Responses to the

2007 Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice

Annual Report to the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Introduction

This 2007 Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice Annual Report to the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) comes at a time when juvenile justice has reached a crossroads in this country. Policymakers, practitioners, and the public need to make some serious decisions about the future of the juvenile justice system, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act, and the nation’s children.

The Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice (FACJJ) believes it is time to make some smart choices about juvenile justice. These choices include deciding whether the mission of the juvenile justice system is to be punitive or rehabilitative and whether the system will treat delinquent youth primarily as youth or as adults. FACJJ has discussed these and other issues and has made specific recommendations to improve juvenile justice in its 2007 Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice Annual Recommendations Report to the President and Congress of the United States.

This report to OJJDP focuses on the smart choices FACJJ suggests that OJJDP consider to help improve juvenile justice. These suggestions are especially timely, since the JJDP Act is due once again for reauthorization in 2007. The nine recommendations presented in this report reflect FACJJ’s support for the continuation of a federal office (OJJDP) that uses congressional appropriations for juvenile justice research, training and technical assistance, and dissemination activities. FACJJ would like OJJDP to develop and test programs that make a difference, field-test these programs to ensure they are implemented with fidelity, evaluate the programs, and disseminate the results.

This is the committee’s fourth annual report to OJJDP, and it emphasizes critical concerns and issues identified by the states in response to an Annual Request for Information (ARI). FACJJ received responses to the ARI from 47 states and jurisdictions, and the responses form the basis of the recommendations to the President and Congress and to OJJDP.

States identified three topics as the most critical issues confronting their juvenile justice systems:

  1. Disproportionate minority contact (DMC) (38 states).
  2. Mental health assessment and treatment (30 states).
  3. Detention reform (22 states).

A number of states also mentioned three other issues: substance abuse treatment (18 states), coordination of services and resources (15 states), and juvenile substance abuse (15 states). There was also a large increase (from 5 percent in 2005 to 33 percent in 2006) in the number of states that called for an emphasis on evidence-based programming.

The states were asked to suggest recommendations to the President and Congress and to OJJDP. Not surprisingly, the states’ most frequent request to the President and Congress was to increase federal funding for juvenile justice programs. The suggested recommendations focused on four broad topics:

  1. Increase funding for juvenile justice programs (32 states).
  1. Support and prioritize evidence-based programs (10 states).
  1. Address JJDP Act issues (8 states).
  1. Provide training and technical assistance (8 states). The most frequently requested type of assistance was for youth-serving programs followed by assistance in developing evidence-based programs and assistance in disseminating research findings.

Suggested recommendations to the OJJDP Administrator focused on providing more training and technical assistance on delinquency prevention and intervention, mental health, and substance abuse programs. States also wanted OJJDP to prioritize and support evidence-based programs, mental health assessments and treatment, and activities that address DMC.

All the recommendations in this report and in the report to the President and Congress were studied, discussed, debated, and approved by the full FACJJ membership at the spring 2007 meeting. FACJJ looks forward to OJJDP’s responses to therecommendations.

Recommendations

  1. FACJJ recommends that OJJDP help each State Advisory Group (SAG) develop and fund outreach and assessment activities geared toward juveniles who are at risk or who are already involved in each level of the juvenile justice system.

FACJJ encourages the OJJDP Administrator to update the SAG planning rules and recommendations to allow for creative and diverse data collection methods that will guarantee a more consistent representation of juvenile justice youth perspectives in the planning process. This evolution in the manner in which SAGs collect youth information and perceptions should be done as a followup to FACJJ’s recommendation to Congress to adjust the youth representation criteria in future reauthorizations of the JJDP Act. Working through technical assistance, training, and OJJDP’s State Relations and Assistance Division, the Administrator can ensure the availability of tools and methods that allow for greater diversity of youth participation at all levels of juvenile justice work. These tools can be disseminated via OJJDP’s Web system, contractors, and others to expand the outreach and inclusion practices among the states. Such tools will help SAGs overcome the practical and logistical limitations that routinely occur when state/regional meetings are held with mandatory minimum youth participation requirements.

This activity will help SAGs gain relevant perspectives on program, practice, and policy issues affecting juveniles. FACJJ also recommends that the Administrator promulgate updated rules that emphasize the use of a diverse set of information-gathering tools that will ensure sufficient inclusion (and documentation) of youth perspectives in the SAG planning process. These tools may include, but should not be limited to, survey techniques and methods, site visits and focus or issue groups, and application of Web-enabled conferencing with youth consumers of juvenile justice services.

OJJDP Response:Adopted in Part

OJJDP supports SAGs in their efforts to better engage and respond to juvenile needs. SAGs set their own bylaws and priorities. Each SAG has in its power the authority and ability to develop, create, and implement those processes and/or tools it deems necessary or helpful to optimize its effectiveness. For example, a SAG can decide to use funds from the annual SAG allocation to conduct assessments that directly correlate to youth and juvenile issues within its state. SAGs might also support youth-adult partnership strategies such as community youth mapping. Additionally, OJJDP is working to develop a Best Practices Toolkit for SAGs on recruiting, retaining, and engaging youth in their membership, including youth who are or have been in the juvenile justice system. This will help the SAGs better identify the needs of and connect with at-risk children and youth.

  1. FACJJ recommends that the OJJDP Administrator use his influence and relationships with other federal and state agencies and juvenile justice-oriented organizations, such as the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, to gauge the timing and interest for urging that all juveniles under 18 years of age at the time of the offense be under the original jurisdiction of family and juvenile courts.

It remains the right and discretion of individual states to establish the age at which youth accused of crimes fall under the jurisdiction of either juvenile or adult criminal systems. As a result, depending upon the state, juveniles accused of similar crimes are tried in adult courts at ages ranging from under 12 to 18 years of age. FACJJ believes that the majority of juvenile offenders should be handled by the juvenile justice system, and that decisions about whether to transfer a juvenile charged with a serious crime to criminal court should be made by a juvenile delinquency court judge. It has long been held that juveniles think and act in certain circumstances with far less maturity than adults. In recent years, compelling evidence has emerged from widening scientific research about the rate of brain development in adolescents and their relative immaturity in making decisions during these critical years. Although adolescents can and do make cogent, rational decisions, their immaturity contributes to an inability to accurately judge or predict risk and its consequences. For these reasons, FACJJ believes it is timely to begin a national discussion regarding states' interest in considering a higher consistent age standard before allowing youth to be tried in adult courts. FACJJ urges OJJDP to take the lead on this issue.

OJJDP Response: Adopted in Part

OJJDP agrees with the FACJJ that OJJDP should engage in a national discussion on the issue of waiver of youth into the adult criminal justice system, particularly in light of recent research findings on adolescent brain development and negative outcomes for youth involved in the adult criminal justice system. OJJDP supports the proposition that most juvenile offenders under the age of 18 should come under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, unless extraordinary circumstances exist. In these circumstances, juvenile court judges should have the authority to make waiver determinations based on the youth’s individual circumstances, the nature of the alleged crime, and whether societal interests are served through waiver.

  1. FACJJ recommends that OJJDP use Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Part E funds that have been freed from earmarks to increase the amount of money currently directed toward evaluation of programs that address disproportionate minority contact (DMC) being implemented throughout the country.

As noted earlier in this report, a majority of states responding to FACJJ’s Annual Request for Information identified DMC as the most critical issue confronting their juvenile justice systems. Although much is happening across the nation as states work to understand DMC more thoroughly, policymakers and practitioners are asking for information about best practices and programs that have been proven effective in reducing the number of minority youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice system. OJJDP Administrator J. Robert Flores told FACJJ members at their spring meeting (April 23-24, 2007) that earmarks had been stricken from Part E of OJJDP’s budget, allowing OJJDP to post several grant solicitations. FACJJ believes it makes fiscal sense to use some of these federal dollars to rigorously fund and replicate programs that have the greatest potential for reducing and eventually eliminating DMC.

OJJDP Response: Adopted in Part

To significantly advance the field of DMC reduction, OJJDP intends to invest in the evaluation and replication of identified promising strategies to reduce DMC when funding permits. However, the FY 2007 dollar amount freed up by the stricken earmarks was not sufficient to release a separate solicitation for evaluating and replicating promising DMC reduction strategies. Instead, the OJJDP FY 2007 National Juvenile Justice Programs solicitation contains three eligible award categories. Under Category 3: Improving the Juvenile Justice System, “programs that address disproportionate minority contact and improve juvenile detention and corrections systems” are among the key priority programs. If OJJDP receives a quality application in the DMC area, OJJDP can then consider funding it.

  1. FACJJ recommends that OJJDP develop a comprehensive training curriculum on best practices for addressing DMC for police, court, probation, and school personnel. OJJDP should disseminate this information throughout the country and offer technical assistance and training to support the curriculum.

Statistical evidence indicates that police, courts, probation, and schools are the key entry points for juveniles entering secure detention. Frequently minority youth are overrepresented in the detention population at each point of entry. FACJJ believes that all states should provide training to police, court, probation, and school professionals on best practices that reduce DMC. As the federal agency responsible for addressing juvenile delinquency and improving juvenile justice practices, OJJDP is in an excellent position to develop and deliver this training on a national level.

OJJDP Response: Adopted in Part

OJJDP concurs with the FACJJ that juvenile justice and related policymakers and practitioners need training on best practices that reduce DMC, and OJJDP is in an excellent position to develop and deliver this training on a national level.

However, most practices to reduce DMC have not been formally evaluated. To disseminate current knowledge about what works in reducing DMC, OJJDP’s Disproportionate Minority Contact Technical Assistance Manual, 3rd Edition,presents case studies of seven jurisdictional DMC initiatives that have shown encouraging results in reducing minority overrepresentation at various juvenile justice decision points (mostly at detention). To further help communities to locate best practices in reducing DMC, OJJDP plans to expand its Model Programs Guide—a Web-based database of evidence-based juvenile justice programs/strategies for prevention, intervention, and aftercare—to include those that are effective in reducing DMC.

To this end, OJJDP has issued invitations for nominations of DMC reduction initiatives, regardless of funding sources, believed to be effective in reducing DMC. Programs are eligible for nomination if they have been in operation for at least 2 years and data documenting effectiveness are available. OJJDP will review all nominations for inclusion in a database of effective DMC initiatives and potential eventual addition to the Model Programs Guide. OJJDP plans to unveil this DMC Reduction Best Practices Database at its Annual DMC Conference, October 25-27, 2007. This conference will also feature DMC reduction programs and strategies that work and help participants connect with them. In addition to training provided at national, regional, and local conferences, OJJDP disseminates information on best practices through its print and electronic newsletters and publications.

To significantly advance the field of DMC reduction, OJJDP intends to invest in the evaluation and replication of identified promising strategies to reduce DMC when funding permits. Through such efforts, OJJDP can expand the number of proven DMC intervention strategies and disseminate these proven effective practices to the field through multiple means, including curriculum development and large-scale training at the national level.

  1. FACJJ recommends that OJJDP assist in the development of juvenile defense caseload and practice standards for adoption in the states.

Juvenile delinquency practice in juvenile and family courts differs significantly from the representation of adults in criminal proceedings. Although a growing number of jurisdictions have adopted standards of practice for juvenile defense counsel, they still represent a minority of the states. OJJDP should enlist the assistance of groups such as the American Bar Association (ABA), NationalJuvenileDefenderCenter, and National Legal Aid and Defender Association to develop national standards of practice that can be tailored to the needs of each state. Differing terminology and processes in juvenile delinquency case processing among the states will require minor adaptation to local practice to implement national standards. OJJDP should provide technical assistance to the states in promulgating and adapting such standards.

OJJDP Response: Adopted in Part

OJJDP has worked closely with the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) in the development of the Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines, published in 2005. The staff of the National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC) and other organizations have served as advisors to this project. It was the consensus of project participants that a key principle of a Juvenile Delinquency Court of Excellence is: “Youth charged in the formal juvenile delinquency court must have qualified and adequately compensated legal representation.” The guidelines state: “Alleged and adjudicated delinquent youth must be represented by well-trained attorneys with cultural understanding and manageable caseloads. Juvenile delinquency court administrative judges are responsible to ensure that counsel is available to every youth at every hearing, including post-disposition reviews and reentry hearings.”

In 2006-2007, OJJDP supported NCJFCJ in its efforts to implement the Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines through a NCJFCJ model court initiative that provides assessment, planning, technical assistance, and evaluation services to courts committed to becoming “Courts of Excellence” as defined by the guidelines. This court improvement initiative includes efforts to implement the key principles stated above regarding the appointment of qualified and adequately compensated legal counsel for youth. In 2006-2007, OJJDP also supported NJDC, which provides training and technical assistance to defense attorneys in juvenile courts and makes individual state assessments of both the availability of juvenile defenders and the quality of juvenile defense practices statewide. To facilitate communication with the states, territories, and the District of Columbia on this issue, on April 24, 2007, OJJDP and NJDC brought together a panel of nationally recognized juvenile defenders for a presentation to the FACJJ. These defenders presented on innovative and model legal representation programs.