[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 25 (Thursday, February 11, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S850-S854]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 1169
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, soon Senator Whitehouse and I will be
offering a unanimous consent request. It is in regard to the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act. It has an
amendment at the desk. I introduced this measure last April with
Senator Whitehouse, and it has three main goals.
First, this measure would extend a federal law, known as the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, for 5 more years. The
centerpiece of this 1974 law, which Congress last extended in 2002, is
its core protections for youth.
There are four core protections. The first calls for States to avoid
detaining youth for low-level status offenses. The second requires that
juveniles be kept out of adult facilities, except in rare instances.
The third ensures that juveniles will be kept separated from adult
inmates whenever they are housed in adult facilities. The fourth calls
for reducing disproportionate minority contact in State juvenile
justice systems. States adhering to these four requirements receive
yearly formula grants to support their juvenile justice systems.
Second, this legislation would make important updates to existing law
in order to ensure that juvenile justice programs will yield the best
possible estimates. The authorization for these programs expired in
2007, but they continue to receive appropriations. Nearly 14 years have
elapsed since the last reauthorization, and the programs are long
overdue for an update.
Third, this bill would promote greater accountability in government
spending. The Judiciary Committee that I chair heard from multiple
whistleblowers that reforms are urgently needed to restore the
integrity of formula grant programs that are the centerpiece of our
current juvenile justice law. The Justice Department's Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention administers this formula
grant program.
This grant program would be continued for 5 more years under this
bill, but the Justice Department would have to do much more oversight
if this bill is enacted. This bill also calls for evidence-based
programs to be accorded priority in funding. The goal is to ensure that
scarce Federal resources for juvenile justice will be devoted mostly to
the programs that research shows have the greatest merits and will
yield the best results for these young people.
For years and years, I have been reading inspector general reports
that disclose shortcomings within the Justice Department, under both
Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. Money is not being
spent according to congressional intent, and it has not yielded the
results we should be getting. That's why we want evidence-based
programs to be accorded priority in funding.
A coalition of over 100 nonprofit organizations, led by the Campaign
for Youth Justice and the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, worked
closely with us on this bill's development. Others that have endorsed
this measure include Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, Boys Town,
Rights4Girls, the National Criminal Justice Association, the National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and the National District
Attorneys Association. Senator Whitehouse and I are very grateful for
their support.
I also take this opportunity to thank our 15 cosponsors, who include
not only numerous Judiciary Committee members but people off the
committee, such as Senators Blunt, Rubio, Ernst, and other non-
committee members. This bill is a truly bipartisan effort, and many
Senators contributed provisions to strengthen this bill since we
introduced it last April.
There are a few provisions of the bill that I especially want to
highlight. First, as already mentioned, this bill calls for continued
congressional support of existing grant programs that serve at-risk
youth. It also incorporates new language, championed by the
organization called Rights4Girls, which emphasizes Congress's support
for efforts to reduce delinquency among girls. Experts tell us that
many girls in the juvenile justice system today have experienced
violence, trauma, and poverty.
Second, at the urging of the National Council of Juvenile and Family
Court Judges, this bill gives States 3 years to phase out the detention
of children who have committed so-called status offenses. Status
offenses are those that are low-level offenses, such as running away
from home, underage tobacco use, curfew violations, or truancy, which
wouldn't be crimes if committed by an adult and which would never
result in an adult being jailed.
Most status offenders are boys, with one exception. Girls account for
about 60 percent of the runaway cases. Many of these girls and boys
come from broken homes, and many have experienced trauma or mental
health issues in childhood. Research shows that detention tends to make
mentally ill status offenders worse. Because some detention facilities
are crowded, violent, or chaotic, they can be very dangerous places for
the low-risk offender. It is very expensive to lock up status offenders
who don't pose a public safety risk. Finally, experts say that the
status offenders learn negative behavior from high-risk offenders in
detention, which greatly increases their risks of reoffending.
Researchers call this peer deviancy training.
Third, the bill incorporates new provisions designed to rehabilitate
and protect juveniles while they are in custody. It encourages
screenings of boys and girls who may be exploited by human traffickers,
as well as those with trauma, mental health, or substance abuse issues.
It includes language, authored by Senators Cornyn and Schumer, which
would end the shackling of pregnant girls in detention. It calls for
greater data collection, including reports on the use of isolation on
juveniles in State or local detention facilities, and it includes
language calling for States to ensure that juveniles will continue
their education while in detention.
The measure we are seeking to pass today also includes a minor
amendment at the request of Senator Murkowski to ensure that the bill's
definition of the phrase ``Indian tribes'' is the same as existing law.
We also have added several new provisions to meet the better needs of
tribal youth, who are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system.
They include a requirement that the GAO report back to Congress on ways
to improve prevention
[[Page S851]]
and treatment services, as well as provisions encouraging States to
notify Indian tribes when tribal youth come into contact with their
juvenile justice systems.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work so closely in such a
bipartisan manner with Senator Whitehouse, who I hope will speak
shortly on these key reform provisions. I am pleased that we have
revisited the authorization statute for some vitally important juvenile
justice programs--a statute which is long overdue for an update to
reflect the latest scientific research on what works with at-risk
adolescents.
At this point, would the Presiding Officer recognize Senator
Whitehouse under the rules.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here to show support for my
Judiciary Committee chairman's effort to move this measure by unanimous
consent. He has described the bill in considerable detail, so I will
not repeat his description of the bill.
From a point of view of process, I will say that this was a bill that
came through Judiciary without a single voice of dissent. A great deal
of bipartisan work was done to make sure it addressed new problems that
young people face in all these different areas that the chairman
described. It has a lot of enthusiasm and support in the Judiciary
Committee. Indeed, it had such broad enthusiasm and support in the
Judiciary Committee that we decided that we would simply hotline the
bill because there seemed to be no objection to it. ``Hotline'' means
you ask unanimous consent and warn people you are going to ask
unanimous consent, and anybody who wants to object has a chance to come
to the floor and do so.
It is my understanding that there is one Senator of the 100 of us who
wishes to do so, and so here we are going through that exercise. But it
has completely cleared on our side and is ready for action.
I would say that it is quite broadly supported. This is the list of
law enforcement support for it. As you can see even from a chair quite
far away, this is a fairly considerable document with a substantial
list of hundreds of folks from across the country who pledge their
support to this bill in law enforcement.
I would add that from the State of Arkansas, the junior Senator from
Arkansas is the Senator who is going to raise the one objection, I
gather. The Arkansas State Advisory Group, the association called
Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and the official State
Arkansas Division of Youth Services all support this bill.
On the list of law enforcement supporters that I showed you are the
following law enforcement leaders from Arkansas who support this bill.
Robert Alcon is the chief of police of the Mayflower Police Department,
and he supports this bill. Steve Benton is the chief of police of the
Ward Police Department; he supports this bill. Ray Coffman is the chief
of police of the Judsonia Police Department; he supports this bill.
Randy Harvey is the chief of police of the Lowell Police Department; he
supports this bill. Mark Kizer is the chief of police of the Bryant
Police Department; he supports this bill. Kirk Lane is the chief of
police of the Benton Police Department; he supports this bill. Randy
Reid is the chief of police of the Glenwood Police Department; he
supports this bill. Montie Sims is the chief of police of the
Dardanelle Police Department; he supports this bill. Obie Sims is the
sheriff of the Lafayette County Sheriff's Office, and he supports this
bill.
I would note that the senior Senator from Arkansas is not here to
object to it.
I would hope that since the Governor of Arkansas has appointed a
Youth Justice Reform Board, whose purpose is to ``improve the overall
effectiveness of the juvenile justice system'' through evidence-based
practices, the 3-year period that this bill gives for the
implementation of this would give Arkansas plenty of time to
accommodate itself. If there proves to be a problem, we can always come
back to it later. In the meantime, this effort that is being undertaken
under the leadership of the Governor of Arkansas is being done in
conjunction with the Arkansas Division of Youth Services, which
supports this bill.
I would add one other thing, which is that the purpose of this bill
is to prevent children from being locked up for something that no adult
could be locked up for if they were to do it--truancy, not showing up
for school, things like that.
In the event, however, that a child comes under the supervision of a
court and the court directs that child to do certain things, if the
child then fails to comply with the court order, judges have broad
authority to enforce compliance with their orders. It is known as the
contempt power. It is inherent in the judicial office. It can include
fines; it can even include detention.
To be in violation of a court order is not, in my view or in the view
of anybody else that I am aware of, a status offense. Therefore, in a
particularly acute or difficult situation in which a judge feels the
need to enforce compliance with his or her order, the contempt power
inherent in the judiciary is not obviated or addressed in any way by
this bill.
So for all those reasons, I will conclude by recalling the story of
the conclusion of the Founders' work on the Constitution, when, at the
end, Benjamin Franklin stood up and acknowledged that there had been
various disagreements but that he would urge that each of the Members
of that body doubt just for one moment their own infallibility and
allow the measure to proceed.
In that spirit, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this is the opportunity we have been
waiting for. I hope it is not objected to. If it is, we will have to
take that into consideration and just hold the bill in the Senate.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 325, which is S. 1169; further,
that the Grassley substitute amendment be agreed to; that the
committee-reported substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to; that
the bill, as amended, be read a third time; and that the Senate vote on
passage of the bill, as amended, with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first, I
want to express my appreciation for the work Senator Grassley, Senator
Whitehouse, and others have done in crafting the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act. I agree with my colleagues--the bill
improves the way we handle juvenile offenders. The bill properly
focuses on rehabilitation and services that seek to turn juveniles away
from crime and provide help to at-risk youth. I support the vast
majority of the bill, and I hope it ultimately passes into law.
However, I would like to take more time to discuss one specific
provision of the bill relating to juvenile status offenders and secure
confinement.
Secure confinement is not and in my opinion should not be the
preferred option for instances of alcohol possession, truancy, or other
status offenses. In fact, current law bars judges from imposing secure
confinement for initial status offenses. But I am concerned that the
bill eliminates completely the ability for judges to order secure
confinement for a short time in instances where a status offender
flagrantly violates the judge's prior order for him to, say, enter into
rehabilitation, counseling, or take part in other treatment services.
In such narrow circumstances, it may be prudent to allow judges--often
in consultation with the parents and attorneys involved--to have secure
confinement as a means to enforce their own orders and to ensure that
the juvenile receives the help he needs.
Currently, many States are developing an array of options for
treating status offenders beyond secure confinement. Yet a majority of
States do, in fact, still choose to retain the option for judges to
order secure confinement in narrow circumstances.
Just last year, my State of Arkansas passed a new juvenile justice
bill that sought to expand rehabilitation services for status offenders
so the State could reduce the number who were subject to secure
confinement, but in my State legislature's judgment, it chose
[[Page S852]]
to retain secure confinement as a last-resort option. I don't believe
Congress should second-guess this choice. I have heard from Arkansans
on this point, and I have raised it with the bill's sponsors.
A blanket Federal mandate that bans secure confinement in each and
every circumstance may not be the best way forward. I submit we should
continue to entrust States with the decision to retain it as a last-
resort option and to allow judges on a case-by-case basis to use their
discretion about the best course to enforce their prior orders.
Therefore, with hopes we can resolve the issue promptly and pass this
legislation, I regretfully object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, may I clarify one point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, there are grants that the Federal
Government makes to States to support their juvenile justice programs,
and there are conditions that come with those grants. But I want to
make sure that what is clear from the exchange is that this is a
condition for receiving these Federal grants, but there is no mandate
of any kind. The State, if it wishes, is free not to receive the
Federal grant money and not comply with those conditions. It may be a
technical point, but I think it is one that is important to clarify.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I understand the point the Senator from
Rhode Island makes. I would say it poses a Hobson's choice for many
States.
I would also make note of his earlier comment about a court's
inherent authority to enforce its previous order using its inherent
power of contempt, which would include the ability to order secure
confinement for a short period of time. Perhaps we can work together to
include a proviso in the bill that would recognize that inherent
authority, and this bill would not remove that inherent authority on
the condition of accepting the grant.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Again, for the Record, I am the Senator from Rhode
Island, not the Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I respect the Senator from Arkansas. In
the short time he has been in the Senate, he has been an outstanding
leader on very important issues. He is a good Senator. I have watched
him over the period of time he has been in the Senate, and I think this
is the first time I felt he was wrong. But he has his rights.
Juvenile judges are the ones who originally requested that Congress
include a valid court order, or ``VCO,'' exception in the Federal
juvenile justice statute, and they now are asking us to repeal it. We
accorded great weight to the opinion of the National Council of Family
and Juvenile Court Judges because their members are the ones who invoke
this exception.
As further noted this week by Elizabeth Pyke of the National Criminal
Justice Association: ``No one on the state government side is arguing
to keep the VCO. . . . All agree that the VCO is the wrong tool to get
a child's attention. Holding them in detention for a status offense is
no longer considered the best practice for scaring a kid into going
straight . . . So parsing the language to allow judges to continue to
use the VCO for punishment doesn't really make sense. And, again, no
one in the states has argued for that.''
Detaining status offenders is not good public policy. We don't
support a further language change because locking up these adolescents
will make them worse, expose them to violent offenders who have
committed serious crimes, and increase the likelihood they will become
serious offenders themselves.
Remember that we are talking about juveniles who have committed
infractions that would not be crimes if committed by adults. Curfew
violations. Truancy. Underage tobacco use.
Status offenders often come from broken homes or homes with family
conflicts. Many have had traumatic childhoods or suffer from mental
health issues.
Strikingly, girls are 16 percent of the detained population but
comprise 40 percent of status offenders. In the case of girls, the root
cause for commission of a status offense may be severe forms of child
abuse, including child sex trafficking.
In truancy cases, placing a status offender in detention only ensures
that the juvenile will miss even more school without ever resolving the
issue motivating the truancy. Even a brief time in detention may make
it harder for the child to keep up with school work. Yet truancy is one
of the status offenses that frequently results in a status offender's
detention in Arkansas. We need to resolve the issues that lead these
children to skip school so that they can succeed.
Judges have more effective and less costly tools at their disposal to
ensure these juveniles' accountability. For example, they can suspend
their driver's license; impose fines; send the juvenile to live with
another family; order the juvenile into counseling. Judges also may ask
parents to undergo counseling or take parenting classes.
Finally, as already noted, locking up status offenders costs the
taxpayers a lot of money, even though these juveniles typically don't
pose a public safety risk. In Arkansas, housing a child in detention
costs hundreds of dollars per day. Community-based programs cost a lot
less, but they ensure the judge receives periodic status updates and
enable the judge to increase sanctions if the child remains unstable.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
some of the letters we have received in support of the bill's passage.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Criminal
Justice Association,
Washington, DC, July 27, 2015.
Hon. Charles Grassley,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Grassley and Whitehouse: We are pleased to
support S. 1169, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Reauthorization Act (JJDPA) of 2015. Members of
the National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA) include the
state, territorial and tribal chief executive officers of
criminal justice agencies charged with managing federal,
state, and tribal justice assistance resources. About half of
these administer the programs authorized by the JJDPA.
NCJA members applaud the goals of S. 1169 to preserve and
strengthen the prevention, youth development and
rehabilitation purposes of the JJDPA, and are committed to
achieving the reforms envisioned by the bill. In particular,
the bill focuses on employing evidence-based and promising
practices to promote alternatives to detention and provide
for the diversion from, and the safe and effective treatment
for, youth in confinement. It also would further the progress
we have made as a nation in keeping youth out of contact with
adult offenders, from the time of arrest through confinement.
The promise of the JJDPA is federal support for innovative
state approaches to reforming the juvenile justice system and
improving the treatment of juveniles under the state's care.
S. 1169 will add to states' responsibilities by substantially
expanding the activities under the core requirements,
increasing data collection, and potentially requiring states
to establish new facilities to house youthful offenders and
increase the number of facilities states are required to
monitor. Yet, since the last reauthorization in 2002, funding
for JJDPA programs has dropped by more than 60 percent. This
means that the resources available to states for juvenile
delinquency programming and compliance with the core
requirements are substantially dropping at a time when the
requirements on states are substantially increasing.
It is for this reason that NCJA members appreciate the
flexibility and spirit of partnership embedded in the bill
which will help all states reach a common standard of
protection and service for children in the juvenile justice
system even when resources are scarce.
NCJA members also believe the bill will help continue to
rebuild the partnership between OJJDP and the state agencies
responsible for carrying out the purposes of the Act. The
bill includes new training and technical assistance
opportunities for state agency administrators, offers a new
opportunity for state agencies to partner with OJJDP in
research and the sharing of best practices, and holds the
promise of improving transparency.
We are effusive in our praise and thanks for Evelyn Fortier
and Lara Quint. Throughout the bill development process,
Evelyn and Lara have been thoughtful, professional,
welcoming, patient, collaborative, and kind. They have
listened to our concerns and
[[Page S853]]
worked hard to craft language that supports the role of the
state administering agencies while keeping pressure on the
states to strengthen our juvenile justice systems.
Thank you for your leadership, for your commitment to
improving the outcomes for youth, and for supporting state
efforts to prevent and reduce juvenile crime.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Smith,
President.
____
Act 4 Juvenile Justice,
Washington, DC, January 25, 2016.
Hon. Chuck Grassley,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Grassley and Senator Whitehouse: We, the
undersigned--representing more than 200 national, state, and
local organizations and hundreds of thousands of
constituents--thank you for your leadership in sponsoring S.
1169, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Reauthorization Act of 2015. The bill strengthens and updates
the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA),
which has provided States and localities with federal
standards and supports for improving juvenile justice and
delinquency prevention practices and contributed to
safeguards for youth, families and communities for more than
40 years, and we are grateful that you have made it a
priority this Congress.
Despite a continuing decline in youth crime and
delinquency, more than 60,000 young people are held in
detention centers awaiting trial or confined by the courts in
juvenile facilities in the U.S. For these confined youth, and
the many more kids at-risk of involvement in the justice
system, the JJDPA and programs it supports are critical.
Youth who are locked up are separated from their families,
and many witness violence. These youth struggle when they get
out, trying to complete high school, get jobs, housing, or go
to college. Aside from the human toll, the financial costs of
maintaining large secure facilities have also made it vital
to rethink juvenile justice in every community.
Premised on research-based understandings of juvenile
justice and delinquency prevention, S. 1169 reaffirms a
national commitment to the rehabilitative purpose of the
juvenile justice system; one that supports developmentally
appropriate practices that treat as many youth as possible in
their communities. It advances important improvements to the
JJDPA, its core requirements and its central purposes,
provides enhanced safeguards for youth in the system,
increases community safety, and ensures progress toward
racial fairness.
Since the last JJDPA reauthorization was approved in 2002,
there have been many developments in the field of juvenile
justice that significantly impact practitioners' work. S.
1169 recognizes and addresses many of these developments in
several key ways. Specifically, we are pleased that the bill:
1. Strengthens the Deinstitutionalization of Status
Offenders (DSO) core requirement by calling on states to
phase-out use of the Valid Court Order Exception that
currently causes non-offending youth/status offenders to be
locked up.
2. Extends the adult Jail Removal and Sight and Sound
Separation core requirements to apply to juveniles held
pretrial, whether charged in juvenile or adult court.
3. Gives States and localities clear direction on the
Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) protection to plan
and implement approaches to ensure fairness and reduce racial
and ethnic disparities, and to set measurable objectives for
reduction of disparities in the system.
4. Encourages States to eliminate dangerous practices in
confinement and to promote adoption of best practices and
standards.
5. Recognizes the impact of exposure to violence and trauma
on adolescent behavior and development.
6. Encourages investment in community-based alternatives to
detention; encourages family engagement in design and
delivery of treatment and services; improves screening,
diversion, assessment, and treatment for mental health and
substance abuse needs; allows for easier transfer of
education credits for system-involved youth; and calls for a
focus on the particular needs of girls either in the system
or at risk of entering the justice system.
7. Promotes fairness by supporting State efforts to expand
youth access to counsel and encouraging programs that inform
youth of opportunities to seal or expunge juvenile records
once they have gotten their lives back on track.
8. Reauthorizes the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant
(JABG) program which helps states and localities reduce
juvenile offending by providing judges and other juvenile
justice officials with a range of age/developmentally-
appropriate options to both hold youth accountable and get
them back on track so they are less likely to reoffend.
9. Encourages transparency, timeliness, public notice, and
communication on the part of OJJDP, its agents and the
States.
10. Increases accountability to ensure effective use of
resources, to provide greater oversight of grant programs,
and to ensure state compliance with federal standards.
Given the significant gains reflected in S. 1169, we are
pleased to endorse the bill and look forward to continuing to
work with you and your colleagues toward final passage in the
114th Congress.
____
Human Rights Project for Girls,
Washington, DC, January 30, 2016.
Hon. Chuck Grassley,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Grassley: Rights4Girls is a human rights
organization focused on gender-based violence against young
women and girls here in the U.S. We write to thank you for
your leadership and commitment to our youth in sponsoring the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization
Act (JJDPA) this Congress. We believe this bill strengthens
the existing law by providing critical updates needed to
protect youth, families, and communities.
We write to express our support for the JJDPA, which has
not been reauthorized in over a decade. Despite an overall
decline in youth crime and delinquency, more than 60,000
children are held in detention centers across the United
States. We also know that girls are now the fastest growing
segment of the juvenile justice population, requiring a more
gender-responsive lens when looking at issues related to
delinquency and justice-involvement. The research shows that
the vast majority of girls in the justice system enter with
extensive histories of sexual and physical abuse. Nationally,
over 70% of girls in the justice system report histories of
sexual and physical violence, but in some states it can range
anywhere from 80-93%. For youth and especially young girls in
the system or at-risk of involvement in the system, the JJDPA
and the improvements in this year's language are vital.
For example, we know that each year more than 1,000
American children are arrested for prostitution, despite not
being old enough to consent to sex and despite the existence
of federal laws that define them as victims of trafficking.
The JJDPA protects child trafficking victims by providing for
the screening of youth upon intake for child trafficking and
promoting services and alternatives to detention for such
victims. The JJDPA will also grant greater protection for
pregnant girls behind bars by restricting the use of
shackles. Because shackles can greatly increase the
likelihood of falls, the JJDPA limits the use of restraints
on pregnant girls in the system, which will better protect
the life and health of both these young women as well as
their unborn children. Another critical way in which the
JJDPA will benefit young girls is in phasing out the Valid
Court Order (VCO) exception. Since girls are
disproportionately charged with and detained for status
offenses, closing this loophole would particularly benefit
girls--many of whom are arrested and detained using the VCO
exception for offenses that are directly correlated with
suffering abuse and trauma.
We are grateful for your commitment to this issue and to
these youth. As a human rights organization dedicated to
protecting the rights of vulnerable young women and girls, we
urge the Senate to swiftly take up and pass this critical
piece of legislation.
Sincerely,
Rights4Girls,
Washington, DC.
____
Fight Crime: Invest in Kids,
Washington, DC, September 17, 2015.
To All Members of Congress: We are members of Fight Crime:
Invest in Kids, a national organization of nearly 5,000 law
enforcement leaders nationwide, including chiefs of police,
sheriffs, prosecutors, and other law enforcement executives.
We write to express our strong support for S. 1169, the
bipartisan reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA). This reauthorization
supports proven programs that can prevent youths from
engaging in criminal activity or rehabilitate youths starting
to offend. These programs provide a critical support for law
enforcement and an important investment in those young
people. We urge your support for this important
reauthorization.
Recidivism remains a serious problem, draining law
enforcement resources and damaging public safety. Past
studies have shown that if a youth 14 years old or younger
becomes a second-time offender, their likelihood of future
run-ins with law enforcement spikes to 77 percent; and
nationwide, almost half of youths who come before juvenile
court (40 percent) will come before the court at least one
more time. More needs to be done to ensure that if a youth
offends, their first contact with the justice system is also
their last.
The bipartisan Senate bill to reauthorize JJDPA would
provide federal support for evidence-based programs to combat
youth recidivism. Many states have expanded the use of these
intervention programs in recent years, and additional support
through the JJDPA reauthorization would help states continue
this work. Research has shown that effective community-based
intervention programs for youths and their families can
significantly reduce the likelihood that the youth will get
into trouble again. By reasserting family and personal
responsibility, and coaching parents and children in the
skills they will need to change the youths' behaviors,
juvenile offenders are much more likely to engage in more
pro-social behavior and avoid future run-ins with the law.
This reauthorization strengthens the evidence-based
standard, ensuring the federal investment will go to programs
that have demonstrated significant effectiveness. It also
encourages continued growth in the
[[Page S854]]
anti-recidivism field by allowing a small portion of funds to
go to promising programs, thus encouraging innovation and
yielding the greatest results for the community.
A study of one intervention program that works with
troubled youth and their families, Functional Family Therapy
(FFT), found that youth whose families received FFT coaching
were half as likely to be rearrested as those whose families
did not. Another study found FFT reduced subsequent out-of-
home placements by three quarters. Further, because of the
reduced costs associated with crime and contact with the
justice system, FFT was found to save the public $27,000 per
youth treated. Another intervention that works with the
families of serious juvenile offenders, Multisystemic Therapy
(MST), found juvenile offenders who had not received MST were
62 percent more likely to be arrested for another offense,
and more than twice as likely to be arrested for a violent
offense.
One effective, research-based program, Multidimensional
Treatment Foster Care (MTFC) provides specially selected and
trained foster parents for seriously troubled youth who
cannot stay with their parents. While the youth are in foster
care learning crucial skills, their parents are receiving
coaching so they can continue the process of directing their
children's behavior in more positive ways once the youths
return home. In studies, MTFC has been shown to cut juvenile
recidivism in half and save the public an average of $9,000
for every juvenile treated. Each of these programs can be
used successfully either in place of residential facilities,
or as after-care upon leaving a facility.
As these programs help to reduce youth recidivism, there
also needs to be a clear sense of the progress being made and
areas for continued improvement. We support the National
Recidivism Measure within this reauthorization that instructs
the Administrator to establish a uniform measure of data
collection that states can voluntarily adopt, or not, as
another tool to evaluate data on juvenile recidivism. The
option of measure some re-offending outcomes in the same way
could help states compare results and share best practices.
Law enforcement nationwide remain committed to doing what
is necessary to protect public safety, and we know that
families and communities have an important role to play. We
support the reauthorization of JJDPA, which will provide
support for family-centered and community-based
interventions, like FFT, MST, and MFTC. This is a strategic
investment in public safety. Changing the behavior of a
teenager is more likely than changing the behavior of an
adult career criminal. This not only benefits those youths,
but also law enforcement, the taxpayer, and the community.
We urge Congress to pass the reauthorization of JJDPA that
will prioritize evidence-based programs to get troubled kids
back on track and improve public safety.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I share in the mutual admiration for the
Senator from Iowa, and I appreciate his work on this and many other
pieces of legislation. I commit to work with both him and the Senator
from Rhode Island to try to resolve this as promptly as possible so we
can move this piece of legislation forward.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the
conclusion of my remarks, the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, be
recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________