[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REFORMING THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM TO IMPROVE CHILDREN'S LIVES AND
PUBLIC SAFETY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 21, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-56
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-917 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice John Kline, Minnesota,
Chairman Senior Republican Member
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia California
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Mark E. Souder, Indiana
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Judy Biggert, Illinois
David Wu, Oregon Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Tom Price, Georgia
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Rob Bishop, Utah
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
David Loebsack, Iowa Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Tom McClintock, California
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania Duncan Hunter, California
Phil Hare, Illinois David P. Roe, Tennessee
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Jared Polis, Colorado
Paul Tonko, New York
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Northern Mariana Islands
Dina Titus, Nevada
Judy Chu, California
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Barrett Karr, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 21, 2010................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Miller, Hon. George, Chairman, Committee on Education and
Labor...................................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Additional submissions:
Statement of the W. Haywood Burns Institute.......... 87
Statement of the American Psychological Association;
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Mental Health
America; and the National Disability Rights Network 90
Petri, Hon. Thomas E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wisconsin......................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Polis, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado, submissions for the record:
``Boulder Prep High School: Where Youth-At-Risk Become
Youth-Of-Promise''..................................... 48
``BPHS Accountability Report, 2008/2009 School Year''.... 49
Boulder Prep High School brochure........................ 53
Justice High School mission statement.................... 60
Justice High School video, Internet access to............ 61
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby,'' a Representative in Congress
from the State of Virginia, and Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona,
submission for the record: statement of the National
Disability Rights Network.................................. 93
Statement of Witnesses:
Belton, Michael, Ramsey County, MN, deputy director of
juvenile corrections....................................... 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Burns, Scott, Esq., executive director, National District
Attorneys Association...................................... 40
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
Davis, A. Hasan, Esq., deputy commissioner for operations,
Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice.................... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
McClard, Tracy, parent....................................... 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Solberg, John S., M.S., executive director, Rawhide Boys
Ranch, New London, WI...................................... 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 37
Teske, Hon. Steven C., judge, Clayton County Juvenile Court,
GA......................................................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
REFORMING THE JUVENILE JUSTICE
SYSTEM TO IMPROVE CHILDREN'S
LIVES AND PUBLIC SAFETY
----------
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:59 a.m., in room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George Miller
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Kildee, Payne, Scott,
Woolsey, McCarthy, Tierney, Kucinich, Davis, Altmire, Clarke,
Shea-Porter, Fudge, Polis, Sablan, Chu, Kline, Petri, Platts,
Guthrie, and Roe.
Staff present: Ali Al Falahi, Staff Assistant; Andra
Belknap, Press Assistant; Jody Calemine, General Counsel;
Denise Forte, Director of Education Policy; Ruth Friedman,
Deputy Director of Education Policy ; David Hartzler, Systems
Administrator; Sadie Marshall, Chief Clerk; Bryce McKibbon,
Staff Assistant; Alex Nock, Deputy Staff Director; Rachel
Racusen, Communications Director; Alexandria Ruiz, Staff
Assistant; Melissa Salmanowitz, Press Secretary; Dray Thorne,
Senior Systems Administrator; Kim Zarish-Becknell, Policy
Advisor, Subcommittee on Healthy Families; Mark Zuckerman,
Staff Director; Stephanie Arras, Legislative Assistant; Kirk
Boyle, General Counsel; Casey Buboltz, Coalitions and Member
Services Coordinator; Allison Dembeck, Professional Staff
Member; Brian Newell, Press Secretary; Susan Ross, Director of
Education and Human Resources Policy; Mandy Schaumburg,
Education Policy Counsel; and Linda Stevens, Chief Clerk/
Assistant to the General Counsel.
Chairman Miller [presiding]. The committee will come to
order to conduct a hearing on the reauthorization of the
Juvenile Justice Act and to hear from a series of witnesses on
that--we are not delaying the markup, and thank you.
Voice. Well, I would just like to deliver--because
recession that you guys can't afford markers or whatever the
issue is, but our community, there are people being fired
because they are lesbian, gay, bi or transgender.
Chairman Miller. As you know, we are working very hard on
that legislation. We are working--I will not accept the marker.
We are working on that as expeditiously as we can. Thank you
very much.
Voice. You are out of order.
Chairman Miller. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Voice. In Texas, Virginia, Mr. Chairman, I can be fired for
being gay----
Chairman Miller. I understand that. And that is why we are
proceeding with the legislation.
Just for the record, and for members of the audience who
aren't familiar, those are individuals who are seeking the
passage of Ending Discrimination in Employment Act, which this
committee has jurisdiction over and which we are working on and
which we expect to bring to markup rather quickly. It is not an
easy piece of legislation.
It is a fairly complicated piece of legislation. We want to
get it right. But we expect it to have before this committee in
the very near future.
With that, we will go back to the subject matter of this
morning's hearing, which is the juvenile justice system in this
country. At today's hearing, we will examine the state of
juvenile justice system in this country and a system that
currently affects thousands of children and youth.
It is a system much like the K-12 education system. There
are numerous examples of successful programs, as well as
programs and policies that continue to fail our children.
Much like public education, we know the juvenile justice
system can be a place of redemption and rehabilitation or a
place where children are thrown away.
The reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act is part of our committee's larger effort to
support children, families and communities. Juvenile justice,
like education, can be the cornerstone of a healthy community.
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act was
first written in 1974 with the goal of supporting states'
actions to prevent youth crime and to provide certain core
protections for children. The law rightfully recognized that
clear biological differences between teenagers and adults meant
that youth should not be treated in the same manner as adults.
And scientific advances that are helping us better understand
the biology of the brain development have validated this
century-old viewpoint.
Without question, youth must be held accountable for their
actions, but justice should not be driven by fads or politics.
We need rational policies that prevent children from committing
crimes in the first place, and we need to support effective
alternatives to detention when possible and treat our
incarcerated youth humanely when it is not possible.
We know from the research that policies such as these have
greater impact on public safety than locking children up and
throwing away the key. With this law up for reauthorization, we
are here to take stock of how the current system is working and
what more can be done to provide our youth, families and
communities with the support that they need to avoid criminal
behavior and to make our communities safer places to live.
Today, thanks to the hard work of families and communities
across the country, juvenile crime is decreasing. Between 1999
and 2008, the number of juvenile arrests decreased by 16
percent.
We know that when there is a focused effort early in a
child's life to prevent him or her from breaking the law, the
juvenile crime rates goes down. We also know that when given
the right kind of treatment, most of these children can turn
their lives around, so it is in the best interest of our nation
that we provide that opportunity.
But the data show a far different reality. First, too many
children end up in detention, despite the fact that such
policies can actually decrease public safety.
Second, minority youth are disproportionately involved in
the juvenile justice system, and too few states are actively
working to change this, despite the requirements in the law.
And, lastly, conditions of confinement interfere with
rehabilitation and can increase recidivism.
Today we will hear from witnesses about effective reform
efforts that don't excuse delinquency or criminal behavior, but
also effectively redirect youth, providing appropriate
treatment and services, and giving them a better opportunity to
move in a more positive direction and ultimately make
communities safer.
We will hear about the efforts to stop locking up status
offenders. We will hear about the disturbing and growing trend
of children being held in adult jails, despite the Center of
Disease Control's concluding this has a negative impact on
public safety.
Every year, some 200,000 youth in this country are held,
sentenced or incarcerated as adults. According to the studies
funded by the Department of Justice, children in adult jails
are eight times more likely to commit suicide than in juvenile
facilities. They are also 50 percent more likely to be attacked
with a weapon and more likely to be raped.
Kids in adult jails don't have access to real education or
rehabilitative services. It is much harder for them to turn
their lives around.
We will hear this morning from Tracy McClard, a mother
whose teenage son tragically took his own life after suffering
horrific abuses in an adult jail. No one questions that her son
needed to be held accountable for his actions, but neither
should he have been put in conditions that led him to believe
that taking his life was the only acceptable option.
No parent should have to experience what she has been
through. Ms. McClard, we want to thank you for your courage to
be here today and to share your story.
These are just several of the issues that we will explore
as we work toward this reauthorization. I know every member of
this committee agrees that nothing is more important than the
safety and the well-being of our children.
Throughout this reauthorization, we will need to keep our
focus on the reforms that will help reduce crime through
effective and appropriate prevention and intervention, and keep
the communities safe to ensure that our juvenile justice system
preserves basic rights for the children it serves.
I would like to thank all our witnesses for being here
today and thank you for your time and your expertise. And I
look forward to your testimony.
And now I would like to recognize the senior Republican on
the committee, Mr. Petri, for an opening statement.
[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Chairman, Committee on
Education and Labor
Good morning.
Today's hearing will examine the state of the juvenile justice
system in this country. It is a system that currently affects thousands
of children and youth.
It is a system much like K-12 education. There are numerous
examples of successful programs, as well as programs and policies that
continue to fail our children.
Much like public education, we know that the juvenile justice
system can be a place of redemption and rehabilitation or a place where
children are thrown away.
The reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act is part of our committee's larger effort to support
children, families and communities.
Juvenile justice like education can be a cornerstone of a healthy
community.
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act was first
written in 1974 with the goal of supporting states' actions to prevent
youth crime and provide certain core protections for children.
The law rightfully recognized that clear biological differences
between teenagers and adults meant that youth should not be treated in
the same manner as adults.
Scientific advances that are helping us better understand the
biology of brain development have validated this century-old viewpoint.
Without question, youth must be held accountable for their actions.
But justice should not be driven by fads or politics.
We need rational policies that prevent children from committing
crimes in the first place.
And we need to support effective alternatives to detention when
possible, and treat our incarcerated youth humanely when it is not
possible.
We know from the research that policies such as these have a
greater impact on public safety than locking children up and throwing
away the key.
With this law up for reauthorization, we are here to take stock of
how the current system is working, and what more we can do to provide
our youth, families, and communities with the supports they need to
avoid criminal behavior and make our communities safer places to live.
Today, thanks to the hard work of families and communities across
the country, juvenile crime is decreasing.
Between 1999 and 2008, the number of juvenile arrests decreased by
16 percent.
We know that when there is a focused effort, early in a child's
life to prevent him or her from breaking the law, the juvenile crime
rate goes down.
We also know that when given the right kind of treatment, most of
these children can turn their lives around so it is in the best
interest of our nation that we provide that opportunity.
But the data show a far different reality.
First, too many children end up in detention despite the fact that
such policies can actually decreases public safety.
Second, minority youth are disproportionately involved with the
juvenile justice system and too few states are actively working to
change this, despite the requirements in the law.
And lastly, conditions of confinement interfere with rehabilitation
and can increase recidivism.
Today we'll hear from witnesses about effective reform efforts that
don't excuse delinquency or criminal behavior but also effectively
redirect youth, providing appropriate treatment and services, and
giving them a better opportunity to move in a more positive direction
and ultimately make our communities safer.
We'll hear about efforts to stop locking up status offenders.
We'll also hear about the disturbing--and growing--trend of
children being held in adult jails despite the Centers for Disease
Control concluding this has a negative impact on public safety.
Every year, 200,000 youth in this country are held, sentenced or
incarcerated as adults.
According to studies funded by the Department of Justice, children
in adult jails are eight times more likely to commit suicide than in
juvenile facilities.
They are also 50 percent more likely to be attacked with a weapon
and much more likely to be raped.
Kids in adult jails also don't have access to real education or
rehabilitative services.
It's much harder for them to turn their lives around.
We'll hear from Tracy McClard, a mother whose teenage son
tragically took his own life after suffering horrific abuses in an
adult jail.
No one questions that her son needed to be held accountable for his
actions, but neither should he have been put in conditions that led him
to believe taking his life was his only acceptable option.
No parent should have to experience what she has been through. Mrs.
McClard, thank you for your courage to be here and share your story.
These are just several of the issues we will explore as we work
toward this reauthorization.
I know every member of this committee agrees that nothing is more
important than the safety and well-being of our children.
Throughout this reauthorization, we will need to keep our focus on
reforms that will help reduce youth crime through effective and
appropriate prevention and intervention, keep our communities safe and
ensure our juvenile justice system preserves basic rights for the
children it serves.
I'd like to thank all our witnesses for being here today. I look
forward to your testimony.
______
Mr. Petri. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
having this important hearing. And welcome to our witnesses.
Mr. Kline, the ranking Republican on the committee, sends
his regrets that he is unable to be here this morning, but I am
delighted to have the opportunity to participate in this
hearing.
We are here today to examine juvenile justice and the goals
of the Congress as it looks to reauthorize the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act. Last reauthorized in 2002, the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act helps states
and local leaders reduce juvenile crimes through programs and
activities aimed at prevention.
An important part of this effort are faith-based programs
that offer valuable services to help reform juvenile offenders
once they have served their time. Such organizations are an
avenue for juvenile offenders to escape the downward spiral
from delinquency to criminality.
I am particularly interested to hear the testimony today of
John Solberg, executive director of Rawhide Boys Ranch, in
Wisconsin. The Rawhide Boys Ranch, which I have had the--I used
to have the opportunity to represent and I have had the
opportunity to visit many times, is a residential childcare
center licensed with the state of Wisconsin to treat at-risk
youth, 12 to 21 years of age.
And I am pleased that this committee has an opportunity to
hear about the important work underway at that institution.
No one questions the important role organizations like
Rawhide Boys Ranch play in the lives of juvenile offenders.
Alternatives to traditional incarceration are an important
component of the juvenile justice system, offering youth
offenders a path back into the community. Yet there continues
to be--there continue to be cases where the crimes are so
serious or the risk to the community is so great that
traditional incarceration or other substantial punishment may
be the best course of action.
As federal policymakers, we cannot presume to know what is
in the best interests of every juvenile offender or local
community. States should have the ability to address juvenile
offenders in a variety of ways, such as faith-based programs,
residential facilities, and detention centers, when they are
deemed necessary.
As we consider alternatives to incarceration, the proper
application for the institutionalization and strategies to
reduce recidivism, we should remember that state and local
leaders hold a unique and critically important perspective on
these policy questions.
We should move forward in a way that notes and pays
attention to their concerns and provides them with the
flexibility they need to serve the best interests of the
juvenile offenders and the safety of their local communities.
Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for holding this hearing,
and I look forward to hearing----
[The statement of Mr. Petri follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Thomas E. Petri, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Wisconsin
Thank you Mr. Chairman and welcome to our witnesses. Mr. Kline
sends his regrets that he is unable to be with us this morning.
We are here today to examine juvenile justice and the goals of the
Congress as it looks to reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act. Last reauthorized in 2002, the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act helps state and local leaders
reduce juvenile crime through programs and activities aimed at
prevention.
An important part of this effort are faith-based programs that
offer valuable services to help reform juvenile offenders once they
have served their time. Faith-based organizations are an avenue for
juvenile offenders to escape the downward spiral from delinquency to
criminality.
I am particularly interested to hear the testimony today of Mr.
John Solberg, the Executive Director of Rawhide Boys Ranch in
Wisconsin. The Rawhide Boys Ranch is a residential care center licensed
with the state of Wisconsin to treat at risk youth 12 to 21 years of
age. I am pleased that this Committee has an opportunity to hear about
the important work underway in my home state of Wisconsin.
No one questions the important role organizations like Rawhide Boys
Ranch play in the lives of juvenile offenders. Alternatives to
traditional incarceration are an important component of the juvenile
justice system, offering youth offenders a path back into the
community. Yet there continue to be cases where the crimes are so
serious, or the risk to the community is so great, traditional
incarceration or other substantial punishment may be the best course of
action.
As federal policymakers, we cannot presume to know what is in the
best interest of every juvenile offender and local community. States
should have the ability to address juvenile offenders in a variety of
ways, such as faith-based programs, residential facilities, and
detention centers when they deem them necessary.
As we consider alternatives to incarceration, the proper
application for institutionalization, and strategies to reduce
recidivism, we should remember that state and local leaders hold a
unique and critically important perspective on these difficult policy
questions. We should move forward in a way that heeds their concerns
and provides them with the flexibility they need to serve the best
interests of juvenile offenders and the safety of their local
communities.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing, and thank
you to the witnesses for being with us this morning.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
At this point, I would like to introduce our panel of
witnesses. Our first witness will be the Honorable Steven
Teske, who has served as judge in the juvenile court of Clayton
County, Georgia, since his appointment in 1999. Judge Teske is
the immediate past president of the Georgia Council of Juvenile
Court Judges and appointed by the governor to chair the
Governor's Office for Children and Families. The governor also
appointed him to serve as the Judicial Advisory Council of the
Board of Juvenile Justice and Federal Advisory Committees for
the Juvenile--for the Juvenile Justice for the U.S. Department
of Juvenile--jeez, that is a long title. [Laughter.]
Judge Teske is a very busy man. Let me just put it that
way. And we appreciate you being here. But from the U.S.
Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention. We are going to have to work on your
resume, Judge.
Okay. Mr. Hasan Davis is the deputy commissioner of
Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice and a frequent speaker
and presenter on issues of education, juvenile justice, and the
arts in local, state and national levels. Once labeled as a
delinquent with an early arrest record, Mr. Davis went on to
earn his GED, a B.A. from Berea College, and a J.D. from the
University of Kentucky College of Law.
Mr. Davis has served as director of the Lexington Youth
Violence Prevention Project, chair of the Kentucky Juvenile
Justice Advisory Board, and a fellow at the Rockefeller
Foundation's Next Generation Leadership Program.
Michael Belton is the current deputy director of juvenile
corrections for Ramsey County, where he oversees the county's
juvenile detention and probations and correctional programs. He
has previously served as director of Hennepin County juvenile
probation and most recently with the county's JDAI coordinator.
Mr. Belton is the 2005 Bush Foundation Fellowship recipient.
Tracy McClard became involved in juvenile justice system
when her youngest son, Jonathan, was arrested on an assault
charge. At 16 years old, he was certified as an adult. And 3
days after his 17th birthday, Jonathan committed suicide by
hanging himself in his cell. Since Jonathan's death, Ms.
McClard advocates to keep children out of adult criminals
justice system and is a member of the National Parents Caucus,
which works to bring together parents of those children who
have been involved in adult criminal justice system. Ms.
McClard resides in Jackson, Missouri, with her husband and is
finishing her last year as special education teacher.
And now I would like to yield to Mr. Petri to introduce Mr.
Solberg.
Mr. Petri. Well, thank you again, Mr. Chairman. And it
really is an honor for me to have the opportunity to introduce
the long-time family friend, John Solberg, who is the executive
director of the Rawhide Ranch, having worked there many, many
years.
I mentioned in my introductory remarks I have had the
opportunity to visit that institution, and it is really a
wonderful place to visit. And the success record of taking kids
who--basically, this is their last chance. They have been
sentenced to prison, and they are given the choice if they--if
they sign up for the program of undergoing the Rawhide
experience. And they have an opportunity to remake their lives,
and many have done it and have been exemplary leaders in a
whole range of fields in our society.
So these are young people with a great deal of promise who
have gotten themselves in very, very deep trouble with almost
no way out. And Rawhide has been one of the ways that has been
a successful way out.
It was founded by John and Jan Gillespie and legendary
Green Bay Packer quarterback Bart Starr and his wife, Cherry,
in 1965. And Mr. Solberg has been employed by Rawhide since
2000 and served on the board of the Wisconsin Association of
Family and Children's Agencies from November 2005 to 2009 and
is a past member of the Alliance for Children and Families
public policy committee.
He in 2006 participated in the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration's Building Bridges Summit that
created a forum for residential and community-based service
providers. And recently he was appointed by our governor, Jim
Doyle, to an 11-member statewide committee to examine Wisconsin
juvenile justice institutions and explore how to best serve
juveniles in the future.
Prior to joining Rawhide, he spent 8 years at First
National Bank-Fox Valley, where he served as a vice president.
He is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, with
a B.A. in economics and political science and Marian University
with a master's degree in organizational leadership and
quality.
I look forward to John's testimony, and I know the
committee will find it useful.
Thank you for joining us.
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
Our last witness will be Mr. Scot Burns, who has served as
the executive director of the National District Attorneys
Association since March 2009. Prior to his work for the
association, Mr. Burns served from 2002 to 2009 as a deputy
director of the White House Office of Drug Control Policy,
where he was responsible for coordination, implementation of
the president's national drug control strategy. Mr. Burns also
served as an elected county attorney and chief prosecutor from
Iron County, Utah, for 16 years.
Welcome to the committee again.
And, Judge Teske, we are going to start with you. In front
of you is a little box with lights on it. When you begin your
testimony, a green light will go on. Your full testimonies will
be placed in the record of this hearing, and the extent to
which you can summarize will be appreciated, but we want you to
feel--you know, make sure you convey your important points.
An orange light will come on, and you will have about a
minute to wrap up, and 5 minutes, the red light will come on.
So welcome, and thank you again for your taking your time to be
with us.
STATEMENT OF JUDGE STEVEN TESKE, JUVENILE COURT, CLAYTON
COUNTY, GA
Judge Teske. Thank you.
Chairman Miller. And now I switched glasses so I can see
who the hell you are for start.
Judge Teske. Good morning, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member
Petri, and members of the House Education and Labor Committee.
Thank you for having me here to testify today about the
Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, known as JDAI, and
how JDAI has worked in Clayton County, Georgia, to reduce the
unnecessary and costly detention of youth while improving
public safety outcomes.
My name is Steven Teske, and I am a judge at the Clayton
County juvenile court in Georgia, just south of Atlanta. In
addition to my 10 years as a judge, I have been involved in the
juvenile justice system in other capacities, as previously
noted by you, Mr. Chairman.
In the juvenile justice system, detention is where youth
are held before a hearing to determine if the youth has
actually committed a delinquent act, essentially the equivalent
of adult jail. Today, 400,000 youth are detained every year,
with 25,000 youth held on any given night. Two-thirds are
detained for property or drug crimes, public order offenses,
technical probation violations, status offenses, or violations
of court orders.
Youth of color, who are nearly 70 percent of detained youth
in 2006, are disproportionately represented in detention
facilities. Research shows detention results in harsher
treatment of a youth throughout their involvement with the
system, independent of the youth's charges or prior records.
In addition, detention has been shown to increase
recidivism, prolonged delinquency, and create new or exacerbate
existing mental health disorders for youth.
Not only does over-reliance on detention not work from a
public safety perspective, it is expensive. On average, one
detention bed costs over $70,000 per year to operate, and the
average cost to build, finance and operate a single detention
bed over its first 20 years is approximately $1.5 million per
bed.
In 2004, Clayton County became a JDAI site, and the results
have been nothing but dramatic. Since becoming a JDAI site, our
county has seen a 70 percent decrease in our average daily
population in juvenile detention facilities, a 48 percent
decrease in the number of youth committed to juvenile
correctional facilities, and a 65 percent decrease in the
number of youth of color who are detained.
Most importantly, we have made these reductions while
making our community safer. And since becoming a JDAI site,
Clayton County has seen a 54 percent reduction of the number of
youth with formal charges filed with the court.
What the numbers don't show is the culture change that JDAI
has stimulated. By following the JDAI model, Clayton County now
makes collaborative data-driven decisions that enable us to
keep youth in their homes and communities rather than in
detention facilities.
Our multi-agency collaboration has helped us get to the
root causes of why youth come to the attention of the system
and utilize different agency services to address what I call
the youth's delinquency-producing needs.
For example, one of our biggest changes has been the
implementation of finding alternatives for safety and
treatment, or FAST, panels. These panels composed of
representatives from youth-serving organizations and justice
system agencies meet before detention hearings to determine
what, if any, services, supports and supervision are needed to
safely release youth charge with delinquent acts.
These panels have been extremely successful at diverting
youth not only out of detention, but out of the juvenile
justice system entirely. For example, having mental health
experts at the table allows the court to identify and divert
youth with mental health needs more quickly than a judge could.
Another major change has been reducing referrals from the
education system to the juvenile justice system. After
examining data, we found that over one-third of the juvenile
justice system referrals were coming from the education system,
and over 90 percent of these referrals were from minor school
disciplinary matters.
We use the JDAI model to bring together the police chief,
the school superintendent, and other stakeholders to negotiate
guidelines on when school misbehavior would be handled by the
school and when such behavior would result in a juvenile
justice system referral and to create an alternatives to
suspension program.
JDAI was started over 20 years ago by the Annie E. Casey
Foundation with the goals of safely minimizing detention,
reducing DMC, improving conditions of confinement, and
deploying juvenile justice system resources more effectively.
Since its inception, JDAI has grown from a handful of sites
to more than 110 local jurisdictions in 27 states. The JDAI
reform model, which is used in every site, includes
collaboration, collection and utilization of data, objective
admissions screening, new or enhanced non-secure alternatives
to detention, case processing reforms, flexible policies and
practices to deal with special detention cases, like probation
violations, and intensive monitoring of conditions of
confinement.
Using these strategies, JDAI sites have reduced detention
by an average of 35 percent without any decrease in public
safety. In fact, most sites report improved public safety
outcomes because they are more likely to identify and detain
those youth who do pose significant risk. These sites have
saved millions of taxpayer dollars by closing almost 1,000
unused secure beds and redeploying some of these resources to
community-based programming.
These sites are also the only places nationally that have
measurably reduced the disproportionate confinement of minority
youth.
As the committee considers the reauthorization, I would
recommend that the committee include the JDAI principles that
have worked so well in Clayton County in its reauthorization
bill, including reducing reliance on detention and
incarceration of youth, incentivizing jurisdictions to reinvest
money spent on detention and incarceration into effective
community-based alternatives, promoting the use of data to
reform and inform decisions made by the juvenile justice
system, and finally, Mr. Chairman, encouraging state and local
agencies that serve youth to work collaboratively with the
juvenile justice system.
Thank you very much for having me here.
[The statement of Judge Teske follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Steven C. Teske, Judge, Clayton County
Juvenile Court, GA
Good Morning, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Kline, and members of
the House Education and Labor Committee. Thank you for having me here
to testify today about the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative
(JDAI), how JDAI can help strengthen and transform juvenile justice
policy and practice, and how JDAI has worked in Clayton County,
Georgia.
My name is Steven Teske and I currently serve as a judge at the
Clayton County Juvenile Court in Georgia. In addition to the ten years
I have spent on the court, I have been involved in the juvenile justice
system in many other capacities. At the Governor's request, I represent
the 13th Congressional District on the Board of Georgia Children and
Youth Coordinating Council (and serve as the Chair of the Board), chair
the Governor's Office for Children and Families, and serve on the
Judicial Advisory Council to the Board of the Department of Juvenile
Justice. I also serve as a representative for Georgia on the Federal
Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice for the United States Department
of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. In
2008, I served as the President of the Georgia Council of Juvenile
Court Judges.
In my testimony today, I would like to provide background on JDAI,
including its goals, strategies, and results, and to put JDAI into
context with the juvenile justice system as a whole. I would also like
to address how JDAI has specifically worked in Clayton County to reduce
the unnecessary and costly detention of youth while also improving our
public safety outcomes.
Overview of JDAI
The Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) is an
initiative of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, which was established over
60 years ago in 1948 to help build better futures for disadvantaged
children in the United States. To further this mission, the Annie E.
Casey Foundation funds initiatives aimed at strengthening those public
systems established to respond to the challenges faced by fragile and
disadvantaged children and families.
One of these initiatives is JDAI, which began over 20 years ago as
an effort to strengthen the nation's juvenile justice systems and
improve the odds that delinquent youth would become productive adults.
JDAI focuses on the detention component of juvenile justice--a worthy
ambition in its own right--but was based on the notion that the
policies, practices and skills that would be required to change
detention would have a transformative effect on other components of the
system as well.
JDAI was also a direct response to dramatic growth in detention use
in the 1990s that was unrelated to juvenile offending. The initiative
has five main objectives:
1. Decreasing the number of youth unnecessarily or inappropriately
detained in juvenile detention centers. Put another way, JDAI seeks to
ensure that the only the right youth are detained and that these youth
are detained for the minimum amount of time needed to advance to the
next phase of the juvenile justice process;
2. Reducing the number of youth who fail to appear in court or re-
offend
3. Redirecting public funds spent on juvenile justice towards
effective processes and public safety strategies;
4. Ensuring that those youth who must be detained, and the staff
responsible for their care and custody, are held in facilities whose
conditions of confinement meet, at least, the constitutional standards
established by law; and,
5. Reducing the disproportionate minority confinement and contact
of the juvenile justice system.
Since its inception in the 1990s, JDAI has grown exponentially from
a handful of sites to more than 110 local jurisdictions in 27 states,
including Clayton County. Seventeen states have signed on as JDAI
partners committed to supporting local efforts to adopt JDAI throughout
their state. In total, over 61% of youth in the United States live in a
state with at least one JDAI site.
Before I delve deeper into how JDAI works and its results, I
believe it is crucial to understand where juvenile detention fits into
the broader juvenile justice system, how detention affects youth, and
why the Initiative focuses on improving this particular component of
the juvenile justice system.
The Importance of Detention
The juvenile justice system is a system unique and apart from the
adult criminal justice system with its own terminology and culture. In
the juvenile justice system, detention refers to the holding of a youth
in a locked juvenile facility after their arrest until an adjudication
hearing can be completed to determine if the youth has actually
committed a delinquent act. In adult court terms, juvenile detention is
the equivalent of holding adults in jail pending trial.
Although the vast majority of youth in detention are awaiting an
adjudication hearing, youth are often held in detention for a variety
of other reasons as well. Youth may remain in detention awaiting
placement in another facility or a community-based program following
adjudication. For example, if a judge has ordered a youth to a
particular program in the community, but there are no available slots
open, the youth can be held in detention until a slot becomes
available. Frequently, youth also are held in detention pending
probation violation hearings. Finally, in many jurisdictions, youth can
be sentenced to serve short terms in the local detention facility.
Most state statutes and professional standards agree that detention
should be used for the limited purposes of ensuring a court appearance
and minimizing the risk of the youth committing a new offense prior to
adjudication hearing. However, during the 1990s, the use of detention
rose exponentially, even after juvenile delinquency rates began to
decline and despite the limited purposes for which detention was
typically supposed to be used. Today an estimated 400,000 young people
every year are admitted to detention nationwide and approximately
25,000 young people are held on any given night. Despite popular
misconception, these detention facilities are holding primarily low-
risk youth; today, approximately two-thirds of detained youth are
detained for property or drug crimes, public order offenses, technical
probation violations, status offenses or violations of court orders
related to status offenses.
Why is detention such an important piece of the juvenile justice
system? Studies have shown that detained youth are more likely to
become more deeply involved in the juvenile justice system. Youth who
are detained are more likely to be formally referred to court (rather
than being diverted), more likely to be adjudicated delinquent and more
likely to be committed or placed in residential facilities than similar
youth who are not detained pending adjudication. Detention, therefore,
propels youth more deeply into the system and results in harsher
treatment independent of the youth's charges or prior records.
The expansion of detention in the 1990s came with critical
consequences, including:
Overcrowding: Many facilities became overcrowded--in 1985,
just 20 percent of detained youth were confined in overcrowded
facilities; a decade later, 62 percent of detained youth were in
overcrowded facilities. Overcrowded facilities led to a reduction of
safety for youth in the facilities and staff alike.
Rising disproportionate detention of youth of color: Youth
of color composed 43 percent of juvenile detainees nationwide in 1985
and 69 percent of detained youth in 2006.
Costly building of new detention beds: In order to
accommodate more youth, many jurisdictions built new facilities or
created new space in existing facilities for additional detention beds,
which are very costly. On average, operating one detention bed can cost
over $70,000 per year and the average cost to build, finance, and
operate a single detention bed over its first 20 years is approximately
$1.5 million per bed.
This expansion also had important unintended consequences, not only
for youth, but for their communities as well. Research shows that
detention has long-term, negative effects on youth--actually increasing
recidivism and prolonging delinquency. Data also shows that detention
can create new or exacerbate existing mental health disorders for
youth. Finally, detention can complicate a youth's return to their
school system, making getting an education more difficult.
The JDAI Model
In 1992, the Annie E. Casey Foundation decided that detention
reform was not only needed in our country, but that it could be an
``entry point'' for overall juvenile justice system strengthening and
transformation. In order to achieve the goals mentioned earlier in my
testimony, JDAI created a comprehensive reform model that is replicated
in jurisdictions desiring to transform their detention systems. Each
JDAI site is expected to include each of the following components,
which were shown to be effective in JDAI's first demonstration grants
sites:
Collaboration among the local juvenile court, probation
agency, prosecutors, defenders, and other governmental entities, as
well as community organizations--including a formal partnership to
cooperatively plan, implement, and assess detention reforms;
Collection and utilization of data to diagnose the
system's problems and proclivities, assess the impact of various
reforms, and assure that decisions are grounded in hard facts--rather
than myths and anecdotes;
Objective admissions screening to identify which youth
actually pose substantial public safety risks, which should be placed
in alternative programs, and which should simply be sent home;
New or enhanced non-secure alternatives to detention
targeted to youth who would otherwise be locked up and--whenever
possible--based in neighborhoods where detention cases are
concentrated;
Case processing reforms that expedite the flow of cases
through the system, reduce lengths of stay in custody, expand the
availability of non-secure program slots, and ensure that interventions
with youth are timely and appropriate;
Flexible policies and practices to deal with ``special''
detention cases, such as violations of probation and failures to appear
in court, that in many jurisdictions lead automatically to detention
even for youth who pose minimal risks to public safety;
Persistent and determined attention to combating racial
disparities, including careful study to identify specific strategies to
eliminate bias and ensure a level playing field for kids of color; and
Intensive monitoring of conditions of confinement for
youth in secure custody to ensure that detention facilities are safe
and appropriate care is provided.
JDAI firmly believes that each of these eight components is crucial
to achieving comprehensive and meaningful detention reform. Although
every jurisdiction implementing these components must adjust them to
their own community's needs and unique challenges, on the whole JDAI
has seen successful results in various states and localities across the
country.
JDAI Results
As I mentioned earlier in my testimony, JDAI now has a presence in
110 local jurisdictions in 27 states and the District of Columbia.
Through the use of the core JDAI principles, many of these
jurisdictions across the country have seen significant changes in their
use of detention, including:
Reduced Detention Populations: Most jurisdictions
utilizing JDAI safely reduced the size of their detention population by
lowering the number of youth admitted to detention and, for those youth
admitted to detention, shortening their length of stay. In a recent
survey of JDAI sites across the country, the average reduction in
detention populations was 35%.
Improved Public Safety: Though jurisdictions typically
employ many different statistical measures on public safety outcomes,
JDAI sites have generally reported consistent improvements in public
safety outcomes, including reduced pre-adjudication re-offending rates,
court appearance rates and overall delinquency rates.
Cost-effective use of juvenile justice funding: Across the
country, JDAI jurisdictions have reduced the number of detention beds
that must be funded by nearly 1,000 beds. These reductions have allowed
jurisdictions to close units within detention facilities and stop the
building of new, planned facilities. Instead of paying for new
detention beds, localities have reinvested funds in more cost-effective
to alternatives to detention. For example, in Cook County, the juvenile
justice system stopped planned construction of a 200-bed facility,
which would have cost $300 million to build, finance, and operate over
a 20-year period, and instead invested $3 million annually in
alternatives to detention. This resulted in a savings of an estimated
$240 million over two decades to taxpayers.
Reductions in racial disparities: As stated earlier in my
testimony, youth of color are significantly overrepresented in
detention populations. However, many JDAI sites have reported
reductions in the number of youth of color in detention populations at
a time when the number of youth of color in detention nationally is
increasing. On average, JDAI sites have reported a 22% decrease in the
number of youth of color detained, while this number has risen 6%
nationally. These reductions are critically important and, because of
the collection of detailed data about who is being detained, nearly all
JDAI sites have been able to have collaborative conversations about
reducing racial and ethnic disparities that is data-driven for a
specific locality.
In addition to creating positive results in detention, many sites
successfully have used JDAI to reform other aspects of their juvenile
justice system as well. First, JDAI helps juvenile justice systems to
develop a variety of cost-effective, community-based programs that
allow youth to safely be held accountable in their communities instead
of detention facilities. Youth who participate in alternatives to
detention are less likely to be incarcerated post-adjudication in
juvenile correction facilities and many sites have moved to create
community-based alternatives for youth who have been adjudicated
delinquent instead of placing these youth in corrections facilities.
Second, by encouraging collaboration among stakeholders within the
juvenile justice system and other child-serving agencies, JDAI fosters
a culture of shared common goals that allows these individuals to work
together creatively on the wide variety of issues facing youth in the
juvenile justice system. Third, sites have expanded the data collection
required by JDAI to look beyond detention to see how their entire
system is performing and other potential areas that could be improved.
Finally, sites have begun using objective criteria--such as the
criteria utilized to make the decision whether or not to detain a
youth--for other decisions in the juvenile justice system, such as
where a youth should be placed post-adjudication, what sanctions should
be imposed, and the types of treatment a youth should receive.
These results are extremely encouraging on a nationwide level, but
are even more impressive on a local level in jurisdictions like Clayton
County.
JDAI in Clayton County
Clayton County has been a JDAI site since 2004 and, from that time
until now, I can truly say that JDAI helped to change the culture of
the juvenile justice system in our County and create a whole new way of
doing business for the juvenile court. By following the JDAI model,
Clayton County has been able to and continues to make collaborative,
data-driven decisions and take great strides toward keeping youth in
their homes and communities rather than locked in detention facilities.
The comprehensive JDAI model has also aided our court in having a
better understanding of the juvenile justice system as a whole. Too
often, the juvenile justice system is viewed as a single agency that
exists separate and apart from other state agencies that work with
youth. However, in order to achieve the desired outcome of the juvenile
justice system--preventing delinquency for youth not involved in the
system and keeping youth already in the system from re-offending--we
must understand why youth are getting into trouble in the first place.
By using a collaborative approach, we can identify the root causes for
youth coming to the attention of the system and utilize different
agencies' services to address what I call youths' ``delinquency-
producing need.''
The data shows that this approach has been working in Clayton
County. Below are several outcome measures that compare Clayton
County's numbers the year before JDAI introduction to the most recent
data collected, we have seen:
The average daily population in juvenile detention
facilities drop from 61 youth in a 60 bed facility to 18--a 70%
reduction;
The number of youth committed to the juvenile delinquency
system decrease from 124 to 62--a 48% reduction; and
The number of youth of color detained drop from 48 to 17--
a 65% reduction.
Most importantly, we have made these reductions while making our
communities safer. In the year prior to becoming a JDAI site, Clayton
County had a total of 2,604 delinquency petitions--or ``formal
charges''--filed with the court. In the most recent reporting year,
only 1,199 delinquency petitions were filed in the court--a 54%
reduction.
While Clayton County has made a variety of changes in implementing
the JDAI principles, I would like to highlight two model programs that
are concrete examples of how this initiative works.
FAST Panels: Under JDAI, our County began utilizing Finding
Alternatives for Safety and Treatment (FAST) Panels to create a
collaborative approach to case planning before a detention decision was
made. The FAST Panels are led by the County's JDAI Coordinator and
consist of representatives from a variety of agencies and stakeholders,
including the education system, the mental health system, community-
based program providers, family and children's services, and the
youth's parent or family. The goal of the Panels is to explore options
for keeping high- or medium-risk youth out of detention and in the
community while ensuring public safety.
With all these individuals at the table, the FAST panels allow for
creative inter-agency collaboration where everyone can help identify a
variety of resources to provide appropriate supervision to youth on a
case-by-case basis. These panels have been extremely successful at
diverting youth not only out of detention, but out of the juvenile
justice system entirely and into existing community resources. For
example, having mental health experts at the table allows the court to
identify youth who come to the attention of the juvenile court system
with mental health needs more quickly than a judge could. These youth
then can be diverted into the mental health system to get appropriate
treatment.
School reduction referral: When Clayton County began collecting
data under JDAI on youth involved in the juvenile justice system, we
were sure to include data on how youth were being referred to the
juvenile justice system. We were alarmed to find that over \1/3\ of the
juvenile justice system referrals were coming from the education
system, which had introduced School Resource Officers (SROs) and a zero
tolerance policy into schools. Since SROs had been introduced into the
schools, school-based referrals to the juvenile justice system
increased 2000%. Instead of protecting youth from more serious crimes
like exposure to violence or drugs, the SROs were being utilized by
school administrators to enforce discipline for relatively minor
offenses. Indeed, over 90% of the referrals from the education system
were low-level misdemeanor offenses stemming from minor school
disciplinary matters that should have been handled in schools.
After analyzing this data as well as relevant data from the school
system, we used the JDAI model to bring together the police chief, the
school superintendent, and other stakeholders. This group met regularly
to negotiate guidelines on when school misbehavior would be handled by
the school and when such behavior would result in a juvenile justice
system referral. Instead of automatically taking youth to the juvenile
justice system, SROs would have a variety of options, including giving
youth up to two warnings and referring the youth to a conflict skills
class in the community or mediation. In examining the school level
data, we also found that youth who were being suspended repeatedly were
dropping out at very high levels. Therefore, we worked to create an
``alternatives to suspension'' program to give administrators options
besides suspensions.
Since these two changes have been made, we have significantly
reduced the number of cases referred from the schools to the courts,
reduced the number of serious incidents at schools, and improved school
outcomes. Graduation rates have risen 21% while juvenile felony rates
have decreased by 51%. Additionally, reducing school referrals to the
juvenile justice system resulted in a 38% reduction in the number of
youth of color referred to the juvenile justice system.
In Georgia, I am currently working with other judges and state
officials to expand JDAI to additional counties across the state. The
successes we have seen in Clayton County have definitely come to the
attention of judges throughout the state. My goal is to take the
lessons and successes we have had in Clayton County state-wide, with
the support and technical assistance from the Foundation, to help new
jurisdictions adopt this model.
Recommendations
As the Committee looks to reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), I ask that the Committee consider
the following recommendations based on JDAI successes:
Reduce reliance on detention of youth: The high numbers of
youth in detention in the U.S. is concerning, particularly given the
research that shows the negative effects and poor results associated
with detaining youth. JDAI has shown that reductions can be achieved
while maintaining--or even improving--public safety outcomes.
Incentivize the reinvestment of detention dollars in
effective community-based alternatives: At a time when so many states
and localities are struggling with tight budgets, the high cost
associated with keeping youth in locked facilities is worth another
look. Research shows that investing resources in detention beds does
not yield good results, particularly given the exorbitant price tag.
Fortunately, JDAI sites across the country are working collaboratively
to develop alternatives that cost less and work better than detention.
By reducing unnecessary detention and reinvesting those dollars into
effective detention alternatives, we could help jurisdictions create a
financially effective solution to youth who come to the attention of
the juvenile justice system. The JJDPA could help incentivize this
reduction in detention and reinvestment in community-based
alternatives.
Promote data-driven decisions in the juvenile justice
field: The accurate collection of data has been absolutely critical to
the changes being made in Clayton County. Without this data, it would
have been impossible to track how youth were entering the juvenile
justice system and whether the changes we made were having the right
effects. Data also can help to bring along stakeholders who may be
reluctant to the changes taking place. Finally, data can help to show
the public whether their taxes are being spent efficiently and
effectively.
Encourage state and local agencies to work collaboratively
with the juvenile justice system: In Clayton County, many of our
successes have resulted from having the right people around the table
at the right decision-making moments. Instead of bogging down the
juvenile justice system process, this collaboration has actually
allowed us to divert youth from the justice system and into more
appropriate programs that deal with the underlying reasons the youth
came to the attention of the system.
Thank you again for having me here to testify and I look forward to
any questions you have for me.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Davis?
STATEMENT OF A. HASAN DAVIS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KENTUCKY
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE
Mr. Davis. Good morning, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member
Petri, members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me here
to speak today. My name is Hasan Davis, deputy commissioner of
operations with the Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice,
with operational responsibility for all residential facilities.
My comments today are based primarily on my professional
work in juvenile justice and my personal experience in the
juvenile justice system as a child.
Kentucky has not always done what is considered in the best
interests of youth when they come in contact with our system.
Three years ago, we were in danger of being out of compliance
with the deinstitutionalization of status offenders core
requirement of the JJDPA, due in large part to the misuse and
overuse of the valid court order exception to DSO, allowing
judges to place status youth--runaways, truants and curfew
violators--in locked facilities.
In 2007, the valid court order exception to DSO had been
invoked in Kentucky almost 2,000 times, allowing judges to
order locked detention for non-delinquent youth. To put that in
context, for the same year, almost half of the states reported
that less than 250 valid court order exceptions existed. Only
three states had more than 1,000.
In response, Kentucky had to make a choice: forsake the
JJDPA and the protection it provides our youth or challenge
ourselves to do better. I am proud to say we decided to take
the challenge and to make better use of our facilities to meet
the unmet needs of status offense youth without placing them in
locked facilities.
Sadly, youth of color and girls continue to be
disproportionately affected and are more likely to be detained
in status offense--with status offenses than their white or
male counterparts. To address our challenge with DSO, Kentucky
state advisory group allocated formula grant dollars to pilot
the Detention Alternatives Coordinators program.
After success, the Department of Juvenile Justice committed
resources to expand this program, and today we provide
alternatives to secure detention, dedicated work of detention
alternative coordinators housed in each of our nine secure
residential detention facilities.
DACs partnered with the Administrative Office of the Courts
to educate attorneys and judges on resources in the community.
After courts approved eligible youth for alternative placement,
the DACs complete a risk assessment, match these youth to the
appropriate supervision and restrictions, and facilitate their
transfer from secure to non-secure custody.
The positive impact of our DACs is illustrated in Vicky's
story. Vicky was a habitual runaway, climbing out of her
window, walked away from school, regularly using drugs, and
coping with a diagnosis of oppositional defiant disorder. Vicky
wanted to disappear, from school, from home, from the eyes of
the world.
She was picked up, and the DACs requested that she be
diverted to an electronic monitor. During her placement, Vicky
was ordered into treatment by the court and began needed
prescription medication. As a result, school attendance became
more regular, her grades began to improve, and today, Vicky is
a college student at Eastern Kentucky University in control of
her life and living drug-free.
There are times when locked detention is the only
reasonable option to address a youth's delinquent behavior, but
status offenses generally do not meet this threshold. With this
in mind, I respectfully make the following recommendations
regarding the Congress's reauthorization of the JJDPA.
First, eliminate the valid court order exceptions to DSO.
This critical change received bipartisan approval by the Senate
Judiciary Committee. If passed into law, judges would no longer
be able to lock up non-delinquent youth out of frustration or a
misguided sense of protection. The VCO exception was introduced
in the 1980 reauthorization of the JJDPA, leaving states to
sort out the sanctioned judicial use of locked detention for
status youth. Too often, however, the exemption has followed
the rule.
Each year, nearly 40,000 status offense cases still involve
locked detention. More than 30 percent would be prohibited if
the VCO exception was removed from the JJDPA.
In Kentucky, the DACs are addressing these challenges every
day, and we believe that our state could serve as a model.
There are alternatives to locked detention that create positive
outcomes for youth and families, many of which may be supported
by Title II formula grant program monies from the JJDPA.
My second recommendation is that the committee consider
ways it can strengthen the act to support the efforts to refine
and expand best practices in delinquency prevention,
intervention, and treatment.
Issues that the states are most interested in are meeting
the needs of runaway and unaccompanied youth within healthiest
and least restrictive environments, effective approaches for
girls, who are over-represented among status youth, innovations
to guard against bias and racial-ethnic disparities, proactive
truancy prevention, reducing school referrals to law
enforcement, and effective positive family engagement
strategies.
Finally, I urge the committee to use the JJDPA
reauthorization process as a vehicle for recovering and
strengthening support to the states to achieve goals and
purposes of the JJDPA itself. Since 2002, juvenile justice
appropriations to states that support important priorities
under the JJDPA, such as a continuum of services and care,
alternatives to detention, and gender-specific services have
fallen by more than 50 percent.
Here, again, you have the opportunity to restore research,
evaluation, and funding resources, as well as training and
technical assistance resources needed to meet critical needs
for girls and other children involved in the courts.
You will find these recommendations are in keeping with the
best practices and with the recommendations of the Coalition
for Juvenile Justice, an association of JJDPA state advisory
groups, as well as the broad-based Act-4-Juvenile Justice
Campaign that includes more than 350 organizations in juvenile
justice, law enforcement, youth and family services, child
welfare, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and
representing many faith communities, among others.
In closing, I wish to avail myself if you should have
further questions. I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to speak to you today. It has been my honor.
[The statement of Mr. Davis follows:]
Prepared Statement of A. Hasan Davis, Esq., Deputy Commissioner for
Operations, Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice
Good morning. Chairman Miller and Members of the Committee, it is
my distinct honor to speak with you today regarding needs and
challenges faced by vulnerable and troubled youth who come into contact
with the juvenile justice system. I am Hasan Davis, Deputy Commissioner
of Operations at the Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice, where I
have direct oversight of all state-run residential facilities,
including detention centers, youth development centers and group homes,
as well as day treatment schools and the classification division which
manages the detention alternatives coordinators.
Improving the odds for challenged youth has always been my work.
Prior to assuming my current position, I directed the Youth Violence
Prevention Project in Lexington, Kentucky. In addition to my experience
as a trainer and technical assistance provider in juvenile justice, I
continue to work nationally with successful U.S. Department of
Education initiatives like GEAR UP and TRIO. For ten years, I served as
chair of the Kentucky Juvenile Justice Advisory Board, the governor-
appointed state advisory group on juvenile justice charted under the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, and for three years
served as Vice-Chair of the Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile
Justice.
However, the truth that informs my work most is that if not for
second chances, I would not have accomplished any of these things. I
grew up with visual and hearing challenges and an early diagnosis of
dyslexia and Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). After an increasing
amount of preteen delinquent behavior, I was arrested at age eleven. In
her infinite wisdom, the judge for my case decided that locking me up
would not serve me or the community. So she sent me home on conditions
of probation. Although my challenges were far from over, that judge
prevented my early entry into the juvenile justice system and
ultimately provided me the opportunity to seek a better outcome for
myself and my family.
For all of these reasons, I am thankful for the opportunity to
share with Members of the Committee the progress that Kentucky has made
and continues to make to realize the goals and purpose of the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), which has allowed us to
develop and adopt proven effective approaches to meeting the needs of
vulnerable youth and increase community safety.
Now I want to be clear: Kentucky has not always done what is
considered to be in the best interest of youth when they come into
contact with our juvenile justice system. There was a time when
Kentucky was out of compliance with the Jail Removal core requirement
of the JJDPA due to our practice of holding juveniles in cells located
within adult facilities. More recently, in 2006, Kentucky was in danger
of being found out of compliance with the Deinstitutionalization of
Status Offenders (DSO) core requirement of the JJDPA, due in large part
to the misuse and overuse of the valid court exception to the DSO core
requirement, which allows judges to place non-delinquent status youth--
such as runaways, truants and curfew violators--in locked facilities.
In response to these challenges, Kentucky, like other states, had
to make a choice: do we forsake the JJDPA and the protections it
provides for our youth, or do we challenge ourselves to do better? At
our core, we have always believed in the safeguards that the JJDPA
provides for court-involved youth. Consequently, on both occasions we
made a commitment to face our challenges head on. We requested external
assistance, examined our internal culture and created the reforms
necessary to ensure our return to full compliance with the JJDPA, and
to act in the best interest of Kentucky's youth, families and
communities in the short and long run.
Kentucky's Improved Approach to Status Youth
I'll begin by talking about the progress Kentucky has made over the
last three years to better address the unmet needs of youth charged
with status offenses without placing these youth in locked facilities.
Status offenses are those offenses considered by the court only
because of the minor status of the child involved--``offenses'' that
would not be criminal matters at the age of adulthood. Examples include
truancy, violating curfew, running away from home, and behavior that
may cause a parent or guardian to deem a child ungovernable.
In 2007, as a result of a routine compliance audit conducted by the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), we
learned that high numbers of detention orders were being issued for
status youth statewide. More specifically, the valid court order
exception (VCO) to the DSO core requirement had been invoked almost
2,000 times, allowing judges to order the locked detention of non-
delinquent youth whose most serious ``offense'' involved repeatedly
running away, skipping school or being rebellious to an adult authority
figure. To put that in some context, for that same year almost half the
states reported using the VCO less than 250 times; only three states
reported using the VCO more than 1,000 times.i
It would be impossible for me to overstate the concerns raised by
Kentucky's overuse of detention orders at that time. The underlying
causes of status offenses are typically linked to problems at home and
school, and to unmet trauma and mental health needs of young people.ii
Locked detention is not designed to treat or to resolve such causes.
More importantly, the negative outcomes that can arise from detention
far outweigh any benefits of short-term confinement without access to
critical services necessary to eliminate the reasons for the status
offense. Detention in general, and particularly for status youth and
other low-risk youth, has been widely shown to be destructive rather
than productive, adding to the often overcrowded conditions that many
detention facilities face. Nationally, nearly 70% of detained youth are
held in facilities operating above capacity. Under such conditions,
discipline can become unduly harsh; education, medical and mental
health treatments are often minimal. Among youth in crowded detention
facilities, there are a high number of reports of suicidal behavior, as
well as stress-related and psychiatric illness. Sadly, too, youth of
color and girls continue to be disproportionately affected, and are
more likely to be detained for a status offense than their white or
male counterparts.iii Currently, girls are reported to account for 14%
of youth in juvenile facilities for delinquency, but make up 41% of
those in facilities for status offenses.iv
To address Kentucky's challenges with the DSO core requirement, in
2003 Kentucky's state advisory group allocated a portion of its JJDPA
Title II State Formula Grants dollars to pilot the Detention
Alternatives Coordinator program. After a successful test, run the
Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice committed its own resources to
ensure the program would survive and expand. Today, we provide a wide-
array of alternatives to secure detention through the dedicated work of
a Detention Alternatives Coordinator (DAC) housed in each of our nine
regional juvenile detention centers. Over the past few years, DACs have
partnered with the Administrative Office of the Courts to educate
judges and identify resources which make it easier for frustrated
judges to commit status youth to appropriate non-secure settings. After
the court approves each eligible youth for an alternative to detention
placement, the DAC completes a risk assessment screening, matches the
youth with an appropriate level of supervision and restriction, and
facilitates their transfer from secure to non-secure custody. Each
year, we receive requests from more judges and the Judicial College to
provide education on DACs and how their work can support the courts.
The positive impact of our DAC program is illustrated by Vicky's
story. Vicky was a habitual runaway. She climbed out her window in the
middle of the night, walked away from school, etc. Vicky was regularly
using a number of drugs and coping with a diagnosis of Oppositional
Defiant Disorder (ODD). Vicky wanted to disappear--from school, from
home, from the eyes of the world. When she was picked up, one of our
DACs requested that she be diverted and placed on electronic
monitoring. During her placement, Vicky was ordered into treatment by
the court and began taking needed prescription medications. As a
result, her school attendance became more regular and her grades began
to improve. Today, Vicky is a college student attending Eastern
Kentucky University. She has taken control of her life and is living it
drug free.
In Kentucky, we understand and accept that there are times when
locked detention is the only reasonable option to address a youth's
delinquent behavior. For instance, locked detention may be necessary if
a youth poses a serious threat to public safety. Status offenses such
as running away, skipping school, violating curfew and using tobacco
and/or alcohol under age generally do not meet this threshold. In
keeping with this view, we seek to meet the JJDPA's mandate not to
detain status youth except in these very limited circumstances.
Kentucky's Improved Compliance with the Jail Removal Core Requirement
Next, I'll talk about the progress that Kentucky has made to
achieve and maintain compliance with the Jail Removal core requirement
of the JJDPA.
As I stated at the top of my testimony, there was a time, back in
the 1990s, when Kentucky was out of compliance with the Jail Removal
core requirement of the JJDPA due to our practice of holding juveniles
in cells located within adult facilities. At that time Kentucky had
only two secure juvenile detention centers. Local jails were reimbursed
for housing youth, which created an obvious incentive for long-term
detention without attention to the needs and issues particular to
youth. With the creation of the Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice
in 1996, we committed to establishing a pre-service training academy
for direct care staff, developing an internal investigation unit,
hiring a board certified physician to guide medical staff, and building
state-run regional detention centers. We currently maintain nine secure
detention centers across the state, making available a secure facility
within one hour's drive of any of our 120 counties. As a result of
these changes, I can attest that on January 16, 2001, Kentucky was
found to be in full compliance with the JJDPA Jail removal core
requirement.
More significantly, Kentucky has gone even further. We have removed
all juveniles--including those charged as adults--from adult facilities
pre-trial, and serve some transferred juveniles posttrial in our
juvenile facilities. Currently, youthful charged as adults when they
were juveniles participate and succeed in our detention treatment and
group home facilities, allowing their behavior and treatment progress--
not the nature of their offense--to determine their placements. The
research is clear: incarcerating youth with adults is a dangerous
practice that puts youth at risk of great physical, emotional and
mental harm.v Moreover, according to a number of studies, incarcerating
youth with adults actually increases the likelihood that they will re-
offend once released, and re-offend more quickly and more seriously.vi
Given that our dual aim should always be the safety of the community
and the safety of the youth, we stand with the Coalition for Juvenile
Justice, the Act 4 Juvenile Justice Campaign, and more than 350
international, national, state and local allies in the belief that it
is time to end the practice of detaining youth charged as adults in
adult facilities.
Recommendations
Remove the VCO Exception to the DSO Core Requirement
Right now, the House Education and Labor Committee is charged with
reauthorization of the JJDPA. In place since 1974, the JJDPA provides
important safeguards and resources to assist troubled, vulnerable and
court-involved youth. A change to the JJDPA that I believe is most
critical to protect vulnerable and troubled youth has already been
approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee this past December, in the
form of an amendment to the DSO core requirement. This amendment, which
received bipartisan approval by the Committee as part of
S. 678, calls upon states to eliminate the (VCO) exception--an
unfortunate loophole that allows judges to place status youth in locked
detention. If passed into law, judges would no longer be able to lock-
up non-delinquent youth out of frustration or a misguided sense of
protectiveness. Furthermore, eliminating the VCO exception comports
with current law or practice in approximately two dozen states and
territories.
Testimony given at the time of the passage of the JJDPA cited that
status youth should be ``channeled away'' from lock-ups and toward
human service agencies and professionals to avoid creating greater
social, emotional, family and/or peer-group upheaval among this highly
vulnerable population. Yet, the JJDPA has not adequately addressed
alternatives along a continuum of home and community-connected services
that would more appropriately and effectively address the needs of
status youth and their families. In the 1980s, the VCO exception to the
DSO core requirement was included in the JJDPA, but it was left to
states to sort out the sanctioned judicial use of locked detention for
status youth. Researchers, legal scholars, as well as juvenile court
professionals and advocates, are seeking remedies to the problem of
over-use of the VCO exception, as well as to problems that arise when
federal and state law contradict.
Overall, as a result of the DSO core requirement, since 1974, there
has been an overall decline in the use of secure detention for status
youth. Yet, each year nearly 40,000 status offense cases still involve
locked detention.vii Of these, more than 30%, or approximately 12,000
nationwide, would be prohibited if the VCO exception is removed from
the JJDPA.viii Troubled youth, children in need of protective services,
runaways and many youth with behavioral health concerns wind up in
detention, not because of worries about public safety, but because of a
perceived or real lack of community alternatives, a lack of system
collaboration, and a lack of knowledge among judges about what
resources and effective approaches are available.ix Our DACs in
Kentucky are addressing these challenges, and we believe that our state
could serve as a model. There are, in fact, many alternatives to
institutionalization/detention of status youth shown to create positive
outcomes for youth and families, including Functional Family Therapy,
intensive case management, non-secure shelter care and temporary crisis
care, and family interventions and support--all of which may be
supported by the Title II State Formula Grants Program of the JJDPA.
Strengthen the JJDPA Jail Removal Core Requirement to
Remove Juveniles Charged as Adults from Adult Jails
The original intent of the JJDPA was to recognize the unique needs
of youth in the justice system and establish a separate system to
specifically address these needs. One of these unique needs for youth
is protection from the dangers of adult jails. As aforementioned,
placing youth in adult jails can have dire consequences for the youth,
his/her family and the community.
As currently written, the Jail Removal core requirement protects
youth who are under the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system by
prohibiting these youth from being held in adult jails and lock-ups
except in very limited circumstances, such as while waiting for
transport to appropriate juvenile facilities. In these limited
circumstances where youth are placed in adult jails and lock-ups, the
Sight and Sound core requirement limits the contact these youth have
with adult inmates.
While these core requirements have worked to keep most children out
of adult jails for more than 35 years, the JJDPA does not apply to
youth under the jurisdiction of the adult criminal court. Rather, on
any given day, 7,500 children are locked up in adult jails before they
are tried.x Nearly 40 states have laws that allow children prosecuted
in adult courts to be placed in adult jails, prior to their first court
hearing.xi
To ensure that more youth are afforded the protections originally
conceived by Congress back in 1974, Congress should amend the JJDPA to
extend the Jail Removal and Sight and Sound requirements of the JJDPA
to all youth, regardless of whether they are awaiting trial in juvenile
or adult court. In the limited exceptions allowed under the JJDPA where
youth can be held in adult facilities, they should have no sight or
sound contact with adult inmates.
Generate Greater and Better Resources for Effective
Implementation of Federal Juvenile Justice Policy
Regarding use of federal funds under the JJDPA, 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, excessive use of physical restraint, force and punishment, and
the building of large residential institutions.xii
I also 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 girls, as well as for diverse
cultural and linguistic groups;
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.
In addition, Congress should look to strengthen the implementation
the JJDPA 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.''
Consider simple language changes in the JJDPA 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.
Since 2002, juvenile justice appropriations to the states that
support important priorities under the JJDPA such as continuums of
care; alternatives to detention; gender-sensitive and gender-specific
services and effective prevention initiatives have fallen by more than
50%. Here, again, you have the opportunity to restore the research,
evaluation, and funding resources, as well as training and technical
assistance resources needed to meet critical needs for girls and other
children involved with the court.
You will find that these recommendations are in keeping with best
practice and with the recommendations of the Coalition for Juvenile
Justice--an association of the JJDPA State Advisory Groups--as well as
the broad-based Act-4-Juvenile Justice Campaign that includes more than
350 organizations in juvenile justice, law enforcement, youth and
family service, child welfare, mental health and substance abuse
treatment and representing the faith community, among others.xiii
In closing, I wish to avail myself to you should you have any
further questions. Many thanks for the opportunity to speak before you
today.
ENDNOTES
\i\ Unpublished JJDPA compliance monitoring data from the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency (OJJDP), pertaining to 2007.
\ii\ National Center for School Engagement. (2009). What is
truancy? Denver, CO. http://www.schoolengagement.org/
TruancypreventionRegistry/Admin/Resources/Resources/40.pdf; Hammer, H.,
Finkelhor, D., & Sedlak, A. J. (2002). NISMART: National Incidence
Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Thrownaway Children, Runaway/
Thrownaway Children: National Estimates and Characteristics.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, http://
www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/196469.pdf
\iii\ Coalition for Juvenile Justice, Unlocking the Future:
Detention Reform in the Juvenile Justice System, January 2004.
\iv\ Sickmund, Melissa, Sladky, T.J., and Kang, Wei. (2008). Census
of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook. Available: http://
www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/cjrp/.
\v\ Jailing Juveniles: The Dangers of Incarcerating Youth in Adult
Jails in America, Campaign for Youth Justice, available at http://
www.campaign4youthjustice.com/Downloads/NationalReportsArticles/CFYJ-
Jailing--Juveniles--Report--2007-11-15.pdf. (November 2007).
\vi\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ``Task Force
Recommends Against Policies and Laws Facilitating Transfer of Youth to
the Adult Justice System to Reduce Violence among Transferred Youth,''
Guide to Community Preventive Services, available at http://
www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/Violence-YouthTransfer--rev.pdf.
(April 13, 2007).
\vii\ National Center for Juvenile Justice: www.ncjj.org.
\viii\ Unpublished JJDPA compliance monitoring data from the Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency (OJJDP), pertaining to 2007.
\ix\ Schwartz, I., Barton, W. Reforming Juvenile Detention: No More
Hidden Closets, 1997.
\x\ Jailing Juveniles, p. 4.
\xi\ Id. at 24.
\xii\ 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).
\xiii\ See: www.juvjustice.org and www.act4jj.org.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
Mr. Belton?
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BELTON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF JUVENILE
CORRECTIONS, RAMSEY COUNTY, MN
Mr. Belton. Good morning, Chairman Miller and Congressman--
--
Chairman Miller. I think you are going to need to bring
your--one, is the mic on? And a little closer to you. Thank
you.
Mr. Belton. Okay. Good Morning, Chairman Miller and
Congressman Petri and members of the House Education and Labor
Committee.
My name is Michael Belton, and I am the deputy director of
the Ramsey County Community Corrections Juvenile Division in
St. Paul, Minnesota.
I am here standing on the shoulders of my ancestors, and I
speak in the name of our children. Racial and ethnic
disparities in the juvenile justice system is the great human
and civil rights question of the 21st century. And by
disparities, I mean said youth of color are treated differently
to white youth for the same offense.
Unlike the 1960s and the 1970s, where the civil rights and
equal justice struggles were played out in the streets, in the
21st century, the struggle for equal rights and justice will be
decided in rooms just like this.
Because this civil and human rights struggle is about us,
people working in systems working to respond to human needs in
a more equitable and humane manner.
Nationally, youth of color are overrepresented at every
point of contact within the juvenile justice system. A 2006
survey of detention facilities was in the United States showed
that youth of color are significantly overrepresented.
According to that count, when compared to white youth, black
youth were more than five times more likely to be detained.
Native American youth are nearly four times more likely to be
detained, and Latino youth are more than twice as likely to be
detained.
Minnesota is home to some of the worst levels of
disproportionality in the nation. Black youth are nearly 10
times more likely to be detained than white youth, and Latino
youth are more than twice as likely to be detained.
Members of the committee, one of the things that I want to
leave you with is this: We have the tools to eliminate racial
and ethnic disparities in our juvenile justice system. What we
lack is the will.
In Ramsey County, we know reducing the overrepresentation
of youth of color in the juvenile justice is possible. And we
know that it takes intentional focus.
To foster a positive impact on reducing disparities on a
national stage, we support the reauthorization of JJDPA and in
particular strengthening the provisions of the core protection
around DMC.
Currently, JJDPA requires states to address DMC without
requiring concrete guidance. I submit that unless Congress
strengthens this vague requirement, little progress will be
made beyond admiring the problem.
In our written testimony, we reference a number of things
that local jurisdictions need, but right now I want to leave
you with these three things local jurisdictions require to
crack the seemingly intransigent problem of DMC and racial and
ethnic disparities.
One, leadership, local and congressional leadership. On a
congressional level, your leadership through reauthorization
and strengthening of DMC core requirements by giving states
specific guidance on reducing DMC, such as analyzing key
decision points to determine where disparities exist,
collecting data, developing work plans, and publicly reporting
efforts. Such leadership would set the tone for this work
nationwide.
Two, collaboration with impacted communities of color.
These communities provide a sense of urgency, perspective,
hidden knowledge, and wisdom and accountability.
Three, data-driven policy and practice reform.
Jurisdictions have to ask the question, are we getting our
money's worth with our juvenile justice dollars? And if not,
what else do we need to do? And more importantly, underneath
that question is one of fairness. Is what we are doing fair,
not what we intend, but our results?
Ramsey County is in the middle stages of using the
strategies above, but we have reduced daily average population
in our detention center by 65 percent from 2005 to 2009. While
Congress cannot legitimate the will to reduce racial and ethnic
disparities, it can formulate policies that will have an
important and measurable impact. The federal government can
provide the guidance around what it takes to do this work
effectively.
Strengthening of the DMC core requirement in the JJDPA is
an important step to ensuring justice is administered fairly
for all of our children who come in contact with our juvenile
justice system. Thank you. It is an honor to be here.
[The statement of Mr. Belton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Belton, Ramsey County Deputy Director of
Juvenile Corrections
Good Morning Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Kline, and other
Members of the Committee.
I appreciate the opportunity to address the reauthorization of the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) and
specifically to speak to the issue of racial and ethnic disparities in
the juvenile justice system. My name is Michael Belton, and I am the
Deputy Director of the Ramsey County Community Corrections Juvenile
Division. As someone who has worked and managed staff on the frontlines
of juvenile corrections for over 30 years, I offer a perspective as a
practitioner who has seen the troubling effect of the disproportionate
representation of young people of color in the juvenile justice system
and the impact of this disproportionate representation on their
families and communities.
I appear before you standing on the shoulders of my ancestors, and
I speak 'In the Name of Our Children.' I introduce my testimony in this
fashion because I believe DMC and successfully reducing racial and
ethnic disparities must be a more passionate and intentional pursuit
than it is a technical exercise of making declarations, simply
collecting data and hoping for a good result. And, given the current
crisis of the overrepresentation of youth of color in the juvenile
justice system, reducing DMC and racial and ethnic disparities in our
juvenile justice system is an endeavor that we must pursue. We must
pursue it with intentionality and by using strategies that have
demonstrated success in jurisdictions throughout the country, including
Ramsey County.
Throughout my testimony, disproportionate minority contact (DMC)
refers to the disproportionate representation of youth of color in the
juvenile justice system as compared to their representation in the ``at
risk'' youth population. In contrast, reducing racial and ethnic
disparities refers to changing the decisions and processes in the
system that produce disparate outcomes for similarly situated youth--
such as youth with similar charges or youth with similar past prior
involvement with the juvenile justice system--who differ from each
other only in race and ethnicity. In essence, disparities in juvenile
justice decision making produce the DMC we see in the juvenile justice
system.
DMC and racial and ethnic disparities exist in Ramsey County.
However, with the help of the W. Haywood Burns Institute and the
Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), we have committed to
engaging in an intentional, collaborative and data driven approach to
reduce DMC and eliminate racial and ethnic disparities. It is for this
reason that I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to speak
with you today about enhancing the core protection in the JJDPA that
focuses specifically on addressing the overrepresentation of youth of
color in the juvenile justice system.
DMC and Racial and Ethnic Disparities: The Scope of the Crisis
National research consistently indicates that youth of color are
overrepresented at each point of contact within the juvenile justice
system, and the overrepresentation is cumulative--meaning it has a
greater effect the deeper a youth gets into the juvenile justice
system--as youth proceed through the decision system from arrest to
secure placement to transfer to adult court.\i\ This cumulative effect
is perhaps easiest described by the data--a 2007 study of decision
points in the juvenile justice system found that youth of color
represented 28% of youth arrests, 37% of those who were detained, 35%
of those who were transferred to criminal court, and 58% of those
admitted to state prisons.\ii\
A 2006 survey of detention facilities within the United States
showed that youth of color are significantly overrepresented in the
juvenile detention facilities. According to the count, when compared to
White youth, Black youth are more than five times more likely to be
detained, Native American youth are nearly four times more likely to be
detained, and Latino youth are more than twice as likely to be
detained.\iii\ The disparities are similar in locked facilities beyond
detention where data shows that Black youth are more than four times as
likely as White youth to be sentenced to locked facilities, and Latino
youth are two times as likely. Native Americans are held in secure
confinement three times more frequently than White youth.\iv\
The State of Minnesota is home to some of the worst levels of
disproportionality in the nation. The overall youth of color population
aged 10-17 in Minnesota is currently 18% youth of color,\v\ yet youth
of color represent 38% of youth detained in juvenile detention
facilities and 46% of youth committed to a residential facility as part
of a court-ordered disposition (or ``sentence'' in adult court
terms).\vi\
In 2007, in the three largest metro counties in Minnesota--Dakota,
Ramsey and Hennepin Counties--youth of color represented 31% of youth
aged 10-17, yet accounted for 71% of youth securely detained before
their adjudication hearing, and ranged from 43% to 83% of youth
receiving post-adjudication placements in ranch camps, group homes and
other out-of-home residential placement settings including secure
treatment programs.\vii\ And an analysis of the decision point of
transfers to adult court in these counties revealed that youth of color
account for almost 100%.
In trying to explain the phenomena of youth of color
overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system, claims often are
made that youth of color are overrepresented because they commit more
crime and more violent crime than White youth. However, an examination
of the data paints a different picture. Nationwide, research
demonstrates that youth of color are treated more harshly than White
youth, even when charged with the same category of offense. Self-
reports of drug use indicate that White youth and youth of color use
drugs at the same rate. However, White youth are much more likely than
Black youth to be placed on probation, and Black youth are twice as
likely as White youth to be sent to locked facilities for drug use or
drug related crimes. Latino youth are incarcerated for twice as long as
White youth for drug offenses and are one and a half times more likely
to be admitted to adult prison for these offenses.
In Minnesota, research also demonstrates that similarly situated
youth of color are treated more harshly than White youth. Statewide
data reflect that youth of color arrested for only 37% of Part I crimes
(serious offenses eligible for transfer), but account for 45% of youth
transferred to adult court.
These statistics underscore the crisis of DMC and racial and ethnic
disparities in our Nation and in the State of Minnesota. Clearly, youth
of color are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system, and
clearly, this overrepresentation cannot be explained by differential
patterns of offending. Youth of color consistently receive more
punitive responses from the justice system than White youth.
What is more, the youth of color population continues to grow both
nationwide and in the State of Minnesota. Already, more than 47 percent
of all children under age 5 in our nation are youth of color. Of all
young people aged 0-17, 43 percent were youth of color in 2008
(compared with 31 percent of those 20 or older), up from 38.5 percent
just eight years earlier.\viii\ This is true in Minnesota as well.
Minnesota's metro counties of Dakota, Ramsey and Hennepin have growing
immigrant Latino, Hmong, and Somali populations, placing the Twin
Cities among the fastest growing ethnically diverse areas in the
country. The result is a growing youth of color population being cycled
through a juvenile justice system that appears unable or unwilling to
produce equitable outcomes and that creates devastating impacts on
these youth.
The extent of DMC and racial and ethnic disparities has reached a
level crisis that must be addressed, and it is a crisis that can be
addressed with a strategic and intentional approach.
Local Efforts to Reduce Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Ramsey County
In the prior portion of my testimony, I described the negative
treatment that youth of color face in the juvenile justice system--
particularly in Minnesota. Fortunately, in Ramsey County we have had
the support of the W. Haywood Burns Institute and the Juvenile
Detention Alternatives Initiative and have committed to engaging in an
intentional, collaborative, and data driven approach to reducing DMC
and racial and ethnic disparities
In the Fall of 2005 with the support of our County Board of
Commissioners, Ramsey County embarked on a collaborative project with
Annie E. Casey Foundation to reduce our reliance on detention. The
County saw disturbing trends of escalating detention populations. The
juvenile detention center routinely exceeded its capacity of 86 beds
causing staff to double bunk young people in cells and stage cots in
the gym. When the center averaged a daily population of 89 youth, we
knew change was necessary. Very quickly, we learned of the significant
overrepresentation of youth of color. According to our initial
analysis, youth of color, and particularly Black youth were represented
in pre-adjudication admissions to secure detention at Ramsey County
Juvenile Detention Facility. In 2005 Black youth represented 14% of the
overall youth population in Ramsey County aged 10-17, but 50% of youth
admitted to detention pre-adjudication. Although we committed to
reforming our juvenile justice system and to reducing our reliance on
secure detention, disproportionality in Ramsey County became the
seemingly intractable problem we sought to understand and to solve. DMC
reduction drove the primary purpose for juvenile justice reform.
The Corrections Department engaged the W. Haywood Burns Institute
in 2006 to conduct an assessment of our existing reform efforts and to
review the status and extent of disproportionality and disparities, to
review our policies, practices and procedures to offer recommendations
on how we could work more intentionally to reduce DMC and racial and
ethnic disparities. The Burns Institute assessment revealed the need
for (1) more strategic collaboration between traditional and non-
traditional stakeholders, (2) better and more consistent data
collection and monitoring of disparities, and (3) more thorough review
of how policies and practices uniquely impact youth of color.
(1) Collaboration
We learned that is it critical that impacted communities of color
be part of the reform process. These communities provide a sense of
urgency, perspective, and insight into what is driving system
involvement for our must vulnerable youth. Too often these juvenile
justice stakeholders with important insight and the greatest personal
``stake'' in reducing racial and ethnic disparities are excluded from
the effort.
In 2008, Ramsey County Corrections again engaged the Burns
Institute to help us develop a strategy for community engagement. Now,
Ramsey County commits to engaging community in our work to reduce
disparities, and we commit to engaging community in a meaningful way.
Ramsey County Corrections invested in learning from the community--we
hosed community dialogues in the communities with the highest
prevalence of system involved youth of color. As a result we have
culturally specific community-based alternatives both pre and post
adjudication that were surfaced by the Ramsey County Alternatives
Committee, which comprises community representatives from impacted
communities of color. This group identified community agencies and
programs that had been working with 'at risk' populations, that the
community trusted, and programs that operated from a cultural center.
Community advocacy groups were also instrumental in the Ramsey County
Board investing in funding to support community based alternatives that
lead to juvenile justice reforms. The community also works with us to
evaluate these services and to make recommendations for improvement.
(2) Data Collection and Analysis
Prior to our engagement with Burns Institute and JDAI, the
Corrections Department and other local stakeholders did not use data to
inform policy or practice. What is more, we did not maintain consistent
reports to let us know what was driving disproportionality in our
juvenile justice system. Over the last 5 years, there has been a
significant shift toward collecting, analyzing and reporting data
through the lens of race, ethnicity, gender, geography and offense. We
are no longer relying on anecdotes. Rather, we use empirical evidence
and data to drive our work on reducing DMC and racial and ethnic
disparities. Now, we not only identify the extent of disproportionality
at various points in our juvenile justice system, we know more about
the factors driving disproportionality and disparities. Black youth on
enhanced probation, a special probation unit for high risk youth were
required to waive to their right to a court hearing before being locked
up as a condition of disposition. This policy allowed probation
officers to detain youth for up to 48 hours. Youth were being detained
on average 1.6 days and could be placed on ``waiver violations'' for
subjective reasons, and repeatedly. We identified this specific
response as 100% youth of color. We questioned the policy's efficacy
since many youth were not having their rehabilitative needs met while
being detained for only a day and admissions for violations were
contributing to disproportionality. Through our examination of the
issues surrounding this policy we worked with community partners to
establish an alternative that could be used for high risk probation
youth in lieu of detention, resulting in a 61% decline for youth of
color enhanced probation admissions from 2008 to 2009. Our DMC
Committee, comprised of community and system stakeholders, also
recommended to eliminate this policy, and this request has been
honored.
(3) Juvenile Justice Decision Point Analysis
Finally, we learned that we were not aware of how all juvenile
justice decision makers were, intentionally or not, contributing to DMC
and racial and ethnic disparities in our juvenile justice system.
Ramsey County is currently engaged in decision point analysis that
reviews all juvenile justice decision making points--from arrest, to
entry onto probation, to detention and out of home placement. We are
conducting a thorough assessment of both our policies and our practices
to ensure that we are not unintentionally treating similarly situated
youth differently, and ensuring we are responsive to the many diverse
communities we serve.
With this intentional focus, Ramsey County has had the following
measurable reductions and successes:
(1) A reduction in the average daily population for youth of color
in detention by 65% from 2005 to 2009 using an objective detention
screening tool. Use of the objective detention screening, the Risk
Assessment Instrument (RAI) has ensured that youth will be either
released from juvenile detention intake, released from juvenile
detention intake with certain conditions or be admitted to our Juvenile
Detention Center based on their level of public safety risk, their
presenting offense and prior history of offense and flight risk.
Several databases are used to assess youth eligibility for release to
home (0-9), an alternative to detention (10-14) or detention (15+). In
developing and using our RAI, we learned that the vast majority of
youth of color the RAI-identified were low risk youth who were
previously being detained. Used with a clear purpose of detention,
we've experienced dramatic reductions in the overall daily population
in detention and significantly reduced detention admissions for youth
of color. The RAI was implemented in January 2008 after months of
collaborative deliberation with such stakeholders as corrections, law
enforcement, county attorneys, public defenders, judges, schools, and
community representatives. Most recently Ramsey County launched an
automated version of the tool cutting the assessment time by more than
half and thereby releasing youth who do not require secure detention.
(2) For Black youth, who represent the majority of youth of color
in detention, a reduction in rate of detention by 33.2% from 2005 to
2008, and a reduction in rate of secure confinement or out of home
placement by 85.9% In addition to the RAI, our Probation staff,with
partners, developed an objective tool, the Graduated Response Grid,
which standardizes probation officers' responses to violations based on
a youth's level of risk to reoffend and the level of non-compliance.
When we examined the youth being admitted to detention on probation
violations and intensive supervision sanctions, more than 80% were
youth of color. Black youth were especially overrepresented. These
youth were being admitted primarily on status offenses or low level
infractions. Youth were treated inconsistently by Corrections when they
violated their probation, and the result was that Black youth were
being disproportionately admitted to detention for reasons that did not
meet our locally identified purpose of detention: short term public
safety interests and flight risk.
The grid presents a continuum of community based options and
incentives that are used to redirect youth behavior and firmly
positions detention and out of home placement as deep end tools only to
be used when public safety and a youth's rehabilitative needs require
it. A philosophical, policy and practice shift has created an emphasis
on least restrictive, community based options wherever possible, which
has impacted the number of youth of color in Ramsey County. Black youth
are not being sent to detention and out of home placement as often due
to this new policy No longer are secure detention and out of home
placement used as accountability measures or 'punishment', but for
their respective intended purposes.
The implementation of culturally specific, community-based
alternatives to support both detention reforms and probation reforms
that divert youth from detention and out of home placement to community
based options. Data showed that many of the youth coming to detention
came from two main neighborhoods in St. Paul--the 55106 or East St.
Paul,area, community in transition with a large Black and Hmong
population, and 55104, the Rondo neighborhood, a historically Black
area. When alternatives were designed, programs were intentionally
placed in the impacted neighborhoods where youth were coming from to
ensure that supports were being developed right where young people live
and that programs are accessible and culturally relevant to increase
program success rates.
Most important, in Ramsey County our leadership has prioritized DMC
and reducing racial and ethnic disparities for conducting juvenile
justice system reform. Work to reduce DMC and eliminate racial and
ethnic disparities is a part of my Department's Five Year Strategic
Plan. The goals of this plan include:
1. completing a decision point analysis for entire juvenile
division by race, ethnicity, gender, geography, and offense (REGGO) ;
2. identifying points of differential impact on youth of color and
developing strategies that eliminate disparities in partnership with
stakeholders;
3. establishing authentic ``discussions'' with communities of color
and the Community Corrections Department ;
4. reducing and monitoring the efficacy of out-of-home placements;
5. ensuring that all families are welcomed and respected as they
intersect with our juvenile justice system; and
6. placing a stronger emphasis on culturally and gender specific
responses.
The process and goals of our work in Ramsey County reflect the
level of intentionality required to make meaningful and sustainable
reductions to DMC and racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile
justice system. It is a process that produces measurable results, and
more importantly, can be replicated by jurisdictions throughout the
nation. With guidance, intentionality and a strategic approach,
jurisdictions that have simply admired the problem of disparities in
their juvenile justice system for decades can finally take action to
eliminate those disparities.
Strengthening the Core Protection to ``Address DMC'' in the JJDPA
Currently, the JJDPA requires States to ``address''
disproportionate minority contact (DMC) within the juvenile justice
system. Specifically, the law requires States to ``address juvenile
delinquency prevention efforts and system improvement efforts designed
to reduce, without establishing or requiring numerical standards or
quotas, the disproportionate number of juvenile members of minority
groups, who come into contact with the juvenile justice system.'' \ix\
Unfortunately, this vague requirement that states ``address''
efforts to reduce DMC has left state and local officials without a
clear mandate or guidance for reducing racial and ethnic disparities.
With limited guidance, jurisdictions can get stuck studying the problem
or endlessly working on projects that do not lead to measurable
reductions. Indeed, throughout the country, jurisdictions have spent
significant time and money trying to reduce racial and ethnic
disparities in juvenile justice with limited results. I contend that
unless Congress strengthens the DMC core requirements of JJDPA, little
progress will be made beyond ``admiring the problem.''
Strengthening the JJDPA will make it possible for more
jurisdictions to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile
justice system by giving states more guidance on how to go about
reducing DMC and racial and ethnic disparities through focused,
informed, data-driven strategies like those successfully utilized in
Ramsey County. Thus, I believe the reauthorization of the JJDPA must
guide states toward engaging in specific approaches to effectively
address racial and ethnic disparities.
Specifically, I recommend strengthening the core protection by
requiring States to take concrete steps to not just address, but to
actually move toward reducing racial and ethnic disparities in the
juvenile justice system. Using elements of the model used in Ramsey
County, MN and other jurisdictions that have effectively reduced racial
and ethnic disparities, strategies to reduce DMC and racial and ethnic
disparities must include:
Encouraging collaboration of local juvenile justice stakeholders,
including community leaders of communities in which youth of color are
disproportionately represented in the juvenile justice system.
Mapping decision points in local and state juvenile justice systems
to identify key decision points and how departmental policy, practice
and procedure may disparately impact youth of color and be contributing
to disproportionality.
Developing and implementing data systems that identify where racial
and ethnic disparities exist in the juvenile justice system and track
and analyze such disparities, using descriptors disaggregated as
appropriate by race, ethnicity, gender, geography, offense, delinquency
history and age.
Creating a work plan to reduce racial and ethnic disparities that
includes measurable objectives for system change and/or policy and
practice change designed to reduce any forms of bias, differential
treatment of youth of color or disparity found to be associated with
race and ethnicity; and
Publicly reporting progress towards measurable objectives in
reducing racial and ethnic disparities that must be monitored and
evaluated on an annual basis.
By strengthening the core requirement of the JJDPA regarding
disproportionality in the juvenile justice system, you would be making
a statement that you recognize the intentionality necessary to reduce
DMC and racial and ethnic disparities in the system and are make this
work a national priority. You are giving more jurisdictions throughout
the nation the opportunity to build on the experiences of jurisdictions
that have successfully reduced disproportionality and disparities.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to address you regarding this
critical issue. In Ramsey County, we have realized that reducing racial
and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system while maintaining
public safety is possible. We also know that it is only possible with
intentionality and by implementing the strategies discussed above.
With its current reauthorization, Congress has the opportunity to
offer specific guidelines to States in their efforts to reduce the
growing disproportionality of youth of color in the juvenile justice
system. And while Congress cannot legislate the will to reduce racial
and ethnic disparities, it can formulate policy that will have an
important and measurable impact on the lives of children.
I am happy to answer any questions you might have regarding my
testimony.
ENDNOTES
\i\ Hartney, C. and Vuong, L. (2009). Created Equal: Racial and
Ethnic Disparities in the U.S. Criminal Justice System. National
Council on Crime and Delinquency. Oakland.
\ii\ National Council on Crime and Delinquency. (2007). And Justice
for Some: Differential Treatment of Youth of Color in the Justice
System. Oakland. Available: http://www.nccdcrc.org/nccd/pubs/2007jan--
justice--for--some.pdf.
\iii\ Sickmund, Melissa, Sladky, T.J., and Kang, Wei. (2008)
``Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook.'' Online.
Available: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/cjrp/
\iv\ Hartney, C. and Vuong, L. (2009). Created Equal: Racial and
Ethnic Disparities in the U.S. Criminal Justice System. National
Council on Crime and Delinquency. Oakland.
\v\ Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A. and Kang, W. (2009). ``Easy Access
to Juvenile Populations: 1990-2008.'' Online. Available: http://
www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/
\vi\ Sickmund, Melissa, Sladky, T.J., and Kang, Wei. (2008)
``Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook.'' Online.
Available: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/cjrp/
\vii\ Minnesota JDAI Results Report (2008).
\viii\ Lichter, Daniel. Population and Development Review (2010).
March (Vol. 36:1).
\ix\ P.L.93-415
______
Chairman Miller. Ms. McClard, welcome.
STATEMENT OF TRACY MC CLARD, MOTHER OF A CHILD WHO COMMITTED
SUICIDE IN AN ADULT FACILITY
Ms. McClard. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Petri, and
members of the committee. Thank you so much for having me here
today.
In 2008, I lost my 17-year-old son Jonathan to Missouri's
criminal justice system. First, I would like to put our story
in context. Each year, 200,000 youth are prosecuted as adults,
and every day, 10,000 kids under 18 are locked in adult jails
and prisons. This practice exists even though research shows
that prosecuting youth as adults actually increases crime.
Other studies show that youth in adult jails face physical
and sexual assault and little to no access to education, mental
health programs, or substance abuse treatment. As my family
tragically knows too well, youth in adult jails are 36 times
more likely to complete suicide in jail than juvenile
detention.
In July 2007, my son, Jonathan, who was 16 years old, made
an extremely poor decision. His ex-girlfriend called to say
that she was pregnant with his baby, but was going to commit
suicide because her new boyfriend was going to force her to
kill the baby. Under the influence of drugs, in what he thought
was an attempt to save two lives, Jonathan shot the boyfriend,
who survived, to scare him into leaving the ex-girlfriend
alone.
Thinking the police would understand, Jonathan immediately
turned himself in. I believed Jonathan should be held
accountable, but I never imagined what he would face in the
adult system.
He was first placed in juvenile facilities, including a
psychiatric hospital and a juvenile detention center. While in
the hospital, Jonathan was prescribed a high amount of anti-
psychotic medications that took several weeks for his body to
adjust to. In the meantime, he suffered recurring nightmares
and hallucinations of blood running down the walls. In the
detention center, he was allowed to stay caught up in school.
On September 6, 2007, he was transferred to the adult
system and placed in an adult jail, a 140-pound slight-build
16-year-old child among much older, bigger men. On his arrival,
all his medication was abruptly stopped due to the jail's anti-
narcotics policy, causing intense withdrawal with shaking, more
hallucinations, and severe depression.
At the jail, he could no longer continue his education. His
school no longer sent homework, and he was dropped from the
roster. This was really hard for him, because he loved school.
He had a lot of friends, good grades, and good relationships
with his teachers.
He was working towards scholarships and to become a doctor
or psychiatrist. He tried to work on a GED book, but the jail
was too noisy and no one would help or support him. At night,
he couldn't sleep, as the lights were kept on and the adult
inmates stayed up. Jonathan timed trips to the restroom or
taking a shower to avoid being assaulted.
After 2 weeks, he was transferred to another jail in
Charleston, Missouri. We were allowed only one 15-minute visit
a week through glass by talking on a phone. On our first visit,
my husband and I were shocked. Cuts and bruises covered his
face and head. His hair was shaved, and he had a new tattoo
that other inmates said he needed to survive.
The night he arrived, he had been attacked by a fellow
inmate coming down off meth from the meth lab in the jail. I
immediately broke down and wept because I was utterly powerless
to keep him safe. He kept trying to reassure me that he would
be okay, but we both knew he wouldn't.
In our next visits, Jonathan always had stories about
violent things he saw and comments he heard from other inmates
on how to survive and was constantly trying to strengthen his
body to survive attacks.
Although he was recommended for Missouri's dual
jurisdiction program, which allows youth up to 21 tried as
adults to serve their time with other youth, the judge denied
him this opportunity. After being placed in several other
facilities, Jonathan learned he would be going back to
Charlestown, the same town where he had horrible jail
experiences.
This possibility was too much for him. And on January 4th,
3 days after his 17th birthday, he was found hanging in his
cell.
While in jail, Jonathan lost everything: freedom, friends,
safety, privacy, sanity, childhood, scholarships, college,
dreams, Six Flags, family vacations, and holidays, and time
with his brother, sister and a close extended family.
Jonathan's experience taught me that no child should be
placed with adults no matter what, because when children are
put with adults, they die, physically or mentally.
I also believe that all kids deserve a second chance. As a
parent, one of the most frustrating things for me was that the
court, the judges, the prosecutors didn't know my son. They
hadn't raised him like I had. But they weren't willing to give
him the second chance they might have given their own kid.
Finally, if the criminal justice system is supposed to keep
our communities safe, how safe can they be if a kid has spent
5, 10, 15 or more years in the conditions Jonathan faced and
the role models he had?
In closing, I urge the committee to extend the jail removal
and sight and sound core protections in the JJDPA to youth in
the adult system. I also ask that you allow states the option
to let youth convicted in adult court serve their sentence in
juvenile facilities rather than adult prisons.
Thank you again for having me here to testify and for
giving me the chance to share my story, my family's story, and
Jonathan's story with you.
[The statement of Ms. McClard follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tracy McClard, Parent
Good Morning, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Kline, and members of
the House Education and Labor Committee. Thank you for having me here
to testify today on the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
(JJDPA) and share my story.
My name is Tracy McClard and I live in Jackson, MO. In 2008, I lost
my barely 17 year old son, Jonathan, in Missouri's criminal justice
system.
Background and Context
Before I begin telling my family's experience with having our son
in the adult criminal justice system, I would like to give you some
data to help put our story into context. Each year, an estimated
200,000 youth go into the adult criminal court and every day 10,000
kids under the age of 18 are incarcerated in adult jails and prisons.
These policies exist even though research shows that prosecuting
children as adults causes harm to these youth and does not increase
public safety. Reports from the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC)'s non-federal Task Force on Community Preventive
Services, show that prosecuting youth as adults actually increases
crime. The CDC report found that youth involved in the adult system are
34% more likely to commit crimes than children who have done similar
crimes, but remain in the juvenile justice system. The OJJDP report
found that prosecuting youth as adults increases the chances of a youth
re-offending and recommended decreasing the number of youth in the
adult criminal justice system.
Research also shows that youth in adult jails face unbelievable
conditions. First, these youth are at great risk of physical and sexual
assault. The National Prison Rape Elimination Commission recently found
that ``more than any other group of incarcerated persons, youth
incarcerated with adults are probably at the highest risk for sexual
abuse'' and said youth be housed separately from adults. Second, youth
in jails typically do not have access to things like education, mental
health programs, or substance abuse treatment, especially when compared
to kids in juvenile facilities. Finally, and as my family tragically
knows too well, youth in adult jails are at a high risk of suicide--
youth in adult jails are 36 times more likely to complete suicide in an
adult jail than youth juvenile detention facilities.
Jonathan's Story
In July 2007, my son Jonathan, who was 16 years old at the time,
made an extremely poor error in judgment. That morning Jonathan's ex-
girlfriend called to tell him that she was pregnant with Jonathan's
baby, but that her new boyfriend was abusive and was going to force her
to inject cocaine and kill the baby. She also told him she was going to
commit suicide before the new boyfriend could do this. Under the
influence of drugs, and in what he thought was an attempt to save two
lives, Jonathan shot the boyfriend, who survived, with the intent to
scare him into leaving the ex-girlfriend alone. Thinking the police
would understand why he did what he did and not understanding the
gravity of his actions, Jonathan immediately turned himself in. While I
believed that Jonathan needed to be held accountable for his actions as
well as pay retribution, I never would have imagined the conditions he
would face in the adult criminal justice system that ultimately took
his life.
Our ordeal began with Jonathan being taken to an adolescent
psychiatric hospital in St. Louis, MO within two hours of his arrest
due to shock and suicidal thoughts in the aftermath of the event. The
charge nurse there said that Jonathan was very confused and afraid. He
remained in that facility for two weeks and was then ultimately
transferred to the Cape Girardeau Juvenile Detention Center to be
closer to home.
While in the psychiatric hospital, Jonathan was prescribed an
extremely high amount of anti-psychotic medication. When he was
transferred back to the juvenile facilities we, as his parents, had no
control over Jonathan's medication or the dosage. It took several weeks
for his body to adjust and during this time he had recurring nightmares
about the loss of his baby and hallucinations of blood running down the
walls. Eventually his body adjusted to the medication. In the juvenile
detention center, Jonathan was allowed to complete homework from school
and stay caught up. Jonathan remained in the Cape Girardeau County
Juvenile Detention Center until September 6, 2007.
On that day, Jonathan had a certification hearing where he was
transferred to the adult system. At the conclusion of the hearing he
was immediately placed in the Cape Girardeau County Jail with adults in
Jackson, MO. He was a 140 lb., slight built, 16 year old child among
much older, bigger men. As soon as he arrived, all the medication he
was forced to take earlier was abruptly stopped due to the jail's anti-
narcotics policies, causing intense withdrawal symptoms, including
shaking, another bout of hallucinations and severe depression. There
was no medical care, medication or concern on the part of the jail's
staff as Jonathan was forced to suffer these withdrawal symptoms.
At the jail, the ability for Jonathan to continue his education was
also put on hold. Because he was now in the adult system, his school
was no longer required to send homework and he was officially dropped
from their roster. This was really difficult for Jonathan to deal with
as he loved school, learning, reading and research. He had a lot of
friends, made good grades and his teachers really enjoyed having him in
class. He was working toward scholarships and had plans to become a
doctor or psychiatrist. In the weeks waiting for his certification
hearing, he mentioned several times how worried he was about his
education. The night before the hearing he said, ``I wonder if my
teachers know I have to go to jail tomorrow and I can't be in school
anymore. My life is over.''
In order to continue with his education, Jonathan tried to work on
a GED book, but he told me that it was too noisy in the jail and nobody
was there to help or support him. He ended up staring at the TV every
day and at night he could not sleep as the lights were kept on and the
adult inmates stayed up. He waited to use the restroom and take a
shower in the mid-morning hours when the other inmates were sleeping to
avoid being assaulted. Jonathan spent approximately two weeks in the
Cape Girardeau County Jail and due to a change in venue was then
transferred to the Mississippi County Jail in Charleston, MO.
I knew the transfer was coming, I just didn't know when. Due to
security protocol, families are not allowed to know when loved ones are
being moved. Before Jonathan was transferred, I called the Mississippi
County Jail to speak to the supervisor about his safety. The supervisor
led me to believe he was very concerned about having someone so young
in his jail, that he would be very careful about which pod he chose to
place Jonathan, and that other inmates had been singled out to watch
over him. I was told that the officers would keep an eye out for him
and he would be fine.
Jonathan was transferred on a Thursday. We were allowed only one 15
minute visit a week, either on Monday or Thursday between one and four
o'clock. My husband and I took time away from our jobs each week to
visit. We visited through glass by talking on a phone. Since Jonathan
was moved on Thursday, the following Monday was our first opportunity
to see him.
As Jonathan approached his side of the glass, my husband and I were
shocked by what we saw. Jonathan had cuts and bruises all over his
face, ears, and head. His hair was shaved off and he had a tattoo under
his eye. He was told by the other inmates in the facility he needed the
tattoo to survive. I immediately broke down and wept because I was
utterly powerless to keep him safe. As I questioned him about what
happened, I learned that he was attacked the night he arrived there. He
said there was a meth lab in the jail and the person who attacked him
was someone he shared a cell with and who was coming down off of meth.
This person took Jonathan's shirt and pulled it over his head so he
couldn't see and so his arms were trapped. Jonathan kept trying to
reassure me that he would be okay and this was his fault because he'd
gotten himself into this nightmare. We both knew he wouldn't be okay.
Following the extremely short visit, Jonathan was led back into the
madhouse and my husband and I sought out the supervisor that I had
spoken with on the phone. When we asked about the events of the fight
and Jonathan's promised safety a very unconcerned supervisor told us,
``Things like this happen! What do you expect? We don't tolerate
fighting of any sort so if Jonathan participates in it again he'll be
placed in solitary confinement. I don't care what the circumstances
are.''
On our next visit a week later, Jonathan was visibly shaken. He
said, ``Mom this place is so scary.'' I asked what happened. He
described an incident that happened that week of a new inmate coming
in. He said when this man was brought in several inmates grabbed him
and dragged him to the back. He said, ``Mom, I could hear him screaming
and screaming and nobody did anything! When they brought him back out I
couldn't recognize him because he was so bloody and beat up and he got
sent to solitary, but nobody else got into trouble.''
For the next several visits, Jonathan always had stories to tell
about violent things that happened that week and comments he was
hearing from inmates who had been to prison about how to survive if he
had to go to prison. He was constantly trying to strengthen his body to
survive present and future attacks. He talked about how he was told he
needed to be in a gang, which he didn't want to join, to survive. At
this point, he was trying to decide between making education a priority
and dealing with the bullying and beating that came with studying for
the GED or if he should forget his education so he could join a gang
and be safer. Jonathan remained in the Mississippi County Jail until
his sentencing hearing on November 13, 2007.
Missouri has a blended sentencing option in place called the
Missouri Dual Jurisdiction Program, which is run by the Missouri
Department of Youth Services (DYS) and serves youth up to age 21 who
have been certified as adults. Youth sentenced to this program are
placed in a secure facility near St. Louis and are allowed to live in
dorm style rooms, wear their own clothes, and have their own
possessions from home. They also receive their high school diploma or
GED, can take college classes, and have extensive individual and group
counseling geared toward substance abuse, positive choices, victim
empathy and restoration and other issues geared toward this specific
population. Families are also encouraged to visit and remain involved.
To be allowed into this program, a youth is interviewed by the DYS and
a recommendation is given to the judge for acceptance or rejection. If
accepted, the adult sentence is suspended while the youth receives
intensive counseling and education. At the age of 21, another hearing
is scheduled to decide if the youth can go home on probation or if the
youth must serve the rest of the sentence in the adult prison. The
decision for initial placement and adult placement is ultimately up to
the judge.
Jonathan was interviewed for this program and was highly
recommended. A representative from the DYS came to his sentencing
hearing (which is unusual) to testify about the huge possibility for
success Jonathan possessed. Namely, Jonathan had a close, supportive,
extended family, was a good student in school, was well liked by peers,
grew up in church and was involved in the youth group, and had goals
and plans for his future. Although the DYS person who interviewed
Jonathan thought Jonathan would be a good candidate for the program,
the DYS worker also said that the judges in our court district
typically were difficult to work with and wished Jonathan's case was in
a different district. Tragically, the judge in Jonathan's case refused
to listen to this recommendation.
Jonathan left the jail two days later and was placed in several
other facilities. On December 13th, Jonathan took his GED test and
passed with a 99th percentile in the nation. On January 4th, three days
after his 17th birthday he was found hanging in his cell. A few days
before, he had learned that he would be going back to Mississippi
County to the prison in Charleston, which was the same town where he
had lived and witnessed horrible experiences while in the jail.
While in jail, Jonathan lost everything. He lost his freedom, his
friends, his safety, his privacy, his sanity, his childhood,
skateboarding, swimming, his girlfriend, summer vacation, scholarships,
college, dreams, Six Flags, marriages, births, deaths, family
vacations, Christmas, Thanksgiving, time with his brother and sister
(who now have tattoos in his honor and named their children after him),
time with a close extended family and cousins who have always been a
huge part of his life, his whole entire future and his life.
Our family also suffered while Jonathan suffered and we nearly lost
everything as well. Jonathan's older brother, Charles, had recently
moved out on his own, but began experiencing panic attacks and seizures
due to extreme stress and worry over Jonathan and was forced to move
back home. Shortly after Jonathan died, Charles attempted suicide. A
few weeks before Jonathan's death, my husband also attempted suicide
and was hospitalized. Jonathan's older sister, Suzanne, who is in the
Army National Guard, was scheduled to deploy a few days after
Jonathan's death and also ended up in the hospital suffering from panic
attacks.
Recommendations and Conclusion
Jonathan's experience taught me that no child should be placed with
adults no matter what, because when children are put in with adults
they die--physically or mentally. I also believe that all kids deserve
a second chance. As a parent, one of the most frustrating things for me
was that the court, the judges, and the prosecutors didn't know my
son--they hadn't raised him like I had; they didn't even know him as a
person--but they weren't willing to give him the second chance they
might have given to their own kids if they were in the same situation.
Finally, if the goal of the juvenile and criminal justice system is to
keep our communities safe, how safe can our communities be if a kid in
Jonathan's position would have spent five, ten, fifteen or more years
in the conditions Jonathan faced and with the role models he had?
In terms of JJDPA reauthorization, I have two main recommendations
for the Committee. First, the current JJDPA law has two core
requirements--jail removal and sight and sound separation--that
recognize the dangers of keeping youth out of adult jails and out of
contact with adults in these facilities. However, right now these two
requirements only apply to youth who are under the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court. Once a youth is charged as an adult, these protections
no longer apply and, like Jonathan, kids can be placed in the same cell
as adults. I hope the Committee can extend the jail removal and sight
and sound protections to all youth under 18, no matter what court they
are tried in. The alternative is just too dangerous for our youth and
our communities.
Second, I hope that the JJDPA will continue to allow States to have
the option to let youth who are convicted in adult court to serve their
sentence in juvenile facilities rather than adult prison. It is my
understanding that the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP) recently stopped penalizing States that were
allowing youth to serve their time in juvenile facilities and I would
like for the Committee to make sure this decision is permanent.
Thank you again for having me here to testify and for giving me the
chance to share my story, my family's story, and Jonathan's story with
you today.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
Mr. Solberg?
STATEMENT OF JOHN SOLBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RAWHIDE BOYS
RANCH
Mr. Solberg. Good morning, Chairman Miller, Congressman
Petri, and members of the committee.
As the executive director of Rawhide Boys Ranch, a faith-
based, licensed residential care center in Wisconsin, I am
honored to present testimony about the front-line impact our
organization is making to improve the lives and safety of youth
in the juvenile justice system.
I am also prepared to testify on my observations regarding
the impact of funding priorities associated with the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act on Rawhide and on a
state and national level through contacts with state and
national juvenile justice providers through participation in
state and national associations.
As the leader of a nonprofit associated with the care of
over 120 juvenile placements each year, a board member with
WAFCA, our statewide association, a previous public policy
member for the Alliance for Children and Families, and a
participant in the Building Bridges Summit sponsored by SAMHSA,
I have gained insight into the benefits and challenges
associated with sometimes competing interests and goals of
JJDPA priorities.
My hope is to provide you an insight as to what is
happening in Wisconsin and a practitioner's perspective, as
well as to the impact of policy on community-based services in
relation to out-of-home care or what might be referred to as
levels of sanctioned care in Wisconsin and nationally.
Rawhide Boys Ranch was founded by John and Jan Gillespie
and Bart and Cherry Starr in 1965 as an alternative to
corrections for youth in our juvenile justice system. What
started as one home serving youth for periods up to 3 years
back in 1965 has transformed into seven boys homes serving over
120 youth each year in intensive short-term programs ranging
from 4 months in length to 1 year.
Youth placed at Rawhide come from over 50 counties in
Wisconsin through referrals from county juvenile courts and
state secure facilities. They receive high-quality,
individualized education at our on-grounds high school, Starr
Academy. They are provided with work experience, training in
seven different vocations, including vehicle repair and
evaluation, food service, grounds and landscaping, general
office administration, to name a few.
Youth are provided programs that are evidence-based,
including family learning model, community services
opportunities, individual and group counseling, to name a few.
In turn, this rich environment has led to independently
researched success rates of 77 percent for youth placed at
Rawhide in terms of not re-offending in the community. And that
was a study done by Department of Corrections. It was also
determined that we have 73 percent success rate in producing
sustained positive behavior 6 months after discharge from the
program.
I would like to direct my testimony to JJDPA formula grant
allocation priorities for juvenile justice programs. Rawhide,
as a residential facility, has experienced the impact of
priorities established by JJDPA for the funding of community-
based alternatives to incarceration.
Today, placements at our institution no longer include
status offenders and rarely first-or second-time offenders, but
youth with a significant history of criminal contacts and
oftentimes significant emotional challenges requiring
medication and significant treatment.
A typical youth placed at Rawhide 15 years earlier would
not even resemble the youth we receive today in terms of
multiple psychological diagnosis and numerous documented
offenses. This is in part due to a greater emphasis among
communities to treat individuals through a growing continuum of
community-based services that provide various treatment and
family services in response to criminal contact.
To our credit, Wisconsin is a leader nationally in
achieving shorter lengths of stay for juveniles in out-of-home
care. Wisconsin is also a leader in providing community-based
services that respond to the needs of youth in the juvenile
justice system, most notably through Wraparound Milwaukee.
However, the combination of shorter residential placement,
coupled with more emotionally challenged youth and development
of effective programs is creating greater financial challenges
for residential providers.
While community-based services are an important response to
many youth with offenses, a growing challenge is the assessment
and appropriate response to treatment for youth with
criminological thinking. Due in part to limited resources at
the state and local level, we experience youth that are coming
to residential and out-of-home care at a time when they have
exhausted all community resources and would have benefited from
more intensive services provided in residential care at an
earlier stage in their life.
Another concern that is clear from my experience is that
the lack of agreed-upon outcomes to document success in all
phases of care. As noted in ``What Works, Wisconsin, What
Science Tells us about Cost-Effective Programs for Juvenile
Delinquency Prevention,'' published in June of 2005, stated on
page four, ``The need for proven, effective, high-quality
prevention and intervention programs remains a high priority in
Wisconsin and across the nation. Unfortunately, the
effectiveness of many current programs and practices remains
unproven at best, while some are known to be ineffective or
even harmful.''
Later in the study, it is noted that, ``Unfortunately,
while there has been a remarkable growth in the number of
evidence-based prevention programs, their adoption and use by
practitioners lags far behind. In the field of juvenile
justice, the percentage of programs that are evidence-based may
be even lower.''
As a result of funding priorities incorporated in the JJDPA
directed toward state and local governments and in part to
private agencies, there is a growing tension among community-
based providers and out-of-home care providers that threatens
the capacity to provide adequate care in the future.
Understandably, communities with limited resources are
resistant to choosing more expensive forms of care, since much
of juvenile justice is funded at the local level in Wisconsin.
In turn, youth may stay much longer in community-based services
when a more appropriate placement may be in a residential
setting.
The growing tension between community-based providers and
out-of-home care providers led to a national summit in 2006
that produced a document that I have as appendix A, but it was
an attempt to really quell that difference between community-
based providers and those at out-of-home care.
This tension is somewhat driven by the competition for
declining resources, a strong belief in particular level of
care, and a lack of understanding and experience. I am pleased
to report that the summit brought about a greater understanding
and appreciation among those participants, although that does
not hold for the rest of the nation, per se.
Of particular concern to this committee is, in my opinion,
what should be related impact that JJDPA funding priorities
directed to community-based priorities has on diminishing the
capacity of states, who are losing money for out-of-home care
or sanctioned care that result in the closure of licensed
programs.
Over the past 45 years of operation, Rawhide has
experienced the direct impact of federal policy related to
juvenile justice. By way of example, I currently serve on a
commission appointed by the governor of Wisconsin that is
charged with recommending the closure of one of two secure
juvenile facilities in the state.
Should this happen, Wisconsin could lose 50 percent of its
capacity to provide secure detention of juveniles. While a 35
percent decrease in juveniles placed at Wisconsin juvenile
facilities is worthy of note, the question remains if this
trend will continue at a time when all programs offered to
youth are experiencing diminished funding.
In addition, Wisconsin's private and non-profit programs
are experiencing increased pressure to close or merge, leading
to lower capacity for varying levels of care.
The challenge for this committee is to recognize the
funding priorities of JJDPA have contributed to tensions among
the continuum of care and may diminish and put at risk the
necessary and capital-intensive infrastructure throughout the
nation in the form of out-of-home care or sanction-level care.
In addition, I feel the lack of agreed-upon measurable
outcomes at each level of care remains a challenge to determine
the most effective treatment for youth in the juvenile justice
system.
Thank you for allowing me the honor of presenting my
testimony this morning and the opportunity to provide you my
insights as a practitioner in the care of juveniles placed in
our care. I commend you in your service to our nation's at-risk
youth. I would be happy to entertain any questions.
[The statement of Mr. Solberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of John S. Solberg, M.S., Executive Director,
Rawhide Boys Ranch, New London, WI
Good morning Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Kline, and Members of
the Committee. As the Executive Director of Rawhide Boys Ranch, a
faith-based, licensed residential care center in Wisconsin, I am
honored to present testimony about the front line impact our
organization is making to improve the lives and safety of youth in the
Juvenile Justice system. I am also prepared to testify on my
observations regarding the impact of funding priorities associated with
the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) on Rawhide
and on a state and national level through contacts with state and
national juvenile justice providers through participation in state and
national associations.
As the leader of a non-profit charged with the care of over 120
juvenile placements each year, a board member for the previous four
years with the Wisconsin Association of Family and Children's Agencies,
a previous public policy committee member for the Alliance for Children
and Families and a participant in the Building Bridges Summit sponsored
by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA), I have gained insights into the benefits and challenges
associated with the sometimes competing interests and goals of JJDPA
priorities. My hope is to provide you an insight as to what is
happening in Wisconsin from a practitioner's perspective as well as the
impact of policy on community-based services in relation to out-of-home
care or what might be referred to as levels of sanction care in
Wisconsin and nationally.
Rawhide Boys Ranch was founded by John and Jan Gillespie and Bart
and Cherry Starr in 1965 as an alternative to corrections for youth. At
that time the Gillespie's founded Rawhide with a passion for assisting
troubled young men by creating a stable caring home environment on 714
acres along the Wolf River. This location provided the experiential
environment that responded to the needs of at-risk young men aged 12 to
17. That same year the Gillespie's were joined by Hall of Fame
quarterback Bart Starr and his wife Cherry who shared in the belief
that young men need the structure, discipline and love that came from
house parents modeling effective life skills for youth that lacked a
stable environment and needed help to get their lives back on the right
track.
What started as one home serving 7 youth for periods up to 3 years
has transformed into seven boys homes serving over 120 youth each year
in intensive short term programs ranging from 4 months in length to 1
year. Youth placed at Rawhide come from over 50 counties in Wisconsin
through referrals from county juvenile courts and state secure
facilities. They receive high quality, individualized education at our
on grounds high school, Starr Academy. They are provided with work
experience training in seven different vocations, including vehicle
repair and evaluation, food service, grounds and landscaping, general
office administration, to name a few. Youth are provided programs that
are evidence based including the family learning model, community
services opportunities, individual and group counseling, to name a few.
In turn this rich treatment environment has led to independently
researched success rate of 77% for youth placed at Rawhide not
reoffending when placed back in the community after being placed for at
least one year. This was based on a study conducted by the Wisconsin
Department of Corrections. (Appleton Post Crescent article, ``Most
Rawhide Alumni Go Straight, Peter Geniesse, 3/20/94) It was determined
that the longer youth were in care the higher the success rate. Rawhide
conducted its own independent study over a three year period concluded
in 2003 by an independent psychologist who found youth assessed at
entry, discharge and six months after discharge demonstrated sustained
positive behavior at a rate of 73%. (Rawhide Outcome Study, Clinical
and Functional Effectiveness utilizing the Youth Outcome Questionnaire
conducted by Dr. Frank Cummings, Ph.D., Psychologist)
I would direct my testimony next to JJDPA Formula Grant Allocation
priorities for juvenile justice programs: Rawhide, as a residential
facility has experienced the impact of priorities established by JJDPA
for the funding of community-based alternatives to incarceration. Today
placements at our institution no longer include status offenders and
rarely, first or second time offenders but youth with a significant
history of criminal contacts and often time significant emotional
challenges requiring medication and treatment. A typical youth placed
at Rawhide 15 years earlier would not resemble the youth we receive
today in terms of multiple psychological diagnosis and numerous
documented offenses. This is in part due to a greater emphasis among
communities to treat individuals through a growing continuum of
community-based services that provide various treatment and family
services in response to criminal contact. To our credit, Wisconsin is a
leader nationally in achieving shorter lengths of stay for juveniles in
out-of-home care. Wisconsin is also a leader in providing community-
based services that respond to the needs of youth in the juvenile
justice system most notably through Wraparound Milwaukee. However, the
combination of shorter residential placement coupled with more
emotionally challenged youths and development of effective programs is
creating greater financial challenges for residential providers.
While community based services are an important response to many
youth with offenses, a growing challenge is the assessment and
appropriate response to treatment for youth with criminological
thinking. Due in part to limited resources at the state and local
level, we experience youth that are coming to residential, out-of-home
care at a time when they have exhausted all community resources and
would have benefited from more intensive services provided in
residential care at an earlier stage in their life.
Another concern that is clear from my experience is the lack of
agreed upon outcomes to document success in all phases of care. As
noted in What Works, Wisconsin--What Science Tells us about Cost-
Effective Programs for Juvenile Delinquency Prevention published in
June 2005, stated on page 4, ``The need for proven, effective high
quality prevention and intervention programs remains a high priority in
Wisconsin and across the nation. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of
many current programs and practices remains unproven at best, while
some are known to be ineffective or even harmful.'' Later in the study
it is noted that, ``Unfortunately, while there has been a remarkable
growth in the number of evidence-based prevention programs, their
adoption and use by practitioners lags far behind. In the field of
juvenile justice, the percentage of programs that are evidence based
may be even lower.''
As a result of funding priorities incorporated in the JJDPA
directed toward state and local governments and in part to private
agencies there is also a growing tension among community-based
providers and out-of-home care providers that threatens the capacity to
provide adequate care in the future. Understandably communities with
limited resources are resistant to choosing more expensive forms of
care since much of juvenile justice is funded at the local level in
Wisconsin. In turn, youth may stay much longer in community-based
services, when a more appropriate placement may be in a residential
setting.
This growing tension between community-based providers and out-of-
home care providers led to a national summit in 2006, called the
Building Bridges Summit hosted by SAMHSA under the direction of Gary
Blau, Ph.D. and Chief of Child, Adolescent and Family Branch, Center
for Mental Health Services. This summit brought together residential
and home and community-based service providers, family members, youth,
national and state policy maker, system of care council members, tribal
representatives and representatives of national associations related to
children's mental health and residential care. The purpose was to
address the historical tensions between residential and community-based
service providers and supports. As a participant, I was surprised at
the strong beliefs among some community-based participants that
residential services were no longer needed in light of community-based
alternatives. This tension is somewhat driven by the competition for
declining resources, a strong belief in a particular level of care and
a lack of understanding and experience. I am pleased to report that
this summit brought about a greater understanding and appreciation
among participants for an appropriate continuum of services and the
need to support the capacity communities have available to provide and
a wide range of services to protect the community and provide treatment
to youth. The outcome of this summit was a joint resolution to Advance
a Statement of Shared Core Principles. (Appendix A)
Of particular concern to this Committee, in my opinion should be
the related impact that JJDPA funding priorities directed to community-
based services has on diminishing the capacity of states, who are
losing money for out of home care or sanction care that result in the
closure of licensed programs. Over the past 45 years of operation,
Rawhide has experienced the direct impact of Federal policy related to
juvenile justice. By way of example, I currently serve on a Commission
appointed by the Governor of Wisconsin that is charged with
recommending the closure of one of two secure juvenile facilities in
the state. Should this happen, Wisconsin could loose 50% of its'
capacity to provide secure detention of juveniles. While a 35% decrease
in juveniles placed at Wisconsin juvenile facilities is worthy of note,
the question remains if this trend will continue at a time when all
programs offered to youth are experiencing diminished funding. In
addition, licensed private non-profit programs are experiencing
increased pressure to close or merge leading to lower capacity for
varying levels of residential care.
The challenge for this committee is to recognize the funding
priorities of JJDPA have contributed to tensions among the continuum of
care and may diminish and put at risk the necessary and capital
intensive infrastructure throughout the nation in the form of out-of-
home or sanction level care. In addition, I feel the lack of agreed
upon measurable outcomes, at each level of care, remains a challenge to
determine the most effective treatment for youth in the juvenile
justice system.
Thank you for allowing me the honor of presenting my testimony this
morning and the opportunity to provide you my insights as practitioner
in the care of juveniles placed in our care. I commend you in your
service to our nation's at-risk youth. I would be happy to entertain
any questions of the committee.
Appendix A
Building Bridges Between Residential and Community Based
Service Delivery Providers, Families and Youth
Joint Resolution to Advance a Statement of Shared Core Principles
[Final Draft August 28, 2006]
PREAMBLE
An exciting and significant step towards transforming the
children's mental health system occurred at the recent Building Bridges
Summit in Omaha, Nebraska on June 14-17, 2006. In order to address
historical tensions between residential and community-based service
providers and systems, a meeting was held to better integrate and link
residential (out-of-home) and community services and supports. The
Summit participants were chosen because of the range of their
experience and knowledge as well as their personal commitment to
ensuring services that are respectful, empowering and effective.
Participants included residential and home and community service
providers, family members, youth, national and state policy makers,
system of care council members, tribal representatives, and
representatives of national associations related to children's mental
health and residential care.
The purpose of the Summit was to:
1. Establish defined areas of consensus, related to values,
philosophies, services and outcomes;
2. Develop a joint statement about the importance of creating a
comprehensive service array for children, youth, and families,
inclusive of residential and out-of-home treatment settings as part of
the entire range of services;
3. Identify emerging best practices in linking and integrating
residential and home and community-based services;
4. Set the stage for strengthening relationships and promoting
consensus building; and
5. Create action steps for the future.
To a large degree the Summit accomplished these goals. Participants
were able to dialogue and learn from each other's perspectives and
experiences. Presentations highlighted positive outcomes from
integrating residential and system of care services. The youth and
family voice was powerful and provided leadership in helping to
establish the emerging vision. A particular accomplishment was that a
Joint Resolution of common purpose, shared principles, values and
practices was developed.
The Joint Resolution identifies an urgent need for transformation
and envisions a comprehensive, flexible family-driven and youth-guided
array of culturally competent and community-based services and
supports, organized in an integrated and coordinated system of care in
which families, youth, providers, advocates, and policymakers share
responsibility for decision making and accountability for the care,
treatment outcomes and well being of children and youth with mental
health needs and their families.
Participants believe that actualizing this vision will yield a more
efficient service delivery system, more effective and appropriate
individualized services to children, youth and families, better use of
resources, and improved outcomes.
The meeting and Joint Resolution represent a new level of unity,
partnership, and collaboration among participating constituencies. A
fundamental principal underlying this resolution is that children,
youth and families are ultimately empowered across all areas. The group
agreed to develop a multi-faceted strategy to promote the
implementation of the Joint Resolution in policy and practice across
the country. Meeting participants hope that the principles, values, and
practices will be adopted and implemented by organizations, local
communities, state and national associations, states, and the federal
government. The Summit and the follow-up plans are evidence of
important, critical new partnerships, and demonstrate a strong
commitment to transforming children's mental health care in America.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Burns, welcome.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT BURNS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Burns. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Kline, members
of the committee, and fellow panelists, I want to thank you
all--especially you, Ms. McClard--for the courage and coming
forward and tell your story.
I appear today on behalf of the National District Attorneys
Association. We represent about 39,000 district attorneys,
state's attorneys, attorneys general, city and county
prosecutors, solicitors who have the responsibility of
prosecuting over 95 percent of all the criminal cases in the
United States.
Juvenile justice remains one of the most important
challenges facing America's criminal justice system. In the
past, too many troubled juveniles who could have been guided by
innovative prevention programs, intervention, and treatment
services fell through the cracks of an overburdened and under-
funded juvenile justice system, leading too many juveniles to a
life of crime.
Senate Bill 678, the Juvenile Justice Delinquency
Prevention Act, would assist state and local governments in
their efforts to reduce juvenile crime through the funding of
prevention programs and activities while authorizing a formula
grant program, a comprehensive juvenile delinquency and
prevention block grant program, and incentive grants for local
delinquency prevention programs.
While NDAA applauds the efforts made by Senator Leahy and
other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to address the
serious problems facing America's juvenile justice system,
within Senate Bill 678, we do have concerns with some of the
framework in this legislation, specifically, mandating that
states be penalized under federal formula grant funding unless
certain benchmarks are met within each states' criminal justice
system regarding the detention of juveniles.
With increased budget challenges felt by state and local
jurisdictions in America, coupled with the shortage of state
and federal detention facilities, it is our hope that a
reasonable amount of flexibility will be allowed for states to
comply in order to not punish other State agencies focused on
juvenile justice services.
During the introduction of Senate Bill 678 to the United
States Senate, Senator Leahy was mindful of these concerns,
stating, ``We must do this with ample consideration for the
fiscal constraints on states, particularly in these lean budget
times, and with deference to the traditional roles of states in
setting their own criminal justice policy.''
The national district attorneys also believe that it is
important to allow states to decide how to both address the
needs of youth in the juvenile justice system, while also
ensuring the safety of the community. It is important for
states to have the flexibility to deal with youth offenders
through a variety of programs, such as community-based
programs, faith-based programs, residential facilities, and
detention centers, depending upon the need of the youth and of
the community.
As an elected state and local prosecutor for almost 16
years, I had the opportunity to appear in juvenile court and at
our juvenile detention center on many occasions. I submit to
you that the goal was, and it is today, to do individual
justice in each case. And I submit to you that, while one can
always find outrageous anecdotes or cases that simply are
outside believability to make a point, in every jurisdiction I
am aware of, juveniles are not incarcerated or taken to
detention for status offense, such as truancy, unless there are
some overriding reasons.
Juveniles are not placed in general population with adult
offenders unless certifies or unless there are certain
overriding reasons. And I should say that the National District
Attorneys Association several years ago passed a resolution
opposing housing juveniles in the same general population as
adult offenders.
Overrepresentation of minorities in the juvenile justice
system, I submit to you, speaking on behalf of district
attorneys, is not a result of intentional discrimination. Any
state and local prosecutor will tell you that, one, we take our
victims and our offenders as we get them. The majority of
victims of minority juvenile crime are also from the minority
population, especially in urban communities. And many juvenile
offenses occur in high-crime areas, where the community has
demanded and received intense police presence to increase
public safety, and because of that increased presence, more
juvenile offenders are apprehended.
This isn't to say that we can't do better, and we should.
In preparation for this hearing, I called DAs from a large
city--Brooklyn, New York--a medium-sized city--Sacramento,
California--and a small city--my hometown of Cedar City, Utah.
Representatives from each of these cities stated that, in sum
and substance, unless a juvenile commits a serious violent
crime, a serious sex crime, or has repeated serious criminal
behavior and simply cannot be controlled--this is them speaking
on behalf of their offices--that it would be extremely rare for
a juvenile to be incarcerated in detention.
Prosecutors and district attorneys have no interest, get no
extra credit, don't notch belts by putting juveniles in
detention or incarcerating them. It is the last option.
Again, I am certain there are examples of when the system
did not work, but the vast majority of cases in the system, we
do find the appropriate solution. While those of us that work
in the criminal justice system can always do better,
improvement and policy discussions should also take place at a
state and local level.
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Kline, members of the
committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you
on this important legislation and will answer any questions
that you may have.
[The statement of Mr. Burns follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott Burns, Esq., Executive Director, National
District Attorneys Association
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Kline, members of the Committee,
thank you for inviting me to testify today on behalf of the National
District Attorneys Association (NDAA), the oldest and largest
organization representing 40,000 district attorneys, state's attorneys,
attorneys general and county and city prosecutors with responsibility
for prosecuting 95% of criminal violations in every state and territory
of the United States.
Juvenile justice remains one of the most important challenges
facing America's criminal justice system. When juveniles commit crimes
and enter into America's criminal justice system, each step juveniles
are processed through will affect their perception and respect--or lack
thereof--for law and order for the rest of their lives. In the past,
too many troubled juveniles who could have been guided by innovative
prevention, intervention and treatment services instead fell through
the cracks of an overburdened and under funded juvenile justice system,
leading too many juveniles to a full-time life of crime.
S. 678, The Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA),
would assist State and local governments in their efforts to reduce
juvenile crime through the funding of prevention programs and
activities while authorizing a formula grant program, a comprehensive
juvenile delinquency and prevention block grant program, and incentive
grants for local delinquency prevention programs.
While NDAA applauds the efforts made by Senator Leahy and other
members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to address serious problems
facing America's juvenile justice system within S. 678, we do have
concerns with some of the framework in this legislation; specifically,
mandating that States will be penalized under federal formula grant
funding unless certain benchmarks are met within each States' criminal
justice system regarding the detention of juveniles. With increased
budget challenges felt by State and local jurisdictions in America,
coupled with the shortage of State and federal detention facilities, it
is our hope that a reasonable amount of flexibility will be allowed for
States to comply in order to not punish other State agencies focused on
juvenile justice services. During his introduction of S. 678 to the
United States Senate, Senator Leahy was mindful of these concerns,
stating ``We must do this with ample consideration for the fiscal
constraints on States, particularly in these lean budget times, and
with deference to the traditional role of states in setting their own
criminal justice policy.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/
?r111IouwDd:e18913:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDAA also believes it is important to allow States to decide how to
both address the needs of youth in the juvenile justice system, while
also ensuring the safety of the community. It is important for States
to have the flexibility to deal with youth offenders through a variety
of programs, such as community-based programs, faith-based programs,
residential facilities, and detention centers, depending on the needs
of the youth and of the community.
NDAA would also like to applaud the efforts made in S. 678 to
authorize additional resources to enhance substance abuse services for
juveniles, including evidence-based or promising prevention and
intervention programs for youth. Due in large part to my service as
Deputy Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control
Policy (ONDCP), I've seen countless examples of juveniles who have lost
their way due to the affects of substance abuse--both by themselves and
by their immediate family. It has been reported that 80% of juveniles
that enter into America's juvenile justice system have been connected
to substance abuse,\2\ and it remains no secret that the lifeblood of
gangs in America is through the sale of illegal drugs into our
communities; significant examples of how dangerous substance abuse and
the culture surrounding illegal drugs are towards America's
impressionable youth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/
?r111IouwDd:e18913:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an elected State and local prosecutor for almost 16 years, I had
the opportunity to appear in juvenile court and at our Juvenile
Detention Center on many occasions. I submit to you that the goal was,
and is today, to do individual justice in each case. I also submit to
you that, while one can always find an outrageous anecdote to try and
make a point, in every jurisdiction I am aware of juveniles are not
incarcerated or taken to detention for status offenses such as truancy
or runaways; juveniles are not placed into general population with
adult offenders; and the ``Overrepresentation of Minorities in the
Juvenile Justice system'', is not a result of intentional
discrimination. Any State and local prosecutor will tell anyone that
will listen that:
(a) Prosecutors take victims and offenders as they receive them;
(b) The majority of victims of minority juvenile crime are also
from the minority population in urban communities, and;
(c) Many juvenile offenses occur in high crime areas, where the
community has demanded and received intense police presence to increase
public safety, and because of that increased presence more juvenile
offenders are apprehended.
This isn't to say we can't do better--and we should. In preparation
for this hearing, I called DA's from a large city (Brooklyn, New York),
a medium-sized city (Sacramento, California) and a small city (my
hometown of Cedar City, Utah; population 30,000). Representatives from
each of these cities stated, in sum and substance, that unless a
juvenile commits a serious violent crime, a serious sex crime or has
repeated serious criminal behavior and simply cannot be controlled,
that it would be extremely rare for a juvenile to be incarcerated in
detention.
With the foregoing in mind, States must have the latitude to use
all of the tools in the criminal justice system and prosecutors,
defenders and judges must have to freedom to craft individual sanctions
in order to protect the victim, the community and the juvenile
offender. Again, I am certain there are examples of when the system did
not work, but in the vast majority of cases the system does work and
placing restrictions upon those that are ``on the front line and know
their business'' is not helpful. While those of us that work in the
criminal justice system can always do better, improvement and policy
discussions should also take place at a state and local level.
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Kline, members of the Committee, I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you on this important
legislation and will answer any questions that you may have.
______
Chairman Miller. Thank you very much.
And thank you to all of you for your testimony.
Judge Teske, in your recitation of the changes that have
been made in Clayton County, Georgia, the rather dramatic drops
in various segments of the population in the referrals, the
detention, and sort of across the board, and if I heard your
testimony correctly, this was really about getting people
together in the system to look at what they were doing and
whether it was--I guess whether it was working, what it was
costing, and what were the results for the juveniles and for
the system.
And I think it was Mr. Belton's case, you also suggested
that the same thing happened in Ramsey County, that when people
got together and analyzed the system, you saw some dramatic
changes in the number of detentions and upfront referrals and
apparently some drop in the crime rate, part of what we may be
experiencing nationally, at that same time.
And also, apparently, finally, looking at the data to see
what you were doing with what populations and what the results
were, dramatic results doesn't sound like a really difficult
thing to do, except apparently a lot of other jurisdictions
aren't doing it, and the process just continues.
And I would just with you might take a moment, because I
think it goes to an issue raised by Mr. Solberg, which was, as
jurisdictions are in tough economic times and trying to figure
out how to parse the population here, if you are just taking an
unnecessary incoming population, you are going to lose--you are
going to lose your ability to manage it in the most effective
way, both in terms of crime prevention, reducing detention, and
maybe dealing with more serious offenders.
Judge Teske. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. You have summed
it up. The dramatic reductions are based upon getting the
stakeholders together.
And I would like to just lay a really brief foundation. If
you think about what the juvenile justice system is, you cannot
analyze it by looking only at the juvenile court system or
looking at any state or county agency that is named a
department of juvenile justice.
When you look at what causes kids to commit delinquent
acts, there are primarily six delinquent-producing needs. And
if you take those six needs and link them up to those entities
and people in the community that could address those needs, you
find that the juvenile justice system is much bigger than what
we call juvenile justice. And----
Chairman Miller. Hence your discussion of the school
referrals.
Judge Teske. Schools is but one, and they are especially
important, Mr. Chairman, because the first research shows that
the best protective factor or buffer against delinquency is the
family. The second one is being connected to the school.
That means we have to involve social services, mental
health, the school system. They are all the juvenile justice
system. And we have to start thinking outside the box and
bringing them together.
The real question is where the rubber hits the road is, how
do you do that? And as a juvenile judge, unlike judges in adult
courts, juvenile judges have a legal and a moral obligation to
not only judge on the bench, but when they step off the bench,
to engage those community stakeholders, bring them together,
because the juvenile court is the intersection of the juvenile
justice system. And I have often said the juvenile judge should
be the traffic cop to make it happen.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Belton, you ended up--in your
testimony, you talk about the daily population of the youth of
color in detention. There was a reduction of some 65 percent.
Again, did you look at the income? What was the data you used
to reduce that number?
Mr. Belton. Well, we used a JDAI strategy called a RAI.
This is a risk assessment tool and objective instrument to
determine who gets into our detention center, who gets released
outright to their parent, and who goes to a community-based
detention alternative.
This risk assessment instrument was developed through a
collaborative process of all of the justice stakeholders in
Ramsey County, including impacted communities of color. And in
addition, police, the county attorney's office, corrections,
the juvenile bench, everyone was represented and everyone has a
stake in this risk assessment instrument.
It was a huge risk for us. And I want to also say that this
kind of collaborative effort is relatively new in juvenile
justice, and it is hard work, and it takes a lot of focus and a
lot of energy, a lot of meetings for us to come up--and a lot
of compromise for us to come up with the instrument.
Chairman Miller. I am going to--I am going to pose a
conclusion. I am running out of time. But this kind of upfront
work seems to me has the ability to then allow the system to
concentrate on young people that may, in fact, be dangerous to
themselves or to others, that may, in fact, be a serious
criminal matter, and I think it goes to the question of--if you
want to comment, Mr. Solberg--on trying to use these monies
more efficiently so that you can then focus on the kinds of
treatments that you are discussing.
Mr. Solberg. Yes, I think a lot of it comes down--a lot of
it comes down to the appropriate assessment at intake, when you
are working with the youths, to understand what those issues
are and to understand the supports that are in place, as was
referenced earlier, looking at the protective factors, as well
as the risk factors that are present in that youth, and then
looking for the appropriate level of care, and then, at the
same time, measuring outcomes.
I think, again, as I stated earlier, you know, to basically
ensure that you have a system that returning youth to the
community in a way that promotes safety and the health and the
safety and the welfare of young people. It is making sure that
we have agreed-upon outcomes that we can all look at and be
able to make judgments as to whether programs are truly
effective.
Chairman Miller. Thank you. I will come back on the second
round. But the point of this is that there is a lot of
discussion going on now, certainly in the business community,
various--scientific community about mining data, and what do
you learn about complex organizations if you really pull the
data apart? And how do you see what the best use is for
whatever purposes?
And as I look at some of the reviews of various
jurisdictions across the country, it appears that some of them
have rather successfully--even in this sort of first
iteration--been able to mine that data, to pull this population
apart, and start to make distinctions and really develop a much
more efficient system, both in terms of the future of young
people that are caught up in this system, but also in terms of
the cost and then making these kinds of determinations.
But I will stop there. Mr. Kline or you--Mr. Petri, I don't
know. It is you. It is you. Okay, Mr. Kline?
Mr. Kline. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could beg
your indulgence and ask that Dr. Roe go first, he has got to
leave. Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Dr. Roe?
Mr. Roe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for being here. And listening to this
panel has been fascinating to me, because you see and deal
with--and those of you who get young people into the juvenile
justice system, to Mr. Burns, who has to decide whether to
prosecute them, changes a life. And I will give you an example.
One of the criminals that lived in my house egged a
principal's house when he was in eighth grade and ended up in
front of the juvenile judge and had to write 1,000 times, ``I
will never throw an egg again,'' I mean, and he didn't throw an
egg again, all the way to this weekend that we had a 16-year-
old who allegedly or apparently killed his grandparents.
So you all see every variation of that and have to make a
determination. And what Ms. McClard saw was a failure at both
ends. A bad decision was made, and then a bad system made it
worse.
You all hold the balance of our youths' lives in their
hands. And I think it is--I mean, that is our future. And some
of these kids are going to turn out like, Mr. Davis, Vicky. I
would only argue that she shouldn't have gone to Eastern
Kentucky University. It is one of our rivals.
But other than that, she made--that is a great story here
about how this young person--I don't know how many obstacles
she overcame to get where she is, but she is going to be a
productive citizen, and you all hold in your hands in this
system, are we doing it right? Does this person go down this
path or do they go down this path?
And we know what this path is. This is a path of
incarceration, failure, death, whatever. This other path is a
meaningful life and a productive citizen. And I don't know the
right way to do it.
And, Mr. Belton, I wanted to ask you, on the racial
disparity, that concerned me because everyone should be treated
the same. If the--whatever the problem is, it shouldn't make
any difference what color or your religious background or
anything else. What do you attribute that to? What did you--was
it racism? Or was it--as Mr. Burns said, maybe police presence
in a community. Or what do you attribute it to?
Mr. Belton [continuing]. I keep forgetting, Chairman
Miller.
I attribute it to just sort of the culture that has
developed in juvenile justice. I think during the late 1980s
and the early 1990s, juvenile justice really hardened up, and
we had a lot of practices that I think were much more in
keeping or mirrored our adult system.
And in terms of disparities, I am not here to make blame. I
am not here to--and that is not a part of my work at all. It is
really looking at our systems, really looking at our results,
looking at our data, and looking how kids are treated
differentially.
I am not entirely sure how this happened. But I just think
we have a culture within juvenile justice that produces these
results and we have to do something to get a different result.
Mr. Roe. See, I think what you all do are some of the most
important things we do in our society, because a lot of kids
get off rail. They get off track in their life. And you don't
want a bad decision made by a youngster--12, 13, 14, 15 years
old--to affect the next 50 years, which it will, because you
are going to make some bad decisions in your life. Anybody that
says they hadn't is lying, I can tell you that.
And I believe that, Judge, you have as a juvenile justice--
I was a mayor of our city before I came here, a city of 60,000.
I think the juvenile judge has the hardest job. And you as a
prosecutor, Mr. Burns, for juveniles have the hardest job of
all, because you are making decisions that are going to affect
the next 60, 70 years. You put a criminal in at 70 years old,
it is not going to affect anything very long.
So I don't know how you fix this system and make it better
and more amenable. I agree there needs to be less
institutionalization certainly of the non-violent kids. There
is no reason in the world to have them in. At home, we have a
place called Free Will Baptist Ministries that houses, much
like Mr. Solberg's do in Wisconsin. And it has been very
successful.
When you give kids--and the reason they are there, no child
shows up at your place if that is their first option, but
everything else has failed or they are not there. Every other
system has failed. School has failed. Family has failed.
Everything else has failed. So you are really a last resort.
And that is an awesome responsibility.
And I think maybe we should do more of that. And certainly
for the violent offenders, that is a different situation. But
for the non-violent ones, there is a chance to salvage these
kids. And I don't know the right answer. I will just let you
chime in, if you would, Mr. Solberg.
Mr. Solberg. Well, I think, you know, the response that,
you know, a local government or a community takes to respond
to, you know, the appropriate care for youth is going to be
really a level of commitment that individual organization takes
to making changes.
And I would agree that things like status offense and
smaller types of things are things that really don't resolve--
or needs the kind of care that you would find in either
detention or even a residential facility.
There are issues. In Wisconsin, for example, we have state
statutes that really stand in the way of having status
offenders be referred into some type of a detention center, so
some of it comes down to states and also funding.
Some of the things that local governments have are the
pressures that come along with responding to types of cares
that would involve more expenses at the local level. So there
are some logistical things that exist within states that stand
in the way of some of the things that you are talking about.
Mr. Roe. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, thanks for
holding this very important meeting.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Polis?
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank our distinguished panel, in
particular, Ms. McClard. I know it always takes particular
courage to share such a personal story, in your case, such a
powerful story, and I really appreciate you sharing that with
our committee and with our country.
School failure is clearly a major factor that contributes
to juvenile crime and the cycle of juvenile crime. Of the
approximately 150,000 youth offenders incarcerated in juvenile
facilities, about 75 percent are high-school dropouts and lack
basic literacy skills to become gainfully employed. The median
reading level for a 15-year-old offender is at the fourth-grade
level. Nearly one-third, actually, 15-year-olds in juvenile
justice are at below the fourth-grade level.
It is estimated that from between 12 percent and 17 percent
of youth currently confined are eligible for special ed under
IDEA. However, I know that many kids in jails have limited or
no access to a high school education.
One of the few rays of light come from charter schools. I
am the sponsor of a bill, the ALL-STAR Act, H.R. 4330, that
would allow for successful charter schools to expand and
replicate.
And I want to bring the committee's attention and your
attention to two charter schools in my district that have
innovative programs. One is called Boulder Preparatory Academy.
Boulder Preparatory Academy was founded by five juvenile
justice professionals as a way to help the large percentage of
youth entering the juvenile justice system who didn't have
viable education plans. Many of the students had been
suspended, expelled, or had dropped out of school.
In 1996, Boulder Prep started serving 12 students in the
probation conference room at the justice center. The school as
granted a charter by Boulder Valley School District in 1997,
greeted 25 students that year, and enrichment has increased by
20 percent each year. It now serves over 100 students and has
moved into a permanent facility in Boulder.
It was created to serve primarily expelled, suspended and
adjudicated youth. And without objection, I would like to
submit a more detailed description of Boulder Preparatory
Academy to the record.
I would also like to share with the committee and the panel
another charter school in the Boulder area called Justice High
School. Justice High School is an even smaller school that was
created for at-risk youth who are disconnected from traditional
schools because of juvenile delinquency, drugs, alcohol, or
other factors, provides the students with a structured academic
setting, and its philosophy is that these at-risk youth can
become successful if given an opportunity in a structured
environment.
And I would like to submit some additional information
about Justice High to the record.
[The information follows:]
[Additional submissions of Mr. Polis follow:]
Boulder Prep High School
Where Youth-At-Risk Become Youth-Of-Promise
Background
The mission of Boulder Preparatory High School is to help youth-at-
risk transform into college bound youth-of-promise. The school was
founded by five juvenile justice professionals when they discovered
that 75% of the 800 youth entering the Juvenile Justice System did not
have viable educational plans. The school started in 1997 with 12
students in a jury room at the Boulder County Courthouse and now serves
over 180 students annually between the ages of 14-20; 57% are youth of
color and 52% come from low-income homes.
About The Students
Imagine * * * an 18 year old young man who was sexually abused by
his step-father, a 17 year old girl addicted to cocaine, three sisters
whose father is in prison for murder, a junior in high school with 4th
grade skills, and a 15 year old transgendered male * * *
These are only a few of the stories that students have at Boulder
Preparatory High School. Most schools would turn these students away or
give up on them. At Boulder Prep we see the potential in each student
and foster a transformation that most think is impossible.
How do we do it:
We are a SMALL public school serving any student looking for a
college preparatory education in a safe environment with people who
care. Our classes average 15 students NOT 40. Staff know each and every
student by name. Classes are fun yet challenging, and students must
earn a C- or better to pass the class. Rigorous academics focus on
skill building for college. A ``Life Skills'' program prepares students
for their social responsibilities in the world community. As schools
become more segregated, we continue to have a balance of ethnicities
with no group in a majority. Most importantly, 98% of the students feel
that at least one staff member cares about him or her.
The Results:
All graduates are accepted to college before receiving
their diplomas.
60% of graduates are enrolled in post-secondary programs.
ACT (American College Test) Scores are at or above the
national average.
Students earn college credit while in high school.
Service learning requirement gets students to give back to
the community.
Other communities want to replicate the Boulder Prep
model.
______
BPHS Accountability Report
2008/2009 School Year
School Goals:
1. Increase Academic Proficiency
2. Increase Participation in School
3. Maintain 100% college acceptance for graduates
Measurement and Reporting:
In order to validate the Boulder Prep mission, we collect
independent, local and national data on standardized tests as well as
self reported data to share with our extended community and students.
When students are aware that they are improving and are
``statistically'' as prepared as other college bound freshman, they
engage their education more effectively. Below you will find the
independent data, the organizations that collect them, how we document
our improvements and how our students compare to others.
1. Increase Academic Proficiency
A. WRAT 4--As part of the enrollment process students with no
previous ACT score and/or less than 100 credits will take the WRAT 4 to
get baseline proficiency data. If students are below 9th grade
proficiency they enroll in Direct Instruction classes and get re-tested
when appropriate until they reach high school proficiency for reading
and math.
i. Summary:
a. Process Data: Number of students that participated in Direct
Instruction in 08/09 = 65
b. Process Data: Number of contact hours in 08/09 = 2667
c. Outcome Data: Students improved on average 1 grade levels per 14
hours of instruction.
d. Longitudinal Data:
e. Sample Improvements:
Juan improved from 4th grade math to high school algebra
and 7th grade reading to 10th grade reading in one year with 124 hours
of direct instruction.
Ivan started at 5th grade math and improved four grade
levels after 65 hours of instruction.
Samantha received 40 hours of instruction and improved 3
grade levels in math.
B. ACT--For students performing at or above high school level
proficiency, the ACT is used to measure academic progress. The Junior
ACT is used as a baseline measurement and subsequent national tests are
used to show improvements.
i. Summary:
a. Process Data: 55% of 2009 graduates scored at or above the
national average on the ACT. The average ACT score for the Boulder Prep
class of 2009 was 20.1.
b. Outcome Data: 2009 graduates improved on average 2 points
between their lowest and highest ACT scores.
c. Outcome Data: Students tested as juniors in 2008 improved their
scores on average by 0.2 points when they tested as seniors in 2009.
State average improvements were 0.6 points.
d. Longitudinal Data:
*The number of seniors is based on the ACT School Profile Report.
Not all seniors complete their graduation requirements on time, so this
is the reason for the lower number of graduates reported in the table
above. Boulder Prep has high standards for graduation and seniors who
do not finish on time can continue until they complete the
requirements, transfer to another school, take the GED, or dropout.
2. Increase Participation in School
A. Transcript data is used to show increased participation. The
number of credits completed in one semester at the student's previous
school is used as baseline data. This will be compared to the number of
credits earned at Boulder Prep for the most recent two blocks.
i. Summary Format:
a. Outcome Data: 90% of students had improved grades since being at
Boulder Prep.
b. Outcome Data: 84% of students reported having better attendance
since being at Boulder Prep.
3. All graduates accepted to a post-secondary institution
A. Copies of acceptance letters must be turned in before student
can receive diploma
i. Summary:
a. Process Data: In 2009, all graduates were accepted to college.
b. Longitudinal Data: Due to financial obstacles students take 18-
24 months to enroll in a post-secondary program.
4. School Climate and Snapshot Data
A. Boulder Prep is proud of the positive learning environment that
has been created at the school. Beyond academics, the school has
created a healthy and safe school community where students feel
accepted and supported. The data from the student climate survey shows
that Boulder Prep scored above the school district in nearly all areas.
The results from the parent and staff snapshot surveys were also
favorable. There were areas where scores went down between 2008 and
2009. The administration and the staff have had extensive conversations
about the decline and are actively implementing strategies to
strengthen the overall school climate.
Boulder Preparatory High School Program Descriptions
Stories Program
Each morning a staff member, student, or guest speaker shares a
story, song, poem, or current event that addresses an important life
skill or lesson.
Breakfast Program
Fruit and breakfast snacks are provided for free to all students
every morning. This ensures that students have adequate nourishment for
the day.
Direct Instruction
SRA Direct Instruction (intensive tutoring) is provided for
students below grade level to help them reach grade-level proficiency
in reading, spelling, and/or math.
Service Learning Program
Students participate in a Service Learning Class where they prepare
lunch for the whole school and volunteer at Community Food Share and
Cultiva Gardens.
Arts Program
Students have the opportunity to express their creativity through
art history, painting, drawing, dance, or video and music production.
Family Outreach
Boulder Preparatory High School hosts four community events per
year for families and community members to meet staff members and learn
more about the school.
Personalized Interventions
Interventionists are available to help students with academic or
personal issues that may arise.
Life Skills Program
Every Friday, students spend the day learning valuable life skills.
Sample topics include: Study Skills, Time Management, Health and
Nutrition, Diversity Training, Gender Issues, and Current Events.
ACT Incentive Program
Students participate in an ACT Prep class. They can earn
scholarship money for every point they improve on the ACT (American
College Test).
College Prep Class
Seniors participate in a college prep class where they research
post-secondary options, complete college applications, financial aid
forms, and scholarships applications.
Concurrent Enrollment Program
Students can take college courses through CU Denver while enrolled
at Boulder Preparatory High School.
American Indian Focus Program
Native American students can enroll in culturally relevant classes
including Lakota Language and Culture, 500 Nations, and Native American
Arts. American Indian youth learn more about their cultures while also
sharing their traditions with other students in a safe and respectful
environment.
Trustee Scholarship Program
The Boulder Prep Board of Trustees and Faculty have created a
scholarship program. Funds are raised throughout the year and
scholarships for various achievements are awarded at graduation.
______
------
Justice High School
The mission of Justice High School is to provide year round college
prep education for all enrolled Boulder Valley and St. Vrain Valley
students. Justice High School's curriculum and program design is ideal
for at risk youth who are disconnected from the traditional school
system because of juvenile delinquency, drugs and alcohol, alienation,
or other factors. Justice High provides its students with a structured
academic setting with high expectations. Justice High's philosophy is
that these `at risk' youth can become successful if given an
opportunity and structured environment.
The school's program provides instruction using the AP model.
Justice High's educational program will allow students attending full
time to finish their high school requirements within two to three
years. Justice High School does not discriminate in its hiring
practices or its admission of students. Justice High gives each student
the opportunity to grow into respectful adults who will have the
knowledge, will, and self-esteem to succeed in college and life.
Justice High School prepares its students for college and the
professional environment by requiring students to read, comprehend, and
write effectively. Students are taught how to do presentations, and do
college level math and science. Justice High uses the college prep
FIRAC method. Students analyze the key facts, issues, rules, and
formulate conclusions of the material. All of these skills are
necessary for success in College and the business world.
All Justice High students must be accepted into three colleges
prior to graduation, take and pass two college level courses and pass
their ACT scores with an 18 or above. Justice High provides all
students the opportunity to pursue professional opportunities through
its Real Estate, Hospitality, and Dental Assistants programs. Students
can also seek certificates in a variety of other fields like
cosmetology, auto mechanics and construction. Justice High also
requires its students to do community service work and participate in
extracurricular activities to learn teamwork and collegiality.
Justice High supports its students' postsecondary aspirations
through seven in-house scholarships and post-graduate tutoring
services. Justice High also has a college program where students can
take college classes for significantly reduced tuition.
Justice High promotes academic excellence by setting the academic
bar high for its students. Students are taught everyday that academics
are the key to their futures and that to graduate from Justice High
they will have to master the five skills that are necessary to be
successful in the business and college worlds. Students are taught to
think creatively and to incorporate a sense of community into their
education. At-risk students need to have negative labels taken off and
positive ones put into place. Justice High does this by requiring its
students to take rigorous classes and pass two college-level courses.
______
[The Justice High video may be accessed at the following
Internet address:]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQLgZ981D3E
------
Mr. Polis. So clearly, if we have these kinds of
opportunities, we can help kids get back on track. Minors need
access to quality academic and educational programs, and
frequently, those represent the last opportunity to prepare
them for successful transition into society.
So my question is for Mr. Davis--and then we will open it
up to anybody else who cares to address it--as someone who has
worked nationally with successful initiatives like GEAR UP and
TRIO--and I had the chance to visit TRIO at the University of
Colorado just 2 days ago--I would like you to discuss the
availability and quality of effective educational services for
kids, such as charter schools, district programs, community
college outreach programs, TRIO, GEAR UP, and offer us any
recommendations on improving federal law and support in this
critical area.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Polis, first, I would like to
say that education in the Kentucky Department of Juvenile
Justice is one of our primary objectives. We have a unique
situation where, in each residential county that we have a
facility--residential, group home, or detention--the schools
provide us educators in our facilities to directly work with
young people.
And so we have cases every day of young people who make up
a year or 2 years of education from the time that they are with
us, so that when they do return to the community, they are
actually prepared to re-enter and be successful.
As an educator, as a person who works with education
programs, and as a person who was failed by education as a
young person, I know how important it is for education to be a
piece of the success puzzle for these young people. In fact,
GEAR UP and TRIO programs are a strong model.
My staff--education staff at our central offices--has
actually started a process of working and negotiating with the
GEAR UP program in our state to see if we can provide services,
because I know that crucial link is there.
Any educational opportunity we can provide for these young
people, a chance to be successful without the possibility of
failure, which I think really does happen, if we are paying
attention. Unfortunately, I have heard horror stories of places
and I have experienced places where, once a young person has
made a mistake, they are eliminated from any possibility of
success, and that is a real challenge, because all the data
that you have mentioned, all of the statistics state that a
young person--most young people that find themselves into the
system have been failed by education.
If we don't find a way to reclaim them to provide them some
educational strength, they cannot possibility survive any way
other than they have been surviving up to that point. And so
any educational resources we can provide, any opportunity to
create more direct and, I think, intentional--because a lot of
what we have done with education has been ancillary,
accidental, because agencies have decided this is necessary,
but I think there needs to be clear focus and intention on
providing strong education for the young people that we meet.
Very often, we find teachers who have been censured or
served questionably in their own schools, the ones that
superintendents and communities like to offer up to us in
juvenile justice or in alternative settings. And one of the
things that we push back very hard on, particularly in
Kentucky, is that we won't accept your cast-offs. We want the
kind of teachers that make results just like you do, and we
think that our results are necessary, because it keeps the
entire community safe and it moves the whole community forward.
And so we absolutely believe that education is key to
successful transition back into the community for these young
people.
Mr. Polis. Thank you. Yield back.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Kline?
Mr. Kline. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank the witnesses.
And, Mr. Chairman, I must say, this is an outstanding panel
of witnesses that we have today, really, really experts.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Kline. We very much appreciate your time here today,
your testimony, and your frank answers to our questions. As you
probably notice, you have members coming and going. It is just
a horrible way that we do business in Congress. There are a
piece of legislation that are being voted on even as we speak
in other committees, and it is just part of the turmoil that we
live in. And, again, we are grateful for your patience with
that.
I am delighted to have somebody from Minnesota here. Any
time we get a Minnesotan, I am excited, but I mean--because
every once in a while, I need that to kind of dispel the idea
out there that we all live in igloos and there is really only
three or four of us or something like that, so nice to have you
here, Mr. Belton.
In fact, let me start with you, if I might. You expressed
concern--I believe you said little progress can be made if
Congress doesn't strengthen the DMC core requirements. And yet
you made great progress without that strengthening. Why do you
think that other places can't do what you have done? I know
they are not all Minnesotans, but why do you think that we need
this federal legislation in order to get other people to
exercise the same sort of initiative that you and the system in
Minnesota has taken?
Mr. Belton. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Kline, because
they are not all above average like we are. [Laughter.]
Mr. Kline. There is a Lake Wobegon.
Mr. Belton. On the serious side, I am not contending that
others can't. But what we have found locally is that the
ability to do this work really hinges upon leadership, okay,
very intentional, dedicated leadership, and putting in the
right tools.
We happen to be fortunate to have had the opportunity to
become a JDAI jurisdiction about 5 years ago. And JDAI handed
us the tools and the language and the framework to begin this
work. And we became a JDAI county because we were concerned
about Minnesota's--and in Ramsey County, because we were a
major contributor--Minnesota's horrible, shameful
disproportionality.
We intentionally--our leadership intentionally--and this is
leadership at all levels, you know, talking about leadership on
the county level, leadership at the state level, the judicial
leadership, corrections, our community people, step forward and
said, ``We have to do something different.''
Mr. Kline. I guess my--if I could interrupt for just a
second----
Mr. Belton. Sure. I am sorry.
Mr. Kline [continuing]. I guess my point is that you were
allowed the flexibility to take the actions that you took, and
it was a question--as the point you are making is, it was
leadership that did it. It wasn't a matter of statute.
Mr. Belton. Right.
Mr. Kline. And so I am not--I am just--what I want to be
careful of is, when we pass laws here, we need to make sure
that we are not restricting, you know, Ramsey County or any
other county's ability to adapt and exercise that leadership to
get the job done.
Mr. Belton. Right, I understand. I am sorry. I got a little
far afield here.
I think by just strengthening the JJDPA, that that does not
restrict anyone, but it allows some frameworks for
jurisdictions that are not JDAI jurisdictions, that don't know
where to start, that don't have an idea as to how to crack this
seemingly uncrackable nut, how to begin and do this work.
This is offering guidelines and tools for these
jurisdictions that don't have these guidelines and tools.
Mr. Kline. Okay, thank you. My time is going to expire
here, and I had a whole bunch of questions for a whole bunch of
people.
Mr. Solberg, I am fascinated by the Rawhide ranch. And you
indicated that this was built around a family environment,
which we know is broken down in many, many places, and many,
many of the folks who have entered the system simply don't have
that family environment.
Can you just kind of talk--you have sort of created one
there. Can you talk about what those day-to-day experiences
might be within this family unit?
Mr. Solberg. Sure. Thank you, Ranking Member Kline.
We have seven boys homes. And of those seven, five have
family live-in model, in which a house parent couple lives in
the home and provides--really, by providing a role model for
the youth and role-playing exactly what it means to be a
husband, what it means to be a father, what it means to be a
man. We have learned that young men observe--they learn a lot
by what they observe.
And so as they see this model before them, it is an active
example for them to understand the act of what it means to be a
father. Many of our youth will say to some of our house
fathers, ``Is this what it means to be a father?'' Because they
have grown up most of their life without any father role model
example.
And so this is a declining trend. I mean, we are really
among the few that remain in the nation that continue to stay
with the family live-in model. It is a difficult model to
continue to sustain because of demands on a marriage, on a
couple, to--and they both have to be equally qualified to do
this type of work.
And so many have moved away from a family model to more
staff or shift type of work, but that really breaks down, you
know, I think the effectiveness of any program, as you are
working with young men who are trying to build trust with the
staff and understand that they are safe and that they are cared
for. Those are really the motives behind this type of model,
because it opens up the opportunity to really have them
disclose some of the issues that have gone in their past.
As we are able to develop more trust with the young men,
they are able to open up and share about things in their past
and really about the trauma that, in many cases, lies at the
very foundation of their behaviors. And as we are able to
understand what that hurt is and be able to expose that and be
able to treat that in relative therapeutic environments, those
young men, you know, really are set free in a lot of ways from
future behaviors.
Mr. Kline. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Judge Teske, you indicated the importance of looking at six
underlying factors. Can you talk about that for a minute?
Judge Teske. Yes, sir. Based upon about 40 years of
research, beginning in the late 1970s, it has been determined
that it is--the social scientific name is criminogenic needs,
but the risk factors include cognition, attitudes, values and
beliefs, your peers--you know, are they anti-social friends--
weak problem-solving skills, school connectedness, education,
substance abuse, and family function.
And the importance of those, Mr. Scott, is that when we
develop--when we assess kids, we are trying to look to see how
many of those delinquent-producing needs they possess. And
there are assessment tools to help to determine that.
And then the next step is to design a treatment plan around
only those delinquent-producing needs they possess. And usually
the high-risk offenders--the high-risk offenders will always
have two or more, possess two or more.
And then lastly, Mr. Scott, you have to make sure the
program is based on what Mr. Solberg was saying, and that is
that it is evidence-based, that we do know that they work, such
as multi-systemic therapy, family functional therapy, cognitive
restructuring programming. And then other things incidental to
that could help out and build a family, such as wraparound
services.
Mr. Scott. Well, Mr. Solberg mentioned the importance of
being evidence-based. Are there enough programs out there that
are evidence-based as opposed to slogan-or poll-tested based to
work with, so that we could focus our money on only those
things that actually work, on enough things that work?
Judge Teske. Well, yes, sir. I mean, fact--I am just going
to be blunt about it. Just Google it. Just Google what works,
community corrections, okay? Let me go ahead and steer you to
Dr. Ed Latessa at the University of Cincinnati who is one of
the leading researchers, among others, in the world on this
topic.
And you will--you will have all the evidence-based on what
works--you know what? They will even tell you via Google what
doesn't work, okay?
And I hate to put it that way, but what bothers me, Mr.
Scott--and I have to say, I spent 10 years as a parole officer
in the streets of Atlanta, and I was deputy director of the
state board of parole in charge of programming, it is out
there, and it bothers me why so many juvenile justice
practitioners aren't researching it.
Mr. Scott. Well, part of it--I think you can--you are
looking at us as the problem, and in similar legislation I have
introduced, we have put evidence-based in the bill, which is I
think somewhat insulting that you would have to put that, you
know, as opposed to, what else would you spend your money on?
But for the reasons you have outlined, I guess we need to put
it in there, that your money ought to be placed in evidence-
based initiatives.
Is there any way that you can have a successful program,
Judge, without it being comprehensive?
Judge Teske. The answer is, no, it has to be comprehensive.
In fact, Mr. Scott, when you look at, what are the
characteristics of effective programs, you will find that they
have to be long in duration, at least--some say 6 months, but
the real good studies show at least 8 months and longer. You
have to take up 70 percent of the youth's time with pro-social,
you know, activities, after-school programming.
With that--and I can keep going with the list, but you can
see, members, that that is comprehensive and that is where
collaboration comes in, because it takes all the entities,
including citizens and advocates in the community, coming
together to tie all of these things to bring these
comprehensive activities, to tie up kids' time in a pro-social
way.
And lastly, Mr. Scott, may I say, to deference to Mr.
Solberg, that even as a judge, when I do have that smaller
targeted population that do present a higher risk to the
community and they have to be treated outside the community--
and may I say, that is a smaller population, okay--I do prefer
programs that are residential as opposed to secure confinement
for the reasons that have been stated here.
Mr. Scott. Well, you have indicated what happens after the
juvenile gets in trouble. What kind of approaches should be
designed so they don't get in trouble in the first place?
Judge Teske. Mr. Scott, there needs to be what I call a
single point of entry in communities. In Clayton County, we
have what is called a CCCCST, the Clayton County Child
Collaborative Study Team. It is a multidisciplinary panel that
meets every week.
All systems--primarily the school system--refers kids to
this multidisciplinary panel that has a psychologist, a mental
health worker, the director of the Department of Family and
Children Services, the kids counselor, social worker. It is
moderated by a staff member from my court.
And what they do is they assess the child who is at-risk,
who are doing things--let's say what I call the chronically
disruptive Johnny, okay? Well, rather than suspending the kid
from school--I mean, gee, who would ever think that keeping
kids in school would actually increase the rate of graduation?
Well, maybe we need to come up with better alternatives by
bringing the community together, the people who are already
there. The real problem is--and not to blame these--people
operate in individual silos. You can't blame DFCS--in Georgia,
we call DFCS social services, the school system--they have got
their own mandated budgets and rules and regulations. God help
them, okay? Help them see outside the box. Somebody has to do
it. And they need to be incentivized to do it.
How can they--how can they be incentivized? Gee,
reauthorization. Include something in there. Help us out.
And to what Mr. Kline--great question, Mr. Kline. It is
about leadership. But sometimes you have to look at each state.
They are different, different government structures that
operate differently, and sometimes you get rural versus urban,
and people get stuck, and they just need a little help. That is
all. They just need a little help.
There are great professionals out there. I have a lot of
fantastic colleagues on the judicial bench, but we have
different philosophies sometimes, but they are great people. We
all need a little help.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Guthrie?
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
First, Ms. McClard, thank you so much for coming today. I
know it is difficult. And I have seen or been around people
that lost a child or a loved one that was able to relate that
into some public policy changes, and that is a great memorial
that you can do, and I appreciate you coming today.
And, Mr. Davis, I used to see you in the State Capitol
Annex walking around when I was in the state senate, and it is
great to see you again here in our capital city. Glad to have
you here.
And I was--I got there at, well, 1998, but 2000 was my
first session, and, really, a lot of the work had been done. I
think Governor Patton was a great leader in what you did with
regional centers and so forth. Could you just kind of elaborate
as Kentucky as a state?
And I would point out, I know that we have the same issues
that we have to address with the minority population, but it is
also common across the country, too. It is not a Kentucky
phenomenon, as we point--I just wanted to point that out, what
we have heard here today. It needs to be addressed. You have
got to figure that out.
But just kind of talk about the process--Pam Thomas--Pam
Lester-Thomas, I think now is her name--went through the
process of kind of the Kentucky story. I will give you a few
more minutes to tell. I know you were trying to get through
your presentation, so----
Mr. Davis. Okay.
Mr. Guthrie [continuing]. After the yellow light comes on--
about 4 minutes.
Mr. Davis. Kentucky has gone through a number of
transformations. In 1996, we did not have a Department of
Juvenile Justice. And Child and Family Services took care of
most of our youth problems.
We came on a consent decree in 1996 and were forced to
change everything about what we did. One of the things we were
found to be lacking is clearly jail removal, removing young
people from adult jails. And with an incentive for every local
and county jail to receive dollars for housing young people, it
really didn't make sense for them to send them home, no matter
what the problem was, and mental health services and those
types of things were clearly not happening.
After the consent decree came down, the Department of
Juvenile Justice was established by House Bill 117, I believe.
And it created the Department of Juvenile Justice, in that it
created an emphasis for us to build 9--well, at the time, 10
detention facilities, ensuring that no child in Kentucky was
more than 1 hour away from a facility in any county, making
sure that we had local services that were close enough to
family, that were close enough to communities that we could
actually start to create solutions.
Also, we began to look at the core requirements, DMC being
a big piece of it. As the Juvenile Justice Advisory Board was
re-established in the late 1990s, we began a process of really
strengthening DMC, jail removal, in particular looking at
status offense issues, DSO. And we have done a lot of work with
the legislature, with the help of folks who believe, whether
they have different ideology of how we go about it, knowing
that there is a need for young people to be successful. The
Department of Juvenile Justice has been supportive across the
board in making some significant transformations.
Currently, we are excited because, after getting back into
compliance with the core requirements, we decided to move
further. And our DACs is just one example of that.
We are very excited about the fact that, you know, even
today, when we talk about jail removal--and especially looking
at violent offenders or high-level offenders, young people who
are high-level offenders charged as adults in adult jail--in
adult court, in Kentucky, those young people don't go to adult
facilities. Every child who was charged as an adult comes into
our facilities. And until they are 18, we make sure their needs
are met. And, in fact, many of the judges use that 18-year-old
date as a tipping point.
If we can go to those judges after 2 or 3 years and show
that that young person has begun treatment, started a process
of transformation, they understand their challenges and how to
overcome those challenges, we have had judges who have actually
commuted those adult sentences and said, ``You are ready to
go,'' and we are very proud of that fact, that we don't find
young people who are too dangerous to be treated like children,
and we don't believe that any of them are absolutely
disposable.
And that has just been our philosophy, and I think we
should be very proud as a state to have held that as our
philosophy and to be successful with it.
And we also--well, I think those are the highlights. I am
very excited about those and kind of get going sometimes. But I
think it is very important for people to understand, the
conversation always comes around about not having enough money
to do the work.
The Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice has been cut
almost 15 percent in the last 2 years to our operating budget,
and we have not lost one step in our services, because the
first thing that came was our commitment to do the job well and
then finding a way to make that commitment stick.
And any jurisdiction that decides that their work is to
create better outcomes for young people on the other side of
their commitment to the system can do this. And I think that if
we do, as we do it, it creates more impetus for our state
legislature, our federal legislators to say, yes, we have got
to support this kind of thing, because there is our initiative
to make the problem go away, and then there is the possibility
of getting support for that initiative.
I know the Chinese proverb says the best time to plant a
tree is 20 years ago, and the second best time is right now. We
can't do anything about the past. It is an immutable
characteristic that can't be changed. But we can absolutely do
something about what happens tomorrow, and we intend to do
that.
Mr. Guthrie. Well, appreciate it. It is great to have a
Kentuckian here talking about our success stories in this
environment. I know that there are still a lot of difficult
things we have to do, but success stories--I appreciate it. My
time is up, and I yield.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Ms. Fudge?
Ms. Fudge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank all of you for your testimony today.
Mr. Davis, I certainly wish Ohio was like Kentucky in that
we did not incarcerate young people in adult prisons. But,
unfortunately, we are not.
I served 10 years in the county prosecutor's office in my
county in Cleveland, Ohio, as well as mayor of a city for 10
years. I understand some of the problems that exist in the
juvenile system, but just help me understand how we might take
this one step further.
What I found, particularly as mayor, when a young person
was arrested, there really was no space for them in the
juvenile justice system, because I live in a county where we
bring back approximately 6,000 adult felons annually.
So what happens is, they spend all the money on the adult
prisons, and they short-change the juvenile. So there was no
place to hold them. So what do they do? They try to find some
juvenile facility, but normally they can't, so they would bring
them to my jail, which I could only hold them for 24 hours, and
then what happens to them? They take them to an adult facility.
So I think part of the problem is that we don't put enough
resources into having juvenile facilities that are appropriate.
That is why I think that that is a big problem. And I don't
know how this legislation would help that, but if you would
just think about that for me, I would appreciate it.
I think the other thing that happens is that we do spend
too little time trying to connect the dots as it relates to
family, to social services, to education. I mean, something as
simple as a midnight basketball program, which my police
department started years ago, during that time, juvenile crime
went down 95 percent, 95 percent. Every day that we had it, 95
percent.
So I think that at some point we do have to connect all the
dots. I think that that is the big issue. But if you could just
talk with me just for a minute, any of you who would like to
talk about this, how does this kind of legislation change the
fact that we really do--as far as funding--short-change
juvenile facilities? And there really is no place to put these
young people other than in adult holding facilities.
Anyone? That is the--see, that deals in the real world,
because that is the world I live in.
Mr. Burns. Well, Congresswoman Davis, as a fellow
prosecutor, I think--I couldn't agree with you more. And I
don't think America's prosecutors could agree with you more.
The best thing we can do is to have the ability to send a
young person to one of these great programs that we have heard
about today. That is dessert. I mean, that is just wonderful,
if there is an opening and we can refer and watch this young
person develop.
But the reality of it, the rubber hits the road, the front
lines, the everyday prosecutors, women and men making these
decisions about what do we do in a moment's notice, is we have
limited options. And you have, I believe, hit the nail on the
head. There are not enough detention facilities to hold young
people until we can assess, do we have to get her off meth? Do
we have to get him medication?
Are mom and dad going to be able to sleep tonight because
he has been on the road for 5 or 6 days and then turn around
and have the prosecutor accused of locking up and putting in
detention a young person, when clearly the motive is and always
is the best interests of the child?
Ms. Fudge. Yes, Judge?
Judge Teske. Ms. Fudge, if I may play devil's advocate, the
question assumes, though, that the kids that are brought in
need to go initially into detention, okay? And if I may for
just----
Ms. Fudge. I don't assume that, but that is what happens.
Judge Teske. I understand that. And I want to challenge
that thinking that I believe is nationwide.
For example, when I took the bench in 1999, there were over
100 kids in my facility, okay? They were sleeping on
mattresses.
Ms. Fudge. Yes.
Judge Teske. Today, the daily average population is 12.4 in
a 60-bed facility. Our juvenile crime rate has gone down. Now,
it hasn't gone down just because we have reduced the tension
alone. That is a ridiculous statement to make. It is because,
going to the question that Mr. Scott presented, it had to do
with--well, I mentioned cognitive restructuring as an effective
program for kids and even for adult offenders.
It is also good for just adults like us. We need to be
cognitively restructured, okay? And we need to ask the tough
question, okay? Why is it that we--I mean, let's really take a
look at how many kids are really high-risk versus low-risk----
Ms. Fudge. Judge, my time is running out.
Judge Teske. Okay.
Ms. Fudge. Can I just do this one last thing? That goes
back to, as a prosecutor, how many times I saw young people
overcharged for minor crimes. It is a huge problem in our
system that young people are overcharged so that they have got
so many charges against them, you look at it, a judge looks at
it, says, ``Oh, they need to go into some kind of facility.''
And I see my time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Mrs. McCarthy?
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank the panel. It has been a fascinating
conversation, listening to everyone.
In New York state, we are allowed to charge children at 16.
And the one complaint I hear constantly from my correction
guards is that half of them should not be where they are. Most
of them should be getting mental health. Most of them should be
getting--most of them have learning disabilities or some other
issue that could be worked on outside of being in the prison.
But as Ms. Fudge just said, you know, we are facing the
real world here. And the truth of the matter is, we went
through a time in this country that those of us that thought
giving services to young teenagers before they would end up
getting in the jail--you mentioned after midnight basketball, I
remember that debate, watching it. I wasn't here. But I
remember that debate on the Senate side saying what a waste of
taxpayers' monies that we are giving money to underserved areas
so the kids could play basketball.
That area that they were talking about--because I used to
go down to watch the basketball games--they didn't have the
problems that they have today. Our problem is that we need to
do more in our schools.
Now, I know that is going to be a separate subject, but as
we go through reauthorization of leave no child behind, we
should be looking at those kids that need the services that--so
they don't end up on your doorstep.
I wish we could do more, but financially we can't. The
states are hurting right now. But going back to why I believe
it should be on a federal level, because each state is
different, and we need to look at, yes, the flexibility of the
state, but I think we also need to look at putting a 16-year-
old or a 14-year-old with all the information we have, that
young adults at 25 are still not considered mature, and we are
dealing with 14-, 15-, and 16-year-old kids?
So it is frustrating for us, too, because we know we have
the answers. We don't have the willpower to put those answers
into motion or we don't have the money. And I think that is the
real problem. So I hope that we can come to some solutions.
But, basically, looking at that--and I also know that we
have alternative schools. Most of the kids that are put into
the alternative schools, if they are acting up in school, they
don't want to go back to their regular school. Why? Because
they are getting the special services. They are getting
everything that they need, and so it is the whole community.
So if we are going to spend our money, I would rather spend
it pre-than having it even come in front of any of you, but we
have got to deal with both, because obviously that is the
world, real world we live in.
So the question I will ask you is, especially in Kentucky,
there are systems in place for people outside the DJJ to
monitor the conditions of the facilities. And I was just
wondering, how are they doing? And do you think they help the
agency protect the kids and serve them--or can they serve them
better?
Mr. Davis. Well, I think we are doing well, ma'am. We have
two structures in place to ensure that our work stays above
board.
First, there is an internal structure. Young people in a
facility, family members of a young person, attorneys can file
a grievance, can file a concern, and we have an internal
ombudsman who addresses that concern if the facility cannot
address it to make sure that the needs are being met.
If it is an egregious challenge or major corrective action
needs to be taken, they have a red--not a bat phone, but they
have an emergency line that goes directly to the Office of
Investigations for our cabinet, the secretary's office, and
those investigators immediately start action, go to the
facility, and they determine what is going on. We stay out of
it.
Our second part is for the Department of Public Advocacy in
their post-adjudication branch. They are the watchdogs that
make sure we are doing our work. And for a long time, that was
a very contentious relationship, because we were out of
compliance, and there were lots of challenges. Our relationship
in the last few years has become very great, because we have
actually allowed them to sit in on our policy review of the way
we do our work so that at the front end they can actually tell
us where the flags are and what we need to be doing better so
they can monitor us better and we can ensure there is not a
need for them to monitor us as much.
And so the checks and balances are there for us to make
sure that we don't have egregious mistakes, that we don't--that
there is anything that falls through the cracks that we are not
aware of and that we can't address immediately and
successfully.
Mrs. McCarthy. I guess, Judge and Mr. Burns, I think one of
the things I also hear from judges from the district attorneys,
they don't have enough flexibility, because we have put in
place mandatory sentencing for some cases or even, you know,
kids that could be helped that can't, you know, get those
services.
What do you think that we need to do in this particular
legislation on reauthorization?
Mr. Burns. Well, as a representative of state and local
prosecutors and the women and men that do 95 percent of all
criminal cases in this country, and acknowledging the fact, as
has been stated, Georgia isn't the same as Colorado, isn't the
same as New Hampshire, and you have different judges, you have
different prosecutors.
And you are exactly right. you have different statutory
schemes, where legislators on a state level have decided over
the years, you didn't get it right, this is the way you are
going to do it, and then they tweak it some more. This is the
way you are going to do it.
And in some jurisdictions, you simply end up digging the
ditch, because everybody has told you, ``Check these boxes,''
and that is how we resolve these cases. So I would ask that the
more flexibility to the individual states is the best.
Judge Teske. Mrs. McCarthy, I want to echo what Mr. Burns
stated, but I want to be specific in two areas. The pre-
disposition or pre-adjudication versus post-disposition, in the
way of, you know--I think that judges should have more
discretion regarding who should go into a detention initially,
but I have to say, though, that judges need help.
You know, I may wear a robe, but I like to think I don't
suffer from robe-itis and that I am God-like and that I know
everything. But people expect me to wear the educator's hat,
the social services hat, the mental health hat, and I am not
any of those. And, in fact, if I think I am, I am going to do
more damage.
I need--I think we need to promote----
Chairman Miller. You can finish the sentence.
Judge Teske. Thank you.
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you.
Judge Teske. We need to promote objective assessments to
help judges in assessing risk.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Ms. Shea-Porter?
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you very much.
And thank you all for being here. This is actually very
painful to listen to, but there is some hope sprinkled in the
middle of all this.
The first, Ms. McClard, I wanted to say that your son's
spirit is here, and you certainly honor him by showing the
courage to be here. And I hope you don't mind if I ask you a
few questions.
I am a social worker, and I was concerned about, obviously,
what happened to him, but it seemed like the lack of voices
that would be advocates through that process, that it didn't
seem to be anybody, a social worker in the prison or somebody,
who would say, ``Wait a minute. This is a kid, and we need to
figure out what to do.''
So could you start by telling me, first of all--I assume he
probably was having a rough adolescence, okay? And was anybody
helping at that point? And did he have any advocates leading up
to this?
And then, what happened through that terrible process? I
mean, most people hearing that story would say, ``Let's take
him out and have a look at this.'' And so can you tell me where
you think the whole system broke down?
Ms. McClard. Honestly, I think just about every adult in
Jonathan's life failed, if you want the honest truth. This
happened in the summer of 2007. He had started dating this girl
back the previous October. She came from a very rough family. I
was not comfortable with him dating this girl.
And like any parent, I kind of--he was 16. She lived a
block away from the high school, so, you know, instead of
saying, ``No, you cannot see her,'' you know, I said, ``Well,
you can, but she needs to come to our house.'' And, you know,
the more she came to our house, the more we got attached to
her, because she was 14 years old, and she came from a very
rough family.
And so we took her to church with us. And Jonathan was a
very good student in school, and this girl struggled, because
of her family life, so Jonathan would help her through school.
And honestly, that whole year went very well with him doing
that with her.
I was formerly in the Army, and I resigned because of this.
But the summer that this happened, I had been gone training in
South Carolina. And right within 2 weeks after I left for
training, this girl broke up with him and started dating this
other boy that I mentioned.
And pretty much the two of them messed with Jonathan's head
the whole summer, not--and I am not blaming anybody. They were
all three adolescents. They all three got involved in drugs
that summer. They were all doing stupid stuff, all three of
them. So I am not placing any blame except on Jonathan, because
Jonathan is the one that did this. But my absence certainly
contributed to it, which was not good.
Ms. Shea-Porter. But rather than have you try to, you know,
claim the blame or anything like that--because that is a very
typical tale--what I am wondering is, were there social
workers, were there people in the school system who could see
changes in your son? Was there anybody who looked and said, you
know, this child is headed down the wrong road right now?
Because the idea, obviously, is to keep these kids from
winding up in the system. And my concern is--and I appreciate
what the judge said--that they need help. You can't be
everything by the time--you know, if you are a judge, you are
not expected, and yet you have to have all those other skills
to work with these kids and their families.
So where do you think the point could have been best
touched to help him before this? This is a horrific story. I
just can't imagine that many adults looking at this, seeing him
beaten, seeing the signs, and nobody saying, ``We have got to
pull this one out and have a look.''
Ms. McClard. When he was 14 years old, he was found with
pot at school. He did go through the necessary drug court, but
it was sadly lacking in services.
He would go once a week and have a drug test that he always
passed, but, you know, after he passed a few drug tests, they
would say, ``Okay, you are fine. You can go home.'' And at the
time, he was struggling with depression, and he had a different
girlfriend at the time, and he was just one that, when he had a
girlfriend, he just went head over heels and he would do
anything he thought to protect her. He always thought he was
the big protector.
But besides that short time in the drug court, and then
they released him because he was--you know, tested negative,
they let him go. They didn't see anything during the school
year.
Ms. Shea-Porter. So my question is, in the middle of all
this, could and should there have been more services to stay
working alongside of your son? Were there enough flags there,
enough warning flags----
Ms. McClard. There were plenty of flags----
Ms. Shea-Porter [continuing]. Okay, that if there had been
resources----
Ms. McClard. There should have been--there should have
been. He should have been seeing a counselor. Instead of just
going to the drug court to check in every week, you know, for
the 5-minute pee test, he should have been seeing counselors.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Right, okay, so he was kind of left at the
curb and said, ``Just make sure that you don't do drugs
again.''
Ms. McClard. Right.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Okay, I think that is one of the biggest
problems that we have, that we don't catch up to these kids
until after, until everything has fallen apart, and then all of
a sudden we are there like a ton of bricks on them. And if we
invested earlier and we helped them and helped their families--
I mean, you cannot--you cannot be responsible for everything.
Once they have walked out of the door, you know, we all know
that, that things are out there in the world.
So it seems to me that the great tragedy is there was no
place for him to turn or for you to turn earlier. That would be
not just a moment or a test, but an actual safety net to help
walk them through a few years of difficult adolescence.
Okay, thank you. I yield back.
Ms. McClard. Thank you.
Chairman Miller. Mr. Kildee?
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
About 20, 25 years ago, I was chairman of the committee
that had jurisdiction over Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act and saw all the problems. And 20, 25 years have
passed. I used to work with a Judge Lincoln in Michigan who was
one of the pioneers in this.
I will ask you, Judge Teske and Mr. Solberg and any of you,
kind of going back over that span of years, how would you judge
the progress or lack thereof that we have made in those 20 to
25 years? You were all pretty young then, but if you could
share that with us.
Judge Teske. Well, if I may, Mr. Kildee--I will just be
real brief--there has been progress, okay? You know, I would
say that, at this point, we can make more progress. And while
we--I am here to ask for reauthorization, because there has
been progress.
The question is, now that we are here asking about
reauthorization, what more needs to be done to improve the
existing systems where we have already made some progress? We
need to keep going, especially since, 20 years ago, we have
even more research that shows what works. Let's hone in on
that.
Mr. Solberg. Congressman, I would say that there has been a
lot of progress. And even though my testimony doesn't really
come out and say we have made a lot of progress, I think the
point of the testimony is to say, 30 years ago, there really
wasn't the infrastructure in communities to provide related
programs and community-based services to youth who are
offenders or at risk.
And today, that is a different landscape. I mean, in our
urban settings in Wisconsin, there are significant programs
that have been established to respond. And as a result, as I
shared in my testimony, we are seeing shorter lengths of stay,
which is a good thing. Having kids in a program for three years
historically, going back 15, 20 years ago, was not necessarily
the best type of treatment for a young person. Today, as a
result, our programs have changed to really bring about
significant change in shorter lengths of stay and then provide
community supports as they transition back to group home,
foster care, or back home.
So there has been--there has been good progress. I think to
some degree part of my testimony states that we have to be a
little cautious about how much progress and the funding
incentives that are in place through the juvenile justice
prevention act, because what is happening is we are seeing a
lot of our capital-intensive residential programs close today.
And to some degree, there may be overcapacity. And so to some
degree, that may not be a bad thing.
On the other hand, if we start going so far that we lose
what is really a capital-intensive place for youth to go who
need significant treatment, and maybe in some cases should have
received it much earlier, we stand at risk of really losing
what has been something that has taken years to develop.
Community-based programs you can develop within a
relatively short period of time. Within a matter of months, you
can find people with the skills and the program elements to
develop a community-based program.
A residential program or more intensive programs take years
to develop. And that capacity at some time--I think the
committee needs to be aware of--there is a point when you can--
you have to find that balance, in terms of the capacity the
country needs to support intensive services and to the extent
that we need to support community-based services.
But there has been a lot of progress, and I think to some
degree you can congratulate yourselves on what has been
established through this act.
Mr. Kildee. Have we made improvement? Back in those days,
you would find some robe-itis, judges or sheriffs, other law
enforcement officers who really felt that we here, Washington,
should have nothing to say on this. And yet we made reception
of the money contingent upon following these things.
Has there been any improvement in attitude of those who are
in the system in those years? Anyone?
Mr. Burns. Well, I would say yes, Congressman. I think,
first and foremost, you brought and assisted in bringing the
issue--bringing national attention to the issue that all of us
involved in the criminal justice system learned, that it is
different. We have to think differently. We have to act
differently. And I applaud and commend you and others for doing
that.
I will give you a quick example. Twenty, twenty-five years
ago--and you have to appreciate--and I still don't believe this
myself--but 80 percent of all the district attorneys' offices
in this country, 80 percent have five lawyers or less. They are
not Joe Hines in King County, in Brooklyn. They are not Jan
Scully with 450 in Sacramento. They are Scott Garrett with four
in Beaver, Utah.
And it used to be that the new guy in, the new woman in,
would get juvenile court and misdemeanor court. You would get
to go do traffic and juvenile court.
That is not so in many, many offices today. We realize it
takes different skills. We realize that it takes intense
training. And we ask in many cases that those people assigned
to juvenile court stay on for a longer period of time because
of how special that is. So that is great progress.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Burns.
Thank you. I thank all of you. Thank you very much.
Chairman Miller. Mrs. Davis?
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you so much to all of you
for being here, and particularly to Ms. McClard. I really
didn't have a chance to be here to hear you. I read your
testimony. And I just want to thank you for the courageous work
that you are involved in. It is a tribute to your son.
Ms. McClard. Thank you.
Mrs. Davis of California. One of the issues that we are
always very, very aware of is the extent of mental health care
in our institutions. And I wonder, as you think about the
authorization that we are looking at here, there is always a
conflict between being too prescriptive and causing
difficulties in terms of who, what and where and how.
And yet some of the major benchmarks, I think, that we
should be looking at in terms of the kind of care that is being
delivered, in your experience, what is it that we absolutely
need to be concerned about here? Is it more of the capacity
within the system itself? Is it the training of the people who
are there? Is it pure numbers and resources?
What do you think is really key in trying to address these
mental health needs? Clearly, in your son's case, the fact that
they didn't have any follow-up in the facility is outrageous to
me. But I know that all states and local authorities grapple
with this all the time, and they feel that we put so much
pressure for the kind of medical care that is available that
then other things are not realized.
What can you tell us? What absolutely needs to be in any
kind of reauthorization regarding mental health care?
Mr. Davis. Mrs. Davis, I would like to start by saying I
think that mental health is absolutely a key piece of our
success in this work. The statistics show clearly that more
than 70 percent--even on the most, you know, conservative
estimates--of young people to come into the system have some
kind of mental behavior health challenge. And we have ignored
that for a long time.
In Kentucky, one of the things we do is, we actually
recognize that--and as part of our transformation, created the
mental health division. Every facility has clinicians, have
professionally trained staff, and then we have regional staff
and statewide staff that work not just in the facility, but
also with young people when they go back home to their
communities.
And it is very important, that continuum of care. We only
serve them for a short time, and we put them on the right
track. But when they return home to their families and
communities, pretty often the ball is dropped. And so that is
where we start to focus.
In fact, we are re-training and emphasizing more training
for our mental health staff to actually work with the family,
because we know that we can't make the child successful if we
don't change anything about the home they go back into, and so
bringing that whole family into therapy together, into
conference together, and talk about how they as a family
succeed and help this young person be more successful and how
they actually own, identify, and address their mental health
challenges, together and individually.
And it has been a real struggle for us, because that is a
huge transformation of the paradigm that we have worked with,
but our responsibility, again, is to make the child more whole,
not less. And if the only way we can do that is to serve the
family, then we must serve the family.
And I think that has to be our mantra across the board. We
can't say that, you know, it is okay for some people to ignore
a child who is screaming for help and assistance because it is
not in our job description or it is not written down for us.
Those people--maybe they need something written down. Maybe
it is time for us to codify and clarify that this expectation
is there and it won't change.
Mrs. Davis of California. But I am guessing there is a lot
of pressure, though, for some of those resources and so
maintaining that is difficult.
Yes, Judge Teske?
Judge Teske. Mrs. Davis, just quickly, I think we need to
incentivize and improve the initial screening of kids who are
brought to the juvenile justice system at the front door. And
we really need to come up with a better way to divert those
kids from the juvenile justice system, because from my
experience, which has also drawn from the research, as well,
that we aggravate kids who are mentally ill, have serious
mental disorders, when we put them into a system that itself is
not able to provide--I mean, think about it.
Most states have a division of mental health; then they
have a department of juvenile justice. Why are you putting kids
who are mentally ill, with serious mental health disorders,
okay, in which their delinquency is a manifestation of that,
into a department of juvenile justice and not over here?
Mrs. Davis of California. Are there some detention
alternatives, though, that you have seen that have worked and
have made it through the community processes? Because I think
one of the difficulties I see is we get a lot of NIMBY-ism when
we want to create alternatives for young people.
Judge Teske. Yes, ma'am. And that goes back to system
reform. That goes back to key leadership somewhere in the
community--for me, I think it should be the judge, but if
anyone will step up to the plate who can say, ``We need to all
get together, pool our resources. This is the objective. Let's
have a better--let's develop a system of care, okay, that we
can put the--where there is a multi-systemic assessment and
care for these kids in the community where the community is
kept safe.''
Just because a kid commits a delinquent act doesn't make
the kid delinquent. Sometimes we fail to think that way.
Mrs. Davis of California. I know my time is up, Mr.
Chairman. I don't know if it is possible to get any other
responses.
Chairman Miller. No, we are going to go to Mr. Platts, and
we are going to have a second round, so, Mr. Platts?
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. And I
apologize to all of our witnesses. I am running between
meetings, and I am running back out to another one, but I
wanted to thank each of you for your written testimony that you
have provided and the great insights that it gives us as we
work through this issue, and that shared goal of how do right
by society and all of our citizens and protecting them from
wrongdoing, but do right by the youth who clearly make
mistakes, but we want to help them learn from those mistakes
and reform and go forward and have a successful life.
And I especially wanted, Ms. McClard, to thank you. And
reading your written testimony, you know, my boys are 11 and
13. And while I would like to think they are always going to
make the right decision, you know, I hope that the tragic
circumstances that you and your family have suffered through
are not repeated in the years ahead for other families and that
we learn from that.
And especially the specific recommendations in your
testimony that give us, as we look at reauthorization and how
to strengthen the system, including protecting those in
detention, that we learn from the treatment or mistreatment
that your son suffered through and don't allow those errors to
be repeated.
And your presence here today and working to turn a family
tragedy to public good is extremely commendable, and we are
grateful for your presence here, and you are certainly honoring
your son by your work. So--and thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Tierney?
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
this hearing, Mr. Chairman, for these excellent witnesses, as
well.
Ms. McClard, I won't repeat what Todd just said, but I will
echo it on that, and we do appreciate you coming. I don't think
there is a parent in this country that doesn't fear that what
happened to you might happen to their child, so all of us have
issues with alcohol and drug addiction in our families or our
friendships or our neighborhood somewhere on that, so you do us
all a great service, as well as your son's memory.
And I also want to just tell all the witnesses how much we
appreciate what it is you do every day. I assume--I hope that
you hear it in your own communities on that. This comes so
far--I mean, I have been practicing law--I started practicing
law maybe 33, 34, 35 years ago. And it was a whole different
attitude then.
Judges looked at it differently. And I want to really
respect the judges and how far you have come and what you have
done on this. District attorneys looked at it differently. Mr.
Burns and, you know, John Blodgett up in my area, Essex County,
Massachusetts, is a leader in the sense of when everybody else
wanted to get tough--you know, how long can we lock them up
for, how hard can we punish them--was strong enough in his own
self that he knew that was wrong, used this other way to go
about it.
And you have people like Sally Patton on the juvenile court
up there, tough people, former prosecutors, prosecutors who
would stand up to the public and say, ``That isn't right,''
with respect to this. We have got to do prevention. We have got
to do other alternative programs instead of just going in the
wrong direction.
It takes that kind of leadership and that kind of strength
to go against the tide and do that. And all of you are
representative of that, and I appreciate it, I mean, because we
can easily get led the wrong way and have in this country over
and over again.
We have covered a lot of ground, so I don't want to recover
it, but I do have one question. We have in our area some
specialized high schools for students with alcohol and drug
issues. Good idea or bad idea?
Ms. McClard. I can answer that as a teacher.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Ms. McClard. In Cape Girardeau County, there is a school
for that, that other school districts are allowed to go to. It
is kind of a general base for everybody in Cape Girardeau to
Scott County. Most of the students that go there overcome their
drug and alcohol abuse, because there is some backup counseling
for them there.
But they do have to want to go. And they do have to earn a
certain grade point average to be able to stay there. The
graduation rate for that is about 89 percent, so it is huge.
Mr. Tierney. Well, it is successful in our area, as well.
When I talked to the students there, they also would rather
prefer being there. It is voluntary, as you say. But they seem
to get a lot of comfort and support on that, but that is
participants.
I was wondering from the experts out here whether they
agree that that is a good setting for those kids and it doesn't
stop them from progressing once they get out of that school. So
it is generally--I am seeing a lot of nodding heads, so I will
take that as the fact that we should move in that direction.
Do you do anything, Mr. Burns--and I know the district
attorneys are very active on that--on identifying young people
in high school or even in college, freshmen or whatever, as
leaders on these issues of alcohol and drug abuse? And do we
have any programs or situation where we identify those people
and let them become leaders in their institution?
So many kids there would follow them if we found the right
kid--I am thinking of one student in particular who went to a
college in my area and started an organization for people with
issues like that and found an unbelievable number of kids that
turned out and became part of that.
Do we encourage that in any way?
Mr. Burns. You know, there are individual programs, as you
know, Congressman, depending on the city and the state, but I
would concur with you. The tough on crime, we can also be smart
on crime, and we can be innovative, and there are hundreds of
district attorneys across the country that are engaged in a
program like you just mentioned, as well as community centers
and other efforts.
Mr. Tierney. Well, I will let it go. Thank you all very,
very much for what you do, as well for being here today. Thank
you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Miller. Ms. Clarke?
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want
to thank all of you for your commitment to improving our
juvenile justice system.
My first question is for Judge Teske, Mr. Belton, and Mr.
Davis. Research has shown that unnecessary detention leads to
worse outcomes for youth. Research has also shown that
community-based interventions, such as those that are being
implemented in certain parts of New York, like New York City
where I am from, result in better outcomes, are cost-effective
and more effectively reduces crime.
In fact, one study concluded that a significant way to
avoid having to build adult prisons down the road is to
implement evidence-based cost-beneficial prevention programs
for youth in the juvenile justice system.
In your opinions, why haven't more states followed the lead
of New York and Georgia and begun instituting evidence-based
approaches to juvenile justice? And more importantly, what can
we do to encourage states to employ evidence-based public
policy options in their juvenile justice system?
Mr. Belton. Chairman Miller and Congressman Clarke, I think
the reason why more states don't do this is because I think,
for a long time, many states, many jurisdictions had very much
an institutional culture and basis and orientation for
providing programs for young people who are offenders.
And it is taking--it is sort of like turned into the Queen
Mary around in a teacup. It is taking a long time to get people
to begin to shift and jurisdictions to begin to shift from
institution-to community-based, where it is more cost-
effective, where it is more effective programming, and it just
makes sense.
You want to solve the problem close to where the problem
first originated. It makes sense. But it has taken a long time
to do that.
And fortunately, with leadership, and also incentives,
hopefully, with the reauthorization of JJDPA and strengthening,
that there will be incentives to provide more community-based
alternatives to institutional responses to young people.
Judge Teske. And if I am piggybacking his answer, sometimes
it goes to what I call the politics of fear. And I am going to
address policymakers at the state level.
The question is, who are--what constituents are they really
listening to? Because some people--I had a preacher once that
gave a sermon that said there are four different types of
personalities. One of those is the complainer, but usually the
complainer complains about how everyone is complaining about
the preacher, when it is probably only one or two, but they
just complained the loudest, and so policies are made based
upon the loudest, who only represents the few.
And so the ``lock them up'' has become prevalent, you know,
over the years. And so policies through state statutes, like
automatic transfers to adult court, started happening. And we
lose sight of the research. We don't look beyond that.
But, in fact, if you really want to know what the community
is thinking, come to court with me and listen to the victims in
my court. I make the victims--I don't make--but I ask them--
strongly ask them to come and speak. You know what they say 9
times out of 10? ``Please help this young man who hurt me.
Don't lock him up.''
Mr. Davis. Ma'am, I think the Senate bill version of the
act does address some of these issues and actually put funding
in place to specifically look at evidence-based programs. And I
think it is important that, as you all go through the process,
that be a real option. You know, evidence-based programs will
only be effective if we have the money to seek those and to
create those, too.
As far as the community goes, I think that, in the work
that we do, there has been a real shift, and I think fear has
been a big piece of it. When we get elected by promising people
certain kinds of elements won't be in their community, then we
have to hold to those promises. And no matter what is least
restrictive, no matter what is most necessary for the recovery
of a child, we can't go there, and I think that is the thing we
face in most places, that we promise people that we will keep
those sex offenders out of the community, and now, you know, we
are in the situation where we can't put them back to the place
where we could possibly make them whole because of a fear of
the next election.
Chairman Miller. Ms. Chu?
Ms. Chu. Thank you so much for your testimony.
And thank you, Ms. McClard, for coming out and sharing your
story.
Over the past 5 years, juvenile justice appropriations have
fallen nearly 30 percent. And I know in my area of Los Angeles
County, this decrease in funding has significantly affected the
juvenile justice system's ability to invest in evidence-based
solutions to juvenile crime.
I have heard from advocates who are very upset about this,
because they know that there is so much more that we can do for
juveniles while they are in the system.
Mr. Davis, I know you touched upon this, but I wonder if
the panelists could share with us how this decrease in funding
has affected your organization's ability to be successful.
Mr. Davis. Ms. Chu, I spoke before--and I think it is
really clear--that all of us have been deeply impacted by the
reduction in funds. It makes it challenging for us to do our
best work. And I think, at the end of the day, as a
professional in this field, that is what we like to think we
do. And it more importantly has made it more creative.
I think that if we had funding restored or increased, it
would give us the opportunity to do what we know needs to be
done with less restriction, with less concern about robbing
Peter to pay Paul. In our system in particular, we continue to
struggle with, we know this has to happen, so what is it that
we can do without that is good, but not great, in order to make
sure we take care of great? And it shouldn't be that way.
And so for us, it has been a challenge. And it continues to
be. But, again, as I said earlier, it won't be the thing that
limits our willingness to continue to do the hard work, but it
would make our work much easier if we had the dollars in place
to ensure that we could move forward without question, without
hesitation.
Ms. Chu. And could you say specifically where you think
those funds should be concentrated?
Mr. Davis. For us, I think moving back to looking at
evidence-based programs, and especially in community re-entry.
Family-and community-based programming, I think--I know is
where we are going. We have identified it. We have started to
look at how we transform our staff to address it appropriately.
But we cannot serve children in our facilities. We have to
get them home, and we have to get them home with all of the
things that they need to be successful. In fact, my boss always
says, we have to teach them how to access the system at home,
in place where they are going to have to survive, not in a
facility where it is a false positive if they succeed.
And so for us, having to transition back to community and
the resources to really provide them with services, with
counseling, with job training, with access to social services
and educational opportunities will create the possibility for
transformation that I think we haven't even seen yet. It is
very exciting for us.
Mr. Solberg. Yes, Ms. Chu, I would build on that a little
bit and just share that--and I related to it in my testimony
briefly, is that there is this increased tension, I believe,
between community-based providers and residential providers, in
terms of what is the most appropriate care.
And so you will see in some cases in community-based
settings, where there is a dogma almost that says this child
will not leave the community, and there may not be the
appropriate resources to really provide the most appropriate
care based on assessments, and so these young men tend to fail
at various levels before the decision is finally made to put
them in a setting that really was probably more appropriate at
an earlier stage in their care.
And so, as you look at decreased funding, it really creates
those tensions, you know, in terms of providing the most
appropriate care, even though that more appropriate care may be
more expensive, and take them out of the community, and really
means that they have to do as much as they can to provide the
services in the community as much as possible.
And so it comes down to the most appropriate care for that
youth, and that is what we have always fought for, in terms
of--if it is most appropriate to keep them in the community, do
so. If it is not, then we need to look at funding sources and
streams to provide the most appropriate care for them.
Mr. Belton. Congresswoman Chu, I would like to sort of--at
least in Ramsey County, Minnesota, where I am the juvenile
director, I want to move beyond the tension--and it is a
natural tension between community-based and institution-or
residential-based services. Both are needed.
And I would like to maybe think about in terms of more of a
public health approach, where--in our communities, we provide
certain things for children because they are children and they
need certain things, and that is regardless of race, income,
neighborhood, and all those kinds of things. And some of those
are services. Some of those are services such as mental health
services, so that corrections--or the juvenile justice doesn't
become the venue or the delivery service system for mental
health services for certain kinds of kids.
Some of it is drug abuse abuses. Some of it is educational,
remedial educational services, so that the kids who are served
through the juvenile justice can get these things in the
community beforehand.
But when they present enough of a risk to public safety,
when they have to be in the juvenile justice system and they
have to be in residential treatment, we need enough money so
that we have programs and services in those institutions where
they can function properly, they are evidence-based, and kids
can make these improvements so that they can become productive
citizens.
So I think, in short, we need an array of services. We need
money and funding in a number of key areas and not just one
specific area.
Ms. Chu. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Miller. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Ms. McClard, I want to echo what Congressman Platts said
and associate myself with his remarks about your appearance
here and your advocacy. As I read your testimony yesterday, and
then I started going through the testimony of others and some
of the reports that have been prepared for the reauthorization,
I kept trying to think where there would have been a circuit
breaker so somebody could have said, ``Wait a minute. What is
going on here?''
Because it seemed to me, as I read your narrative, that you
couldn't stop the train. I mean, it was just--there was no
ability to reach up and pull a cord and get some independent
review of what is taking place. And we all understand the
pressures that are on the justice system.
But when I come back to, you know, what was being referred
to here as evidence-based programs, comprehensive programs, you
get a sense that instead of working faster and harder, the
organizations and systems that are working smarter seem to open
up more opportunities for those interventions, for somebody to
walk in and say, ``Wait, wait. Should this be a placement like
Mr. Solberg's or should this be a locked facility? Or should
this be at home?'' And if you are not working smart, you are
just shoveling in Louisiana.
And that is my real concern, is that we are at this point--
Mr. Kildee, we were all here when this program started--that we
now continue to fund jurisdictions that are just doing it the
way that--you know, tomorrow the way they did it yesterday. And
I think whether it is to try to develop the best plans for
detention, if necessary, or for interventions or for
prevention, that clearly, given the limited resources, we
really have to now start looking at rather compelling and a
critical mass of evidence that suggests there is another way to
address this caseload, and to be smarter with better outcomes,
in terms of crime rates, in terms of education attainment, in
terms of treatment of these young people.
And that is really the challenge that we ask this challenge
to--this panel to present to us, and I think you have
successfully done that this morning, and I appreciate it.
You know, I was quite taken--the district attorneys
association, supported Fight Crime, Invest in Kids, and the
home visiting program that ended up being--in the large health
bill, there is a billion something dollars recognizing that the
district attorneys kept saying, ``I am just getting more and
more crime. I have got to work with these families and newborns
and teach people parenting skills and all the rest of that.''
And people are saying, well, that is not what district
attorneys do, except they started thinking smarter, in terms
of--well, you go up the river, see who is throwing the baby in
the river.
And so, you know, we have responded there what we think is
evidence-based and what people in the system think helps them
deter the behavior that is acted out.
So I just wanted to thank you for this rather comprehensive
view of the system and the recommendations that you have made
that have been really tested over the last 24 hours and
matching this against Jonathan's progress in this system and
how he was moved through the system without some kind of check.
But I think we see some rays of hope in various
jurisdictions around the country that have looked at these
alternatives in the most comprehensive fashion, I guess, is
what is necessary. A lot of people have had divergent programs
and the rest of that, and we all know what happens to them in
our communities. But that comprehensive approach is really what
is encouraging to me about the presentations made here today,
so thank you very, very much.
Mr. Kline?
Mr. Kline. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, thanks to our witnesses.
And, Ms. McClard, I too wanted to identify myself with
remarks of Mr. Platts. Your sacrifices and now your work are
remarkable.
I have been struck by the testimony of all of you, and you
were stressing the importance of comprehensive--or I would say,
collaborative--I think the judge mentioned a number of times.
And it seemed to me, wouldn't it be nice if we could just take
this panel and sort of replicate you many times and move you
from state to state and district to district and get that sort
of collaboration and teamwork, which it occurs to me is--
listening to all of your comments--is at the heart of doing
this right.
You can't just have the good judge and nothing else working
out there or the good director or the good teacher or the good
residential home or the good district attorney. You have got to
have it all.
And our challenge is going to be, what can we do here to
facilitate that? And certainly not to restrict it. So I think
we have got our work cut out for us here. Again, I want thank
you for being here today, for your testimony, for your
comments, and for your terrific work and the jobs that each of
you is doing.
You provided a lot of great information and ideas and a
path for how this can work so that we don't have repeated what
Ms. McClard has gone through. So I just want to again say
thanks to all of you, and I will yield back.
Mr. Scott [presiding]. Thank you.
Mr. Belton, the judge pointed out some of the things we can
be doing to deal with young people when they have been
identified at risk. Can you talk about the importance of
comprehensive plans to get young people on the right track and
keep them on the right track so they don't even develop the
risk factors?
Mr. Belton. Congressman, I think it is vitally important to
have comprehensive plans, but I think that, again, referring
back to some of my earlier comments, we need resources in our
communities so that kids don't even come into--aren't even
touched by the juvenile justice system, so that we are not even
assessing these kids, because they are getting what they need
in our communities before they even touch our juvenile justice
system.
Mr. Scott. And does that system--so they don't get in
trouble in the first place, if they get on the right track
early and stay on the right track, does that have to be
comprehensive?
Mr. Belton. Yes, it does, absolutely. Kids need stuff. They
need all kinds of things, including services, including
recreational outlets, and various other things.
Mr. Scott. And if you provide that, many of them will not
develop the risk factors that get them into trouble, and then
when they get in trouble, they need to be dealt with as quickly
as possible. Is that right?
Mr. Belton. As quickly as possible, but also as
comprehensively and intelligently, using science-and evidence-
based practices, yes.
Mr. Scott. Now, Mr. Davis, you indicated that there should
be no exception to locking up status offenders. What happens
when you inappropriately lock up a status offender? What
happens to the trajectory of that child?
Mr. Davis. Well, all the data shows us that a young person
who is locked up as a status offender receives very low results
on the other end. There is increased possibility of criminality
being in close proximity and sometimes trying to survive,
again, with those more sophisticated young people who have
committed, you know, sometimes egregious crimes.
And then they also are limited in their access to mental
health, which we know, as most of them are runaways, truants,
or some other thing that is not criminal, alcohol or drug use
underage. When they get into the system, they don't have access
to any of the support systems that deal with that, AA,
Narcotics Anonymous, counseling, educational access, especially
in detention facilities, most likely.
And so everything about their projection is decreased, with
the possibility of attaining educational aspirations, of
finding and securing work in community, of eliminating the
badge or the baggage of being a delinquent youth and having
gone through the system. All those things create lower outcomes
for them.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Now, Mr. Burns, you indicated a need for flexibility. Would
your flexibility be adversely affected if we limited your
flexibility to evidence-based plans?
Mr. Burns. No, Congressman, but I guess the flexibility we
ask is to not try and apply something nationally when there are
so many differences between the individual states.
Mr. Scott. And if a comprehensive plan were developed
locally tailored to that locality, it would be better than a
nationally imposed plan?
Mr. Burns. Yes, but I think the honest answer to that is,
is if you bring everybody in to the process from the beginning,
instead of tell them from Washington, D.C., ``This is what we
are going to do.''
Mr. Scott. Bring them together, you mean in the locality?
Mr. Burns. Yes, bring in the prosecutors----
Mr. Scott. So that you could assess what the local
situation is, what the local resources and needs are, and
fashion a plan tailor-made for that locality?
Mr. Burns. That is right, so we know if we can afford it.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Solberg, you indicated evidence-based and we should be
having priorities. Do you have a list of priorities where we
ought to be focusing?
Mr. Solberg. Well, I think the--we talked about evidence-
based a lot, because there has been a certain amount of
research that has been done to demonstrate this type of program
is going to be successful in a kind of controlled environment.
You take those now--for example, in the Wisconsin Works
study that was done, with regard to juvenile justice, there are
not--for example, if you were to say at a national level we
want to have evidence-based programs, you know, basically
rolled out across the country, there are not a lot of really
canned programs where you can basically take evidence-based and
duplicate it in a juvenile justice system. In the study, it was
found that those were lacking.
There are evidence-based programs, but to take and
replicate them in communities is a significant investment, and
also making sure you are doing it based on the evidence and the
control that was put in place for that program.
Beyond that, I think one of the things that--on my
testimony is, for me, the lack of agreed-upon outcomes. We
typically would develop programs and develop outcomes, but can
we develop a set of--you know, in a research environment within
individual states and local communities, to agree, ``We are
expecting these types of outcomes in our young people''?
It startles me at some times when I am meeting with peers
on a state or national level that there is just very little
discussion around outcomes. It has a lot to do with evidence-
based programs, but can we all agree on, what are we agreeing
on in terms of outcomes so, at the end of the day, we know that
we have been effective?
Mr. Scott. Thank you very much.
I want to thank all of our witnesses, particularly Ms.
McClard, for your very courageous testimony. It is very helpful
to put a face on exactly what are we doing in your testimony--I
am sure at great pain--is very helpful.
I thank all of our witnesses. Without objection, members
will have 14 days to submit additional materials or questions
for the hearing record. And I would ask unanimous consent that
a statement from the National Disability Rights Network be
entered into the record. So ordered.
Any other comments?
Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
[Additional submissions of Mr. Miller follow:]
Prepared Statement of the W. Haywood Burns Institute
During the April 21, 2010 House Committee on Education and Labor
Hearing on ``Reforming the Juvenile Justice System to Improve
Children's Lives and Public Safety,'' Ranking Member Kline asked a
question regarding the importance including in the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) concrete guidance around reducing
racial and ethnic disparities. Specifically, Ranking Member Kline asked
Ramsey County Corrections Deputy Director of Juvenile Corrections,
Michael Belton the following question:
``I believe you said little progress can be made if Congress
doesn't strengthen the DMC core requirements. And yet you made great
progress without that strengthening. Why do you think that other places
can't do what you've done?''
The question was an important one. Currently, the JJDPA requires
States to ``address'' disproportionate minority contact (DMC) within
the juvenile justice system. Specifically, the law requires States to
``address juvenile delinquency prevention efforts and system
improvement efforts designed to reduce, without establishing or
requiring numerical standards or quotas, the disproportionate number of
juvenile members of minority groups, who come into contact with the
juvenile justice system.''\i\
This vague requirement that States ``address'' efforts to reduce
DMC has left state and local officials without clear guidance for how
to actually reduce racial and ethnic disparities. This lack of clarity
on how to reduce racial and ethnic disparities has resulted in many
jurisdictions getting stuck studying the problem or endlessly working
on projects that may sound good on paper or in theory, but do not lead
to measurable reductions. As a result, many jurisdictions have spent
have spent significant time and money ``spinning their wheels'' trying
to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in juvenile justice with
limited results.
Over the past two decades, several organizations--the Annie E.
Casey's' Juvenile Detention Alternative Imitative (JDAI), the MacArthur
Foundation's Models for Change, and the W. Haywood Burns Institute--
have worked with jurisdictions across the country to reduce DMC in
juvenile justice systems. Through this work, a growing number of
jurisdictions throughout the nation have employed a guided,
intentional, and strategic approach to reducing racial and ethnic
disparities, and they have achieved measurable results--showing that
reducing racial and ethnic disparities is possible. The work of these
organizations has consistently shown that the approach to working to
reduce disparities must be done with focused, informed, and data-driven
strategies.
Strengthening the JJDPA will make it possible for more
jurisdictions to build on best practices that we know work to
effectively reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile
justice system rather than just studying the problem. Each of the
organizations mentioned above uses a similar approach to reducing
disparities that is based on successes and best practices used in
jurisdictions across the country. The approach incorporates traditional
and non-traditional stakeholder collaboration, collection of key data
on a variety of juvenile justice decision making points, strategically
using data to identify disparities and develop a work plan to reduce
disparities, and monitoring the effect of any implemented strategies.
Thus, the recommended provisions to modify the DMC core requirement
are based on the following components that--across the country--have
demonstrated effectiveness in targeted work to reduce racial and ethnic
disparities:
1. The work involved in reducing racial and ethnic disparities
requires a committee exclusively dedicated to overseeing and monitoring
state efforts to reduce disparities and offering guidance and support
to local jurisdictions in their efforts to reduce disparities.
State Advisory Groups (SAGs), the governor-appointed entities
responsible for administering and managing federal funds allocated in
the JJDPA, have numerous responsibilities and are often stretched thin
in order to accomplish them. Some SAGs have DMC subcommittees, but for
those that do not, it is uncommon that SAGs can devote the time needed
to oversee and guide implementation of statewide DMC-reduction
strategies. All States need a body of individuals committed to DMC
reduction guiding this focused work.
In California, for example, Formula Grants are administered by the
Corrections Standards Authority (CSA), which leads the State's DMC
efforts and monitors all ongoing local efforts to address DMC. The
CSA's DMC subcommittee includes juvenile justice practitioners and
experts with experience in successfully reducing racial and ethnic
disparities. Reducing racial and ethnic disparities is interwoven into
requirements for all juvenile justice-related federal funding streams
administered by the state, and more than one third of California's
Title II award is allocated specifically to reduce disparities.
California uses a multi-faceted approach to reducing disparities
which includes direct service, education, and support and advocacy. The
direct services component currently includes a three-phase competitive
grant awarded to five counties. The grant is designed to assist
probation departments in understanding how to identify DMC, and to
equip them with the tools and resources necessary to provide leadership
in a collaborative effort to reduce DMC involving traditional and
nontraditional stakeholders throughout the county. The education
component includes DMC training to all grantees receiving federal
juvenile justice-related funding, and DMC trainings for all School
Attendance Review Boards throughout the State. The state provides the
support and advocacy component through strategic technical assistance
that allows stakeholders to develop innovative, low-cost DMC
interventions throughout the State.
In California, we recognize that reducing racial and ethnic
disparities is a uniquely local issue. However, in California we also
realize that without guidance, local jurisdictions are unclear how to
tackle the issue of racial and ethnic overrepresentation. A committee
that is designated exclusively to reducing disparities is necessary to
provide critical guidance and support for local jurisdictions in their
work to reduce disparities.
Shalinee Hunter, CA State DMC Coordinator
2. Analysis at each decision point is needed so that targeted
policy and programmatic changes can be implemented.
To ensure that strategies for reducing racial and ethnic
disparities are based on evidence rather than perceptions, it is
critical that States collect and analyze data at each juvenile justice
decision point. In a meta-analysis of studies on race and the juvenile
justice system, researchers found that almost three-quarters of the
studies of DMC showed unwarranted racial disparity in at least one
decision point in the juvenile justice process.\ii\ Analysis of all
juvenile justice decision making points sheds light on the entire
system flow equally, and thus minimizes opportunities for blame.
The Tucson, Arizona Police Department has engaged in intensive work
to reduce racial and ethnic disparities. In DMC work, the police are
often the first to blame. In our experience, however, the opposite was
true. The collection and analysis of data encourage open dialogue that
is based on fact, not politics. In doing so, we avoided the 'blame
game' and 'finger pointing.' The analysis helped our department learn
what we are doing well, and where we need to dig deeper to investigate
whether local policy and practice have a disparate impact on youth of
color.
Rick Wilson, Lieutenant, Tucson Police Department
The argument has been made that minority youth are overrepresented
in the juvenile justice system simply because youth of color commit
more crime. Careful data collection and analysis reveals that this is
generally not the case. A more likely scenario is that DMC is driven by
a group of factors that may even be at work simultaneously. Some
factors could include: selective police surveillance and enforcement
practices, differential opportunities for early prevention and
treatment, differential handling of minority youth, indirect effects of
juvenile justice policies, and legislative changes, administrative
policies, and legal factors.\iii\ All of these drivers of racial and
ethnic disparity and, once identified, can be remedied through
evidence-based interventions.
3. To have an impact on racial and ethnic disparities,
jurisdictions need to engage in routine data collection that can guide
implementation of meaningful solutions.
In many jurisdictions, race and ethnicity data currently are not
collected adequately or used effectively to guide policy and practice
changes aimed at reducing racial and ethnic disparities. Existing data
and available information can be used to reveal unconscious biases that
might guide individual decisions, as well as trends in the
disproportionate representation of youth of color at various stages of
the system.
Nearly all States collect some form of data, including the Relative
Rate Index required by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP) to identify whether and to what extent racial and
ethnic disparities exist within their juvenile justice systems. In a
2008 survey of DMC coordinators, 97% of respondents (N=33) reported
that data collection and analysis efforts were underway in their
States.\iv\ However, many State officials and juvenile justice
stakeholders are concerned that the collection of data is where DMC
reduction efforts often begin and end. Moreover, many jurisdictions are
unclear how to use the data to effect change. The survey also revealed
that only 27% of states examine seemingly race-neutral policies and
practices that might drive DMC.
We have successfully collected Relative Rate Index data, but the
data have little utility for real change at the local level. In order
to effect real change locally, we would need to look behind the numbers
to learn where disparities exist. For many jurisdictions, it seems like
the data collection is an exercise, not a mechanism to review where we
can take action to reduce disparities. In addition, some jurisdictions
within the State have expressed reservations regarding the accuracy of
the data collected. If we had a better system that required more than
simply the collection of data, we might engage in a conversation that
would surface any inaccuracies and allow us to move forward in digging
deeper into the data.
Maurice Nins, Minnesota Juvenile Justice Specialist
Data regarding Latino involvement in the juvenile justice system
are particularly inadequate. In many parts of the country there are no
accurate data on the number of Latino youth in the juvenile justice
system. Instead, Latino youth are counted as ``White'' or ``Black,''
resulting in significant undercounting of Latino youth.\v\ Although
some data on Latino youth are available, they may not represent the
full extent of disparate treatment for Latino youth in the juvenile
justice system because some jurisdictions mix their counting of race
and ethnicity. In these jurisdictions, Latino youth must choose between
reporting their race and their ethnicity because the systems do not
have capacity to report both (for example, that a youth is both African
American and Latino).\vi\ With accurate data, disaggregated by race and
ethnicity, communities can plan and coordinate culturally- and
linguistically-appropriate services that are effective for youth and
their families.\vii\
4. To accomplish measurable reductions in racial and ethnic
disparities, jurisdictions must implement programs designed to address
their identified disparities.
Data collection and analysis are critical to understanding the
presence and severity of DMC, but the work cannot end there. A few
jurisdictions have achieved measurable reductions in racial and ethnic
disparities by implementing data-driven strategies that are guided by
collaborative groups of traditional and nontraditional juvenile justice
stakeholders. The following are examples of these successes:
Peoria County, Illinois examined data from school
referrals to the police and determined that the county's DMC was
aggravated by school discipline policies that had a disparate impact on
youth of color. The County successfully reduced disproportionate
referrals of youth of color to the juvenile justice system by working
with the school system to strengthen school-based conflict resolution
protocols.\viii\
In Travis County, Texas, analysis of probation data showed
racial and ethnic disparities in the detention of youth who violated
probation. The county reduced its disproportionate incarceration of
youth of color who violated probation by establishing a Sanction
Supervision Program, which provides more intensive case management and
probation services to youth and their families.\ix\
Pennsylvania has recently implemented a system of
statewide juvenile justice data collection that captures ethnicity
separately from race.\x\ Berks County, Pennsylvania found
disproportionate representation of youth of color in both detention and
secure placement. Through development of a detention assessment
instrument and an evening reporting center as an alternative to
detention, the county has reduced its detention population by 45%. The
county's introduction of multi-systemic therapy, an evidence-based
treatment program for youth and their families in their own homes,
along with promotion of other alternatives to incarceration, has
significantly dropped the population of youth in residential placement
as well.
Santa Cruz County, California found ethnic disparities in
detention and subsequently reduced disproportionate admissions to
detention of Latino youth by focusing on reducing admissions for youth
who were initially detained by probation but released by the Judge at
first appearance. Development of alternatives to detention in a
neighborhood from which many Latino youth entered the juvenile justice
system helped reduce the detained population.\xi\
Baltimore County, Maryland observed a racially disparate
impact at the decision to detain youth who did not appear in court
after receiving a bench warrant. The County instituted a reminder call
program and subsequently reduced secure detention of African American
youth by 50%.\xii\
5. States are eager to learn about how other States have
successfully reduced racial and ethnic disparities. Annual public
reporting of DMC reduction efforts and progress would assist states in
learning about successes and challenges that can inform their future
efforts.
States and local jurisdictions throughout the nation are at
different stages in their current efforts to reduce racial and ethnic
disparities. Some jurisdictions have sustained reductions of
disparities in targeted populations for several years, and some
jurisdictions have yet to identify whether racial and ethnic
disparities exist. States at all stages of this work can benefit from
learning about successful efforts in other States.
Moreover, ensuring that monies allocated for work to reduce racial
and ethnic disparities are being used effectively requires
transparency. Requiring that States publicly report their efforts to
reduce disparities will ensure that juvenile justice resources are
spent wisely.
ENDNOTES
\i\ P.L.93-415
\ii\ Pope, C.E., Lovell, R., & Hsia, H.M. (2002). Disproportionate
Minority Confinement: A Review of the Research Literature from 1989
through 2001. OJJDP: Washington, DC.
\iii\ Nellis, A. (2005). Seven Steps to Develop and Evaluate
Strategies to Reduce Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC).
Washington, DC: Justice Research and Statistics Association.
\iv\ CJJ Survey for ECD, 2008.
\v\ Id. at p. 1.
\vi\ Villarruel, Francisco A.; Walker, Nancy; et al., (July 2002)
Donde Esta la Justicia? A call to action on behalf of Latino and Latina
youth in the U.S. justice system, p. 42-44. Available: http://
www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/Full%20Report%20English.pdf.
\vii\ Id.
\viii\ Conversation with Laurie Brown, Peoria County Site
Coordinator, August 6, 2007.
\ix\ Conversation with Britt Canary, Travis County Juvenile
Probation Department, April 4, 2008.
\x\ National Center for Juvenile Justice (2006). Guidelines for
Collecting and Recording the Race and Ethnicity of Juveniles in
Conjunction with Juvenile Delinquency Disposition Reporting to the
Juvenile Court Judges' Commission. Available: http://
www.jcjc.state.pa.us/jcjc/lib/jcjc/publications/cclp001-race--
booklet.pdf
\xi\ Conversation with Scott MacDonald, Santa Cruz County Probation
Department, February 13, 2008.
\xii\ Conversation with Tiana Davis, Baltimore County DMC
Coordinator, March 15, 2008.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Psychological Association; Bazelon
Center for Mental Health Law; Mental Health America; and the National
Disability Rights Network
On behalf of the American Psychological Association (APA), Bazelon
Center for Mental Health Law, Mental Health America (MHA), and the
National Disability Rights Network (NDRN), we thank you for holding
this important hearing on juvenile justice.
Together, our organizations represent disability and mental health
advocates, consumers, and professionals, and strongly support the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA). This critical
law serves to protect communities, prevent delinquent behavior, guide
the treatment of justice-involved and at-risk youth, and address
dangerous conditions of confinement. We see its pending reauthorization
as an opportunity to address the mental and behavioral health needs of
this population which exist at rates 3 to 4 times that found in the
overall population under the age of 18.
We are encouraged by Senate efforts thus far and the convening of
today's hearing. S. 678, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2009, contains a number of provisions
related to mental and behavioral health that:
Add the Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration to the Federal Coordinating Council for
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention;
Add experts in mental health to the State Advisory Groups;
Direct states to outline in their State Plans their
efforts to use evidence-based mental health and substance abuse
screening and assessment programs for youth in secure facilities;
Provide states with training and technical assistance
related to effective mental health and substance abuse screening,
assessment, and treatment;
Authorize a much-needed study to fill in significant gaps
in the research regarding the prevalence of disabilities among the
juvenile justice population; and
Create a new incentive grant program to help State and
local governments address mental health and substance abuse needs among
juvenile justice-involved youth by: fostering linkages between juvenile
justice and public mental health agencies; promoting the use of
evidence-based prevention, identification and intervention strategies;
providing staff training; and supporting at-risk youth.
These important provisions represent a sure step forward in
addressing the disparate mental health needs of justice-involved and
at-risk youth, and we look forward to working with the House of
Representatives to identify additional ways that JJDPA can provide
effective interventions for this group of young people.
Background Issues
Research shows that between 60 and 80 percent of youth involved
with the juvenile justice system meet the criteria for at least one
psychiatric diagnosis and that, of this group, approximately 80 percent
meet the criteria for two or more mental health or substance abuse
disorders. Youth experiencing serious emotional disturbance make-up
approximately 15-20 percent of the population in juvenile justice
facilities, a rate up to 10 times higher than their representation in
the community.
In addition, recent federal reports demonstrate that juvenile
justice systems regularly act as weigh-stations where youth await
treatment, functions not intended for juvenile justice. In 2003, the
Government Accountability Office reported on the tragedy of parents
being forced to relinquish legal and physical custody of their children
to child welfare and juvenile justice agencies in the often unfounded
belief that doing so would secure otherwise unavailable mental health
services for their children. Data for 2001 from 19 States and 30
counties showed that nearly 9,000 children and adolescents were sent to
the juvenile justice system for this reason.
Furthermore, in 2004, the House Committee on Government Reform
reported that two-thirds of juvenile detention facilities located in 47
states held youth with mental disorders solely due to a lack of
community mental health treatment, and spent an estimated $100 million
each year to house youth who are waiting for community mental health
services. The survey also revealed that of more than 340 juvenile
detention facilities across the country that held youth waiting for
community mental health services, almost half reported suicide attempts
and more than one-quarter reported having poor or no mental health
treatment for youths in detention.
The price of inaction is significant. Facilities in the juvenile
justice system were not designed to serve as mental health treatment
centers, and most are not equipped to care for young people with
special needs. Facilities are often overcrowded and understaffed,
leading to poor supervision, and use of inappropriate or ineffective
behavioral management strategies. Youth in these facilities often are
exposed to stress, trauma and serious harms due to dangerous conditions
of confinement, including physical and sexual violence. Youth who have
behavioral health needs are particularly vulnerable to these harms,
which has resulted in serious injuries, self-mutilation, suicides and
death.
Finally, there are no national standards regulating conditions of
confinement in facilities in the juvenile justice system. There is
little or no monitoring and oversight to holding these facilities
accountable for how they care for and supervise youth with mental
health needs. Unlike any other residential facilities where youth with
mental health, psychiatric or other disabilities are protected by
national standards relating to abuse and neglect, there are no
analogous standards for youth in secure juvenile justice facilities.
Recommendations
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA)
Reauthorization
With regard to mental and behavioral health issues, this critical
reauthorization must address two seemingly conflicting goals: helping
to remove incentives to drive youth deeper into juvenile justice
systems, while still fostering and ensuring an appropriate range of
critical services. Our organizations strongly encourage the Committee
to consider the following principles during JJDPA reauthorization.
1. Create incentives for comprehensive and meaningful
collaborations among state and local agencies, programs, and
organizations that serve children, including schools, mental health and
substance abuse agencies, law enforcement and probation personnel,
juvenile courts, departments of corrections, child welfare, other
public health agencies, and institutes of higher education.
2. Identify vulnerable youth with mental health and substance abuse
disorders post adjudication through comprehensive screening and
assessments in order to provide needed treatment, supports and
services. In addition, policies should be developed and implemented to
screen youth at intake or the point of detention, and to ensure that
vulnerable youth with mental health and substance abuse disorders are
protected from abuse, neglect, self-incrimination, or misuse of health
information.
3. Provide grants to divert youth from detention and incarceration
into home- and community-based care, whenever appropriate, which are
less expensive and more effective settings for meeting their needs than
juvenile justice facilities.
4. Make training available through OJJDP for law enforcement
officers, juvenile and family court judges, probation officers, and
other decision makers about the signs and symptoms of mental and
behavioral health needs, the existence and purpose of screening and
assessment, and the effectiveness of home- and community-based
treatment and other mental health supports and services.
5. Develop an individualized discharge plan for each youth upon
admission to any juvenile justice facility, including detention
centers, in order to link them to appropriate aftercare services,
including behavioral health services and supports, when they are
released back into the community.
6. Provide incentives for juvenile justice systems to implement
programs and services that involve families and have been proven
through research to reduce recidivism and improve outcomes for juvenile
offenders, such as Functional Family Therapy, Multi-Dimensional
Treatment Foster Care, and Multi-Systemic Therapy.
7. Create a national technical assistance center and a series of
regional technical assistance centers to assist juvenile justice
agencies in all matters related to juveniles with mental health and
substance abuse disorders, and create grants to assist state and local
juvenile justice agencies as they work to reform their systems.
8. Provide grants for increased training opportunities, including
best practices related to mental health, and technical assistance for
law enforcement and probation officers, corrections and community
corrections personnel, court services personnel and others as an
appropriate means of reducing juvenile crime.
9. Create reporting requirements to the Department of Justice that
will improve understanding of the prevalence of mental health and
substance abuse disorders in the juvenile justice system.
10. Establish safeguards to ensure that psychotropic medications
given to youth in the juvenile justice system are provided only as part
of a treatment plan, based on a mental health assessment performed by a
qualified, licensed mental health professional.
11. Establish and fund a system of independent monitoring and
oversight to identify and remediate dangerous conditions in juvenile
justice facilities.
Other key legislative priorities
Re-introduce and enact the Keeping Families Together Act,
which would expand systems of care to address the mental health needs
of children and youth and reduce the unnecessary entry of young people
into the juvenile justice system;
Principles contained in the Mental Health Juvenile Justice
Act, introduced in 2001 and 2002, respectively, by Congressman Miller
and Senator Wellstone; and
Enact H.R. 1931, the Juvenile Crime Reduction Act, which
reflects many of the principles outlined above.
Conclusion
We thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective on the
intersection of juvenile justice and mental health and substance abuse,
and the need for changes to the federal investment in juvenile justice
and delinquency prevention. The science behind mental health issues is
far beyond where the evidence-based literature was the last time JJDPA
was reauthorized. We now know how to better address and ameliorate the
mental health crisis among our nation's youth. Given the progress in
science and better collaboration among the stakeholders, the next
reauthorization of JJDPA needs to seize this opportunity and
dramatically shift the way in which it addresses mental health issues.
We appreciate the Committee's ongoing commitment and leadership to
addressing vital juvenile justice issues and look forward to continuing
to work with you on these critically important efforts.
______
[Additional submission of Messrs. Scott and Grijalva
follows:]
Prepared Statement of the National Disability Rights Network
On behalf of the National Disability Rights Network, and the 57
Protection and Advocacy Systems we represent nationwide, we thank you
for having a hearing on the important topic of the juvenile justice
system.
The National Disability Rights Network is the membership
organization for the Protection and Advocacy (P&A) Systems, a
nationwide network of 57 congressionally mandated, legally based
disability rights agencies operating in every state and territory in
the United States. P&A agencies have the authority to provide legal
representation and advocacy services to all people with disabilities.
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) stands
as one of the most important federal laws on the treatment of children
in the juvenile justice system. While this law serves many important
purposes, and provides many important protections for juveniles in
contact with the juvenile justice system, the testimony that you will
hear today and the juvenile justice advocacy by our network clearly
show the time is right to reauthorize and update this Act.
The stories have been replete in newspapers and on television
demonstrating the problems with the current juvenile justice system:
Judges with a financial stake choosing to incarcerate juveniles in a
for-profit prison; high incidents of sexual and physical abuse;
juvenile justice facilities that are overcrowded, unsanitary, unsafe,
and understaffed, children not receiving needed education or mental
health services while incarcerated, leading to increased amounts of
recidivism upon release; juveniles awaiting trial in adult facilities,
and others who have committed no more than truancy being confined in
secure juvenile correctional facilities to languish and suffer due to
the outdated Valid Court Order provision.
These problems fall disproportionally upon children with a
disability. Each day some 100,000 children and youth are locked up in
juvenile detention centers and correctional facilities, and more are
incarcerated in jails and prisons. About 70--80% of these youth have a
mental health, cognitive, developmental, physical, learning, or other
disability, including youth with IQs in the low 40s. Unfortunately,
experience has shown that youth with disabilities are more vulnerable
to being exploited and harmed in juvenile justice facilities, and
incarceration has a profoundly negative impact on their mental and
physical well-being.
The Senate has taken many important steps in its version of the
reauthorization of the JJDPA, but there remains more work that could be
done to address systemic problems in the juvenile justice system. As
the House Education and Labor Committee begins to craft its version of
the JJDPA reauthorization, NDRN and the P&As suggest that the Committee
look at strengthening the Senate provisions addressing mental and
behavioral health. In addition, more protections need to be enacted to
ensure juveniles that do not belong in the adult criminal system do not
end up there, more needs to be done to divert children from the
juvenile justice system and dismantle the school to prison pipeline,
and the outmoded concept of incarcerating status offenders for
violations of a Valid Court Order needs to be abolished.
However, while all those changes would make a positive change in
the juvenile justice system, there is still an important component that
is lacking, and that is independent monitoring and oversight. Juvenile
justice facilities are currently largely unregulated and free from
independent, third-party monitoring and oversight. Current reporting
requirements regarding deaths, serious injuries, and critical incidents
in juvenile justice facilities are inadequate, and monitoring and
oversight systems are ineffectual or non-existent, or subject to the
whims of state and local budget cuts.
Into this gap in independent oversight and monitoring has stepped
P&A systems all around the country. P&As are monitoring facilities and
ensuring: problems in unsafe and understaffed facilities are identified
and remedied; juveniles are receiving needed and mandated services
while incarcerated; youth who can be diverted from the juvenile justice
system are being appropriately referred; and youth who are being
released are linked to needed services and supports that reduce the
rate of recidivism. All P&As have an interest in performing this
important work, however, a lack of dedicated funding has meant that not
every P&A can perform this important independent oversight of the
juvenile justice system.
In addition to the recommendations made earlier concerning the
reauthorization of the JJDPA, NDRN and the 57 P&As it represents
believe that a new provision should be added to the Act to dedicate a
stream of funding to allow every P&A to provide a level of independent
monitoring and oversight to the juvenile justice system in their state
or territory. Such a Juvenile Justice Protection and Advocacy program
will promote the use of practices in the juvenile justice system that
are cost effective and increase public safety by holding youth
accountable while helping them become productive adults.
Creating a Juvenile Justice Protection and Advocacy program is an
extremely cost effective way to provide independent oversight of the
juvenile justice system. First, it is always cost effective to identify
dangerous conditions and practices as early as possible to correct them
before they result in costly liabilities. This is something that the
P&A System has clearly shown throughout its more than 30 year existence
in juvenile justice facilities as well as other facilities where
individuals with a disability reside.\i\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ For additional information about the need to Include a Juvenile
Justice Protection & Advocacy Program in the JJDPA Reauthorization Act,
see: http://www.ndrn.org/issues/jj/faq.htm#why1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Providing dedicated funding to the P&A System to perform juvenile
justice work eliminates the need to create a new system of independent
oversight as the infrastructure already exists within this federally
mandated nationwide network with a proven track record for more than 30
years. P&As already have unique federally-mandated authority to access
juvenile justice facilities, jails and prisons in order to monitor and
investigate conditions and practices, including violations of the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA). The P&A System
would bring independence, disability expertise, experience, and
knowledge of evidence-based practices, and is ready to begin
immediately as soon as funding becomes available.
Another benefit of the P&As is that they tailor their advocacy
activities to the unique needs and issues in their jurisdictions. The
range of potential P&A activities that are already being performed in
the juvenile justice system and would be expanded with a dedicated
stream of funding includes:
Community-based advocacy. Promoting inter-agency
collaborative approaches to reducing the disproportionate contact of
youth with disabilities with the juvenile justice system.
Diversion advocacy. Training for and consulting with
judges, probation officers, and others about disability issues and
resources in order to divert youth from confinement, as appropriate.
Facility-based advocacy. Identifying dangerous conditions
and practices that place confined youth at risk of harm. Advocating for
special education and mental health services that promote positive
youth development.
Discharge planning advocacy. Promoting reintegration of
youth into their communities via aftercare services that reduce
recidivism (e.g., education, employment, mental health care).
NDRN and the P&As feel there is an opportunity with the
reauthorization of the JJDPA to make many positive changes to the Act,
most importantly the addition of independent oversight to our nation's
juvenile justice system. Given the P&As' record of achievement and the
efficiency and cost effectiveness of using an already existing system
with representation in every state and the territories, NDRN and the 57
P&As feel strongly that a dedicated stream of funding to the P&As
focused on the juvenile justice system will achieve the goal of
independent oversight and monitoring of the juvenile justice system.
We thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony today,
and stand ready to work with all Members of the House Education and
Labor Committee to pass a strong reauthorization of the JJDPA.
______
[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]