
\2\ Forst, Martin, Jeffrey Fagan, and T. Scott Vivona. (1989)
``Youth in Prisons and Training Schools: Perceptions and Consequences
of the Treatment-Custody Dichotomy.'' Juvenile and Family Court Journal
9:1.
\3\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the disparate treatment of minority youth is assessed and
addressed because of the JJDPA. Youth of color make up one-third of the
general youth population but two-thirds of youth who come into contact
with the juvenile justice system.\4\ Moreover, studies indicate that
youth of color receive tougher sentences and are more likely to be
incarcerated than white youth for the same offenses.\5\ Under the DMC
core requirement/protection, Sec. 223(a)(22), states are required to
assess and address the disproportionate contact of youth of color at
all points in the justice system--from arrest to detention to
confinement and re-entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Snyder, H., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and
victims: 1999 National Report. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
\5\ Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile
Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report, Washington, DC, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona is a good example of what this core requirement/protection
can accomplish. Between 1991 and 1995, Arizona was one of five pilot
sites to receive training, technical assistance and financial
assistance via an OJJDP-sponsored demonstration project designed to
address disproportionate minority contact with the juvenile justice
system.
Through this partnership, Arizona found evidence of DMC at several
points within our juvenile justice system. We also identified several
potential sources of DMC, including system barriers to effective
parental advocacy on behalf of system-involved youth; inadequate
cultural knowledge and skills among juvenile justice personnel; and
limited communication between minority neighborhoods and juvenile
justice system agencies.
Armed with this information, Arizona has implemented a number of
programmatic and policy changes aimed at addressing the state's
identified DMC challenges. Arizona used grant funds administered
through the Arizona SAG to host mini-conferences geared towards
creating integrated systems across five different agencies. All of this
was accomplished as a result of the guidance, funding and technical
assistance provided under the JJDPA.
Third, under Sec. 201, the JJDPA provides a critical ``home'' for
juvenile justice within federal government for purposes of informing
national policies, objectives, priorities and plans via OJJDP, which
provides guidance, support and oversight to states/territories in
implementing the JJDPA via research, policies and grants to states and
localities to assist in planning, establishing, operating, coordinating
and evaluating projects for the development of more effective
intervention, prevention and systems improvements.
Finally, Sec. 223(a)(3) of the JJDPA helps the states collaborate
with the federal government and across various state agencies to reduce
juvenile crime and delinquency via the State Advisory Groups (SAGs).
The majority of SAGs serve multiple functions, coordinating other
federal and state funding streams for the benefit of children and
youth. For instance, the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission also
serves as Arizona's Juvenile Accountability Block Grant State Advisory
Board as required under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
of 2002, and is responsible for establishing a coordinated plan for
reducing juvenile crime through accountability-based programs.
In addition, the SAGs, individually and collectively, embody models
for collaborative systems change, serve as incubators for cost-
effective innovations that produce optimal outcomes for the prevention
of delinquency and help states develop strategies that work across
various state agencies to meet state and local needs.
For example, in May 2006, the Arizona SAG and the Governor's
Division for Children jointly held a Child Welfare Juvenile Justice
Summit. In Arizona, Mental Health, Behavioral Health, Housing and
Education as well as Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice are major
systems that impact children and families, and are impacted by children
who have suffered maltreatment. Research shows that greater cross-
system coordination and integration is more effective and in the long
term, costs state and local governments and agencies fewer financial
resources.
At our invitation, multidisciplinary teams from each Arizona county
and a state-level team--totaling nearly 250 attendees--gathered
together to participate in a learning and planning Summit to help
promote greater integration in the provision of services to children
and families in their communities. The Summit, supported by funds
administered by the Arizona SAG, led to the official establishment of
the Interagency Coordination and Integration Initiative, which is
currently working to (1) identify youth and families at-risk for
multiple systems involvement earlier, (2) provide more comprehensive
and effective services, and (3) cultivate improved outcomes for
children and youth who are at-risk for, or who have experienced
maltreatment. A blueprint for action will be completed by August 2007.
Strengthening the JJDPA
The last reauthorization of the JJDPA occurred over a six-year
period between 1996 and 2002, and resulted in a few substantive changes
to the Act. It did not, however, fully address continuing and
contemporary challenges and opportunities presented by youth and the
environments in which they are growing up.
As important as it is to reauthorize the JJDPA again, it is as
important to preserve the spirit of the Act and strengthen the Act in
order to sustain and build upon past successes. The challenge is to
develop and diligently administer age-appropriate, developmentally-
appropriate, gender-appropriate and culturally and linguistically
competent interventions and sanctions that truly help young people
avoid and reject risky and harmful behavior and that are adequately
supported with federal funds.
A complete overhaul of the Act is neither desirable nor necessary.
Rather, as the 110th Congress approaches the 2007 reauthorization of
the Act, there are particular strengthening amendments that it should
concentrate on:
First, Congress should place a premium on primary prevention
efforts that proactively and positively shape and develop the character
and choices of children and youth before they are tempted or pressured
to make bad decisions by providing more opportunities for primary
prevention programs and initiatives within the Act and providing the
funding necessary to identify, implement, evaluate and sustain these
programs and initiatives.
The Title V Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention
Programs, commonly known as the Community Prevention Grants program, is
the only federal funding source dedicated solely to the prevention of
youth crime and violence. The grants can be used to fund a wide range
of programs, including mental health assessment and treatment, after-
school activities, mentoring, and tutoring, as well as drop-out, gang,
and substance abuse prevention.
Prevention activities such as those supported by Title V, however,
remain so woefully under-funded that they can reach only a fraction of
the kids who would benefit from them. For example, because of lack of
funding for after-school programs, more than 14 million children and
teens go home from school to an empty house each week. Research shows
that these children are much more likely to drink, smoke, use drugs,
commit a crime, and become a victim of a crime. In FY 2002 and prior
years, Title V received $95 million. In FY 2007, Title V received only
$64 million. While some funding is better than none, a long-term and
sustainable reduction in juvenile crime and delinquency requires
greater, sustained investments.
Second, Congress should strengthen protections for children and
youth under the age of 18, regardless of whether they are in the
juvenile justice system or the adult criminal justice system. Youth who
are charged as adults are not covered by the core protections provided
in Secs. 223(a)(12) and (13)--Jail Removal and Separation--of the
JJDPA. Studies, however, show that regular contact with adults can
result in serious physical and emotional harm to children and youth.
Instead of adult jails, states and counties could place children
and youth, if they pose a risk to public safety, into juvenile
detention facilities where they are more likely to receive
developmentally-appropriate services, educational programming and
supports by trained staff.
Finally, Congress should motivate the states to build upon what
they have learned about DMC and take steps to not only address the
disparate treatment of youth of color who come into contact with their
juvenile justice system but also reduce racial and ethnic disparities
at all points along the continuum, from arrest to detention to
adjudication to reentry.
The current JJDPA supports states in gathering the data necessary
to determine whether and to what extent minority youth suffer disparate
treatment within the system. The next iteration of the JJDPA must
direct major resources to states and localities to implement strategies
with measurable outcomes designed to reduce those disparities. In turn,
OJJDP and the states should report the progress they are making in
reducing such disparities.
Conclusion
The continuing success of effective juvenile crime and delinquency
prevention and intervention depends on Congress strengthening the
provisions of the JJDPA and providing the financial resources needed to
fulfill these provisions to the greatest extent possible. The best
JJDPA for children, youth and communities is a JJDPA that provides the
states, through their respective State Advisory Groups, with the
guidance, training, technical assistance and resources they need to
sustain and create innovative practices that effectively address and
prevent juvenile crime and delinquency.
The Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission and the Coalition for
Juvenile Justice and its national and local partners stand ready to
provide further information, background and input as you deliberate
reauthorization of the JJDPA. As a starting point, I have attached to
my testimony of copy of the ``JJDPA Statement of Principles''
referenced at the beginning of my presentation.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about this
important piece of legislation.
______
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Freed?
STATEMENT OF DAVID FREED, CUMBERLAND COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Mr. Freed. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify.
My name is David Freed. I am the Cumberland County district
attorney in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
I am a member of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys
Association and Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, an organization of
over 3,000 police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors and victims of
violence who have come together to take a hardnosed look at the
research on what keeps kids from becoming criminals.
I am pleased that your committees are looking into what
really works to prevent crime, as Congress considers the
reauthorization of the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act.
While youth crime has been going down for many years, some
cities have seen modest increases in the past 2 years. It is
too early to know whether this is a significant, nationwide
trend, or just typical year-to-year fluctuations.
What we do know is that much of juvenile crime is
preventable.
Title V local delinquency prevention grants and Title II
state formula grants can provide support for evidence-based
prevention and intervention approaches that meet the twin goals
of protecting the public and turning offenders into productive
citizens.
Title V is the only federal funding source dedicated solely
to the prevention of youth crime and violence. The grants can
be used to fund a range of programs, including after-school
mentoring and tutoring, as well as dropout, gang and substance
abuse prevention.
After-school programs during the prime time for juvenile
crime, which is 3 to 6 p.m., are among our most powerful crime
prevention tools. A study of Boys and Girls Clubs in housing
projects found that the projects without the clubs had 50
percent more vandalism and scored 37 percent worse on drug
activity.
Unfortunately, there is a vast unmet need for prevention
programs like these. For example, more than 14 million children
still lack adult supervision after school. We also need
effective responses for kids who are already committing crimes.
Title II can help states and communities expand the range
of options for responding to these juvenile offenders.
Public safety considerations require that some youth be
placed in the custody of the state. For other serious offenders
who do not need lockup, placement in a multi-dimensional
treatment foster care home can be used as an alternative.
This program provides specially-trained foster parents,
supervision by a program case manager and frequent coordination
of services with everyone in the youth's life. This approach
cuts repeat arrests for seriously delinquent juveniles in half.
It is also cost-effective, saving the public $77,000 for
every juvenile treated.
Functional family therapy and multi-systemic therapy are
similar effective models. Unfortunately, only one in seven
young offenders who could benefit from these evidence-based
approaches is currently being served.
Although some areas have started implementing these proven
approaches, federal leadership can encourage their
proliferation and expansion. In reauthorization of this law,
Congress should reject funding cuts and block granting and
increase authorized and appropriated funding, especially for
Title V and Title II.
Direct funding to what we know works, strengthen the Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's role in
funding more research and ensure that the office provides
dissemination, training and technical assistance for
policymakers and practitioners.
Finally, I urge Congress to include in the Education Begins
at Home Act as an additional title for this reauthorization
legislation. The bill would support voluntary, evidence-based
home visiting programs. These programs help new parents learn
skills to promote healthy child development and be better
parents, while also preventing crime.
An example of this is the Nurse Family Partnership Program,
which I have heard mentioned already. It cuts child abuse and
neglect in half, reduces arrests by 60 percent and produces $5
in savings for every $1 invested.
Unfortunately, hundreds of thousands of at-risk families
cannot benefit from these home services.
I recently, personally prosecuted the cases of two murdered
children, Quincy Thomas and Jordan Jackson. By the time the
authorities became involved with these cases it was too late. I
began each of these cases in the hospital with the bodies of
these boys. I ended each case by watching the parents sent off
to state prison.
Early intervention by programs such as NFP could have saved
Quincy's and Jordan's lives, I am convinced.
Prosecutors necessarily focus much of our energy on public
protection, locking criminals away where they cannot victimize
anyone else, and we gladly accept that responsibility. But we
also have a responsibility to support proven prevention
programs.
Early intervention in the lives of children works. Both the
research and my everyday experience prove it.
If we do not invest in proven crime prevention and
intervention for America's most vulnerable kids, too many of
them will grow up to become America's most wanted adults.
Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on how,
through effective reauthorization legislation, Congress can
help to reduce crime and make us all safer. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Freed follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Freed, Cumberland County District Attorney
Representatives McCarthy, Platts, Scott and Forbes and the other
distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and
Communities and the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland
Security:
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. My name is
David Freed and I am the Cumberland County District Attorney in South
Central Pennsylvania, including the towns of Carlisle and
Mechanicsburg. I previously served as First Assistant District Attorney
in Cumberland County and a Deputy Prosecutor in York County. I am a
member of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association and FIGHT
CRIME: INVEST IN KIDS, an organization of more than 3,000 police
chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, and victims of violence, who have come
together to take a hard-nosed look at the research on what keeps kids
from becoming criminals.
I'm so pleased that your committees are looking at what really
works to prevent crime as Congress considers the reauthorization of the
federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, or JJDPA.
While youth crime has been going down for many years, some cities have
seen modest increases in juvenile crime in the past two years. It is
too early to know whether this is a significant, nationwide trend or
just typical year-to-year fluctuations. What we do know is that much of
the juvenile crime is preventable.
As the lead law enforcement officer in my county, I personally
prosecute homicide and other violent felony cases. While this is a key
component of my job, it's the part I like the least. I see too many
young kids whose lives could have been productive and full of promise--
high school graduations, college enrollment and healthy families of
their own. Instead, they are in my courtroom--with far less positive
outcomes and after victims have been harmed.
My years of experience on the front lines in the fight against
crime--as well as the research--show that there are proven prevention
and intervention approaches that help kids get a good start in life and
redirect offending juveniles away from further crime. The Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act's Title V Local Delinquency
Prevention Grants program and Title II State Formula Grants can provide
needed support for these evidence-based prevention and intervention
approaches to reduce recidivism. But Congress needs to ensure that
sufficient funding is authorized and appropriated for these programs
and that funding is directed toward proven programs that both keep kids
from committing crimes in the first place and intervene effectively
when kids start getting in trouble. District Attorneys throughout the
nation recognize the importance of promoting programs that meet the
twin goals of protecting the public and turning offenders into
productive citizens.
Keeping Kids Away from Crime
The Title V Local Delinquency Prevention Grants program is the only
federal funding source dedicated solely to the prevention of youth
crime and violence. Almost 1,500 communities have received Title V
grants since 1994 through a competitive grant process that requires
states and localities to match at least 50% of the grant with cash or
in-kind contributions. To participate in the program, localities must
engage in collaborative, comprehensive planning regarding needed
community-based delinquency prevention efforts. The grants can be used
to fund a wide range of prevention programs, including after-school
activities, mentoring, and tutoring, as well as drop-out, gang, and
substance abuse prevention.
Mentoring and after-school programs funded by Title V help at-risk
youth avoid criminal activity in the first place. In the hour after the
school bell rings, violent juvenile crime soars and the prime time for
juvenile crime begins. The peak hours for such crime are from 3:00 pm
to 6:00 pm. These are also the hours when children are most likely to
become victims of crime, be in an automobile accident, smoke, drink
alcohol, or use drugs. After-school programs that connect children to
caring adults and provide constructive activities during these critical
hours are among our most powerful tools for preventing crime. For
example, a study compared five housing projects without Boys & Girls
Clubs to five receiving new clubs. At the beginning, drug activity and
vandalism were the same. But by the time the study ended, the projects
without the programs had 50 percent more vandalism and scored 37
percent worse on drug activity.
Similarly, a study of Big Brothers Big Sisters found that young
people who were randomly assigned to a Big Brother or Big Sister mentor
were about half as likely to begin illegal drug use and nearly one
third less likely to hit someone compared to those who were assigned to
a waiting list.
There are also a number of proven approaches to reducing drug use
and violence through the schools that could be funded by Title V. For
example, Life Skills Training is a three-year intervention that targets
all middle/junior high school students in 6th or 7th grade, with
booster sessions in the two subsequent years. It is aimed at preventing
gateway drug use: tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana. Teachers deliver the
45-minute sessions: 15 in year one, 10 in year two, and 5 in year
three. The programs seek to provide teens with the information and
skills needed to develop anti-drug attitudes and norms, and to resist
peer and media pressure to use drugs. More than 15 years of research
with the LST program have consistently shown that participation in the
program can cut drug use in half.
Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers, LIFT, shows that
long-term results are possible from a ten-week anti-aggression program.
LIFT instructors offer classroom-based training in social and problem-
solving skills to students, and also train their parents. Children are
rewarded individually and in groups on the playground for practicing
their new aggression-avoidance skills. The program dramatically reduced
aggressive behavior among first graders when measured three years
later. For fifth graders, compared to LIFT participants, students in
schools that did not receive the program were 59 percent more likely to
drink alcohol regularly by eighth grade. The fifth graders left out
were also two times more likely to have been arrested during middle
school than those who received the program.
Unfortunately, there is vast unmet need for prevention programs
like these. For example, more than 14 million children nationwide still
lack adult supervision after school.
Reducing Recidivism through Effective Interventions
Juveniles account for only 16% of all arrests, but they present the
greatest opportunity for effective intervention responses that can help
young offenders get back on track. Once kids have gotten into trouble,
targeted interventions may be needed, such as those funded by Title II
State Formula Grants of the JJDPA. In many jurisdictions, prosecutors
like myself and juvenile court judges are faced with very limited
sentencing (or ``disposition'') options for a delinquency case--either
lock up or probation--and often neither is appropriate in that case.
State Formula Grants can help states and communities to expand that
range of options and ensure that the most effective approach can be
used for each case. By strengthening the juvenile justice system and
deterring youth from committing more serious crimes, Title II State
Formula Grants can make our neighborhoods safer and save lives.
Research shows that the best results in reducing crime are achieved
by targeting the worst offenders. The reason why is straightforward:
one cannot prevent most low-risk juveniles from committing more crimes
because they were not going to do more crimes anyway. Nationally, six
in 10 juveniles brought before a juvenile court for the first time will
not return to court on another charge.
But high-risk offenders are very likely to commit more crimes, and
often. In recent years, there have been approximately 100,000 juveniles
in custody nationwide. The vast majority of these troubled youths will
be released back into the community, with their expected ``prime crime
years'' ahead of them and facing recidivism rates of up to 75%. But it
doesn't have to be that way. A significant amount of research has
identified effective approaches to help young offenders avoid
committing further crimes, thereby enhancing public safety. Effective
screening tools can distinguish chronic and violent offenders from less
serious offenders.
For some repeat and violent juvenile offenders, public safety
considerations require that they be placed in custody of the state.
Simply warehousing high-risk offenders during their time in custody is
not adequate. They need to be required to do the hard work of
constantly confronting and changing their anti-social beliefs and
behaviors. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) uses tested, concrete
methods, such as Aggression Replacement Therapy (ART), to teach teens
to stop and consider the consequences of their actions, to
conceptualize other ways of responding to interpersonal problems and to
consider how their actions will affect others. By learning what
triggers their negative behaviors and by identifying and practicing
more pro-social and effective ways to respond, CBT consistently reduced
repeat crimes among juveniles. Young people in Brooklyn gangs without
ART services had four times the number of arrests of similar young gang
members receiving ART.
For serious offenders who do not need high-security lock-up,
individual placement in a Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC)
home can be used as an alternative. Foster care may sound like a pass
for juveniles who should be paying a more severe price for the crime
they committed. But for teens who are often used to running the
streets, and who see a month in custody as just another chance to
socialize with delinquent friends or learn new criminal behaviors, this
is a more controlled experience and a tough intervention. MTFC provides
specially trained foster parents and ongoing supervision by a program
case manager, as well as frequent contact and coordination of services
with a youth's parole or probation officer, teachers, work supervisors
and other involved adults during and after a youth's out of home
placement. Compared to similar juveniles placed in non-secure group
facilities, the MTFC approach cuts the average number of repeat arrests
for seriously delinquent juveniles in half, and six times as many of
the boys in MTFC as boys in a group home successfully avoided any new
arrest. MTFC is also cost-effective. MTFC saves the public an average
of over $77,000 for every juvenile treated.
Effective interventions that incorporate community sanctions have
also been shown to cut crime. One such program is the Functional Family
Therapy (FFT) program. FFT works to engage and motivate youth and their
families to change behaviors that often result in criminal activity. In
one evaluation, families with troubled youths were randomly assigned to
either a group that received FFT or one that did not. The youths whose
families received FFT were half as likely to be rearrested as the youth
whose families did not receive the family therapy. By reducing
recidivism among juvenile offenders, FFT saves the public an average of
$32,000 per youth treated.
Similarly, the Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) program targets kids
who are serious juvenile offenders by addressing the multiple factors--
in peer, school, neighborhood and family environments--known to be
related to delinquency. One MST study followed juvenile offenders until
they were, on average, 29-years-old. Individuals who had not received
MST were 62 percent more likely to have been arrested for an offense,
and more than twice as likely to be arrested for a violent offense. It
is also more cost-effective than other mental health and juvenile
justice services like residential treatment and incarceration, saving
the public $4.27 for every dollar invested.
In 2002, approximately 150,000 juvenile offenders were placed out-
of-home, and nearly 400,000 others were placed on probation. Some
juvenile offenders must be placed in secure custody to protect public
safety, and many others are first-time offenders who will not become
repeat offenders and therefore are not high-risk enough to justify the
expense and intrusion of the aforementioned programs. But even if only
half of those on probation and half of those placed out of home are
eligible for these effective intervention programs, the number of young
offenders who could benefit from evidenced-based approaches would still
amount to 7 times the 35,000 total currently being served by MST, FFT,
and MTFC. In other words, these programs will have to expand 7 times
their current capacity nationwide before they start running out of
youth who could and should be receiving these services.
Although some states and communities have begun to implement these
proven approaches, federal leadership can encourage their proliferation
and expansion. Our nation must target crime prevention funds toward
kids -that that's the way those dollars to can have the greatest
impact.
Reauthorizing the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
When we know what works to prevent kids from committing crime in
the first place and how to steer them away from crime once they have
committed an offense, it seems silly that we don't fully utilize these
approaches. But many states and communities are not yet able to
adequately fund such efforts, and federal funding falls far short of
meeting the need. In 2002, JJDPA Title V was funded at $95 million,
Title II was funded at $89 million and juvenile justice funding as a
whole equaled about $550 million. In contrast, last year, juvenile
justice programs only received about $300 million, including $64
million for Title V and $79 million for Title II. Federal funding is
currently so limited that my county does not receive any Title V or
Title II money. Unfortunately, the Administration's FY08 budget
proposes to eliminate all of the current JJDPA programs and create a
single, new ``Child Safety and Juvenile Justice'' block grant funded at
a level that is 25% lower than the total FY07 funding for the programs
eliminated.
On behalf of my colleague law enforcement leaders of Fight Crime:
Invest in Kids, I urge Congress to demonstrate its commitment to crime
prevention by rejecting proposed cuts and block-granting, and by
increasing authorized and appropriated funding for federal juvenile
justice and delinquency prevention programs, especially Title V and
Title II, to ensure that more kids who need prevention and intervention
services will have access to them.
I also urge Congress to move reauthorization legislation forward to
enactment that ensures that funding is directed first toward proven,
effective programs and promising programs that are being rigorously
evaluated. Unfortunately, there are many programs that don't work.
Given limited federal, state and local resources, we need to direct
funding toward what we already know works and toward finding out if
new, promising programs have the potential to become model programs
like those I discussed today. The JJDPA should also include performance
standards and outcomes tied to new incentive funds, so that new federal
dollars are tied to states and localities achieving results.
JJDPA reauthorization also provides an important opportunity to
substantially strengthen the leadership role of the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in funding more evaluation
research on promising new approaches in both delinquency prevention and
intervention. Individual local grantees are not able to do rigorous
evaluation using randomized control trials or well-matched comparison
groups. OJJDP needs to provide resources to academics for evaluation.
OJJDP should also provide much-needed dissemination, training and
technical assistance so that state and local policy-makers and
practitioners--including prosecutors--may benefit from the best
information about what works in delinquency prevention and
intervention.
A Recommended Addition to JJDPA Reauthorization
Finally, I urge Congress to add a supplemental provision to this
reauthorization bill. Voluntary, evidence-based home visiting programs
are proven to prevent child abuse and neglect and reduce later arrests.
These programs help new parents learn skills to promote healthy child
development and be better parents.
For example, one program, the Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP),
randomly assigned interested at-risk pregnant women to receive visits
by nurses starting before the birth of a first child and continuing
until the child was age two. Rigorous research, originally published in
the Journal of the American Medical Association, shows the program cut
abuse and neglect among at-risk kids in half. In addition, children of
mothers who received the coaching had 60% fewer arrests by age 15 than
the children of mothers who were not coached. As a result, five dollars
in savings were produced for every dollar invested, according to the
researchers at Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
Other home visiting models also produce positive results. For
example, a randomized control study of the Parent-Child Home Program
found that (of the six out of ten children they were able to follow)
84% of the children finishing the program graduated from high school
compared to 54% of those who did not receive the intervention. Separate
studies have concluded that improving graduation rates reduces crime.
Every year, over 600,000 low-income women in the U.S. become
mothers for the first time, resulting in 1.5 million low-income mothers
(who are pregnant or have a child under the age of two) who are
eligible for NFP at any given time. The program is only able to serve
about 20,000 mothers annually, however, due to a lack of funding. Other
programs serve approximately 400,000 additional families at all income
levels. However, hundreds of thousands of at-risk families across the
country receive no home visiting or dosages of home visiting that are
inadequate to prevent abuse and neglect and later crime. While there is
an NFP program in my county, not all prosecutors, police chiefs and
sheriffs are lucky enough to have this crime-prevention tool already at
work in their jurisdictions. And that program cannot yet reach all of
the eligible, at-risk new mothers.
In my county, two children, Quincy Thomas and Jordan Jackson, have
been murdered within the last five years. I personally prosecuted both
cases. Both families had multiple children and were receiving
assistance on various levels. Both parents had minor criminal records.
However, by the time authorities became involved with each case, it was
too late. I began each of these cases in the hospital with the bodies
of these boys. I ended each case by watching the parents sent to state
prison. I believe that early intervention by programs such as NFP could
have saved the lives of Quincy and Jordan.
I urge Congress to expand and improve this proven crime-prevention
approach by including the Education Begins at Home Act as a title in
JJDPA reauthorization legislation. This approach has proven how
successful it can be in preventing later crime and we need to ensure
more families have access. Please include these provisions in your
reauthorization legislation.
If we do not invest in research-proven crime-prevention and
intervention programs for America's most vulnerable kids, many of them
will grow up to become America's most wanted adults. By failing to
adequately invest in proven crime-prevention and intervention
strategies, Congress is not only failing to promote the well-being of
millions of kids but is also permitting the cultivation of criminals--
jeopardizing the safety of all Americans for years to come.
Thank you for this opportunity to present my views on how--through
effective JJPDA reauthorization legislation--Congress can help to
reduce crime and make us all safer.
______
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Freed.
Judge Lawrence?
STATEMENT OF PAUL LAWRENCE, GOFFSTOWN DISTRICT COURT, NEW
HAMPSHIRE STATE JUVENILE JUSTICE ADVISORY GROUP
Mr. Lawrence. Thank you very much. Good afternoon.
My name is Paul Lawrence. It is my distinct honor to have
been asked by Chairwoman McCarthy to speak on behalf of the
Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act.
I began hearing juvenile cases almost 30 years ago with the
belief that the greatest cure for delinquency is maturation. At
that time, before technology provided images of the brain that
allow us to see its gradual development, extending well into
the mid-20s, it was clear to me that the needs, thoughts,
motivations and behavior of youth differ greatly from those of
fully mature adults.
Now, advancements in neural imagery enable us to take a
look at the actual physical development and transformation of
the brain in all stages of life.
During adolescence, several areas of the brain go through
their final developmental stages and develop greater
complexity, which in turn affects thinking, behavior and
potential for learning and rehabilitation.
Confirmation of my maturation theory--and it is not really
mine alone; others have espoused the theory, as well--can be
found in the business community and to the auto insurance. And
many of us have experienced insuring a son or daughter under
age 25.
But it is quite amazing, at age 25, the actuaries who work
for the insurance companies figured out that the risk
diminishes, and they cut the premium in half. They understood
something, perhaps, about risk and impulsive behavior long
before we thought of it in terms of even juvenile justice.
Judges on the juvenile bench possess considerable power
over the life pathways of young people and their families,
particularly those that are vulnerable, troubled and fragile.
Given this power, what judges do may prove productive and
helpful or, regrettably, cause unintended harm.
Every time a judge shepherds a young person through the
juvenile justice system, she/he must be certain that all steps
have been taken to enhance the use competencies before
imposition of predominantly retributive measures.
In fact, if judges, as well as congressional and federal
decision-makers are to do what is best for children and youth
involved in the courts, we would make a primary commitment in
juvenile justice much like the Hippocratic oath: First do no
harm.
Included in such a commitment would be the following
precepts, all of which are part of the original thinking that
underlies the JJDP Act.
We should strive to keep children and youth out of the
court system and out of institutional settings, particularly
lockups, and whenever possible at home or close to home, school
and community. We should do everything possible to ensure that
any and all court involvement by youth and families is
appropriately limited in scope and effective in producing
healthy outcomes for involved youth.
We must ensure age-appropriate sanctions and supports and
court services, as well as systems that treat children and
youth in ways that are based on the best of what we know about
adolescent development, brain science and the principles of
positive youth development.
Research supported by the MacArthur Foundation has shown
that different brain capacities mature along different
timetables. Competence-related abilities mature by age 16. Yet
capacities relevant to decision about criminal culpability
risk-taking are still maturing into young adulthood.
Second, adolescents are responsible for their behavior, but
not as responsible as adults.
Third, adolescents are still works in progress.
Adolescent brain development science highlights how
critical the core protections of the JJDP Act are in keeping
status offending, non-criminal youths out of lockups and
placing clear restrictions on children and youth in adult
jails, as well as ensuring that we do not needlessly sweep
children of color into the juvenile justice system, because of
systemic and societal racism.
Furthermore, the JJDP Act can be improved, based on the
best of what we know, by directing Title II state formula funds
and Title V state and local prevention funds to programs that
prevent repeated system involvement and show excellent results
in restoring young people to productive home and community
life.
Examples of such programs are: the Juvenile Detention
Alternatives Initiative spearheaded by the Casey Foundation;
Restorative Justice, sponsored in part of OJJDP; and graduated
sanctions, an active program of the National Council of
Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
Regarding use of federal funds under the JJDP Act, Congress
should strongly consider prohibiting the use of federal funds
for ineffective and damaging approaches, such as highly
punitive models, shown to increase rather than decrease re-
arrest and re-offense, including boot camps, scared-straight
programs, excessive use of physical restraint, force and
punishment, over-reliance on transfer and waiver and the
building of large residential institutions.
Since my time is almost up, I would conclude my remarks and
refer you to my lengthier written testimony, the citations as
part of that testimony and accompanying publications.
Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Lawrence follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Lawrence, Goffstown District Court, New
Hampshire State Juvenile Justice Advisory Group
Good afternoon. It is my distinct honor to have been asked by
Chairwoman McCarthy to speak on behalf of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA).
I am Paul Lawrence, the Presiding Justice of the Goffstown District
Court in Goffstown, New Hampshire where I hear, among other things,
juvenile delinquency, CHINS, and neglect and abuse cases. I am also
Immediate Past Chair of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice (CJJ), the
national leadership association of State Advisory Groups under the JJDP
Act. I am Co-Chair of the New Hampshire Juvenile Detention Alternatives
Initiative, past Chair of the state's the Committee to Study the
Establishment of Dispositional Guidelines in Juvenile Delinquency Cases
and a member of the New Hampshire Supreme Court's Judicial Education
Services Committee. Also of relevance to today's hearing is my
membership in the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
I began hearing juvenile cases in 1979 with a belief that the
greatest cure for delinquency is maturation. At that time, before
technology provided images of the brain that allow us to see its
gradual development extending well into the mid-20s, it was clear to me
that the needs, thoughts, motivations and behavior of youth differ
greatly from those of fully mature adults. Now, advancements in neuro-
imagery, such as Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), coupled
with targeted research, enable us to take a look at the actual physical
development and transformation of the brain at all stages of life.
During adolescence, several areas of the brain go through their final
developmental stages and develop greater complexity, which in turn
affects thinking, behavior and potential for learning and
rehabilitation.\i\
Judges on the juvenile bench possess considerable power over the
life pathways of young people and their families--particularly those
that are vulnerable, troubled and fragile. Given this power what judges
do may prove productive and helpful, or regrettably, cause unintended
harm. Every time a judge shepherd's a young person through the juvenile
justice system, he/she must be certain that all steps have been taken
to enhance the youth's competencies before imposition of predominantly
retributive measures. In fact, if judges--as well as congressional and
federal decision makers--are to do what is best for children and youth
involved in the courts we would make a primary commitment in juvenile
justice much like the Hippocratic Oath: first, do no harm. Included in
such a commitment would be the following precepts, all of which are
part of the original thinking that underlies the JJDP Act:
We should strive to keep children and youth out of the court system
and out of institutional settings--particularly lockups; and whenever
possible at home or close to home, school and community;
We should do everything possible to ensure that any and all court
involvement by youth and families is appropriately limited in scope and
effective in producing healthy outcomes for the involved youth;
We must ensure age-appropriate sanctions and supports and court
services, as well as systems that treat children and youth in ways that
are based on the best of what we know about adolescent development,
brain science and principles of youth development.
On June 11, 2007, I heard Dr. Laurence Steinberg of Temple
University and Director of the MacArthur Research Network on Adolescent
Development and Juvenile Justice, speak at the Coalition for Juvenile
Justice Summit on the JJDP Act. He cited several implications of his
Network's research which are worthy of consideration in the
reauthorization of the JJDP Act.
First, different brain capacities mature along different
timetables:
Competence-related abilities mature by age 16;
Yet, capacities relevant to decisions about criminal culpability
are still maturing into young adulthood.
Second, adolescents are responsible for their behavior, but not as
responsible as adults:
Self-control is still developing and easily disrupted by
emotionally or socially arousing situations;
And, adolescents need support, structure and adult supervision.
Third, adolescents are still works in progress:
Most will mature out of reckless and impetuous behavior by their
early 20s without any intervention;
So, it is vitally important that involvement with juvenile justice
system not derail their transition into productive adulthood.\ii\
Adolescent brain development science underscores the mission of the
court, as a helping hand for youth and families designed to help them
heal and build their strengths and means to contribute to society. It
highlights how critical the core protections of the JJDP Act indeed are
in keeping status offending and non-criminal youth out of lock-ups and
placing clear restrictions on placing children and youth in adult
jails, as well as ensuring that we do not needlessly sweep children of
color into the juvenile justice system because of systemic and societal
racism.
Furthermore, the JJDP Act can be improved based on the best of what
we now know, by directing Title II (State Formula Funds) and Title V (
State and Local Prevention Funds) to programs that prevent repeated
system involvement and show excellent results in restoring young people
to productive home and community life, such as alternatives to pre-
adjudication detention, restorative justice and graduated sanctions.
Alternatives to Detention
Nationwide, the youth confined in pre-trial/pre-adjudicative
detention include an alarmingly high census of fragile youth with
serious emotional, behavioral and substance abuse issues, and youth of
color.\iii\ The number of youth who reside in detention centers on an
average day is estimated to be more than 27,000, and has grown 72
percent since the early 1990s--despite declines in juvenile offending.
It is estimated that as many as 600,000 children and teens cycle
through secure detention each year.\iv\
My colleague, Bart Lubow, who directs the Juvenile Detention
Alternatives Initiative for the Annie E. Casey Foundation, reports,
``When you talk to judges, prosecutors, or other juvenile justice
professionals, many of them say things like, `We locked him up for his
own good.' Or, `We locked him up because his parents weren't
available.' Or, `We locked him up to get a mental health assessment.'
But none of these reasons are reflected in statute or professional
standards.''
Detention reform efforts, on the other hand, are evidenced-based
efforts to reverse the unnecessary and harmful flow of youth into
locked detention who could be more effectively served at home or in a
community-based setting. In communities as diverse as New York City and
Pima County (AZ) and the states of North Dakota and New Hampshire
juvenile justice practitioners have found that keeping youth out of
secure detention accrues many benefits for youth and families--
including better mental health assessment and treatment, greater and
stronger connections with school, family and community, and a reduction
of racial/ethnic disparities by guarding against more punitive
treatment of youth of color as compared with their white
counterparts.\v\
Restorative Justice
Drawing upon international models from New Zealand, Australia and
Native Canada, a new way of thinking about and addressing juvenile
offending emerged in the mid-to-late 1990s, known variously as balanced
and restorative justice, victim-offender mediation and family group
conferencing. The essential idea of balanced and restorative justice is
that repairing harm, as it relates to juvenile wrongdoing and
offending, is pursued within a three-point balance of the needs of 1)
victims, 2) offenders and 3) communities.
Active participation of victims, victims' families, offenders and
offenders' families and community members make the process work. Agents
of the court and other child- and family-serving advocates and
professionals facilitate, support and enforce reparative
agreements.\vi\ Studies from the United States and other countries cite
significant benefits to both offenders in terms of reducing recidivism
and to victims and survivors in terms of enhancing their sense of well
being and healing.\vii\
Graduated Sanctions
Graduated sanctions programs utilize a continuum of disposition
options for delinquency reduction. The term ``graduated sanctions''
implies that the penalties for delinquent activity should move from
those that are limited in their scope and intrusion into the lives of
youth to those that are highly restrictive, in keeping with the
severity and nature of the offense committed. In other words, youth who
commit serious and violent offenses should receive more restrictive
sentences than youth who commit less serious and nonviolent offenses.
However, for graduated sanctions programs to fulfill their promise of
delinquency reduction, they must ensure that the right juveniles are
connected to the right programs at the right time. Types of sanctions
typically include:
Immediate sanctions, targeted toward less serious non-
chronic offenders;
Intermediate sanctions, appropriate for juveniles who
continue to offend following immediate interventions; youth who have
committed more serious felony offenses; and some violent offenders who
can benefit from supervision, structure, and monitoring but not
necessarily incarceration;
Secure care, appropriate for serious violent, chronic
offenders; and
After care, appropriate for offenders transitioning back
into the community following secure care.
An OJJDP-funded study of existing graduated sanctions systems found
them to be more effective and less costly than juvenile
incarceration.\viii\ According to researchers at the University of
Virginia, ``The graduated sanctions approach has many proven benefits:
reduced cost, increased accountability by the juvenile and the
community; and enhanced responsiveness to a juvenile's treatment
needs.'' \ix\ Moreover, graduated sanctions are seen as a useful tool
in the pursuit of ``restorative justice,'' supporting the process of
reconciliation that holds offenders accountable through making
amends.\x\
Funding Under the JJDP Act
Regarding use of federal funds under the JJDP Act, Congress should
strongly consider prohibiting the use of federal funds for ineffective
and damaging approaches such as highly punitive models shown to
increase, rather than decrease re-arrest and re-offense, including boot
camps, scared straight programs, excessive use of physical restraint,
force and punishment, and the building of large residential
institutions.\xi\
In addition, when crafting State Three-Year Plans for delinquency
prevention, the State Advisory Groups are in an ideal position to
recommend the use of JJDP Act funds for programs and practices that
emphasize due process, positive youth development and adolescent brain
development research, and restoration of an offender's relationship to
society. In the current iteration of the JJDP Act too many ``core
purpose areas'' are listed as possible uses for federal funding in
Section 223 describing the requirements for State Plans. Regrettably,
some ``core purposes'' have little to do with effective support for
compliance with the core requirements or the promotion of best
practices. Please consider ways to trim back the current laundry list
of divergent possibilities so as to emphasize and elevate compliance
with the core requirements and initiatives that strive to limit a young
person's court involvement, out-of-home placement or any sort of
confinement while ensuring community safety.
Conclusion
In closing, I wish to leave with you copies of three publications
from the Coalition for Juvenile Justice: two addressing adolescent
brain development and implications for juvenile justice and the JJDP
Act, as well as the Coalition's report on detention reform, supported
by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. I was proud to serve as an expert
advisor on all of these publications. I also wish to avail myself to
you should you have any further questions. Many thanks for the
opportunity to speak before you today.
endnotes
\i\ Beatrice Luna, ``Brain and Cognitive Processes Underlying
Cognitive Control of Behavior in Adolescence,'' University of
Pittsburgh, Oct. 2005.
\ii\ See www.juvjustice.org/conferences--4.html and ``Findings from
the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and
Juvenile Justice.''
\iii\ Coalition for Juvenile Justice, ``Unlocking the Future:
Detention Reform in the Juvenile Justice System, 2003.
\iv\ Ibid.
\v\ Coalition for Juvenile Justice, ``Unlocking the Future:
Detention Reform in the Juvenile Justice System, 2003.
\vi\ Bazemore,G., and M Umbreit and OJJDP. ``Conference, Circles,
Boards and Mediations: Restorative Justice and Citizen Involvement in
the Response to Youth Crime,'' 1999.
\vii\ Ibid.
\viii\ Wilson, J.J., and J.C. Howell. ``Comprehensive Strategy for
Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Program Summary.''
Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, 1993.
\ix\ Redding, R.E. (2000). ``Graduated and community-based
sanctions for juvenile offenders.'' Juvenile Justice Fact Sheet.
Charlottesville, VA: Institute of Law, Psychiatry, & Public Policy,
University of Virginia, 2000.
\x\ National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Juvenile
Sanctions Center Training and Technical Assistance Center, ``First
Monday,'' June 2005, http://www.ncjfcj.org/images/stories/delinquency/
june%202005.pdf.
\xi\ Mendel, Richard A. and American Youth Policy Forum, ``Less
Hype, More Help: Reducing Juvenile Crime, What Works--and What
Doesn't,'' 2000 and ``Less Cost, More Safety: Guiding Lights for Reform
in Juvenile Justice,'' 2001.
______
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you, Judge.
Mr. Jones?
STATEMENT OF SHANNON JONES, FORMER PARTICIPANT IN THE COMMUNITY
INTENSIVE SUPERVISION PROGRAM
Mr. Jones. Hello. My name is Shannon Jones. I am 18 years
old. I live in the Garfield community, located in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
It is a great honor to be here today to speak on behalf of
the CISP program, the Community Intensive Supervision Program,
CISP.
I will speak today, both of the collective experience of my
peers in the program, as well as my own perspective of what the
CISP has done for me.
The program operates 7 days a week, from 3:30 to 11:30,
Monday through Fridays, and on Saturdays and Sundays it is from
2:00 to 10:00.
The times at which the youth are there are 3:30 to 9:00.
Depending on behavior, they can stay later.
Not only do they monitor us by the centers, but we have to
wear electronic bracelets around our ankles, so they know when
we are leaving the house and when we enter.
There were several aspects of this CISP that was able to
help me complete the program, one of which was my primary. This
position is called a community monitor. The good thing about
that was, he was an African-American male, as most of my
counselors are.
The other good thing about that was they were from the same
community as we are, so that makes it a lot easier to
understand them.
I think it is because they, too, know what it is like being
in the inner-city and a young, black male. They were able to
support, guide and encourage us every day so I can be the best
possible me. That comes from the pledge we have to recite every
day.
``Today I pledge to be the best possible me. No matter how
good I am, I know I can do better.''
It is longer, but I wanted to also say, because we live in
our homes and attend our own schools, it gave us the
opportunity to practice the skills that CISP helped us develop.
When I first came into the CISP, I was not attending school
daily, and I had Cs, Ds and Es on my report card. But because I
had to turn in sign-in sheets that the teacher would write our
progress on daily and encourage me to do better in school,
because I did not want to be held accountable for negative
behavior in school.
I did what I was supposed to, and I was able to bring my
grades up to As and Bs, and I graduated this past June from
Peabody High School with honors.
One of my other problems was I like to get high. I was high
when I came into the program. This means that I was tested
positive for marijuana use.
There were drug and alcohol counselors in each center to
help us understand the impact of drugs. My counselor's name was
Little Marvin. He helped me out a lot. The program offers their
own drug and alcohol support meetings.
In these meetings, we would hear stories from local members
of Narcotics Anonymous about how they started using drugs and
how they developed bad lifestyles. I was able to see that a lot
of them started out by smoking weed, and then they moved into
harder drugs.
I did not want this to happen to me, so I stopped using.
We were drug tested randomly, every week. And if you tested
positive for drugs, you were held accountable.
What also helped me a lot was the things I did to keep
myself busy and involved in positive things. We were supposed
to get 100 hours of community service in order to get out of
the program.
We helped kids of murder victims get toys from a local toy
store. We helped paint a women's shelter. We passed out flowers
and did a lot of cleaning parks, lots and streets in our
community.
After the CISP basketball league, I volunteered supervising
younger kids in the after-school program. I was able to get a
job with them, and now I work as a full-time assistant teacher
with the kids.
Other clients get jobs through Abraxas WorkBridge. This
gave me skills I needed to survive in my community, by helping
me realize the importance of thinking and being responsible for
my own actions.
I had to make choices every day. CISP means change. I know
kids who were in institutions that are still thinking and
behaving the same way they did before they were sent to
placement. They did not change. Everything we learned is tested
the moment we walk out of the doors.
They also allow us to come back for support, encouragement
and guidance, and to enjoy some of the recreational activities.
If I was in placement, how would I or anyone else reach to
these stairs and to help us out through our communities?
I would like to thank you all for listening to me today.
[The statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
Prepared Statement of Shannon Jones, Former Participant in the
Community Intensive Supervision Program
Good morning. My name is Shannon Jones, I'm eighteen years old. I'm
pleased to have the opportunity today to share my story with you. On
January 7, 2007, my life changed for the better because that was the
day that I was committed to the Community Intensive Supervision Program
(CISP) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Although I will speak from my own
experience, I am also here to represent the experiences of the other
youth whose lives have been positively impacted through their
participation in CISP.
I want to start by describing the program that has changed my life.
CISP was started in 1990 and is run by the Juvenile Section of the
Family Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. It
serves as both an alternative to institutionalization and an aftercare
program for those youth who have been subject to institutional
placements. CISP offers programming, including drug screening, in five
neighborhood centers during the afternoon and evening, seven days a
week. CISP also electronically monitors the youth at night. CISP's
staff are traditional probation department personnel and
paraprofessional ``Community Monitors'' who live in the same
neighborhoods where we live.
The CISP Program is designed to reach male juvenile offenders (ages
10-18) from the targeted neighborhoods who are on probation, continue
to recidivate and would be institutionalized but for the existence of
this alternative. In other words, young men like me. Property offenders
make up for the majority of youth placed into the CISP Program but
other youth are also eligible. Since the CISP Program is neighborhood
based, a youth must live in one of the designated neighborhoods to be
placed in CISP. One of the most important parts of the CISP program is
that we remain in our own communities, continue to attend our own
schools, and are introduced to positive community resources. All the
kids who participate in CISP are required to complete community
service, which is important because it makes us feel like a positive
part of the community.
Today I want to talk about how CISP changed my life. I was
committed to CISP in January and I spent six months participating in
the program. When I entered CISP, I had a D-average in school and I was
at risk of ending up in a juvenile correctional facility. Although I
thought about college, it didn't always seem within reach. Being a part
of CISP helped me to bring up my grades high enough that I graduated
with honors and I plan to attend the community college of Allegheny
county next spring. In the meantime, I'm working with children at a job
I got through my volunteer work with CISP.
When I was in CISP, I continued to go to my school everyday. I had
to submit regular progress reports from my teachers to CISP, and
knowing that my counselors at CISP were going to see my grades pushed
me to work harder and do better in class. I would be picked up right
after school everyday and taken to a CISP site. There I had the
opportunity to participate in a range of programs, like Maleness to
Manhood, Victim Awareness, Thinking Errors, Self-Assessment, and the
Drug and Alcohol program. One of the programs that had the most impact
on me was the Drug and Alcohol program. I remember that they took us to
meet with recovered addicts, and hearing their stories made me think
about how my drug use affected not only me and my future but also the
people around me. I'm clean now, I no longer use illegal substances,
and I plan to stay that way because I've seen what can happen to
addicts and I know that I've got a better future ahead of me.
On the last Thursday of every month, CISP also invited our family
and friends in to meet with our counselors. This was important because
CISP treated the people in our life like they were a part of our
rehabilitation, and this means that I have support outside of the
program as well as in the program.
CISP not only gave me the opportunity to improve myself, it also
made me take a more active role in my community. We spent every weekend
doing community service by cleaning up our neighborhoods and local
churches. In the six months that I was a part of CISP, I contributed
100 hours of community service. Even today when I walk past the areas
that I helped clean, I feel a responsibility to keep those areas clean.
My neighborhood feels like a community now, not just the place where I
live. I think that this was possible because CISP keeps young people in
their neighborhoods instead of sending them somewhere else. Every time
I leave my home, I can be reminded of the work I did to improve my
community.
CISP also provides jobs for young people through the Workbridge
program. Those youth who have restitution to pay can use the money that
they earn from these jobs to pay that restitution. I started at the
parental stress center as a volunteer, but this became a real job after
I graduated from high school. Part of what I like about my job is that
I am serving as a mentor to other young people. I like knowing that I'm
helping young people just the way the CISP staff helped me.
One of the things that I am always going to remember about CISP is
the constant support I got from the staff. Every time I came to the
CISP center, I could count on the staff encouraging me to better
myself. They didn't put me down or make me feel bad about myself,
instead they always pushed me to be a better person and I wanted to be
a better person to make them proud. I knew that as long as I was trying
to improve, they would support me.
I want to take this time today to encourage you to support other
programs like CISP. I'm not the only young person CISP has helped, and
I think that similar programs will help other youth as well. I've come
a long way in six months and I have a bright future ahead of me. Maybe
I would have gotten here without CISP, but I also know that being a
part of CISP helped me become a positive force in my community. You
have the ability to help other young people like me become more
productive members of our communities, and I hope that you take this
opportunity to help start and fund other programs like CISP.
I want to thank you for taking the time to listen to me today.
______
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
Professor Shepherd?
STATEMENT OF ROBERT SHEPHERD, JR., EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF LAW,
UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND SCHOOL OF LAW
Mr. Shepherd. In contrast to Mr. Jones, as I was introduced
as an emeritus professor of law, that means I have been around
a long time.
As a matter of fact, the first time I went into a juvenile
court, it was as a lawyer, before In re Gault made it a
constitutional requirement.
I have been asked to give a brief overview of the important
role of research in informing us regarding the development of
public policy on juvenile justice.
In the past 20 years, a great deal of research has been
undertaken and published on the risk and protective factors
influencing the behavior of young people. And much of that has
been funded by Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
money.
We also know considerably more about the development of the
adolescent brain and the impact of its immaturity on judgment
and impulse control.
We need to draw on this research in advising state and
local communities about what works and what does not work in
addressing risky and criminal behavior by youth, and in
providing technical assistance to them in implementing policies
and programs that are affective.
Let me give two brief illustrations of how this can be
done.
First, every piece of research that has been done on the
practice of transferring children from juvenile court to adult
court tells us that this is a practice that should be used in
only the most exceptional cases, because it is wrongheaded and
counterproductive.
Young persons tried and incarcerated as adults have higher
recidivism rates when released. They re-offend sooner, after
they are returned to the community, and their repeat offenses
are more serious than for similar youth retained in juvenile
court for the same behaviors.
Second, research tells us that young persons who engage in
illegal sexual behavior are far more amenable to rehabilitative
treatment than their adult counterparts. And there are
generally at very low risk for engaging in such activity as
adults, unlike adult pedophiles.
And yet federal and state policies increasingly treat them
as miniature molesters, and require their registration in sex
offender registries and impose mandatory minimum sentences on
them.
There are many more examples. And I especially refer you to
the recent report of a Centers for Disease Control task force
and the early report in October of 2004, issued by a state-of-
the-science panel for the National Institutes of Health on what
works and does not work when dealing with children who get in
trouble.
2007 is not only the year for reauthorization of the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, it is also the
40th anniversary of the historic Supreme Court decision in In
re Gault, extending the protections of due process to
juveniles.
And a fitting way to celebrate that milestone would be to
authorize a strengthened Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act and mandate a new commitment on the part of the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to a
meaningful collaboration with the state advisory groups in this
unique partnership created in the 1974 act between the federal
government and the states through the state advisory groups
appointed by the governors.
That way, we can truly realize the promise embedded in
Gault, in providing meaningful justice for juveniles, and at
the same time real safety for our communities.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Shepherd follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert E. Shepherd, Jr., Emeritus Professor of
Law, University of Richmond School of Law
Madam Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am Robert E. Shepherd,
Jr., Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Richmond Law School
in Virginia, and a former Chair of the Juvenile Justice Committee of
the American Bar Association. I am also a long-term member and leader
with the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, a national group consisting of
representatives of the State Advisory Groups created pursuant to the
Juvenile justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. I am here to present
testimony on ``The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act:
Overview and Perspectives'' and I thank you for the opportunity to
speak to you about this important piece of legislation and the issues
it addresses.
That Act, originally enacted more than thirty years ago, has
contributed greatly to the prevention of delinquency, to early
intervention in the suppression of delinquency, to treating delinquent
behavior and rehabilitating delinquent youth so as to prevent future
delinquency, and to ensuring humane treatment of these young people in
the juvenile justice system. The Act, and its programs, is still the
best possible federal vehicle for protecting society from antisocial
behavior by children and adolescents and for enabling these youth to
become good citizens and successful adults. It also creates a unique
partnership between agencies of the federal government and leaders in
the juvenile justice field in the states and localities as an integral
part of the structure of the Act. A partnership which calls on the
Congress and the agencies under the Executive Branch to work
cooperatively with the Governors and the Governor-appointed State
Advisory Groups on juvenile justice in a meaningful dialogue and in
response to state and local concerns.
I have been asked to give a brief overview of juvenile justice and
what research shows are the best practices in dealing with at-risk and
delinquent behavior among youth. Obviously, there are time constraints
that make it impossible to address these issues in any depth, but I
will attempt to highlight the most significant issues involving youth
either in, or at risk of entering, the juvenile justice system as a
beginning to the work of the Congress in reauthorizing the JJDP Act.
The incidence of juvenile crime
Recent data show a dramatic reduction in the rate and seriousness
of juvenile delinquency in the past ten or twelve years, contrary to
the dire predictions of many ``experts'' whose ominous writings shocked
legislators into abandoning the core principles of the juvenile system.
Those principles, separating delinquent youth from hardened criminals,
treating youth as developmentally different from adults, and viewing
young people as being inherently malleable and subject to change in a
rehabilitative setting, are still fundamentally sound. Indeed, as we
have learned more from the developmental and brain research in recent
years, we know better what does work in turning around these young
lives and correcting their behavior. There has been a slight upswing--
barely 2 percent--in violent crime in the past year but it is not
uniform across all categories of offending, and it may be aberrational
rather than the beginning of a trend. (See Butts & Snyder, 2006)
Transfer or placement of juveniles in adult courts
One issue that needs to be addressed in the reauthorized JJDP Act
is the increased use of transfer to adult court of juveniles, a
practice that is unwise and contrary to much evidence regarding the
implications of transfer or certification. Several recent studies, by
researchers in Florida, Minnesota, New York and New Jersey, and
Pennsylvania, are consistent in showing that youth transferred to adult
court and tried as adults had higher recidivism rates, they re-offended
sooner after release from adult institutions, and their repeat offenses
were more serious than similar youth retained in juvenile court for the
same offenses in the same or comparable jurisdictions. (Lanza-Kaduce,
Frazier, Lane & Bishop, 2002; Fagan, 1991; Mayers, 2003; Podkopacz &
Feld, 1996; Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2005) Thus, treatment as an
adult created a greater risk for community safety in the long term than
did juvenile treatment. A Miami Herald study of the Florida experience
in 2001 concluded that ``[s]ending a juvenile to prison increased by 35
percent the odds he'll re-offend within a year of release.'' (Greene &
Dougherty, 2001)
Juveniles incarcerated in adult correctional institutions are also
at greater risk of assaults, both sexual and physical. Studies show
that such youth are five times as likely to report being a victim of
rape, twice as likely to be beaten by staff, and 50% more likely to be
assaulted with a weapon than youth in juvenile facilities and they are
eight times more likely to commit suicide. (Audi, 2000; Forst, Fagan &
Vivona, 1989) Judges should have broad discretion in sentencing
adolescents, even when they are tried and treated as adults. Juveniles
involved in delinquent activity frequently have less culpability than
the adults they are associated with in such behavior, they may be a
lookout rather than a triggerman, and yet much legislation enacted in
the past two decades denies juvenile courts the power to discriminate
among different levels of involvement and different kinds of behavior.
As Bob Schwartz of the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia is fond of
saying, Oliver Twist, the ``Artful Dodger,'' Bill Sikes, and Fagin were
not equally culpable in their criminal activity in Dickensian London,
but they are treated as such in many state laws and some federal
legislation.
Two very recent reports highlight the dangers in trying and
treating juveniles as adults in the courts and in corrections. The
Campaign for Youth Justice gives an outstanding overview of the issues
in its March report entitled THE CONSEQUENCES AREN'T MINOR: THE IMPACT
OF TRYING YOUTH AS ADULTS AND STRATEGIES FOR REFORM (Campaign for Youth
Justice, 2007), and the Task Force on Community Preventive Services of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reinforced the
recommendations in an important report published in the American
Journal of Preventive Medicine in April. The CDC task force in
particular criticized the belief that the fear of adult treatment had a
deterrent effect on youth behavior and agreed with the research on
enhanced post-release offending by young people tried as adults.
(McGowan et al, 2007)
Detention reform and DMC
Two issues that have received a lot of attention in the states and
from private foundations have been the disproportionate contact between
the processes of the juvenile and adult justice systems and minority
youth and the overuse of secure detention facilities for young people
awaiting trial. The Annie E. Casey Foundation has worked with several
states and many localities in reducing the use of secure placements by
the judicious use of objective assessment instruments in determining
who should be locked up awaiting trial, either because they are high
risks for flight or for re-offending if they remain free in the
community. And, since minority youth tend to be detained in
disproportionate numbers, these new strategies help to address DMC
issues. Likewise, a greater focus in the Act on transfer or placement
in adult courts may have a beneficial impact on DMC problems because
policies that increase the transfer of juveniles to adult court also
have a disproportionate impact on children of color. Recent studies
have shown that more than seven out of every ten youth admitted to
adult facilities across the country were youth of color, and minority
youth are more likely to be treated as adults that white youth charged
with the same offenses. (Poe-Yamagata, 2000; Ziedenberg; Males &
Macallair, 2002; Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2005)
Language should be included in the Act to encourage states to
reduce the number of children unnecessarily or inappropriately placed
in secure pretrial detention. The new language should encourage states
to enact legislation that requires that secure pretrial detention be
based on the criteria of public safety and risk of flight from the
court's jurisdiction, set and adhere to guidelines for expedited case
processing, and encourage states to develop and use appropriate
alternatives to secure pretrial detention for juveniles who pose no
immediate risk of public safety or risk of flight. An alarmingly high
number of juveniles accused of crime are detained in secure detention
centers before trial although they have been charged with only
nonviolent, relatively minor offenses. Many of these are youth who have
untreated drug abuse or mental health problems or are minority youth.
Secure pretrial detention in these cases is both costly and detrimental
to the youth. Juveniles placed in alternative pre-trial programs
benefit from better mental health assessments and treatment and
stronger connections with family, school, religious, and community
supports.
Gangs
Much attention has been given to the incidence of gang-related
violence and the involvement of young people in these gangs and their
activities. Transfer to adult court and the use of mandatory minimum
sentences have often been advocated for impacting on youth gang
activity. However, the research does not support the efficacy of either
of these approaches and placing juveniles in adult facilities largely
dominated by gangs would seem to exacerbate the problem. A report
released in 2004 by Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, a law enforcement-
based group, points to the effectiveness of many current programs in
preventing gangs--at the local and state level--and in interdicting
violent gang activity. That report, CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE: ARRESTING
GANG VIOLENCE BY INVESTING IN KIDS, offers much useful advice about
programs that work with the help of federal investment in anti-gang
programs through the JJDPA and other entities.
Sex offenders
Sex offenders seem to have become the modern equivalent of lepers
and there is a tendency to lump juveniles in with adults who prey on
young children when it comes to harsh punishments and mandatory
registration laws. However, research does not support the inclusion of
adolescents in such strategies since juveniles who commit illegal
sexual behavior are amenable to treatment and rehabilitation and they
are a very heterogeneous population that should not be lumped with
adults, and they should be processed through the juvenile justice
system. (Pierce and Bonner, 2004) The National Center on Sexual
Behavior of Youth at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center,
an OJJDP project, has been responsible for much of this research and
these conclusions, and Frank Zimring at the University of California
Law School, Berkeley, has published research that reinforces their
findings and recommendations. (Zimring, 2004)
Both the Center and Professor Zimring have pointed to the extremely
low incidence of re-offending by young people who engage in illegal
sexual behavior. (See also Association for the Treatment of Sexual
Abusers, 2006)
Effective prevention strategies and treatment of juvenile offenders
We have more research-based information today about what works and
what doesn't work in preventing delinquent behavior and in treating
juvenile offenders who have violated the law. In October of 2004, the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) convened an independent ``state-of-
the-science'' panel for a conference to address the important issues of
preventing violence and related heath-risking social behaviors in
adolescents, and the panel issued a significant report of importance to
all those who make policy governing juvenile programs, and it is rather
remarkable that this report has not received more attention than it
has. The panel concluded that ``get tough'' programs that rely on
``scare tactics'' for the purpose of preventing children and
adolescents from engaging in violent behavior are not only ineffective,
but may actually make the problem worse. The panel, which consisted of
thirteen distinguished experts from a variety of disciplines, and which
was charged with assessing the available evidence on preventing
violence and other risky behaviors on the part of adolescents, released
its report that same month summarizing its assessment of the current
research.
The panel found that many residential ``get tough'' programs,
including group detention centers, boot camps and other similar
residential programs, often exacerbate existing problems among
adolescent youth by grouping those with delinquent tendencies together,
where ``the more sophisticated instruct the more naive.'' Similarly, it
also concluded that practice of transferring increasing numbers of
juveniles to the adult criminal justice system noted above also can be
counterproductive, resulting in greater violence among incarcerated
youth and increased recidivism when they are ultimately released.
The panel concluded that ``a number of intervention programs have
been demonstrated to be effective through randomized controlled
trials.'' and it spotlighted two particular programs that it found are
clearly effective in reducing arrests and out-of-home placements:
Functional Family Therapy, and Multisystemic Therapy. Among the
significant characteristics that these two programs had in common are a
focus on developing social competency skills, a long-term approach
rather than a ``simple'' short-term ``fix,'' and the involvement of the
family as well as the youth in the program. The two programs maintained
positive results for nearly four years after the treatment ended.
Several other programs were identified that were classified as
``effective with reservation,'' meaning that they had only internal
rather than external randomized controlled trials: Big Brothers Big
Sisters (reductions in hitting), Multidimensional Treatment Foster
Care, Nurse Family Partnership (reduction in incarceration), Project
Towards No Drug Abuse (reduction in weapon carrying), Promoting
Alternative Thinking Strategies (reduction in peer aggression), and
Brief Strategic Family Therapy (reduction in conduct disorder,
socialized aggression). The Evidence Report/Technology Assessment
accompanying the panel conclusions contains probably the most extensive
bibliography as of October, 2004, of the existing literature on
violence prevention and treatment with a useful analysis of the studies
and programs. (AHRQ Publication No. 04-E032-2 (October 2004))
The importance of research and its dissemination under the JJDP Act
As the unique partnership between the federal government and the
states relates to research on best or promising practices, I urge the
Congress to consider ways to provide resources for field-based and
field-strengthening research and evaluation that will refine and expand
the array of best and evidence-based practices in delinquency
prevention, intervention and treatment. Issues that states are hungry
to address include the following among others:
effective approaches for diverse cultural and linguistic
groups, as well as rural populations;
innovations to guard against bias and racial/ethnic
disparities;
proactive approaches to truancy prevention;
ways to reduce school referrals to law enforcement;
effective approaches for positive family engagement;
analyses of what youth are being sent to adult criminal
court and what happens to them in that system; and
proven approaches to community and school reintegration
for youth who have been recruited into criminal street gangs.
Please also look to strengthen the implementation of Part 5653 Sec.
243 of the JJDP Act which addresses research, demonstration and
evaluation and authorizes the OJJDP administrator to ``conduct,
encourage, and coordinate research and evaluation into any aspect of
juvenile delinquency, particularly with regard to new programs and
methods which seek to strengthen and preserve families or which show
promise of making a contribution toward the prevention and treatment of
juvenile delinquency.'' Very explicit language is now included, yet
most of the functions in this section are not being addressed. Perhaps
because the OJJDP Administrator is given too much discretion to direct
the limited resources now appropriated and designated for research
under the JJDP Act to topics and questions that have little to do with
the goals of the Act.
Therefore, please consider simple language changes in the JJDP Act
to state that the OJJDP Administrator shall rather than may provide
support for research, replication and high fidelity adaptation of
evidenced-based practice models, across a wide range of racial, ethnic,
geographic and societal circumstances--urban and rural, both in and
outside of institutional settings for applications with many
populations, girls, Native American youth, Youth in the U.S.
territories, Latino youth, African American youth, and others. Insist
that the research and findings be made widely available to the public
and backed-up with training and technical assistance to the parties
principally charged with JJDPA implementation--state advisory group
members and state juvenile justice specialists.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Again, speaking as a long-time member of a State Advisory Group and
as one active in both the Coalition for Juvenile Justice and the
Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice, I urge you to ensure a
vibrant, rehabilitatively-focused ``home'' for juvenile justice within
the U.S. Department of Justice at OJJDP--with an administration guided
by experts and whose actions are both timely and transparent to the
public.
As cited in the recent Congressional Research Service Report (April
2007) on the JJDP Act, the Act itself has ``trended away from having
the rehabilitation of juveniles as its main goal'' turning instead,
along with the majority of states, toward a counter-productive emphasis
on increased punishment. Simultaneously, OJJDP rules and regulations
for states to receive federal justice grants have increasingly
prohibited staff and state juvenile justice advisors from developing
appropriate policy and practice models in communication with elected
officials.
Since 2002, juvenile justice appropriations to the states--that
support important priorities under the JJDP Act such as:
continuums of care;
alternatives to detention;
effective prevention initiatives;
and restorative justice have fallen by nearly 50% and the
federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP),
which has recently failed to advocate for its own purposes, has seen
its budget slashed to one-fifth of its former status.
In addition, with effective leadership and oversight by Congress,
OJJDP's Federal Coordinating Committee on Juvenile Justice can be more
effective to develop cross-system and cross-agency integration of
programs, policies and services in education, employment, child
welfare, children's mental health and substance abuse prevention.
Effective and state-responsive leadership at OJJDP would also
undoubtedly raise concerns about why OJJDP has disengaged from and
disavowed the Coalition for Juvenile Justice--which serves as the
national leadership association for the State Advisory Groups--as
called for in Section 5633 (f)(Part A-E) of the Act itself. It has been
damaging to prevention and intervention efforts and the promotion of
best and promising practices in delinquency prevention to allow the
OJJDP Administrator to ignore the letter and the spirit of the statute.
Thank you for your attention and for your resolve to address these
continuing issues presented by juvenile justice. This year is not only
the year for reauthorization of the JJDP Act, it is also the fortieth
anniversary of the United States Supreme Court's historic decision in
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), in which the basic guarantees of due
process were extended to youth in juvenile and family courts. A timely
and thoughtful process for making needed amendments and reauthorizing
the Act would be a fitting way to celebrate that anniversary. And the
reauthorization process has always been the occasion for meaningful
bipartisan cooperation and collaboration, and that would be pleasant as
well.
references
Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, REPORT OF THE TASK
FORCE ON CHILDREN WITH SEXUAL BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS (2006).
Audi, Tamara, ``Prison at 14: Teenage Girls Serve Time with Adult
Inmates,'' Detroit Free Press, July 10, 2000.
Butts, Jeffrey A. & Howard N. Snyder, TOO SOON TO TELL: DECIPHERING
RECENT TRENDS IN YOUTH VIOLENCE (Chapin Hall Issue Brief,
University of Chicago, 2006)
Campaign for Youth Justice, THE CONSEQUENCES AREN'T MINOR: THE IMPACT
OF TRYING YOUTH AS ADULTS AND STRATEGIES FOR REFORM (2007)
Coalition for Juvenile Justice, CHILDHOOD ON TRIAL: THE FAILURE OF
TRYING AND SENTENCING YOUTH IN ADULT COURTS (2005).
Fagan, Jeffrey, THE COMPARATIVE IMPACTS OF JUVENILE AND CRIMINAL COURT
SANCTIONS ON ADOLESCENT FELONY OFFENDERS (National Institute of
Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, 1991)
Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE: ARRESTING GANG
VIOLENCE BY INVESTING IN KIDS (2004).
Forst, Martin, Jeffrey Fagan & T. Scott Vivona, `` Youth in Prisons and
Training Schools: Perceptions and Consequences of the
Treatment-Custody Dichotomy,'' 40 Juvenile & Family Court
Journal (1989).
Greene, Ronnie & Geoff Dougherty, ``Kids in Prison: Tried as Adults,
They Find Trouble Instead of Rehabilitation,'' Miami Herald,
March 18, 2001.
Lanza-Kaduce, Lonn, Charles E. Frazier, Jodi Lane & Donna Bishop,
JUVENILE TRANSFERS TO CRIMINAL COURT STUDY: FINAL REPORT
(Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2002).
Males, Michael & Daniel Macallair, THE COLOR OF JUSTICE: AN ANALYSIS OF
JUVENILE ADULT COURT TRANSFERS IN CALIFORNIA (Building Blocks
for Youth, 2000).
Mayers, David L., ADULT CRIME, ADULT TIME: PUNISHING VIOLENT YOUTH IN
THE ADULT CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM (Sage Publications, 2003).
McGowan, Angela, Dr Robert Hahn, Dr Akiva Liberman, Dr Alex Crosby, Dr
Mindy Fullilove, Dr Robert Johnson, Dr Eve Moscicicki, Dr
LeShawdra Price, Dr Susan Snyder, Dr Farris Tuma, Jessica
Lowry, Dr Peter Briss, Dr Stella Cory, Dr Glenda Stone, Task
Force on Community Preventive Services, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, ``Effects on Violence of Laws and
Policies Facilitating the Transfer of Juveniles from the
Juvenile Justice System to the Adult Justice System,'' 32 (4S)
American Journal of Preventive Medicine S7-S28 (2007).
National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference,
PREVENTING VIOLENCE AND RELATED HEALTH-RISKING SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
IN ADOLESCENTS (2004).
Pierce, Keri & Dr Barbara Bonner, ``Adolescent Sex Offenders: 10
Essential Questions Answered,'' Juvenile and Family Justice
Today 16 (Summer, 2004).
Podkopacz, Marcy R. & Barry Feld, ``The End of the Line: An Empirical
Study of Judicial Waiver,'' 86 Journal of Criminal Law &
Criminology 449 (1996).
Poe-Yamagata, E., AND JUSTICE FOR SOME (National Council on Crime and
Delinquency, 2000).
Ziedenberg, Jason, DRUGS AND DISPARITY: THE RACIAL IMPACT OF ILLINOIS'
PRACTICE OF TRANSFERRING YOUNG ADULT OFFENDERS TO ADULT COURT
(Building Blocks for Youth, 2002).
Zimring, Franklin, AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY: LEGAL RESPONSES TO ADOLESCENT
SEXUAL OFFENDING (2004).
______
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you, Professor.
Dr. Woolard?
STATEMENT OF JENNIFER WOOLARD, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF
PSYCHOLOGY, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
Ms. Woolard. Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to
speak with you all this afternoon.
Today, briefly, I would like to share with you some of what
behavioral science research can contribute to this policy
discussion about our responses to youth.
First, adolescents are developmentally different from
adults in ways that are critically relevant to our discussion
of delinquency and crime.
This will not be a news flash to many parents of
adolescents, or those of who remember our own adolescence, that
kids are different. But I am here to say that the news is, this
is not only based in personal experience or stereotype, but in
science.
The advances in behavioral and brain research already
mentioned support this fundamental tenet of the juvenile
justice system and the JJDPA.
To illustrate, I will focus briefly on two major aspects of
adolescents' brain and behavior functioning.
The socio-emotional network of the brain refers to systems
responsible for emotion, rewards, social processing of
information, which we know undergo major changes in early
adolescence at the same time that we see behaviors that include
increased sensation-seeking, increased and easier emotional
arousal in young teens and increased attentiveness to social
information and the influence of peers.
So, adolescence is characterized by a social-emotional
system that is easily aroused and highly sensitive to social
feedback.
At the same time, adolescence is characterized by a still
immature cognitive control system. Although intellectual
ability peaks by about age 16, the capacity for planning,
future orientation and the ability to regulate oneself involve
portions of the brain that continue to develop well into young
adulthood.
These areas, sometimes called the CEO of the brain,
activate during what we might consider mature or deliberate
thinking--the abilities to identify and consider future
consequences, understand possible sequences of events and
control impulses.
As a result, adolescents are less able to control impulses,
less able to resist pressure from peers, less likely to think
ahead, and more driven by the thrill of rewards.
Moreover, the effects of immaturity are probably even
greater outside the control of the laboratory. Compared to
adults, juveniles' cognitive capacity is undermined by the
socio-emotional system I was talking about in particular
circumstances--circumstances that are not controlled, not
deliberate and not calm, circumstances that likely encompass
much of the adolescent delinquency risk.
Theories suggest that with maturation to adulthood comes
the integration of these two systems, bringing their influence
into greater balance and perhaps contributing to the reduction
of risky behavior that we see in adulthood.
Now, let me be clear. The advances in brain imaging
techniques are exciting and offer windows into the structure
and function of the brain that we could only dream about.
However, this research is still at its early stages. I
cannot definitively tell you that certain regions of the brain
are directly responsible for risky behavior, immature thinking
or delinquent acts.
What we can tell you, however, is that our initial brain
research is consistent with the decades of behavioral research,
documenting important differences in the cognitive capacities,
psychosocial development and behavior of adolescents compared
to adults.
Now, there are certainly adults who engage in risky
behavior or act immaturely. They crucial distinction based on
developmental research, though, is that adolescents as a class
are more likely to demonstrate these deficiencies due to
normative development that is incomplete. Most will mature into
law-abiding, productive adult citizens.
As a result, the research I describe on developmental
differences challenges policymakers and practitioners to sort
and manage a young population that can appear simultaneously
adult-like and immature.
So, what guidance can developmental research provide?
I believe that the body of behavioral and brain research
calls into question assumptions made by some that juveniles are
simply miniature adults, because they are capable of committing
certain offenses. Prior to age 16, they are different
intellectually and emotionally. After age 16, they are still
different emotionally.
While many laws allowing or requiring juveniles to be tried
as adults use age-based determinations, we really need to
consider developmental maturity.
The importance of separating youth from adults in
correctional settings cannot be overemphasized. Used for a
shortened time perspective, for example, can mean that the same
amount of time in isolation for a disciplinary infraction can
have a more severe or excessive impact on youth than it does
adults.
One study comparing youth in the adult system to the
juvenile system found that juvenile sanctions had an affect on
youths there, because they gained something--skills or hope.
Adult sanctions use reported tended to have an effect, because
they cost them something--a loss of hope, safety or respect.
It is incumbent upon us to ask questions about outcomes
that extend beyond recidivism to pathways of positive
development, and the JJDP emphasis on prevention is crucial.
These findings support the importance of a developmentally
appropriate system that simultaneously works to prevent and
reduce offending, while offering the opportunity for youth to
follow a successful and productive developmental pathway.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Woolard follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jennifer L. Woolard, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
of Psychology, Georgetown University
Madame Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee on Healthy
Families and Communities, and the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and
Homeland Security, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this
afternoon about the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. As
a developmental and community psychologist who specializes in
adolescence and the law I share with you some of what behavioral
science research can contribute to the policy discussion about
responses to youth.
First, adolescents are developmentally different from adults in
ways that are critical to behaviors that are relevant to the justice
system. Although the belief that adolescents are different may appear
patently obvious to parents of adolescents or those of us who recall
our own youth, the critical point here is that advances in behavioral
and brain research support a fundamental tenet of the juvenile justice
system itself--that these differences are critical to behaviors
relevant to the justice system. In my brief time I will focus on two
major aspects of adolescents' functioning--what my colleague Laurence
Steinberg calls the cognitive control network and the socio-emotional
network.
The socio-emotional network refers to brain systems responsible for
emotion, rewards, and social processing. Imaging research shows that
these brain regions undergo major changes in early adolescence that are
related in part to hormonal changes of puberty. These changes coincide
with characteristics of adolescence such as increased sensation-
seeking, increased/easier emotional arousal, and increased
attentiveness to social information. So, adolescence is a time
characterized by a socio-emotional system that is easily aroused and
highly sensitive to social feedback.
At the same time, adolescence is characterized by a still-immature
cognitive control system. When we talk about the cognitive system we're
not just talking about intellectual ability, which does increase
throughout childhood and adolescence but really reaches its peak at
about age 16--perhaps disappointing news to those of us well beyond
those years. We're also talking about planning, future orientation, and
the ability to regulate oneself. These critical abilities involve
prefrontal and anterior cingulate portions of the brain that continue
to develop well into young adulthood. These areas are responsible for
what we might consider mature or deliberate thinking--the abilities to
identify and consider future consequences, understand possible
sequences of events, and control impulses.
As a result, adolescents are less able to control impulses, less
able to resist pressure from peers, less likely to think ahead, and
more driven by the thrill of rewards. Adolescents' psychosocial
functioning, even at the age of 18, is significantly less mature than
that of individuals in their mid-20s. Moreover, the effects of
immaturity are probably even greater outside the control of a
laboratory. For example, under conditions of emotional arousal or
stress juveniles' cognitive capacity to think like adults is undermined
by that socioemotional system. Risky behavior may be produced by these
competing systems but in adolescence it's not a fair fight--the
socioemotional system has an advantage in the circumstances that are
not controlled, deliberate, and calm--circumstances that may encompass
much of adolescent delinquency. Theory suggests that with maturation
comes the integration of the two systems, bringing their influence into
greater balance and perhaps contributing to the reduction in risky
behavior we see in adulthood.
Let me be clear--the advances in brain imaging techniques such as
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imagine are exciting and offer windows
into the structure and function of the brain. However, research is
still at the early stages. We cannot definitively tell you that certain
regions are ``responsible'' for risky behavior, immature thinking, or
delinquent acts. It cannot be used to evaluate individual development,
assess guilt or innocence, or give a probability of recidivism or
responsiveness to treatment. It cannot tell us where adolescence ends
and adulthood begins. What it does do, however, is tell us that our
initial brain research is consistent with the decades of research
documenting important differences in the cognitive capacities,
psychosocial development, and behavior of adolescents compared to
adults.
The research on developmental differences challenges policymakers
and practitioners to sort and manage a young population that can appear
simultaneously adult-like and immature. Because it is a period of broad
and fundamental change, adolescence is a time of incredible diversity
within and among youth. Individuals may differ from each other, but the
same adolescent may be more or less advanced in various specific
capacities. For example, he may be able to think in quite sophisticated
ways, but be emotionally immature. Also, age is not a consistent marker
of maturity. Two fifteen-year-olds may vary widely in their physical
appearances, cognitive abilities and social experiences. Adolescents
face common developmental tasks but approach them in different ways and
at different rates; variability is the norm. Out of this variability,
we know that most adolescents mature into law-abiding, productive adult
citizens. So, what guidance can developmental research provide?
I believe the body of behavioral and brain research calls into
question assumptions made by some that juveniles are simply ``miniature
adults'' because they are capable of committing certain offenses. For
example, while many laws allowing or requiring juveniles to be tried as
adults facilitate categorical distinctions based on physical age, the
expressed rationales for transfer legislation are tied to developmental
maturity--which are often not equivalent. If the historical intent of
transfer laws were met, i.e., the removal of a small number of serious
offenders who are unamenable to treatment or pose a serious risk to
public safety, one might argue that the youth who end up in the
criminal justice system indeed represent the mature, hardened criminal
for whom development differences are nonexistent or irrelevant.* In
contrast, the expansion of transfer mechanisms has resulted in a
larger, more heterogeneous population with many for whom that
maturation is likely not yet complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Although even in this situation, it is not clear that these youth
would be fully mature in the ways described above. The combination of
serious crime with perceived lack of amenability or risk to public
safety is neither a necessary nor sufficient guarantee of mature
development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reality of managing young offenders it is not simply a matter
of adjusting existing adult programs and practices; rather, it requires
a qualitatively different approach. The importance of separating youth
from adults in correctional settings cannot be overemphasized. Youths'
foreshortened time perspective, for example, can mean that the same
amount of time in isolation imposed for disciplinary sanctions for
adults can have a more severe or excessive impact on youth. One study
comparing the perceptions of youth transferred to the adult system with
those retained in the juvenile system found that over 60% of the youth
rated prison as having a negative impact on their attitudes and
behaviors, in part because staff treated them negatively or
apathetically. Youths reported that juvenile sanctions had an effect
because they gained something (e.g., skills, hope, services); adult
sanctions tended to have an effect on attitudes and behavior because
they cost something (e.g., loss of hope, safety, respect).
It is incumbent upon researchers and policymakers to ask questions
about outcomes that extend beyond recidivism to include pathways of
development (e.g., appropriate relationship formation, individual
capacities) and positive engagement in the larger society (e.g.,
employment, contributions to society). I applaud your interest in these
issues and encourage you to consider the resources that developmental
research can offer through systematic theory and evidence. These
findings, at a minimum, support the importance of a developmentally
appropriate juvenile justice system that simultaneously works to
prevent and reduce offending while augmenting the opportunity for youth
to follow a successful and productive developmental pathway.
______
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you.
And I appreciate all the testimony.
Being that we only get 5 minutes also to ask the questions,
make our statement and to receive your answers, it is always
hard when you have a panel that is offering so much
information.
So, I guess what I will say to the whole panel, if you
could, on very short answers, if you have them, is that, as we
go through the reauthorization, you are all experts in your own
little way on dealing with juvenile justice.
What do you think is probably the most important thing that
we, as members of Congress, that are going to be doing the
reauthorization--we always know it is money; we already know
that--but what other areas do you think that we need to work
on?
Mr. Johnson, could you start off?
Mr. Johnson. Madam Chair, I really believe that the first
thing that you could do is put a premium on prevention efforts,
regardless of what that is.
As the people have said here today, prevention is really--
and it is something that I have found changes people's lives,
whether it is in medicine, mental health and so forth.
The other thing I think you could do, and probably the
strongest thing you could do is make sure that the office of
OJJDP has the ability to provide states with the technical
assistance and the support they need to bring this out to a
broader level of people.
Chairwoman McCarthy. My background before I came here was a
nurse. So, prevention has always been my key word on almost
everything that I do here, with education and everything else.
Mr. Freed?
Mr. Freed. I would suggest that you demand information on
what works, and fund that. Fund the most effective programs
that people can describe to you that work.
Early intervention to me is the key, whether it is after a
child commits his or her first offense, or whether it is
before.
I mean, I spend too much time seeing people come through
the system, going back in jail. I can name you families in town
and in the county that they keep coming through the system.
There are some people we are not going to reach. We need to
reach those kids before they get in there, or the first time
they get in there.
So, I would say, as much intervention as possible, as early
as possible.
Mr. Lawrence. Specifically, Madam Chair, in the current
iteration of the JJDP Act, too many core purpose areas are
listed as possible uses for federal funding in Section 223,
describing the requirements for state plans.
Regrettably, some core purposes have little to do with
effective support for compliance with core requirements or the
promotion of best practices.
Please consider ways to trim back the current laundry list
of divergent possibilities, so as to emphasize and elevate
compliance with the core requirements and initiatives that
strive to limit a young person's court involvement out of home
placement or any sort of confinement while ensuring community
safety.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you, judge.
Mr. Jones?
Mr. Jones. I think that there should be more programs like
the CISP all over the United States, because everybody makes
mistakes. And not only should you punish people, but at least
give them a chance and teach them ways to better themselves.
Because where I am from, you see a lot of things. And
usually you follow your environment, you adapt to your
environment.
And this program, it is a good way to have everyone--it is
a good way to show everybody that there is another way to do
things, and you can get whatever you want, but there is a legal
way to do it.
I think this program is very good for people who are like
me.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
Professor?
Mr. Shepherd. Well, I certainly agree with what others have
said, and especially the fact of strengthening OJJDP and
increasing congressional oversight to make sure that what is
communicated to the states is evidence-based.
In light of the anniversary of Gault, and as a law teacher,
I think emphasis on the competency of counsel is very
important. Another hat I wear is as chair of the Virginia
Indigent Defense Commission.
And we have spent 2 years developing standards of practice
for lawyers in juvenile court. And they were promulgated on
April 1st, and govern every lawyer who practices in juvenile
court in Virginia.
We are one of only two states that have done this, and I
would like to see OJJDP directed to help develop similar
standards of practice that can then be tailored in each state
to local practice and raise the bar for representation of
children, not only on what happens in the courtroom, but on
programs that work.
A lawyer that knows what works, even if the juvenile is
found guilty, that kid is going to be a round peg placed in a
round hole.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you.
Doctor?
Ms. Woolard. I agree, as well.
And I want to encourage you all to consider examining the
capacity of OJJDP's research portfolio. Much of what each of
the speakers here has said is driven in part by evidence-based,
systematic research, either to understand risk factors,
protective factors or to help understand what works.
And I think research, partnered with those folks that are
on the front line, is going to help ensure that OJJDP and this
act could drive the research agenda, rather than simply waiting
for others to respond to its needs.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you.
Again, I want to thank all of you.
I spend an awful lot of time in my schools when I am home
on Mondays, and seeing so many of my young people, who I think
are terrific kids. We also see an increase in gangs all over
Long Island. And a lot of these kids are good kids, but they
unfortunately got into--they are really looking for
companionship.
I have always been one to say, if we could start at the
grade schools, start prevention in grade schools, then we would
not be handling the problems that we are handling now.
After-school programs I think are terrific.
Through other committee work that we have done, we have
seen, when we were looking just even at obesity and nutrition
with children. Obviously, in the underserved areas we see worse
conditions than that.
But physical education every single day helped those
children, number one, focus better. Certainly had a better
mental outlook and tended to have higher marks and did not get
into trouble.
So, all of our community work, I think, does pull together.
Because I look at things in a circle. How does it start, and
how do we complete that circle, so that we have a complete
child and hopefully a complete future?
I think it is extremely important that we get this right,
not only for the economical security of this nation in the
future, but even for homeland security future.
With that, I yield to Mr. Platts for 5 minutes.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Again, my sincere thanks to all of you for your outstanding
testimony here at the hearing, as well as your written
testimony. All of you in some way touched on the issue of
prevention and emphasize that.
And Mr. Johnson, I think in your written you said it well.
It says, ``At its heart, the JJDPA is a prevention act,'' and
what we are after.
Along those lines, Dr. Woolard, in your discussion you
talked to us very much about the biological developmental
differences, a lot of which relates to mental health and the
challenges of our youth.
Two of our colleagues, Patrick Kennedy and Jim Ramstad, are
the leaders on mental health parity, which is a wholly
different but very much related issue, I think, that a number
of the juveniles that we are dealing with and maybe more
serious juvenile delinquents have mental health problems.
How would you rate the importance of, as we go through the
reauthorization, of targeting additional assistance to mental
health, the shortage of mental health providers in the broad
sense, and then specifically in the school settings, to a
greater number of counselors, elementary school counselors and
middle school counselors?
Ms. Woolard. Well, I would agree that it is of critical
importance. And I think if we take the holistic approach that
Madam Chair was talking about just a moment ago, we see that we
have historically been reactive with mental health services. We
have waited for people to ask or cry for help or demonstrate
for help.
And I think if we take the prevention approach we have been
talking about here, then the notion that there would be
additional services, both within the juvenile justice system--
we know, for example, that the vast majority of young people
who are in pretrial detention exhibit at least one type--
symptoms of at least one type of significant diagnosis. And
that is often not met through treatment at that time.
That if we not only look at resources there during that
system, but as you suggest, if we think about the other
contexts in which kids are living those lives and families
living those lives, school is certainly a critical intervention
point at which we could see beefing up the ability to provide
mental health services so that we could be talking about
prevention and early intervention, rather than seeing these
full-blown mental health problems we see when they are older.
Mr. Platts. And we certainly are making progress. I know,
you know, my children in the same school district I grew up in
are now going into the third and fifth grade. And in our
community at large in central Pennsylvania, it is more the norm
to have counselors in the elementary schools, to have the
school psychologist district-wide, but very involved.
I do not remember that at all. There was no counselor in my
elementary school, as there is now with my children's school.
But I am also in an area that has got more significant
resources for our public schools. And I do not think that is
the norm across the country, to have that access. So, it is
something I think maybe we need to look at.
District Attorney Freed, David, you talked about the Nurse-
Family Partnership program and legislation that I am a co-
sponsor of, the education begins at home.
Again, very much, when we talk early education and
prevention, this is about as early as you get. It is helping
new parents learn the skills of parenting, so that they can
provide that stability and support and example at home.
In your work as district attorney--and I know there is not
an exact answer you can give--but how would you classify the
family settings of the juveniles you come into contact with,
and more likely, not having a positive example at home, versus
less, you know, common?
Mr. Freed. It is far more likely that there are problems in
the home with the juveniles that we see come before us.
You are always going to have the kid that went bad. You do
not understand the explanation of how this kid could end up
behaving that way.
But generally what we see are the juveniles are acting out,
because of some issue in the home, because of abuse, because of
neglect, or because of, frankly, a complete lack of supervision
or meaningful guidance by the parent, or more particularly, in
our more crime-prone areas, the aunts or grandmother who is
raising the child.
A lack of meaningful male role models is a huge problem in
our community. That is why I think after-school programs, such
as Boys and Girls Clubs, scouting--anything you can think of to
support that would be perfect.
The Nurse-Family Partnership, one of the main reasons I
support it is because it starts as early as you can start.
You know, I talked about Quincy and Jordan, and I am happy
that I could put those names on the Congressional Record and
they will be there forever, because I honor and tribute those
boys every day of my life.
And I am convinced that if we could have helped out those
families, Quincy would not have been starved to death and
Jordan would not have been beaten to death. They would have
been taken out or the parents would have known better.
Mr. Platts. And I think that is one of the important
lessons of your collective testimony. The investment we make up
front, whether it is the home visitation programs or other
prevention, you know, mental health counseling, that most
importantly, the impact on the lives of these children and, in
a broader sense, the community, will be dramatic.
And we have to understand, it is hard to do here in
Washington, because the way we budget everything is we are only
going to look at what we are going to spend this year, not what
we are going to--you could probably save next year and 5 years
and 10 years. And so often, the focus on prevention gets short-
circuited, because it does not work from the way our budgeting
process works.
But we need to get beyond that and understand that
investing now will save taxpayers money down the road much more
and do right by the youth of our country.
So, my thanks to all of you again for your testimony.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman McCarthy. And I thank you, Mr. Platts. But I am
telling you, we are going to work on trying to get the money
where it goes to.
Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair.
We have heard--I appreciated the testimony from all of the
witnesses. We have heard that prevention programs work. We have
heard about the crime reduction with Boys and Girls Clubs, Big
Brothers, Big Sisters, the Nurse-Family Partnership, a 60
percent reduction in crime. So, we obviously know what to do.
I would ask Professor Shepherd, just about every
jurisdiction in the country tries the most heinous criminals as
adults already.
Is there any question in the literature that the editorial
this morning in the ``New York Times'' which cites a study that
says children handled in adult courts and confined in adult
jails committed more violent crime than children processed
through the traditional juvenile system?
Is there any question in the literature, in the research,
that trying more juveniles as adults--those not now tried as
adults, but trying more juveniles as adults--will increase
crime?
Mr. Shepherd. Mr. Congressman, the research is pretty
consistent. I am not aware of a single study that indicates
that trying juveniles as adults protects society or impacts
positively on the behavior of those juveniles.
One of the earliest studies was done by Dr. Jeffrey Fagan
in the late 1980s for OJJDP, and it was not published by OJJDP
for a number of years. It was suppressed.
Mr. Scott. Well, let me ask you another quick question.
Treating juveniles life without parole, do other countries
than the United States subject juveniles to life without
parole?
Mr. Shepherd. Mr. Congressman, as you are probably aware,
the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child treats
life without parole just like capital punishment.
And we are the only nation in the world that has not
ratified that convention. So, we are the only nation that does
it as a practice.
Mr. Scott. Let me ask Dr. Woolard a couple of questions,
because the mental health aspects of this are extremely
important.
And there is probably no Congressman more active in mental
health than the gentleman from Rhode Island, Representative
Kennedy, who is a strong supporter of mental health. And we are
just delighted to see him here today.
In terms of gang policy, what deterrent effect does the
criminal justice system have on juveniles in terms of joining
gangs?
Ms. Woolard. Well, Congressman, the research that I am
aware of--and there have been a couple of different reviews
that have looked at various strategies for intervening with
kids involved in the systems.
My read is that the general consensus is that programs that
emphasize a deterrent approach, such as a punishment approach,
straight-up punishment in the criminal justice system, at best
do not reduce recidivism, and at worst they exacerbate
recidivism.
So, the research that looks at risk and protective factors
for going into gangs talks about some of the factors that were
already mentioned in terms of the search for connection, for
companionship, for guidance that may be lacking in other areas.
So, my read is that more appropriate intervention would be
directed at those factors, rather than taking a straight-up
punishment approach.
Mr. Scott. Your testimony says that you rated prison as
having a negative effect on juvenile sanctions, because the
youth reported sanctions, juvenile sanctions have positive
effects, because they gain something. And adult sanctions
tended not to work, I guess, because they lost some things.
When I was in college, I learned that positive
reinforcement was a better behavior modifier than punishment.
Can you translate that into what we ought to be considering
for juvenile crime policy?
Ms. Woolard. Well, I think you may have said it better than
I could have at this point.
One of the messages that comes out of research, which came
from colleagues in Florida, examining and comparing matching
kids who had stayed in the juvenile system versus those who
were transferred, is that we can think about both opportunities
and costs.
And if we think about the way that we want to reduce
negative behavior, we not only need to think about eliminating
that negative behavior, but putting something positive in its
stead. And so, the kinds of approaches that look at positive
reinforcement or a focus on strength and opportunity, I think
provide a more well-rounded approach than those that focus
simply on suppression or trying to prevent negative behavior.
Mr. Scott. And so, how should our gang reduction, juvenile
justice policy reflect that?
Ms. Woolard. Well, I think that by its name, gang
reduction, it is only talking about half of the equation. And
so, a gang reduction policy that is designed to stop kids from
getting into gangs has got to examine both the reasons why they
are getting in and the reasons or pathways that they might need
in order to get out. And the pathways in order to get out have
got to offer positive opportunities.
I currently work with some local nonprofits in D.C., one in
particular called Peaceaholics, groups that are addicted to
peace, that are working with young people in the district and
trying to keep the out of gangs.
And one of the things that they emphasize tremendously is
that we have got to offer the constructive opportunities for
kids to either not go into that gang in the first place or for
them to come out. And that it is incumbent upon us to create
that context for those kids, rather than saying ``Don't be in a
gang, but now go figure out what else you are supposed to do.''
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
And now, our colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Coble?
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Good to have you all with us today.
Judge Lawrence, what key factors do you see contributing to
juvenile crime in New Hampshire--my favorite New England state,
by the way; sorry about that, Mr. Kennedy--and how does the
state address those factors? And in what ways is your courtroom
directly or indirectly affected by the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act?
That is a three-pronged question I threw at you.
Mr. Lawrence. That is fine. I am happy to answer it. I will
start with the last part of your question first.
My courtroom is affected through efforts of the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act through a detention
reform project that I happen to head up in the state. But we,
from time to time, are asked to detain young people.
And through efforts of the committee and the co-chair, we
have developed dispositional guidelines--or a detention
assessment screening instrument, sorry--which has allowed us to
objectively measure the risk of a child and determine whether
that child should be detained, as opposed to a subjective
decision which has been made in the past.
Generally, if a child irritated someone enough, they were
detained. And if they did not irritate you enough, they were
not detained. And that is not a basis to make a detention
decision.
It is interesting, when you detain a child and you have a
similarly situated child--same crime, same socioeconomic
background--the child you detain has a greater chance of
sinking deeper into the system, and ultimately a greater chance
of recidivating, versus the child you did not detain at the
front end.
So, it is just--the system works and the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act promotes that. And OJJDP has
done some work in the detention reform area.
In terms of factors to reduce juvenile delinquency, it is
really a question of--it is really sort of the analysis would
be reducing the risk factors, but really increasing the
strength factors.
And in a way it is quite simple. If you set up an
environment for the children who come before you and families,
really similar to the environment you might like to create and
to raise your own children in.
We try to connect our children to the community as much as
we can. We get them involved in as many activities as we can.
We do homework with them when they are young.
We do all the things that contributed to their positive
element. And it is trying to structure an environment for the
families who do not do that, to do that. And you do see
changes.
One of the things that we often do is, we will take a
photograph consensually of a child and family when they come
in. And 6 months or a year later, and the affect and the
demeanor of both the family and the child, having done some
positive things with them, is dramatically different.
So, you really can have an effect on whether or not
delinquent behavior is enhanced or increases or decreases. So,
those are a couple of answers to your question.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Your Honor.
Dr. Woolard, what impact do parents have in preventing
juvenile crime? And do parents impact the psychology of
juveniles?
I ask that, doctor, because I have known juveniles who had
superb parents who become criminals. Conversely, juveniles with
parents who are rotgut sorry, who are clean as mountain water.
Ms. Woolard. That is right.
Mr. Coble. What do you say to me?
Ms. Woolard. I say yes, you are right.
I think parents are actually one of my focuses in the
research that I do. And I want to say a couple of things in
response to your question.
One is, I think parents have alternately been cast as both
cause and cure for delinquency, depending on what era we are in
in juvenile justice reform.
I think the answer is that they can serve as both. And it
depends a lot on the circumstances.
I think that parents are--I want to be clear that juveniles
are accountable for their behavior. I think that one of the
groups that does not have representation in a sense in our
juvenile justice system is parents. There is no one who--they
do not have the kind of standing to be involved in the way that
we would like them to be involved, unless judges and courts
pull them in in that way.
So, I think we can think about not just focusing on the
child, but focusing on that family context. Some kids are able
to surmount very difficult circumstances and----
Mr. Coble. And before my red light illuminates and the
chairman comes after me, I want to ask Professor Shepherd a
question.
Professor, have there been any reliable studies that have
identified the reasons for the decline in juvenile crime in the
last 30 years?
Mr. Shepherd. Mr. Congressman, that is probably the hardest
question that anyone could ask. There have been a lot of
speculation about what causes juvenile crime to spike and what
causes it to decline. And there is no consensus about it.
You may recall, in the late 1980s, there were some very
dire predictions that we were going to have a bloodbath caused
by juvenile super-predators as we neared the year 2000, because
of the children of the baby boomers. And those demographic
studies proved to be terribly, terribly wrong. Juvenile crime
went down.
We really do not know. And I think the researchers that I
have the most respect for, like Howard Snyder at the National
Center for Juvenile Justice in Pittsburgh, the research arm of
the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, are
frank enough to say, we can track it, but we are not sure what
the causes are.
But there is a study going on now to try and identify and
segregate out some of those factors that are significant. And
hopefully, we will have that very soon.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Professor.
Thank you all for your testimony.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you.
My colleague from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva?
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
In the short period time I need to see how many questions I
can get in, and I would appreciate short answers, if at all
possible--not required, but appreciated.
Judge Lawrence, in speaking of the practice of restorative
justice, let me ask you specifically. Where do re-entry efforts
fit into this equation of restorative justice? And how should
they be weighed?
Mr. Lawrence. Well, first of all, I guess I would say that
if you had less re-entry--in other words, less people having to
re-enter--you would end up with better outcomes. But assuming
you do have people re-entering, then sort of the principles of
balanced and restorative justice, you would end up with
probably victim-offender mediation, perhaps, on the re-entry,
if it was not done at the front end.
And you would have them connect with the community more
positively in terms of re-entry, so that they had some support
from the community. They were not just viewed as someone who
has gone away, done their time and we forget about them. In
fact, the community would more or less embrace them. So, those
are some principles I would employ.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me just follow up on another
in your written testimony.
In talking about the challenges and positives that you see
in terms of juvenile justice prevention efforts, in diverse
communities like my county of Pima that I am from, can you make
the comparison between those efforts with diverse communities
like Pima County, and then more homogeneous communities?
Mr. Lawrence. Well, I think you have to call upon members
of the community, actually, to determine what efforts they want
to make with regard to reconnecting this child who is re-
entering. They need to reconnect with the family. They need to
reconnect with the child.
But I think it has to be community-driven, based on
community values, based on the cultural values that are
inherent in that community.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
And Mr. District Attorney, you mentioned high recidivism
for high-risk offenders. And just quickly, what did you see as
the most effective re-entry transition practices to reduce this
recidivism rate, to prevent, for lack of--spanning the
definition of prevention--to prevent recidivism?
Mr. Freed. The best way to prevent recidivism is to
essentially, when the--if it is a juvenile or an adult who is
leaving the system, do some sort of an exit interview,
determine what services are needed for that person and make
sure the person gets the services.
That is one of the biggest problems we have. We can all
debate about who should be in jail and who should not, how long
they should be there and how shouldn't they.
But we can all agree that, when they get out, if we just
send them out with no services, they will fail.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Dr. Woolard, just a quick question. Where does scholastic
competence, literacy, school achievement, closing that gap,
doing well in school--where does that fit into prevention?
Ms. Woolard. Well, we certainly know both that that is a
tremendous risk factor for youths to begin engaging in
delinquency and those that are already in the system are often
achieving below grade level, often more than one grade level
below.
So, if we think about both in terms of primary prevention,
that engagement with school, it is certainly something that we
want to emphasize and to work on. And for those that are
already involved in the system, providing the supports for them
to become academically successful is a critical intervention
strategy.
Mr. Grijalva. Key linkage, right?
Ms. Woolard. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
And my last question--and I have some others for Captain
Johnson and other people that I did not have a chance, and I
will submit those questions so that--well, for you to submit to
the committee in writing.
Mr. Jones, what is the most important thing you try to
share with the kids that you are now mentoring in your program?
What is the most important thing you share with them?
Mr. Jones. Well, where I am working now?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes.
Mr. Jones. Well, I let them know about the mistakes I made
and try to hope that they do not follow in my footsteps. I tell
them about everything that I learned, so that they do not make
the same mistakes I did.
Mr. Grijalva. That is a good answer. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you.
And our next, Mr. Gohmert of Texas?
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I do appreciate everyone's time and being here.
Obviously, this is an extremely serious issue, because we are
talking about the future of the country. And obviously, that
goes hopefully to all of our hearts.
Judge Lawrence, you made--you had a litany of things that
we need to do everything to--excuse me. Did you need me? Okay.
The litany of things we need to try to do, one of which was
do everything we can to keep them close to home. And of course,
as I am sure you have dealt with, or maybe it is not as big a
problem, but some of them do not have much of a home.
You know, you would think, well, one thing we might could
do is set up a way to try to help single women trying to raise
children, which was an issue that was dealt with in the 1960s.
And the thing they came up with, out of an abundance of
warm feelings and hope for doing the right thing, let us start
giving single women that are just trying to get by, because
there are not that many, but they are dealing with deadbeat
dads, let us give them a check for every child they can have
out of wedlock.
And 40 years later, we have gotten what we paid for.
And when we hear about those, we really do not like to lock
young people up, and we have heard some anecdotal stories.
Let me tell you about a fruit stand vendor in Smith County.
Little did he know that there was a juvenile judge in the
county that gave a young man chance after chance, because that
judge really did not want to lock this guy up. Chance after
chance, he kept offending. He kept telling him, don't do it
again.
Anyway, he could have been locked up for a period of time
toward the end of his juvenile term, but he was not. He got
with a couple of friends. They decided to rob a bank. They
decided not to do it in their own car.
So, they went and found a lady driving a red Suburban,
followed her to her rural home, and then she had neighbors
standing out in the yard, so they decided not to kill her and
take her car.
But they drove along and they saw a sweet, elderly man who
is just a fruit stand vendor, and decided they would jack his
car. So, they got out, went to talk about his onions and fruit.
Ended up, when no one was looking, they made him get in his
truck. They did not realize it was a standard. They drove him
about a quarter of a mile down a rural road, right by his
stand.
The chance they gave him apparently was to let him run a
few steps before he was sentenced to capital murder by this
informal panel, and shot and killed there.
Had he been incarcerated, the guy might still be vending
fruit in Smith County.
So, as a judge myself, I know that--and I did not handle
juvenile cases, but I handled the results of some badly handled
juvenile cases, like that one--there is a desire not to lock
anybody up. But what I ran into over and over were juveniles
who dealt with judges and teachers--and before that, parents--
who had never followed through on what they said.
I had kids come before my court as an adult, who had never
actually met anybody who did what they said. A parent would
say, ``Don't do that again,'' but there were no consequences. A
teacher would say, ``Don't do that again,'' but there were no
consequences.
So, I determined I would be compassionate, I would use
probation liberally for those who had not had a chance. But
once I gave someone a chance, I wanted them to meet someone who
always did what he said.
I do not know too many judges, if any, that always revoked.
And I told everybody I put on probation, if you violate, you
will meet somebody who does what they say. You will meet a
judge who will send you to prison.
And I have had people hate me for a while, and some parents
come back and say, you turned--you saved my child. They finally
met someone that did what they said.
So, in all of this consideration of wanting to protect
society on the one hand, but on the other to help these youth
to reach their God-given abilities and talent, and not get
sloughed off into some system, sometimes it takes hitting rock
bottom with somebody who will be tough and love them in a tough
way.
And I do not want that perspective to be lost, as well. So,
I had to submit it. I see my time is running out.
Madam Chair, thank you for giving me that opportunity.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you.
Mr. Yarmuth from Kentucky?
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to all the
witnesses.
I have one question for Judge Lawrence. In Kentucky,
despite JJDPA's prohibition against detaining status offenders
in locked facilities, we have more than 1,300 non-criminal
status offending youth in lockups, partly due to overuse of the
valid court order.
I was wondering what your recommendations might be on how
we would strengthen the prohibitions and provide other
resources to take care of these youth in need of protective
custody.
Mr. Lawrence. At the federal level, I guess my approach
would be to try to put some incentives into the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act that either increased
the amount you might get if you reduced the number that are
locked-up status offenders.
Right now there is a penalty, of course, that takes away
money. But maybe reverse it and say you will get more if you
reduce that particular practice. It is another way of
inducement.
On the state level, which you could certainly induce,
perhaps induce a policy change, a statutory change, that
basically takes locking up status offenders out of the
selection of tools that a judge has, or a probation officer
might be able to recommend.
I mean, there is nothing that says that you have to lock
those kids up.
I understand the level of frustration, but taking status
offenders, kids who will not go to school, and thinking you
will get them to go to school by locking them up, there is not
anything that supports that.
So, those are two particular approaches that you might take
in terms of federal initiative, and also recommending to the
state that they take a look at their law, which, after all, is
the actual law that is going to control the decision that the
judge is making or the probation officer is recommending.
Mr. Yarmuth. And then, I guess I would like to make a
comment and throw it open to the panel.
Last week during our recess, we in Louisville had a forum
that I sponsored on homeless and runaway youth. And we had
about 90 people, many from around the region, some national
experts.
And what was very clear in listening to all of these
experts was that, in so many of these cases, there is a tipping
point in a youth's life, sometimes not so much, but sometimes a
very specific one, which determines whether they go in a
positive direction or a bad direction.
And when I look at the juvenile justice system, it seems
like what we are looking at is a tipping point in the life of
many people. The entry into the juvenile justice system itself
is a tipping point.
And I throw that open for comment, because we have heard a
couple of times about the continuum of services needed. And I
know that when we have dealt with issues such as what we were
talking about, runaway homeless youth, it is the same type of
message that we got.
Yes, there are a lot of different services. Yes, there are
a lot of individual points of contact that are helpful. But
unless that continuum is there, and even though the tipping
point might deflect one in the right direction, that that is a
critical part of the entire process.
Mr. Lawrence. Just a brief response.
Sometimes, if you take the approach, which is that--my
analogy is that, if you look at a railroad track and the child
is moving down the track and they are going to spill over the
rails, they are going to fall down in the bed, as long as they
do not roll too far out into the field. But the entire time
they are moving down the track, that is maturation.
So, sometimes it is just dealing with a child over and over
again, but they sort of mature out of that behavior. Sometimes
they do reach the tipping point. Sometimes for community
safety, you do need to take more restrictive action.
But a lot of times, it is simply not placing a box around
the child and a box around yourself, particularly as a judge,
and then setting up expectations that you are going to respond
in some harsh way and some punitive way to this child.
So, the other thing I would comment on is that, it is
always interesting to me to look at a child, and with people we
grew up with, we could say, well, that person, when they got to
be 25 or 30, was going to be very successful and the opposite
of this person. But actually, it turned out the opposite way.
The scholar in high school turned out to be the dropout. The
person who broke the law repeatedly turned out to be the chief
of police.
So, it is really difficult to make a prediction at times
about what is going to happen with someone who is a dropout,
who has really nothing.
But I think you keep working with them, and keeping in mind
all the time community safety, which you have to do. But you
have to allow that maturation process to continue and to keep
them in as positive an environment as you can while that
process is going on.
Mr. Yarmuth. One quick question while I have a few seconds
left.
We have a program that deals with incarcerated veterans.
There is a pilot program that is being conducted in several
places in the country, which does provide this continuum of
services, once they are released. It has reduced the recidivism
rate, I know in the state program that we have, from like 67
percent, the normal rate, to down under 10 percent.
You may not have numbers, but is there any kind of
quantification you can do of the improvement in recidivism
rates with this type of approach in juvenile justice?
Mr. Lawrence. I think there certainly is. I would refer,
perhaps, Professor Shepherd might have some particular
information on that. And also, we could provide you with some
information. The Coalition for Juvenile Justice could provide
you with that information, if that would be helpful.
Mr. Shepherd. Certainly, the earlier comments about re-
entry, I think there is a renewed focus on re-entry in the
juvenile justice system. And it is important, in my judgment--
and the research seems to support this--that when a juvenile is
in the system, they need to be involved in re-entry, well prior
to being released.
If they go back into the same neighborhood, into the same
family where they got in trouble before, without any monitoring
or support, they are at high risk to re-offend.
And I think it is important to make sure that kids get back
into school, that they get mental health services in the
community, if they have not been getting them previously.
And yet, ironically, sometimes they get more mental health
services in the juvenile justice system than they do in the
broader community. And I think that re-entry does significantly
reduce recidivism.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you.
Ms. Clarke?
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I want to thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member
Platts for this very instructive and important hearing here
today.
You know, I am a new member here, but I was a councilmember
in the City of New York. I used to chair the Committee on Fire
and Criminal Justice Services.
And this has been an issue that we have been struggling to
address aggressively in New York City, coming up with what we
considered to be best practices and really addressing the
concerns of our young people and, by extension, our community.
We have so many young people in a densely populated area.
I am glad to hear the discussion around re-entry.
But what we found to be very helpful in New York City is
actually discharge planning, which is before the young people
actually leave the doors of a detention center, setting up a
prescription, a plan that has been connected to community
services, be it nonprofits, be it religious institutions, that
could help those families and the community, by extension, in
receiving those young people and making sure that their health
care needs are attended to, that their--whatever concerns they
may have, that they are addressed--and that the environment
that they left, that may have put them into the pathway to
criminal activity could be addressed, as well.
So, I am so glad to hear that so many of you on the panel
have looked into those issues. And I would like to suggest
that, as a best practice, we look in that direction.
I know, certainly, as a district attorney, you are looking
to make those connections with partners in the community to be
able to subvert young people from having to do hard time, as
they call it--as I would call it, quite frankly, if I were a
kid--to alternatives to detention.
My question has to do with sexually deviant behavior. We
had a big conversation in the City of New York with our public
schools, quite frankly, about how we identify and deal with
adolescents to address the issue of sexually deviant behavior,
and perhaps the maturation of what we now see as a growing
population of sexual predators that society just really does
not know how to deal with.
I think that your research--and you may have stated that,
Dr. Jennifer, or perhaps it was Professor Shepherd--has shown
that, because of the development of the brain, you are more
likely to be able to change that behavior in an adolescent, in
a youth, than you are once that person reaches adulthood.
Could you speak to--or anyone on the panel--speak to any
information that you have heard or seen that could help
communities that are now dealing with large populations of ex-
offenders, be residing in their communities in adults, but
perhaps doing the preventive end for young people and looking
at how our school systems could help us facilitate that?
Ms. Woolard. Well, I think that--I think that certainly
there is, particularly, I think, on the clinical side of
psychology, some research that could be informative that I
would be happy to pass along to you and to the committee, that
talks about this particularly difficult issue about sexual
offending among adolescents.
Because really, the challenge--as it is more broadly, when
we think about juvenile offenders--is trying to figure out who
are the ones that we need to be most worried about? And who are
the ones that are going to age out, or are going to be able to
be successful with the proper help and intervention?
I am not sure that we can answer that question definitively
yet, but there are certainly some studies that have examined
the efficacy of treatment for adolescent sex offenders, some
that have looked at the benefits of cost of things like placing
adolescents on sex offender registries and things like that.
So, I would be happy to get some of that information for
you and for the committee to be able to look at that.
Mr. Shepherd. I would add that I did address this some in
my written testimony. And there are a couple of references
attached to my written testimony, the Association for the
Treatment of Sexual Abusers report from last year on children
with sexual behavior problems.
And what we do know is that intervention is much more
successful with adolescents and children than it is with
adults. And the irony is, we are putting a lot of these kids
into adult court, and the adult correctional system, where they
do not have the treatment that would have been available to
them in a juvenile setting.
We also know that kids who engage in sexual behavior,
sometimes experimentation. They are going through puberty. They
are not really molesters or pedophiles. And we need to deal
with them in a different fashion than we do adults.
But both federal and state law tend to now treat them under
the same umbrella, and that makes little sense.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you.
Mr. Sarbanes from Maryland?
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. Chair, for the
joint hearing on this very important topic.
I just had--wanted to get the panel's reaction.
Representative Gohmert was talking about how these children
often never encounter anyone who does what they say they are
going to do.
The examples he gave were where you said to someone they
were going to have consequences, and then they did not get
those consequences. I actually thought he was going in a
different direction and was going to talk about all the
instances in which services and support are promised to
children and then nothing ever happens.
And I invite any of you to speak to the system's ability to
respond when the needs of children are identified. I mean, the
discharge planning approach, obviously, is a critical one. But
if, once these youth are back in the community, the service
does not come through and the support is not there, then we
fail them again and we have basically written a ticket to
nowhere.
So, if you could comment on that.
And also then, if you could give me your perspective on
whether we should be thinking of new delivery models for these
services. I mean, it is not just a resource question,
potentially. It may be that some of the old ways of doing
things--and you think of services that are sort of Balkanized,
as opposed to holistic--whether delivering service to a child
really means delivering service to a family, for example.
What are all the implications of that to make sure the
service is delivered and it is delivered in a way that is going
to have the best effect?
Mr. Lawrence. Maybe I will take a stab, since I think the
congressman's comments earlier were directed at me, and I will
take a stab at it.
From a judge's point of view, I think what you can do to
make sure things are done is to have frequent reviews. It is a
simple process. But if I do not think the agency is doing its
job, I will have them in each week to make sure that the
service that this child needs is being delivered.
So, that is one simple thing. Yes, that means more on your
docket. Yes, it means more time. And yes, it adds up a cost.
But that cost may be less than not providing the services that
you promised, which hopefully will result in the outcome that
you want.
So, that is one simple way of assuring that the agency is
doing what it says it is going to do.
Some states have a setup where once a judge determines the
guilt or innocence of the child, the child is actually turned
over to an agency to be dealt with. And sometimes they get lost
in those bureaucracies and there is not the accountability.
I tend to think, with a well-trained who he or she really
knows what they are doing in terms of youth development, et
cetera, if they can ride herd on that case and make sure that
services that were ordered are delivered, and that if they are
not working, new services are devised and a new plan is
developed, you can have a much better outcome than a judge who
is not overseeing cases and not following up.
If I commit a kid for a serious crime to our youth
development center, many judges just turn the case over. I do
not.
I review the case once a month, even though the child is in
that development center, because I want to know what progress
is being made. If it is not sufficient, maybe I will come up
with another plan and take the kid out of there.
And also, I know when their discharge date is and I begin
planning for that discharge 2 or 3 months ahead of time.
So, those are some techniques that could be used.
Mr. Sarbanes. Anybody else?
Mr. Johnson. Representative, one of the things that we
found in Arizona was that, when you were talking about a system
or how you holistically look at a child, we found out that
there were barriers at the federal level and also at the state
level, that did not let systems communicate.
And as you had a child that moved through the system, what
you would find is that the systems do not talk to each other,
either through technology. There are a lot of things that
prohibit those agencies from even identifying who those
children are, such as HIPAA, depending on where those children
are.
What we did in Arizona, talking about the importance, I
think, of a SAG, or state advisory groups, is it allowed us to
bring about 250 people from across the state from all of our
different counties. And what that led to was an agreement.
And it is called the Interagency Coordination and
Integration Initiative, which actually is a contract and a
letter of agreement between state agencies to start looking at
identifying youth and families at risk for multiple systems
involvement earlier, provide more comprehensive and effective
services and cultivate improved outcomes for children and youth
who are at risk and who have experienced maltreatment.
So, I think that is a holistic view that we are using with
the state and at an agency level, that I think will not only
fix some of these things, but help people communicate, because
kids do get segregated and pushed off into different systems.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson,
and to the ranking member, to the chairperson of my
subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Crime in Judiciary. Let me
welcome all of you and thank you for providing such a breath of
fresh air.
I have served on the Judiciary Committee for a number of
years. I have served in the majority for a few months.
But I recall working with now-chairman, then ranking
member, Mr. Scott and Mr. Conyers at the sort of the pinnacle
of the crime reform of the mid-1990s, when the rage, judge, was
lock them up and somewhat throw away the key.
The tragedy was, of course, that it was trickling down--or
trickling up--into the juvenile justice system. And the
attitude was how hard can the hammer be.
We took a traveling tour to a number of states. California
was one of them. And it seems as if, that every law enforcement
officer that we encountered--not police, but policymakers,
attorney generals and others--were engaged in how hard we could
hit in the juvenile system.
I do not know whether we have benefited from that. And I
think that if we have a legislative opportunity, it is to
listen to the distinguished lady, doctor and the rest of you on
how we can craft legislation or amendments going forward to
allow thoughtful scholars and advocates such as yourselves to
be able to move this agenda.
And I am going to use provocative analogies and would like
to hear your thoughts.
I am looking at the organization chart, and I know that the
juvenile justice and delinquency prevention area reports
directly to the attorney general. And that, in and of itself,
puts it as a sort of law-oriented scenario.
I also notice that the state formula has some really good
principles in it to get these state grants. And I mention
juveniles are not to be detained or confined in any facility in
which they would come into contact with adult offenders.
Juveniles accused of non-status offenses can only be confined
in adult jails or lockups for a short period of time.
And these are criteria that would help you get monies in
states who show they are attempting to reduce the
disproportionate confinement of minorities.
My quick question is, this factual situation. Judge, you
have come before you an outstanding student on the way with
scholarships, a person who is a leader or the king of the
senior class, et cetera. And they had a prom night sexual
encounter.
And all of the indicia suggest an alternative. They are
then incarcerated as an adult and there seems to be no remedy.
How do you use your--no remedy in terms of the release--how
do you use your thinking to address that question? It is a
sexual incident. It was known at the beginning that it was
consensual. And the person has their future before them, but,
as I hear my colleague on the other side of the aisle about
young people must know a beginning and an end, how to use your
thoughtfulness on this.
My question to Mr. Freed, very quickly. We talk about
detaining of youngsters. What about a system that is broken.
The detention center is filled with child predators. And so,
the detained individual that you are sending them to a youth
commission, for example, is being subjected to sexual abuse by
those who are charged with their guardian or, if you will,
protection?
Judge?
Mr. Lawrence. My comments would be that the judge really
creates the culture, or the culture in the courtroom, maybe a
culture in the community that they are in, a culture in the
state, to the extent they have influence.
And so, I think if people's understanding of what your
expectations are, and if I let them know my expectations are,
to take the example you gave me, that this young person should
probably not be transferred, should probably not go to the
adult system, then you take that off the table, and people
begin to think in different ways.
Okay, how can we address what happened here to make sure
that community safety is considered, to make sure that the
victim is appropriately considered, but to make sure that in
the end, this sort of act does not repeat itself.
And the research is there. But what you really have to let
people know is that we are not going to take this case and
simply certify and send the adult system, and if people know
that to begin with.
One of the key factors in the system working effectively is
that people have some predictability about what the people who
can make the decisions are going to do. And if you can
establish that culture, it allows people then to begin to think
simply in different ways about how we are going to address the
issues that were created by this crime being committed.
So, that is one approach from a judicial perspective.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Is Mr. Freed allowed to answer?
Is Mr. Freed allowed to answer the question? Thank you,
Madam Chair.
Mr. Freed. The key to the juvenile justice system,
especially when a child is placed, is collaboration among all
the parties. And I think that actually goes to what
Representative Sarbanes was asking about also.
We may disagree on who should be locked up and for what
reason and for how long. However, when a child is detained, it
is our responsibility to ensure the safety of that child.
So, I know that in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
evaluations are done, and children who are placed are placed in
very specific places that treat specific symptoms that those
children show.
So, it is incumbent on us to ensure the safety of kids,
even if they are detained, and even if it is for a length of
time.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And come down hard on those who would
violate them--adults who would violate them, who have been in
their custody.
Mr. Freed. Without a doubt.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you.
With that, Mr. Platts has to leave. He has another hearing
starting at 4:00. So, he is going to say a few words, and then
I would like unanimous consent so Patrick Kennedy can ask some
questions.
Hearing none----
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Madam Chair.
One, Patrick, I am sorry I will not hear your engagement.
And as I referenced earlier, I really appreciate your
leadership with Jim Ramstad on the mental health parity, which
relates so much to this issue.
I just want to again thank each of you. As I said to the
chair, the six of you, your knowledge that you have brought
with you today and shared with us has been tremendous, and is
really going to benefit us as a committee and, ultimately, the
Congress in total, as we move forward with reauthorization to
take what has been certainly a very effective prevention act,
as Mr. Johnson referenced it, and make it even better for the
good of our youth and ultimately our nation.
So, my sincere thanks. My apologies that I need--the
National Security Subcommittee hearing I need to run off to
next. But we appreciate all of you coming down.
And Dave, we will look forward to seeing you back on the
19th.
So, thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Platts.
With that, certainly, my colleague from Rhode Island----
Mr. Kennedy. Thanks.
Mr. Platts, let me thank you very much and say, I hope we
get to do a hearing on the mental health component alone, with
respect to juvenile justice, because I think it is such a--70
percent of the juvenile justice--thank you; I know you have got
to go to a hearing--70 percent of the juvenile justice
population is identified with a mental illness.
I mean, we have to have a hearing on its own about mental
health, if we are going to address the juvenile justice
problem. And I hope that working with the chairwoman, we will
be able to put together a hearing on that.
I would like to say one thing that I think has come through
loud and clear from the testimony that I have heard so far. And
that is, if you want to reduce recidivism, and you want to do
what is effective and follow what the science has shown us so
far, you cannot mix kids with adults.
That has been the intent of the juvenile justice law, and
we ought to make it clear in the reauthorization, once again,
that irrespective of whether the states prosecute kids, as
adults, or not, we are not going to house kids with adults.
And, with respect to the status offenders, that the whole
provision that has kind of run amok with respect to the valid
court order exception with the runaway, has been, you know,
where the kids keep running away.
And it has allowed the judges to have to keep keeping those
kids in prison as a result. That needs to be taken out, and
those kids need to be put in alternative settings.
You cannot keep kids in these prisons, if you have got
someplace else to put them. We have got to find other places to
put status offenders. You cannot keep them in jail. You are
just--all the evidence shows, you are just setting them up for
future problems.
They are going to be in jail. They are going to be learning
with more serious offenders how to commit worse crimes.
I mean, hello? I mean, this is not rocket science. Let us
invest, and with this reauthorization in alternative housing
for status offenders, let us get rid of this valued court order
exception, so there is no excuse for these judges to keep these
status offenders in jail.
Let us get rid of this notion that kids can be in jail with
adults, no matter whether the states prosecute them as adults
or not. And let us make that as part of federal law very clear,
loud and clear.
And I think Derrick Johnson made the point very clear.
There has got to be a holistic view of this. And if you are not
linking the kids with the schools, you are not going to get the
prevention.
So, but if schools are not talking about the delinquency,
that the teacher knows that the kids got the problems with
their academics, how are you going to start to do the
prevention?
We are going to have to in this reauthorization, put monies
aside that allow that interagency coordination that you,
Derrick, talked about doing already. We are going to have to
formalize. You are going to have to give us what you have done
already, and we are going to have to use that as a template and
codify that in our reauthorization.
Because it seems to me that that is what we are going to
have to--would be a good model for us to embark upon, where we
bring together all the players in the community and make sure
everybody is talking to each other, because what seems to be
happening in this field is that the kids are falling through
the cracks between the mental health providers, the substance
abuse providers, the court people and the educators, and the
justice and the judge. And everybody is talking about the kids,
and then the kids are falling through the cracks.
So, getting that comprehensiveness seems to me the--I just
want to say, as a member of the Appropriations Judiciary
Subcommittee, I just came from that, and we added over $80
million to Title V and $60 million to JBAG, so we are
increasing over last year's budget, which is a hopeful sign
that we are finally moving in the opposite direction, whereas
the last 5 years we have eviscerated the Title V money by over
$230 million.
So, now we are back, moving in the right direction.
But I thank the chair for giving me an opportunity to say a
few words, and look forward to working with her.
And just say, in terms of prevention, 3 percent of our
foster care youth make up 40 percent of our juvenile justice
youth. So, this is all in prevention, like the chair
acknowledged at the outset. Three percent of our foster care
make up 40 percent of our juvenile justice.
It is all in the--and that is why we need to take the at-
risk parents. That is why we have got to look at SAMHSA. They
have got starting early, starting smart. And they have got
Parent Corps. Those are mentoring programs for at-risk
parents--parents who have substance abuse problems that are the
highest risk.
If the parent has got the problem, you guarantee the kid is
going to have a problem. The most important influence on a
child's life is the parent. And that is why we have got a link.
If we put money in this reauthorization to--or, you know,
authorization to work with those other agencies, what we are
going to do is set up those linkages that will allow us to
coordinate better, to better make sure we have that holistic
view that Mr. Johnson was speaking of.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy, and thank you
for your input. I know that we are going to get mental parity
this year. I mean, I just know we are.
And thank you for the extra money right now. You could have
pushed a little bit harder. We needed a little bit more.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kennedy. We still have the floor to go.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Correct.
I do not know if anyone has--if anyone who needs to catch a
plane, or if they are in a rush, because a number of members
have asked if they could ask a second round of questions.
We will probably have votes coming up in a half-hour or so.
But it is going to be up to the panel, because we have kept you
here for about 2 hours already.
Terrific.
I am going to ask the first question. I can do that. I am
the chairwoman.
I wanted to ask you, Judge Lawrence, when judges are
working with juveniles, do they go through any courts or
learning how to work with juveniles? Do they get the latest
research on what is out there and what they could do to
possibly help these juveniles as they go through and to help
them make decisions?
Mr. Lawrence. Some do and some do not.
I think, if you took a look at the background of a lot of
judges, you would find that they never took a course in
juvenile delinquency, and never took a course in child
development, abnormal psychology.
They really often do not come with a base that you might
like them to come with in terms of juvenile work, but some do.
And obviously, there is significant training that you can avail
yourself of.
And I think the move to family courts is an important move,
because one of the critical factors of a judge who is really
interested in this work is that they want to do it. Often,
judges get assigned to a family court docket, a juvenile docket
and they are not terribly interested in it.
If they are not terribly interested in it, it does not
work, you are not going to highly value, and you are not going
to highly value the people who are in front of you.
So, I think the move towards family courts is important.
But also, if you are going to appoint or elect--whatever the
process is--a judge in particular to juvenile cases, you want
to know about his or her background. And if they have the
requisite early training and early interest, it will bode well
for their work later on with juveniles.
Chairwoman McCarthy. I do not even know if we can do that.
Is there any way through your committee that we could recommend
that those that are serving as judges towards--I have no idea
what the laws are on that.
I will let you think about it.
Mr. Scott. Yes, we could probably propose to have funding
for seminars and things like that. I am sure Professor Shepherd
could make recommendations on that.
But I think the availability of seminars and other
professional development would clearly be possible.
Mr. Shepherd. A good deal of the funding under the JJDP Act
goes to the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court
Judges for operating their college programs, primarily in Reno,
Nevada.
A lot of states, unfortunately, with budget cuts in the
late 1990s and early 2000s, cut back on judicial training and
education. And I know there are fewer judges in Virginia that
are being sent by the state when they assume the bench to Reno
to go through the college.
And I think it is particularly critical with the juvenile
and family court bench, because, as we have already discussed
here, it is so interdisciplinary. The judges need to be able to
understand what Dr. Woolard and her colleagues are saying and
what people from the social work profession are saying. They
need to know the brain research.
And they need to know what due process means for kids, as
opposed to adults, because they are different. They have
different competencies. And I think that is very important.
Some of it is money, but some of it I think can be embedded
in the act and directing the office to support these programs,
not only through the council, but through the states.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Well, that is why I was wondering,
because I know in New York State, the judges have to take so
many hours of educational or some sort of upgrade. I guess it
is every year. I am not sure. I have not followed them. I am
definitely going to look into it now.
But that is something that we can work with the governors
then on trying to bring those kind of courses into--even if it
is only a suggestion.
Mr. Lawrence. I know that states would welcome the input
from the committee and from the legislation, encouraging state
legislators to beef up JJDP education budgets, because that is
where the rubber meets the road.
If there is no money in the state budget and there is sort
of not the encouragement to put it there, the ability to
educate judges on evolving topics such as adolescent brain
science, unless they have a particular interest in the area, it
is not going to happen.
And I know in our state, until this year, we have had
tremendous cutbacks in our judicial education branch budget,
which has made it extremely difficult to get judges together to
educate them.
So, anything you can do in that direction would be helpful.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Well, I don't know if you noticed
lately; there has been a lot of bashing of judges.
Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First I would like to ask unanimous consent to introduce in
the record the New York Times editorial that I referenced
earlier, today's editorial, which ends by saying, ``Trying
children as adults, except in isolated cases involving extreme
violence, is both inhumane and counterproductive.''
And I would like to introduce this into the record.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Without objection.
[The editorial follows:]
[From the New York Times, July 12, 2007, Editorial]
Juvenile Justice
One of Congress's most crucial tasks will be to strengthen and
update the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Passed in
1974, the law required the states to move away from the practice of
locking up truants and runaways--and to refrain from placing children
in adult jails--in exchange for federal grant dollars.
Congress's goal then was to move the states away from failed
policies that often turned young delinquents into hardened criminals
and toward a framework based more on mentoring and rehabilitation. But
the states have increasingly classified ever larger numbers of young
offenders as adults, trying them in adult courts and holding them in
adult prisons.
The damage wrought by these policies is vividly outlined in a
federally backed study issued this spring. It reports that children
handled in adult courts and confined in adult jails committed more
violent crime than children processed through the traditional juvenile
justice system. Other studies show that as many as half of the juvenile
offenders sent to adult courts were not convicted there--or were sent
back to the juvenile system, but often after spending time in adult
lockups. Equally disturbing is the fact that youths of color are more
likely to be sent to adult prisons than their white counterparts.
Reauthorization hearings begin today and members need to listen
closely to what the experts are saying. Trying children as adults--
except in isolated cases involving extreme violence--is both inhumane
and counterproductive.
______
Mr. Scott. It also says that studies show as many of half
of juvenile offenders sent to adult courts were not convicted
there. They are sent back to juvenile system, or not convicted,
but often after spending time in adult lockup.
Now, Professor Shepherd, insofar as status offenders do not
count as prior criminal offenses in adult court, is it true
that those--if you increase the number of juveniles tried as
adults--you are talking about the marginal ones not tried now
would be if you pass the new law--if you increase the number of
juveniles tried as adults, is it true that they are likely to
get less time in adult court than they would in juvenile court?
Mr. Shepherd. I think studies show that to be true,
Congressman Scott.
Mr. Scott. So, after you crack down on crime and all the
political theater that is involved, they are going to end up
with less time in adult court than they would have had in
juvenile court.
Mr. Shepherd. That is very true.
The experience in Virginia, when they widened the net for
transfer to adult court in the 1990s, but at the same time they
allowed the criminal court judges to give blended sentences,
where the juvenile could serve part of the time in a juvenile
facility, well, probably more than half of our kids that are
transferred get blended sentences, which means that the
criminal court judge knows the kids should not be there in the
first place. They ought to be dealt with in the juvenile
system.
And we in Virginia and some other states have a dilemma
under the act. And interpretation from OJJDP says we cannot put
those juveniles in juvenile facilities beyond their 18th
birthday plus 6 months.
And in Virginia, our effort to keep adolescents, convicted
as adults, in the juvenile system, segregated from adults, are
really being thwarted by an interpretation of OJJDP that is not
explicit in the act.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
If we want to reduce crime--we have talked mostly about
prevention. Are there any criminal laws that we should look at?
I mean, do we need any new criminal laws to reduce juvenile
crime?
Okay. Moving right along. [Laughter.]
Mr. Shepherd. If you could embody in the act a very simple
statement. A dear friend who is now deceased, unfortunately, a
great juvenile court judge from Texas, who was a president of
the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, said
we need to invest resources in the playpen, and we will not
have to spend as much in the state pen.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Dr. Woolard, can you tell me the effect that death penalty
or mandatory minimums have on juvenile behavior? Whether or not
the existence of draconian and mandatory minimums or the death
penalty are helpful in reducing juvenile crime?
Ms. Woolard. Well, you are asking whether facing mandatory
minimums have a salutary effect on juvenile crime?
The meta-analyses that have examined more punitive and
deterrent approaches to crime, as opposed to more
rehabilitative approaches again find that they are at best
ineffective and usually--at best do not have an effect, and
usually actually have a negative effect. And so, they would be
more likely to exacerbate recidivism than they would be to
reduce it.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Ms. Clarke?
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I did want to thank and acknowledge Shannon Jones for being
here today and for sharing with us his transition. I am very
proud of you.
One of the things that you mentioned about your transition
through the CISP program was that, what helped you was being
held accountable. And I wanted to find out from you what that
meant, what being held accountable meant and what made that
different from perhaps what being in CISP holding you
accountable meant different from maybe the social set or
environment that you were growing up in.
Do you understand where I am coming from?
Mr. Jones. Yes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you.
Mr. Jones. Being held accountable I meant, when we mess up,
we know that we are definitely going to have consequences.
When I am in my social state, people think that they can
get away with things. They do not really think of the
consequences. They are thinking of right now.
And so, when we start doing whatever we are doing, we are
not thinking of the consequences. We are just thinking of what
my friends, we are just going to do this or do that, and not
thinking about the consequences that are going to happen, or
that can happen.
But in the CISP program, you know for sure there is going
to be consequences. There is no way of getting around it.
Ms. Clarke. And in the CISP program, what did those
consequences consist of?
Mr. Jones. Being sent to placements or being able--or
having to stay later, or things like that. We get boot camp
or----
Ms. Clarke. Okay. I just wanted you to explain why that was
a deterrent to you from doing the things that you used to do,
perhaps, when you were not put in that kind of environment.
Boot camp for some people is like fun, right? So, can you
give a little bit more insight into--there was something that
happened that said to you, you know, I am going to take the
responsibility, notwithstanding what the crowd is doing or the
folks in my neighborhood are doing. I have this chance now, and
I am going to make a difference.
And there were certain people in that environment that
assisted you either through positive reinforcement or you know
what the consequences are.
I think it is important, if people have a clear sense of
what that meant in terms of your transformation. I just wanted
to try to get that on the record.
Mr. Jones. Well, it was--we had victim awareness groups in
the CISP program. And what it really does, it shows everything
you do, you are not only hurting yourself, you are hurting
everybody around you.
And I have family. Back when I was locked up, before I was
sent to the CISP program, I was missing out on a whole lot of
things. A lot of things changed while I was there.
And the CISP program lets me be home. Like with the ankle
bracelet, I cannot leave the house, but I am still home. I get
to see my niece and my brothers and cousins, whoever. I still
get to see my family on a regular basis.
And for me that is big. I do not know where I would be if I
could not see my family every day.
So that was a big consequence. I did not want to get sent
to a place for something stupid.
Ms. Clarke. I want to thank you again, and I want to
encourage you to use the energy that you have developed through
this process to be of assistance to other young people.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And a
double thank-you, because I did have additional questions, and
I do appreciate it very much.
I am going to do some rapid-fire questioning, because I
want to get a sense of all of you. And again, I thank you,
apologize many of us for missing portions of your testimony. We
are scanning it, but we are in a number of places at once.
Mr. Johnson, I just thank you. And you seem to be an
expert. You see a lot of materials in your name in Arizona.
But quickly, is there a positive impact with juveniles in
leg irons and shackles and handcuffs?
Mr. Johnson. I do not believe so. I believe that children,
especially since all the brain development that has been talked
about. It brings out the worst in them.
Ms. Jackson Lee. You all are giving us bits and pieces and
chunks of how we look to the reauthorization and the
improvement of this, so do not think that we are shooting these
brief questions, but we are trying to get sort of the overview
of what we are trying to do.
And I think Patrick Kennedy said it well, but I want to
expand on it.
Do not put children in settings, if they are detained and
they are being guarded by those who are sexually abusing them.
Do not put children in systems where there is no sentencing. It
is called the juvenile detention centers.
So that if they are intimidated by an adult, they speak
back, they are there for 6 months. And their parents do not
even know. And before you know it, they have got 10 months
added on. And it goes on and on and on.
So, I am going to raise questions going in that
perspective.
Mr. Jones, may I thank you, as well. And you indicated
that, when you are out with your boys--and I might not have the
right terminology--you are not thinking about mandatory
sentencing or the death penalty. Is that correct?
If you are out there doing something, is that a deterrent?
Is somebody thinking that I am going to get the death penalty
while they are out there?
Mr. Jones. Yes, ma'am. Nobody thinks that.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Are they thinking about it? I did not hear
you.
Mr. Jones. No, of course not.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay. They just--they are rolling with the
crowd.
Mr. Jones. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. This alternative that you have now--and
let me congratulate you for being in it. And let me also
congratulate you for indicating to us how important family is.
I do not know why, when people are incarcerated, we all of
a sudden think they do not have the human needs that all of us
have.
Can you tell me what is in your future? What do you want to
do, Mr. Jones, in your future?
Mr. Jones. Well, I have college in my future.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And if you had stayed in a criminal
justice system, incarcerated, would that have been your goal?
Do you think you would have gotten to that point?
Mr. Jones. No, I do not think so.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Why don't you say it loudly?
Mr. Jones. Because before I was into the CISP program, my
grades were not good and college was definitely not a goal for
me.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So, you want to say it again. No, you
would not be directed in that direction.
Mr. Jones. No----
Ms. Jackson Lee. But now you are.
Mr. Jones. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Professor Shepherd, that is what I want to
get to. You are the thinker on these questions, or the writer
and the thinker.
This whole question of detention and a loose system of
sentencing--and I am talking about when a child is put in a
juvenile system--and this whole system.
And I cite a particular state that has suffered, Texas,
with a whole litany of accusations on sexual abuse of the child
by those who are responsible for guarding the child--and that
is the wrong terminology--and the constant abuse of adding
sentencing.
What does that do? And what do we do in the reauthorization
to even look at the so-called youth commission systems that say
they have no alternatives but to put children in that kind of
setting, with untrained persons supervising them?
Mr. Shepherd. Congresswoman, that is----
Ms. Jackson Lee. And Dr. Woolard, please feel free to jump
in.
Mr. Shepherd. That is where the evidence-based research
comes in. We know that states that have developed programs in
recent years, like Missouri, that have proven effective in
reducing recidivism, have done away with the large, central,
juvenile correctional facilities, the reformatories, and
instead have gone to smaller, community-based programs.
They have put their money into hiring well-educated,
highly-trained staff. They are more staff intensive than they
are architecturally intensive. And they have had much fewer
problems than we have seen in Texas, in Maryland, in Louisiana,
in some other states, where there have been abuses in the large
institutions.
And the programs that are most effective, like functional
family therapy and multi-systemic therapy, are largely
community-based and non-institutional. They are based on having
highly-trained staff people who work with the kids in their
family, in the community with their peers and in the schools.
And that is where the kids are going to change their behaviors
and be successful.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you think that occurs--and Dr. Woolard,
if you could quickly answer--do you think that occurs if a
child has done something violent, as well?
Ms. Woolard. It does. And actually, multi-systemic therapy,
which Professor Shepherd talked about, actually takes into
their program serious violent offenders that would have
otherwise been incarcerated. So, it certainly does. It can.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So, if we write legislation, we should
write it in the context of really putting incentives--and I
thank you, Madam Chair--to change the attitudes of these
states.
Ms. Woolard. Absolutely. But moving towards evidenced-based
programs that are community based, I think would be positive.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman McCarthy. You are welcome.
Mr. Sarbanes from Maryland?
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you.
This is for Dr. Woolard.
I am struck by how sort of the brain research part of this
discussion is so reminiscent of the discussions we have been
having with respect to early childhood education. In other
words, where brain research is confirming all of the sort of
right impulses that we had about what should happen at the
early childhood stage, and beginning now to really drive best
practices there in ways that were not happening before.
How hopeful are you, and how quickly do you think it will
happen, that this brain research will start to kick in in a way
that will start to drive policy with respect to services,
juvenile services, and so forth?
And would you hazard a guess at what percentage of the
current response to these issues is going to end up being
aligned with what the brain research shows, or will show?
Ms. Woolard. Although I teach probability and stats, I do
not think I want to give you a number at this point about that.
But I am optimistic and hopeful that the brain research, I
think is an important component of the larger portfolio of
research, as I was mentioning, on both brain and behavior, that
is confirming, I think, what the impulses were for the
formation of the juvenile court and what got lost in some of
the debate as we have seen some of the more draconian reforms.
Which is that children and adolescents are different. They
are still growing. As my grandmother would say, they are done
cooking yet. And so, we have got to, I think, respect that
developmental process.
The pictures from the brain imaging research I think are
compelling powerful for a lot of people in combination with the
behavioral research, to say that we do have the opportunity for
continued growth. It is not finished. And that the focus on
intervention and rehabilitation is an appropriate way to go.
Mr. Sarbanes. Great. I cannot wait to tell my 13-year-old
son tonight that he is not done cooking yet. [Laughter.]
Thank you.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes.
I want to thank Mr. Scott and Mr. Forbes from the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security for
joining us today, as the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and
Communities begins its reauthorization process on the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act.
I want to thank each and every one of you. I think that you
can tell from the members that were asking you questions, we
really want to do what we can. We know that--you know,
obviously, we want to work with our young people. We want to
make sure that they have the best opportunities to have a good
life, to be productive in this society.
For too many years we know that we have been spending more
money on prisons than we have on schools. I would like to see
that reversed.
I think that if we get our children young, we are not going
to see them in prison. We can have certainly equality for all
children. And I think that is the theme that our speaker, Nancy
Pelosi, wants us to see this year.
With the information, we have increased the money, as far
as the appropriations this year. I think that is a good start.
So, with that, I would like to say thank you again for
indulging us and staying here a little bit longer.
I want to say that, as previously stated, members will have
14 days to submit additional materials for the hearing record.
Any member who wishes to submit follow-up questions in writing
for the witnesses should coordinate with the majority staff
within the requested time.
Without objection, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Altmire follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jason Altmire, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Pennsylvania
Thank you Madam Chair for holding this important hearing on the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act.
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act was passed in
1974. Since then it has been reauthorized several times, most recently
in 2002. The original focus of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act was almost exclusively on prevention and rehabilitation,
however, subsequent reauthorizations of the law have put an additional
emphasis on more punitive measures.
As the Education and Labor Committee prepares to reauthorize this
legislation, it is important that we examine its entire history in
order to determine which programs and policies have had the greatest
impact on preventing juvenile delinquency and keeping communities safe.
I look forward to working with all of my colleagues on this committee
to make the Juvenile Justice and Prevention Act as effective as
possible.
Thank you again, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing. I yield
back the balance of my time.
______
[Questions for the record sent to Mr. Johnson follow:]
[VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL]
July 13, 2007,
Mr. Derrick K. Johnson, Vice-Chair,
Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission, State Advisory Group, Mesa, AZ.
Dear Mr. Johnson: Thank you for testifying at the July 12th, 2007
joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities
and the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), a member of the Healthy
Families Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the
following question:
Could you talk more about the specific steps that Arizona has taken
under the DMC mandate? Are there additional ways that the JJDPA could
strengthen the DMC mandate?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
question by COB Monday, July 23, 2007--the date on which the hearing
record will close. If you have any questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
[Response from Mr. Johnson follows:]
July 23, 2007.
Hon. George Miller, Chairman,
Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Miller: Thank you for the opportunity to testify
before the Committee on Education and Labor at the Subcommittee on
Healthy Families and Communities hearing entitled ``Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act: Overview and Perspectives,'' held on
July 12, 2007.
In response to the request for additional information by
Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), a member of the Healthy Families
Subcommittee, I respectfully submit in the following information about
the steps Arizona has taken under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (JJDP) Act of 2002 to address the Disproportionate Minority
Contact (DMC) mandate. Reauthorization of the JJDP Act would continue
to support States' efforts to address the disproportionality of
minority youth who are served by the juvenile justice system.
Furthermore, and equally important to the JJDP Act's reauthorization is
the appropriation of prevention funding for programs authorized by the
JJDP Act.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide both written and verbal
testimony to the importance of the JJDP Act and to provide further
information in response to Representative Grijalva's request.
Respectfully,
Derrick Johnson,
Vice Chair, Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission.
ARIZONA'S DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONTACT INITIATIVES
Arizona's State Advisory Group, the Arizona Juvenile Justice
Commission, in partnership with the Governor's Division for Children
has implemented the following activities and programs in response to
the mandate of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of
2002 to address the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) within
Arizona. These activities include the following:
Development of an annually updated Arizona State DMC Plan
inclusive of DMC Data for state level and three jurisdictions and plans
for state and local DMC reduction efforts;
Establishment of a Statewide DMC Committee; and
Funding to support state and local DMC reduction
activities
Arizona's State Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Plan
Each year, as part of its mandate to address DMC in Arizona, the
Arizona State Advisory Group, the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission,
in partnership with the Governor's Division for Children develops a
State DMC Plan that outlines Arizona's activities to address DMC. This
plan incorporates data for state level DMC measures and DMC measure for
three jurisdictions (three counties identified for implementing DMC
reduction efforts). The Plan also provides an overview of the Statewide
DMC Committee and its activities, goals, objectives and anticipated
outcomes and accomplishments. Arizona's DMC plan also includes a
summary of the previous year's activities for state level activities
and the activities of the three jurisdictions as well as planned
activities for the coming year.
As part of the state's DMC plan, each jurisdiction implementing
targeted DMC-reduction activities is complying with the OJJDP
implementation guidelines to include Assessment, Interventions,
Evaluation/Performance Measures, and Monitoring. In utilizing these
guidelines, Arizona has established a system in which Relative Rate
Index Data (the Relative Rate Index (RRI) is a nationally recognized
and adopted measure for measuring potential areas of
disproportionality). RRI data is updated and reviewed at minimum every
three years to monitor and track changes in DMC trends. Additionally,
the state is committed to monitoring and tracking the interventions
that work to reduce DMC. The state captures and evaluates interventions
against current DMC data to ensure that goals, objectives, activities
are targeting prevention and improvements to the system where DMC
occurs.
Arizona remains in full support of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act and will continue to work towards the
solutions that will address the disparate number of minorities in the
juvenile justice system. Through efforts at the State level, including
the commitment of the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission, Arizona will
continue to utilize the relative rate index calculations to conduct
further analysis and help guide the State's plan for reducing DMC.
In November 2006, the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission held its
annual Strategic Planning Session and reviewed its current efforts to
focus on reducing DMC in Arizona and renewed its strategic initiatives
that work to address DMC. As dictated by the core protections of the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, the Commission is
committed to developing effective strategies and programs to address
minority youth that come in contact with the juvenile justice system.
Essential to this effort is the establishment of an integrated and
comprehensive approach to identifying opportunities for community-level
change with respect to policing, developing culturally competent
assessments and services, and identifying existing model programs and
available resources to impact the issue.
State Level Efforts--State DMC Committee
The Commission's Statewide DMC Committee, made up of
representatives from all points of contact within the juvenile justice
system and other key juvenile justice stakeholders, has been charged
with developing a response to the Commission's strategic initiatives
around this area. Memberships includes representatives from the
community, police department, Maricopa County Juvenile Court and
Juvenile Probation, Pima County Juvenile Court and Juvenile Probation,
the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections, researchers from the
Arizona State University, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, and
the Arizona Supreme Court, members of the Arizona Juvenile Justice
Commission and staff from the Governor's Division for Children.
Identified as its primarily initiative, the DMC committee is
working to utilize the data that is gathered on a statewide basis for
DMC. Utilizing statewide data collected through Arizona Administrative
Office of the Court's (AOC) Juvenile On-Line Tracking System (JOLTS)
and the AOC's Building Block initiative, the DMC committee hopes to
target specific causes or contributing factors to increase contact and/
or commitment of minority youth with prevention strategies that are
applicable and address specific county or community factors.
In its role as a standing committee of the Arizona Juvenile Justice
Commission, the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Committee is
committed to the fair and equitable treatment of minority youth in the
Arizona juvenile justice system. The DMC Committee continues to
collaborate with the Administrative Office of the Courts, the Arizona
Department of Juvenile Corrections, and other juvenile justice
stakeholders in addressing DMC. To that end, the DMC Committee
developed a series of strategic objectives in an effort to identify and
address issues that contribute to disproportionate minority contact and
minority overrepresentation in the Arizona juvenile justice system.
Strategies for 2006-2008 of the Arizona Juvenile Justice
Commission's DMC Committee:
Strategy One:
Continue to identify and address issues of DMC
Strategy Two:
Support, promote and replicate existing model programs that are
being used in Arizona and nationally
Strategy Three:
Collaborate with granting body of AJJC to increase coordination
among funding sources to fully address gaps
Strategy Four:
Collaborate with other entities to establish statewide benchmarks
for data collection and analysis
Strategy Five:
Support Arizona's Building Blocks Initiative and Maricopa County
and Pima County's DMC-reduction activities
Funding to support state and local DMC Reduction Activities
The Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission (AJJC), through the
Planning and Grants Committee, has made it a priority to continue to
fund prevention and intervention programs that work with minority youth
and families as an overall effort to address DMC.
As local prevention efforts continue to do their part in addressing
DMC, the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission will continue to support
systemic efforts to address the overrepresentation of minorities in the
juvenile justice system. As noted in the list of State's Priority
Juvenile Justice Needs/Problem Statements, there is an increased need
for delinquency prevention programs and alternatives to detention that
are culturally appropriate to address the unique needs of at-risk
minority youth.
This will be accomplishment by the following implementation steps.
1. Make funding available to communities for programs that serve as
alternatives to detention (deinstitutionalization of status offenders,
jail removal, alternatives to detention and diversion programs that are
gender responsive and culturally appropriate).
2. Make funding available for diversion programs that will divert
youth from the formal juvenile court process.
3. Train and educate law enforcement, probation personnel, judges
and other juvenile justice professionals on the DMC core requirement
parameters.
4. Provide community-level reports regarding the facilities that
effect compliance and the community's current compliance status.
5. Provide funding that will improve the juvenile justice system
including the appropriate use of research-based programs.
6. Work with the Building Blocks Initiative that analyzes data in
Arizona to accurately identify decision points within the system that
are of greatest concern with regard to disproportionate minority
contact.
7. Work with the Pima County Community Advisory Board as they
continue to address Disproportionate Minority Contact in Pima County.
8. Work with the Pima County Juvenile Court Center and the JDAI/DMC
Executive Committee to implement the Annie E Casey Foundation grant for
Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI) and Disproportionate
Minority Contact.
9. Fund community programs, training and educational forums to
reduce the incidence of disproportionate minority representation in the
juvenile justice system.
10. Promote collaboration around DMC efforts among the state
agencies and organizations directly involved with the juvenile justice
system, including the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections,
Administrative Office of the Courts and the Arizona Juvenile Justice
Commission.
During FY2007 and FY2008, the DMC Committee of the AJJC will
continue in its efforts to identify model program and best practice
strategies that could be used in Arizona to reduce DMC. A key strategy
in this effort has been to include representatives of key community and
juvenile justice stakeholders on the DMC Committee. DMC Committee
representation includes representative members from Maricopa County,
the Arizona Building Blocks Initiative, the PCJCC JDAI/DMC Executive
Committee, as well as from the Department of Juvenile Corrections. With
representation from the PCJCC JDAI Executive Committee, the DMC
Committee can support as well as learn from the strategies and
implementation.
Local Jurisdiction Efforts
Jurisdictions conducting targeted DMC reduction activities include
Maricopa County and Pima County and Yuma County; however, the majority
of activities have taken place in Maricopa County and Pima County. Yuma
County was selected as a third jurisdiction for data analysis for its
increasing minority population; however, currently has fewer programs
targeting the areas found with evidence of DMC as compared to the other
identified jurisdictions. It is important to note that the number of
juveniles who came in contact with the system in Maricopa County and
Pima County represent 70% of the total youth who were referred in
FY2006. Yuma County continued to report the third highest youth
referred count in FY2006.
Maricopa County
Utilizing the ``Building Blocks'' model of the Youth Law Center,
the Arizona Supreme Court, with support by the Arizona Juvenile Justice
Commission, undertook a multi-year project that attempts to reduce
minority over-representation in the justice system and to promote
rational and effective justice policies.
This project began as a response to the rapidly increasing over-
representation of young people of color in the justice system. The
project proactively addresses the concerns of disproportionate minority
representation in an integrated multiple-strategy campaign that
includes (1) research, (2) analysis of decision making in the field,
(3) direct advocacy for minority youth in the justice system, (4)
building a constituency for change at the local, state, and national
level, and (5) development of communications, media, and public
education strategies.
Included in Arizona's Building Blocks Initiative is a focus on
Maricopa County, one of the two jurisdictions with significant targeted
DMC-reduction activities. The Building Blocks Initiative aims to reduce
the over representation of minority youth in the justice system through
a coordinated effort among state and local stakeholders.
The initial findings of the System Analysis for Maricopa County
found that over representation was present in three areas of analysis--
Arrest, Probation, and within Juvenile Corrections. Within the area of
arrest, data suggests that over representation occurs for Part One and
Part Two crimes for minorities. Further analysis is being conducted to
explore data on police attempts to contact parents, the impact of
special units targeting specific youth, and explore the feasibility of
differentiating youth questioned but not arrested compared with those
arrested.
In the area of probation, data suggests that over representation of
minority youth occurred for youth violating terms of probation as found
within the decision to request a petition for such violations. This
finding occurred for minority youth on standard as well as intensive
probation. Further analysis will be conducted to assess prior offenses
and dispositions and impact on movement through system as well as the
ethnicity of the officer filing the probation violation petition.
The system analysis and community assessment of Maricopa County
also identified an area of Maricopa County as having a high
concentration of minority youth as well as a high number of youth
referred to the juvenile court.
In an effort to reduce the number of youth detained, coupled with
data gathered from the Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department
that identifies truancy as a leading cause of youth referrals to court,
targeted intervention programs have been implemented to reduce DMC in
Maricopa County. Specifically, Maricopa County's Gateway Project, the
City of Phoenix PASS initiative, the City of Tempe's Strategies for
Success program, and the Cultural Pride Linking Communities of Chicanos
Por La Causa, were identified with a component that targets minority
youth within its delinquency prevention efforts to reduce potential
contact with the juvenile justice system.
Two additional activities were either continued or implemented in
FY06 with support from the findings of the community assessment; these
include the Education Success Program (ESP) truancy prevention program
and an Alternative to Suspension program.
Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department is implementing the
Maricopa County Gateway Project. This is a collaboration project funded
with Title V prevention funding that coincides with the ESP program and
the Alternative to Suspension program, targeting the Cartwright School
District and adjacent areas. One strategy of the Gateway project is to
redirect and refocus already existent resources and programs in the
community, crate a new collaborative intervention strategy, and target
at risk and first truancy referrals and their families for intensive
intervention services. Truancy has been seen as a ``gateway'' behavior
that places youth at risk for future negative activity. Youth from the
high-risk areas identified as well as first time truancy referrals and
their families will enter one of two blue print programs selected as
part of the Gateway Project--Functional Family Therapy (FFT) and
Multisystemic Therapy (MST).
The goal and outcome objectives of the Gateway project are to
reduce truancy through community collaborations, promote the
development and expansion of family centered services, expand
communication and cooperation among all youth involved, augment efforts
to prevent re-offending and support individual progress, and provide
rapid response delivery of services. Data from Maricopa County Juvenile
Court revealed that a disproportionate number of status offense
referrals and additional data reveal a high number of truancy referrals
from the Maryvale area. This program is targeting the Maryvale area,
specifically three zip codes identified as high risk.
The Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department and community
providers, Touchstone and Tumbleweed, have partnered with Safe School
sites in target zip codes to provide evidenced based programs to
families. This intervention has demonstrated effectiveness in assisting
families with skills necessary to engage, motivate, and change
behavior.
These services work not only with the at risk youth, but with the
entire family to address the family as a system. These services are
available, as needed, with bi-lingual counselors. The approach of FFT
(Functional Family Therapy) and MST (Multisystemic Therapy) empower
parents with skills and resources to independently address the issues
that arise when raising teenagers, and provide ways to cope with
family, peer, school and neighborhood problems.
Recruitment occurs by enlisting current programs and initiatives
within the target area. School personnel and Safe School Officers,
School Resource Officers, and Probation Officers are among those who
identify youth in the target areas as most at risk of truant behavior
and assess the case for referral into the Gateway project. Programming
is also targeted to youth that have already been referred to Court on a
truancy referral.
Additional efforts from Maricopa County Juvenile Probation include
its collaborative project with the City of Phoenix (located within
Maricopa County) that coordinates the activities of its C.U.T.S (Court
Unified truancy Suppression) program with the City of Phoenix's at-risk
prevention programs. Both programs are targeting high rates of minority
youth referrals for truancy.
The truancy prevention program is a collaboration of
representatives committed to reducing the number of youth, primarily
minority youth, which are referred to court. This collaboration
involves school principals and administrators, Maricopa County Juvenile
Probation, the City of Phoenix's Operation AIM (Attendance is
Mandatory), City of Phoenix Police Department, and City of Phoenix At-
Risk Youth Division. The Education Success Program (ESP) program was
implemented in two 6th Grade Centers (schools only serving 6th grade
students) that opened in the 2004-2005 school year. Elementary schools
within the Cartwright School District within Maricopa County fed into
the two 6th Grade Centers.
Maricopa County's Education Success Program (ESP) program is
focused on providing prevention and early intervention strategies for
at risk youth in the target area, which includes a high population of
minority youth and families. The ESP program placed a full time Family
Resource Officer within the Cartwright School District to provide
intervention efforts for at-risk youth and their families. Referrals
were directed to the Family Resource Officer to avoid formal court
involvement and youth and families were directed toward appropriate
services.
During FY06, funding was used to support an Alternative to
Suspension program in Maricopa County. This program was implemented in
the Atkinson Middle School District within the Maryvale/Cartwright
School District. This school is made up of a population of
approximately 1,000 students with a demographic breakdown of 80%
Hispanic, 8% African-American, 10% white and 2% Native American. This
school district was identified as having an increasing rate of
referrals to juvenile court along with an increased number of student
suspensions. This school was also reporting an increasing number of
student suspensions, estimated at 75-100 per year, placing a high
number of youth at-risk of delinquency, being detained, or not
continuing on to high school. The goal is this program is to provide an
alternative school suspension program to allow for continued
educational services, coupled with behavioral health and human service
components also being provided in the students case planning.
In 2007, Maricopa County Superior Court implemented its Community
Services Unit. This program will bring together the Juvenile Court,
Juvenile Probation, the Arizona Department of Economic Security's CPS
unit, and the local Regional Behavioral Health Provider to provide wrap
around services to youth and families who come in to contact with the
court. The CSU will assess and triage referred families as well as
those who walk in needing service. The goal of the CSU is to divert
child and families away from formal court or detention involvement by
bridging the gap between needed services and the court involvement
often times needed to access such services. Hispanic youth and families
are the second highest ethnic group who are referred to Maricopa County
Juvenile Court.
Free Arts of Arizona, a non-profit within Maricopa County, was
funded to implement a delinquency prevention program targeting minority
youth. Free Arts of Arizona will provide a range of activities to youth
in shelters, residential, and group homes throughout Maricopa County.
The current population served by this program is youth ages 14-18 with
ethnic make up of 42% white, 34% Hispanic, 15% African American, 5%
Native American, and 4% other. This program was selected for its target
population of youth of color in the child welfare system as a
prevention to further system penetration and more importantly, to
prevent the flow of youth from the dependency system into the juvenile
justice system.
Two alternative to detention programs were awarded formula grant
funding to begin programs in 2007. Tumbleweed Center for Youth
Development will provide space for at-risk, runaway and homeless youth
ages 11-18. Tumbleweed utilizes various outreach efforts to work with
local police and detention center intake personnel to promote awareness
to and provide an alternative to secure holding and placement within
detention. In addition to providing an alternative to detention, human
services, case management, Family Functional Therapy and other
counseling and family support are available. This program primarily
serves Hispanic and African American youth.
The Valley of the Sun YMCA was selected to provide an alternative
to detention in Maricopa County. In partnership with the Maricopa
County Juvenile Probation Department, the Valley of the Sun YMCA will
service youth who live primarily in three zip codes considered to be
the highest risk for arrest and detention (primary zip codes for
referral to juvenile court). The program is designed to serve as an
alternative to detention by helping divert youth who would otherwise be
detained due to limited alternatives in the community. Using a
community based, multifaceted approach, the YMCA will implement an
Evening Reporting Center to increase availability of pre-sentencing
alternatives and reduce already overcrowding of detention. The target
population is primarily Hispanic.
The City of Phoenix continues to operate its prevention program,
Personal and Student Success (PASS). This intervention program targets
a population of at-risk youth with a high percentage of minority youth.
The City of Phoenix Human Services Department completed a need
assessment of the schools and surrounding communities that are part of
the PASS Initiative. The schools partnering in the PASS Initiative are
Camelback High School, Cesar Chavez High School, and South Mountain
High School. Staff identified Risk Factors and Protective Factors based
upon the assessment of factors associated with school drop out.
The strategies and approaches utilized in the PASS Initiative are
consistent with and build upon state and local efforts. The activities
are based on a strong foundation of research to ensure quality,
effective programming. The activities were selected to guarantee
cultural and gender sensitivity and age appropriateness, as much of the
target population is minority youth. The City markets community and
City resources that are effective in drop out prevention and recovery,
develop a system of service coordination, and expand City and community
resources to assist schools. One of the most effective programs
identified by the Graduate Phoenix Task Force was the City of Phoenix
Human Services Department's longitudinal school based program. The PASS
Initiative is an enhancement and expansion of that highly successful
program.
The PASS Initiative works with 9th grade students to assist with
the transition from middle school to high school. The PASS Initiative
caseworker provides long-term, intensive services to a small target
group of at risk students. The complement of services is based on an
individualized assessment for each student. In addition, the Initiative
caseworker provides short-term services to the remaining 9th graders.
The services include classroom presentations, conflict mediation,
assessment and referrals, and crisis intervention.
The goals of the PASS Initiative are to demonstrate increased
service coordination by providing a continuum of comprehensive services
to at-risk students, and for students among at the three target schools
to demonstrate increased academic success and increased social skills
and healthy beliefs. Services are being provided to the target students
that include support groups, skill-building groups, individual
supportive counseling, conflict resolution, and assessments and
referrals. The baseline data for the students has been established and
the final outcomes will be measured at the end of the school year.
In addition to the program activities mentioned above, the Arizona
Juvenile Justice Commission awarded seven new programs in early 2007
that will target DMC reduction activities. Four of these programs will
implement delinquency prevention efforts primarily serving minority
youth. These programs provide community based services that work to
eliminate contact with various points of the system. Three of the
programs were funded to provide an alterative to detention. These
programs specifically target minority youth and zip code and/or
community areas identified as high arrest and referral areas. Programs
activities for FY2007 are outlined below.
Two additional programs were awarded funding to provide services
within the City of Phoenix. The City of Phoenix was awarded funding for
its Getting Results through Encouraging Attendance and Transition
(GREAT) Program. This program will complement and expand the City's
First Offender Program that provides services to youth, 6 to 17, who
have committed their first status offense or misdemeanor offense,
primarily referrals for truancy. The goal of this program is to work
with youth who have been identified as being chronically truant,
approaching a formal petition to court for having the maximum allowable
truancies. Services will include individual assessments, case
management, conflict resolution workshops, and individual and family
counseling. The target population is primarily Hispanic youth.
Greater Phoenix Youth at Risk, a non-profit program located in
Maricopa County, will begin its New Pathways Mentoring Program in 2007.
This program will target at-risk youth ages 14-17; current program
population is 66% Hispanic youth. The program targets primarily truant,
suspended or expelled youth or youth that would other otherwise not be
in school. While the behavior of these youth would typically label them
as being delinquent, the majority of youth served by this program have
yet to be formally charged.
The City of Tempe's Strategies for Success program, also within
Maricopa County, continued in FY2006. The program was implemented in
the fall FY2004 and identified among its target populations at-risk
youth to include a high percentage of minority youth. The Strategies
for Success is a collaborative effort between the City of Tempe,
Community Services Department, Tempe Elementary School District, Scales
Professional Development Elementary School and Gililland Middle School,
and the East Valley Boys and Girls Club.
As a part of its needs assessment, data from the City of Tempe
showed that a significant portion of referrals to juvenile court came
from Gilliland Middle School students in the Tempe Elementary School
District and that Gilliland Middle School student test scores are the
among the lowest in the district. Primary goals and objectives of the
Strategies for Success program include a reduction of Gililland
students' involvement in delinquent and other risky behaviors as
measured by a decrease Gililland students referrals to juvenile court
by 10% after two years and to have youth participation in one or more
of the proposed programs as measured by increase in knowledge of
personal and social competency skills by at least 10% at the end of the
program cycle.
Identified needs include bilingual counseling services for students
and their families and structured after-school activities and tutoring
services for Gililland Middle students. Through 2006, bilingual
counseling services were provided to 91 participants, primarily between
the ages of 5 and 11; 63 of the 91 participants were Hispanic or
Latino. Intervention programs targeting minority youth in 2006 served
195 high school aged youth; 57% of participants were Hispanic or
Latino; 15% of participants were Black or African American.
Another agency targeting delinquency prevention and alternatives to
detention for youth in the City of Tempe, Tempe School District is
Chicanos Por La Causa. Funding to support this agency began with the
2004 funding cycle to implement its Cultural Pride Linking Communities
program in two middle schools within the Tempe Elementary School
District. The specific high-risk neighborhoods associated with these
two sites are the El Rio and La Victoria neighborhoods in Tempe. The
Cultural Pride Linking Communities program is a comprehensive and
holistic approach that includes participation of youth and their
families in the program. The program participants are Chicano or other
ethnic and economically disadvantaged students and their families.
Parent and siblings of participant youth were also served.
Pima County
Pima County Juvenile Court Center (PCJCC) has long been focused on
efforts that work to address youth of color being over-represented in
the juvenile justice system. In 1997, an Intercultural Relations
position was created. In 2002, the National Center for Juvenile Justice
conducted a technical assistance project to guide PCJCC in implementing
interventions to reduce Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC). The
presiding judge also reconvened the Community Advisory Board, which
took on the task of assisting PCJCC in addressing DMC, and created the
Minority Overrepresentation Work Group. In 2003, the Pima County
Juvenile Court Director crafted a PCJCC DMC Action Plan, and in 2004,
PCJCC appointed the court's first DMC coordinator.
In 2004, the Pima County Juvenile Court Center spearheaded the Pima
County DMC Initiative with a community event. The Pima County Juvenile
Court Community Advisory Board, in partnership with the Pima County
Juvenile Court and the Minority Over-representation Committee, held a
symposium regarding Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) in the Pima
County juvenile justice system. There were 60 participants in
attendance at the six-hour symposium, representing a cross section of
the community and the juvenile justice system. This event brought
together key stakeholders that included community policy-decision
makers, local elected official, judges, community service providers,
law enforcement, faith-base leaders, juvenile court officials, and
youth advocates to discuss and set a course of action to address the
issue of disproportionate minority contact within the juvenile justice
continuum in Pima County.
A goal of the Pima County Symposium was to create an organization
or governing body to organize the data collection, system analysis, and
activities and information sharing regarding the Pima County DMC
Initiative. Following the DMC symposium, a DMC Executive Committee was
established. This executive board is made up of key stakeholders that
will be tasked with reviewing the system analysis data as well as
conducting a comprehensive review of the detention risk assessment
form.
In October 2004, Pima County was selected as an Annie E. Casey
Foundation replication site for the Juvenile Detention Alternative
Initiative (JDAI). The Pima County Juvenile Court Center (PCJCC) has
also partnered with the W. Haywood Burns Institute to address the issue
of DMC. PCJCC is the first JDAI site in the nation to implement the
Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative with the work of the W.
Haywood Burns Institute at the inception of the initiative.
The objectives of the JDAI are to safely eliminate inappropriate or
unnecessary use of secure detention, minimize failures to appear in
court and incidence of delinquent behavior, and well as to improve
conditions in secure detention facilities. The JDAI and DMC
collaboration that has been established involves key community and
juvenile justice stakeholders. The PCJCC JDAI/DMC Executive Committee
includes: the Tucson Police Department, Chicanos Por La Causa, the
Tucson Indian Center, the School Districts of Tucson Unified and
Sunnyside, the Offices of the Pima County Attorney and Public Defender,
the Regional Behavioral Health Authority, the Department of Economic
Security Child Protective Services, and the Pima Count Juvenile Court.
The focus of the three-year grant is to create safe alternatives to
confinement for children accused of committing crimes.
With the announcement of the AECF grant, the Pima County DMC
Executive Board became the JDAI/DMC Executive Committee and serves as
the oversight body for the JDAI project and plan implementation.
Additionally, the Chief of Police in Pima County has endorsed the DMC
reduction plan and integrated the plan into the strategic plan of the
Pima County Police Department.
The JDAI/DMC Executive Committee is currently focusing on two
strategies. One focus includes the JDAI project and associated
activities. A second focus of the Executive Committee is a review of
Pima County's risk assessment and detention screening tool. An
additional strategy involves training of judicial staff using the Casey
Family Programs of Arizona curriculum, ``Undoing Racism.'' This
training is used to discuss racism among judges and other staff and
community members involved with youth.
During 2006, Pima County continued its community assessment and
data collection activities. The System Analysis for Pima County is
currently being implemented and involves a review of data covering a
ten-year period and assesses numerous points of contact with youth.
These points include paper referral detainment of youth, detention,
disposition to probation and juvenile corrections, and violations of
probation. Variables in the system analysis for Pima County include but
are not limited to ethnicity, race, gender, socioeconomic status, and
severity of offense.
During FY2006, PCJCC staff completed a comprehensive profile of
children in detention. Factors considered include age, race/ethnicity,
gender, nature of offense or referral, day/time of arrest, and length
of stay in detention. PCJCC Information Technology staff created geo-
maps identifying the residence of detained minors. Additional
geographic-related data was compiled from law enforcement, behavioral
health, and other sources. This data is being used to identify specific
strategies to reduce the inappropriate use of detention and
disproportionate contact.
Successes noted in 2006 include:
Average daily population in detention (ADP) reduced from
173 in 2004 to 135 in 2005 and continued to decrease into 2006
Average daily population of African American juveniles
reduced from 20 in Q1 of 2005 to 13 in Q1 of 2006
Average daily population of Native American juveniles
reduced from 18 in Q1 of 2005 to 11 in Q1 of 2006
Average length of stay (ALOS) in detention reduced from
16.83 days in 2004 to 14.11 days in 2005
Average length of stay for African American juveniles
reduced from 22 days in Q1 of 2005 to 12 days in Q1 of 2006
Average length of stay for Hispanic juveniles reduced from
16 days in Q1 of 2005 to 14 in Q1 of 2006
Average length of stay for Native American juveniles
reduced from 24 days in Q1 of 2005 to 19 in Q1 of 2006
Source: Pima County Juvenile Court Center
Additional accomplishments in FY06 were completed around specific
problems areas. These include:
Risk Assessment Instrument: With technical assistance from the
Annie E. Casey Foundation, this group has reviewed and revised the
screening tool used to determine whether a minor will be detained, by
removing subjective factors and other criteria that may result in
inappropriate detention, specifically of minority youth. Data revealed
a significant amount of detention intake overrides (70%) were falling
into two categories: Family dysfunction/Domestic Violence and Substance
Abuse.
Provisional Warrants: This group has developed a modified warrant
and related procedures to be used in cases where a minor fails to
appear for a court hearing but does not appear to be a threat to the
community. Probation officers will have the discretion not to arrest
minors subject to such warrants where it appears that the parents will
assure the minor's attendance at the next hearing.
Ad Hoc Target Site: Two areas were identified in the community from
which a high percentage of minority youth are referred to the detention
center. The Executive Committee and the DMC Coordinator is beginning to
implement a strategy to work in partnership with these local
communities to identify ways in which arrests can be avoided or minors
released from detention with appropriate services and supervision in
place.
Probation Violators: A large percentage of the detention
populations are minors on probation who commit ``technical'' violations
of the conditions of probation (e.g., curfew violations, failure to
attend school, etc.) This group will develop a profile of this
population and develop strategies to avoid inappropriate use or overuse
of detention as a sanction.
Decision to Detain: A period of time in detention is often sought
by prosecutors and probation officers as a consequence when a juvenile
repeatedly violates the conditions of probation. The use of a graduated
response system is also a key principle of the National Council of
Juvenile and Family Court Judges Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines, which
PCJCC is implementing as part of their Model Delinquency Court project.
An internal court committee is reviewing the probation conditions and
developing a graduated response system to ensure the use of consistent
and appropriate criteria in making the decision to request detention as
a consequence.
Length of Stay: In 2006, the PCJCC Detention Division has fully
implemented the ``Step Up'' program for all detained juveniles. This
behavioral education program pairs detained youth with detention staff
mentors, improves their decision-making skills, and prepares them to
return to the community without re-offending. Initial surveys show that
youth completing the program believe that it has helped them make
positive changes and better decisions, has taught them to be
accountable for their actions, and has prepared them to return to
school or employment. Collaborating with Davis Monthan Air Force Base,
Detention has also begun a community mentor program, pairing over 100
service personnel with detained juveniles to provide a positive and
supportive relationship both in detention and back in the community.
Alternatives to Detention: Juvenile probation is currently
maximizing the use of electronic monitors as an alternative to
detention. The court is also in discussion with a community provider to
expand it current services to support a day/evening reporting center.
Juveniles needing increased structure and supervision can be released
on condition that they attend this center after school, where they can
receive additional services such as tutoring, substance abuse
counseling, and behavior education. The court has also committed to
developing a pre-adjudication community supervision program.
Analysis of the RAI data has revealed two specific areas needing
alternatives: juveniles charged with domestic violence and chronic
substance abusers. Juveniles charged with domestic violence are
arrested and usually cannot safely be returned to their homes
immediately. With a grant in 2005 from the United States Bureau of
Justice Administration, the court has hired a domestic violence
coordinator who will work with probation and community stakeholders to
develop alternatives to arrest as well as to detention.
Neighborhood Pilots: The Executive Committee reviewed comprehensive
demographic and referral data to identify two neighborhoods with strong
leadership, significant Hispanic and African American populations, and
high numbers of referrals to the Juvenile Court. PCJCC is partnering
with the `A' Mountain and Sunnyside/Elvira neighborhoods with a goal of
developing community-based alternatives to detention that will have the
most beneficial impact, particularly on youth of color. The first step
in that process has been the completion of a community profile for each
neighborhood. Working with over 150 community leaders, parents, court-
involved juveniles and other youth, a subcommittee has completed
neighborhood mapping, developed a community matrix of services, and
conducted focus groups to complete the profiles. When the profile
reports are complete, the Executive Committee will work with the
neighborhoods to identify and develop neighborhood-based strategies and
alternatives to detention.
Because native youth are not concentrated in any specific
geographic area, a different strategy was needed to address issues
facing this population. Pima County Juvenile Court reached out to both
the Tohono O'odham Nation and the Pasqua Yaqui Tribe, and begun to meet
on a regular basis to establish an ongoing dialogue on native youth.
The Court has invited tribal spiritual leaders to meet with native
youth in detention and provide spiritual services to them. Detention
staff is also working with tribal service providers to increase
communication and enhance continuity of services once a youth is
released to the community.
Education Subcommittee: substantial numbers of youth involved in
the juvenile justice system are failing to receive the education they
need to succeed in life. Many are either not enrolled in school, or
have been suspended or expelled as a result of the behavior that
brought them into detention. Many have unmet needs for special
education. And, the more their education is interrupted by periods of
detention, the farther behind they fall.
Although not expressly made a part of the original strategic plan,
a subcommittee including the leadership of two of the largest school
districts in Pima County are examining issues arising from the juncture
between schools and the Juvenile Court. The first task is to collate
and compare data from the two systems to identify and create a profile
of the youth. This data will be used to examine school discipline,
arrest and charging policies and practices, to determine the extent to
which they contribute to inappropriate juvenile detention.
This subcommittee will also consider the creation of school-based
councils in the two pilot neighborhoods ('A' Mountain and Sunnyside/
Elvira) to develop ways to reduce referrals to the juvenile justice
system and improve educational outcomes for court-involved youth.
Pima County Juvenile Court Center also utilizes funding to support
the Pima County Northwest Community Justice Center in operating a
community assessment center and alternative to detention with intensive
intervention programming. The program offers a continuum of services
and programs for juveniles and their families, including mentoring,
drug screening, cognitive skills building, and family counseling.
In 2007, Pima County Juvenile Court Center will continue to develop
interventions that support service delivery in non-detention settings,
redistribute court resources to implement necessary interventions,
evaluate interventions in relation to intended outcomes, and develop
and maintain best practices for those youth who do require detention.
The Pima County Juvenile Court Center, as part of its JDAI/DMC
Initiative, has identified the following three priorities for 2006/
2007:
Stakeholders ensure that key decisions are not adversely
affected by cultural or language factors;
Develop and implement a system of graduated responses for
delinquent behavior and violations of probation, both pre-and post-
dispositions, including both sanctions and therapeutic/remedial
interventions;
Ensure the availability of appropriate services and
placements to facilitate and support the safe release of medium-risk
minors.
Planned Activities for Pima County Juvenile Court Center in FY2007,
as part of its overall DMC reduction efforts, include a focus of the
following areas:
Establish communication strategies: to orient PCJCC staff,
stakeholders and the general community as to the developed DMC/JDAI
values, vision and goals; to provide timely up-dates regarding the
various systems changes being implemented; to develop a DMC/JDAI cadre
of trainers within PCJCC that will work with staff and newly hired
staff; and to devise the mechanisms to continually obtain input and
feedback from staff, stakeholders, parents and youth.
Conduct Community Asset Mapping: in early 2007, PCJCC
completed the first phase of its Community Profile. The Community
Profile includes a Service Matrix of all program services for youth in
the designated target site area. The next phase is to conduct a
physical mapping of the target site area and compile information into a
synthesized report of community strengths, challenges, and needs. This
information will be used to identify approach alternatives that meet
the needs and caps of these communities.
Develop specific community-based alternatives: to provide
alternatives to detention in the local communities where youth live for
the low and medium risk youth who would otherwise be detained and/or
have no services.
Implement evaluation: continue to conduct and review
periodic evaluations of the DMC/JDAI work plans to determine the
outcomes, revise work plan if necessary, compare data results with
calendar year 2003 baseline date.
Establish a Single DMC/JDAI Master Action Plan: to
incorporate the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiatives (JDAI) and
the Haywood Burns Institute strategies into the PCJCC DMC original
action plan and to monitor and track progress.
Implement Focus groups: to obtain information from youth
and parents about what works, and what could be improved about the
Juvenile Justice System and other community services, and evaluate the
allocation of resources to consider other appropriate alternatives.
Broaden base of DMC champions: Identify, recruit and
orient new target community stakeholders to join in the reduction of
DMC.
Detention Self-Inspection: PCJCC has completed its
Detention Self Inspection that includes a review of 175 points.
Pima County Alternative to Detention Programs
In early 2007, Pima County Juvenile Court was awarded funding to
implement an additional detention alternative program. The need for
this program was identified as part of the system analysis, community
assessment, and various data collection and review efforts conducted as
part of Pima County's JDAI/DMC Initiative. As stated previously, an
analysis of the Risk Assessment Instrument data revealed two specific
areas needing alternatives: juveniles charged with domestic violence
and chronic substance abusing youth. A further review of data revealed
that juvenile domestic violence poses a serious and complex issue. Pima
County Juvenile Court Center annually receives approximately 1,500
youth referrals for domestic violence offenses. Due to law enforcement
guidelines, half of the youth arrested for these charges are brought to
the detention center.
Pima County Juvenile Court recognized that many of these youth were
detained primarily because an appropriate alternative did not exist.
Using formula grant funding, PCJCC will establish a Domestic Violence
Reception Center to provide a community-based, non-secure facility to
serve as an alternative to detention as well as an alternative to
arrest. This Center will utilize existing support services within the
county to provide a range of services such as short-term respite,
placement for youth requiring longer stays, crisis intervention
services, and assessments for referrals to local behavioral health
service providers.
Yuma County
As noted earlier, Yuma County was selected as the third
jurisdiction as this county has a significant minority youth
population. The Yuma County Juvenile Justice Center began a court
improvement project in early 2004 that consists of implementing
recommendations made under a technical assistance project by OJJDP that
include establishing a DMC committee, contracting for youth and family
services for delinquency prevention and intervention efforts targeting
Hispanic youth, increasing capacity and use of alternatives to
detention to reduce secure detention of youth offenders and youth who
violate conditions of probation.
Yuma County Juvenile Justice Center is currently utilizing funding
to support diversion and alternative to detention services for youth.
The program serves both probationers and non-probationers who are
detained at the Yuma County Juvenile Detention facility. Ages served
ranges from 12 to 17 years of age and include both male and female
detainees. The goal of the program is to deter and minimize recidivism
rate of juveniles returning to the Yuma County Detention Center by
providing pro-active skills necessary to prevent future delinquent
behavior and substance abuse.
Yuma County is currently consulting with both Maricopa County and
Pima County to review each jurisdiction's DMC reduction efforts,
strategies, challenges and successes. It is anticipated that Yuma
County may establish a group to begin implementing targeted reduction
activities in 2007.
Arizona remains in full support of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act and will continue to work towards the
solutions that will address the disparate number of minorities in the
juvenile justice system. Through efforts at the State level, including
the commitment of the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission, Arizona will
continue to utilize the relative rate index calculations to conduct
further analysis and help guide the State's plan for reducing DMC.
As dictated by the core protections of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act, the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission is
committed to developing effective strategies and programs to address
minority youth that come in contact with the juvenile justice system.
Essential to this effort is the establishment of a continued,
integrated and comprehensive approach to identifying opportunities for
community-level change with respect to policing, developing culturally
competent assessments and services, and identifying existing model
programs and available resources to impact the issue.
______
[Additional submission by Mr. Johnson follows:]
A CAMPAIGN OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE & DELINQUENCY PREVENTION COALITION
the collective voice of more than 150 organizations nationwide
JJDPA Statement of Principles
We, the undersigned, urge the Congress to adhere to the following
four principles in approaching the Reauthorization of the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA). These principles are
grounded in research and their efficacy underscored by the fact that
the JJDPA has for more than 30 years provided direction and support for
juvenile justice system improvement and, thereby, significantly
contributed to the diminution of juvenile crime and delinquency.
I. Keep children and youth out of the justice system: Whenever
possible, keep children and youth out of the juvenile and criminal
justice systems by addressing their needs and those of their families
early and effectively.
II. Ensure equity and competence: Do everything possible to ensure
equity and competence with regard to race, ethnicity, culture,
language, gender and sexual orientation, in legal representation before
the courts and throughout all system practices and policies.
III. Ensure responses appropriate to a young person's age and stage
of development: Do everything possible to ensure that children and
youth in the justice system are treated in an ageappropriate manner and
provided with developmentally appropriate, evidence-based services and
supports. Ensure, when needed, that sanctions are appropriate to a
youth's age and offense.
IV. Strengthen the federal partnership with state and local
governments: Strengthen the federal role in supporting state and local
needs by providing sufficient resources and appropriations for
jurisdictions to effectively implement the JJDPA, to fully comply with
its core requirements/protections and to ensure state and local
adherence to high standards of performance.
What is the JJDPA?
Why care?
Each year, juvenile courts handle an estimated 1.6 million
delinquency cases and adjudicate youth delinquent in nearly 7 of every
10 petitioned cases. The daily census of youth under age 18 who are
incarcerated is 97,000--yet, it is estimated that 25 percent of them
are detained while awaiting placement or court proceedings. Many youth
who are confined are nonviolent and highly amenable to the benefits of
rehabilitative services and supports provided in non-institutional home
and community based settings. Juveniles in the courts have been shown
to suffer from higher than average incidence of mental/behavioral
health problems, learning disabilities and school failure, as well as
under-addressed family intervention and support needs. Moreover, for
more than two decades, state-level data have shown that youth of color
have been overrepresented at every stage of the juvenile justice
system.
Additionally, some researchers estimate as many as 200,000 youth
have their cases processed in adult criminal court each year as a
result of prosecutorial or judicial waiver, statutory exclusion for
certain offense categories, or because they reside in states with a
lower age of criminal jurisdiction (age 16 or 17). On any given day, an
estimated 7,000 youth under the age of 18 are inmates in adult jails,
of these 90% are being held ``as adults.'' Youth who are not under the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court are not covered by the JJDPA's core
requirements/protections.
Right now, juvenile arrest rates are at historically low rates--
lower than any levels recorded since the 1980s. Nationwide, law
enforcement agencies arrest approximately 2.2 million persons under the
age of 18 each year, yet in nearly half of all cases the most serious
charges are larcenytheft, simple assault, a drug abuse/liquor law
violation or disorderly conduct. Furthermore, research indicates that
youth of color are detained more often and for longer periods of time
than their white counterparts for the same low level offenses.
The continuing success of effective juvenile crime prevention and
deterrence depends on Congress strengthening both the provisions of the
JJDPA, as well as the funding resources needed to fulfill such
provisions to the greatest possible extent.
Data sources: Snyder, Howard N. and Sickmund, Melissa. 2006.
Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. www.ncjj.org; Coalition
for Juvenile Justice, 2005. Childhood on Trial: The Failure of Trying
and Sentencing Youth in Adult Criminal Court, Washington, DC.
www.juvjustice.org
How could adherence to these principles guide JJDPA
reauthorization?
I. Keep children and youth out of the justice system: Whenever
possible, keep children and youth out of the juvenile and criminal
justice systems by addressing their needs and those of their families
early and effectively.
Continuum of Care: Support an array of prevention and
intervention strategies for children and families in collaboration with
providers of educational, medical, mental/behavioral health, after
school, workforce development services, and others, utilizing theory-
and evidence-based practices.
Detention Alternatives: Develop and sustain community- and
family-based alternatives to locked detention, both pre- and post-
adjudication.
Effective Reentry and Reconnection: Help young people
leave the system, return home and stay home. Provide for effective
reconnection to schools, families, community-based family support and/
or counseling, jobs, and housing, upon release from confinement.
II. Ensure equity and competence: Do everything possible to ensure
equity and competence with regard to race, ethnicity, culture,
language, gender and sexual orientation, in legal representation before
the courts and throughout all system practices and policies.
Reduce Racial and Ethnic Disparities: Given
disproportionately high representation of youth of color in the justice
system, it is imperative to direct major federal resources to states/
localities to implement system-change strategies designed to reduce
racial and ethnic disparities. In turn, states/localities should report
their progress in reducing racial/ethnic disparities, as well any forms
of differential treatment of youth of color as compared with their
white counterparts, at all stages from surveillance/arrest to reentry.
Cultural and Linguistic Competence: At all system contact
points, services and supports given to children, youth and families, as
well as institutional conditions, must be linguistically and culturally
competent.
Due Process Rights: The promise of due process rights for
juveniles remains largely unfulfilled. Jurisdictions should ensure that
youth have timely access to competent and qualified defense counsel and
are required to consult with counsel prior to waiving their
constitutional right to such counsel.
Ensure Safety: All populations of youth, especially those
who have proven susceptible to harm such as girls, lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender youth, and children with serious mental/
behavioral health concerns, must be safe when in the care or custody of
the justice system.
III. Ensure responses appropriate to a young person's age and stage
of development: Do everything possible to ensure that children and
youth in the justice system are treated in an ageappropriate manner and
provided with developmentally appropriate, evidencedbased services and
supports. Ensure, when needed, that sanctions are appropriate to a
youth's age and offense.
Incentives: Provide incentives to state and local
jurisdictions to develop and implement developmentally appropriate
services and supports for children and families that emphasize limited
system contact and research-driven approaches to youth development.
Normal Adolescent Behavior vs. Delinquency: Guard against
juvenile and criminal justice system responses that are unduly
punitive, criminalize normal adolescent behavior or assume that youth
competence and culpability equals that of adults.
Restorative Justice: In response to offending, implement
policies, programs and practices that seek to restore the victim and
the community and hold the youth offender accountable.
Take Steps to Extend Federal Protections to All Youth
Until Age 18 or Older: Provide incentives for states to take necessary
steps to ensure that the four JJDPA Core Requirements/Protections are
applied as faithfully as possible to all youth until the age of 18, or
to youth older than age 18 who are under extended juvenile
jurisdiction, whether they have been tried in the juvenile or criminal
court.
IV. Strengthen the federal partnership with state and local
governments: Strengthen the federal role in supporting state and local
needs by providing sufficient resources and appropriations for
jurisdictions to effectively implement the JJDPA, to fully comply with
its core requirements/protections and to ensure state and local
adherence to high standards of performance.
Optimal Funding: Ensure that funding authorizations in the
JJDPA are provided at optimally effective levels to fulfill the all of
the mandates of the JJDPA, as well as those contained in related
juvenile justice programs, such as the Juvenile Accountability Block
Grant (JABG) program.
Grants for State/Local Needs: Ensure that the federal role
under the JJDPA is responsive to state-identified/locally-identified
needs and the State Plan process, including field-based and field-
strengthening research and evaluation to refine and expand the array of
best and evidence-based practices.
Performance Measures: Establish and support states and
localities to set, implement and monitor performance measures for
achieving the highest possible standards for safe, effective and
competence-building systems, programs, policies and practices. Provide
resources to support training, technical assistance and information
dissemination in line with state needs.
We, the undersigned organizations and leaders, seek the support of
Congress to see the aforementioned principles are assured in the
Reauthorization of the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act (JJDPA):
national organizations
Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Policy Section
American Correctional Association
American Probation and Parole Association
American Psychiatric Association
Asian Law Caucus
Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC)
ATTIC Correctional Services
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
Camp Fire USA
Campaign for Youth Justice
Center for Children's Law and Policy
Center for Juvenile Justice Reform and Systems Integration, Georgetown
University
Child Welfare League of America
Children's Defense Fund
Coalition for Juvenile Justice
Correctional Education Association
Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators
Covenant House
Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health
International CURE Generations
United Girls Inc.
Justice Policy Institute
Juvenile Law Center
Legal Action Center
Mental Health America
Muslim Public Affairs Council
National Alliance for Faith and Justice
National Alliance to End Homelessness
National Association for Children of Alcoholics
National Association of Counties
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
National Association of Home Builders
National Center for Youth Law
National Collaboration for Youth
National Community Education Association
National Council of La Raza
National Disability Rights Network
National H.I.R.E. Network
National Human Services Assembly
National Juvenile Defender Center
National Juvenile Justice Network
National Network for Youth
National Parent Teacher Association
National Partnership for Juvenile Services
National Recreation and Park Association
National Urban League Policy Institute
National Youth Advocate Program
Penal Reform International
Physicians for Human Rights
Residential Care Consortium
Southern Poverty Law Center
The National Center for Lesbian Rights
The Sentencing Project
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
United Church of Christ, Justice and Policy Ministries
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society Voices for
America's Children
W. Haywood Burns Institute
YMCA of the USA
Youth Law Center
state and local organizations
Alabama:
Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Alabama Youth Justice Coalition
Children First Foundation Legal Aid Society of Birmingham
Prodigal Child Project Southern Juvenile Defender Center The
Ordinary People Society
Alaska:
Gastineau Human Services Corporation
Arizona:
Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission--The Arizona State Advisory Group
Children's Action Alliance Friendly House
California:
Asian and Pacific Islander Youth Advocacy Network (AYAN) California
State Juvenile Officers' Association Center for Juvenile Law
and Policy, Loyola Law School Los Angeles Leadership Academy
Mothers for Peace Pacific Juvenile Defender Center Para Los
Ninos Watts/Century Latino Organization Youth Justice
Coalition/Free L.A.
Colorado:
Pendulum Foundation
Connecticut:
Center for Children's Advocacy, University of Connecticut School of Law
Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance Office of the Child
Advocate, State of Connecticut
Delaware:
Delaware Center for Justice Delaware Collaboration for Youth
District of Columbia:
Justice 4 DC Youth! Coalition Latin American Youth Center
Florida:
Children's Campaign, Inc. Florida Keys Children's Shelter, Inc. Latino
Leadership Inc. Law Offices of Public Defender Bennett H.
Brummer, 11th Judicial Circuit
Redlands Christian Migrant Association
Illinois:
Child Care Association of Illinois Illinois Collaboration on Youth
Illinois Parent Teacher Association John Howard Association of
Illinois Juvenile Justice Initiative Law Office of the Cook
County Public Defender Youth Network Council
Indiana:
Indiana Juvenile Justice Task Force, Inc. Leadership & Renewal
Outfitters
Kansas:
Kansas Advisory Group on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention--
The Kansas State Advisory Group
Louisiana:
Families and Friends of Louisiana's Incarcerated Children (FFLIC)
Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana
Maryland:
Maryland Juvenile Justice Coalition
Massachusetts:
Citizens for Juvenile Justice Criminal Justice Institute, Harvard Law
School
Michigan:
Michigan Council on Crime and Delinquency
Mississippi:
Mississippi Youth Justice Project
Missouri:
Missouri Juvenile Justice Association Youth In Need
Nebraska:
Voices for Children in Nebraska
Nevada:
East Las Vegas Community Development Corporation
New Hampshire:
Child and Family Services of New Hampshire
New Jersey:
Northeast Juvenile Defender Center
New Mexico:
Hands Across Cultures New Mexico Children, Youth and Families
Department--The New Mexico State Advisory Group New Mexico
Council on Crime and Delinquency
New York:
New York Juvenile Justice Coalition Goodhope Youth Home, Inc. Center
for Community Alternatives Youth Represent
North Carolina:
Action for Children North Carolina
North Dakota:
Lutheran Social Services of North Dakota
Ohio:
Alliance of Child Caring Service Providers Children's Defense Fund of
Ohio Juvenile Justice Coalition (Ohio) Law Office of the
Montgomery County, Ohio Public Defender North East Ohio Health
Services Voices for Ohio's Children Juvenile Justice Initiative
Oregon:
Partnership for Safety and Justice Salem/Keizer Coalition for Equality
Pennsylvania:
Community Commitment Inc. Congreso de Latinos Unidos Juvenile Detention
Centers' Association of PA
South Dakota:
Parents Who Care Coalition
Tennessee:
Latino Memphis, Inc. Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth
(TCCY)--The Tennessee State Advisory Group
Texas:
Southwest Key Program Tejano Center for Community Concerns Texas
Coalition Advocating Justice for Juveniles
Utah:
Utah Commission on Criminal Justice and Juvenile Justice--The Utah
State Advisory Group
Vermont:
South Royalton Legal Clinic at Vermont Law School Children and Family
Council for Prevention Programs--The Vermont State Advisory
Group
Virginia:
Citizens United for Rehabilitation of ErrantsVirginia, Inc.
JustChildren Program of the Legal Aid Justice Center
MidAtlantic Juvenile Defender Center, University of Richmond
Law School Virginia Coalition for Juvenile Justice
Washington:
TeamChild Washington Defender Association
Wisconsin:
Counseling Center of Milwaukee, Inc. La Casa de Esperanza, Inc. La
Causa Wisconsin Council on Children and Families
______
[Internet link to the Coalition for Juvenile Justice
report, ``Childhood on Trial: The Failure of Trying &
Sentencing Youth in Adult Criminal Court,'' dated 2005,
submitted by Mr. Johnson, follows:]
http://www.appa-net.org/resources/pubs/docs/CJJ-Report.pdf
______
[Additional materials submitted by Mr. Jones follow:]
A Boy's Life: Former Drug Seller Tries to Start Over
By Steve Mellon, Post-Gazette; Saturday, June 02, 2007
Rashon lives with his grandmother as he deals with the legal
consequences of having marijuana in his school locker.
He sits in a former laundry in Garfield in an oversize chair
wearing an oversize white T-shirt and tennis shoes laced with
alternating red and white strings.
His hair, cut close around a cherubic face, is perfectly groomed
with those little breaks of waves the guys like to wear. He talks of
his days using and dealing marijuana. He's 13.
Rashon's mother had five boys, but the siblings have never lived
together. His mother has been a drug abuser for all his 13 years.
``I smoked [marijuana] outside. I smoked inside. I smoked walking
around in public, just smoking,'' he says as he clutches his hands to
his knees. ``I thought I was bored if I was not high. I had money,
jewelry. I had `rep,' ``--he was someone others could count on to sell
them the weed they needed to get high.
``It made me feel noticed.''
An eighth-grader who likes rap music, basketball and math class,
Rashon is one piece of a fraying social tapestry that includes up to 3
million other inner-city young black men across the nation. The common
threads in their lives include fatherlessness, alienation from formal
education, forays into criminal activity and a diminishing hope about
their future--predictors that studies show push them into lives on the
margins of society.
Rashon is now in the Community Intensive Supervision Program, or
CISP, an Allegheny County house arrest program that aims to keep kids
like him in school, in their communities and out of trouble. CISP made
Rashon available to the Post-Gazette on the condition his last name not
be used.
Rashon has a large family.
His mother had five boys, the oldest is 24. Rashon is the third
child.
The boys never have lived together. Some of his siblings are
scattered into foster homes. For all of his life, his mom has been a
drug abuser. Because of her addiction, he never has lived with her.
From the time he was six months old, he lived in a Hill District
housing project with a great aunt. She fed him and clothed him and let
Rashon sleep on a couch in the living room.
When he lived with his great aunt, Rashon smoked weed. He walked
the streets at all hours. Bored with school, he seldom went to class.
He now lives in East Liberty in a tidy two-story home with his
maternal grandmother. She calls the stocky young man with a dark-brown
complexion Shon, and he's lived with her for about nine months, since
shortly after he was busted at 12 for having a marijuana blunt in his
middle school locker.
At 67, Grandma Carleen has raised four boys and two girls. She has
11 grandchildren and one great-grandchild.
She has raised Shon's younger brother, Ron, since birth. She leads
a visitor into her sunny little living room with the big sliding doors.
Here all the furniture is snugly fitted in plastic. On a nearby shelf
are family photographs. There are several of the younger brother and
scores of his academic awards.
There are no photos of Shon.
Grandma Carleen, a widow, has worked hard to make a comfortable
life. Her modest dwelling is on a quiet street, and she has sisters
living in houses on both sides of her home.
She is making the most of her life: She doesn't mind getting up
with the dawn, as she's often out the door early to water aerobics,
line dancing or exercising.
``These are supposed to be my years,'' she says, reflecting on the
sacrifice of having to now raise Shon, too.
Shon, she says, ``didn't get the right start. I took him in because
he had nowhere else to go.''
Rashon's mother infrequently comes around. He sees her, he might
get a hug, but she remains a mystery to him.
How old is she?
Like many teens, Rashon likes rap music, basketball and math class.
``I don't even know. Ain't that crazy?'' he asks, shaking his head.
``I don't know how old my mom is.''
He's working to let it go, but it's tough.
``Sometimes I wake up in the morning and think of my mom and be mad
and go to school. The first thing someone says to me, I just snap.''
It makes him angry not having her there on holidays. Not having her
there to talk about his math grade. Not having her there to help him
avoid the same drug-abusing path she walked on. But he downplays it.
``Hopefully, she's doing good. I don't get my hopes up. I got my
own life to worry about, not hers.''
In 13 years, Rashon has seen his father twice. As he recalled, with
each visit there was acknowledgement, but no affection. No hug. No
handshake. No nothing.
Once, there was a phone call. Rashon thought it was a wrong number.
``I can't even remember if he called me son or Rashon. He said
`Wussup with you? How you been doing lately?' ''
His dad, back in jail since last August, has a long list of
burglary charges that stretch back to before Rashon was born.
``To tell you the truth, I really don't care if I saw him or not.
For some reason, I really don't care,'' says Rashon.
``I can't even say if I love him or not.''
This is not always the world that Rashon imagines.
When he daydreams, he sees a world with his father.
``Things would be different if he was around. If he was here, we'd
play basketball together or something. Watch a movie or something. Ya
know, a father and son thing.''
In his dreams, it's always a happy place. Then reality crashes into
it.
``I really don't know if I love him. I don't know him. I love my
mom, though,'' he says plainly, matter-of-factly. ``I don't know why,
she'd ain't never been here for me, either.
``But for my dad, I can't find a place for him in my heart.''
Rashon was 12 when he first began smoking marijuana. He was on the
street, hanging out with Black Hawk, Dom, Hard Tizzy and 'nem.
He was always the youngest, and he wanted to be like the older
guys. They were 16, 17, 18. They called Rashon by the nickname Young
Shig.
Young Shig sold marijuana.
Young Shig got high almost every day.
Young Shig sometimes made $375 a week selling drugs. Add that up,
and Young Shig would have cleared $19,500 in a year. Tax free.
Most of which he spent buying more marijuana for himself or
gambling it away.
In fact, Young Shig called life on the street a blast.
This is despite the fact that three of his friends have been shot
or killed because of gang-related drugs and violence.
Young Shig may have been having a blast, but Rashon wasn't.
``I noticed my grades started dropping. I started missing school
and everything. My whole life felt like it was going down the drain. I
mean, to miss 45 days from school in one semester, that's terrible.
Now, I go to school every day.''
While a student at Milliones Middle School in the Hill District,
Rashon left the house about 7 every morning. He met with his friends
and smoked a couple of blunts before going to class. They smoked on the
city steps or near the shadowy, empty spaces outside of his great-
aunt's apartment.
One day, he stuffed a half-smoked blunt into the corner pocket of
his bubble jacket. The strong odor permeated the locker and after the
vice principal confronted him, he confessed that it was his.
He was charged with intent to distribute and sent to juvenile
court.
The judge saw his record of school absences and sent him to the
Community Intensive Supervision Program.
Looking to give him structure on a personal level, as well, the
court suggested he move in with his grandmother.
It is a beautiful Easter.
Rashon is with family. He is standing and grinning at himself in
the mirror. It is his first time in a new suit.
``I feel different. Handsome,'' he says, purring over his faux
snakeskin dress shoes.
Before leaving for morning service, his younger brother ties
Rashon's tie. It's a skill Rashon has never learned.
Grandma is a retired operating room technician who sometimes worked
two jobs to support her family.
She is a petite, church-going woman, and she is strict. When Shon
came in, the rules came out. For a young man not used to many
restrictions, he now had a long list: clean your room, get your pants
off your butt, wash the dishes, turn the music down.
In her house, her call for order and obedience upsets him and he
believes she thinks of him as ``the devil.''
``No, I don't think he is the devil,'' said his grandmother. ``But
he puzzles me. I say, `What is wrong with this boy?' ''
After his day is over at Sunnyside school, a van picks up Rashon
and delivers him to CISP. There he is among a thicket of young men who
have all been pricked by trouble at school, petty crime or drug abuse.
CISP is a chance for the counselors to stuff some accountability
into their souls before they are let go.
Young men--ages 10 to 18--who come into the program get monitors on
their ankles and are electronically tethered to their homes, work
places or school. The program is run by the Allegheny County Court of
Common Pleas, and youth come every day. Here they do homework, chores
and have meals. They must account for their time in community service,
their grades, and talk about restitution for their crimes.
Rashon is one of the youngest in the group.
Before he came here, he had missed an entire semester at school.
His grades were in the dump.
``When I first came in with Rashon, I saw a very needy, high energy
child,'' says Barry Canada, 52, a family counselor the young men call
Uncle B.
``Every day with him was a new adventure. I would tell my wife,
this kid is killing me. I wanted to put him on the next boat [and send
him] into the woods.''
Uncle B now has wrapped his steady arms around Rashon. He takes him
to lift weights, helps with family counseling sessions and visits
Rashon's school.
CISP has a structure and consequences.
The goal, says Uncle B, is to take the street out of Rashon.
The presence of Uncle B and other ``old heads''--role models--
living and articulating a different value system has helped keep Rashon
more steady and focused.
``I've always been respectful,'' he says, ``but I'm just a better
young man now--in a lot of different categories.''
Part of his optimism has come from realizing that he can live away
from the corners.
``I never knew I was this smart,'' says Rashon, reflecting on the
change of perspective the program has given him.
``Beneath the rough stuff, this kid is intelligent,'' says Uncle B.
``I think he's starting to see what we wanted to produce in him.''
When he leaves CISP, the program will help him enroll in tutoring,
a basketball league and other aftercare.
``He has a future. A real bright future,'' says Uncle B. ``He's
ready for the next step, but he's got to have the discipline.''
The transition from the streets has not been without its bumps.
Weeks of good behavior are sometimes followed by bouts of what
Rashon calls ``I don't-care-attitude'' days.
His monitoring ankle bracelet, removed a few weeks ago, was back on
after he was inexplicably late for school and talking out of order
during an accountability session at CISP.
Rashon has lost old friends, and he's been forced to examine some
harsh realities about his family life.
But in recent weeks, he has impressed counselors, his therapist and
teachers.
Here's what Rashon has to say:
``I will never sell drugs another day in my life. I will never
smoke another chemical. I can say that with a straight face. I know
what it done to my parents. I see that selling drugs is hurting
someone's family.''
And, just as easily as he opens it, he shuts the door on being an
adult.
He flashes his boyish smile and bounces off to play ping-pong with
a CISP counselor.
epilogue
Rashon is free now. He ``graduated'' from CISP May 24. Uncle B cut
the electronic monitor from his ankle, and his CISP family gave him a
round of applause.
Because of some early behavioral problems, it took him 10 months to
finish the six-month program. But he's finished.
In a few days, he'll graduate from eighth grade. His neighborhood
high school is Peabody, but, in the fall, he wants to attend Schenley.
In a few days, he'll begin a summer job with Urban Youth Action.
He has no idea what it is he'll be doing.
``I really don't care,'' he smiles. ``It means I can get my own
account, make my own money, and I don't have to hustle no more.''
The Post-Gazette will continue to follow Rashon, and at the end of
the series provide an update on where he is and how he's doing.
______
2006 CISP Annual Report
James Rieland, Director of Allegheny County Probation;
Kimberly Booth, Director of CISP
introduction
The legal entity that governs the Community Intensive Supervision
Program is the Court of Common Pleas, Family Division--Juvenile
Section. The Administrative Judge is the Honorable Kim Berkeley Clark,
and the Director of Juvenile Court Services is James Rieland. The CISP
Program Manager is Kimberly Booth. The CISP Program Coordinators are
George Kinder and James Tucker, who both report directly to the CISP
Program Manager.
purpose and objectives
The purpose of the Community Intensive Supervision Program is to
provide an alternative to institutionalization for youth under Court
supervision who continue to commit delinquent acts.
CISP Goals and Objectives are as follows:
1) To provide drug and alcohol education, intervention and
treatment to youth and their families.
2) To operate an intensive supervision program for repeat offenders
in the community with balanced attention to the offender, community and
the victim.
3) To minimize/prevent recidivism on the part of youth in CISP and
thereby reduce the number of court supervised youth who require
institutionalization.
4) To provide a real world learning experience in the community
rather than an artificial or sterile environment of an institution.
5) To maintain failure to adjust discharges from CISP at no more
than five percent (5%).
______
PROGRAM PURPOSE
The Community Intensive Supervision Program (CISP) is operated by
the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Family Division--
Juvenile Section and has been in operation since June 1990. CISP
functions as an alternative to institutionalization for repeat juvenile
offenders, and starting in January 1997, CISP has functioned as an
aftercare program for youth released from institutional placements.
These offenders have continued to challenge the resources, both human
and financial, of the Court. The Court continues to experience an
increase in total referrals and an increase in the severity of
offenses. Institutional beds are filled to capacity across the state.
Institutions (both public and private) have created waiting lists for
counties wishing to commit youth to residential programs. In an effort
to address these problems, the Court has developed the Community
Intensive Supervision Program. Also, it is a statistically proven fact
that youth exiting institutional placements have a tendency to
recidivate at a high rate within the first six months after release.
Therefore, it made sense that CISP would expand the use of the CISP
Program for aftercare services.
The CISP Program provides the Court with a community-based
alternative to residential care for selected, chronic juvenile
offenders, and also serves as an aftercare program for youth released
from institutions. A full range of programming, including drug
screening, is offered in five (5) specially designed neighborhood
centers during afternoon and evening hours, seven (7) days per week.
Supervision of youth continues throughout the night by use of an active
electronic monitoring system. In addition to traditional probation
department personnel, the program is staffed by paraprofessional
``Community Monitors,'' who are adult residents of the same
neighborhoods in which the youth reside.
TARGET POPULATION
Youth from three geographic regions of the City of Pittsburgh, one
in Wilkinsburg and one in McKeesport have been chosen to participate in
CISP. The three specific city regions are Garfield, Hill District and
Homewood. The areas selected for the project have traditionally
experienced a high rate of institutional placement. The CISP Program is
designed for male juvenile offenders (ages 10-18) from the targeted
neighborhoods who were on probation, continued to recidivate and would
be institutionalized but for the existence of this alternative.
Property offenders make up for the majority of youth placed into
the CISP Program. The Court continues to experience an influx of crack
related cases; therefore, youth with crack related offenses are
eligible for CISP. Sex offenders are not eligible for the CISP Program.
Since the CISP Program is neighborhood based, a youth must live in
one of the designated neighborhoods to be placed in CISP. Youth remain
in their own communities and are introduced to positive community
resources. Placement into the CISP Program must be court ordered by the
Judge.
Each of the CISP centers will have very distinct referral
boundaries. In order for a child to be committed to the CISP Program,
he must live in one of the identified neighborhoods. The geographic
boundaries for each of the centers will be identified by census tract.
The GARFIELD Center will include the following census tracts,
neighborhoods and zip codes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Census Tract Neighborhood Zip Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30802, 30804, 30806, 30809, 30903 Bloomfield 15224
30810.98......................... Bloomfield 15224
30601, 30603, 30604.............. Lower Lawrenceville 15201
30901, 30902..................... Central 15201
Lawrenceville
31011............................ Upper Lawrenceville 15201
31018, 31005..................... Stanton Heights 15201
30807............................ Friendship 15206/15232
31014.97; 31014.98............... Morningside 15206
31016, 3l017..................... Garfield 15224
31114............................ Garfield 15206
31113, 31115, 30818.............. East Liberty 15206
31102, 31106, 31111.............. Highland Park 15206
31204, 31208..................... Larimer 15206
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The HILL DISTRICT Center will include the following census tracts,
neighborhoods and zip codes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Census Tract Neighborhood Zip Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30101............................ Uptown 15219
30103............................ Bluff 15219
30201, 30203, 30302.............. Central Business 15219
District
30305, 30314..................... Crawford-Roberts 15219
30407, 30409..................... South Oakland 15213
30406, 30405, 30402, 30411....... Central Oakland 15213
30404, 30403, 30507, 30810.97.... North Oakland 15213
30501, 30511..................... Upper Hill 15219
30502............................ Middle Hill 15219
30509............................ Bedford Dwellings 15219
30510............................ Terrace Village 15219/15213
30506, 30605..................... Polish Hill (S. of 15219/15213
Bigelow Blvd.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The HOMEWOOD Center will include the following census tracts,
neighborhoods and zip codes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Census Tract Neighborhood Zip Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
31201, 31202, 31203.............. Lincoln-Lemington- 15206
Belmar
31207............................ Homewood West 15208
31301, 31302, 31305.............. Homewood North 15208
31303, 31304..................... Homewood South 15208/15221
31405............................ Point Breeze South 15208
55650, 55651..................... Penn Hills 15235
55238, 55650..................... Verona 15147
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The WILKINSBURG center will include the following census tracts,
neighborhoods and zip codes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Census Tract Neighborhood Zip Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
31306............................ East Hills 15221
55604, 55605..................... Wilkinsburg South 15221
55611, 55612..................... Wilkinsburg North 15221
55606, 55610..................... Central Wilkinsburg 15221
55614, 55615..................... East Wilkinsburg 15221
55151, 55152, 55153, 55154, 55155 Swissvale 15218
55161, 55162..................... Edgewood 15218
55120, 55128, 55129.............. Braddock 15104
55140............................ N. Braddock; Rankin 15104
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MCKEESPORT center will include the following census tracts,
neighborhoods and zip codes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Census Tract Neighborhood Zip Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
55509, 55512, 55513 & 55519-55524 McKeesport 15132
55031, 55032..................... White Oak 15131
54870............................ Dravosburg 15034
55010............................ Versailles 15132
54980............................ Liberty 15133
55003............................ Port Vue 15133
54993, 54994..................... Glassport 15045
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES
The purpose of the Community Intensive Supervision Program is to
provide an alternative to institutionalization for youth under Court
supervision who continue to commit delinquent acts and also serves as
an aftercare facility for youth who have been successfully released
from institutional placements. CISP objectives are as follows:
1) To operate an intensive supervision program for repeat offenders
in the community, which provides balanced attention between offender,
community and victim.
2) To successfully impact the recidivism of youth in CISP, thereby
impacting the number of youth requiring institutionalization.
3) To provide a real world learning experience in the community,
rather than an artificial or sterile environment of an institution.
4) To maintain Failure to Adjust discharges from CISP at no more
than 2%.
5) To make CISP effective enough to significantly impact the
Court's overall institutional budget.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
CISP operates in five community centers: Garfield, Hill District,
Homewood-Brushton, Wilkinsburg and McKeesport. Each center has the
capacity to program 30-35 youth for a total of 150-175 youth system-
wide. The centers are open seven days a week from 2:00 p.m. to 12:00
a.m. Youth are normally in the center or participating in required
activities from 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. All youth are supervised,
monitored and held accountable twenty-four (24) hours a day.
PARENTAL SUPPORT
All youth in the CISP Program live at home with their parent(s) or
guardian.
Parental involvement is vital to the overall success of a youth in
the CISP Program.
Parents are invited to be involved in all aspects of their child's
participation in CISP.
Youth are held accountable for their behavior and conduct while in
their home under their parents' supervision. Parents are a vital link
between the home, school and CISP.
SUPERVISION
Upon admission to the CISP Program, all youth are confined to their
house on house arrest under the direct supervision of their parents.
Youth are permitted to attend school/work and CISP activities. Youth
are given a predetermined amount of travel time to and from approved
destinations. Parental involvement and support are of paramount
importance to youth successfully completing program requirements. CISP
staff work closely with parents regarding supervision issues.
ELECTRONIC MONITORING
All youth placed in CISP are monitored by the BI-Home Escort series
electronic monitoring system developed by BI Inc. based in Boulder,
Colorado. This system has the ability to record all entries and exits
from the youth's house by the youth. Each youth is assigned a
transmitter, which is worn on the lower calf/ankle area. Each youth is
assigned a monitoring device that communicates with the Command Center
located at our Eastern District Probation Office through a standard
phone line.
The BI9010 transmitter incorporates state-of-the-art electronic
technology. The transmitter is the size of a common business card and
weighs only 3.8 ounces. It is waterproof and tamperproof. Included in
this series of equipment is the BI9000 drive-by unit, which is a hand-
held monitor. It permits the electronic monitoring of clients by just
driving by their home, school, place of employment, or in the
community.
The in-home monitoring system provides continuous, 24-hour a day
coverage of youth in CISP. At any time, day or night, it can be
determined if a youth is in his home. The only exception to this is
youth committed to CISP for aftercare from institutional placements.
These youth will not be monitored by the EMS system but are required to
attend program every day at least the first thirty (30) days of their
placement and receive curfew calls in the evening from the community
monitors to ensure their accountability.
The police have photographs of the youth on electronic monitoring.
The police are provided with a court-authorized warrant to apprehend
any CISP client that violates his house arrest. This violation can
occur either by the client leaving their house during the hours of
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. or if they tamper with their transmitter. One
staff member, as well as one alternate from each CISP center, functions
as an electronic monitoring system (EMS) specialist. Their duties and
responsibilities include coordinating, activating and reporting on the
electronic monitoring system for each center.
TREATMENT PROGRAM
The major treatment issue in CISP is drug and alcohol education,
assessment and treatment. All youth are involved in some aspect of
Drug/Alcohol Programming.
Youth are involved in individual counseling, group counseling, peer
counseling and family intervention, CISP staff operate out of a Reality
Therapy approach; however, the program is flexible enough to meet
individual youth and family needs. Family support of CISP is vital;
therefore, the youth's family is invited to participate in all CISP
activities and programs. Daily contact is maintained with the youth's
family to insure that the youth is complying with parental
requirements.
The primary treatment objective for each youth in CISP is to
develop pro-social norms and behaviors. This is achieved through
exposing the youth to numerous topical seminars and educational
programs. CISP staff facilitates these programs; however, outside
speakers and experts are utilized when needed.
Every aspect of the CISP Program is designed to change negative
behaviors through education and through positive role models.
DRUGS/ALCOHOL
Substance use, abuse and dependency continue to have a devastating
impact on inner-city communities. Crime, unemployment, family
dysfunction, and other mental health issues are all exacerbated by the
use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. The youth in these areas
often suffer the most. The majority of CISP clients have been adversely
influenced by the drug culture. Whether they were enticed into drug
sales, drug usage, live with addicted parents, or all of the above,
they have been victimized as a result of the influx of drugs (legal or
not) into their neighborhoods.
The CISP Substance Unit is aware of these issues and addresses them
via a continuum of care. The unit operates a prevention program in each
area it serves offering information and support to local schools and
community groups. Secondly, the unit conducts a series of educational
groups with CISP clients on drug use, and evaluates each youth's
involvement with drugs. A key tool in the assessment of all clients is
the Roche On-Trak urinalysis, which is randomly administered. Upon
completion of the assessment, a referral is made to the appropriate
level of care; prevention and outpatient treatment are given by CISP
Substance Abuse Counselors; inpatient treatment or residential care if
done by other providers who are partners with the program. Lastly, the
CISP Substance Abuse Unit is able to provide aftercare services to
youth as they return from various treatment facilities.
SCHOOL/WORK
Youth placed in the CISP Program are permitted to continue
attending school and are also permitted to work. All youth in this
phase of the program are held accountable for daily attendance and
performance. Youth attending school are required to have their teacher
sign the youth's daily attendance log. CISP staff also maintains close
contact with school attendance officials. Additionally, CISP staff work
closely with school officials on performance and discipline issues. For
the most part, youth remain in the same school they are attending prior
to placement in CISP. This allows for continuity for the youth and
school officials. CISP youth have the same educational opportunities
that all other Pittsburgh School District youth enjoy.
Specialized educational programs (Options Center, Allegheny
Intermediate Unit) are utilized when and where appropriate. These
services are utilized for school suspensions, tutoring, evaluation, and
youth advocacy.
Part of each day in the CISP Program is dedicated to learning,
homework or other educational activities. Through the efforts of the
Allegheny Intermediate Unit a tutor is providing educational services
in each CISP Center on a daily basis. Where possible, outside resources
are used; however, CISP staff is directly involved in educational
activities.
As mentioned, youth are permitted to work while in the CISP
Program. When a youth has a job, his hours and travel requirements are
verified prior to working. If a youth owes restitution, he is required
to make regular payments through the Juvenile Court Restitution
Department.
RECREATION
Recreation is a very important component the CISP Program. This
area helps youth to have the opportunity to develop and promote
structured recreational activities, physical education activities and
cultural activities. These goals are met by teaching these youth
appropriate recreational skills, sportsmanship, and socially acceptable
behavior in the community.
The CISP Program schedules a series of recreational, physical,
educational and cultural activities several days a week in each center.
The length of the activity depends on the other scheduled activities in
each Center each day. Every child in the CISP Program participates in
these activities depending upon their individual situation.
Recreational activities include, but are not limited to, memberships in
the Boys Club, YMCA, and the use of City and/or County parks
recreational facilities, ball fields and swimming pools. The Centers
also make arrangements with local movie cinemas, museums, libraries,
sporting events, and various recreational and cultural activities and
events throughout the City of Pittsburgh.
COMMUNITY SERVICE
Community service is an integral component of the CISP Program. All
youth participating in CISP are required to perform community service.
The primary purpose of community service is to hold offenders
accountable for their actions by requiring them to perform community
service as a way of symbolically ``paying back'' the community for the
wrong they have done. Community service projects most often occur in
the youth's neighborhood. However, occasionally youth are involved in
major City of Pittsburgh events, such as the Great Race. The youth can
also be involved with nonprofit organizations like hospitals, but most
often, they are working on community activities. Community
organizations and Pittsburgh Clean City Committee, Inc. are utilized to
identify community projects.
The CISP Program, through its community service effort, can help
preserve and maintain the local environment and give needed assistance
to those public, private, nonprofit and community-based agencies that
depend on volunteer help. Offenders gain positive work experience and
by ``volunteering'' they gain some inner satisfaction from knowing
their work is appreciated by the community.
SMOKING/TOBACCO
For many years now, the Surgeon General's Office and other health
organizations have clearly spelled out the major hazards of smoking and
using tobacco products. The addiction of smoking is a major concern of
the CISP Program. The Community Intensive Supervision Program will not
permit youth to use any tobacco products while under direct
supervision.
As positive role models to youth, CISP staff are not permitted to
smoke or use any tobacco products while on duty.
SANCTIONING SYSTEM
Youth who are noncompliant with CISP program rules and expectations
are sanctioned by short-term placement in a ``backup'' unit or by going
to Shuman Detention Center. The ability to remove a youth temporarily
from his home due to program violations is absolutely vital for a
successful program. Youth and families must understand that
participation in CISP is an alternative to long-term placement in a
residential program; therefore, negative behavior results in serious
consequences for the youth and swift and firm action from CISP staff.
STAFF
Each center has a staff of fourteen (14). By job title they are as
follows: Center Supervisor; Assistant Supervisor/Casework Manager;
Secretary; Substance Abuse Counselor; nine (9) Community Monitors; and
one (1) part-time Community Monitor. This staffing pattern is necessary
in order to provide seven-day coverage. When possible, staff members
were selected from the communities where they will work. This was done
in order to provide youth with positive adult role models from their
own communities. Most staff in the program work an eight-hour shift
from 3:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.
The supervisors and assistant supervisors have a minimum of a
Bachelor's Degree, and the community monitors have a minimum of a high
school diploma; however, most of the monitors who were hired have some
post-secondary education; several have a Bachelor's Degree.
There are two program coordinators and a program manager to handle
all the administrative duties of the program. These positions require a
minimum of a Master's Degree.
RESEARCH
The CISP Program was evaluated by the National Center for Juvenile
Justice, which is located in Pittsburgh, from 1990-1992. The National
Center is the Research Division of the National Council of Juvenile and
Family Court Judges, which is located in Reno, Nevada.
The Program was evaluated on three levels:
(1) Qualitative/Formative;
(2) Quantitative/Descriptive; and
(3) Community Reaction.
Qualitative/Formative
This portion of the evaluation was largely descriptive and designed
to chronicle the start-up and operation of the program.
Quantitative/Descriptive
This section of the evaluation systematically gather information
which was coded and analyzed to produce a picture of the client
population, the results of the classification and selection process,
the amount and type of program intervention, instances of violations,
client outcome and costs.
Community Reaction
This portion of the evaluation examined how well CISP has been
integrated into the various communities. The employment of indigenous
community workers, locating centers in neighborhoods, conducting
community service projects, and involving local services are all
designed to actively involve the community in participating in and
accepting the program.
The CISP Program has also been evaluated by Duquesne University
Graduate Center for Public Policy. This research involves a follow-up
evaluation of youth from CISP who successfully completed CISP from 1990
to the present. This research has been conducted by Norma Feinberg,
Ph.D., Gail Stevens, Ph.D., and Charles Hanna, Ph.D. from Duquesne
University. A summary of the data revealed that 55% of the successful
program participants did not recidivate (arrest) in either the juvenile
or adult systems.
The CISP Program is also participating in research being conducted
by the National Center for Juvenile Justice as Allegheny County
Juvenile Court was one of four jurisdictions selected from applicants
across the United States to participate in the Accountability Based
Community Intervention (ABC) Program. The program purpose is to develop
a system-wide strategy of intervention, treatment and rehabilitation
for juvenile offenders in Allegheny County. The project includes a
systematic review of Allegheny County Juvenile Court's service needs to
identify gaps or areas that need increased attention and to create a
plan for developing and implementing these services (Strategic Plan
1996-1999).
PROGRAM OPERATION COST
The CISP Program is jointly funded through grants and county
dollars. If the CISP Program is operating at full capacity, the per
diem is $64.00. Comparison of this per diem with the cost of
institutionalization, which averages approx. $265 a day depending upon
where the youth would be placed, obviously results in a significant
cost savings.
______
CISP 2006 Annual Report
The CISP Program continued to grow and develop in 2006 in terms of
the number of youth served and the continuation of an aftercare
component for youth being released from institutional placements. CISP
continued to strive to fully implement the Balanced and Restorative
Justice Philosophy by giving balanced attention to the offender,
community and the victim.
The CISP Program continues to operate from five neighborhood center
locations. The three original community locations in Garfield, Hill
District and Homewood have been open since the start of the program in
1990. The fourth location in Wilkinsburg opened in April 1994, and the
fifth location in McKeesport opened in July 2001.
Staffing
The CISP staff experienced relatively minor turnover in 2006. There
were several promotions, new hires, resignations and transfers to other
departments in Juvenile Court in 2006.
Staff training
Training during 2006 consisted of several training sessions for the
entire CISP staff as well as individual training sessions for various
staff members. In 2006 various CISP staff and supervisors attended the
following training and staff development sessions:
CISP Annual Workshop--Working with Families; Probation Officer
Workshop focusing on Cultural Diversity; Restorative Community Justice
Forum, Basic Principles of Restorative Justice; Self-Defense; Senior
Monitor Role and Responsibilities; Safety Awareness; Handcuff
Recertification; CPR and First Aid; Youth & Law Enforcement Forum; PA
Conference on Juvenile Justice; Single Parents; Youth and the Internet;
Summit on Racism; and several computer trainings in word, excel,
outlook and power point. AIDS/HIV, Victim Sensitivity--A Body in
Motion; Support Staff retreat, Working with African Males from High-
Risk Environments; Group Counseling; Examining Urban Subculture &
Delinquent Youth and Motivational Interviewing.
Training continues to be viewed as an important function for the
continued success of the CISP Program. Training was facilitated through
our training supervisor, Ron Seyko, and the CISP Supervisors and
Program Coordinators. Each CISP employee is required to attend at least
(20) hours of training. The Supervisors, Probation Officers and Drug
and Alcohol Counselors are required to obtain (40) training hours.
BARJ involvement
In 2006, CISP continued to serve as one of the three model
demonstration sites in the U.S. to participate in the Balanced and
Restorative Justice Project (BARJ). The BARJ model provides an
effective framework for developing responsive juvenile justice system.
Restorative justice, as a guiding philosophical paradigm, promotes
maximum involvement of the victim, offender and the community in the
justice process. Victim panels, which were started in 2004 and
sponsored by the Victim's Center, were continued in 2006. CISP and
Victim's Center held three victim panels in 2006 in Wilkinsburg,
McKeesport and the Hill involving all five CISP centers. George Kinder,
CISP program Coordinator continued as a member of the Community
Education Initiative Committee for Allegheny County Juvenile Court,
which met monthly in 2006. This committee plans and coordinates BARJ
community activities and events throughout the year for Allegheny
County Juvenile Court. The main objective of the committee in 2006 is
the planning and coordination of activities during Juvenile Justice
Week. This committee sponsored several activities and events during
Juvenile Justice Week including the Juvenile Court Open House, BARJ
Forum, BARJ essay and poster contest and a recreational activity with
delinquent youth. This committee also sponsored a play called ``Body in
Motion'' in May 2006 depicting the impact of crime on victims in a
theatrical setting. Over 500 juvenile justice professionals, juvenile
offenders, victims and community members attended this event.
CISP was mentioned in a Pgh. Post Gazette article dated 12.4.06
regarding juvenile justice. It stated, ``Allegheny Co. also uses the
CISP program, an after-school and weekend program, that enables teens
to complete community service work ordered by judges.
In June 2006, Kim Booth and George Kinder help organize and
facilitate BARJ training in Westmoreland County on Community
Restorative Justice for ten counties in Western Pennsylvania.
Restitution
Restitution is a process whereby a juvenile offender makes either
monetary payment to the victim, provides service to the victim, or
engages in community service work. Restitution provides the court with
a dispositional alternative for juvenile offenders that are both
constructive and appropriate for the offense. The types of restitution
services are:
Monetary Restitution--financial payment directly to victim.
Community Service--symbolically paying back the victim thru service
to community.
The anticipated result of restitution is to bring about an
increased sense of responsibility to juvenile offenders for their
delinquent acts and to restore the victim or community through
financial repayment or service in the community.
Financial Restitution Collected in 2006
In 2006, the CISP program continued to make a good effort to
document and collect financial restitution in each of the five CISP
centers. The following is the total amount paid by youth committed to
their respective CISP center:
Homewood................................................ $5,397.42
Wilkinsburg............................................. $3,314.38
McKeesport.............................................. $2,724.00
Garfield................................................ $1,317.50
Hill.................................................... $1,314.50
Total restitution....................................... $14,067.80
restitution
Community service in 2006
Community service continues to be an excellent learning experience
for CISP, and community members continue to express very positive
comments regarding these types of community projects performed by CISP
youth. Several community service projects in all five CISP centers are
now counted on as a regular service to these communities. CISP
continues to participate in yearly community service projects. Each
youth in the CISP program is required to complete 100 hours of
community service for regular program and 50 hours for aftercare before
he is positively discharged from the program. In 2006, youth in all
five CISP centers completed approximately 17, 200 hours of community
service.
This involved such projects as cleaning lots, painting houses,
cleaning streets, distributing community newspapers, shoveling snow,
cutting grass, moving furniture and set up and clean up at community
festivals. Here's a highlight of some of the major community service
projects in each of the five community centers in 2006.
garfield community service
Jan &-Feb.--painted Women's Shelter on the North Side.
May 20--passed out over 500 computers at Langley High School.
August 18--set up and cleaned up for the CYF Annual Picnic at
Schenley Park.
Nov. 7--Roll to the Polls--transported eighteen (18) senior
citizens to vote.
Dec. 14--Toys for Tots--passed out toys to needy children in the
East Liberty community.
hill district community service
Throughout the year--Parental Stress Center-completed such projects
as painting, cleaning floors and carpets, moving furniture, set-up the
library, set-up for Easter celebration; wrapping gifts for Christmas;
and set up and tearing down tables and booths.
Aug.12&13--NAACP--set up for community festival that lasted for the
weekend at Mellon Park. Clients painted children's faces and played
games with them; cleaned up the park after the event.
November--B-PEP--clients passed out flyers and stuffed envelopes.
Every Tuesday--Beulah Baptist Church Food Bank--clients unloaded
trucks and helped with organizing the packages.
homewood community service
Jan.-Dec--Mt. Ararat Baptist Church Meal Ministry--prepared and
distributed meals to senior citizens in the community.
Jan.-Dec.--Boys & Girls Club serving as youth counselors.
Jan.-Oct.--Community clean-up within the Homewood area.
December--Kwanzaa Celebration--youth facilitated a community-wide
Kwanzaa celebration for the public.
mckeesport community service
Every Tuesday & Thursday--Glenshire Woods Nursing Home--clients go
there to interact with the elderly residents. McKeesport CISP also has
clients who work there because of the relationship between the program
and the weekly visits to the home.
Every Saturday--Angora Gardens--clients work off required community
service hours while working to keep the Angora Gardens looking nice.
Jan thru April--helped paint women's shelter on the North Side.
Summer 2006 (every Tuesday)--Motor Dome Speedway--clients cut grass
and painted grandstand at the race course
Oct. 7--AIDS Walk--City of McKeesport--client participated in this
annual event to get information on AIDS awareness; all five CISP
centers participate.
wilkinsburg community service
Jan.-March--painting project at Women's Shelter on the North Side.
May-Nov.--Turner Football Field--regular clean-up and maintenance.
June&Aug.--painted and cleaned up at Lincoln Community Center in
Penn Hills.
Nov. 7--Roll to the Polls--took elderly people to the polls to
vote.
Every weekend clean and sweep PAT Bus way.
Dec.--Toys for Tots--passed out toys to needy children.
Victim awareness group progress
Victim Awareness Groups were started in the CISP Program in each
center in June 1996. A new curriculum was implemented by all four CISP
Centers in February 1999 and implemented at the fifth CISP Center in
McKeesport in 2001. This curriculum was designed by William E. Sarbo
and Valerie R. Bender for the Center for Victims of Violent Crime under
a grant from the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. The
CISP staff received updated training on this curriculum in 2004. Each
CISP center holds separate meetings, which are facilitated by a victim
awareness specialist from each center. These meetings involve a total
of 15 hours. This curriculum teaches the impact of victimizing others.
In 2006, these victim awareness groups continued to be facilitated
in each of the CISP centers on an ongoing basis. The CISP will continue
to fully implement the goals of the Balanced and Restorative Justice
within the program and strive to improve their services with the
victim, community and the offender.
In 2006, CISP continued the practice of conducting exit interviews
for youth who successfully completed the program. During the exit
interviews the youth answer questions concerning BARJ principles and
victims' issues. The victim's center and CISP staff continue to
facilitate these exit interviews assisted by community representatives.
Also in 2006, CISP continued to refer certain cases to Pittsburgh
Mediation Center for face-to-face meetings between the offender and
victim in selected cases.
Awards and celebrations
In July 2006, CISP held a 16-year anniversary picnic at North Park.
All CISP center staff, court staff, youth and their family members
attended. Activities included a full picnic style meal, softball games,
and relay races, swimming at North Park Pool and interaction and fun
all day.
In October 2006, the CISP presented a cash donation in the amount
of $510 to the Center for Victims of Violence and Crime, Executive
Director, Stephanie Walsh, at a presentation during Juvenile Court
Week. CISP participants from all five centers conducted a carwash and
donated the proceeds to the Center as part of a restorative justice
project. This was the 7th year for this event and CISP has risen over
$7500 since that time. Also, several CISP youth won awards during
Juvenile Court Week for their BARJ related posters and essays.
In August 2006 during the Annual CISP Training Workshop held at
Hosanna House Re-Treat Center; staff with 15, 10 and 5 years of service
were featured and recognized.
Drug and alcohol component of CISP
The CISP Program recognizes the prevalence of drug and alcohol
abuse in its target communities as well as the severity of the
consequences of substance abuse for CISP clients. As a result, the
program continues to address these issues on two levels:
1) Prevention/Education
2) Outpatient Intervention
Substance abuse prevention
The objective of the CISP D&A prevention program is to provide D&A
education to youth within an educational setting or community center.
CISP collaborates with local school or community center officials in
targeting at-risk youth. The CISP's intention is to implement
curriculum that will educate youth about the potential consequences of
drug and/or alcohol use. CISP encourages elementary and middle school-
aged youth to make positive choices that will be a deterrent for drug
and/or alcohol usage.
The CISP Drug & Alcohol Unit provides prevention service in the
catchments areas within the five neighborhoods where the centers are
located. The prevention targeted population is youth between the ages
of 6-13. The community schools that are serviced by CISP are Turner
Elementary (Wilkinsburg), Arsenal Middle School (Garfield) and Miller
Elementary (Hill District).
CISP prevention curricula focus primarily on drug and alcohol
education and social skill development. Drug and alcohol education will
include: pharmacology, mental, social, emotional and legal
consequences. Social skill development will include: self-awareness/
acceptance, values clarification, sharing/inclusion, anger management,
conflict resolution and decision-making.
Substance abuse intervention
The Substance Abuse component of the CISP Program is based on two
premises. The first premise is that there is a very high correlation
between delinquent behavior and substance abuse among adolescents. The
second premise is that traditional treatment has been largely
ineffective for delinquent and minority children. Therefore, the
substance abuse staff provides intervention that addresses the unique
concerns of our clients from a culturally specific framework.
The CISP Substance Abuse staff provides youth with the opportunity
to make better, more informed choices about drug and alcohol use
through improved problem solving and refusal skills, as well as
alternatives to drug dealing. Additionally, CISP holds clients
accountable and personally responsible for their behavior through
natural consequences, including referrals to long-term placements or
more restrictive treatment environments when necessary as well as
sanctions.
CISP Substance Abuse Intervention provides two levels of services.
They are Education/Assessment and Outpatient Intervention for those
CISP clients who exhibit issues related to substance abuse.
Assessment:
Consists of the evaluation of all new clients including a
psychosocial history of the adolescent and his family, diagnostic
interviews, and the completion of the assessment package.
Intervention:
Involves assigning clients to the most appropriate tract, no
intensive or intensive drug and alcohol outpatient, or in extreme
cases, referral to an inpatient facility. Placement in this phase is
based on drug and alcohol history, family history, and the client's
ability to maintain abstinence while in the CISP program. Outside
referrals are made by D&A counselors in conjunction with the CISP
treatment team for those clients who exhibit a higher level of drug and
alcohol care.
During this period, group norms and expectations are established
that allow the group to become a therapeutic community. At this stage,
all clients have individualized treatment plans and participate in a
16-week drug and alcohol educational group curriculum. Intervention
includes individual counseling, principles of group psychotherapy,
behavior modification and reality therapy.
CISP is in its eighth year of working in collaboration with of
Narcotics Anonymous (NA) and the Hill House Association. All clients in
the outpatient intervention tract attend weekly NA meetings.
Additionally, many clients who have addicted parents are identified and
taken to Children of Alcoholics (COA) support groups. The CISP
Substance Abuse Unit continued to sponsor weekly NA (Narcotics
Anonymous) meetings in 2006 through the efforts of Patricia Rogers, D&A
Unit Supervisor, with the assistance of NA. These NA meetings were
specifically established for clients of the CISP program that have
substance abuse issues, and these meetings are recognized by NA as part
of its international fellowship.
Aftercare:
Upon completion of the intensive phase, an aftercare plan is
devised to assist clients with their transition back into the
community. Aftercare consists of establishing a positive support
network to reinforce sobriety, developing a relapse prevention plan,
and to aid the client in their recovery efforts. It also includes
follow-up contacts on a bimonthly basis to determine each client's
adherence to the recommended aftercare plans.
The D&A unit began performing mental health screens by tracking
mental health clients entering the CISP program. The tracking involves
identifying the client, the mental health diagnosis, the treatment
provider, medication and current MH status. CISP tracked a total of
ninety (90) mental health cases in 2006.
D&A assessments
The total number of drug and alcohol assessments for 2006 were 174.
There were a total of 194 commitments in CISP in 2006. Therefore,
assessments were completed in 174 of the 194 commitments in 2006, which
is 90%.
2006 d&a assessments
2006 D& A Assessments: The CISP D&A Unit completed a total of 212
Educational Groups in 2006.
Community involvement
The CISP Program continues to receive visits from various Juvenile
Court professionals from all over the country who wanted to obtain more
information and visit the program in person. The CISP program received
several visitors in 2006 from different agencies and courts throughout
the country; there were also on-site visits from numerous new probation
officers from Juvenile Court, new community monitors and student
interns. They received an intensive eight-hour orientation and training
about CISP and restorative justice.
CISP supervisors, the program coordinators, the program director
and other CISP staff continued to be involved with various community
organizations and continued to be active participants in community task
forces and meetings in 2006.
CISP program coordinators and CISP manager
In 2006, George Kinder and James Tucker, CISP Program Coordinators,
and Kim Booth, CISP Manager, were actively involved in several
community meetings and committees.
Court and Community Collaborative Committee
George Kinder and Kim Booth continued to serve on this committee in
2006. There were several meetings in 2006 throughout the state in
Monroeville and New Stanton, Pa. The members of this committee are
juvenile justice professionals, mental health professionals, community
leaders, and faith-based leader's organizations. In 2006, this
committee planned and sponsored the second community justice forums
held in Westmoreland County in June of 2006. This purpose of these
community justice forums is to provide technical assistance and
practical applications to juvenile justice professionals throughout the
state a working model to engage and include the community in the
juvenile justice system.
Computerized Forms Committee
Kim Booth served on this committee in 2006. The purpose of this
committee is to rewrite forms for the computer for standardized use by
all Juvenile Court employees.
Disproportionate Minority Contact Committee
In October 2003, Kimberly Booth was selected to serve as member of
the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Subcommittee of the
Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency's (PCCD) Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Committee (JJDPC). The committee was
established to assess and address the over-representation of minority
juveniles in Pennsylvania's juvenile justice system, especially secure
juvenile facilities.
This committee completed a very successful training workshop on
police community relations in October 2006. In 2006, this committee
continued to meet regularly to plan additional strategies and training
workshops with the focus on police work with minority youth.
BARJ Community Education Initiative Committee
In 2006, George Kinder continued to participate on the BARJ
Community Education Initiative committee chaired by Connie Przybyla.
This committee started in 2003 and has met monthly since that time. The
purpose of this committee is to create community awareness and provide
educational activities regarding restorative justice in the community.
In 2006, this committee sponsored several activities during Juvenile
Justice Week in October 2006 including a BARJ Forum, Open House, BARJ
poster and essay contest, and several recreational activities for
youth. The BARJ forum was facilitated by court director Jim Rieland and
involved a presentation by police officer and school official on
Internet crime.
B-Pep (The Black Political Empowerment Project)
James Tucker, CISP Program Coordinator, continued to serve as an
advisory board member with B-Pep to help coordinate the registration
and transporting of elderly, minority and disadvantaged citizens to
vote.
Hill District Community Collaboration Committees
James Tucker was an advisory board member for Male Coalition,
Cultural Policy Council, and Anger Management services for Center for
Family Excellence. He also was an advisory board member for the Hill
District Community Consensus Group, Hill District Community
Collaborative Corporation, and the Store Front Initiative.
Garfield CISP
Garfield CISP continues to be actively involved with numerous
community organizations; however, the Bloomfield-Garfield Corp (BGC)
continues to be their main community focus, and after 17 years, this
relationship is still flourishing. This past summer the youth
participated in a summer youth employment program sponsored by the BGC.
These youth were provided with a paid work experience for doing various
physical and human services work in and around the Garfield community.
PO Monique Powell recently resigned her position as an active BGC board
member after serving for eight years. PO Jan Adams will replace her in
2007. In addition to working for Garfield CISP, Jan is also a community
resident. The following is a list of other community contacts and
activities made by members of Garfield CISP:
Apangea Program--10 youth participate in this computer program
which is an on-line after school tutorial program in math.
Tree of Hope--a grass roots victims program with an emphasis on
helping the children of murder victims. In Sept 2006, escorted two
vanloads of children and their parents to K-Mart to shop for school
clothing.
Opening of new gym in the East Liberty community--community member
Ed Ackrie with the assistance of Garfield CISP were very active in
helping to set up this gym. It is now open to the community with free
weights, a boxing ring, and other exercise equipment.
Hill district CISP
In the Hill District staff continued its membership with the Hill
District Community Collaborative Corp; Center for Family Excellence
Cultural Policy Council; Zone 2 Public Safety Meetings; Hill House
Assoc. Consensus Group Meetings re: recreation, beautification and
safety issues; and numerous other community organizations. The
following is a list of community activities and contacts made by
members of the Hill District CISP:
Abraxas Workbridge--employment initiative program
Boys and Girls Club--employment--Great Start Program.
Beulah Baptist Church--community service food bank.
Carnegie Library Hill Dist. Branch--friends of the library.
Center for Family Excellence--member of male coalition, cultural policy
council and anger management services.
Center for Youth & Families--community service, activities, festivals,
advisory board member.
Center for Victims of Violent Crime--youth support and community
service.
Head Start Program--distributed flyers for head start sign-ups.
Hill Dist. Community Consensus--advisory board member, storefront
project.
Hill Dist. Community Development--distribution of newsletter, info
mailings
Hill House Assoc.--Young Fathers Program, community meetings.
House of David--youth development programs.
INCS Holistic Educational Rehab Center--community service.
Life Works--initial assessment and evaluation of clients' mental health
services.
Maleness to Manhood--youth programs, computer training, community
service.
Mercy Behavioral Health--mental health services.
Northwestern Human Services--mental health services.
Parental Stress Center--young male programs/community service.
Penn State Cooperation Extension--nutrition classes.
Spectrum Family Network--family services.
Uptown Community Alliance--participated in community clean-ups &
membership.
WPIC--assessment & evaluation of clients; mental health services and
counseling; staff training; community service.
Zone 2 Safety Council--community safety and monitoring and membership.
Homewood CISP
Barry McCrary and his staff were very active in community meetings
and programs including the Homewood YMCA (Attending various meetings
regarding community issues and employment), Westinghouse High School
(making various presentations to students), and attending and
participating in other community council forums. The following is a
list of community contacts and meetings Homewood CISP staff made during
the year:
Boys and Girls Club--provided job opportunities for youth.
Ethnan Temple Seventh Day Adventist Church--collaborated and provided
space to hold the Maleness to Manhood meetings open to the
public.
Hosanna House--utilized services provided by the Fatherhood Initiative
Program.
Mt. Ararat Baptist Church--community service by working in the meal
ministry and delivering food to senior citizens.
Wilkinsburg Community Ministry--picked up used furniture for less
fortunate members of the community.
McKeespost CISP
The center supervisor, John Fiscante, has maintained an active
working relationship with the City of McKeesport and the McKeesport
Collaborative. The following is a list of community activities and
contacts made by members of the McKeesport CISP center:
Abraxas WorkBridge--provided community service, employment and
educational opportunities.
Auberle Home--teen parenting counseling.
Center for Victims of Violent Crime--administered tests to clients upon
release from program.
City of McKeesport/McKeesport Task Force/Neighborhood Initiative--
contacts in the community for lawn care and snow removal for
the elderly; involved us in city-wide projects, such as
Environmental Day.
Community Accountability Panel--attended panel hearings.
Creative Ministries/Triumphant Prayer Ministries--provided community
service, spiritual and mentoring services.
Boys & Girls Club/Salvation Army--provided mentoring, employment
opportunities and mentoring services.
McKeesport Collaborative--provided community service, mentoring and
educational services.
Glenshire Woods Nursing Home--provided employment opportunities and
community service.
McKeesport Collaborative--did community service and attended AIDS walk.
McKeesport Housing Authority--use of Crawford Rec Center for gym during
CISP basketball league.
McKeesport Weed & Seed/NAACP--provided community service opportunities.
Mon Yough--provided community service projects at Angora Gardens.
Wilkinsburg CISP
The following is a list of community activities and contacts made
by members of the Wilkinsburg CISP center staff and their supervisor,
Ginger Kinsel:
Spectrum Family Network--provided clients and parents with anger
management counseling and other issues.
Boys & Girls Club--provided clients with employment opportunities.
Allegheny Intermediate Unit--provided alternative education to
students.
Community Connections for Families--works with mental health clients in
the Wilkinsburg School District.
WorkBridge--provided clients with a work experience in order to pay
their restitution.
Project Life--provided counseling services to clients.
Drug and alcohol unit
Patricia Rogers, D&A Supervisor, and her staff Earnest Frazier
(Hill), Jennifer Thompson (McKeesport), Taryn Simko (Wilkinsburg) and
Marvin Randall (Garfield) were actively involved in the following
community activities and initiatives:
Juvenile Justice Week--held information tables, which provided drug and
alcohol education and program overview at the open house during
Juvenile Court Week.
(CLEAR) Coalition of Leadership, Education and Advocacy for Recovery--
Patricia Rogers met with other members of CLEAR to develop
strategies to enhance community awareness of the extent of
alcohol, tobacco and other drug use and its consequences.
Take Your Daughter to Work Day--the CISP D&A Unit volunteered and
distributed D/A information during this event.
Housing Authority Clean Slate--this community collaborative focused on
drug-free communities in Allegheny County.
Allegheny County Air Show--CISP staff took the youth on a field trip to
the Air Force Air show.
Boys Scouts of America--participated in this year's summer outreach
camp and educated youth on drug & alcohol prevention /
awareness.
Sandcastle Water Park--CISP program enjoyed a day of summer fun.
Summer Curriculum--the CISP Drug & Alcohol Unit since 2001 started
collaboration with Allegheny County Jail, Allegheny County
Coroner's Office and the Adult Drug Court for a series called
``Jail, Institutions and Death.'' This six-week summer
curriculum was designed to expose the CISP clients to the real
life and times of chemical dependency and the harmful
consequences.
National Adoption Day--Supervisor Patricia Rogers volunteered and
participated in this special event.
Mt. Ararat Baptist Church--presentation at the Hill CISP by Rev.
Benjamin Calvart on Strengthen and Healing Communities.
Recreation and cultural activities
Recreation and cultural activities continue to be an important
component of the CISP Program. These activities allow youth to have the
opportunity to develop and promote structured recreational, physical,
educational, and cultural activities. These goals are met by teaching
youth appropriate recreational skills, quality of sportsmanship,
exposure to cultural events, and socially acceptable behavior within
the community.
The CISP Program continues to schedule a series of recreational,
physical, educational and cultural activities several days a week at
each center. Recreational activities within the community in 2006
included, but were not limited to: Pitt football and basketball games;
Pirate baseball; 2006 MLB All-star Baseball Game; Penguins hockey;
Cleveland Cavaliers; Steelers Football; Showcase Cinemas; Idlewild
Park; Harmarville Hoops; Sandcastle; Kennywood Park; Fright Fest
Station Square; Hartwood Acres Festival of Lights; and use of city
public schools' recreational facilities and county ball fields. Also,
several prison tours were conducted.
In 2006, CISP continued to utilize Tickets for Kids for ticket
donations to various recreational and cultural activities. This been a
major source of funding for recreational activities for the CISP
program.
In February 2006, George Kinder, Program Coordinator, started and
organized an intramural basketball league for CISP, along with two
other community teams including East Presb Church and The House a team
from Homewood at the Crawford Village gym in McKeesport. The season
consists of eight weeks of regular intramural basketball games from
Feb. until April 2005, which concluded with playoffs. East Pres Church
from East Liberty finished in first place and the CISP All-star team
finished in second place. An awards ceremony and pizza party was held
at the gym after the finals. Trophies were given to 1st and 2nd place
team. CISP started and organized an all-star team from the CISP Centers
and played several games against the two other community teams.
In May 2006, George Kinder, Program Coordinator, Larissa Mackey
from Homewood and Lee Smith from Wilkinsburg CISP organized and
facilitated the CISP intramural softball league. This involved all five
CISP centers. The season consists of six weeks of regular intramural
softball games from May until June 2006, which concluded with playoffs.
The Wilkinsburg CISP center finished in first place and Hill CISP
finished in second place. An awards ceremony and pizza party was held
at North Park after the finals in June 2006. Trophies were distributed
to the 1st and 2nd place teams and medals to all the teams who
participated.
Two new recreational activities were continued in 2006--a
weightlifting contest held at Homewood CISP in Oct. 2006 and a ping-
pong tournament held at Homewood CISP in December 2006.
Cultural activities continue to be a very important aspect of the
CISP Program as it exposes the youth to various art, theatre and
educational experiences in the community. These activities help shape
positive social and moral values and foster a sense of community pride.
Some of these activities were as follows: Great Blacks in Wax Museum;
several plays at local theaters and churches; and all five CISP centers
attended and participated in Black History Month activities in several
schools and community centers throughout the five neighborhoods.
School involvement
CISP staff continues to have a good relationship with all of the
schools attended by CISP youth. These schools are visited daily by the
school/aftercare community monitor specialists for data regarding
attendance, behavior and academic performance by CISP youth. The staff
also attends numerous conferences with parents and school personnel
throughout the school year. CISP continues to place a high priority on
the client's educational performance.
The Allegheny Intermediate Unit (AIU) has been providing
educational services to CISP youth since CISP began. The services
include testing, interim school placements, GED tutoring, and classes
for youth who are suspended. AIU continues to provide a tutor at each
CISP center for approx. an hour and a half Monday thru Thursday. These
tutors help youth with homework and often assign additional work to
strengthen any weak areas. Tutoring services in the CISP centers are
now being paid through the CISP operational budget.
The School/Aftercare Community Monitor continues to be responsible
for monitoring the school attendance/performance of the CISP students.
These staff also have the additional responsibility of providing
aftercare services to youth who have been committed to CISP after their
release from an institution.
The School/Aftercare Community Monitor Specialist in each CISP
center monitors the daily attendance, obtains grades, behavioral
reports, and attends and participates in school conferences with school
counselors, vice principals and principals. Each school specialist
covers a geographic area that encompasses several schools in their
neighborhood CISP center. During the summer months, the School/
Aftercare Community Monitor Specialist monitors and facilitates clients
who obtain summer employment and helps to monitor the community service
projects in their center. Their duties also include supervision of the
aftercare clients in each of their respective centers.
Electronic monitoring
One staff member, as well as one alternate, from each CISP center
continues to function as an Electronic Home Monitoring (EHM)
Specialist. Their duties and responsibilities continue to include
coordinating, activating, and reporting on the electronic monitoring
system for each center.
In 1998 CISP was able to obtain the ability to install the EHM
system in clients' homes that previously did not have a telephone. This
procedure involves the CISP program installing a telephone line and
phone in these homes that enables the EHM system to function.
Each CISP center continues to have the ability through the use of
remote work stations to review their specific clients electronic
``leaves and enters,'' as well as the client's overall compliance with
their out-of-the-home approved schedules. These remote work stations
are programmed through the electronic monitor's main computer hub
located in the Eastern District Office. The main benefit of having the
remote work stations is that it enables each CISP center to respond
more efficiently and quicker by looking up their own client's
movements, determine if the client violated or abided to their
schedule, and have the ability to respond with real time consequences
if a violation occurred.
Sanctioning
In 2006, youth continued to be sanctioned in-house, at Shuman
Detention Center, Allegheny Academy sanction unit, and Vision Quest
Boot Camp. In-house sanctions included staying late in program or doing
additional community service. Youth in CISP are sanctioned for
violating program rules and regulations such as not attending school/
school suspensions, missing program at CISP, electronic monitoring
violation, major behavior problems in center, positive drug/alcohol
tests, etc.
2006 Sanction Stat's
The positive rate for all tests is only 4.7%. This is a low rate
given the fact 18% of the youth committed to CISP in 2006 were
committed for a drug related offense.
2006 Aftercare commitments
During 2006, the CISP Program received (54) aftercare commitments.
This represents 28% of all the 2006 commitments to CISP. The number of
aftercare commitments by CISP center is as follows:
In 2006 the 54 aftercare commitments to CISP were received from the
following institutions:
George Jr. Republic--17
Abraxas--5
Summit Academy--8
Harborcreek--2
Pressley Ridge--7
VisionQuest--1
YDC-New Castle--6
YFC #3--1
Adelphoi--6
Bradley Center--1
2006 CISP Discharges
In 2006, the CISP Program had 205 youth who were discharged.
Positive Discharges: 144 youth or 70%
Negative Discharges: 61 youth or 30%
205 youth or 100%
Discharge Percentages: Positive Discharges--70%; Negative
Discharges--30%
1) New Offense--5%
2) Failure to Adjust--14%
Of the total 322 youth served during 2006 only 15 (5%) committed
new criminal acts while in the CISP Program.
______
Second Chance: House-Arrest Program for Juveniles Finds That Community
Service Helps Rehabilitate Offenders
By Lillian Thomas, Post-Gazette; Sunday, August 07, 2007
A few months ago, James Eversole was in a stolen car being chased
by police. The friend who was driving wrecked it, and Eversole, 17,
ended up before a judge. Eversole learned about his new life on house
arrest with an anklet and a crew of adults breathing down his neck.
One of the few places he was allowed to go was a McKeesport
personal care home, where he was to put in community service hours.
Now Eversole is an employee of Glenshire Woods Personal Care Home,
serving coffee and setting tables for the senior citizens he's been
playing cards with on Tuesday and Thursday evenings for the past
several months.
Eversole and three others hired by the home are in the Community
Intensive Supervision Project, a house-arrest program started in 1990
by the Allegheny County juvenile court system.
An integral part of CISP is community service, said Jim Rieland,
director of juvenile court services in Allegheny County. The program
aims to make children who have broken the law understand the effects of
their actions and to build up connections between them and others in
their communities.
Youth at all five CISP centers do 100 hours or more of community
service, such as picking up litter or cutting grass, during their six
to eight months in the program. The McKeesport center, started in 2001,
has been strong in making community links, Rieland said.
``We require community service as a way for our clients to give
back to the community they victimized,'' said John Fiscante, supervisor
of the McKeesport center. He was interested in finding a way to create
one-on-one relationships with residents.
``We tried to go around the community and find a place. At first we
were unsuccessful,'' he said. But last year, he talked with the
administrators of Glenshire Woods, who agreed to try evening visits
from four or five of the center's youth each week.
It was a bit awkward at first, but once the cards and checkers were
broken out, the conversation started flowing, said David Herchelroath,
probation counselor at the CISP center. The kids initially had to be
badgered into going to Glenshire, he said, but now they all want to go.
The Glenshire residents, who hadn't done much card playing before, now
have the tables set up and are ready to start games of Tonk, 500 and
Uno as soon as the boys walk in the door.
``Miss Mary, Miss Viola, Miss Karen, they are waiting for us when
we come,'' said Derrick Stanford, 16, who was arrested on charges of
using and selling drugs.
Officials from both CISP and Glenshire were happy with the
results--livelier seniors, kids forming bonds with older people in
their community.
A month or so ago, Fiscante and the center's administration began
to discuss the possibility of hiring some of the boys to work there.
Two--Eversole, 17, and Claude Sims, 16--are working there now as
nutrition aides. They set and clear tables, serve beverages and help
residents at mealtimes.
Stanford and Tim Chavis, 16, will begin work shortly. All four are
nearly done with the CISP program.
Everyone involved is taking a risk. The personal care home, the
court system, the supervisors of the CISP center and the boys all stand
to lose if they blow it.
A spokeswoman for the corporation that owns Glenshire said it was
the first arrangement of this kind she'd ever heard of.
``We do work with other community organizations, like job corps,
but this is the first one of this kind I'm aware of,'' said Holly
Gould, director of communications for Glenshire Woods' owner,
Milwaukee-based Extendicare Health Services Inc., which runs 440
nursing homes, assisted living centers, rehabilitation clinics and
retirement communities in the United States and Canada.
Fiscante knows he's out on a limb. But the CISP philosophy is based
on the idea that juvenile offenders are most likely to change their
behavior permanently by being at home, closely supervised, rather than
in a juvenile facility.
Most ordered into the program are property offenders, Rieland
said--``burglary, auto theft, misdemeanor retail theft, charges related
to drugs, drug use and sales.'' Judges do not send those who have
committed violent crimes or who are repeat offenders to the program.
They are supervised 24 hours a day. They are permitted to be at
home, at the CISP center, at school and at work if they have a job. At
the McKeesport center, a staff of 14 supervises a group which ranges
from 15 to 22 juveniles who live in the McKeesport Area School
District.
The boys report to the center every afternoon and are dropped off
at home around 9 p.m. After that, center staff members make phone
checks and home visits. The electronic monitoring devices the juveniles
wear on their ankles let CISP staff know if they are anywhere they
aren't supposed to be; violations show up on a computerized system that
is monitored day and night.
Police have photos of all the CISP youth in case they disappear. If
they are in violation, they are taken to Shuman Juvenile Detention
Center.
Probation officers are involved in the program, which includes
frequent group meetings to discuss problems or successes. There is a
drug and alcohol counselor on staff, and the juveniles are regularly
drug tested. They also pay restitution, where required, and write
letters of apology to victims, where appropriate.
``We're trying to change everything,'' Fiscante said. Boys must
respond with ``yes, sirs'' and ``ma'ams'' to all adults.
During a card game last week, resident Viola Vano dealt and the
game clicked along with the efficient ease of familiar routine. The
boys talked to their older companions, leaning over to discuss the
hands and play. They were routinely and consistently polite, minding
their ``yes, ma'ams.''
Gould, the spokeswoman for Extendicare, said that, because CISP
itself is so unusual, she didn't expect to get more requests of this
sort from other facilities.
``I think it's fairly unique. We will evaluate the success after a
period of time. We are always looking for ways to bring people into the
long-term care industry, and volunteering, to see if they are
interested in the work, is a good way to do that.''
______
Young Men in Trouble Reflect on Their Lives: Garfield Program Helps
Youths Deal With Their Crimes, Street Life and Absent Fathers
By Ervin Dyer, Post-Gazette; Saturday, June 02, 2007
Listen as young men in the CISP program discuss the absence of
fathers in their lives.
In a dimly lighted room in Garfield, there is a circle of 14 young
men.
Their voices are deepening, and the fuzz of new moustaches shades
their upper lips. They are 13 to 18 years old, and each has an
electronic monitoring device on his ankle. One by one, they stand to
recount the positives or negatives of their week.
In the circle, they stand before men like Rick Cokley, a broad-
chested overseer. He is both cheerleader and bullwhip.
There is much that must be accounted for in the circle--school
performance, community service, drug use. Mr. Cokley celebrates their
good behavior and chastens them when they miss the mark.
Linking behavior and consequence is a core part of the Community
Intensive Supervision Program as it aims to keep youth offenders out of
jail and to get them to take responsibility for their actions.
CISP is run by the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. Its
philosophy is that young offenders are most likely to change by being
at home, closely supervised and mentored, rather than in a juvenile
facility.
Most are ordered into the circle because they are property
offenders, charged with burglary, auto theft, misdemeanor retail theft,
or have charges related to drugs.
The electronic monitoring devices let CISP staff know if the
juveniles are anywhere they aren't supposed to be; violations show up
on a computerized system. If they are in violation, youth are taken to
Shuman Juvenile Detention Center.
Probation officers are involved in the program, which includes
frequent group meetings to discuss problems or successes. There is a
drug and alcohol counselor on staff, and the juveniles are regularly
drug tested. They also pay restitution, where required, and write
letters of apology to victims, where appropriate.
Youth at all five centers do 100 hours or more of community
service, such as picking up litter or cutting grass, during their six
to eight months in CISP.
The program served 322 youth last year: two-thirds of them were
positive discharges, meaning they were placed on probation or released
from CISP and their case was closed. The others came back into the
system for committing new offenses or failing the program.
In one corner of the Garfield center where the young men sit, there
are vials of urine, waiting to be tested for drugs. In another, there
is a ping-pong table and weight-lifting machines. Of the 14 young men
in the circle, 13 are black. Ten of them have no relationship or very
limited involvement with their fathers; 10 of the 14 say they know
someone who's been shot; nine say they know someone who's been killed.
Almost all raise their hand to acknowledge that they have struggled in
school.
The circle doesn't tell the story of every young black male in
society, but its members reflect the circumstances of the 3 million
inner-city black males who scholars say seem to be especially affected
by poverty, street life and social alienation.
And in Pittsburgh, a city with double-digit rates of unemployment
for black males, a small black middle class that is strained to push
for policy changes to address the issues, the situation is severe.
Nearly 70 percent of black families in Pittsburgh do not have fathers
in the homes, according to studies done by the University of Pittsburgh
Center on Race and Social Problems.
Bundles of bottled-up angst and misspent emotion, the boys in the
circle are ready to tell their stories. Because of confidentiality, the
Post-Gazette is not fully identifying the young men, but they come from
all over Pittsburgh and spoke about fatherlessness, their experiences
with violence and their hopes.
``The stereotype is that we were raised in a negative society, so
we show negative action by being negative people, like stealing cars,
selling drugs and stuff like that,'' says Shannon, 17, of East Liberty.
He was arrested a few months ago for conspiracy to commit armed
robbery. He now lives with his father and is watched by two older
brothers, both college graduates.
Many of the young men admitted their choices have drawn them close
to living the stereotype. They say they have made mistakes, but want to
be looked at as individuals.
``People see us, and they don't want to be bothered,'' says
Shannon. ``We feel like all people are judging us'' and because of how
they dress, the choice of music and the way they talk, ``everybody sees
us as young black people and a bad race.''
But they are far from immune to the pressures.
The negativity ``comes from like the person in the neighborhood who
got everything. Like respect and everything,'' said Shannon, who plans
to enroll in Community College of Allegheny County after he finishes
the program. ``You want to follow in his footsteps and have all that
money and girls and jewelry and all that. You want to strive and do
whatever it is to be that person.
``It's pretty hard to really open your eyes [and see something
different] when everybody is trying to live up to that image. You kinda
want to try to fit, so you go down the wrong path. You try to take the
fast way out because it just seems easier.''
A short time in their presence and the personalities creep forth:
in the circle, some rest with their chins on their hands, silent;
others chat away, eager to express themselves.
At one point, they argue the merits of self-determination and its
impact on getting an education.
``If you don't do well in school, that's yo fault,'' says Mike, 17,
of Highland Park. ``I ain't go blame it on the teachers. You pay
attention, you go [learn] something. If they talked about some girls or
some money, everybody would soak that up.''
Mike is at CISP for violating his probation for aggravated assault.
He lives with his mom and five siblings and dreams of earning a
business degree from Robert Morris University and ``owning something.''
He's expecting his first child this fall.
The young men have heard the studies and watched the news reports
that warn they are an endangered species.
They run through the same list of negative influences in their
lives as the ones the experts cite. They talk about living without
fathers.
Carl, 16, of Larimer is the oldest of eight children: four on his
mom's side and four on his father's side.
His father left the family when he was 2. He wants his father to be
a father. ``Yo' mom can't raise you,'' he said.
Most of what Carl shares with his dad are telephone conversations
from Houston. His father, he said, speaks too often about drinking and
the men he's punching out in the bars. Too little does he ask about his
son's life or know what to encourage or congratulate him on. ``My dad
talks like he's my best friend. He's still making the same mistakes I
am,'' said Carl, who writes his own rap music and works the cash
register in his mom's store in Lawrenceville.
``We don't know right from wrong. No fathers to teach us. If my dad
was there, half the stuff I did, I probably never would have done.''
Most said that they believed CISP was making a positive difference
in their lives.
``This is a big turnaround for everybody,'' said Shannon. ``I think
if their eyes wasn't open before, it's open now because we got positive
role models now, and you have no choice but to do what's right.''
``People should care about us,'' said Shannon, ``because we're not
a lost cause. We're just people who made a mistake. But we're not going
to continue to mess up. Everybody wants to do something with their
life.''
______
Youth Service Hours Pay Off: Teens Serve Their Community as They Serve
Their Time
By Barbara White Stack, Post-Gazette; Monday, October 04, 2004
At first, it was forced labor done under court order--delinquents
washing and painting, buffing and staining in a sweltering McKeesport
church last summer.
Later, it became a labor of pride by teens who stopped counting the
hours worked toward completion of their community service sentences and
began looking forward to the tiny congregation's first service in its
refinished sanctuary.
``They chose to show us the best side of themselves,'' said
Virginia Burda. She and her husband, Tom Burda, serve as pastors for
the New Jerusalem Holiness Church in McKeesport.
For two months last summer, three to eight teens sentenced to the
McKeesport Community Intensive Supervision Project--called CISP--
arrived at the church every day to help the Burdas renovate the
ramshackle place of worship.
They learned new skills. They built an enduring relationship with
the Burdas. And beyond changing the church's appearance, they changed
themselves.
This project and others sponsored by the Allegheny County juvenile
probation department demonstrate why the county increased both the
number of community hours worked by delinquents and the percentage of
delinquents who completed their court-mandated hours.
The second annual report card of the county's juvenile court, to be
released during Juvenile Justice Week which begins today, will show
that 98 percent of delinquents freed from court supervision in 2003
completed their community service sentences, which typically are 100 or
more hours. In 2002, that figure was 96.6 percent.
That year, the youths worked 68,791 hours. In 2003, their hours
rose to 69,654.
Jim Rieland, the county's chief probation officer and director of
juvenile court services, believes those numbers may be the highest in
the country. That's something he would know from his frequent travels
nationwide promoting the concept of Balanced and Restorative Justice,
which was adopted by Pennsylvania during a reform of juvenile justice
in 1995.
The concept widens the traditional focus of juvenile court----
reforming errant youths----to include efforts to help victims and
protect communities.
Community service is a big part of that.
John Fiscante, probation supervisor at the McKeesport CISP program,
explains that the community service projects create a relationship
between the youngsters and community residents that makes it harder for
the teens to repeat their offenses.
For example, in McKeesport, where the population is dominated by
senior citizens, delinquents in the CISP program work off their
community service hours by mowing lawns and weed whacking for residents
too frail to do the work themselves. All that's asked in exchange is a
glass of pop or a sandwich. The eating promotes talking. The seniors
get to know the scary teens. The youths get to know the scary old
people.
``An emotional bond is formed,'' Fiscante said. ``The boys know who
lives in that house now. It is no longer just a house on the street.''
The reporting of the community service hours served is part of the
Balanced and Restorative Justice concept. The community has a right to
know just how well its juvenile justice system is working, and the
reporting, now in its second year, is part of that.
Rieland is trying to get every chief probation officer in the state
to do it, and he promotes the idea when he travels.
His report card this year shows a decrease in repeat offenses while
youngsters are on probation, from 13 percent in 2002 to 11 percent in
2003.
The percentage of youngsters who did not violate the terms of their
probation remained the same at 94 percent.
The amount of restitution paid rose from $138,979 to $155,911, but
the percentage of youngsters who paid in full dropped from 81 percent
to 77 percent.
In addition to reporting the numbers to the public, it's crucial to
collect and study them so the department knows where it must improve,
Rieland said.
One reason the community service numbers are so high, he said, is
that youngsters frequently complete more hours than required.
Fiscante said it's not unusual for a youngster to perform 200 hours
when sentenced to 100.
Fiscante is always looking for meaningful community service
projects. He just set up one with Glenshire Woods, a McKeesport nursing
home. Teens visit the seniors there twice a week now; they play
checkers and cards and wheel the seniors around.
When he heard about the needs of the Burdas' church last summer,
Fiscante was intrigued. When he walked through the church building the
first time, he was horrified.
``I felt something was going to fall on me from the ceiling,'' he
said. ``It was that terrible.''
The youngsters started work in July, under direct supervision of
the Burdas and a CISP worker. The boys performed some tasks requiring
limited skills, like washing and painting walls. But Tom Burda also
taught them to repair plumbing in the church bathroom, to buff and
stain hardwood floors, and to set and clean pews.
The Burdas had bought the church on Soles Street 2\1/2\ years
earlier but had only been able to conduct services in a small, restored
section of the fellowship hall. With the boys' help, they held their
first service for approximately 25 members on Aug. 1.
The Burdas gave the boys lunch each day--fun food like pizza and
chicken and hoagies that the youngsters considered far superior to CISP
fare. Virginia Burda said those times with the boys were the best.
``I really enjoyed sitting and talking with them,'' she said.
When the work was done, the Burdas e-mailed photos across the
country to their 14 sister churches. And, at a service, they recognized
the youngsters for their hard work.
``We promised them that as long as they lived, this would be their
church and told them that they had invested in the church in a way that
makes them a part of it as long as we are in existence,'' Virginia
Burda said.
Before they found the old church in McKeesport, the Burdas had
conducted services in a home in Duquesne. They felt drawn to the
dilapidated church and bought it not knowing how they would ever
restore it.
Then Fiscante showed up.
``We thought the CISP young people and community service were an
answer to our prayers,'' she said.
______
[Questions for the record sent to Mr. Lawrence follow:]
[VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL]
July 13, 2007,
Hon. Paul H. Lawrence,
Judicial Branch-Goffstown District Court and the Coalition for Juvenile
Justice, State of New Hampshire, Goffstown, NH.
Dear Judge Lawrence: Thank you for testifying at the July 12th,
2007 joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and
Communities and the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security.
Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), a member of the Healthy
Families Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the
following questions:
1. Please talk more about the transfer of youth to the adult court
and placement of youth in adult jails. What are the implications for
the reauthorization of the JJDPA?
2. When considering your recommendation to trim back the laundry
list of core purposes in JJDPA, what basic tenets should we keep in
mind to guide us?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
question by COB Monday, July 23, 2007--the date on which the hearing
record will close. If you have any questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
[Response from Mr. Lawrence follows:]
July 23, 2007.
Hon. George Miller,
Chairman, Education and Labor Committee, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Miller: Thank you for the opportunity to testify at
the July 12th, 2007, joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Healthy
Families and Communities and the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and
Homeland Security, titled ``The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act: Overview and Perspectives.'' I truly appreciate the
committees' consideration of and attention to the issues related to the
reauthorization of this important statute.
Today, I am writing in response to questions posed to me, following
the hearing by Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) a member of the
Healthy Families Subcommittee:
1. Please talk more about the transfer of youth to the adult court
and placement of youth in adult jails. What are the implications for
the reauthorization of the JJDPA?
Currently, all U.S. states, territories and the District of
Columbia have laws that allow for the transfer/waiver of juveniles
under the age of majority into adult criminal court. However, a recent
study from the Centers for Disease Control, submitted with the written
hearing testimony of Dr. Jennifer Woolard, Georgetown University, found
that transfer of minors to adult court for prosecution and sentencing
has, at best, no effect on public safety and, at worst, causes the
transferred juveniles to become more likely to recidivate and to re-
offend in more violent ways. The CDC report amplifies the findings and
recommendations of two comprehensive reports on the topic, also
included in the hearing record: Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2005,
``Childhood on Trial: The Failure of Trying & Sentencing Youth in Adult
Criminal Court'' and Campaign for Youth Justice, 2007, ``The
Consequences Aren't Minor: The Impact of Trying Youth as Adults and
Strategies for Reform.''
In its reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act (JJDPA), Congress can ensure responses that are more
appropriate to a young person's age and stage of development. Several
leadership organizations, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice and the
Campaign for Youth Justice, among more than 150 other national and
state-based organizations, recommend that the reauthorization seek to
phase in an expansion of the core protections of the JJDPA to apply to
all youth until the age of 18, whether tried and sentenced in juvenile
or adult criminal court. Specifically, by consensus, this group of
organizations recommends the following changes in the statute with
which I concur:
Amend Sec. 223(a)(13(A) to require states and local
jurisdictions to
remove all youth charged as adults and detained in adult
jails pending trial, allowing for a four-year phase-in period for
needed change to state statutes, and
implement the American Bar Association (ABA) standards for
youth convicted as adults in adult jails and prisons, as contained in
the ABA's publication, Youth in the Criminal Justice System: Guidelines
for Policymakers and Practitioners, again allowing for a four-year
phase-in.
Amend Sec. 252 (b) to require the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to provide intensive
Technical Assistance (TA) to states and counties to comply with the
above provisions.
Add a new (f) to Sec. 222 to provide incentive funding and
technical assistance resources for model demonstration programs
regarding effective and timely removal of youth from adult
incarceration settings.
Amend Sec. 204(b)(7) to require OJJDP to----
work with states and counties to collect ongoing data on
youth in the adult criminal justice system, including age, race,
ethnicity, gender, offense, pre-trial detention, transfer mechanism,
sentencing outcome, placement pre and post trial in jails, prisons or
juvenile facilities, and
conduct research on the outcomes of filing juveniles as
adults in criminal courts, i.e. does it increase or decrease public
safety and violence?; how does it impact facility conditions?; does it
effect the state of developmentally appropriate services and programs
for youth in adult jails and prisons?
Amend Sec. 103(25) to clarify that the core requirements
of the JJDPA expressly prohibit any contact of youth with adults in
adult jails and prisons.
Amend Sec. 103(26) to ensure that the core protections for
children in the JJDPA apply to youth over age 18 in ``extended juvenile
jurisdiction'' (EJJ) states so that these youth are not considered
``adults'' and states are not forced to remove them from juvenile
jurisdiction.
2. When considering your recommendation to trim back the laundry
list of core purposes in JJDPA, what basic tenets should we keep in
mind to guide us?
My recommendation is to use as guidance the basic tenets embodied
by the ``Act-4-Juvenile Justice Statement of Principles'' submitted
into the record with the testimony from witness Captain Derrick
Johnson, Phoenix, Arizona, and signed by the same body of more than 150
national and state organizations mentioned above.
It is critical to squarely focus allowable uses of State Formula
Funds (Title II Funds) on support for compliance with the JJDPA core
requirements [See Sec. 102 and Sec. 223 (a) (7) (B)]. There may be
efforts to engulf the JJDPA with priorities such as character education
or law enforcement initiatives which are more appropriately managed in
other statutes and under other authorities.
More specifically, I would recommend amending Sec. 223 (a)(7)(B) to
strongly promote:
Alternatives to detention and incarceration;
Home and community based mental/behavioral health care for
children;
Discharge planning and access to aftercare services; and
Access to effective quality counsel for children.
Additional important statutory changes could be made in the
following sections:
Amend Sec. 223 (6)(B)(iii) and Sec. 223 (9)(C), (J) and (S) to
ensure that mental health and substance abuse screening, assessment and
referrals include culturally and linguistically appropriate services,
and involvement of families in service design and delivery.
Elevate and amplify the work under current Sec. 223 (a) (22), known
as the core requirement on ``Disproportionate Minority Contact,'' by
strengthening it to require that OJJDP and its agents assist states and
localities to achieve actual reductions in racial/ethnic disparities
and differential treatment of youth of color in the justice system from
the point of surveillance and arrest to the point of re-entry.
It is also important to prohibit the use of JJDPA funds for
ineffective programs, such as boot camps, scared straight programs,
unlicensed private facilities, and large residential institutions. Such
prohibitions can be appropriately added to Sec. 299 (C) (a) (2) in the
reauthorization. Furthermore, it is critical to prioritize and focus
the Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
office's research and technical assistance functions so that they truly
support states' efforts to comply with the core protections in the
JJDPA. This can be done through adding more directive language
regarding the functions of the OJJDP Administrator and staff in
Sections 251 and 252 of the JJDPA. It is essential to ensure that OJJDP
is responsive to state-identified/locallyidentified needs and the State
Plan process, including support in Sec. 251 for field-based and field-
strengthening research and evaluation to refine and expand the array of
best and evidenced-based practices.
Moreover, several states are reporting that their technical
assistance requests regarding serious compliance concerns related to
the Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO) and Sight and
Sound Separation of adult and juvenile inmates presently go unanswered
by OJJDP. Yet, OJJDP was originally designed and authorized to support
the mandates and precepts of the JJDPA. Congress must ensure sufficient
oversight and transparency to intervene as needed to require assistance
for states who are working to meet the mandates of the JJDPA.
Thank you once again for requesting my views. Please let me know if
you have any additional questions or areas where my colleagues and I
can be of any further assistance to you. I serve on the board of an
excellent resource organization that is centrally involved in the
``Act-4-Juvenile Justice'' effort, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice.
The executive director, Nancy Gannon Hornberger (202-467-0864, ext. 111
and [email protected]) and deputy executive director, Tara Andrews
(202-467-0864, ext. 109 and andrewsnjuvjustice.org) stand by, ready to
help. and are networked with many other expert groups and individuals.
Thank you, too, for your stewardship of this important federal
statute which so positively affects the lives of youth and families and
shapes more promising futures for them, their families and communities.
Sincerely,
Paul H. Lawrence,
Judge, Goffstown District Court;
Immediate Past Chair, Coalition for Juvenile Justice.
______
[Internet link to Coalition for Juvenile Justice 2003
annual report: ``Unlocking the Future: Detention Reform in the
Juvenile Justice System,'' submitted by Mr. Lawrence, follows:]
http://www.issuelab.com/downloads/8015CJJ-----2003--Report-----
Unlocking--the--Future.pdf
______
[Internet links to Coalition for Juvenile Justice briefs,
parts I and II, ``What Are the Implications of Adolescent Brain
Development for Juvenile Justice?,'' submitted by Mr. Lawrence,
follows:]
http://juvjustice.org/media/resources/resource--134.pdf
http://juvjustice.org/media/resources/resource--138.pdf
______
[Questions for the record sent to Mr. Shepherd follow:]
[VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL]
July 13, 2007,
Mr. Robert E. Shepherd, Jr., B.A., LL.B.,
Emeritus Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University, University of
Richmond Law School, Richmond, VA.
Dear Mr. Shepherd: Thank you for testifying at the July 12th, 2007
joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities
and the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), a member of the Healthy
Families Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the
following question:
You mentioned the importance of research by the Office of Juvenile
Justice & Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). What studies, if any, have
been conducted on Native American youth in the juvenile justice system?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
question by COB Monday, July 23, 2007--the date on which the hearing
record will close. If you have any questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
______
[Response from Mr. Shepherd follows:]
July 19. 2007.
Hon. George Miller, Chairman,
House Education and Labor Committee, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Miller: Thank for your letter of July 13, 2007,
forwarding on a question from Congressman Raul Grijalva regarding
Native American youth in the juvenile justice system, and what studies
the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has
conducted on such youth.
The Office has on its staff an outstanding resource, Laura Ansera,
Tribal Youth Program Coordinator, and she may be reached at (202) 514-
5679, laura.ansera( usdoj.gov. There have not been a lot of recent
studies published by OJJDP, but those that are most relevant include
Youth Gangs in Indian Country, NCJ 202714 (2004), OJJDP's Tribal Youth
Initiatives, NCJ 193763 (2003), United National Indian Tribal Youth,
Inc., NCJ 189412, Evaluation/Assessment of Nat ajo Peacemaking, NCJ
187675 (1999). OJJDP's Program of Research for Tribal Youth, FS 2001 10
(2001), and Training and Technical Assistance for Indian Nation
Juvenile Justice Systems, FS 99105 (1999). There are some data from
2006 and earlier that have recently been released and published
regarding youth prosecuted federally that include information on Native
American youth and may be found at http:llojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstabb/
nr2006/downloads/ehapter4.pdf , with the information on Native American
youth may be found on page 1 17. There are additional resources that
may be found outside of OJJDP and I particularly recommend the
Coalition for Juvenile Justice's publication, Enlarging the Healing
Circle, published in 2000, and there are two excellent outside
resources I can refer you to, one is Terry L. Cross, Executive Director
of the National Indian Child Welfare Association who may be contacted
at (503) 222-4044, [email protected] and Michael Guilfoyle, Consultant on
American Indian Justice and Cultural Competence who may be reached at
(208) 285-1271. [email protected]. The Coalition for Juvenile
Justice Publication may be obtained from them at (202) 467-0864,
extension l 11, for the Executive Director Nancy Gannon Hornberger, and
it may be downloaded at www.juvjustice.orglfactsheet--3.html.
There is a serious dearth of research on American Indian/Tribal
youth in the courts and in the juvenile justice system, but section 251
of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act only provides
that the Administrator of OJJDP ``may'' do a number of things in the
research and evaluation line and, as I mentioned in my testimony, that
should probably be changed to ``shall'' and set forth a research agenda
that Congress would like to see the office pursue. I might also note
that the Federal Advisory Committee on
Juvenile Justice has included several recommendations in its most
recent reports to Congress and the President regarding the development
of a different formula for ``pass-through funds'' to go to the tribes
for juvenile justice activities.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance to you, to
Congressman Grijalva, or to your staff. I will forward an electronic
version of this letter to Deborah Koolbeck and I am sending Congressman
Grijalva of this letter.
With best wishes for your committee's consideration of the
reauthorization of this important piece of legislation, I am
Very truly yours,
Robert E. Shepherd, Jr.,
Emeritus Professor of Law.
______
[Additional submission by Ms. Woolard follows:]
------
[Internet link to Campaign for Youth Justice report, ``The
Consequences Aren't Minor,'' dated March 2007, submitted by Ms.
Woolard, follows:]
http://www.campaign4youthjustice.org/Downloads/NEWS/National--Report--
consequences.pdf
______
[Internet link to International Journal of Forensic Mental
Health article, ``Juveniles Within Adult Correctional Settings:
Legal Pathways and Developmental Considerations,'' Vol. 4, No.
1, 2005, submitted by Ms. Woolard, follows:]
http://www.iafmhs.org/files/Woolardspr05.pdf
______
[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]