69–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 114–890 

TIFFANY JOSLYN JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY BLOCK 

GRANT PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2016 

DECEMBER 23, 2016.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. GOODLATTE, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 68] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 68) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 

Act of 1968 to enhance the use of Juvenile Accountability Block 

Grants for programs to prevent and address occurrences of bullying 

and to reauthorize the Juvenile Accountability Block Grants program, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with 

amendments and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

The Amendments ..................................................................................................... 2 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 3 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 4 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 4 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 4 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 4 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 4 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 4 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 4 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 6 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 6 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 6 

Advisory on Earmarks ............................................................................................. 7 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 7 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 8 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

The Amendments 

The amendments are as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tiffany Joslyn Juvenile Accountability Block Grant 

Program Reauthorization Act of 2016’’. 

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM. 

Part R of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 

U.S.C. 3796ee et seq.) is amended— 

(1) in section 1801(b)— 

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘graduated sanctions’’ and inserting 

‘‘graduated sanctions and incentives’’; and 

(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘hiring juvenile court judges, probation 

officers, and court-appointed defenders and special advocates, and’’; 

(C) by striking paragraphs (4) and (7), and redesignating paragraphs (5) 

through (17) as paragraphs (4) through (15), respectively; and 

(D) in paragraph (11), as so redesignated, by striking ‘‘research-based bullying, cyberbullying, and gang prevention programs’’ and inserting ‘‘interventions such as researched-based anti-bullying, anti-cyberbullying, and 

gang prevention programs, as well as mental health services and traumainformed practices’’; 

(2) in section 1802— 

(A) in subsection (d)(3), by inserting after ‘‘individualized sanctions’’ the 

following: ‘‘, incentives,’’; 

(B) in subsection (e)(1)(B), by striking ‘‘graduated sanctions’’ and inserting ‘‘graduated sanctions and incentives’’; and 

(C) in subsection (f)— 

(i) in paragraph (2)— 

(I) by inserting after ‘‘A sanction may include’’ the following: ‘‘a 

range of court-approved interventions, such as’’; and 

(II) by inserting after ‘‘a fine,’’ the following: ‘‘a restorative justice 

program,’’; and 

(ii) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following: 

‘‘(3) INCENTIVES.—The term ‘incentives’ means individualized, goal-oriented, 

and graduated responses to a juvenile offender’s compliance with court orders 

and case disposition terms designed to reinforce or modify the skills and behaviors of the juvenile offender. An incentive may include a certificate of achievement, a letter of recommendation, a family or program activity, a meeting or 

special outing with a community leader, a reduction in community service 

hours, a reduced curfew or home-restriction, a decrease in required court appearances, or a decrease in the term of court-ordered supervision.’’; 

(3) in section 1810(a), by striking ‘‘$350,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 

through 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘$25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2018 through 

2022’’; and 

(4) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘SEC. 1811. GRANT ACCOUNTABILITY. 

‘‘(a) DEFINITION OF APPLICABLE COMMITTEES.—In this section, the term ‘applicable 

committees’ means— 

‘‘(1) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and 

‘‘(2) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives. 

‘‘(b) ACCOUNTABILITY.—All grants awarded by the Attorney General under this 

part shall be subject to the following accountability provisions: 

‘‘(1) AUDIT REQUIREMENT.— 

‘‘(A) DEFINITION.—In this paragraph, the term ‘unresolved audit finding’ 

means a finding in the final audit report of the Inspector General of the 

Department of Justice that the audited grantee has utilized grant funds for 

an unauthorized expenditure or otherwise unallowable cost that is not 

closed or resolved within 12 months after the date on which the final audit 

report is issued. 

‘‘(B) AUDIT.—Beginning in the first fiscal year beginning after the date 

of enactment of this section, and in each fiscal year thereafter, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall conduct audits of recipients 

of grants awarded by the Attorney General under this part to prevent 

waste, fraud, and abuse of funds by grantees. The Inspector General shall 

determine the appropriate number of grantees to be audited each year. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

‘‘(C) MANDATORY EXCLUSION.—A recipient of grant funds under this part 

that is found to have an unresolved audit finding shall not be eligible to 

receive grant funds under this part during the first 2 fiscal years beginning 

after the end of the 12-month period described in subparagraph (A). 

‘‘(D) PRIORITY.—In awarding grants under this part, the Attorney General 

shall give priority to eligible applicants that did not have an unresolved 

audit finding during the 3 fiscal years before submitting an application for 

a grant under this part. 

‘‘(E) REIMBURSEMENT.—If an entity is awarded grant funds under this 

part during the 2-fiscal-year period during which the entity is barred from 

receiving grants under subparagraph (C), the Attorney General shall— 

‘‘(i) deposit an amount equal to the amount of the grant funds that 

were improperly awarded to the grantee into the General Fund of the 

Treasury; and 

‘‘(ii) seek to recoup the costs of the repayment to the fund from the 

grant recipient that was erroneously awarded grant funds. 

‘‘(2) ANNUAL CERTIFICATION.—Beginning in the first fiscal year beginning 

after the date of enactment of this section, the Attorney General shall submit 

to the applicable committees an annual certification— 

‘‘(A) indicating whether— 

‘‘(i) all audits issued by the Inspector General of the Department of 

Justice under paragraph (1) have been completed and reviewed by the 

appropriate Assistant Attorney General or Director; 

‘‘(ii) all mandatory exclusions required under paragraph (1)(C) have 

been issued; and 

‘‘(iii) all reimbursements required under paragraph (1)(E) have been 

made; and 

‘‘(B) that includes a list of any grant recipients excluded under paragraph 

(1) from the previous year. 

‘‘(c) PREVENTING DUPLICATIVE GRANTS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Before the Attorney General awards a grant to an applicant under this part, the Attorney General shall compare potential grant 

awards with other grants awarded under this part by the Attorney General to 

determine if duplicate grant awards are awarded for the same purpose. 

‘‘(2) REPORT.—If the Attorney General awards duplicate grants under this 

part to the same applicant for the same purpose, the Attorney General shall 

submit to the applicable committees a report that includes— 

‘‘(A) a list of all duplicate grants awarded under this part, including the 

total dollar amount of any duplicate grants awarded; and 

‘‘(B) the reason the Attorney General awarded the duplicate grants.’’. 

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

It is the sense of the Congress that the use of best practices is encouraged for 

all activities for which grants under part R of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 

and Safe Streets Act of 1968 may be used. 

SEC. 4. USE OF AMOUNTS MADE AVAILABLE FOR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION TO CARRY OUT JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM. 

In each of fiscal years 2018 through 2022, the Attorney General shall use up to 

$25,000,000 of the amounts made available for Department of Justice, General Administration, to carry out part R of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 

Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ee et seq.). 

Amend the title so as to read: 

A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 

of 1968 to reauthorize the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant program, and for other purposes. 

Purpose and Summary 

The Justice Department’s Juvenile Accountability Block Grant 

(JABG) program authorizes the Attorney General to provide competitive grants to states, tribes, and units of local government to 

strengthen their juvenile justice systems and foster accountability 

within their juvenile populations by holding juveniles responsible 

for their actions and reducing recidivist behavior. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

Background and Need for the Legislation 

This bill reauthorizes the Justice Department’s Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG) program, strengthens the JABG program to reduce youth crime and contains a robust accountability 

and oversight mechanism to ensure taxpayer dollars are used efficiently and appropriately. The JABG program provides grants to 

states, tribes and localities to strengthen their juvenile justice systems and reduce recidivist behavior. 

Hearings 

The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H.R. 68. 

Committee Consideration 

On July 13, 2016, the Committee on the Judiciary met in open 

session and ordered the bill H.R. 68 favorably reported, with 

amendments, by voice vote, a quorum being present. 

Committee Votes 

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that there were 

no recorded votes during the Committee’s consideration of H.R. 68. 

Committee Oversight Findings 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures 

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new 

budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill, H.R. 68, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, August 19, 2016. 

Hon. BOB GOODLATTE, CHAIRMAN, Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 68, the ‘‘Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2016.’’ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz, who 

can be reached at 226–2860. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL, 

DIRECTOR. 

Enclosure 

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

H.R. 68—Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program 

Reauthorization Act of 2016. 

As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary 

on July 13, 2016. 

SUMMARY

H.R. 68 would authorize the appropriation of $25 million annually over the 2018–2022 period for the Department of Justice (DOJ) 

to make grants to State and local governments for programs to 

strengthen the juvenile justice system, including programs to combat bullying in schools. 

Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 68 would cost $50 million over the 

2017–2021 period. Pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply to this 

legislation because enacting it would not affect direct spending or 

revenues. 

CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would not increase 

net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027. 

H.R. 68 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA); 

any costs to State, local, or tribal governments would result from 

complying with conditions of Federal assistance. 

ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 68 is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 750 (administration of justice). 

BASIS OF ESTIMATE

CBO assumes that the authorized amounts will be appropriated 

near the start of each fiscal year and that outlays will follow the 

historical rate of spending for similar activities. The Congress did 

not provide any funds for this program in 2016. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS

None. 

INCREASE IN LONG-TERM DIRECT SPENDING AND DEFICITS

CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would not increase 

net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027. 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE–SECTOR IMPACT

H.R. 68 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA; any costs to State, local, or tribal governments would result from complying with conditions of Federal 

assistance. 

ESTIMATE PREPARED BY: 

Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz 

Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Rachel Austin 

Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach 

ESTIMATE APPROVED BY: 

Theresa Gullo 

Assistant Director for Budget Analysis 

Duplication of Federal Programs 

No provision of H.R. 68 establishes or reauthorizes a program of 

the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings 

The Committee estimates that H.R. 68 specifically directs to be 

completed no specific rule makings within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 

§ 551. 

Performance Goals and Objectives 

The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 68 reauthorizes 

the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant program to provide grants 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSHR68.eps
7 

to states for programs to address and strengthen juvenile justice 

initiatives. 

Advisory on Earmarks 

In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, H.R. 68 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 

clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI. 

Section–by–Section Analysis 

The following discussion describes the bill as reported by the 

Committee. 

Sec. 1: Short Title. 

Section 1 provides that the short title of the bill is the ‘‘Tiffany 

Joslyn Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2016.’’ The title honors Tiffany Joslyn, a counsel for the 

Committee who died tragically in March of this year. Ms. Joslyn 

worked tirelessly to reform our criminal justice system, including 

work on this bill and other efforts to improve the system’s treatment of young offenders. 

Sec. 2: Reauthorization of Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Programs. 

This section amends various purpose areas for which Juvenile 

Accountability Block Grant (JABG) funds may be used. Historically, to strengthen the juvenile justice system, states have been 

authorized to use JABG grant funds for various purposes. Included 

among these purpose areas are the development, implementation, 

and administration of a state system of graduated sanctions for juvenile offenders. In addition to graduated ‘‘sanctions,’’ the substitute amendment will add graduated ‘‘incentives’’ to the relevant 

purpose area. The reason for this addition is to ensure that the 

states are using incentives, in addition to sanctions, to respond to 

a juvenile’s ability to meet short and long term goals in compliance 

with court orders and terms of case disposition. 

This section strikes as a purpose area the hiring of juvenile court 

judges, probation officers, court appointed defenders and special advocates, and prosecutors. It also strikes the establishment of ‘‘gun 

courts’’ as an available purpose area. 

‘‘Mental health services and trauma-informed practices,’’ are 

added at the end of the purpose area pertaining to bullying. The 

prefix ‘‘anti’’ is added to bullying and cyberbullying for clarification. 

Under JABG’s prior authorization, any state system of ‘‘graduated sanctions’’ must ensure sufficient flexibility to allow for individualized sanctions. This section adds ‘‘incentives,’’ as an additional component. 

This section recognizes a ‘‘restorative justice program’’ is an 

available sanction. 

This section defines ‘‘incentives.’’ 

This section authorizes the grant program at $25 million for each 

of fiscal years 2018 through 2022. 

This section adds grant accountability measures, including an 

audit requirement by the Inspector General of the Department of 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

Justice, for the expenditure of grants funds, an annual certification 

to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, and an oversight 

mechanism to prevent duplicative grants from being awarded. 

Sec. 3. Sense of Congress. 

This section adds a sense of the Congress that the use of best 

practices is encouraged for all activities for which grants are allocated. 

Sec. 4. Use of Amounts Made Available for Department of Justice, 

General Administration to Carry out Juvenile Accountability 

Block Grant Program. 

Finally, this section provides an offset, in accordance with House 

spending rules, in the amount of $25 million per year from 2018 

through 2022 from the Department of Justice’s General Administration budget. 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT 

OF 1968 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE I—JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT 

* * * * * * * 

PART R—JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY BLOCK 

GRANTS 

SEC. 1801. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General is authorized to provide 

grants to States, for use by States and units of local government, 

and in certain cases directly to specially qualified units. 

(b) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.—Amounts paid to a State or a unit 

of local government under this part shall be used by the State or 

unit of local government for the purpose of strengthening the juvenile justice system, which includes— 

(1) developing, implementing, and administering øgraduated 

sanctions¿ graduated sanctions and incentives for juvenile offenders; 

(2) building, expanding, renovating, or operating temporary 

or permanent juvenile correction, detention, or community corrections facilities; 

(3) øhiring juvenile court judges, probation officers, and 

court-appointed defenders and special advocates, and¿ funding 

pretrial services (including mental health screening and asVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:14 Dec 27, 2016 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR890.XXX HR890

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

sessment) for juvenile offenders, to promote the effective and 

expeditious administration of the juvenile justice system; 

ø(4) hiring additional prosecutors, so that more cases involving violent juvenile offenders can be prosecuted and case backlogs reduced;¿ 

ø(5)¿ (4) providing funding to enable prosecutors to address 

drug, gang, and youth violence problems more effectively and 

for technology, equipment, and training to assist prosecutors in 

identifying and expediting the prosecution of violent juvenile 

offenders; 

ø(6)¿ (5) establishing and maintaining training programs for 

law enforcement and other court personnel with respect to preventing and controlling juvenile crime; 

ø(7) establishing juvenile gun courts for the prosecution and 

adjudication of juvenile firearms offenders;¿ 

ø(8)¿ (6) establishing drug court programs for juvenile offenders that provide continuing judicial supervision over juvenile offenders with substance abuse problems and the integrated administration of other sanctions and services for such 

offenders; 

ø(9)¿ (7) establishing and maintaining a system of juvenile 

records designed to promote public safety; 

ø(10)¿ (8) establishing and maintaining interagency information-sharing programs that enable the juvenile and criminal 

justice systems, schools, and social services agencies to make 

more informed decisions regarding the early identification, control, supervision, and treatment of juveniles who repeatedly 

commit serious delinquent or criminal acts; 

ø(11)¿ (9) establishing and maintaining accountability-based 

programs designed to reduce recidivism among juveniles who 

are referred by law enforcement personnel or agencies; 

ø(12)¿ (10) establishing and maintaining programs to conduct risk and need assessments of juvenile offenders that facilitate the effective early intervention and the provision of 

comprehensive services, including mental health screening and 

treatment and substance abuse testing and treatment to such 

offenders; 

ø(13)¿ (11) establishing and maintaining accountabilitybased programs that are designed to enhance school safety, 

which programs may include øresearch-based bullying, 

cyberbullying, and gang prevention programs¿ interventions 

such as researched-based anti-bullying, anti-cyberbullying, and 

gang prevention programs, as well as mental health services 

and trauma-informed practices; 

ø(14)¿ (12) establishing and maintaining restorative justice 

programs; 

ø(15)¿ (13) establishing and maintaining programs to enable 

juvenile courts and juvenile probation officers to be more effective and efficient in holding juvenile offenders accountable and 

reducing recidivism; 

ø(16)¿ (14) hiring detention and corrections personnel, and 

establishing and maintaining training programs for such personnel to improve facility practices and programming; or 

ø(17)¿ (15) establishing, improving, and coordinating pre-release and post-release systems and programs to facilitate the 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

successful reentry of juvenile offenders from State or local custody in the community. 

(c) DEFINITION.—In this section the term ‘‘restorative justice program’’ means a program that emphasizes the moral accountability 

of an offender toward the victim and the affected community and 

may include community reparations boards, restitution (in the form 

of monetary payment or service to the victim or, where no victim 

can be identified, service to the affected community), and mediation 

between victim and offender. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1802. GRANT ELIGIBILITY. 

(a) STATE ELIGIBILITY.—To be eligible to receive a grant under 

this part, a State shall submit to the Attorney General an application at such time, in such form, and containing such assurances 

and information as the Attorney General may require by guidelines, including— 

(1) information about— 

(A) the activities proposed to be carried out with such 

grant; and 

(B) the criteria by which the State proposes to assess the 

effectiveness of such activities on achieving the purposes of 

this part, including the extent to which evidence-based approaches are utilized; and 

(2) assurances that the State and any unit of local government to which the State provides funding under section 

1803(b), has in effect (or shall have in effect, not later than 1 

year after the date that the State submits such application) 

laws, or has implemented (or shall implement, not later than 

1 year after the date that the State submits such application) 

policies and programs, that provide for a system of graduated 

sanctions described in subsection (d). 

(b) LOCAL ELIGIBILITY.— 

(1) SUBGRANT ELIGIBILITY.—To be eligible to receive a 

subgrant, a unit of local government, other than a specially 

qualified unit, shall provide to the State— 

(A) information about— 

(i) the activities proposed to be carried out with such 

subgrant; and 

(ii) the criteria by which the unit proposes to assess 

the effectiveness of such activities on achieving the 

purposes of this part, including the extent to which 

evidence-based approaches are utilized; and 

(B) such assurances as the State shall require, that, to 

the maximum extent applicable, the unit of local government has in effect (or shall have in effect, not later than 

1 year after the date that the unit submits such application) laws, or has implemented (or shall implement, not 

later than 1 year after the date that the unit submits such 

application) policies and programs, that provide for a system of graduated sanctions described in subsection (d). 

(2) SPECIAL RULE.—The requirements of paragraph (1) shall 

apply to a specially qualified unit that receives funds from the 

Attorney General under section 1803(e), except that informaVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:14 Dec 27, 2016 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR890.XXX HR890

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

tion that is otherwise required to be submitted to the State 

shall be submitted to the Attorney General. 

(c) ROLE OF COURTS.—In the development of the grant application, the States and units of local governments shall take into consideration the needs of the judicial branch in strengthening the juvenile justice system and specifically seek the advice of the chief 

of the highest court of the State and where appropriate, the chief 

judge of the local court, with respect to the application. 

(d) GRADUATED SANCTIONS.—A system of graduated sanctions, 

which may be discretionary as provided in subsection (e), shall ensure, at a minimum, that— 

(1) sanctions are imposed on a juvenile offender for each delinquent offense; 

(2) sanctions escalate in intensity with each subsequent, 

more serious delinquent offense; 

(3) there is sufficient flexibility to allow for individualized 

sanctions, incentives, and services suited to the individual juvenile offender; and 

(4) appropriate consideration is given to public safety and 

victims of crime. 

(e) DISCRETIONARY USE OF SANCTIONS.— (1) VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION.—A State or unit of local government may be eligible to receive a grant under this part if— 

(A) its system of graduated sanctions is discretionary; 

and 

(B) it demonstrates that it has promoted the use of a 

system of øgraduated sanctions¿ graduated sanctions and 

incentives by taking steps to encourage implementation of 

such a system by juvenile courts. 

(2) REPORTING REQUIREMENT IF GRADUATED SANCTIONS NOT

USED.— 

(A) JUVENILE COURTS.—A State or unit of local government in which the imposition of graduated sanctions is discretionary shall require each juvenile court within its jurisdiction— 

(i) which has not implemented a system of graduated sanctions, to submit an annual report that explains why such court did not implement graduated 

sanctions; and 

(ii) which has implemented a system of graduated 

sanctions but has not imposed graduated sanctions in 

all cases, to submit an annual report that explains 

why such court did not impose graduated sanctions in 

all cases. 

(B) UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.—Each unit of local 

government, other than a specially qualified unit, that has 

1 or more juvenile courts that use a discretionary system 

of graduated sanctions shall collect the information reported under subparagraph (A) for submission to the State 

each year. 

(C) STATES.—Each State and specially qualified unit 

that has 1 or more juvenile courts that use a discretionary 

system of graduated sanctions shall collect the information 

reported under subparagraph (A) for submission to the Attorney General each year. A State shall also collect and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

submit to the Attorney General the information collected 

under subparagraph (B). 

(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) DISCRETIONARY.—The term ‘‘discretionary’’ means that a 

system of graduated sanctions is not required to be imposed by 

each and every juvenile court in a State or unit of local government. 

(2) SANCTIONS.—The term ‘‘sanctions’’ means tangible, proportional consequences that hold the juvenile offender accountable for the offense committed. A sanction may include a range 

of court-approved interventions, such as counseling, restitution, 

community service, a fine, a restorative justice program, supervised probation, or confinement. 

(3) INCENTIVES.—The term ‘‘incentives’’ means individualized, 

goal-oriented, and graduated responses to a juvenile offender’s 

compliance with court orders and case disposition terms designed to reinforce or modify the skills and behaviors of the juvenile offender. An incentive may include a certificate of 

achievement, a letter of recommendation, a family or program 

activity, a meeting or special outing with a community leader, 

a reduction in community service hours, a reduced curfew or 

home-restriction, a decrease in required court appearances, or a 

decrease in the term of court-ordered supervision. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1810. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated to 

carry out this part, ø$350,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 

through 2009¿ $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2018 through 

2022. 

(b) OVERSIGHT ACCOUNTABILITY AND ADMINISTRATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under section 261 of title II of the Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5611 et seq.), 

there shall be available to the Attorney General, for each of the 

fiscal years 2002 through 2004 (as applicable), to remain available until expended— 

(A) not more than 2 percent of that amount, for research, evaluation, and demonstration consistent with this 

part; 

(B) not more than 2 percent of that amount, for training 

and technical assistance; and 

(C) not more than 1 percent, for administrative costs to 

carry out the purposes of this part. 

(2) OVERSIGHT PLAN.—The Attorney General shall establish 

and execute an oversight plan for monitoring the activities of 

grant recipients. 

(c) TRIBAL SET-ASIDE.—Of the amounts appropriated under subsection (a), 2 percent shall be made available for programs that receive grants under section 1801A. 

SEC. 1811. GRANT ACCOUNTABILITY. 

(a) DEFINITION OF APPLICABLE COMMITTEES.—In this section, the 

term ‘‘applicable committees’’ means— 

(1) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

(2) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives. 

(b) ACCOUNTABILITY.—All grants awarded by the Attorney General under this part shall be subject to the following accountability 

provisions: 

(1) AUDIT REQUIREMENT.— 

(A) DEFINITION.—In this paragraph, the term ‘‘unresolved audit finding’’ means a finding in the final audit report of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice 

that the audited grantee has utilized grant funds for an unauthorized expenditure or otherwise unallowable cost that 

is not closed or resolved within 12 months after the date on 

which the final audit report is issued. 

(B) AUDIT.—Beginning in the first fiscal year beginning 

after the date of enactment of this section, and in each fiscal year thereafter, the Inspector General of the Department 

of Justice shall conduct audits of recipients of grants 

awarded by the Attorney General under this part to prevent 

waste, fraud, and abuse of funds by grantees. The Inspector 

General shall determine the appropriate number of grantees to be audited each year. 

(C) MANDATORY EXCLUSION.—A recipient of grant funds 

under this part that is found to have an unresolved audit 

finding shall not be eligible to receive grant funds under 

this part during the first 2 fiscal years beginning after the 

end of the 12-month period described in subparagraph (A). 

(D) PRIORITY.—In awarding grants under this part, the 

Attorney General shall give priority to eligible applicants 

that did not have an unresolved audit finding during the 

3 fiscal years before submitting an application for a grant 

under this part. 

(E) REIMBURSEMENT.—If an entity is awarded grant 

funds under this part during the 2-fiscal-year period during which the entity is barred from receiving grants under 

subparagraph (C), the Attorney General shall— 

(i) deposit an amount equal to the amount of the 

grant funds that were improperly awarded to the 

grantee into the General Fund of the Treasury; and 

(ii) seek to recoup the costs of the repayment to the 

fund from the grant recipient that was erroneously 

awarded grant funds. 

(2) ANNUAL CERTIFICATION.—Beginning in the first fiscal year 

beginning after the date of enactment of this section, the Attorney General shall submit to the applicable committees an annual certification— 

(A) indicating whether— 

(i) all audits issued by the Inspector General of the 

Department of Justice under paragraph (1) have been 

completed and reviewed by the appropriate Assistant 

Attorney General or Director; 

(ii) all mandatory exclusions required under paragraph (1)(C) have been issued; and 

(iii) all reimbursements required under paragraph 

(1)(E) have been made; and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

(B) that includes a list of any grant recipients excluded 

under paragraph (1) from the previous year. 

(c) PREVENTING DUPLICATIVE GRANTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Before the Attorney General awards a grant 

to an applicant under this part, the Attorney General shall compare potential grant awards with other grants awarded under 

this part by the Attorney General to determine if duplicate 

grant awards are awarded for the same purpose. 

(2) REPORT.—If the Attorney General awards duplicate grants 

under this part to the same applicant for the same purpose, the 

Attorney General shall submit to the applicable committees a 

report that includes— 

(A) a list of all duplicate grants awarded under this part, 

including the total dollar amount of any duplicate grants 

awarded; and 

(B) the reason the Attorney General awarded the duplicate grants. 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS