10

The Federal Role

We now turn our attention to the role that the federal government can play in promoting more developmentally appropriate juvenile justice policies and practices. We focus specifically on the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), the congressionally mandated lead agency for juvenile justice. Given the current state of the field, with its receptivity to change but need for assistance, two questions arise: Is OJJDP the appropriate federal agency to guide and assist state, local, and tribal jurisdictions toward the goal of a developmentally appropriate juvenile justice system? If so, how can its leadership role be strengthened? This chapter reviews the history of OJJDP, its relevant portfolio, its current status, and presents the committee’s views about the agency’s future role in promoting and facilitating juvenile justice reform.

THE HISTORY OF OJJDP

OJJDP is the only federal agency specifically directed to develop and disseminate knowledge to the juvenile justice field and to assist states in improving their systems. Established in 1974, the office has authority for federal programs under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), as amended. This legislation reflected basic understandings that delinquent behavior is preventable and that juveniles involved in the juvenile justice system should receive individualized treatment. It also acknowledged the deficiencies of juvenile courts and the services available to them, particularly the “critically needed alternatives to institutionalization” (P.L. 93-415, Sec. 102).



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 281
10 The Federal Role We now turn our attention to the role that the federal government can play in promoting more developmentally appropriate juvenile justice poli- cies and practices. We focus specifically on the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), the congressionally mandated lead agency for juvenile justice. Given the current state of the field, with its receptivity to change but need for assistance, two questions arise: Is OJJDP the appropri- ate federal agency to guide and assist state, local, and tribal jurisdictions toward the goal of a developmentally appropriate juvenile justice system? If so, how can its leadership role be strengthened? This chapter reviews the history of OJJDP, its relevant portfolio, its current status, and presents the committee’s views about the agency’s future role in promoting and facilitat- ing juvenile justice reform. THE HISTORY OF OJJDP OJJDP is the only federal agency specifically directed to develop and disseminate knowledge to the juvenile justice field and to assist states in improving their systems. Established in 1974, the office has authority for federal programs under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), as amended. This legislation reflected basic understandings that delinquent behavior is preventable and that juveniles involved in the juve- nile justice system should receive individualized treatment. It also acknowl- edged the deficiencies of juvenile courts and the services available to them, particularly the “critically needed alternatives to institutionalization” (P.L. 93-415, Sec. 102). 281

OCR for page 281
282 REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE OJJDP and its predecessor agencies1 came into operation during the due process reform period of juvenile justice change described in Chapter 2 and reflected a new federal commitment to help state and localities strengthen their juvenile justice systems to make them more fair and effective (Matsuda and Foley, 1981). Congress established OJJDP to provide immediate and comprehensive action by the federal government. OJJDP was given a broad mandate to provide technical assistance and training, conduct a centralized research and evaluation effort, develop national standards, and coordinate federal activities related to the treatment of juvenile offenders and those at risk of entering the juvenile justice system. It was also given authority to provide formula grants to participating states and territories to help them meet the goals of JJDPA and develop their juvenile justice programs. Although formula funds could be applied to a wide variety of delin- quency prevention and intervention programs, receipt of this funding was tied to compliance with core requirements. The original JJDPA included two core protection requirements. Subsequent revisions to the JJDPA expanded the list of core mandates to the four that exist today (see Box 10-1). In order to receive formula funds from OJJDP, states must submit a plan every three years, which guides the development, implementation, and funding of programs to address the core requirements of JJDPA and improves state juvenile justice systems. Demonstrating compliance with the requirements necessitated the creation of adequate systems for monitoring jails, detention facilities, and correctional facilities (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- quency Prevention, 2010). States receiving formula funds are required to distribute most of the monies to local jurisdictions. Total funding for OJJDP from 1974-2010 is shown in constant 2010 dollars in Figure 10-1. In the early years, funds for the State Formula Grant Program (also known as Title II, Part B) constituted about two-thirds of OJJDP’s budget. These formula funds were awarded to states to encourage the separation of juveniles from adult inmates, the diversion of juveniles from the juvenile justice system to community-based alternatives to confine- ment, and the development of new and effective approaches to the treat- ment of juvenile offenders. In the 1980s and 1990s, when state policies and programs were “get- ting tough” on juveniles (see Chapter 2), OJJDP continued to support 1  In 1912, the Children’s Bureau was created to investigate and report on juvenile courts. The Division of Juvenile Delinquency Services was created under the Children’s Bureau 40 years later. With the passing of the 1961 Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act, the Office of Juvenile Delinquency was established within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974 replaced previous legislation and established the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) within the Department of Justice to oversee efforts in the United States to prevent juvenile delinquency and improve the quality of juvenile justice (Matsuda and Foley, 1981).

OCR for page 281
THE FEDERAL ROLE 283 BOX 10-1 JJDPA’s Four Core Requirements • Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO): Juveniles who are charged with or who have committed an offense that would not be a crime if committed by an adult, and juveniles who are not charged with any offenses, are not to be placed in secure detention or secure correctional facilities. • Removal from Adult Jail and Lockup (Jail Removal): Juveniles are not to be detained or confined in any institution in which they would have contact with adult inmates. In addition, correctional staff working with both adult and juvenile offenders must have been trained and certified to work with juveniles. • Sight and Sound Separation (Separation): Juveniles are not to be detained or confined in any jail or lockup for adults, except for juveniles who are accused of nonstatus offenses. These juveniles may be detained for no longer than six hours as they are processed, waiting to be released, awaiting transfer to a juvenile facility, or await- ing their court appearance. In addition, juveniles in rural locations may be held for up to 48 hours in jails or lockups for adults as they await their initial court appearance. Juveniles held in adult jails or lockups in both rural and urban areas are not to have contact with adult inmates, and any staff working with both adults and juveniles must have been trained and certified to work with juveniles. • Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC): States are required to show that they are implementing juvenile delinquency preven- tion programs designed to reduce—without establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas—the disproportionate number of minorities confined in their juvenile justice systems. SOURCE: Nuñez-Neto (2008). states’ efforts to comply with the requirements of JJDPA and improve their juvenile justice programs. The office began to focus on issues that affect the system as a whole, such as drugs and serious juvenile offending, and to develop programs that would help coordinate system-wide responses. One of its training programs, the Serious Habitual Offender Comprehen- sive Action Program, called for the active participation and coordination of all agencies in the juvenile justice system—police, prosecution, courts, probation, corrections, aftercare, and human service agencies—to deal with serious juvenile offenders. OJJDP started looking outside the bounds of

OCR for page 281
284 REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE the juvenile justice system and, in efforts to prevent juvenile delinquency, supported research and development on school policies and family interven- tions (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1988). One of its projects examined existing school disciplinary policies and developed and tested new policies and procedures designed to reduce school crime and disorder. Another project identified promising programs that would strengthen families in ways shown to reduce delinquency (Alvarado and Kumpfer, 2000). OJJDP was given additional authority to support programs relating to child victimization and exploitation through the Missing Children’s Assis- tance Act (MCAA) and the Victims of Child Abuse Act (VOCA). These programs continue to receive support. Today, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children as well as regional and local training for AMBER Alert activities are funded under MCAA. The Children’s Advocacy Centers are funded under VOCA to provide assistance for the investigation, treatment, and prosecution of child abuse cases. In the 1992 reauthorization of JJDPA, reducing DMC2 was elevated to a fourth core requirement tied to formula and block funds. This reau- thorization also established the Community Prevention Grants program, also referred to as the Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention, under Title V to encourage prevention efforts at the local level. This Title V program was designed to encourage local leaders to assess the risk factors in their neighborhoods and develop and implement data-driven delinquency prevention strategies. It provided additional funds to states, supplementing the formula funds but specifically directed at delinquency prevention at the local level. During the period of the 1980s and 1990s, the combination of Part B formula and Title V funds represented two-thirds of OJJDP’s budget. The 1992 reauthorization also focused OJJDP’s attention on the legal representation of juveniles. It funded a study to examine problems facing public defenders and impeding legal representation (Puritz et al., 1995), which led to the development of training and technical assistance (TTA) for defenders in local jurisdictions. In addition, new language in the reautho- rization directed states to use formula funds to identify gaps and biases in their systems in regard to gender-specific services. The increasing involve- ment of young women in the juvenile justice system was a significant concern at this time. OJJDP’s mandate and available funding through the formula grants as well as the new Challenge Grant Program provided a vehicle for states to address the needs of adolescent girls (Larance, 2009).3 2  In 1992, the DMC acronym referred to disproportionate minority confinement, but the scope was changed to disproportionate minority contact in the 2002 reauthorization after it was widely determined that disproportionally extended to all parts of the system. 3  For a description of federal leadership on gender issues, see Sherman (2012, pp. 1586-1595).

OCR for page 281
THE FEDERAL ROLE 285 Public concerns about juvenile crime were intensified during this period. As such, OJJDP was able to grow its portfolios on illegal drugs, gangs, and serious, violent offenders. At the same time, OJJDP undertook several activities to assess the available evidence to determine the most effective programs for preventing delinquency and strengthening juvenile justice systems. The result of its efforts was a position paper entitled The Comprehensive Strategy on Serious, Violent, and Chronic Youth Crime (Wilson and Howell, 1993), which refocused attention on early intervention and prevention. Once youth entered the juvenile justice system, the strat- egy called for jurisdictions to provide a continuum of graduated sanctions tailored for first-time nonserious offending through multiple offending and serious violent offending (Krisberg, Barry, and Sharrock, 2004). As interest and support for the strategy grew, OJJDP developed an implementation guide (Howell, 1995a) and embarked on intensive TTA initiatives to pilot and push forward the adoption of the Comprehensive Strategy by local and statewide jurisdictions. The office also embarked on efforts to involve other child-serving systems that have critical roles in delinquency prevention. It became an active supporter of the Blueprints for Violence Prevention Project (Mihalic et al., 2004) and helped promote the adoption of research-based preven- tion programs. It provided funding for TTA to nationwide replications of Blueprint programs aimed at reducing adolescent violent crime, aggression, delinquency, and substance abuse. Its Safe Futures Initiative, launched at demonstration sites in 1996, brought family and health services, education systems, and juvenile justice together in an effort to reduce juvenile delinquency and violence. It sought to establish public–private partnerships to leverage resources needed to pro- vide a continuum of services appropriate for diverse needs of youth (Morley et al., 2000). Three years later, OJJDP undertook other federal collabora- tive efforts in the school violence and child victimization areas. The Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative, cofunded with the Departments of Edu- cation and Health and Human Services, provided federal funding to com- munities to create an infrastructure that would link and integrate existing and new services that promote student development, positive mental health, and prosocial behavior (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven- tion, 2001b). OJJDP also partnered with the Department of Health and Human Services to develop and support the Safe Start Initiative, designed to address child victimization (primarily birth to age 6). Again the initiative sought to create comprehensive systems, which incorporated community assessment and strategic planning across services (Kracke, 2001). As pressure to “get tough” on youth mounted in the mid-1990s, OJJDP was authorized to provide additional resources to states to build their juve- nile justice system infrastructure through the Juvenile Accountability Block

OCR for page 281
286 REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE Grant (JABG) Program.4 A core mandate of JABG is that states must show progress toward implementing a system of graduated sanctions in order to be eligible for funding. For five years, monies appropriated through JABG represented a significant boost to OJJDP’s budget and, very important, was a source of funding states relied on to build and strengthen their juvenile justice system infrastructure. Congressional support of this program even in the face of opposition by the Clinton administration5 reflected Congress’s priorities and its desire that support to the states for their juvenile justice system infrastructures should receive precedence over prevention program- ming. The JABG program continues today, but its funding is about one- sixth of what it was when introduced. See Figure 10-1. Around the same time as the introduction of the JABG program, Con- gress began to direct OJJDP to address other areas, such as underage drinking and tribal youth justice. Congress initiated the Enforcing Under- age Drinking Laws (EUDL) Program in FY1998 and appropriated $25 million annually to EUDL through FY2010. The Tribal Youth Program (TYP) was established in FY1999 and awards funds to federally recognized tribal governments to improve their juvenile justice systems. The program addresses the chronic underfunding of juvenile justice systems and services in American Indian and Alaska Native communities and the limited training and assistance available to law enforcement and justice personnel in these areas. Both programs have been appropriated funds through carve-outs from Title V funding.6 An example of carve-outs is illustrated in the 2009 appropriations language in Box 10-2. During the late 1990s, OJJDP entered a new stage in its development. After 1998, its total operating budget nearly tripled. See Figure 10-1. How- ever, funds for its hallmark State Formula Grant Program dropped to less than 20 percent of the agency’s operating budget from 1998 to 2010. As the number of appropriated carve-outs continued to rise, OJJDP’s portfolio was increasingly shaped by congressional priorities, and its ability to sup- port the agency’s original mission declined. See Figure 10-2. By 2008, the 4  JABG was originally known as the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) Program. JABG funds can be spent on local programs in distinct purpose areas: graduated sanctions, corrections/detention facilities, court staffing and pretrial services, prosecutors (staffing and/or funding equipment or training), training for law enforcement and court personnel, juvenile gun courts, juvenile drug courts, juvenile records systems, information sharing, accountability, risk/need assessment, school safety, restorative justice, juvenile courts and probation, corrections/detention personnel, and reentry (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2009c). 5  OMB did not include JABG in its annual budget submissions. 6  Carve-outs are programs that Congress requires an agency to support and for which it usually specifies the budget category from which the funds should come. For example, tribal youth justice and underage drinking programs are carve-outs, and the funds to support them come from the funds allocated to the delinquency prevention program area.

OCR for page 281
THE FEDERAL ROLE 287 $800,000 700,000 Annual Funding (in thousands of dollars) 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Year JJDPA MCAA Recovery Act JABG VOCA TOTAL Other FIGURE 10-1  OJJDP annual funding 1975 to 2010 in constant 2010 dollars. NOTES: Funding for Juvenile Accountability Block Grants, although it disappears in the graph after FY2004, has remained at about $50 million. JABG = Juvenile Ac- countability Block Grant, JJDPA = Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, MCAA = Missing Children’s Assistance Act, OJJDP = Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, VOCA = Victims of Child Abuse Act. Figure 10-1 SOURCE: Created from financial information provided by OJJDP. budget for its combined state formula and block grant programs7 dropped to one-third of OJJDP’s total budget. JJDPA was last reauthorized in 2002 through the 21st Century Depart- ment of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (P.L. 107-273), and, as of the writing of this report, has yet to be reauthorized. As a result, for- mal authorization for OJJDP’s programs expired in FY2007 and FY2008. 7  Combined state formula and block grant programs refers to the Title II Part B Formula Funds, Title V Incentive Grants, EUDL, and the Challenge Grants (old Title II, Part E) under JJDPA as well as block grants authorized under JABG.

OCR for page 281
288 REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE BOX 10-2 Legislative Language from 2009 Appropriations (excerpt) JUVENILE JUSTICE PROGRAMS For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other assistance au- thorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (‘‘the 1974 Act’’) . . . and other juvenile justice programs, $374,000,000, to remain available until expended as follows…. (3) $80,000,000 for youth mentoring grants; (4) $62,000,000 for delinquency prevention, as authorized by section 505 of the 1974 Act, of which, pursuant to sections 261 and 262 thereof— (A) $25,000,000 shall be for the Tribal Youth Program; (  B) $10,000,000 shall be for a gang resistance education and training program; and (  C) $25,000,000 shall be for grants of $360,000 to each State and $4,840,000 shall be available for discretionary grants, for programs and activities to enforce State laws prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors or the purchase or consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors, for prevention and reduction of consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors, and for technical assistance and training. SOURCE: Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, H.R. 1105. However, many of OJJDP’s programs continue to receive support through appropriations. The remainder of this chapter highlights several of OJJDP’s programs that have had a major impact on the juvenile justice field, and then turns to discuss its current status. OJJDP’S PORTFOLIO OJJDP’s mandate is a broad one. Its responsibilities include collecting and documenting data on juveniles in the system, guiding and assisting efforts to prevent delinquency or improve state justice systems, ensuring states’ compliance with the goals of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974, and sponsoring relevant research. We highlight some of its accomplishments in three areas: (1) data collection, (2) national standards, and (3) the core requirements of the JJDPA. We also provide an example of OJJDP’s capacity to link research to practice.

OCR for page 281
THE FEDERAL ROLE 289 $120,000 Note: JABG funds actually 3x this - about $300 million annually for fiscal years 1999 - 2002 100,000 Annual Funding to States (in thousands of dollars) 80,000 Part II Formula Funds 60,000 JABG Title V Incentive Grants 40,000 EUDL 20,000 Challenge Grants 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year FIGURE 10-2  Trends in annual block/formula funding to states under JJDPA and JABG in constant 2010 dollars. NOTE: In order to not distort the graph, JABG funding for fiscal years 1999-2002 is shown at one-third value. EUDL = Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws, JABG = Juvenile Accountability Block Figure 10-2= Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre- Grant, JJDPA vention Act of 1974, OJJDP = Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. SOURCE: Created from financial information provided by OJJDP. Data Collection Since its inception, OJJDP has worked with other agencies both inside and outside the U.S. Department of Justice to develop a national statistics program that captures data on juvenile arrests, court cases, and placements. All these data are updated annually or biennially and made publicly avail- able online through its Statistical Briefing Book (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2011b). With OJJDP’s continued support, the statistics readily available to practitioners, policy makers, and researchers have steadily expanded to provide information on juveniles and cases at multiple points in the juvenile justice system.

OCR for page 281
290 REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE Drawing on the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, OJJDP produces the annual series Juvenile Arrests to document rates, patterns, and trends of arrests involving youth under age 18. The latest data reflect the continuing decline of both juvenile arrests overall and juvenile arrests for violent crime (Puzzanchera and Adams, 2011b). OJJDP also funds the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) to oversee the National Juvenile Court Data Archive. This archive currently contains more than 15 million automated case records from U.S. courts with juvenile jurisdiction; the majority of these records are delinquency and status offense records (National Center for Juvenile Justice, n.d.). The data archive produces the annual report Juvenile Court Statistics and maintains data sets for use by researchers as well as a web-based application tool for online access to analyze the databases from the report. Finally, three OJJDP sponsored surveys provide data on youth in out of home placement. The biennial Census of Juveniles in Residential Place- ment (CJRP) is a one-day census of all youth in both private and public residential facilities. CJRP collects data on characteristics of juveniles (age, race, gender, and most serious offense), court of jurisdiction (juvenile or criminal), adjudicatory status (pre- or postadjudication), and the state or county with jurisdiction (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre- vention, 2001b). The biennial Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC), first fielded in 2000, supplements the CJRP and captures facility-level information about the residential environments and the services juveniles receive while in facility placement. It requests data on facility ownership, security, capacity and crowding, as well as on injuries and deaths in custody (Hockenberry, Sickmund, and Sladky, 2011). Finally, the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP) complements these two censuses by col- lecting information directly from youth through anonymous interviews. To date, the survey has been administered only once, but it has provided valuable data regarding youth characteristics and backgrounds, condi- tions of confinement, youth needs and services, and the nature and risk of victimization (Sedlak and Bruce, 2010; Sedlak and McPherson, 2010a, 2010b). It also provides information previously unavailable, such as the overall prevalence of all offenses for which youth are incarcerated as well as the characteristics (e.g., drug/alcohol use, accomplices) of these offenses and insight into the backgrounds, expectations, and beliefs of juveniles in custody (Sedlak, 2010). National Performance Standards for Juvenile Facilities OJJDP’s role in developing national performance standards for juvenile facilities has been multifaceted, reflecting both its mission and its authority. It sponsored, at the request of Congress, the research study that examined

OCR for page 281
THE FEDERAL ROLE 291 the conditions of confinement and demonstrated the need for such stan- dards (Parent et al., 1994). It provided the start-up funds for the develop- ment of standards, outcome measures, and tools. It sponsored pilot sites to test the program and provided incentives for participating facilities with funds for improvements identified by the program (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2001b). The mandated study (Parent et al., 1994) found poor conditions at the turn of the 1990s—increased injuries to staff and youth due to overcrowd- ing, high rates of suicidal behavior, few timely or professionally conducted health surveys, and high levels of staff turnover at detention and correc- tional facilities (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2001b). The study also found that existing national procedural standards, those that focus on developing policies and procedures and maintaining specific staff ratios, had no discernible effect on conditions (Parent, 1993). OJJDP responded to these findings by initiating the Performance-based Standards (PbS) Program through a grant to the Council of Juvenile Cor- rectional Administrators.8 In 1998, the program was implemented in 20 facilities (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1999). As of April 2011, 198 facilities in 27 states subscribe to the PbS process (PbS Learning Institute, 2011). Although enrollment is increasing, current par- ticipation represents about 10 percent of total facilities in the United States. The effects of the PbS Program have been promising. Facilities and jurisdictions that participate in PbS are in a position to make data-informed decisions and to monitor the progress of their changes. To date, the data- base contains more than 75,000 incident reports, more than 30,000 youth records, and more than 70,000 youth and staff surveys (PbS Learning Institute, 2011). The large volume of data allows the program to provide facilities with reliable averages and statistics for comparison. It also can be used for research. For example, Kupchik and Snyder (2009) used the PbS data to develop a model to predict victimization and fear among individual juvenile inmates. Despite the fact that the PbS program has always been voluntary and its OJJDP support has dwindled, it continues to expand. In 2004, the PbS program transitioned from a free, federally supported program to an income-generating nonprofit, the PbS Learning Institute. 8  National performance standards were developed and tested in critical areas—safety, s ­ ecurity, order, health and mental health services, justice and legal rights, programming, and reintegration planning (PbS Learning Institute, 2011). In 2004, the Council of Juvenile Cor- rectional Administrators was a recipient of the Innovations in American Government Award, bestowed by Harvard University’s Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation and the Council for Excellence in Government, in recognition of the PbS program as an effec- tive government program that inspires public confidence.

OCR for page 281
310 REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE Figure 10-6). Note that recent restrictions on earmarks have not restored OJJDP’s base funding, as monies continue to be appropriated through carve-outs to special programs. The 2002 reauthorization of JJDPA replaced the challenge grants pro- gram with the demonstration projects program under Part E, Title II.27 Both programs authorized OJJDP to make grants to state, local, and tribal governments and private entities to carry out programs to develop, test, or demonstrate promising new initiatives that may prevent, control, or reduce juvenile delinquency. For FY2004 to FY2010, monies allocated under Part E went to awards directed by statutory earmarks. As such, funding was dedicated to specific programs in specific states and could not be directed otherwise by either OJJDP or the states. Significant portions of earmarked funds, particularly in the last two or three years, were directed toward mentoring programs for youth (Fitzpatrick, 2010). (The increase in appro- priated funding specifically directed for mentoring programs is discussed later in the chapter.) Funds for Federal Coordination The original JJDPA established an independent organization in the executive branch known as the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Jus- tice and Delinquency Prevention as a vehicle through which OJJDP was intended to exert its leadership to coordinate the federal government’s juve- nile delinquency programs. JJDPA, as amended, has changed the composi- tion of the coordinating council28 over the years but continues to address the need for coordination at the federal level. The coordinating council holds quarterly meetings that are open to the public and serve as forums for member agencies to share information on their initiatives and to hear about relevant research efforts from guest presenters. These meetings serve to engage agencies and organizations that might not normally interact (Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2008). Funding for federal coordination is appropriated under the JJDPA Part A. In the past, there was a cap of $200,000 to support coordinating council meetings, with additional funding to support other agency activi- ties, usually at OJJDP’s discretion, including some interagency projects. Appropriated funding for federal coordination under Part A dropped from $6.8 million in FY2002 to zero in FY2010. In 2005-2006, when OJJDP had 27  See also OJJDP’s report of awards for statutory earmarks at http://www.ojjdp.gov/Funding/ fy10awards.html [May 2013] and http://www.ojjdp.gov/funding/fy09/earmarks.pdf [May 2012]. 28  The current composition of the coordinating council is available at http://www.juvenile council.gov/members.html [March 2012].

OCR for page 281
THE FEDERAL ROLE 311 more than $1 million in Part A funds, the agency was able to convene the 2006 coordinating council conference and to support various partnerships with coordinating council member agencies. As Part A funding decreased significantly between 2006 and 2008, it was used solely to support the coordinating council meetings and a few other specific interagency projects. With partial support from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, OJJDP was able to develop the resource portal www.cciToolforFeds.org. In recent years, there has been no appropriation for the coordinating council, whose meetings have been funded by carryover, set-aside, and other discre- tionary funds to support continuation of meetings and basic cross-agency work. OJJDP doesn’t have the resources to fund the necessary research, evaluation, and data collection on its own. It needs a strong mechanism to coordinate funding and activities among other federal agencies in pursuit of improving prospects for all youth. Funds for Research, Evaluation, and Data Collection The original JJDPA of 1974 established the National Institute for Juve- nile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (NIJJDP) within OJJDP to conduct research and evaluation, development and review of standards, training, and collection and dissemination of information. A research institute of significant size and stature never materialized. Instead, from FY1975 to FY2003, OJJDP maintained a research and program development division to direct its research program, which was supported by appropriated funds to the NIJJDP, as well as set-aside funding (up to 10 percent) from its other programs. The 2002 reauthorization of JJDPA amended Title II to eliminate NIJJDP and provide authority directly to the OJJDP administrator to over- see research, training, technical assistance, and information dissemination. Funding for this “new” research program (known as Title II, Part D) was appropriated in FY2004 and FY2005 but discontinued thereafter. Cur- rently, OJJDP has to piece together funding from the set-asides across its programs and collaborations with other agencies in order to continue its mandated research program. As a result, research funding has been cut in half from $40 million in FY2002 to $23 million in FY2010 (in constant 2010 dollars). OJJDP has been directed by Congress to use set-aside monies for research, evaluation, and statistics activities that benefit the authorized programs. Given the increasing carve-outs by Congress, OJJDP’s research portfolio in the areas of youth mentoring and tribal youth have experienced a significant boost in the last three years. The set-aside money under the state formula program is primarily being used to support continuing efforts, like the statistics program discussed earlier, a research data archive, the

OCR for page 281
312 REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE model programs guide, and longitudinal studies begun in the 1980s. Very little funding is available to support new research that can inform states’ efforts to improve their juvenile justice systems. Funds for Training and Technical Assistance Funding to support TTA is also drawn from appropriations to OJJDP’s individual programs. Some set-asides for TTA are legislatively limited; o ­ thers are not. For example, TTA programs under MCAA, VOCA, and Title V of JJDPA do not have a limit. The programs under Title II of JJDPA29 and JABG had a 2 percent set-aside limit for TTA until FY2011, when that limit was increased to 5 percent. There is also an additional appropriation specifically for TTA directly to the states under the Title II Part B Formula Grant program, so that the TTA funds represent 4 percent (now 7 percent) of the total appropriation to the formula grant program. Overall, OJJDP’s funds for TTA have fluctuated modestly between $40 and $60 million annually in the past decade. However, because of the legislative restrictions and declining funds to the state grant programs, 75-80 percent of OJJDP’s TTA dollars have supported training and techni- cal assistance outside the scope of JJDPA since FY2004. Specifically, these funds support programs under MCAA and VOCA. Remaining funds sup- port TTA to states related to the formula grants program (8 percent) and special initiatives under Title V (the carve-outs), such as EUDL and TYP (12 percent). Note, however, that from FY2008 to FY2010 there has been insufficient TTA funding available under the Title V community prevention grants program to support local assessment of prevention needs and devel- opment of appropriate programs. As funding for the state grant programs continues to decline, the set-aside limit for TTA is increasingly inadequate to support the needs of the field. Juvenile justice practitioners have identified the need for more thorough guidance on complying with the core requirements, particularly the DMC requirement, citing the inadequacy of the guidance currently provided under the JJDPA and by OJJDP (Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2009). Many states have turned to establishing partnerships with private foundations and organizations, such as the W. Haywood Burns Institute, that are engaged in DMC reduction efforts and can provide assistance. Given OJJDP’s limited resources, it should continue efforts to partner with other organizations to provide TTA, such as its recent partnership with the MacArthur Foun- dation. The MacArthur Foundation is providing $1 million per initiative 29  This would include the Part B State Formula Grant Program, the Part E Demonstration Projects Program (which generally does not use its TTA set-aside), and the Part G Mentoring Program.

OCR for page 281
THE FEDERAL ROLE 313 in matching funds to OJJDP to support mental health screening and risk assessment, the integration of juvenile justice and child welfare services, mental health training in juvenile justice, and DMC. Among the activities the DMC initiative will support is intensive technical support and funding to two communities willing to engage in a “strategic, data-driven effort” to reduce DMC.30 OJJDP’s Mentoring Portfolio One can see how a weakened budget and lack of programmatic discre- tion might play itself out when one examines OJJDP’s mentoring portfolio. Mentoring is an example of a program for which an extensive privately and publicly funded network has grown up to provide prosocial experi- ences to at-risk youth. OJJDP has supported this network through its grant programs for almost two decades. Mentoring has great congressional support and, in the last few years, OJJDP has been directed to increase its support of mentoring programs. At this writing, mentoring programs consume approximately 50 percent of funds appropriated to OJJDP under the JJDPA. As discussed in Chapter 4, the committee recognizes that an authorita- tive, supportive adult plays a significant role in the healthy development of an adolescent. For many adolescents, this critical relationship happens naturally through engaged parents, relatives, teachers, and/or coaches. But for many at-risk youth, there is no one who fulfills this important role. Despite its recognition of the important role mentoring can play, the com- mittee has serious reservations about the recent surge in funding for men- toring programs in OJJDP’s portfolio. First, federal support for mentoring appears to have outpaced what is known about its effectiveness and second, OJJDP’s core budget and portfolio are increasingly consumed by mentor- ing programs. The state of the research on mentoring as well as OJJDP’s support for mentoring programs over the past two decades are discussed further in Appendix C. The increase in funds directed at mentoring programs comes at a price (see Figure 10-6). Because funds to support OJJDP’s hallmark state formula and block grants are declining, OJJDP is constrained from helping states and localities with other interventions that may better fit their local needs for preventing delinquency. Mentoring is but one intervention. Research has shown that it takes a succession of effective experiences (or interven- tions) for adolescents to develop into prosocial adults. No single program can serve all youth or incorporate every feature of positive developmental environments (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2002). 30  For more information, see http://www.cclp.org/apply.php#About [February 2012].

OCR for page 281
314 REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE Therefore, excessive resources in one program, like mentoring, do a dis- service to the juvenile justice field more generally and to state, local, and tribal jurisdictions more specifically by overriding or ignoring their efforts to assess their own identified needs and efforts. Reauthorization Foundation executives, youth advocates, and juvenile justice practi- tioners, including a former OJJDP administrator, describe OJJDP as being in a state of decline in both capacity and stature (Bilchik, 2008, 2010).31 A Washington Post editorial described OJJDP as being “hampered, to the point of being ineffectual, as a result of serial budget cuts; the absence of an administrator at the helm has only exacerbated its woes” (The Washington Post, 2011). OJJDP’s authorizing legislation (P.L. 107-273) expired in 2007 and 2008, although funding support has continued. Numerous efforts to reau- thorize the agency have been unsuccessful.32 Since 2009, OJJDP has been without a presidentially appointed administrator—the only OJP bureau that does not have one.33 Both circumstances have contributed to its weakened state. For that reason, the committee was very interested in the context in which reauthorization efforts have occurred, the views of the field regard- ing the reauthorizing legislation, and the implications for OJJDP’s future. OJJDP Management and Grant Administration Issues At the same time that reauthorization of OJJDP has been under con- sideration, its grant monitoring and grant award processes have come under scrutiny (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2009). OJJDP’s reputation suffered serious damage in spring 2008 when it was discov- ered that the OJJDP administrator and OJP assistant attorney general 31  Presentations by Laurie Garduque, director, Juvenile Justice Program on Human and Com- munity Development, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, to the committee, October 11, 2010, and Bart Lubow, director, Juvenile Justice Strategy Group, Annie E. Casey Foundation, to the committee, January 19, 2011. In addition, a written statement to the com- mittee, Nancy G. Hornberger, Coalition for Juvenile Justice, provided a field perspective on JJDPA compliance (August 4, 2010). 32 Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has sponsored reau- thorizing legislation for OJJDP. Known as the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2009 (S. 687), it cleared the Senate subcommittee but was never voted on by the full committee. No new bill was introduced during the 113th Congress. Several House bills were also introduced during the same period. H.R. 1873 was closest to the Senate bill but never moved forward. 33  February 2012, Laurie Robinson, the assistant attorney general for the Office of Justice In Programs resigned, and as of December 2012, a permanent appointee has not been nominated.

OCR for page 281
THE FEDERAL ROLE 315 had overruled the recommendations of peer reviewers and program staff in awarding FY2007 grants. A number of well-publicized congressional hearings were held, and Congress requested a full investigation (June 27, 2008). The resulting report from the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General strongly criticized OJJDP for its poor review processes and nondocumentation of reasons for selecting grants that had not been highly rated.34 The OJJDP administrator was also criminally investigated for his hiring practices, travel expenses, and personal ties to groups that receive funding from OJJDP (Johnson, 2008). Relationship with the Office of Justice Programs. OJJDP’s lack of an appointed leader affects its ability to negotiate and argue its position on numerous matters with its oversight agency, the Office of Justice Programs, and the assistant attorney general (AAG) who directs it. As described in the National Research Council report on the National Institute of Justice (National Research Council, 2010), the AAG wields a great deal of author- ity through oversight of the budget and control of the various offices that support the component agencies of OJP.35 Since 2005, many functions and activities previously undertaken by the individual offices have been central- ized. Examples of these functions include peer review and dissemination activities. In addition, numerous budgeting, staffing, and grant awarding documents must go through various OJP offices during review and must receive AAG approval. A strong OJJDP leader is necessary to maintain a balance between the interests and needs of an individual agency and those of its oversight agency. Failure to Promulgate Regulations. Since the passage of the JJDPA reau- thorizing OJJDP in 2002, OJJDP has failed to publish formal federal regu- lations to implement the law, despite the criticism of the juvenile field for failing to do so (Bilchik, 2008; Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2009). Regu- lations prepared by OJJDP staff have been submitted several times to the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) but have failed to move forward.36 In the absence of regulations, OJJDP relies on OGC for guidance, and the 34  Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General, Audit Report 09-24, “Procedures Used by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to Award Discretionary Grants in FY 2007” (April 2009). 35 These include the Office for Administration, the Office for Audit, Assessment and Manage- ment, the Office of Civil Rights, the Office of Communications, the Office of the Chief Finan- cial Officer, the Office of the Chief Information Officer, and the Office of the General Counsel. 36  2003, regulations were prepared by Roberta Dorn, former director of the state relations In and assistance division, OJJDP and recently by OJJDP’s Kathi Grasso, attorney advisor. There may have been other versions of regulations that were submitted to OGC of which the committee’s staff is unaware.

OCR for page 281
316 REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE result has been described as “federal policy by executive memo” (Bilchik, 2008). This kind of policy making does not adhere to federal rule-making standards or to the JJDPA, which stipulates that the OJJDP administrator is required to consult with states when establishing rules, regulations, and procedures that affect the federal/state partnership and compliance with JJDPA requirements (JJDPA Sec. 299A). In 2003, the juvenile justice field became particularly alarmed by an OGC ruling that youth convicted as adults in criminal court, including youth under the age of majority at the time of the offense, were classified as “adult inmates” under the JJDPA. This interpretation had perverse effects as applied to youth in states with so-called blended jurisdiction because youth under the age of majority who are tried in criminal court can be sent to a juvenile facility until they reach the maximum age of a state’s juvenile court jurisdiction; the youth then finishes the sentence in an adult correctional facility. However, because the juveniles were adult inmates under the DOJ interpretation, states found themselves facing sanctions if they failed to remove these youth from juvenile facilities. This policy was reversed in 2008 after what has been described as “unrelenting education and advocacy efforts” by those who understood the devastating effect this “rule” would have on youthful offenders (Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2009). States were particularly concerned that such a policy could be developed without seeking public comment or consultation from those in the juvenile justice field. Subsequently, the states have urged that JJDPA be amended to affirm that rule-making functions of the OJJDP administrator are subject to the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 (Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2008). Challenges to OJJDP’s Research and Statistics Functions. Even though OJJDP is mandated to undertake juvenile justice research and had a robust research program until 2002, questions have arisen as to whether it should retain its research function. In 1999, the assistant attorney general proposed a reorganization plan for OJJDP that placed responsibility for all criminal and juvenile justice research with the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). OJJDP successfully argued the case for retaining the research and the statis- tics function within OJJDP,37 and although steps were taken to reorganize OJP, the proposed transfer of research to NIJ did not occur. Since 1999, there have been other challenges to OJJDP’s research function. In 2002, NIJ staff was asked to develop a plan for phasing in OJJDP research to NIJ,38 and in 2003 OJJDP was required to transfer funds to NIJ to conduct 37  Terence Thornberry, recommendations to the Assistant Attorney General regarding Juvenile Justice Research, Statistics and Evaluation (January 14, 1999). 38  Personal communication from Betty M. Chemers, former director of NIJ’s evaluation division.

OCR for page 281
THE FEDERAL ROLE 317 evaluability assessments and outcome evaluations of OJJDP juvenile justice program earmarks (National Research Council, 2010). The most recent challenge occurred in FY2011 when the assistant attorney general sought and received approval for a policy requiring OJJDP, along with the Office for Victims of Crime and the Bureau of Justice Assistance—offices that do not have a legislatively authorized research and statistics function similar to OJJDP—to transfer 2 percent of their total program funds to the NIJ and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to sup- port their research and statistics activities.39 An internal working group among the sister agencies is providing some input into the planning process for these dollars, but there is no requirement that their concerns or recom- mendations must be addressed by the directors of NIJ or BJS. Support from the Field The simplest explanation for why OJJDP has not been reauthorized is its lack of champions from the current administration or the Congress. In contrast, the juvenile justice field overwhelmingly supports OJJDP’s reauthorization and its leadership role. More than 360 organizations sup- port the Act 4 Juvenile Justice Campaign (Act4JJ), which has been leading the reauthorization effort for the past three years.40 The Federal Advisory Committee for Juvenile Justice, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, and the National Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Coalition have issued statements urging Congress to reauthorize OJJDP and the president to appoint the OJJDP administrator (Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2008; Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice, 2010; National Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Coalition, 2011a, 2011b).41 In addi- 39  Similarly to OJJDP, NIJ and BJS have also experienced budget reductions and increasingly less funding discretion. It is worth noting that OJP’s Office for Victims of Crime, the Bureau of Justice Assistance and occasionally, OJJDP had transferred funds to NIJ and BJS for designated research activities. In an effort to provide more funding to them, the AAG determined that it was logical that states and local jurisdictions that benefit from the fruits of criminal justice research should support them. The congressional appropriators agreed. 40  For a list of organizations participating in the Act4JJ campaign, see http://act4jj.org/ participating_orgs.html [May 2012]. 41  The Coalition for Juvenile Justice was established by JJDPA, Sec. 223(f)(2)(A)-(E), and is a national organization of 1,500 members representing state advisory group members and juvenile justice practitioners. Its council is composed of 48 state advisory group chairs/ chair-designees from states, territories, and the District of Columbia; the Federal Advisory Committee for Juvenile Justice (FACJJ) is a consultative body established by the JJDPA (Section 223—check for full citation) of appointed representatives of the state advisory groups that advise the president and Congress on matters related to juvenile justice and the progress and accomplishments of OJJDP. The National Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Coalition is a broad-based collaboration of youth- and family-serving, social justice, law enforcement, corrections, and faith-based organizations working to improve public safety by

OCR for page 281
318 REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE tion, the committee heard from leaders in juvenile justice who voiced a strong commitment to the JJDPA and to the leadership role that OJJDP should play (Bilchik, 2010). Although there are some variations in the specific recommendations of various youth advocacy groups supporting JJDPA, there is consensus that the reauthorizing legislation should substantially strengthen the core requirements; enhance OJJDP’s capacity to advance best practices, promote prevention, and achieve and maintain compliance with the core protections; expand OJJDP’s training, technical assistance, research and evaluation efforts; and enhance transparency and communication among OJJDP, the states, and Congress (see Box 10-5 for a list of specific recommendations by Act4JJ). SUMMARY OJJDP’s authorizing legislation clearly envisions a strong partnership between the federal government and state juvenile justice agencies, as well as a strong leadership role for OJJDP. The Congress anticipated that OJJDP would “help states and communities prevent and control delinquency and strengthen their juvenile justice systems and coordinate and administer national policy in this area” (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2011a, p. 40394). The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 reflects several basic understandings that have set the nation on the path toward developmentally appropriate juvenile justice policies and practices. The guiding premises are that youth who offend should be treated differently and separately from adults who offend, that juvenile offending is prevent- able, and that youthful offenders should receive individualized treatment and services (P.L. 93-415, Sec. 102). The legislation’s four core requirements reflect several normative principles that underlie developmentally appropri- ate policies and practices: youth who are not a risk to society or themselves should not be detained or removed from their existing support systems; youth are vulnerable and should not be in contact with adult criminals; and youth need to be treated fairly and equitably as a matter of justice. The policies and principles reflected in JJDPA remain as valid today as they were almost 40 years ago. The core requirements of the JJDPA and OJJDP’s efforts to ensure compliance have helped young people avoid detention when not warranted and unsafe conditions when detained. But progress has been impeded by new laws and policy interpretations that did not exist at the time JJDPA became law. In the case of the DMC require- promoting fair and effective policies, practices, and programs for youth involved or at risk of becoming involved in the juvenile and criminal justice systems.

OCR for page 281
THE FEDERAL ROLE 319 BOX 10-5 Act 4 Justice Recommendations for Reauthorization Legislation 1. Extend the jail removal and sight and sound separation core pro- tections to all youth under age 18 held pretrial, whether charged in juvenile or adult court. 2. Change the definition of “adult inmate” to allow certain states to continue to place youth convicted in adult court into juvenile facilities rather than adult prisons without jeopardizing federal funding. 3. Strengthen the disproportionate minority contact (DMC) core protec- tion by requiring states to take concrete steps to reduce racial/ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system. 4. Strengthen the deinstitutionalization of status offenders (DSO) core protection, which prohibits the locked detention of status offenders, by removing the valid court order and interstate compact exceptions. 5. Provide safe and humane conditions of confinement for youth in state and/or local custody by restricting the use of JJDPA funds for dangerous practices and encouraging states to promote adoption of best practices and standards. 6. Assist states in coming into compliance with the JJDPA and estab- lish incentive grants to encourage states to adopt evidence-based or promising best practices that improve outcomes for youth and their communities. 7. Enhance the partnership between states and the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) by expand- ing training, technical assistance, research and evaluation, and the partnership between OJJDP and Congress by encouraging trans- parency, timeliness, public notice, and communication. 8. Expand juvenile crime prevention efforts by reauthorizing and increasing funding for JJDPA Title V and Mentoring. SOURCE: National Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Coalition (n.d., p. 1). ment, failure to set clearer expectations as to what is required and to moni- tor jurisdictions’ progress in an objective and transparent way has limited its impact. The committee has noted the lack of publicly available reports on state plans, compliance status, and compliance determinations. It has also noted the desire on the part of juvenile justice policy makers for clear guidance on how to reduce racial/ethnic disparities. The committee con-

OCR for page 281
320 REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE cludes that greater transparency will lead to greater accountability on the part of OJJDP and state, local, and tribal jurisdictions for reducing DMC. OJJDP currently is constrained from carrying out its legislative man- date to help jurisdictions work toward a fair and effective juvenile justice system. It has been weakened in the last decade by budgetary constraints as funds for its formula and block grant programs have declined and dis- cretion to determine its programmatic priorities has narrowed. The biggest impact has been felt by jurisdictions that need the funds to address juvenile justice system needs. Because set-asides from formula and block grant funds are the biggest source of TTA dollars, the activities designed to provide guidance and assistance to improve juvenile justice infrastructures have also been greatly curtailed. During its long history, OJJDP has responded to important needs of the juvenile justice field. OJJDP-funded research has enhanced understand- ing of juvenile crime and its prevention. OJJDP’s training and technical assistance functions are greatly valued and needed by the juvenile justice field. Particularly during a time when state, local, and tribal governments are under pressure to adopt high-quality and cost-effective ways of dealing with juvenile crime, technical assistance and training are critical resources that communities need to identify and implement effectively evidence-based programs. OJJDP will be able to draw on strategies that have been successful in the past to bring about change and improvements. But to do so will require that Congress remove the budgetary and political roadblocks that prevent OJJDP from making use of its legislative authority. As we have noted ear- lier, advocacy and juvenile justice practitioners continue to support OJJDP’s mandate because they believe in the importance of a federal role in assisting state, local, and tribal jurisdictions to prevent crime and improve their han- dling of juvenile offenders. They believe that OJJDP should act as a bully pulpit to call attention to the needs of youth involved in the juvenile justice system and to get the Congress and jurisdictions to respond appropriately to those needs. Restoring OJJDP’s authority and funding for its core mis- sion will confirm the value of the purposes set forth in the legislation and will enable OJJDP to provide robust guidance for the developmentally appropriate treatment of juveniles in the justice system.