Quarterly Meeting Summary
September 10, 2004
Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
This Quarterly Meeting of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention provided Council members
and the public with information on the federal custody of juvenile
offenders, nonoffenders, and undocumented juveniles. The Council
heard presentations on the National Center for Juvenile Justice
Study of Juveniles in the Federal Criminal Justice System from
William Sabol of the National Center for Juvenile Justice,
the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002
and its core requirements from Dennis Mondoro of the Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DOJ), and juveniles
in the Federal Bureau of Prisons system from Alex Escarcega,
Juvenile Services Administrator, Federal Bureau of Prisons
(DOJ). In addition, Walter Lamar, Acting Director, Law Enforcement
Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior,
spoke about juvenile justice in Indian country. Council members
offered feedback regarding these presentations on federal custody
of juveniles. The Council reviewed the status of action items
from the June 4, 2004, Quarterly Meeting and continued a discussion
on the Final Report of the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged
Youth. The new Council Web site was announced: www.juvenilecouncil.gov.
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
Robert Flores, Vice Chair, Coordinating Council on Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention
White House Office of National Drug Control Policy
For John P. Walters, Director, Office
of National Drug Control Policy
Tad Davis, Assistant
Deputy Director, Demand Reduction
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)
Elaine L. Chao, Secretary of Labor
Mason M. Bishop,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration,
Office of Youth Services
U.S. Department of Education (ED)
Roderick Paige, Secretary of Education
Deborah A. Price,
Deputy Undersecretary, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools
U.S. Department of Health and Human
For Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary
of Health and Human Services
Don Winstead, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Human Services Policy
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
For Alphonso Jackson, Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development
Matthew P. Braud, Special
Assistant, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
For Michael J. Garcia, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement
John Pogash, National Juvenile
Coordinator, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS)
David Eisner, Chief Executive Officer, Corporation for National
and Community Service
John Foster-Bey, Senior Advisor,
Research and Policy Development
Bray Barnes, Attorney/Consultant,
Toms River, NJ
Larry K. Brendtro, President, Reclaiming Youth
International, Lennox, SD
Gordon A. Martin, Jr., Associate Justice
(retired), Massachusetts Trial Court, Newton Centre, MA
W. McPhail, County and Youth Court
Judge, County and Youth Courts of Forrest County, Hattiesburg,
Vernadette Ramirez-Broyles, Director of Public Policy and
Legal Council, We Care America, Norcross, GA
Chief of Police, McAllen Police Department, McAllen, TX
Welcome and Introductions
Robert Flores, Vice Chair, Coordinating Council; Administrator,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), U.S. Department
of Justice (DOJ)
Mr. Flores welcomed Council members and members of the public
to the Quarterly Meeting of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention and thanked them for attending.
He noted increased numbers of members of the public and staff
from various agencies in attendance who are interested in the
work of the Council and report back to their agencies and constituencies.
Members introduced themselves and their staff members.
Mr. Flores expressed his appreciation to Council members and
their agencies for increasing their involvement recently in
the Council's efforts ranging from mental health issues
for juvenile delinquents and truancy to departmental research
agendas. He recognized the work of Timothy Wight, Director,
Concentration of Federal Efforts, in increasing this level
of partnership. Regular meetings, with followup between meetings,
has helped the Council's work progress far beyond what
it was a year ago. Mr. Flores wishes to continue making the
Council responsive to not only the mission and goals of the
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), but also the issues related
to the needs of children. He asked, how can the Council be
useful to the programs and departments represented on it?
Mr. Flores announced that the U.S. Departments of Education
(ED), Justice, and Labor (DOL) will cosponsor the first federal
conference on truancy in December 2004. It is appropriate that
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also participates
in the conference because truancy, especially at young ages,
is a red flag for possible neglect and abuse issues in the
family. Regarding issues related to older children, DOL can
help motivate high school students to stay in school by promoting
such job-related offerings as job training and college.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will
lead an effort, with the support of Council members, to address
the issue of insufficient mental health services for incarcerated
youth. A national drug control policy is in place and has an
impact on all the federal agencies on the Council, including
ED, HHS, DOL, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD). The Council will continue to address the
issues of law enforcement, security, and the need for prevention
and positive intervention related to illegal drugs.
Mr. Flores thanked the practitioners on the Council for their
involvement and suggestions to Mr. Wight, Mr. Flores, and other
Council members and hoped that they would be encouraged by
the progress to be made in the future.
Review of Status of Action Items From June
4, 2004, Quarterly Meeting of the Coordinating
Timothy S. Wight, Director,
Concentration of Federal Efforts, OJJDP
Timothy Wight announced that HUD and ONDCP have named new
representatives to the Council, Matthew P. Braud (HUD) and
Tad Davis (ONDCP), who introduced themselves at the start of
the meeting. Mr. Charles Simms recently tendered his resignation
from the Council. The Council, therefore, has a vacancy for
a practitioner member to be appointed by the Senate, which
may be filled by the December 2004 meeting.
Mr. Wight led a discussion regarding the status of the action
items from the June 4, 2004, Council meeting. The Council Planning
Team, the formation of which was recommended
and adopted at the June 2004 meeting, will help the Council
plan meetings, implement decisions, and coordinate activities.
The Team held its first conference call on August 4 and included
John Pogash (DHS), Adrienne Eldridge-Bailey (DOL), Camille
Welborn (ED), Matthew Braud (HUD), John Foster-Bey (CNS), Javier
Cordova (ONDCP), and Timothy Wight (DOJ). During the call,
the Team completed three tasks: (1) reviewed and updated outstanding
action items from past Council meetings, reviewed and made
comments to changes to the Council logo and Web site, and (3)
reviewed and discussed the agenda for the September 10, 2004,
Reviewed and updated outstanding action items from
past Council meetings. On March 19, 2004, the Council
agencies agreed to coordinate efforts to address truancy,
provide information for a strategic planning tool, assist
in a study requested by Congress about linkages between the
child welfare and juvenile justice systems, and address a
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on child
welfare and juvenile justice. The status of these action
- Truancy/school attendance. Council members
have identified a number of appropriate programs within their
agencies that could include a school attendance goal. Therefore,
this agenda item has been substantially completed. However,
Mr. Wight will continue to communicate with members to add
any programs to their list in the future. This agenda item
can be removed as an action item.
- Strategic Planning Tool. All agencies
have identified a staff member to provide information for
the OJJDP Strategic Planning Tool. This agenda item can be
removed as an action item.
- Linkages Study. DOJ has identified a staff
member to take the lead on this study. This agenda item can
be removed as an action item.
- GAO Report. The GAO report Federal
Agencies Could Play a Stronger Role in Helping Reduce the
Number of Children Placed Solely To Obtain Mental Health
Services looked at situations in which children appear
to have been placed in child welfare or juvenile justice
programs as a way to obtain mental health treatment. All
partner agencies have designated a staff member to work
with Don Winstead (HHS) on this issue and an interagency
meeting was held. The Council discussed a suggestion from
a member to involve relevant state-level agencies in addressing
solutions within their block grant-funded programs. Mr.
Winstead assured the Council that state agencies are included
in the interagency plan and will be asked to consider their
information-sharing, technical assistance, and program-related
goals in relation to this issue. This agenda item can be
removed as an action item.
As a followup to the GAO report, the Senate Committee on Governmental
Affairs, chaired by Senator Susan M. Collins of Maine, released
a report that recognizes a significant number of children in
custody who are waiting for community mental health assessments
until resources are made available to them. The states are
not yet fully engaged. The first step is to assemble information
and confirm the data as a basis to move forward. Mr. Flores
also encourages practitioner members to communicate their concerns
and suggestions about this issue directly to HHS through Mr.
Winstead or OJJDP through Mr. Wight or himself.
Mr. Wight continued the discussion with the following agenda
and action items from the June 4, 2004, Council meeting:
- Juveniles in federal custody. This topic
was brought up at the June meeting and the Council decided
to make it the primary topic of discussion for the September
10, 2004, Council meeting. See Presentation on the Federal
Custody of Juvenile Offenders, Nonoffenders, and Undocumented
Juveniles for this discussion. This agenda item can be removed
as an action item.
- Truancy. Mr. Wight is working with Larry
Brendtro (Reclaiming Youth International) to bring Dr. John
Seita to a future Council meeting to speak about the Land
Grant network and its resources for assisting with the truancy/school
attendance agenda item. This agenda item can be removed as
an action item.
The Council consented to remove the six above-mentioned action
items from the agenda.
Future Council meetings. Mr. Wight announced
the next Council meeting will be held at the DOL main building
at 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., on December
3, 2004. The spring 2005 meeting will be held at the Department
of Education on Maryland Avenue, Washington, D.C., on March
4, 2005. The summer 2005 meeting will be held at HUD in Washington,
D.C., on June 3, 2005.
New Council Web site, www.juvenilecouncil.gov. Mr.
Wight directed the members' attention to the display
of the Council's Web site, which has a new address: www.juvenilecouncil.gov. The
Army Institute of Heraldry, a group that designs seals for
the federal government, redesigned the Council's seal,
which is prominently displayed on the Council Web site. Aspen
Systems Corporation redesigned the site, using the design of
the new seal as a basis for the design of the Web site. On
the home page, Council members are listed on the left margin
and the main headings to the right are About the Council, Member
Information, Meetings, Resources, and Contact Us. Mr. Wight
thanked the Council Planning Team for reviewing the designs
for the seal and Web site. The Web site address was changed
to reflect the independent nature of the Council and make it
clear that this is the federal government's, not DOJ's,
program to coordinate juvenile justice and delinquency prevention
efforts within federal agencies. He requested contributions
from Council members on department-specific plans and activities
for the Web site. Mr. Flores indicated that Aspen will review
Council members' departmental Web sites to determine
if any information from them could potentially be added to
the Council Web site. He urged members, especially practitioner
members, to visit the Web site and ask themselves how it could
be made more useful to them. Because federal agency Web sites
are extensive and complex, it can be difficult for users to
find information relevant to them. The juvenilecouncil.gov
Web site is an opportunity to highlight items specific to the
needs of the Council and its constituencies—and add links
to relevant resources.
Review and Discussion of Written Public Comments to
J. Robert Flores
Two written comments were submitted in response to the Federal
Register notice for the September 10, 2004, meeting
of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. A summary of each comment and the Council's
discussion related to it follow:
Juvenile-perpetrated domestic violence. A
staff person with the Hillsborough County [ Florida] Domestic
Violence Task Force submitted a written comment in regard to
the need to broaden the response to domestic violence in the
United States. The domestic violence system is designed to
protect the victim from the perpetrator. However, increasingly,
older juveniles are being arrested for domestic violence, and
the goal of the juvenile justice system generally is to reunite
juveniles who are arrested with the family. The two goals collide.
The parent, who is often afraid, must be protected, but the
youth often has not committed a serious enough offense to justify
Mr.Winstead noted that the Florida Department of Juvenile
Justice, Department of Children and Families (which houses
the domestic violence program), and Governor's Council
on Domestic Violence are working on this issue. He suggested
that the Council also share feedback from its members with
these agencies and seek information regarding their plans as
well. Mr. Wight will follow up on this suggestion.
A Council member questioned whether the Family Justice Center
received its funding from OJJDP. The center receives its funding
through the Office on Violence Against Women through the FY
2004 President's Family Justice Center Initiative, a
grant that focuses on services for victims of domestic violence.
Role of juvenile assessment centers in addressing
systemic challenges of juvenile justice systems. The
director of the Miami-Dade County Juvenile Assessment Center
submitted a written comment highlighting assessment-related
improvements made to the local juvenile justice system in
Miami-Dade County and how those improvements can be replicated
nationally. Mr. Flores noted that effective assessment tools
now exist so that schools, Head Start programs, nutrition
programs, emergency medical services, and other entities
outside the justice system could intervene early on if they
had access to the assessments, thus preventing entry into
the juvenile justice system. Information gained from assessments
should be made available to other agencies so that assessments
do not have to be repeated.
The group discussed several issues related to assessment and
the written comments from the Miami-Dade County Juvenile Assessment
Center, including trends in funding treatment, supplanting
state funds with federal funds, further information about the
Miami-Dade County program, and the new movement to assessing
strengths among juveniles.
The director of the Miami-Dade County Juvenile Assessment
Center stated in his written comments, "Children's
mental health and adolescent substance abuse treatment funding
has been decreasing." Although the Council is not able
to assess the state or local funding status in Florida, Don
Winstead stated that overall federal mental health and substance
abuse prevention block grant funding and Medicaid funding have
been increasing. He said funds, however, may get diverted when
they arrive and are used at the state level.
One Council member noted that some programs are dependent
on private funding, such as the United Way, which seems to
have decreased recently. Under the President's initiative,
Access to Recovery grants, funded at $100 million for 15 grants
this year, include a grant for adolescent programs. Administrators
expect the program will receive $200 million in 2005, enabling
them to increase the number of programs.
Because state budgets are being squeezed and some are mandated
to balance their budgets, a concern arose about the possibility
of supplanting state funds with federal funds. Mr. Flores clarified
that supplanting state money with federal money is not allowed.
All federal grant programs stipulate this in their requests
for proposals and are on the alert for supplantation during
the review process.
How can we promote the use of these assessments and interventions
earlier in the process? asked Mr. Flores. Treatment in later
stages and ages is costly and not as efficient. The Council
must help those who allocate scarce resources understand that
early intervention is a good investment. And, once early intervention
resources (in the form of beds, etc.) are created, we must
keep them open for children and not use them for adults. This
must be done carefully because we want to avoid an "us
against them" mentality.
A Council member requested that OJJDP follow up with Wansley
Walters, director of the Miami-Dade County Juvenile Assessment
Center, to obtain a more detailed statement regarding funding
for its agency. The Council also wishes to learn more about
the model approach, including how it was developed, how it
is working, and how it changes the way in which they deliver
Larry Brendtro raised a new development in juvenile assessment—a
movement away from assessing risks, deficits, and disorders
and toward assessing resilience, strength, and development.
Dr. Seita with the Land Grant network has worked with this
new approach and can address the Council on how to build strengths
in children who appear not to have any. (Dr. Seita moved from
being a juvenile offender in the juvenile justice system to
the world of academic social work.)
Council Discussion on Selecting Recommendations to
Address From the Final Report of the White House Task Force
for Disadvantaged Youth
J. Robert Flores
Council members first discussed three recommendations from
the Final Report of the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged
Youth, all of which relate to evaluation and fall under the
section Holding Programs Accountable for Results:
- Develop standards for measuring grantee performance.
- Implement grantee-level performance measurement guidelines.
- Conduct rigorous oversight of earmarked grantees.
Mr. Flores suggested that a primary goal is to encourage states
to perform their own evaluations in their formula and block
grant programs. His office will raise this issue with the Juvenile
Justice Advisory Committee, which is composed of all the State
Advisory Groups in each state, and ask them to develop a plan
to include evaluation in their programs.
Because many states do not have performance measures for block
grants in place, they could benefit from a prototype of basic
performance measures that they could use as a template and
modify to suit their state's needs. However, first funding
must be identified for this evaluation work to be done by the
states. OJJDP and the Council could suggest how they could
use a portion of the block and formula money, along with additional
federal money for evaluation efforts.
The Department of Education has performance measures in place
for its grantees; some programs' statutes require them,
and other programs had them imposed administratively by the
department. HHS also requires performance standards and requirements
with its major grant programs. HHS is working currently with
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to develop overarching
standards to help increase the rigor of the evaluation. This
OMB effort is governmentwide and therefore may have implications
for all federal grant programs. Legislators may earmark grants
to selected grantees, sometimes with "few strings attached," presenting
special problems regarding this issue of increasing the rigor
of evaluations. The Council may want to contact OMB and obtain
information regarding their evaluation standards initiative
as a basis for its efforts with juvenile justice grants.
The Council agreed to have each agency report the activities
they currently have underway related to 12 recommendations
from the Final Report of the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged
Youth, not just the 3 recommendations related to evaluation.
(This may include cooperation with OMB on its Common Measures
program.) Mr. Wight will request written submissions from all
Council members within 45 days, and the information gathered
will be shared at the December 2004 Council meeting.
Presentations on the Federal Custody of Juvenile Offenders,
Nonoffenders, and Undocumented Juveniles
Three speakers gave presentations on the federal custody of
juvenile offenders, nonoffenders, and undocumented juveniles:
William Sabol of the National Center for Juvenile Justice,
Dennis Mondoro of OJJDP, and Alex Escarcega of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons.
Juvenile Justice Study of Juveniles in the Federal Criminal
William Sabol, Ph.D.
The research discussed by Dr. Sabol on juveniles in the federal
criminal justice system was supported by a grant from the National
Center for Juvenile Justice while he worked at Case Western
Reserve University. Although Dr. Sabol currently works for
GAO, in the interests of full disclosure, he stated that he
was presenting at the Council meeting the research conducted
while he worked on a project with the National Center for Juvenile
Justice, a grantee of OJJDP.
Dr. Sabol's remarks centered around two themes related
to juveniles in the federal justice system: (1) the arresting
of juveniles and other young persons by federal criminal justice
officials, (2) and the sentencing of juveniles as adults under
the federal sentencing guidelines.
The numbers of juveniles in the federal criminal justice system
are relatively small when compared with adult offenders and
vary with the definition of juvenile. Approximately
300 to 400 juveniles under the age of 18 (or, stated another
way, 1,200 to 2,400 juveniles age 18 and under) are arrested
each year under the federal system. Total arrests per year
in the federal system come to 120,000. Juveniles account for
2 percent or less of total arrests in the federal justice system;
in the state and local justice systems, juveniles account for
18 to 20 percent of total arrests.
In the 1990s, the data began to show changes in who was arrested,
what they were arrested for, who was prosecuted, and who went
on to federal prison.
The study posed several research questions: What have been
the trends in federal arrests of young persons, including type
of crime, arresting agency, citizenship status, departure status,
and type of sentence imposed? How do arrests of juveniles in
the federal system compare with arrests of juveniles by state
and local authorities? What laws, policies, and approaches
to prosecution are correlated with those arrests? A similar
set of questions relating to sentencing were also posed.
The Federal Justice Statistics Program (FJSP), managed by
DOJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics, gathers data from
federal criminal justice agencies, including the U.S. Marshals
Service, Executive Office for the U.S. Attorney, Administrative
Office for U.S. Courts, U.S. Sentencing Commission, and Bureau
of Prisons, among others. FJSP analyzes data from these many
sources and puts them in a common format so that researchers
can perform sophisticated analyses of case processing from
arrest and prosecution to sentencing and view trends over time.
It is also possible to track individual juveniles over time
and as they move through the criminal justice system.
Beginning in 1996, immigration offenses increased dramatically,
peaked in 1998, and then decreased somewhat; violent offenses
decreased; and drug offenses (mostly trafficking) fluctuated
slightly near the level of immigration offenses. The Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
increased funding for policing along the border by the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Border Patrol, which
may help explain the changes occurring in the late 1990s. The
number of INS agents grew from 12,000 to 17,000 agents, and
two-thirds of the additional officers were stationed at the
What might explain this decline in violence federal offenses?
A U.S. Attorney in Texas, who was dealing with the increase
in juvenile crime in the 1990s, proposed that the federal government
use RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
18 U.S.C. §1961–1968) statutes to address gang violence,
particularly with crack cocaine offenses. He argued that a
gang is analogous to a criminal enterprise that involves interstate
commerce and other relevant elements. However, no data support
the theory that U.S. Attorneys used the RICO statutes in this
way. The 1996 welfare reform act with its time limits for benefits
and work requirements may have influenced the data, but Dr.
Sabol was not aware of any such data.
While immigration offenses by juveniles predominate within
the federal system, property and status offenses by juveniles
predominate within state and local systems. The numbers of
both property and status offenses by juveniles have decreased
Since 1994, a shift has occurred in the type of drugs involved
in federal arrests for drug crimes: cocaine arrests have declined
and marijuana arrests have increased. From 1998 to 2000, the
percentage of federal arrests of U.S. citizens and non-U.S.
citizens converged at around 4.5 percent. By 2001, after the
immigration act, noncitizens comprised a larger share than
citizens; a similar pattern held for drug crimes, perhaps due
to increased border patrol.
Patterns for arrests and sentencing are very similar. Sentencing
data include persons 18 and under at the time of sentencing,
which is a fairly reliable marker for juveniles who are charged
as adults. While immigration offenses predominated in arrest
data, drug offenses predominated in sentencing data. Since
1994, the number of U.S. citizens sentenced declined and the
number of non-U.S. citizens sentenced increased. The increase
in marijuana sentencing and decrease in cocaine sentencing
mirrors the arrest data. About 80 percent of juveniles are
sentenced to prison among federal cases, and 20 percent to
Under federal sentencing guidelines, prosecutors can recommend
that a judge depart from the guidelines and reduce the length
of the sentence if the defendant can give substantial
assistance or cooperate with the prosecutors in other cases.
Juveniles, however, are less likely to receive a departure
from the guidelines than adults because they are lower in the
criminal organization and do not have much bargaining power
with prosecutors. On the other hand, judges in drug cases are
more likely to grant juveniles than adults such a downward
Dr. Sabol believes that the proportion of arrested juveniles
transferred to the adult court is higher in the Federal system
than in state and local systems.
Dr. Sabol's full report includes data broken down by
ethnicity and race. In the early 90s, a BJS report indicated
that Indians predominated among federal juveniles and young
persons. Later, following the immigration reform act, Hispanics
predominated and Indians became a minority.
An Overview of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 2002 and the Core Requirements
Dennis Mondoro, OJJDP
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act
of 1974 was enacted to help state and local governments prevent
and control juvenile delinquency and to improve the juvenile
justice system. The 1974 JJDP Act also aimed to protect juveniles
in the juvenile justice system from inappropriate placements
and from the harm—both physical and psychological—that
can occur as a result of exposure to adult inmates. A third
element of the act emphasized the need for community-based
treatment for juvenile offenders. These goals were reaffirmed
in the reauthorization of the JJDP Act in 2002.
The 2002 JJDP Act established the following four core protections
with which participating states and territories must comply
to receive formula and Title V Community Prevention grants
under the act:
- Deinstitutionalization of status offenders (DSO).
- Separation of juveniles from adults in institutions (separation).
- Removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups (jail
- Reduction of disproportionate minority contact (DMC), where
Deinstitutionalization of status offenders. The
1974 JJDP Act required states to "provide within three
years... that juveniles who are charged with or who have
committed offenses that would not be criminal if committed
by an adult (i.e., status offenders), shall not be placed in
juvenile detention or correctional facilities, but must be
placed in shelter facilities." A 1977 amendment to the
act included nonoffenders such as dependent and neglected youth,
who did not have to be placed in shelters. In 1980, Congress
specified that status offenders and nonoffenders must be removed
from "secure" juvenile detention and correctional
facilities and prohibited juveniles—including accused
and adjudicated delinquents, status offenders, and nonoffenders—from
being detained in adult jails and lockups. The 1980 amendment
allowed states to detain or confine status offenders in secure
juvenile facilities for the violation of a valid court order.
The 2002 JJDP Act stated the following three exclusions from
the DSO requirement:
- Juveniles charged with or who have committed a violation
of the Youth Handgun Safety Act [18 U.S.C. §922(x)(2)]
or of a similar state law.
- Juveniles who are charged with or who have committed a
violation of a valid court order.
- Juveniles who are held in accordance with the Interstate
Compact on Juveniles as enacted by the state.
In addition, the 2002 Act states that "juveniles who
are not charged with any offense and who are aliens or alleged
to be dependent, neglected, or abused shall not be placed in
secure detention facilities or secure correctional facilities."
Clarification was requested regarding the exclusion of aliens
in compiling data for determining compliance. Mr. Flores explained
that a state not in full compliance will not receive a reduction
in Formula Grants funds if their noncompliance was due to holding
aliens in secure custody.
Separation of juveniles from adult offenders. The
original JJDP Act of 1974 sought to separate adult inmates
and juveniles in institutional settings such as jails, lockups,
prisons, and other secure facilities. The JJDP Act of 2002,
as amended, provided that "juveniles alleged to be or
found to be delinquent," as well as status offenders
and nonoffenders, "will not be detained or confined in
any institution in which they have contact with adult inmates." Contact includes
any physical or sustained sight and sound contact. (Inadvertent
contact is admissible.) Sight contact is defined as
clear visual contact between adult inmates and juveniles within
close proximity to each other, and sound contact is
defined as direct oral communication. The 2002 Act further
mandates a state policy that requires individuals who work
with both such juveniles and adult inmates to be trained and
certified to work with juveniles.
Removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups. In
an effort to protect juveniles in custody and to meet the 1974
separation requirement, jail officials sometimes placed juveniles
in solitary confinement. This practice aggravated the psychological
effects of jailing, increased the rate of suicide eightfold,
and deprived young people of educational and other services
provided in juvenile facilities. In response, Congress established
the jail and lockup removal requirement in 1980, which states
that "no juvenile shall be detained or confined in any
jail or lockup for adults." This requirement was reaffirmed
in 2002, with the following exceptions:
- "Juveniles who are accused of nonstatus offenses
who are detained in such jail and lockup for a period not
to exceed 6 hours for processing or release, while awaiting
transfer to a juvenile facility."
- "Juveniles who are accused of nonstatus offenses
who are detained in such jail and lockup for a period not
to exceed 6 hours... in which period such juveniles make
a court appearance, and only if such juveniles do not have
contact with adult inmates."
- Under special circumstances, such as juveniles in facilities
outside a metropolitan statistical area, juveniles who meet
the above requirements, but who qualify for a "rural" exception
of up to 48 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal
Reduction of disproportionate minority contact. In
1992, Congress required that states address the disproportionate
minority contact requirement as a condition of receiving a
Formula Grant award. The DMC requirement was broadened in 2002.
Each participating state must develop and implement a strategy
for achieving and maintaining compliance with the four core
protections as part of its annual Formula Grants State Plan.
Failure to achieve or maintain compliance reduces the Formula
Grant to the state by 20 percent (in the subsequent fiscal
year) for each core requirement not met. In addition, the noncompliant
state must agree to expend 50 percent of the state's
allocation for that year to achieve compliance with the noncompliant
As part of the strategy for maintaining compliance, states
must provide for an adequate system of monitoring to ensure
that the core protections are met. States must visit and collect
information from secure facilities and annually submit a Compliance
Monitoring Report to OJJDP.
When asked by a Council member how state laws interact with
the federal laws regarding protection of juveniles, Mr. Mondoro
replied that some states have adopted verbatim the federal
statutes and, on the other hand, some states allow, for example,
for the holding of status offenders in jails and lockups. When
a conflict arises between state and federal law regarding the
incarceration of juveniles and federal grant funding is involved,
the federal statutes take precedence.
In all, 10 states have been sanctioned for noncompliance with
the core requirements: 3 regarding DSO, 3 regarding separation,
2 regarding jail removal, 1 regarding monitoring, and 1 regarding
A question arose about the term valid court order: How
can states and localities make sure they are valid? The legislation
provides for a detailed process to be followed when a juvenile
violates a court order. This process includes an in-person
interview to determine whether detention is needed and a court
hearing within 48 hours, in which a judge is apprised of the
interview and determines whether the child is at risk to harm
himself or herself, harm the property of others, or harm others.
Most states can easily claim the valid court order exception.
Because the four core requirements pertain only to federal
formula and block grants to states, the federal justice system
is not required to comply with them.
A recent annual report of OJJDP activities includes details
on the first three core protections (DSO, separation, and jail
removal) but offers little specific data about the fourth core
protection, reduction of disproportionate minority contact,
because, unlike the first three protections, statutorily no
hard targets for outcome measures must be met by the DMC protection.
Nonetheless, OJJDP has been working with states to collect
the data that would be helpful, such as accurate racial breakdowns
in detention facilities. Other efforts go far beyond detention
facilities, such as those in Washington State, where a top-to-bottom
review has been done. Diversion and intervention should be
pushed hard to keep some juveniles out of the system entirely.
Members of the Council stated that they believe that little
progress has been made on the DMC protection and that they
would like to support an effort to increase data gathering
and compliance by the states on this issue. Mr. Flores agreed
and noted that the compliance rates with the first three protections
are 90 percent or higher.
OJJDP, through its Formula Grants Program, addresses the issue
of disproportionate minority contact, and four or five states
have provided data showing modest reductions. Mr. Flores suggested
that the Council examine the issue of disproportionate minority
contact and make a recommendation to give more emphasis to
this fourth core requirement established by the 2002 JJDP Act
to protect juveniles in custody.
Juveniles in the Federal Bureau of Prisons System
Escarcega, Juvenile Services Administrator, Federal Bureau
Mr. Escarcega noted that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) does
not determine which juveniles are committed to the custody
of the BOP; BOP control and responsibility begin with the entry
of the juvenile into the BOP system. In addition, issues related
to prevention and community services do not apply to juveniles
under the custody of the BOP.
Mr. Escarcega's presentation focused on federally sentenced
juvenile offenders who have been committed to the custody of
The issue of BOP consistency with the core protection requirements
of the JJDP Act as amended has arisen and was addressed. A
10-page BOP Program Statement, number 5216.05, dated September
1, 1999, which was distributed to Council members, makes reference
to the JJDP Act. The purpose of the Program Statement is to
establish procedures required for juveniles under the age of
18 and those sentenced under the JJDP Act, including procedures
for the following areas:
- Sight and sound separation from adults.
- Disclosure of juvenile information.
- Resources for juveniles.
The statement also clarifies the limitations on placing juvenile
offenders in Community Corrections Centers that also house
adults and clarifies the use of community service and the amount
of subsistence to be paid by employed juveniles. In addition,
BOP's Statement of Work (SOW) for Secure and Non-Secure
Juvenile Facilities addresses the issue of the protection of
juveniles and is available on the BOP Web site, http://www.bop.gov.
Finally, BOP accreditation requirements to ensure appropriate
correctional practices were discussed.
Two goals were established in 1998 in cooperation with a workgroup
formed by DOJ to address the confinement of federal juvenile
offenders, especially in Indian country: (1) federal juveniles
will be housed in programs near their homes and families, and
(2) programs will be in substantial compliance with the Statement
of Work for Juvenile Facilities (Secure and Non-Secure). Using
monitoring instruments, BOP performs field investigations to
determine whether facilities are in substantial compliance by
interviewing staff and juveniles and reviewing staffing patterns,
education programs, and accreditation. Regarding housing and
programs, BOP enters into agreements with state, local, and
tribal governments and private organizations to provide services
for federal juveniles. The SOW sets forth contract performance
requirements for the comprehensive management and operation
of secure and non-secure facilities.
The following quote from the JJDP Act of 1974, as amended,
reflects the philosophy of the BOP toward juveniles in their
custody: "No juvenile committed to the custody of the
Attorney General may be placed or retained in an adult facility
in which he has regular contact with adults incarcerated because
they have been convicted of a crime or are waiting trial on
A question was raised about the difference in wording regarding
contact with adults. State requirements under the JJDP Act
of 1974 state that "juveniles shall not have contact
with adults," and procedures for the custody of federal
juveniles state that "no juvenile..." [may have] "regular
contact with adults." It is Mr. Flores's understanding
that both systems now are identical in this regard and adhere
to the higher standard of total separation.
Dr. Brendtro conducted a site visit several years ago to North
Dakota, site of the largest BOP contract facility, and learned
that juveniles from Florida, Hawaii, Maine, and New Mexico
were housed there. This arrangement did not reflect the federal
priority of housing juveniles near their homes and families.
Mr. Escarcega assured Dr. Brendtro and the Council that changes
have been made to the North Dakota facility and that juveniles
from, for example, Hawaii are now housed on the West Coast
and juveniles from Maine are now housed in Maine. Currently,
compliance with the goal of housing juveniles within 250 miles
of their home now stands at 94 to 95 percent. Council members
urged that appropriate housing be found in Hawaii for juveniles
The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA)
of 1997 [42 U.S.C. §1997 (1) (B)] authorizes the Attorney
General to investigate conditions at juvenile correctional
institutions owned by a state or operated on behalf of the
state. The SOW requires contractors to keep a copy on file
and available for all key personnel and staff. CRIPA states
that no juvenile in BOP custody will be housed in a facility
that is the subject of ongoing federal litigation or investigation
concerning conditions of confinement. BOP has removed federal
juveniles from facilities that became the subject of an investigation
on several occasions. CRIPA has revealed the lack of medical
care, education, access to psychological and dental services;
prolonged segregation without cause; repetitive make-work;
and other such problems in many facilities.
Programming must be conducive to the rehabilitation of male
and female inmates. BOP has very few female juvenile offenders
in the system. However, gender-specific programming is available.
Contractors must develop written operational policies and
procedures that adhere to accepted juvenile-specific correctional
practices. Contractors also must be accredited by the American
Correctional Association (ACA) within 24 months within the
contract award and, prior to accreditation, must adhere to
ACA practices on such issues as staffing, educational services,
and library services. Contractors must submit written policies
and procedures that meet BOP's requirements for each
federal juvenile in custody to receive at least 50 hours of
formal quality programming per week, 12 months a year. Formal
programming must be meaningful, measurable, and responsive
to the educational, cultural, emotional, physical, and spiritual
needs of the unique juvenile offender population.
Juveniles with educational disabilities are now helped in
the federal system. BOP monitors for compliance with the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 (IDEA) and
the No Child Left Behind Act and reviews special education
plans, educational records, and individualized education plans.
The juvenile services office also consults with the BOP education
department and requests outside assistance, including assistance
from local school districts, when needed.
August 2004 data on the federal juvenile population are available
in the handout (part II, pages 30 and 31) and include information
on facilities, gender, ethnicity, sentence procedure codes,
citizenship, state of juvenile residence, age, and offenses.
Dr. Brendtro suggested that under the ethnicity category,
the non-Native American data be broken down to show the major
racial categories, thus making it clear that most federal juveniles
are people of color. Mr. Escarcega's point to be made
with the ethnicity data, which was broken down only by Native
and non-Native categories, was that BOP is dealing primarily
with a Native American population and culturally sensitive
programming must be available for them. The Council has an
opportunity to make a contribution to BOP's work with
juveniles regarding, for example, HHS's best practices
in helping sexual abuse victims or ED's distance learning
The Council applauded the significant transformations that
BOP has undergone since the Council last looked at the issue
of federal juvenile justice.
Mr. Escarcega offered to discuss the approach of positive
peer culture and how it is used with juvenile offenders around
the country at a future Council meeting.
Juvenile Justice in Indian Country
Lamar, Acting Director, Law Enforcement Services, Bureau
of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior
Mr. Lamar first asked the Council to capture the thought that
comes to mind when hearing the term American Indian and
to hold the thought for later discussion.
The United States includes more than 560 federally recognized
tribes, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) oversees or
directly manages approximately 206 Indian country law enforcement
programs. BIA enforces violations of federal statutes and tribal
codes and ordinances and has uniformed patrol, criminal investigations,
and detention programs in Indian country. Line authority for
law enforcement functions came to his office within BIA in
Approximately 1.5 million American Indians reside on or near
the 85 million acres of Indian country in 31 states. (Indian
country is a legal term for reservation lands or lands
held in trust for American Indians.) Most of Indian country
is in geographically remote areas. However, reservation lands
can be found near large metropolitan areas, such as Las Vegas,
Phoenix, Tucson, Albuquerque, and Miami.
Nearly half of the American Indian population is under the
age of 18. Drugs, guns, gangs, teenage pregnancy, suicides,
and illiteracy steal American Indian children daily. As drugs
and guns pour into reservations in record numbers, these problems
go unnoticed. The system of gathering data on American Indians
is archaic and does not permit accurate reporting, leaving
Indian country without the ability to prepare justifications
to seek assistance.
The BIA's system of 74 Indian jails recently received
negative attention in local and national newspapers. The Department
of Interior Inspector General conducted a review of the jail
system and found conditions described as "third world," such
as two-way glass installed backwards, toilets that flush from
one cell into another cell, broken pipes, malfunctioning locks,
nonfunctioning videocameras, poor ventilation systems, inmates
drinking from a single bucket of water, and one shower to serve
an entire facility. Reasons for the failure are related to
management, money, and infrastructure.
Although 12 facilities meet juvenile standards and an additional
12 DOJ-funded facilities are in construction, a great need
exists for facilities and programs. Thirty-one facilities were
not in compliance with sight and sound separation between adults
and juveniles, yet juveniles are held in these facilities.
In Indian country, an acceptable and compliant facility may
be 80 to 100 miles from a reservation. This leads to the practice
of using adult lockups for juveniles.
Indian country is far behind the national average regarding
the number of police officers on patrol. The minimum number
of police officers needed is approximately 4,300; the current
count is 2,600.
In the spring of 2004 BIA implemented a special order to remove
all juveniles from those adult facilities that were not able
to meet the sight and sound separation requirement. Unintended
consequences, however, may developed as a result of this order,
such as arresting, but then sending home, two 6-foot 15-year-olds
who had brutally raped a preteen girl because no appropriate
facility exists nearby. In another case, the all-female jail
staff were intimidated by the size and strength of an unruly
juvenile and protected themselves by using chains and shackles
and isolating him for more than 10 days.
The trust relationship the United States holds for Indian
people was described as "perhaps unlike that of any other
two peoples in existence" in the historic Cherokee
Nation v. Georgia decision of the U.S. Supreme
Court. Indian country law enforcement has been described as
an amorphous maze of complex legal issues, a jurisdictional
nightmare. Complex legal hurdles are placed in the path of
those tasked with enforcing the law in Indian country. Recognizing
trust responsibility means that Indian country law enforcement
must never use those hurdles to rationalize the exclusion of
a juvenile case from federal prosecution. But rather those
hurdles should be proclaimed to be the very reason to ensure
that Indian country victims see justice.
Mr. Lamar stated that the Bureau of Indian Affairs needs the
partnerships offered by the Coordinating Council on Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
In closing, Mr. Lamar asked the participants and guests what
had first come to their minds when hearing the term American
Indian—a movie or TV stereotype, a drunken Indian, a
government freeloader, or a skid row bum? When he hears the
words, he sees many faces, the faces of Indian elders, grandmas
and grandpas, sisters and brothers who are professionals such
as doctors, educators, blue-collar craftsmen, musicians, artists,
DOJ attorneys, and soldiers. He also sees children who need
the guidance and direction and victims who deserve justice.
He asked the group to analyze what they saw and decide if a
change is needed. George Bernard Shaw said, "Progress
is impossible without change and those who cannot change their
minds cannot change anything."
Mr. Lamar offered to return to a Council meeting and speak
more indepth about Indian issues.
J. Robert Flores
The Council is currently in the mode of information gathering,
in which it is hearing reports from agencies and constituencies
related to its mission. Although they are often discouraging
reports, it is important to obtain an accurate picture, which
indicates the work to be done by the Council. Through these
reports, some encouraging opportunities present themselves
as well. Because the federal system contains a limited number
of juveniles, the Council can make a difference and bring improvements
in a short time.
Tim Wight and his staff will gather from Council members examples
of how their agencies can help the Council and America's
youth. How can the agencies on the Council use what they already
know and lead by example? The federal government often ask
others to follow rules from which they have exempted themselves.
But changes are occurring, and we need to encourage the progress
that has been made. Please look at what has been identified
and the holes and needs that remain. What should be placed
on the agenda for future meetings and what bite-sized and doable
action items can be accomplish? This will provide encouragement
toward meeting the Council's goals. The Council provides
an opportunity to disseminate targeted and specific information
to audiences in the juvenile justice system.
Mr. Flores believes that it is helpful for the Council to
hear new perspectives from each other and from outsiders who
offer another view. Recent meetings have concentrated on presentations
related to topics of special interest in the juvenile justice
field. He hoped that future meetings can focus on solutions
to the problems raised in the presentations. Conference calls
with Council Planning Team members and e-mails to all will
continue between meetings. He asked that Council members let
Mr. Wight know what they find both helpful and troubling at
Mr. Flores asked if participants wanted to raise any issues
at the close of the meeting. Mr. Brendtro expressed his appreciation
for Mr. Flores's forthright statement at the end of the
meeting to get to the heart of the issue and hoped that the
discussion would continue at the next meeting. Mr. Flores stated
that the discussion would continue both before and during the
The presentations by John Pogash of the U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, DHS, and Maureen Dunn of the Division
of Unaccompanied Children's Services, Office of Refugee
Resettlement, HHS, scheduled for the September 2004 meeting
will instead be on the agenda for the December 2004 meeting.
Mr. Flores thanked the Council members and other participants
for attending and adjourned the meeting.
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Office of Refugee Resettlement
Director, Division of Unaccompanied Children's Services
Schenkenberg, Division of Unaccompanied Children's Services
U.S. Department of the Interior
of Indian Affairs
Walter Lamar, Acting Director, Law
U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
Bureau of Prisons
Alex Escarcega, Juvenile Services
National Institute of Justice
M. Chemers, Chief, Evaluation Division
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Sandra J. Barrett, Program Manager
Nathan James, Juvenile
Justice Program Specialist
Donni M. LeBoeuf, Special Assistant
Dennis Mondoro, Compliance
Wandra Simmons, Program Manager
Timothy S. Wight, Director, Concentration
of Federal Efforts Program
Office of Tribal Justice
Tracy Toulou, Director
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)
of Youth Services
Lorenzo Harrison, Administrator
William J. Sabol
White House Office of National Drug Control Policy
Javier Cordova, Policy Analyst
Sheila A. Bedi, Attorney, Mississippi Center for Justice
N. Bickicioglu, Research & Development Associate,
D.C. Courts Research & Development Division
Child Welfare League of America
Erika Fitzpatrick, Executive
Editor, Capital City Publishers
Elizabeth Gladden, Staff Attorney,
Juvenile Justice Center Criminal Justice Section, American
Candace Johnson, Sr. Research Scientist, Justice
Studies, National Opinion Research Center
Joyce Lowery, Public
Sector Grant Specialist, World Vision
Marion Mattingly, National
Program Director, National Campaign to Stop Violence
Executive Director, National Council on Alcoholism and Drug
William W. Treanor, Publisher, Youth Today
Dennis L. White,
The George Washington University