U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

36–466 PDF 2008

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY

PREVENTION ACT: OVERVIEW AND PERSPECTIVES

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTHY 

FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES 

COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND LABOR

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 12, 2007

Serial No. 110–55 Serial No. 110–68

(Committee on Education and Labor) (Committee on the Judiciary)

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

and the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html and

http://www.house.gov/judiciary 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Chairman 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Linda T. Sa ́nchez, California 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

David Davis, Tennessee 

Timothy Walberg, Michigan 

Dean Heller, Nevada

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director 

Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTHY FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES 

CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York, Chairwoman

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

David Davis, Tennessee 

Dean Heller, Nevada 

(III)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOSEPH GIBSON, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL VOLKOV, Minority Counsel 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on July 12, 2007 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

Altmire, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Pennsylvania, prepared statement of .......................................................... 71

Forbes, Hon. J. Randy, ranking minority member, Subcommittee on 

Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, Committee on the Judiciary .................................................................................................................. 8

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9

McCarthy, Hon. Carolyn, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities, Committee on Education and Labor ..................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Platts, Hon. Todd Russell, ranking minority member, Subcommittee on 

Healthy Families and Communities, Committee on Education and 

Labor .............................................................................................................. 4

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5

Scott, Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby,’’ Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, Committee on the Judiciary .................. 5

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7

‘‘Juvenile Justice,’’ editorial from the New York Times, July 12, 2007 65

Statement of Witnesses: 

Freed, David, Cumberland County District Attorney ................................... 19

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21

Johnson, Derrick, vice-chair, Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission ........... 13

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15

Questions for the record ........................................................................... 72

Responses for the record ........................................................................... 72

Additional submissions: 

JJDPA Statement of Principles ........................................................ 83

Internet link to the Coalition for Juvenile Justice report, ‘‘Childhood on Trial: The Failure of Trying & Sentencing Youth in 

Adult Criminal Court,’’ dated 2005 ............................................... 88

Jones, Shannon, former participant in the Community Intensive Supervision Program .............................................................................................. 30

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32

Additional submissions ............................................................................. 88

Lawrence, Hon. Paul, Goffstown District Court, New Hampshire State 

Juvenile Justice Advisory Group ................................................................. 25

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 27

Questions for the record ........................................................................... 116

Responses for the record ........................................................................... 116

Additional submissions: 

Internet link to Coalition for Juvenile Justice 2003 annual report: ‘‘Unlocking the Future: Detention Reform in the Juvenile 

Justice System’’ ............................................................................... 118

Internet links to Coalition for Juvenile Justice briefs, parts I 

and II, ‘‘What Are the Implications of Adolescent Brain Development for Juvenile Justice?’’ ........................................................ 118

Shepherd, Robert E., Jr., emeritus professor of law, University of Richmond School of Law ...................................................................................... 33

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 34

Questions for the record ........................................................................... 118

Responses for the record ........................................................................... 119

Page

VI

Statement of Witnesses—Continued

Woolard, Jennifer L., Ph.D., assistant professor of psychology, Georgetown University ............................................................................................. 39

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 41

Additional submissions: 

‘‘Effects on Violence of Laws and Policies Facilitating the Transfer of Juveniles from the Juvenile Justice System to the Adult 

Justice System,’’ 2007, American Journal of Preventive Medicine ................................................................................................... 120

Internet link to Campaign for Youth Justice report, ‘‘The Consequences Aren’t Minor,’’ dated March 2007 ................................ 142

Internet link to International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 

article, ‘‘Juveniles Within Adult Correctional Settings: Legal 

Pathways and Developmental Considerations,’’ Vol. 4, No. 1, 

2005 ................................................................................................. 142

(1)

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND

DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT: 

OVERVIEW AND PERSPECTIVES 

Thursday, July 12, 2007

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 

Committee on the Judiciary 

Washington, DC

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carolyn McCarthy 

[chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities] presiding. 

Present from Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities: Representatives McCarthy, Clarke, Shea-Porter, Grijalva, 

Sarbanes, Yarmuth, Platts, and Davis of Tennessee. 

Present from Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 

Security: Representatives Scott, Johnson, Jackson Lee, Forbes, 

Gohmert, Coble, and Chabot. 

Also present: Representative Kennedy. 

Staff present from Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities: Aaron Albright, Press Secretary; Tylease Alli, Hearing 

Clerk; Denise Forte, Director of Education Policy; Lamont Ivey, 

Staff Assistant, Education; Deborah Koolbeck, Policy Advisor for 

Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities; Lisette 

Partelow, Staff Assistant, Education; Rachel Racusen, Deputy Communications Director; James Scholl; James Bergeron, Deputy Director of Education and Human Services Policy; Kathryn Bruns, 

Legislative Assistant; Kirsten Duncan, Professional Staff Member; 

Taylor Hansen, Legislative Assistant; Victor Klatt, Staff Director; 

Susan Ross, Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; 

and Linda Stevens, Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel. 

Staff present from Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security: Bobby Vassar, Chief Counsel; Rachel King, 

Counsel; and Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY [presiding]. A quorum is present. The 

hearing of the subcommittee will come to order. 

Pursuant to Committee Rule 12A, any member may submit an 

opening statement in writing, which will be made part of the permanent record. 

2

Before we begin, I would like everyone to take a moment to ensure that your cell phones and BlackBerrys are on silent. So, I will 

give you a second to turn everything off, please—members, also. 

I now recognize myself, followed by the ranking member, Mr. 

Platts from Pennsylvania, for an opening statement. 

I am pleased to welcome all of you to the Subcommittee on 

Healthy Families and Communities joint hearing with the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, 

chaired by my colleague, Representative Bobby Scott from Virginia. 

We appreciate the subcommittee’s participation today and his 

personal desire to demonstrate the importance of the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act, or J.J. 

I would also like to thank my ranking member, Mr. Platts, my 

colleague on the Healthy Families Subcommittee, and Ranking 

Member Forbes, for their interest and supporting the hearing. 

Finally, I want to recognize Chief Joseph Wing, from the Hempstead Police Department in my district. We met yesterday with Detective Thomas Doran, talking about the projects that we have in 

my district on helping juveniles. 

I met with Chief Wing. And also, we talked about Project 

CeaseFire, Project Impact and the Nurse and Family Partnership—

some effective juvenile programs they are working with, with our 

D.A. in Nassau County. 

So, I want to thank you both for being here this afternoon and 

thank you for coming down to see me. 

Today’s hearing serves as an overview of the legislation and will 

also offer perspectives for the Subcommittee on Healthy Families 

and Communities to consider as we move through the reauthorization process. 

Although this is our first hearing on this topic in Washington, 

last month our subcommittee held a hearing on gang prevention in 

my district, with Ranking Member Platts and Ms. Clarke in attendance. 

We heard about the challenges faced by law enforcement, the 

courts and local communities in dealing with the juvenile justice 

system. Ideally, we would like to prevent youth from entering the 

juvenile justice system, but we must also look at how to serve those 

young people already in the system and develop ways to help them 

get involved in their communities after they have served their 

time. 

J.J. began with a focus on prevention and rehabilitation, and has 

shifted its focus towards accountability and sentencing. Unfortunately, many of us think that is just not working. 

During a trip to Northern Ireland in May, I had the privilege of 

meeting a number of young people, that they have the same rates 

of crime as we do here. But their system over there, president with 

myself, showed me a play that they wrote. And it happened to be 

about two young women, young girls. They were both about 14 at 

the time. 

And it went through where they got into a little bit of trouble. 

One judge took one young lady and said, you know, this is your 

first offense, and we think that, you know, we want to work with 

you. And she did not go to prison. 

3

The other young woman, unfortunately, got another judge, and 

he put her into prison. Their paths certainly separated, but their 

lives changed dramatically. 

The young woman that did not go to prison was doing community 

service, got involved in the right agencies and went on and finished 

high school, went on to college and certainly had a productive life. 

The other young woman, every time she came out of prison 

ended up doing a criminal act. And in the end, unfortunately, 

ended up killing someone and ended up going to prison for the rest 

of her life. 

What the play showed, and what we know in life, depending on 

how we handle our young people, that is going to be how their lives 

are going to go. And I think that is important for us to remember 

as we go through all the testimony that we are going to be hearing. 

Sorry, I adlibbed on that one. 

Young people who do not feel connected to society will look to 

other sources such as gangs for acceptance, stability, companionship and a sense of identity. 

For these at-risk children and teenagers, we must invest in their 

education and their personal development. Communities must 

come together to address these challenges. Leaders in government, 

law enforcement, education, business and communities must work 

with kids, parents and citizens to address the needs of our young 

people so they do not enter into the juvenile justice system. 

Far too many youth prevention efforts have fallen short, and our 

goal is to reverse that trend. 

The overview today will be to educate members on J.J. and raise 

questions such as, what is the appropriate federal role in juvenile 

justice? Is the coordinating council effective? Do we need to update 

the core mandates? 

What is research telling us about effective programs and interventions? What does research into early childhood development tell 

us? 

We will hear testimony today that will help the subcommittee 

answer these questions, as we move to reauthorize this important 

legislation. 

I want to thank you all for joining us today. And now I yield to 

Ranking Member Platts for his opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. McCarthy follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Carolyn McCarthy, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities 

I am pleased to welcome you to the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities Joint hearing with the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security, chaired by my colleague, Representative Bobby Scott from Virginia. 

We appreciate his Subcommittee’s participation today and his personal desire to 

demonstrate the importance of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Act, or ‘‘JJ’’. 

I would also like to thank Ranking Member Platts, my colleague on the Healthy 

Families Subcommittee and Ranking Member Forbes for their interest in this important hearing. 

Finally, I want to recognize Chief Joseph Wing from the Hempstead Police Department in my district. 

I met with Chief Wing yesterday and he told me about Project Ceasefire, Project 

Impact and the Nurse and Family Partnership, some effective juvenile programs 

they are working on in Nassau County. 

4

Thank you Chief for the hard work you and your officers are doing. 

Today’s hearing serves as an overview of the legislation and will also offer perspectives for the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities to consider 

as we move through the reauthorization process. 

Although this is our first hearing on this topic in Washington, last month our 

Subcommittee held a hearing on gang prevention in my district with Ranking Member Platts and Ms. Clarke in attendance. 

We heard about the challenges faced by law enforcement, the courts, and local 

communities in dealing with the juvenile justice system. 

Ideally, we want to prevent youth from entering the juvenile justice system, but 

we must also look at how to serve those young people already in the system and 

develop ways to help them get involved in their communities after they have served 

their time. 

JJ began with a focus on prevention and rehabilitation and has shifted focus towards accountability and sentencing. 

Unfortunately, it may not be working. During a trip to Northern Ireland, which 

has had its share of juvenile crime, I saw a play written about 2 young girls who 

commit the same crime. 

One of the girls received a sentence that didn’t involve jail time. 

She learned from her mistake and lived a normal crime-free life. The other girl 

was sent to prison. While in prison, she became more involved with the crime world, 

and there were no efforts to educate or train her. When she left prison, she was 

well educated, however—in crime. She eventually killed another person. Not only 

was her life destroyed, but she has destroyed other lives as well. This story highlights how a single decision in the court system can directly affect the outcome of 

a person’s life. 

We heard similar stories to this at our field hearing from former gang members, 

and we need to remember this as we consider JJ. We know there are factors which 

will lead to crime. Young people who don’t feel connected to society will look to other 

sources, such as gangs, for acceptance, stability, companionship, and a sense of identity. 

For these at-risk children and teenagers, we must invest in their education, and 

their personal development. Communities must come together to address these challenges. Leaders in government, law enforcement, education, businesses, and communities, must work with kids, parents and citizens to address the needs of our youth 

so they do not enter the juvenile justice system. 

Far too many youth prevention efforts have fallen short and our goal is to reverse 

that trend. 

The overview today will educate Members on JJ and raise questions such as what 

is the appropriate Federal role in juvenile justice? Is the Coordinating Council effective? Do we need to update the Core Mandates? What is research telling us about 

effective programs and interventions? What does research into early childhood development tell us? We will hear testimony today that will help the Subcommittee 

answer these questions as we move to reauthorize this important legislation. Thank 

you all for joining us today, and I now yield to Ranking Member Platts for his opening statement. 

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you and 

Chairman Scott hosting this hearing and starting the ball rolling 

on the reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention Act. I also appreciate having Ranking Member Forbes 

with us. 

To each of our witnesses, we very much appreciate the time you 

have taken from your schedules to be here today, and in preparation of your testimonies and the first-hand knowledge you bring to 

this topic. And today’s hearing is very much about us learning from 

you. And each of you in your respective fields are, in some fashion, 

on the front lines of this issue. 

We appreciate your participation and the expertise you bring to 

us. Your presence will help to ensure that we are more dutiful and 

informed as we move forward with reauthorization. 

5

I am going to submit my written statement for the record. And 

as we get into introductions, I will recognize one of my constituents, our district attorney, at the appropriate time. 

So, thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Platts follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Russell Platts, Ranking Minority 

Member, Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities 

Good afternoon. I’d like to welcome each one of you to this joint hearing entitled 

‘‘Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act: Overview and Perspectives.’’ I 

am pleased that the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security is able to join us today in learning about the very important 

issue of juvenile crime prevention. 

Over 30 years ago, Congress enacted the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) to coordinate the federal government-wide response to juvenile 

delinquency. The JJDPA provides grants to states so that they can effectively implement juvenile justice systems within their borders. In order to receive these funds, 

states must formulate comprehensive plans of administration that meet specific requirements outlined by JJDPA. The states then use these funds to implement community based alternatives to detention, counseling and mentoring programs, substance abuse prevention programs, or other delinquency treatment programs. 

In addition, JJDPA provides federal grants to programs aimed to prevent juvenile 

delinquency through the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Block Grant. Block grant 

funds can be used to encourage juveniles to stay in school, prevent gang activity, 

or research new approaches to prevent school violence and vandalism. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to learn more about current efforts that are 

being taken to effectively treat juvenile delinquents, as well as to gain a better understanding of the prevention efforts employed around the country. It is important 

that we take the wisdom that will be shared with us by these experts in the field 

and use it to improve the juvenile justice system. 

I am glad that we are holding this hearing today and look forward to hearing testimony from this expert panel. I believe that one of the most important things that 

we can do as legislators is to craft legislation that prevents juvenile delinquency and 

encourages healthy child development. 

We know that investing in prevention methods now, saves substantial resources 

in the future. For that reason, I am a strong advocate for quality home visitation 

programs. Home visitation programs connect nurses or teachers with new families 

to educate them on healthy child development and school readiness, as well as connect them to critically needed services. Home visiting is a bridge that links the resources of the community with the safety of the home environment, empowering 

even the most vulnerable parents to build a better future for themselves and their 

children. Research shows that families that participate in home visitation services 

rely less on public assistance, have fewer problems with substance use, and have 

substantially less involvement with the criminal justice system. With that, I yield 

back to Chairwoman McCarthy. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Platts. 

I now yield to the chairman of the House Committee on Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, Mr. 

Bobby Scott, for his opening statement. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would 

like to thank you for holding this afternoon’s hearing on the reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. 

Both of our subcommittees have jurisdiction over juvenile justice. 

However, the Subcommittee on Crime does not have jurisdiction 

until they actually commit a crime. And therefore, the Crime Subcommittee has an interest in helping the Healthy Families Subcommittee prevent crime and keep those youths out of my subcommittee. [Laughter.] 

Over 100 years ago, differing needs of juveniles and adults in the 

criminal justice system were recognized with the establishment of 

6

separate juvenile courts. This system has since been confirmed by 

brain development research showing that treating juveniles as 

adults is not physiologically or fiscally sound. 

Since 1974, JJDPA has turned this concept into separate systems 

and to national standards for the states. The act creates two federal agencies—the Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention and the Coordinating Council for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention—and authorizes several grant programs, including state formula grants and delinquency prevention block grants. 

Although JJDPA’s original focus was on prevention and rehabilitation, in recent years, juvenile justice policies have reflected an increasing trend towards punishment and lengthening incarceration. 

I hope we can help shift juvenile justice policy back towards prevention and rehabilitation programs, which have been proven to reduce crime and save money. 

This shift towards prevention and rehabilitation would be in line 

with research-driven crime prevention strategies. Research has 

consistently shown that continuum of services can significantly reduce crime. 

Those kinds of services would start with teen pregnancy prevention, prenatal care, parental training for teen parents, nurse home 

visits, early childhood education, things like Head Start and afterschool activities, substance abuse treatment, dropout prevention 

and access to college—getting them on the right track and keeping 

them on the right track. 

Many of these strategies are contained in the state formula grant 

program, which requires state juvenile justice agencies to use this 

money for a wide variety of programs, including services that focus 

on child abuse and neglect, mental health services and communitybased alternatives to incarceration. 

In order for states to receive the formula grant money, they must 

agree to abide by four, core mandates. These mandates require 

states to address the de-institutionalization of status offenders. 

They talk about how long and under what conditions juveniles can 

be detained and the over-incarceration of minorities. These mandates were milestone achievements in juvenile justice. 

Unfortunately, in recent years, we have seen an influx of juveniles into the adult system. And since 1990, the number of youth 

in adult jails has increased by over 200 percent. 

But research has shown time and time again that treating more 

juveniles as adults does not work. At juvenile facilities, youth offenders receive education and other services, such as counseling, 

and the judge may even order family services. 

However, juveniles going to the adult system get no such program, but they do have new role models—the hardcore, adult criminal offenders. 

Moreover, studies show that juveniles in adult facilities are five 

times more likely to be sexually assaulted and eight times more 

likely to commit suicide than in juvenile facilities. So, it comes as 

no surprise that studies show that, if we treat more juveniles as 

adults, we will create more crime, those crimes will be created 

sooner and are more likely to be violent. 

As we move towards the JJDPA reauthorization in the 110th 

Congress, I hope that we can continue using evidence-based reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:07 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-55\36466.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
7

search practices that cost-effectively reduce crime. In addition, I 

hope that we can continue to recognize the benefits of treating 

youth as youth and not as adults. 

So, thank you, Madam Chairwoman for holding the hearing, and 

I look forward to the testimony today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Scott follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 

Thank you, Chairwoman McCarthy. I would like to thank you for holding this 

afternoon’s joint hearing on the reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Both of our subcommittees have jurisdiction over juvenile 

justice; however, the Crime subcommittee doesn’t have jurisdiction until after a 

crime is committed. Therefore, the Crime subcommittee has an interest in helping 

the Healthy Families subcommittee prevent crime and keep these youths out of the 

criminal justice system—and out of our subcommittee. 

Over 100 years ago, the differing needs of juveniles and adults in the criminal 

justice system were recognized with the establishment of separate juvenile justice 

courts. This separation has since been confirmed by brain development research 

showing that treating juveniles as adults is not physiologically—or fiscally—sound. 

Since 1974, JJDPA has turned this concept of separate systems into national 

standards for the states. JJDPA creates two federal agencies—the Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the Coordinating Council for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention—and authorizes several grant programs, including 

state formula grants and delinquency prevention block grants. 

Although JJDPA’s original focus was on prevention and rehabilitation, in recent 

years juvenile justice policies have reflected increasing punishment and lengthening 

incarceration. I hope we can help shift juvenile justice policy back towards strategies 

proven to reduce crime and save money. 

This shift towards prevention and rehabilitation would be in line with researchdriven crime prevention strategies. Research consistently shows that a continuum 

of services can significantly reduce crime; these services include teen pregnancy prevention, prenatal care, parental training for teen parents, nurse home visits, early 

childhood education programs like Head Start, afterschool activities, substance 

abuse treatment, drop out prevention, and access to college. 

Many of these strategies are contained in the state formula grant program, which 

requires state juvenile justice agencies to use this money for a wide variety of prevention programs including services that focus on child abuse and neglect, mental 

health services, and community-based alternatives to incarceration. 

In order for states to receive state formula grant money, they must agree to abide 

by four core mandates. These mandates require states to deinstitutionalize status 

offenders, to outline how long and under what conditions juveniles can be detained, 

and to address any over-incarceration of minorities. These mandates were milestone 

achievements in juvenile justice. Unfortunately, in recent years, we have seen an 

influx of juveniles into the adult criminal system—since 1990 the number of youth 

in adult jails has increased by over 200% . 

Research has shown time and time again that treating more juveniles as adults 

doesn’t work. At juvenile facilities, youth offenders receive education and other services, such as counseling, and judges can even order family services. However, juveniles going to adult prison get no such programs and have new role models—hard 

core adult criminal offenders. Moreover, studies show that juveniles in adult facilities are 5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted and 8 times more likely to commit suicide than those in juvenile facilities. So it comes as no surprise that studies 

show that if we treat more juveniles as adults, we will create more crime, those 

crimes will be committed sooner and are more likely to be violent. 

As we move forward with JJDPA reauthorization in the 110th Congress, I hope 

we can continue using evidence-based research practices to cost-effectively reduce 

crime. In addition, I hope we can continue to recognize the benefits of treating 

youths as youths, not adults. Thank you again, Chairwoman, for holding this hearing and I look forward to today’s testimony on JJDPA is working. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

8

I now would like to yield to ranking member of the House Committee on Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, Mr. Randy Forbes, for his opening statement. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, 

Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Platts. It is great to be here 

today. And I want to thank all the witnesses for being here. 

Certainly, the Juvenile Justice and Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act, which was enacted in 1974 and reauthorized in 2002, established an important framework for juvenile justice in America. 

And I am pleased that we are going to be looking to reauthorize 

the act again and take a meaningful look at how the act works, 

what other strategies and approaches might work and possible revisions to the act. 

One of the things that seems clear to us is that the stakes could 

never be higher. We are looking at alarming gang rates across the 

country now, probably about 850,000 gang members, 25,000 gangs, 

and they operate in about 3,000 communities across the country. At the same time, we realize that we spent about $2 billion between 2001 and 2004 on things that we described as juvenile gang 

prevention programs. A lot of times, what we have got to do in this 

committee is try to get apples and oranges and separate the two 

of them, because almost everything everybody says we are going to 

agree with. 

Nobody is going to say that we should not give young people opportunities and chances. We should do that. Nobody is going to say 

we should not have prevention programs. We should do that. 

The question for us is how we strike the right balance between 

these programs with the limited number of dollars that you have 

to spend on federal—federal dollars that we have to spend, because 

we have to strike that balance. 

And one of the balances we have to realize is, prevention programs do not reach everybody. They reach a lot of people, and we 

should do those prevention programs. But we have got to find that 

mix. 

For example, if you take an individual—and some of our criminal 

gangs that we have testimony in, where we had 60 to 85 percent 

of the members who are here illegally—as part of that gang member, those intervention dollars are not getting to the people that we 

want to stop. 

And so, for those particular gangs, we have got to ask, how do 

we pull down the gang networks? And part of that is doing prevention programs early on to stop individuals who may want to be recruited by gangs. 

But the other part of it is, how do we formulate the coalitions 

between local law enforcement, state law enforcement and federal 

law enforcement to rip those recruiting machines down, which is 

exactly what some of these gang networks are, so that we can 

strike that right balance. And that is what we are hoping to be 

able to do today, is to be able to strike that balance. 

And one of the other things. My dear friend from Virginia, Bobby 

Scott, will always talk about evidence-based studies. But I still remember years ago I had a good friend of mine in the Virginia General Assembly. He was a great trial lawyer. And he was telling us 

about a case—and Bobby would know this guy. He has since died. 

9

But he said he went into a trial one day, and he looked at the 

jury. And there were some people on the jury that he knew. And 

he was just excited, with his client, came back and sat down and 

said, ‘‘We are going to be okay with this trial.’’

They go through the trial. And at the end he is doing the summation and he is telling the jury, ‘‘Now, listen to all the evidence 

that has been presented. And when you do, I know you are going 

to acquit my client.’’

Well, they found his client guilty. And afterwards he was asking 

the jurors, especially the one he knew. He said, ‘‘Why did you let 

this guy go?’’

And the juror said, ‘‘Well, based on the evidence, he was guilty.’’

And he said, ‘‘No, I did not mean all the evidence. I mean the 

evidence that I put in that you are supposed to look at.’’ [Laughter.] 

And that is sometimes the way we all are. We listen to our evidence and we say, this is an evidence-based program. 

But what we have got to try to do is to realize that most of the 

people we will hear testify here are right, you know. And the question, though, is striking the balance and how we get that balance. 

And I am just appreciative, Mrs. Chairman, that you are having 

this hearing today, and hope we will be able to strike that right 

balance. 

I yield back the balance of my time.

Prepared Statement of Hon. Randy Forbes, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security 

Thank you, Chairwoman McCarthy, Chairman Scott, and Ranking Member Platts. 

I appreciate this joint hearing on such an important topic. 

The Juvenile Justice and Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act, which was enacted in 1974, and reauthorized in 2002, established an important framework for 

juvenile justice in America. 

I am pleased that we are looking to reauthorize the Act again, and taking a meaningful look at how the Act works, what other strategies and approaches might work, 

and possible revisions to the Act. 

The stakes could not be any higher—while it is true that the number of violent 

crimes committed by juveniles has declined in the last 25 years, juveniles continue 

to commit violent crimes at an alarming rate. Moreover, recent statistics show that 

youth gang membership is on the rise. 

Gang members today are younger and younger—that is a most troubling development. Now, we hear about gang recruitment that occurs with children as young as 

8 years old. Young gang members now graduate in their teens to be violent shooters, 

violent robbers and carjackers who terrorize our law-abiding communities. According to recent FBI crime statistics, nearly one in every three gang homicide murders 

is committed by offenders under the age of 18. Gang members know that juveniles 

are unlikely to be prosecuted and punished as adults, especially in the federal system. 

According to the most recent survey, gang membership has grown to 750,000—

850,000 in 25,000 gangs operating in 3,000 communities across the country. Conservative estimates show that we spent over $2 billion dollars between 2001 and 

2004 on juvenile and gang prevention programs. From 1999 to 2005 Congress appropriated over $3.3 billion for juvenile justice programs. Yet, juvenile gang violence 

is on the rise, including the number of gang murders committed by juveniles. 

The Juvenile Justice and Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act created a mix of 

enforcement, intervention and prevention programs. We must make sure that the 

balance is appropriate—meaning that violent juvenile offenders who commit serious 

crimes must be removed from the community. At-risk youth must be identified and 

effective intervention strategies must be implemented. We can no longer afford to 

provide ‘‘feel good’’ intervention strategies and programs and hope for the best. We 

must ensure that State and local governments provide cost-effective programs that 

10

have been evaluated using valid statistical techniques and found to reduce juvenile 

crime. 

To me, it makes little sense to waste federal dollars on an intervention strategy 

unlikely to succeed. Consider a 15 year-old MS-13 gang member who is an enforcer 

for this international gang and whether he really is an appropriate candidate for 

a juvenile intervention strategy. 

I also am gratified to see the research on the effectiveness of intervention programs based on graduated sanctions. Whether it is the drug court, reentry court or 

juvenile court context, we have seen time and again research that shows that such 

programs are cost effective and reduce the risk of recidivism. I am interested in how 

such programs can be expanded in the juvenile justice context. 

To be sure, reducing the rate of recidivism among juvenile offenders should be a 

high priority for federal, state and local governments. The burden of a high number 

of career juvenile offenders is mind-boggling when you consider the cost of incarceration, the harm to victims and communities, and the impact on families. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses and working together on this important issue. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Forbes. 

Without objection, all members will have 14 days to submit additional materials or questions for the hearing record. Let me introduce our witnesses. 

Today we will hear from a panel of witnesses. Your testimonies 

will proceed in the order of your introduction. 

Now, I wish to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva, to introduce our first witness, Mr. Derrick 

Johnson. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Chairman Scott, Ranking Members Platts and Forbes, for this hearing—

indeed, a very important hearing—on the reauthorization of this 

very important act. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, as we explore 

what works and what does not for youth in our justice system, 

looking at juvenile justice as a whole, prevention, management, 

and a special and important topic to me that I hope to work with 

the committee on, programs and initiatives on re-entry, which 

deals with recidivism as much as prevention—very important. 

What do we do with these 200,000 young men and women being 

released from our correctional facilities on a yearly basis? And 

what programs do we have in place for them, to assure that they 

stay in the community and go about leading a quality life and not 

return to the process of incarceration? 

But today, I honor I have is to introduce Captain Derrick Johnson, with the Phoenix Fire Department, and vice-chair of the Arizona State Advisory Group on Juvenile Justice. 

Captain Johnson has been a member of ASAG since October 

1998, was appointed by then-Republican Jane Hull, and reappointed by our current governor, Janet Napolitano. 

He also serves on the Governor’s Task Force on Juvenile Correction Reform, served on the Governor’s Juvenile Justice Federal Advisory Board from 2003 to 2006. 

Throughout his tenure as a civil servant, Captain Johnson has 

been dedicated to being an active member of his community and a 

champion for child welfare. He has been involved in many children’s welfare issues, such as gang prevention and youth mentoring programs. 

11

The Arizona Governor’s School Readiness Board, he is a member 

of, an early childhood development nonprofit organization, and has 

served on served on several local and county government commissions. 

I sincerely want to thank Captain Johnson for being here, for his 

commitment to youth, and look forward to his testimony. 

With that, Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Now I wish to recognize the distinguished ranking member, Mr. 

Platts from Pennsylvania, who will introduce our next witness, the 

Honorable David Freed. 

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a great pleasure and 

honor to introduce our district attorney for Cumberland County, 

Pennsylvania, David Freed. 

Prior to being district attorney, David was first assistant district 

attorney in Cumberland County, as well as a deputy prosecutor in 

my home county of York County, Pennsylvania. Through his work 

in these various positions, he is certainly well familiar with the juvenile justice system and the challenges and importance of prevention. 

He also is here as an active member of the Fight Crime: Invest 

in Kids effort, which is, across the nation, a great organization of 

law enforcement officials—district attorneys, such as David, sheriffs, chiefs of police and others—who, when I talk about being out 

there on the front lines, truly know what is impacting our youth 

and what will have an impact on preventing juvenile delinquency. 

So, we are delighted, David, to have you here and to have your 

expertise shared with the committees. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Platts. 

Now I would like to introduce Congresswoman Shea-Porter from 

New Hampshire. She is going to introduce our next witness, the 

Honorable Paul Lawrence. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you. 

I am pleased to introduce the Honorable Paul Lawrence, the presiding judge of the Goffstown district court in my home state of 

New Hampshire, a position he has served in since 1988. Judge 

Lawrence received his B.A. degree at the University of Denver, and 

also his juris doctorate from the University of Denver College of 

Law. 

Throughout his impressive career, Judge Lawrence has worked 

as an advocate for true social justice for juveniles, with a real understanding of the special considerations that must be taken into 

account when addressing youth in our judicial system. 

In my state of New Hampshire, Judge Lawrence has served since 

1991 on the board of directors for PlusTime New Hampshire, which 

provides technical assistance to organizations and communities for 

the development of after-school programs. And we know how essential they are for juveniles. 

Since 1994, he has been a member of the State Advisory Group 

on Juvenile Justice, which oversees the development of statewide 

juvenile justice programs. He has also served as the co-chair of the 

New Hampshire Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, an orVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:07 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-55\36466.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
12

ganization involved in statewide, comprehensive detention reform 

efforts. 

The judge’s efforts on the national level include his tenure as 

chair of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, his continued service as 

a member of the national steering committee of the coalition. And 

further, since 1993, he has served as a member of the National 

Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. And we can certainly 

see where his talents and where he chooses to place his heart’s interest for the interests of the juveniles. 

We certainly thank you for your service, and we are delighted to 

have you here today. Thank you. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Our next witness is Mr. Jones. He comes to us from Pennsylvania. Mr. Jones is an assistant teacher at a parental stress center, 

but is here today to share with us his experience in the Community 

Intensive Supervision Program, a program that is an alternate to 

incarceration. 

Those participating in the program remain in their communities, 

continue to go to school, complete the community service, are connected with positive community resources. 

As he moved through the program, Mr. Jones mentored younger 

and newer entries into the program and completed his high school. 

In fact, he graduated with honors. 

We are very pleased to have you here with us, and we are looking forward to your testimony. 

I would like to recognize the chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, a member 

of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. Bobby Scott, to introduce our next witness, Mr. Robert Shepherd. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and it is my pleasure 

to introduce Robert Shepherd, emeritus professor of law, University 

of Richmond Law School. 

Bob Shepherd holds both undergraduate and law degrees from 

Washington and Lee University and has truly worked in all fields 

of juvenile justice, from the Attorney General’s Office to directing 

a youth advocacy clinic. 

He is well respected in his field and has earned numerous accolades and awards, including the Juvenile Justice Community Service Award from the Virginia Juvenile Officers Association and the 

Livingston Hall Award in Juvenile Justice from the American Bar 

Association. 

He is a nationally recognized expert on juvenile justice law, and 

I would like to thank him for being with us today to talk about the 

importance of integrating research-based practices into JJDPA, and 

look forward to his recommendations. 

So, Bob, it is good to see you here. 

And thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to introduce him. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thanks, Mr. Scott. 

Our last witness today is Dr. Jennifer Woolard. She is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at Georgetown University. Her current research with juvenile defendants addresses 

police interrogation, the attorney-client relationship and the role of 

parents in adolescents’ legal decision-making. 

13

She also works with local nonprofit agencies to study community 

change and youth violence prevention. Her recent research collaborations include membership on the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development 

and Juvenile Justice. 

She has presented her research findings to a wide variety of academic, legal and policy audiences, and won several awards for undergraduate teaching excellence. 

We thank you for being here. We thank all of you for being here. 

For those of you who have not testified before this subcommittee, 

let me explain our lighting system. 

When it is your turn—and certainly, even the members’ turn—

you get 5 minutes. That will be a green light. When the yellow 

light goes on, that means that you have 1 minute to finish up. 

When you hear me start tapping, I will start tapping lightly, and 

then I will get louder. We have to cut you off. 

We are going to have votes probably around 4:30, so this should 

be good, because we will probably get through all the testimony 

and questions by that time. So, again, when we start, your light 

will go on. 

We will now hear from our first witness, Mr. Derrick Johnson. 

STATEMENT OF DERRICK JOHNSON, VICE-CHAIR, ARIZONA 

JUVENILE JUSTICE COMMISSION 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member 

Platts. And thank you, Congressman Grijalva, for your introduction 

and also for your welcome, and also, the committee as a whole and 

subcommittee for listening to us today and listening to what we 

have to say about this issue. 

Some people have asked me, well, how did a firefighter get involved in juvenile justice? My experience started with working in 

the inner city of Phoenix, and I currently still do, where I was seeing young people, and unfortunately, as recently as the last 2 

months, have seen four young people who have been shot to death 

and also seriously injured. 

I wanted to know why this was going on, because not only were 

the lives of these children being destroyed, but also their families 

and the community. 

So, that led me into actually going out and spending time with 

the kids and listening to their families and to their issues, and 

finding out that a lot of these children were misinformed. They had 

certainly had the wrong view of the world, in the sense that they 

felt like they were invincible. 

And when you looked at the influences involved with these children—and there is certainly a lot of social, economics and values 

and beliefs—what was common to me was that, most children did 

not want to be in that process, if they had an alternative. 

That led me to being involved with children’s issues, as my testimony spoke about. And what I found myself looking at was a systematic way of dealing with these children and these families. 

You could fix a neighborhood. You can maybe even fix a certain 

part of the city, but it seemed to just move around and be very pervasive. 

14

So, when I looked at and was asked by former Governor Jane 

Hull to sit on the SAG, I did not know much about it. It said for 

state advisory group, and I thought that was kind of a catchy 

name, and so, I started looking into it. 

What I found out was that the core principles—the four principles that were very important to this—and what was very important to me was that it came from a federal level. It just did not 

allow states to decide what they wanted to do, because collectively 

as a nation, we decided that kids should be treated differently. 

And we may go back and forth on how that should be and why 

that should be, but we all agree as a country that kids are different 

than adults. 

And some of those principles were: to prevent juvenile delinquency and keep kids out of the criminal justice system—I think 

we all know that that, as you go through life, no one wants to stay 

in that process their entire life; reduce racial and ethnic disparities 

at all points of the system; provide age-appropriate and developmentally appropriate programs, as well as punishments, for children; and then also to invest in the resources, which is our children. 

At a state level, what that did—this particular act did—was it 

allowed the state advisory groups to be made up of people across 

the community. And that is how I actually was involved in this. 

It also requires that there is federal funding for delinquency programs and improvement in local and juvenile justice programs, if 

there is a coordination. And it also created the OJJDP, the Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

The four requirements are DSO, which is de-institutionalization 

of status offenders, which simply just means you cannot lock kids 

up for things that an adult would do that would not be considered 

a crime, such as smoking, truancy, tobacco use, things like that. 

Adult in jail lockup removal. What we found through research is 

that, when kids are put in with adults, they are easily influenced. 

But they also become victims of adults that are in the system. 

Sight and sound separation, which just means keep kids and 

adults away from each other, so they cannot be intimidated, and 

they certainly cannot be touched. 

And disproportionate minority contact with youth. And that just 

meant making sure that kids that are in the system that are minorities are just treated with equity. It is just as simple as that. 

The money that comes down to the states is very important. And 

I wanted to share a few successes that have happened in our state 

of Arizona. 

We have, through this group, we all collectively look at this and 

we decide how these monies should be spent, based on these programs, and one is alternatives to detention. 

In our state, in 2006, approximately 3,400 youth were going 

through the system that would have gone through the law enforcement system, but actually went to detention programs. And this 

keeps kids out of the system. 

And these were very simple things in the sense that kids just did 

not have to go through the criminal system. They could go through 

alternatives. And that was good for the family. 

15

General prevention. And out of that, we had 1,500 youths that 

were served in these delinquency programs. 

Some of the outcomes were that 85 percent of the youths reported a positive change in their school attendance. Also, 86 percent of the youths served reported a positive change in their antisocial behavior. And then DMC, and we looked at doing different 

practices. 

And I wanted to share that with you, just to say that this is a 

very important act. I certainly hope that you reauthorize it, and I 

would just ask you to support this program. 

And that is all I have to say. 

[The statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Derrick Johnson, Vice-Chair, Arizona Juvenile 

Justice Commission 

Introduction 

Good afternoon. I am honored to have been asked by Chairwoman McCarthy to 

speak on behalf of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act , better 

known as the JJDPA. 

My name is Derrick Johnson and I am Vice-Chair of the Arizona Juvenile Justice 

Commission, which is Arizona’s State Advisory Group on Juvenile Justice as required by the JJDPA and which comprises 24 members appointed by the Governor, 

each of whom has training, experience and special knowledge concerning the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency and the administration of juvenile 

justice. Our membership includes representation from juvenile justice agencies, 

other child- and family-serving agencies, private nonprofit organizations, locally 

elected officials, citizen-volunteers and youth. Through the Arizona SAG, I am also 

a member of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice (CJJ), which is the national leadership association of State Advisory Groups under the JJDPA. 

I have been a member of the Arizona SAG since 1998. I also serve on the Governor’s Taskforce on Juvenile Corrections Reform and previously served as Governor 

Napolitano’s appointee to the Juvenile Justice Federal Advisory Board from 2003—

2006. My background, however, does not begin in juvenile justice. 

I am currently a Captain and Paramedic with the Phoenix Fire Department 

where I have served for 24 years in the central/downtown areas of the city. Early 

in my career, I found myself responding to homeless children and families in crisis. 

I would soon learn that there were an estimated 5,000 children in the Metro Phoenix area who were not in school because of homelessness. Beginning in the 1990s, 

I also found myself responding to a number of homicides of children and youth that 

were linked to gang violence. This experience led me to begin looking at gangs and 

ways to prevent gang violence. 

Thus, in addition to my service with the Arizona SAG, I have been extensively 

involved in children’s issues such as the development of the Thomas J. Pappas (Public) School for homeless children in Central Phoenix, gang prevention and youth 

mentoring programs, the Arizona Governor’s School Readiness Board and early 

childhood development non-profit organizations. I bring my experiences and perspectives on all of these issues with me as I talk to you about the importance of the 

JJDPA and its reauthorization. 

Reauthorization of the JJDPA 

Established in 1974 by bi-partisan legislation and most recently reauthorized in 

2002, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) embodies a 

partnership between the federal government and the U.S. states, territories and the 

District of Columbia (‘‘the states’’). 

For more than 30 years, the JJDPA has provided protection to children and youth 

who come in contact with the juvenile and criminal justice systems, transformed the 

lives of young people and contributed to historic lows in juvenile crime and delinquency rates nationwide. 

Unfortunately, the federal government’s wavering commitment to this partnership—evidenced by a 55% decrease over the last five years in federal funding to the 

states for improvement of their juvenile justice systems—may undo the good work 

that we have accomplished together and hinder future advancements and achievements for young people, their families and our communities. 

16

Therefore, as the 110th Congress approaches the 2007 reauthorization of this important legislation, the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission and the Coalition for 

Juvenile Justice (CJJ) look to you to affirm the federal-state partnership around juvenile justice and delinquency prevention and strengthen that partnership so that 

together the federal government and the states more effectively prevent and reduce 

juvenile delinquency. In doing so, the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission and the 

Coalition for Juvenile Justice, along with 150 organizations under the Act 4 Juvenile Justice Campaign, urge Congress to adhere to the following four principles: 

1. Prevent juvenile delinquency and keep children and youth out of the juvenile 

and criminal justice systems; 

2. Reduce racial and ethnic disparities at all points with the juvenile justice system; 

3. Provide age- appropriate and developmentally-appropriate sanctions and interventions for young people who come into contact with the juvenile justice system; 

and 

4. Invest adequate financial resources in evidence-based programs and practices 

that yield immediate and long-term results. 

Brief history and overview of the JJDPA 

As early as 1909, Congress recognized a role for the federal government in supporting and improving juvenile justice systems at the state and local level. This role, 

which would evolve over the next 60 years, culminated with the enactment of the 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) in 1974. 

In short, the JJDPA provides for: 

1) A state-level juvenile justice planning and advisory system via the establishment of governor-appointed State Advisory Groups (SAGs) comprised of volunteer 

citizens in all U.S. states, territories and the District of Columbia to determine state 

needs, craft state juvenile justice and delinquency prevention plans and meet federal mandates; 

2) Federal funding for delinquency prevention and improvements in state and 

local juvenile justice programs conditioned upon the states’ compliance with four 

core requirements/protections (explained in further detail below); and 

3) Operation of a federal agency—the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention (OJJDP)—dedicated to training, technical assistance, model programs, 

and research and evaluation to support state and local juvenile justice and delinquency prevention efforts. 

Core Requirements/Protections 

To be eligible for the Title II state formula funds provided under the JJDPA, each 

state must comply with the following core requirements/protections: 

1. Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO). Under Sec. 223(a)(11) of the 

JJDPA, status offenders—children under the age of 18 who commit acts that if done 

by an adult would not be considered crimes such as skipping school, running away, 

breaking curfews and possession or use of tobacco and/or alcohol—may not be held 

in secure detention or confinement, with a few exceptions. The DSO provision seeks 

to ensure that status offenders who have not committed a criminal offense are not 

held in secure juvenile facilities for extended periods of time or in secure adult facilities at all. 

2. Adult Jail and Lock-up Removal (Jail Removal). Under Sec. 223(a)(13) of the 

JJDPA, youth may not be detained in adult jails and lock-ups with limited exceptions. However, the ‘‘jail removal’’ provision does not apply to children who are tried 

or sentenced in adult criminal court. This provision is designed to protect children 

from psychological abuse, physical assault and isolation. 

3. Sight and Sound Separation (Separation). Under Sec. 223(a)(12) of the JJDPA, 

when children are placed in an adult jail or lock-up for any period of time, not matter how limited, ‘‘sight and sound’’ contact with adults is prohibited. This ‘‘separation’’ provision requires that children cannot be housed next to adult cells, share 

dining halls, recreation areas or any other common spaces with adults, or be placed 

in any circumstance that could expose them to threats or abuse from adult inmates. 

4. Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC). Under Sec. 223(a)(22) of the JJDPA, 

states are required to assess and address the disproportionately high contact of 

youth of color with the juvenile justice system at all points of contact—from arrest 

to detention to confinement. The DMC provision requires states and local jurisdictions to gather data to determine whether and what extent DMC occurs and to address the reasons for disproportionate minority contact and racial/ethnic disparities. 

Funding 

Under the JJDPA, three major streams of funding support the federal-state partnership: 

17

1Michael G. Flaherty, An Assessment Of The National Incidence Of Juvenile Suicide In Adult 

Jails, Lockups And Juvenile Detention Centers, The Community Research Forum of the University of Illinois 10 (1980). 2Forst, Martin, Jeffrey Fagan, and T. Scott Vivona. (1989) ‘‘Youth in Prisons and Training 

Schools: Perceptions and Consequences of the Treatment-Custody Dichotomy.’’ Juvenile and 

Family Court Journal 9:1. 3 Ibid. 

4Snyder, H., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 National Report. 

Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 5Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 

National Report, Washington, DC, 2006. 

1. The State Formula Grants Program, authorized under Title II of the JJDPA, 

supports state efforts to implement comprehensive state juvenile justice plans based 

on detailed studies of needs in their jurisdictions and achieve compliance with the 

core requirements of the JJDPA. 

2. The Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Program, commonly 

known as the Community Prevention Grants Program and authorized under Title 

V of the JJDPA, provides funding to the locals for collaborative, community-focused 

and community-based delinquency prevention efforts to reach youth in high-risk situations before they make poor choices. 

3. The Delinquency Prevention Block Grant Program (DPBG), created during the 

2002 JJDPA Reauthorization, but only funded for one year, was meant to provide 

funding directly to the local jurisdictions in order to prevent and reduce juvenile 

crime including projects that provide treatment to juvenile offenders and juveniles 

who are at risk of becoming juvenile offenders. 

In addition, the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program (JABG), authorized 

under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 2002 and administered 

by OJJDP, supports state and local units of government, particularly law enforcement, in their efforts to support the state plan and strengthen their juvenile justice 

systems. JABG provides funding for a variety of different programs, including but 

not limited to, gang prevention and anti-bullying initiatives; graduated sanctions 

programs that include counseling, restitution, community service, and supervised 

probation; substance abuse programs; mental health screening and treatment; reentry; and restorative justice programs. 

The importance of the JJDPA 

The JJDPA has always enjoyed bi-partisan support and is viewed as legislation 

that benefits children and youth, families and communities. At its heart, the JJDPA 

is a prevention Act. What the JJDPA has accomplished, it has accomplished quietly. 

The accomplishments themselves, however, speak volumes and underscore the importance of the Act. 

First, justice-involved youth are safer because of the core requirements/protections 

in the JJDPA. Under the DSO core requirement/protection, Sec. 223(a)(11), youth 

charged with non-criminal status offenses, such as skipping school, running away 

or breaking curfew, are kept out of secure facilities, which should be reserved only 

for those youth who pose a direct safety risk to themselves and the community. Furthermore, under the Jail Removal and Separation core requirements/protections, 

Secs. 223(a)(12) and (13), youth who are detained in secure facilities are protected 

from the psychological abuse, physical assault and isolation of adult jails where they 

have been found to be eight times more likely to commit suicide,1 two times more 

likely to be assaulted by staff 2 and 50 percent more likely to be attacked with a 

weapon than children in juvenile facilities.3

Second, the disparate treatment of minority youth is assessed and addressed because of the JJDPA. Youth of color make up one-third of the general youth population but two-thirds of youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice system.4 Moreover, studies indicate that youth of color receive tougher sentences and 

are more likely to be incarcerated than white youth for the same offenses.5 Under 

the DMC core requirement/protection, Sec. 223(a)(22), states are required to assess 

and address the disproportionate contact of youth of color at all points in the justice 

system—from arrest to detention to confinement and re-entry. 

Arizona is a good example of what this core requirement/protection can accomplish. Between 1991 and 1995, Arizona was one of five pilot sites to receive training, 

technical assistance and financial assistance via an OJJDP-sponsored demonstration 

project designed to address disproportionate minority contact with the juvenile justice system. 

Through this partnership, Arizona found evidence of DMC at several points within our juvenile justice system. We also identified several potential sources of DMC, 

including system barriers to effective parental advocacy on behalf of system-involved 

18

youth; inadequate cultural knowledge and skills among juvenile justice personnel; 

and limited communication between minority neighborhoods and juvenile justice 

system agencies. 

Armed with this information, Arizona has implemented a number of programmatic and policy changes aimed at addressing the state’s identified DMC challenges. Arizona used grant funds administered through the Arizona SAG to host 

mini-conferences geared towards creating integrated systems across five different 

agencies. All of this was accomplished as a result of the guidance, funding and technical assistance provided under the JJDPA. 

Third, under Sec. 201, the JJDPA provides a critical ‘‘home’’ for juvenile justice 

within federal government for purposes of informing national policies, objectives, 

priorities and plans via OJJDP, which provides guidance, support and oversight to 

states/territories in implementing the JJDPA via research, policies and grants to 

states and localities to assist in planning, establishing, operating, coordinating and 

evaluating projects for the development of more effective intervention, prevention 

and systems improvements. 

Finally, Sec. 223(a)(3) of the JJDPA helps the states collaborate with the federal 

government and across various state agencies to reduce juvenile crime and delinquency via the State Advisory Groups (SAGs). The majority of SAGs serve multiple 

functions, coordinating other federal and state funding streams for the benefit of 

children and youth. For instance, the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission also 

serves as Arizona’s Juvenile Accountability Block Grant State Advisory Board as required under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 2002, and is responsible for establishing a coordinated plan for reducing juvenile crime through accountability-based programs. 

In addition, the SAGs, individually and collectively, embody models for collaborative systems change, serve as incubators for cost-effective innovations that 

produce optimal outcomes for the prevention of delinquency and help states develop 

strategies that work across various state agencies to meet state and local needs. 

For example, in May 2006, the Arizona SAG and the Governor’s Division for Children jointly held a Child Welfare Juvenile Justice Summit. In Arizona, Mental 

Health, Behavioral Health, Housing and Education as well as Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice are major systems that impact children and families, and are impacted by children who have suffered maltreatment. Research shows that greater 

cross-system coordination and integration is more effective and in the long term, 

costs state and local governments and agencies fewer financial resources. 

At our invitation, multidisciplinary teams from each Arizona county and a statelevel team—totaling nearly 250 attendees—gathered together to participate in a 

learning and planning Summit to help promote greater integration in the provision 

of services to children and families in their communities. The Summit, supported 

by funds administered by the Arizona SAG, led to the official establishment of the 

Interagency Coordination and Integration Initiative, which is currently working to 

(1) identify youth and families at-risk for multiple systems involvement earlier, (2) 

provide more comprehensive and effective services, and (3) cultivate improved outcomes for children and youth who are at-risk for, or who have experienced maltreatment. A blueprint for action will be completed by August 2007. 

Strengthening the JJDPA 

The last reauthorization of the JJDPA occurred over a six-year period between 

1996 and 2002, and resulted in a few substantive changes to the Act. It did not, 

however, fully address continuing and contemporary challenges and opportunities 

presented by youth and the environments in which they are growing up. 

As important as it is to reauthorize the JJDPA again, it is as important to preserve the spirit of the Act and strengthen the Act in order to sustain and build upon 

past successes. The challenge is to develop and diligently administer age-appropriate, developmentally-appropriate, gender-appropriate and culturally and linguistically competent interventions and sanctions that truly help young people avoid 

and reject risky and harmful behavior and that are adequately supported with federal funds. 

A complete overhaul of the Act is neither desirable nor necessary. Rather, as the 

110th Congress approaches the 2007 reauthorization of the Act, there are particular 

strengthening amendments that it should concentrate on: 

First, Congress should place a premium on primary prevention efforts that 

proactively and positively shape and develop the character and choices of children 

and youth before they are tempted or pressured to make bad decisions by providing 

more opportunities for primary prevention programs and initiatives within the Act 

and providing the funding necessary to identify, implement, evaluate and sustain 

these programs and initiatives. 

19

The Title V Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs, commonly known as the Community Prevention Grants program, is the only federal 

funding source dedicated solely to the prevention of youth crime and violence. The 

grants can be used to fund a wide range of programs, including mental health assessment and treatment, after-school activities, mentoring, and tutoring, as well as 

drop-out, gang, and substance abuse prevention. 

Prevention activities such as those supported by Title V, however, remain so woefully under-funded that they can reach only a fraction of the kids who would benefit 

from them. For example, because of lack of funding for after-school programs, more 

than 14 million children and teens go home from school to an empty house each 

week. Research shows that these children are much more likely to drink, smoke, 

use drugs, commit a crime, and become a victim of a crime. In FY 2002 and prior 

years, Title V received $95 million. In FY 2007, Title V received only $64 million. 

While some funding is better than none, a long-term and sustainable reduction in 

juvenile crime and delinquency requires greater, sustained investments. 

Second, Congress should strengthen protections for children and youth under the 

age of 18, regardless of whether they are in the juvenile justice system or the adult 

criminal justice system. Youth who are charged as adults are not covered by the 

core protections provided in Secs. 223(a)(12) and (13)—Jail Removal and Separation—of the JJDPA. Studies, however, show that regular contact with adults can result in serious physical and emotional harm to children and youth. 

Instead of adult jails, states and counties could place children and youth, if they 

pose a risk to public safety, into juvenile detention facilities where they are more 

likely to receive developmentally-appropriate services, educational programming and 

supports by trained staff. 

Finally, Congress should motivate the states to build upon what they have 

learned about DMC and take steps to not only address the disparate treatment of 

youth of color who come into contact with their juvenile justice system but also reduce racial and ethnic disparities at all points along the continuum, from arrest to 

detention to adjudication to reentry. 

The current JJDPA supports states in gathering the data necessary to determine 

whether and to what extent minority youth suffer disparate treatment within the 

system. The next iteration of the JJDPA must direct major resources to states and 

localities to implement strategies with measurable outcomes designed to reduce 

those disparities. In turn, OJJDP and the states should report the progress they are 

making in reducing such disparities. 

Conclusion 

The continuing success of effective juvenile crime and delinquency prevention and 

intervention depends on Congress strengthening the provisions of the JJDPA and 

providing the financial resources needed to fulfill these provisions to the greatest 

extent possible. The best JJDPA for children, youth and communities is a JJDPA 

that provides the states, through their respective State Advisory Groups, with the 

guidance, training, technical assistance and resources they need to sustain and create innovative practices that effectively address and prevent juvenile crime and delinquency. 

The Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission and the Coalition for Juvenile Justice 

and its national and local partners stand ready to provide further information, background and input as you deliberate reauthorization of the JJDPA. As a starting 

point, I have attached to my testimony of copy of the ‘‘JJDPA Statement of Principles’’ referenced at the beginning of my presentation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about this important piece 

of legislation. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. Freed? 

STATEMENT OF DAVID FREED, CUMBERLAND COUNTY 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

Mr. FREED. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify. 

My name is David Freed. I am the Cumberland County district 

attorney in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. 

I am a member of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association and Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, an organization of over 3,000 

20

police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors and victims of violence who have 

come together to take a hardnosed look at the research on what 

keeps kids from becoming criminals. 

I am pleased that your committees are looking into what really 

works to prevent crime, as Congress considers the reauthorization 

of the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. 

While youth crime has been going down for many years, some 

cities have seen modest increases in the past 2 years. It is too early 

to know whether this is a significant, nationwide trend, or just typical year-to-year fluctuations. 

What we do know is that much of juvenile crime is preventable. 

Title V local delinquency prevention grants and Title II state formula grants can provide support for evidence-based prevention and 

intervention approaches that meet the twin goals of protecting the 

public and turning offenders into productive citizens. 

Title V is the only federal funding source dedicated solely to the 

prevention of youth crime and violence. The grants can be used to 

fund a range of programs, including after-school mentoring and tutoring, as well as dropout, gang and substance abuse prevention. 

After-school programs during the prime time for juvenile crime, 

which is 3 to 6 p.m., are among our most powerful crime prevention tools. A study of Boys and Girls Clubs in housing projects 

found that the projects without the clubs had 50 percent more vandalism and scored 37 percent worse on drug activity. 

Unfortunately, there is a vast unmet need for prevention programs like these. For example, more than 14 million children still 

lack adult supervision after school. We also need effective responses for kids who are already committing crimes. 

Title II can help states and communities expand the range of options for responding to these juvenile offenders. 

Public safety considerations require that some youth be placed in 

the custody of the state. For other serious offenders who do not 

need lockup, placement in a multi-dimensional treatment foster 

care home can be used as an alternative. 

This program provides specially-trained foster parents, supervision by a program case manager and frequent coordination of 

services with everyone in the youth’s life. This approach cuts repeat arrests for seriously delinquent juveniles in half. 

It is also cost-effective, saving the public $77,000 for every juvenile treated. 

Functional family therapy and multi-systemic therapy are similar effective models. Unfortunately, only one in seven young offenders who could benefit from these evidence-based approaches is currently being served. 

Although some areas have started implementing these proven 

approaches, federal leadership can encourage their proliferation 

and expansion. In reauthorization of this law, Congress should reject funding cuts and block granting and increase authorized and 

appropriated funding, especially for Title V and Title II. 

Direct funding to what we know works, strengthen the Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s role in funding more 

research and ensure that the office provides dissemination, training 

and technical assistance for policymakers and practitioners. 

21

Finally, I urge Congress to include in the Education Begins at 

Home Act as an additional title for this reauthorization legislation. 

The bill would support voluntary, evidence-based home visiting 

programs. These programs help new parents learn skills to promote 

healthy child development and be better parents, while also preventing crime. 

An example of this is the Nurse Family Partnership Program, 

which I have heard mentioned already. It cuts child abuse and neglect in half, reduces arrests by 60 percent and produces $5 in savings for every $1 invested. 

Unfortunately, hundreds of thousands of at-risk families cannot 

benefit from these home services. 

I recently, personally prosecuted the cases of two murdered children, Quincy Thomas and Jordan Jackson. By the time the authorities became involved with these cases it was too late. I began each 

of these cases in the hospital with the bodies of these boys. I ended 

each case by watching the parents sent off to state prison. 

Early intervention by programs such as NFP could have saved 

Quincy’s and Jordan’s lives, I am convinced. 

Prosecutors necessarily focus much of our energy on public protection, locking criminals away where they cannot victimize anyone 

else, and we gladly accept that responsibility. But we also have a 

responsibility to support proven prevention programs. 

Early intervention in the lives of children works. Both the research and my everyday experience prove it. 

If we do not invest in proven crime prevention and intervention 

for America’s most vulnerable kids, too many of them will grow up 

to become America’s most wanted adults. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on how, 

through effective reauthorization legislation, Congress can help to 

reduce crime and make us all safer. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Freed follows:]

Prepared Statement of David Freed, Cumberland County District Attorney 

Representatives McCarthy, Platts, Scott and Forbes and the other distinguished 

members of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities and the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security: 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. My name is David Freed 

and I am the Cumberland County District Attorney in South Central Pennsylvania, 

including the towns of Carlisle and Mechanicsburg. I previously served as First Assistant District Attorney in Cumberland County and a Deputy Prosecutor in York 

County. I am a member of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association and 

FIGHT CRIME: INVEST IN KIDS, an organization of more than 3,000 police chiefs, 

sheriffs, prosecutors, and victims of violence, who have come together to take a 

hard-nosed look at the research on what keeps kids from becoming criminals. 

I’m so pleased that your committees are looking at what really works to prevent 

crime as Congress considers the reauthorization of the federal Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention Act, or JJDPA. While youth crime has been going down for 

many years, some cities have seen modest increases in juvenile crime in the past 

two years. It is too early to know whether this is a significant, nationwide trend 

or just typical year-to-year fluctuations. What we do know is that much of the juvenile crime is preventable. 

As the lead law enforcement officer in my county, I personally prosecute homicide 

and other violent felony cases. While this is a key component of my job, it’s the part 

I like the least. I see too many young kids whose lives could have been productive 

and full of promise—high school graduations, college enrollment and healthy families of their own. Instead, they are in my courtroom—with far less positive outcomes 

and after victims have been harmed. 

22

My years of experience on the front lines in the fight against crime—as well as 

the research—show that there are proven prevention and intervention approaches 

that help kids get a good start in life and redirect offending juveniles away from 

further crime. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act’s Title V Local 

Delinquency Prevention Grants program and Title II State Formula Grants can provide needed support for these evidence-based prevention and intervention approaches to reduce recidivism. But Congress needs to ensure that sufficient funding 

is authorized and appropriated for these programs and that funding is directed toward proven programs that both keep kids from committing crimes in the first place 

and intervene effectively when kids start getting in trouble. District Attorneys 

throughout the nation recognize the importance of promoting programs that meet 

the twin goals of protecting the public and turning offenders into productive citizens. 

Keeping Kids Away from Crime 

The Title V Local Delinquency Prevention Grants program is the only federal 

funding source dedicated solely to the prevention of youth crime and violence. Almost 1,500 communities have received Title V grants since 1994 through a competitive grant process that requires states and localities to match at least 50% of the 

grant with cash or in-kind contributions. To participate in the program, localities 

must engage in collaborative, comprehensive planning regarding needed communitybased delinquency prevention efforts. The grants can be used to fund a wide range 

of prevention programs, including after-school activities, mentoring, and tutoring, as 

well as drop-out, gang, and substance abuse prevention. 

Mentoring and after-school programs funded by Title V help at-risk youth avoid 

criminal activity in the first place. In the hour after the school bell rings, violent 

juvenile crime soars and the prime time for juvenile crime begins. The peak hours 

for such crime are from 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm. These are also the hours when children 

are most likely to become victims of crime, be in an automobile accident, smoke, 

drink alcohol, or use drugs. After-school programs that connect children to caring 

adults and provide constructive activities during these critical hours are among our 

most powerful tools for preventing crime. For example, a study compared five housing projects without Boys & Girls Clubs to five receiving new clubs. At the beginning, drug activity and vandalism were the same. But by the time the study ended, 

the projects without the programs had 50 percent more vandalism and scored 37 

percent worse on drug activity. 

Similarly, a study of Big Brothers Big Sisters found that young people who were 

randomly assigned to a Big Brother or Big Sister mentor were about half as likely 

to begin illegal drug use and nearly one third less likely to hit someone compared 

to those who were assigned to a waiting list. 

There are also a number of proven approaches to reducing drug use and violence 

through the schools that could be funded by Title V. For example, Life Skills Training is a three-year intervention that targets all middle/junior high school students 

in 6th or 7th grade, with booster sessions in the two subsequent years. It is aimed 

at preventing gateway drug use: tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana. Teachers deliver 

the 45-minute sessions: 15 in year one, 10 in year two, and 5 in year three. The 

programs seek to provide teens with the information and skills needed to develop 

anti-drug attitudes and norms, and to resist peer and media pressure to use drugs. 

More than 15 years of research with the LST program have consistently shown that 

participation in the program can cut drug use in half. 

Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers, LIFT, shows that long-term results are possible from a ten-week anti-aggression program. LIFT instructors offer 

classroom-based training in social and problem-solving skills to students, and also 

train their parents. Children are rewarded individually and in groups on the playground for practicing their new aggression-avoidance skills. The program dramatically reduced aggressive behavior among first graders when measured three years 

later. For fifth graders, compared to LIFT participants, students in schools that did 

not receive the program were 59 percent more likely to drink alcohol regularly by 

eighth grade. The fifth graders left out were also two times more likely to have been 

arrested during middle school than those who received the program. 

Unfortunately, there is vast unmet need for prevention programs like these. For 

example, more than 14 million children nationwide still lack adult supervision after 

school. 

Reducing Recidivism through Effective Interventions 

Juveniles account for only 16% of all arrests, but they present the greatest opportunity for effective intervention responses that can help young offenders get back 

on track. Once kids have gotten into trouble, targeted interventions may be needed, 

23

such as those funded by Title II State Formula Grants of the JJDPA. In many jurisdictions, prosecutors like myself and juvenile court judges are faced with very limited sentencing (or ‘‘disposition’’) options for a delinquency case—either lock up or 

probation—and often neither is appropriate in that case. State Formula Grants can 

help states and communities to expand that range of options and ensure that the 

most effective approach can be used for each case. By strengthening the juvenile justice system and deterring youth from committing more serious crimes, Title II State 

Formula Grants can make our neighborhoods safer and save lives. 

Research shows that the best results in reducing crime are achieved by targeting 

the worst offenders. The reason why is straightforward: one cannot prevent most 

low-risk juveniles from committing more crimes because they were not going to do 

more crimes anyway. Nationally, six in 10 juveniles brought before a juvenile court 

for the first time will not return to court on another charge. 

But high-risk offenders are very likely to commit more crimes, and often. In recent years, there have been approximately 100,000 juveniles in custody nationwide. 

The vast majority of these troubled youths will be released back into the community, with their expected ‘‘prime crime years’’ ahead of them and facing recidivism 

rates of up to 75%. But it doesn’t have to be that way. A significant amount of research has identified effective approaches to help young offenders avoid committing 

further crimes, thereby enhancing public safety. Effective screening tools can distinguish chronic and violent offenders from less serious offenders. 

For some repeat and violent juvenile offenders, public safety considerations require that they be placed in custody of the state. Simply warehousing high-risk offenders during their time in custody is not adequate. They need to be required to 

do the hard work of constantly confronting and changing their anti-social beliefs and 

behaviors. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) uses tested, concrete methods, such 

as Aggression Replacement Therapy (ART), to teach teens to stop and consider the 

consequences of their actions, to conceptualize other ways of responding to interpersonal problems and to consider how their actions will affect others. By learning 

what triggers their negative behaviors and by identifying and practicing more prosocial and effective ways to respond, CBT consistently reduced repeat crimes among 

juveniles. Young people in Brooklyn gangs without ART services had four times the 

number of arrests of similar young gang members receiving ART. 

For serious offenders who do not need high-security lock-up, individual placement 

in a Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC) home can be used as an alternative. Foster care may sound like a pass for juveniles who should be paying a 

more severe price for the crime they committed. But for teens who are often used 

to running the streets, and who see a month in custody as just another chance to 

socialize with delinquent friends or learn new criminal behaviors, this is a more controlled experience and a tough intervention. MTFC provides specially trained foster 

parents and ongoing supervision by a program case manager, as well as frequent 

contact and coordination of services with a youth’s parole or probation officer, teachers, work supervisors and other involved adults during and after a youth’s out of 

home placement. Compared to similar juveniles placed in non-secure group facilities, 

the MTFC approach cuts the average number of repeat arrests for seriously delinquent juveniles in half, and six times as many of the boys in MTFC as boys in a 

group home successfully avoided any new arrest. MTFC is also cost-effective. MTFC 

saves the public an average of over $77,000 for every juvenile treated. 

Effective interventions that incorporate community sanctions have also been 

shown to cut crime. One such program is the Functional Family Therapy (FFT) program. FFT works to engage and motivate youth and their families to change behaviors that often result in criminal activity. In one evaluation, families with troubled 

youths were randomly assigned to either a group that received FFT or one that did 

not. The youths whose families received FFT were half as likely to be rearrested 

as the youth whose families did not receive the family therapy. By reducing recidivism among juvenile offenders, FFT saves the public an average of $32,000 per 

youth treated. 

Similarly, the Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) program targets kids who are serious juvenile offenders by addressing the multiple factors—in peer, school, neighborhood and family environments—known to be related to delinquency. One MST study 

followed juvenile offenders until they were, on average, 29-years-old. Individuals 

who had not received MST were 62 percent more likely to have been arrested for 

an offense, and more than twice as likely to be arrested for a violent offense. It is 

also more cost-effective than other mental health and juvenile justice services like 

residential treatment and incarceration, saving the public $4.27 for every dollar invested. 

In 2002, approximately 150,000 juvenile offenders were placed out-of-home, and 

nearly 400,000 others were placed on probation. Some juvenile offenders must be 

24

placed in secure custody to protect public safety, and many others are first-time offenders who will not become repeat offenders and therefore are not high-risk enough 

to justify the expense and intrusion of the aforementioned programs. But even if 

only half of those on probation and half of those placed out of home are eligible for 

these effective intervention programs, the number of young offenders who could benefit from evidenced-based approaches would still amount to 7 times the 35,000 total 

currently being served by MST, FFT, and MTFC. In other words, these programs 

will have to expand 7 times their current capacity nationwide before they start running out of youth who could and should be receiving these services. 

Although some states and communities have begun to implement these proven approaches, federal leadership can encourage their proliferation and expansion. Our 

nation must target crime prevention funds toward kids -that that’s the way those 

dollars to can have the greatest impact. 

Reauthorizing the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act 

When we know what works to prevent kids from committing crime in the first 

place and how to steer them away from crime once they have committed an offense, 

it seems silly that we don’t fully utilize these approaches. But many states and communities are not yet able to adequately fund such efforts, and federal funding falls 

far short of meeting the need. In 2002, JJDPA Title V was funded at $95 million, 

Title II was funded at $89 million and juvenile justice funding as a whole equaled 

about $550 million. In contrast, last year, juvenile justice programs only received 

about $300 million, including $64 million for Title V and $79 million for Title II. 

Federal funding is currently so limited that my county does not receive any Title 

V or Title II money. Unfortunately, the Administration’s FY08 budget proposes to 

eliminate all of the current JJDPA programs and create a single, new ‘‘Child Safety 

and Juvenile Justice’’ block grant funded at a level that is 25% lower than the total 

FY07 funding for the programs eliminated. 

On behalf of my colleague law enforcement leaders of Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, 

I urge Congress to demonstrate its commitment to crime prevention by rejecting 

proposed cuts and block-granting, and by increasing authorized and appropriated 

funding for federal juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs, especially 

Title V and Title II, to ensure that more kids who need prevention and intervention 

services will have access to them. 

I also urge Congress to move reauthorization legislation forward to enactment 

that ensures that funding is directed first toward proven, effective programs and 

promising programs that are being rigorously evaluated. Unfortunately, there are 

many programs that don’t work. Given limited federal, state and local resources, we 

need to direct funding toward what we already know works and toward finding out 

if new, promising programs have the potential to become model programs like those 

I discussed today. The JJDPA should also include performance standards and outcomes tied to new incentive funds, so that new federal dollars are tied to states and 

localities achieving results. 

JJDPA reauthorization also provides an important opportunity to substantially 

strengthen the leadership role of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in funding more evaluation research on promising new approaches 

in both delinquency prevention and intervention. Individual local grantees are not 

able to do rigorous evaluation using randomized control trials or well-matched comparison groups. OJJDP needs to provide resources to academics for evaluation. 

OJJDP should also provide much-needed dissemination, training and technical assistance so that state and local policy-makers and practitioners—including prosecutors—may benefit from the best information about what works in delinquency prevention and intervention. 

A Recommended Addition to JJDPA Reauthorization 

Finally, I urge Congress to add a supplemental provision to this reauthorization 

bill. Voluntary, evidence-based home visiting programs are proven to prevent child 

abuse and neglect and reduce later arrests. These programs help new parents learn 

skills to promote healthy child development and be better parents. 

For example, one program, the Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP), randomly assigned interested at-risk pregnant women to receive visits by nurses starting before 

the birth of a first child and continuing until the child was age two. Rigorous research, originally published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, 

shows the program cut abuse and neglect among at-risk kids in half. In addition, 

children of mothers who received the coaching had 60% fewer arrests by age 15 than 

the children of mothers who were not coached. As a result, five dollars in savings 

were produced for every dollar invested, according to the researchers at Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. 

25

Other home visiting models also produce positive results. For example, a randomized control study of the Parent-Child Home Program found that (of the six out of 

ten children they were able to follow) 84% of the children finishing the program 

graduated from high school compared to 54% of those who did not receive the intervention. Separate studies have concluded that improving graduation rates reduces 

crime. 

Every year, over 600,000 low-income women in the U.S. become mothers for the 

first time, resulting in 1.5 million low-income mothers (who are pregnant or have 

a child under the age of two) who are eligible for NFP at any given time. The program is only able to serve about 20,000 mothers annually, however, due to a lack 

of funding. Other programs serve approximately 400,000 additional families at all 

income levels. However, hundreds of thousands of at-risk families across the country 

receive no home visiting or dosages of home visiting that are inadequate to prevent 

abuse and neglect and later crime. While there is an NFP program in my county, 

not all prosecutors, police chiefs and sheriffs are lucky enough to have this crimeprevention tool already at work in their jurisdictions. And that program cannot yet 

reach all of the eligible, at-risk new mothers. 

In my county, two children, Quincy Thomas and Jordan Jackson, have been murdered within the last five years. I personally prosecuted both cases. Both families 

had multiple children and were receiving assistance on various levels. Both parents 

had minor criminal records. However, by the time authorities became involved with 

each case, it was too late. I began each of these cases in the hospital with the bodies 

of these boys. I ended each case by watching the parents sent to state prison. I believe that early intervention by programs such as NFP could have saved the lives 

of Quincy and Jordan. 

I urge Congress to expand and improve this proven crime-prevention approach by 

including the Education Begins at Home Act as a title in JJDPA reauthorization 

legislation. This approach has proven how successful it can be in preventing later 

crime and we need to ensure more families have access. Please include these provisions in your reauthorization legislation. 

If we do not invest in research-proven crime-prevention and intervention programs for America’s most vulnerable kids, many of them will grow up to become 

America’s most wanted adults. By failing to adequately invest in proven crime-prevention and intervention strategies, Congress is not only failing to promote the wellbeing of millions of kids but is also permitting the cultivation of criminals—jeopardizing the safety of all Americans for years to come. 

Thank you for this opportunity to present my views on how—through effective 

JJPDA reauthorization legislation—Congress can help to reduce crime and make us 

all safer. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Freed. 

Judge Lawrence? 

STATEMENT OF PAUL LAWRENCE, GOFFSTOWN DISTRICT 

COURT, NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE JUVENILE JUSTICE ADVISORY GROUP 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. 

My name is Paul Lawrence. It is my distinct honor to have been 

asked by Chairwoman McCarthy to speak on behalf of the Juvenile 

Justice Delinquency Prevention Act. 

I began hearing juvenile cases almost 30 years ago with the belief that the greatest cure for delinquency is maturation. At that 

time, before technology provided images of the brain that allow us 

to see its gradual development, extending well into the mid-20s, it 

was clear to me that the needs, thoughts, motivations and behavior 

of youth differ greatly from those of fully mature adults. 

Now, advancements in neural imagery enable us to take a look 

at the actual physical development and transformation of the brain 

in all stages of life. 

During adolescence, several areas of the brain go through their 

final developmental stages and develop greater complexity, which 

26

in turn affects thinking, behavior and potential for learning and rehabilitation. 

Confirmation of my maturation theory—and it is not really mine 

alone; others have espoused the theory, as well—can be found in 

the business community and to the auto insurance. And many of 

us have experienced insuring a son or daughter under age 25. 

But it is quite amazing, at age 25, the actuaries who work for 

the insurance companies figured out that the risk diminishes, and 

they cut the premium in half. They understood something, perhaps, 

about risk and impulsive behavior long before we thought of it in 

terms of even juvenile justice. 

Judges on the juvenile bench possess considerable power over the 

life pathways of young people and their families, particularly those 

that are vulnerable, troubled and fragile. Given this power, what 

judges do may prove productive and helpful or, regrettably, cause 

unintended harm. 

Every time a judge shepherds a young person through the juvenile justice system, she/he must be certain that all steps have been 

taken to enhance the use competencies before imposition of predominantly retributive measures. 

In fact, if judges, as well as congressional and federal decisionmakers are to do what is best for children and youth involved in 

the courts, we would make a primary commitment in juvenile justice much like the Hippocratic oath: First do no harm. 

Included in such a commitment would be the following precepts, 

all of which are part of the original thinking that underlies the 

JJDP Act. 

We should strive to keep children and youth out of the court system and out of institutional settings, particularly lockups, and 

whenever possible at home or close to home, school and community. 

We should do everything possible to ensure that any and all court 

involvement by youth and families is appropriately limited in scope 

and effective in producing healthy outcomes for involved youth. 

We must ensure age-appropriate sanctions and supports and 

court services, as well as systems that treat children and youth in 

ways that are based on the best of what we know about adolescent 

development, brain science and the principles of positive youth development. 

Research supported by the MacArthur Foundation has shown 

that different brain capacities mature along different timetables. 

Competence-related abilities mature by age 16. Yet capacities relevant to decision about criminal culpability risk-taking are still 

maturing into young adulthood. 

Second, adolescents are responsible for their behavior, but not as 

responsible as adults. 

Third, adolescents are still works in progress. 

Adolescent brain development science highlights how critical the 

core protections of the JJDP Act are in keeping status offending, 

non-criminal youths out of lockups and placing clear restrictions on 

children and youth in adult jails, as well as ensuring that we do 

not needlessly sweep children of color into the juvenile justice system, because of systemic and societal racism. 

Furthermore, the JJDP Act can be improved, based on the best 

of what we know, by directing Title II state formula funds and 

27

Title V state and local prevention funds to programs that prevent 

repeated system involvement and show excellent results in restoring young people to productive home and community life. 

Examples of such programs are: the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative spearheaded by the Casey Foundation; Restorative Justice, sponsored in part of OJJDP; and graduated sanctions, 

an active program of the National Council of Juvenile and Family 

Court Judges. 

Regarding use of federal funds under the JJDP Act, Congress 

should strongly consider prohibiting the use of federal funds for ineffective and damaging approaches, such as highly punitive models, 

shown to increase rather than decrease re-arrest and re-offense, including boot camps, scared-straight programs, excessive use of 

physical restraint, force and punishment, over-reliance on transfer 

and waiver and the building of large residential institutions. 

Since my time is almost up, I would conclude my remarks and 

refer you to my lengthier written testimony, the citations as part 

of that testimony and accompanying publications. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Lawrence follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Lawrence, Goffstown District Court, New 

Hampshire State Juvenile Justice Advisory Group 

Good afternoon. It is my distinct honor to have been asked by Chairwoman 

McCarthy to speak on behalf of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Act (JJDPA). 

I am Paul Lawrence, the Presiding Justice of the Goffstown District Court in 

Goffstown, New Hampshire where I hear, among other things, juvenile delinquency, 

CHINS, and neglect and abuse cases. I am also Immediate Past Chair of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice (CJJ), the national leadership association of State Advisory 

Groups under the JJDP Act. I am Co-Chair of the New Hampshire Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, past Chair of the state’s the Committee to Study the Establishment of Dispositional Guidelines in Juvenile Delinquency Cases and a member of the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s Judicial Education Services Committee. 

Also of relevance to today’s hearing is my membership in the National Council of 

Juvenile and Family Court Judges. 

I began hearing juvenile cases in 1979 with a belief that the greatest cure for delinquency is maturation. At that time, before technology provided images of the 

brain that allow us to see its gradual development extending well into the mid-20s, 

it was clear to me that the needs, thoughts, motivations and behavior of youth differ 

greatly from those of fully mature adults. Now, advancements in neuro-imagery, 

such as Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), coupled with targeted research, enable us to take a look at the actual physical development and transformation of the brain at all stages of life. During adolescence, several areas of the 

brain go through their final developmental stages and develop greater complexity, 

which in turn affects thinking, behavior and potential for learning and rehabilitation.i

Judges on the juvenile bench possess considerable power over the life pathways 

of young people and their families—particularly those that are vulnerable, troubled 

and fragile. Given this power what judges do may prove productive and helpful, or 

regrettably, cause unintended harm. Every time a judge shepherd’s a young person 

through the juvenile justice system, he/she must be certain that all steps have been 

taken to enhance the youth’s competencies before imposition of predominantly retributive measures. In fact, if judges—as well as congressional and federal decision 

makers—are to do what is best for children and youth involved in the courts we 

would make a primary commitment in juvenile justice much like the Hippocratic 

Oath: first, do no harm. Included in such a commitment would be the following precepts, all of which are part of the original thinking that underlies the JJDP Act: 

We should strive to keep children and youth out of the court system and out of 

institutional settings—particularly lockups; and whenever possible at home or close 

to home, school and community; 

28

We should do everything possible to ensure that any and all court involvement 

by youth and families is appropriately limited in scope and effective in producing 

healthy outcomes for the involved youth; 

We must ensure age-appropriate sanctions and supports and court services, as 

well as systems that treat children and youth in ways that are based on the best 

of what we know about adolescent development, brain science and principles of 

youth development. 

On June 11, 2007, I heard Dr. Laurence Steinberg of Temple University and Director of the MacArthur Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile 

Justice, speak at the Coalition for Juvenile Justice Summit on the JJDP Act. He 

cited several implications of his Network’s research which are worthy of consideration in the reauthorization of the JJDP Act. 

First, different brain capacities mature along different timetables: 

Competence-related abilities mature by age 16; 

Yet, capacities relevant to decisions about criminal culpability are still maturing 

into young adulthood. 

Second, adolescents are responsible for their behavior, but not as responsible as 

adults: 

Self-control is still developing and easily disrupted by emotionally or socially 

arousing situations; 

And, adolescents need support, structure and adult supervision. 

Third, adolescents are still works in progress: 

Most will mature out of reckless and impetuous behavior by their early 20s without any intervention; 

So, it is vitally important that involvement with juvenile justice system not derail 

their transition into productive adulthood.ii

Adolescent brain development science underscores the mission of the court, as a 

helping hand for youth and families designed to help them heal and build their 

strengths and means to contribute to society. It highlights how critical the core protections of the JJDP Act indeed are in keeping status offending and non-criminal 

youth out of lock-ups and placing clear restrictions on placing children and youth 

in adult jails, as well as ensuring that we do not needlessly sweep children of color 

into the juvenile justice system because of systemic and societal racism. 

Furthermore, the JJDP Act can be improved based on the best of what we now 

know, by directing Title II (State Formula Funds) and Title V ( State and Local Prevention Funds) to programs that prevent repeated system involvement and show excellent results in restoring young people to productive home and community life, 

such as alternatives to pre-adjudication detention, restorative justice and graduated 

sanctions. 

Alternatives to Detention 

Nationwide, the youth confined in pre-trial/pre-adjudicative detention include an 

alarmingly high census of fragile youth with serious emotional, behavioral and substance abuse issues, and youth of color.iii The number of youth who reside in detention centers on an average day is estimated to be more than 27,000, and has grown 

72 percent since the early 1990s—despite declines in juvenile offending. It is estimated that as many as 600,000 children and teens cycle through secure detention 

each year.iv

My colleague, Bart Lubow, who directs the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative for the Annie E. Casey Foundation, reports, ‘‘When you talk to judges, prosecutors, or other juvenile justice professionals, many of them say things like, ‘We locked 

him up for his own good.’ Or, ‘We locked him up because his parents weren’t available.’ Or, ‘We locked him up to get a mental health assessment.’ But none of these 

reasons are reflected in statute or professional standards.’’

Detention reform efforts, on the other hand, are evidenced-based efforts to reverse 

the unnecessary and harmful flow of youth into locked detention who could be more 

effectively served at home or in a community-based setting. In communities as diverse as New York City and Pima County (AZ) and the states of North Dakota and 

New Hampshire juvenile justice practitioners have found that keeping youth out of 

secure detention accrues many benefits for youth and families—including better 

mental health assessment and treatment, greater and stronger connections with 

school, family and community, and a reduction of racial/ethnic disparities by guarding against more punitive treatment of youth of color as compared with their white 

counterparts.v

Restorative Justice 

Drawing upon international models from New Zealand, Australia and Native Canada, a new way of thinking about and addressing juvenile offending emerged in the 

29

mid-to-late 1990s, known variously as balanced and restorative justice, victim-offender mediation and family group conferencing. The essential idea of balanced and 

restorative justice is that repairing harm, as it relates to juvenile wrongdoing and 

offending, is pursued within a three-point balance of the needs of 1) victims, 2) offenders and 3) communities. 

Active participation of victims, victims’ families, offenders and offenders’ families 

and community members make the process work. Agents of the court and other 

child- and family-serving advocates and professionals facilitate, support and enforce 

reparative agreements.vi Studies from the United States and other countries cite 

significant benefits to both offenders in terms of reducing recidivism and to victims 

and survivors in terms of enhancing their sense of well being and healing.vii

Graduated Sanctions 

Graduated sanctions programs utilize a continuum of disposition options for delinquency reduction. The term ‘‘graduated sanctions’’ implies that the penalties for delinquent activity should move from those that are limited in their scope and intrusion into the lives of youth to those that are highly restrictive, in keeping with the 

severity and nature of the offense committed. In other words, youth who commit serious and violent offenses should receive more restrictive sentences than youth who 

commit less serious and nonviolent offenses. However, for graduated sanctions programs to fulfill their promise of delinquency reduction, they must ensure that the 

right juveniles are connected to the right programs at the right time. Types of sanctions typically include: 

• Immediate sanctions, targeted toward less serious non-chronic offenders; 

• Intermediate sanctions, appropriate for juveniles who continue to offend following immediate interventions; youth who have committed more serious felony offenses; and some violent offenders who can benefit from supervision, structure, and 

monitoring but not necessarily incarceration; 

• Secure care, appropriate for serious violent, chronic offenders; and 

• After care, appropriate for offenders transitioning back into the community following secure care. 

An OJJDP-funded study of existing graduated sanctions systems found them to 

be more effective and less costly than juvenile incarceration.viii According to researchers at the University of Virginia, ‘‘The graduated sanctions approach has 

many proven benefits: reduced cost, increased accountability by the juvenile and the 

community; and enhanced responsiveness to a juvenile’s treatment needs.’’ ix Moreover, graduated sanctions are seen as a useful tool in the pursuit of ‘‘restorative justice,’’ supporting the process of reconciliation that holds offenders accountable 

through making amends.x

Funding Under the JJDP Act 

Regarding use of federal funds under the JJDP Act, Congress should strongly consider prohibiting the use of federal funds for ineffective and damaging approaches 

such as highly punitive models shown to increase, rather than decrease re-arrest 

and re-offense, including boot camps, scared straight programs, excessive use of 

physical restraint, force and punishment, and the building of large residential institutions.xi

In addition, when crafting State Three-Year Plans for delinquency prevention, the 

State Advisory Groups are in an ideal position to recommend the use of JJDP Act 

funds for programs and practices that emphasize due process, positive youth development and adolescent brain development research, and restoration of an offender’s 

relationship to society. In the current iteration of the JJDP Act too many ‘‘core purpose areas’’ are listed as possible uses for federal funding in Section 223 describing 

the requirements for State Plans. Regrettably, some ‘‘core purposes’’ have little to 

do with effective support for compliance with the core requirements or the promotion of best practices. Please consider ways to trim back the current laundry list 

of divergent possibilities so as to emphasize and elevate compliance with the core 

requirements and initiatives that strive to limit a young person’s court involvement, 

out-of-home placement or any sort of confinement while ensuring community safety. 

Conclusion 

In closing, I wish to leave with you copies of three publications from the Coalition 

for Juvenile Justice: two addressing adolescent brain development and implications 

for juvenile justice and the JJDP Act, as well as the Coalition’s report on detention 

reform, supported by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. I was proud to serve as an 

expert advisor on all of these publications. I also wish to avail myself to you should 

you have any further questions. Many thanks for the opportunity to speak before 

you today. 

30

ENDNOTES

i Beatrice Luna, ‘‘Brain and Cognitive Processes Underlying Cognitive Control of Behavior in 

Adolescence,’’ University of Pittsburgh, Oct. 2005. iiSee www.juvjustice.org/conferences—4.html and ‘‘Findings from the MacArthur Foundation 

Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice.’’ iii Coalition for Juvenile Justice, ‘‘Unlocking the Future: Detention Reform in the Juvenile Justice System, 2003. iv Ibid. v Coalition for Juvenile Justice, ‘‘Unlocking the Future: Detention Reform in the Juvenile Justice System, 2003. vi Bazemore,G., and M Umbreit and OJJDP. ‘‘Conference, Circles, Boards and Mediations: Restorative Justice and Citizen Involvement in the Response to Youth Crime,’’ 1999. vii Ibid. viiiWilson, J.J., and J.C. Howell. ‘‘Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic 

Juvenile Offenders. Program Summary.’’ Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, 1993. ix Redding, R.E. (2000). ‘‘Graduated and community-based sanctions for juvenile offenders.’’ 

Juvenile Justice Fact Sheet. Charlottesville, VA: Institute of Law, Psychiatry, & Public Policy, 

University of Virginia, 2000. x National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Juvenile Sanctions Center Training 

and Technical Assistance Center, ‘‘First Monday,’’ June 2005, http://www.ncjfcj.org/images/stories/delinquency/june%202005.pdf. xiMendel, Richard A. and American Youth Policy Forum, ‘‘Less Hype, More Help: Reducing 

Juvenile Crime, What Works—and What Doesn’t,’’ 2000 and ‘‘Less Cost, More Safety: Guiding 

Lights for Reform in Juvenile Justice,’’ 2001. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Judge. 

Mr. Jones? 

STATEMENT OF SHANNON JONES, FORMER PARTICIPANT IN 

THE COMMUNITY INTENSIVE SUPERVISION PROGRAM 

Mr. JONES. Hello. My name is Shannon Jones. I am 18 years old. 

I live in the Garfield community, located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

It is a great honor to be here today to speak on behalf of the 

CISP program, the Community Intensive Supervision Program, 

CISP. 

I will speak today, both of the collective experience of my peers 

in the program, as well as my own perspective of what the CISP 

has done for me. 

The program operates 7 days a week, from 3:30 to 11:30, Monday 

through Fridays, and on Saturdays and Sundays it is from 2:00 to 

10:00. 

The times at which the youth are there are 3:30 to 9:00. Depending on behavior, they can stay later. 

Not only do they monitor us by the centers, but we have to wear 

electronic bracelets around our ankles, so they know when we are 

leaving the house and when we enter. 

There were several aspects of this CISP that was able to help me 

complete the program, one of which was my primary. This position 

is called a community monitor. The good thing about that was, he 

was an African-American male, as most of my counselors are. 

The other good thing about that was they were from the same 

community as we are, so that makes it a lot easier to understand 

them. 

I think it is because they, too, know what it is like being in the 

inner-city and a young, black male. They were able to support, 

guide and encourage us every day so I can be the best possible me. 

That comes from the pledge we have to recite every day. 

‘‘Today I pledge to be the best possible me. No matter how good 

I am, I know I can do better.’’

31

It is longer, but I wanted to also say, because we live in our 

homes and attend our own schools, it gave us the opportunity to 

practice the skills that CISP helped us develop. 

When I first came into the CISP, I was not attending school 

daily, and I had Cs, Ds and Es on my report card. But because I 

had to turn in sign-in sheets that the teacher would write our 

progress on daily and encourage me to do better in school, because 

I did not want to be held accountable for negative behavior in 

school. 

I did what I was supposed to, and I was able to bring my grades 

up to As and Bs, and I graduated this past June from Peabody 

High School with honors. 

One of my other problems was I like to get high. I was high 

when I came into the program. This means that I was tested positive for marijuana use. 

There were drug and alcohol counselors in each center to help us 

understand the impact of drugs. My counselor’s name was Little 

Marvin. He helped me out a lot. The program offers their own drug 

and alcohol support meetings. 

In these meetings, we would hear stories from local members of 

Narcotics Anonymous about how they started using drugs and how 

they developed bad lifestyles. I was able to see that a lot of them 

started out by smoking weed, and then they moved into harder 

drugs. 

I did not want this to happen to me, so I stopped using. 

We were drug tested randomly, every week. And if you tested 

positive for drugs, you were held accountable. 

What also helped me a lot was the things I did to keep myself 

busy and involved in positive things. We were supposed to get 100 

hours of community service in order to get out of the program. 

We helped kids of murder victims get toys from a local toy store. 

We helped paint a women’s shelter. We passed out flowers and did 

a lot of cleaning parks, lots and streets in our community. 

After the CISP basketball league, I volunteered supervising 

younger kids in the after-school program. I was able to get a job 

with them, and now I work as a full-time assistant teacher with 

the kids. 

Other clients get jobs through Abraxas WorkBridge. This gave 

me skills I needed to survive in my community, by helping me realize the importance of thinking and being responsible for my own 

actions. 

I had to make choices every day. CISP means change. I know 

kids who were in institutions that are still thinking and behaving 

the same way they did before they were sent to placement. They 

did not change. Everything we learned is tested the moment we 

walk out of the doors. 

They also allow us to come back for support, encouragement and 

guidance, and to enjoy some of the recreational activities. 

If I was in placement, how would I or anyone else reach to these 

stairs and to help us out through our communities? 

I would like to thank you all for listening to me today. 

[The statement of Mr. Jones follows:]

32

Prepared Statement of Shannon Jones, Former Participant in the 

Community Intensive Supervision Program 

Good morning. My name is Shannon Jones, I’m eighteen years old. I’m pleased 

to have the opportunity today to share my story with you. On January 7, 2007, my 

life changed for the better because that was the day that I was committed to the 

Community Intensive Supervision Program (CISP) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Although I will speak from my own experience, I am also here to represent the experiences of the other youth whose lives have been positively impacted through their 

participation in CISP. 

I want to start by describing the program that has changed my life. CISP was 

started in 1990 and is run by the Juvenile Section of the Family Division of the 

Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. It serves as both an alternative to institutionalization and an aftercare program for those youth who have been subject 

to institutional placements. CISP offers programming, including drug screening, in 

five neighborhood centers during the afternoon and evening, seven days a week. 

CISP also electronically monitors the youth at night. CISP’s staff are traditional 

probation department personnel and paraprofessional ‘‘Community Monitors’’ who 

live in the same neighborhoods where we live. 

The CISP Program is designed to reach male juvenile offenders (ages 10-18) from 

the targeted neighborhoods who are on probation, continue to recidivate and would 

be institutionalized but for the existence of this alternative. In other words, young 

men like me. Property offenders make up for the majority of youth placed into the 

CISP Program but other youth are also eligible. Since the CISP Program is neighborhood based, a youth must live in one of the designated neighborhoods to be 

placed in CISP. One of the most important parts of the CISP program is that we 

remain in our own communities, continue to attend our own schools, and are introduced to positive community resources. All the kids who participate in CISP are required to complete community service, which is important because it makes us feel 

like a positive part of the community. 

Today I want to talk about how CISP changed my life. I was committed to CISP 

in January and I spent six months participating in the program. When I entered 

CISP, I had a D-average in school and I was at risk of ending up in a juvenile correctional facility. Although I thought about college, it didn’t always seem within 

reach. Being a part of CISP helped me to bring up my grades high enough that I 

graduated with honors and I plan to attend the community college of Allegheny 

county next spring. In the meantime, I’m working with children at a job I got 

through my volunteer work with CISP. 

When I was in CISP, I continued to go to my school everyday. I had to submit 

regular progress reports from my teachers to CISP, and knowing that my counselors 

at CISP were going to see my grades pushed me to work harder and do better in 

class. I would be picked up right after school everyday and taken to a CISP site. 

There I had the opportunity to participate in a range of programs, like Maleness 

to Manhood, Victim Awareness, Thinking Errors, Self-Assessment, and the Drug 

and Alcohol program. One of the programs that had the most impact on me was 

the Drug and Alcohol program. I remember that they took us to meet with recovered 

addicts, and hearing their stories made me think about how my drug use affected 

not only me and my future but also the people around me. I’m clean now, I no 

longer use illegal substances, and I plan to stay that way because I’ve seen what 

can happen to addicts and I know that I’ve got a better future ahead of me. 

On the last Thursday of every month, CISP also invited our family and friends 

in to meet with our counselors. This was important because CISP treated the people 

in our life like they were a part of our rehabilitation, and this means that I have 

support outside of the program as well as in the program. 

CISP not only gave me the opportunity to improve myself, it also made me take 

a more active role in my community. We spent every weekend doing community 

service by cleaning up our neighborhoods and local churches. In the six months that 

I was a part of CISP, I contributed 100 hours of community service. Even today 

when I walk past the areas that I helped clean, I feel a responsibility to keep those 

areas clean. My neighborhood feels like a community now, not just the place where 

I live. I think that this was possible because CISP keeps young people in their 

neighborhoods instead of sending them somewhere else. Every time I leave my 

home, I can be reminded of the work I did to improve my community. 

CISP also provides jobs for young people through the Workbridge program. Those 

youth who have restitution to pay can use the money that they earn from these jobs 

to pay that restitution. I started at the parental stress center as a volunteer, but 

this became a real job after I graduated from high school. Part of what I like about 

33

my job is that I am serving as a mentor to other young people. I like knowing that 

I’m helping young people just the way the CISP staff helped me. 

One of the things that I am always going to remember about CISP is the constant 

support I got from the staff. Every time I came to the CISP center, I could count 

on the staff encouraging me to better myself. They didn’t put me down or make me 

feel bad about myself, instead they always pushed me to be a better person and I 

wanted to be a better person to make them proud. I knew that as long as I was 

trying to improve, they would support me. 

I want to take this time today to encourage you to support other programs like 

CISP. I’m not the only young person CISP has helped, and I think that similar programs will help other youth as well. I’ve come a long way in six months and I have 

a bright future ahead of me. Maybe I would have gotten here without CISP, but 

I also know that being a part of CISP helped me become a positive force in my community. You have the ability to help other young people like me become more productive members of our communities, and I hope that you take this opportunity to 

help start and fund other programs like CISP. 

I want to thank you for taking the time to listen to me today. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Jones. 

Professor Shepherd? 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT SHEPHERD, JR., EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND SCHOOL OF 

LAW 

Mr. SHEPHERD. In contrast to Mr. Jones, as I was introduced as 

an emeritus professor of law, that means I have been around a long 

time. 

As a matter of fact, the first time I went into a juvenile court, 

it was as a lawyer, before In re Gault made it a constitutional requirement. 

I have been asked to give a brief overview of the important role 

of research in informing us regarding the development of public 

policy on juvenile justice. 

In the past 20 years, a great deal of research has been undertaken and published on the risk and protective factors influencing 

the behavior of young people. And much of that has been funded 

by Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act money. 

We also know considerably more about the development of the 

adolescent brain and the impact of its immaturity on judgment and 

impulse control. 

We need to draw on this research in advising state and local 

communities about what works and what does not work in addressing risky and criminal behavior by youth, and in providing technical assistance to them in implementing policies and programs 

that are affective. 

Let me give two brief illustrations of how this can be done. 

First, every piece of research that has been done on the practice 

of transferring children from juvenile court to adult court tells us 

that this is a practice that should be used in only the most exceptional cases, because it is wrongheaded and counterproductive. 

Young persons tried and incarcerated as adults have higher recidivism rates when released. They re-offend sooner, after they are 

returned to the community, and their repeat offenses are more serious than for similar youth retained in juvenile court for the same 

behaviors. 

Second, research tells us that young persons who engage in illegal sexual behavior are far more amenable to rehabilitative treatVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:07 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-55\36466.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
34

ment than their adult counterparts. And there are generally at 

very low risk for engaging in such activity as adults, unlike adult 

pedophiles. 

And yet federal and state policies increasingly treat them as miniature molesters, and require their registration in sex offender registries and impose mandatory minimum sentences on them. 

There are many more examples. And I especially refer you to the 

recent report of a Centers for Disease Control task force and the 

early report in October of 2004, issued by a state-of-the-science 

panel for the National Institutes of Health on what works and does 

not work when dealing with children who get in trouble. 

2007 is not only the year for reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, it is also the 40th anniversary of the historic Supreme Court decision in In re Gault, extending the protections of due process to juveniles. 

And a fitting way to celebrate that milestone would be to authorize a strengthened Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Act and mandate a new commitment on the part of the Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to a meaningful collaboration with the state advisory groups in this unique partnership created in the 1974 act between the federal government and 

the states through the state advisory groups appointed by the governors. 

That way, we can truly realize the promise embedded in Gault, 

in providing meaningful justice for juveniles, and at the same time 

real safety for our communities. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Shepherd follows:]

Prepared Statement of Robert E. Shepherd, Jr., Emeritus Professor of Law, 

University of Richmond School of Law 

Madam Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am Robert E. Shepherd, Jr., 

Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Richmond Law School in Virginia, 

and a former Chair of the Juvenile Justice Committee of the American Bar Association. I am also a long-term member and leader with the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, a national group consisting of representatives of the State Advisory Groups created pursuant to the Juvenile justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. I am here 

to present testimony on ‘‘The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act: 

Overview and Perspectives’’ and I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you 

about this important piece of legislation and the issues it addresses. 

That Act, originally enacted more than thirty years ago, has contributed greatly 

to the prevention of delinquency, to early intervention in the suppression of delinquency, to treating delinquent behavior and rehabilitating delinquent youth so as 

to prevent future delinquency, and to ensuring humane treatment of these young 

people in the juvenile justice system. The Act, and its programs, is still the best possible federal vehicle for protecting society from antisocial behavior by children and 

adolescents and for enabling these youth to become good citizens and successful 

adults. It also creates a unique partnership between agencies of the federal government and leaders in the juvenile justice field in the states and localities as an integral part of the structure of the Act. A partnership which calls on the Congress and 

the agencies under the Executive Branch to work cooperatively with the Governors 

and the Governor-appointed State Advisory Groups on juvenile justice in a meaningful dialogue and in response to state and local concerns. 

I have been asked to give a brief overview of juvenile justice and what research 

shows are the best practices in dealing with at-risk and delinquent behavior among 

youth. Obviously, there are time constraints that make it impossible to address 

these issues in any depth, but I will attempt to highlight the most significant issues 

involving youth either in, or at risk of entering, the juvenile justice system as a beginning to the work of the Congress in reauthorizing the JJDP Act. 

35

The incidence of juvenile crime 

Recent data show a dramatic reduction in the rate and seriousness of juvenile delinquency in the past ten or twelve years, contrary to the dire predictions of many 

‘‘experts’’ whose ominous writings shocked legislators into abandoning the core principles of the juvenile system. Those principles, separating delinquent youth from 

hardened criminals, treating youth as developmentally different from adults, and 

viewing young people as being inherently malleable and subject to change in a rehabilitative setting, are still fundamentally sound. Indeed, as we have learned more 

from the developmental and brain research in recent years, we know better what 

does work in turning around these young lives and correcting their behavior. There 

has been a slight upswing—barely 2 percent—in violent crime in the past year but 

it is not uniform across all categories of offending, and it may be aberrational rather 

than the beginning of a trend. (See Butts & Snyder, 2006) 

Transfer or placement of juveniles in adult courts 

One issue that needs to be addressed in the reauthorized JJDP Act is the increased use of transfer to adult court of juveniles, a practice that is unwise and contrary to much evidence regarding the implications of transfer or certification. Several recent studies, by researchers in Florida, Minnesota, New York and New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, are consistent in showing that youth transferred to adult 

court and tried as adults had higher recidivism rates, they re-offended sooner after 

release from adult institutions, and their repeat offenses were more serious than 

similar youth retained in juvenile court for the same offenses in the same or comparable jurisdictions. (Lanza-Kaduce, Frazier, Lane & Bishop, 2002; Fagan, 1991; 

Mayers, 2003; Podkopacz & Feld, 1996; Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2005) Thus, 

treatment as an adult created a greater risk for community safety in the long term 

than did juvenile treatment. A Miami Herald study of the Florida experience in 

2001 concluded that ‘‘[s]ending a juvenile to prison increased by 35 percent the odds 

he’ll re-offend within a year of release.’’ (Greene & Dougherty, 2001) 

Juveniles incarcerated in adult correctional institutions are also at greater risk 

of assaults, both sexual and physical. Studies show that such youth are five times 

as likely to report being a victim of rape, twice as likely to be beaten by staff, and 

50% more likely to be assaulted with a weapon than youth in juvenile facilities and 

they are eight times more likely to commit suicide. (Audi, 2000; Forst, Fagan & 

Vivona, 1989) Judges should have broad discretion in sentencing adolescents, even 

when they are tried and treated as adults. Juveniles involved in delinquent activity 

frequently have less culpability than the adults they are associated with in such behavior, they may be a lookout rather than a triggerman, and yet much legislation 

enacted in the past two decades denies juvenile courts the power to discriminate 

among different levels of involvement and different kinds of behavior. As Bob 

Schwartz of the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia is fond of saying, Oliver Twist, 

the ‘‘Artful Dodger,’’ Bill Sikes, and Fagin were not equally culpable in their criminal activity in Dickensian London, but they are treated as such in many state laws 

and some federal legislation. 

Two very recent reports highlight the dangers in trying and treating juveniles as 

adults in the courts and in corrections. The Campaign for Youth Justice gives an 

outstanding overview of the issues in its March report entitled THE CONSEQUENCES AREN’T MINOR: THE IMPACT OF TRYING YOUTH AS ADULTS 

AND STRATEGIES FOR REFORM (Campaign for Youth Justice, 2007), and the 

Task Force on Community Preventive Services of the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention reinforced the recommendations in an important report published in 

the American Journal of Preventive Medicine in April. The CDC task force in particular criticized the belief that the fear of adult treatment had a deterrent effect 

on youth behavior and agreed with the research on enhanced post-release offending 

by young people tried as adults. (McGowan et al, 2007) 

Detention reform and DMC 

Two issues that have received a lot of attention in the states and from private 

foundations have been the disproportionate contact between the processes of the juvenile and adult justice systems and minority youth and the overuse of secure detention facilities for young people awaiting trial. The Annie E. Casey Foundation 

has worked with several states and many localities in reducing the use of secure 

placements by the judicious use of objective assessment instruments in determining 

who should be locked up awaiting trial, either because they are high risks for flight 

or for re-offending if they remain free in the community. And, since minority youth 

tend to be detained in disproportionate numbers, these new strategies help to address DMC issues. Likewise, a greater focus in the Act on transfer or placement in 

adult courts may have a beneficial impact on DMC problems because policies that 

36

increase the transfer of juveniles to adult court also have a disproportionate impact 

on children of color. Recent studies have shown that more than seven out of every 

ten youth admitted to adult facilities across the country were youth of color, and 

minority youth are more likely to be treated as adults that white youth charged 

with the same offenses. (Poe-Yamagata, 2000; Ziedenberg; Males & Macallair, 2002; 

Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2005) 

Language should be included in the Act to encourage states to reduce the number 

of children unnecessarily or inappropriately placed in secure pretrial detention. The 

new language should encourage states to enact legislation that requires that secure 

pretrial detention be based on the criteria of public safety and risk of flight from 

the court’s jurisdiction, set and adhere to guidelines for expedited case processing, 

and encourage states to develop and use appropriate alternatives to secure pretrial 

detention for juveniles who pose no immediate risk of public safety or risk of flight. 

An alarmingly high number of juveniles accused of crime are detained in secure detention centers before trial although they have been charged with only nonviolent, 

relatively minor offenses. Many of these are youth who have untreated drug abuse 

or mental health problems or are minority youth. Secure pretrial detention in these 

cases is both costly and detrimental to the youth. Juveniles placed in alternative 

pre-trial programs benefit from better mental health assessments and treatment 

and stronger connections with family, school, religious, and community supports. 

Gangs 

Much attention has been given to the incidence of gang-related violence and the 

involvement of young people in these gangs and their activities. Transfer to adult 

court and the use of mandatory minimum sentences have often been advocated for 

impacting on youth gang activity. However, the research does not support the efficacy of either of these approaches and placing juveniles in adult facilities largely 

dominated by gangs would seem to exacerbate the problem. A report released in 

2004 by Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, a law enforcement-based group, points to the 

effectiveness of many current programs in preventing gangs—at the local and state 

level—and in interdicting violent gang activity. That report, CAUGHT IN THE 

CROSSFIRE: ARRESTING GANG VIOLENCE BY INVESTING IN KIDS, offers 

much useful advice about programs that work with the help of federal investment 

in anti-gang programs through the JJDPA and other entities. 

Sex offenders 

Sex offenders seem to have become the modern equivalent of lepers and there is 

a tendency to lump juveniles in with adults who prey on young children when it 

comes to harsh punishments and mandatory registration laws. However, research 

does not support the inclusion of adolescents in such strategies since juveniles who 

commit illegal sexual behavior are amenable to treatment and rehabilitation and 

they are a very heterogeneous population that should not be lumped with adults, 

and they should be processed through the juvenile justice system. (Pierce and 

Bonner, 2004) The National Center on Sexual Behavior of Youth at the University 

of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, an OJJDP project, has been responsible for 

much of this research and these conclusions, and Frank Zimring at the University 

of California Law School, Berkeley, has published research that reinforces their 

findings and recommendations. (Zimring, 2004) 

Both the Center and Professor Zimring have pointed to the extremely low incidence of re-offending by young people who engage in illegal sexual behavior. (See 

also Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, 2006) 

Effective prevention strategies and treatment of juvenile offenders 

We have more research-based information today about what works and what 

doesn’t work in preventing delinquent behavior and in treating juvenile offenders 

who have violated the law. In October of 2004, the National Institutes of Health 

(NIH) convened an independent ‘‘state-of-the-science’’ panel for a conference to address the important issues of preventing violence and related heath-risking social 

behaviors in adolescents, and the panel issued a significant report of importance to 

all those who make policy governing juvenile programs, and it is rather remarkable 

that this report has not received more attention than it has. The panel concluded 

that ‘‘get tough’’ programs that rely on ‘‘scare tactics’’ for the purpose of preventing 

children and adolescents from engaging in violent behavior are not only ineffective, 

but may actually make the problem worse. The panel, which consisted of thirteen 

distinguished experts from a variety of disciplines, and which was charged with assessing the available evidence on preventing violence and other risky behaviors on 

the part of adolescents, released its report that same month summarizing its assessment of the current research. 

37

The panel found that many residential ‘‘get tough’’ programs, including group detention centers, boot camps and other similar residential programs, often exacerbate 

existing problems among adolescent youth by grouping those with delinquent tendencies together, where ‘‘the more sophisticated instruct the more naive.’’ Similarly, 

it also concluded that practice of transferring increasing numbers of juveniles to the 

adult criminal justice system noted above also can be counterproductive, resulting 

in greater violence among incarcerated youth and increased recidivism when they 

are ultimately released. 

The panel concluded that ‘‘a number of intervention programs have been demonstrated to be effective through randomized controlled trials.’’ and it spotlighted 

two particular programs that it found are clearly effective in reducing arrests and 

out-of-home placements: Functional Family Therapy, and Multisystemic Therapy. 

Among the significant characteristics that these two programs had in common are 

a focus on developing social competency skills, a long-term approach rather than a 

‘‘simple’’ short-term ‘‘fix,’’ and the involvement of the family as well as the youth 

in the program. The two programs maintained positive results for nearly four years 

after the treatment ended. Several other programs were identified that were classified as ‘‘effective with reservation,’’ meaning that they had only internal rather than 

external randomized controlled trials: Big Brothers Big Sisters (reductions in hitting), Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care, Nurse Family Partnership (reduction in incarceration), Project Towards No Drug Abuse (reduction in weapon carrying), Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (reduction in peer aggression), 

and Brief Strategic Family Therapy (reduction in conduct disorder, socialized aggression). The Evidence Report/Technology Assessment accompanying the panel conclusions contains probably the most extensive bibliography as of October, 2004, of 

the existing literature on violence prevention and treatment with a useful analysis 

of the studies and programs. (AHRQ Publication No. 04-E032-2 (October 2004)) 

The importance of research and its dissemination under the JJDP Act 

As the unique partnership between the federal government and the states relates 

to research on best or promising practices, I urge the Congress to consider ways to 

provide resources for field-based and field-strengthening research and evaluation 

that will refine and expand the array of best and evidence-based practices in delinquency prevention, intervention and treatment. Issues that states are hungry to address include the following among others: 

• effective approaches for diverse cultural and linguistic groups, as well as rural 

populations; 

• innovations to guard against bias and racial/ethnic disparities; 

• proactive approaches to truancy prevention; 

• ways to reduce school referrals to law enforcement; 

• effective approaches for positive family engagement; 

• analyses of what youth are being sent to adult criminal court and what happens 

to them in that system; and 

• proven approaches to community and school reintegration for youth who have 

been recruited into criminal street gangs. 

Please also look to strengthen the implementation of Part 5653 Sec. 243 of the 

JJDP Act which addresses research, demonstration and evaluation and authorizes 

the OJJDP administrator to ‘‘conduct, encourage, and coordinate research and evaluation into any aspect of juvenile delinquency, particularly with regard to new programs and methods which seek to strengthen and preserve families or which show 

promise of making a contribution toward the prevention and treatment of juvenile 

delinquency.’’ Very explicit language is now included, yet most of the functions in 

this section are not being addressed. Perhaps because the OJJDP Administrator is 

given too much discretion to direct the limited resources now appropriated and designated for research under the JJDP Act to topics and questions that have little to 

do with the goals of the Act. 

Therefore, please consider simple language changes in the JJDP Act to state that 

the OJJDP Administrator shall rather than may provide support for research, replication and high fidelity adaptation of evidenced-based practice models, across a 

wide range of racial, ethnic, geographic and societal circumstances—urban and 

rural, both in and outside of institutional settings for applications with many populations, girls, Native American youth, Youth in the U.S. territories, Latino youth, 

African American youth, and others. Insist that the research and findings be made 

widely available to the public and backed-up with training and technical assistance 

to the parties principally charged with JJDPA implementation—state advisory 

group members and state juvenile justice specialists. 

38

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Again, speaking as a long-time member of a State Advisory Group and as one active in both the Coalition for Juvenile Justice and the Federal Advisory Committee 

on Juvenile Justice, I urge you to ensure a vibrant, rehabilitatively-focused ‘‘home’’ 

for juvenile justice within the U.S. Department of Justice at OJJDP—with an administration guided by experts and whose actions are both timely and transparent 

to the public. 

As cited in the recent Congressional Research Service Report (April 2007) on the 

JJDP Act, the Act itself has ‘‘trended away from having the rehabilitation of juveniles as its main goal’’ turning instead, along with the majority of states, toward 

a counter-productive emphasis on increased punishment. Simultaneously, OJJDP 

rules and regulations for states to receive federal justice grants have increasingly 

prohibited staff and state juvenile justice advisors from developing appropriate policy and practice models in communication with elected officials. 

Since 2002, juvenile justice appropriations to the states—that support important 

priorities under the JJDP Act such as: 

• continuums of care; 

• alternatives to detention; 

• effective prevention initiatives; 

• and restorative justice have fallen by nearly 50% and the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), which has recently failed to advocate for its own purposes, has seen its budget slashed to one-fifth of its former status. 

In addition, with effective leadership and oversight by Congress, OJJDP’s Federal 

Coordinating Committee on Juvenile Justice can be more effective to develop crosssystem and cross-agency integration of programs, policies and services in education, 

employment, child welfare, children’s mental health and substance abuse prevention. 

Effective and state-responsive leadership at OJJDP would also undoubtedly raise 

concerns about why OJJDP has disengaged from and disavowed the Coalition for 

Juvenile Justice—which serves as the national leadership association for the State 

Advisory Groups—as called for in Section 5633 (f)(Part A-E) of the Act itself. It has 

been damaging to prevention and intervention efforts and the promotion of best and 

promising practices in delinquency prevention to allow the OJJDP Administrator to 

ignore the letter and the spirit of the statute. 

Thank you for your attention and for your resolve to address these continuing 

issues presented by juvenile justice. This year is not only the year for reauthorization of the JJDP Act, it is also the fortieth anniversary of the United States Supreme Court’s historic decision in In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), in which the basic 

guarantees of due process were extended to youth in juvenile and family courts. A 

timely and thoughtful process for making needed amendments and reauthorizing 

the Act would be a fitting way to celebrate that anniversary. And the reauthorization process has always been the occasion for meaningful bipartisan cooperation and 

collaboration, and that would be pleasant as well. 

REFERENCES

Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE 

ON CHILDREN WITH SEXUAL BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS (2006). 

Audi, Tamara, ‘‘Prison at 14: Teenage Girls Serve Time with Adult Inmates,’’ Detroit Free Press, July 10, 2000. 

Butts, Jeffrey A. & Howard N. Snyder, TOO SOON TO TELL: DECIPHERING RECENT TRENDS IN YOUTH VIOLENCE (Chapin Hall Issue Brief, University 

of Chicago, 2006) 

Campaign for Youth Justice, THE CONSEQUENCES AREN’T MINOR: THE IMPACT OF TRYING YOUTH AS ADULTS AND STRATEGIES FOR REFORM 

(2007) 

Coalition for Juvenile Justice, CHILDHOOD ON TRIAL: THE FAILURE OF TRYING AND SENTENCING YOUTH IN ADULT COURTS (2005). 

Fagan, Jeffrey, THE COMPARATIVE IMPACTS OF JUVENILE AND CRIMINAL 

COURT SANCTIONS ON ADOLESCENT FELONY OFFENDERS (National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, 1991) 

Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE: ARRESTING GANG 

VIOLENCE BY INVESTING IN KIDS (2004). 

Forst, Martin, Jeffrey Fagan & T. Scott Vivona, ‘‘ Youth in Prisons and Training 

Schools: Perceptions and Consequences of the Treatment-Custody Dichotomy,’’ 

40 Juvenile & Family Court Journal (1989). 

39

Greene, Ronnie & Geoff Dougherty, ‘‘Kids in Prison: Tried as Adults, They Find 

Trouble Instead of Rehabilitation,’’ Miami Herald, March 18, 2001. 

Lanza-Kaduce, Lonn, Charles E. Frazier, Jodi Lane & Donna Bishop, JUVENILE 

TRANSFERS TO CRIMINAL COURT STUDY: FINAL REPORT (Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2002). 

Males, Michael & Daniel Macallair, THE COLOR OF JUSTICE: AN ANALYSIS OF 

JUVENILE ADULT COURT TRANSFERS IN CALIFORNIA (Building Blocks 

for Youth, 2000). 

Mayers, David L., ADULT CRIME, ADULT TIME: PUNISHING VIOLENT YOUTH 

IN THE ADULT CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM (Sage Publications, 2003). 

McGowan, Angela, Dr Robert Hahn, Dr Akiva Liberman, Dr Alex Crosby, Dr Mindy 

Fullilove, Dr Robert Johnson, Dr Eve Moscicicki, Dr LeShawdra Price, Dr Susan 

Snyder, Dr Farris Tuma, Jessica Lowry, Dr Peter Briss, Dr Stella Cory, Dr 

Glenda Stone, Task Force on Community Preventive Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ‘‘Effects on Violence of Laws and Policies Facilitating the Transfer of Juveniles from the Juvenile Justice System to the Adult 

Justice System,’’ 32 (4S) American Journal of Preventive Medicine S7-S28 

(2007). 

National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference, PREVENTING VIOLENCE AND RELATED HEALTH-RISKING SOCIAL BEHAVIORS IN ADOLESCENTS (2004). 

Pierce, Keri & Dr Barbara Bonner, ‘‘Adolescent Sex Offenders: 10 Essential Questions Answered,’’ Juvenile and Family Justice Today 16 (Summer, 2004). 

Podkopacz, Marcy R. & Barry Feld, ‘‘The End of the Line: An Empirical Study of 

Judicial Waiver,’’ 86 Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 449 (1996). 

Poe-Yamagata, E., AND JUSTICE FOR SOME (National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2000). 

Ziedenberg, Jason, DRUGS AND DISPARITY: THE RACIAL IMPACT OF ILLINOIS’ PRACTICE OF TRANSFERRING YOUNG ADULT OFFENDERS TO 

ADULT COURT (Building Blocks for Youth, 2002). 

Zimring, Franklin, AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY: LEGAL RESPONSES TO ADOLESCENT SEXUAL OFFENDING (2004). 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Professor. 

Dr. Woolard? 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER WOOLARD, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR 

OF PSYCHOLOGY, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY 

Ms. WOOLARD. Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to 

speak with you all this afternoon. 

Today, briefly, I would like to share with you some of what behavioral science research can contribute to this policy discussion 

about our responses to youth. 

First, adolescents are developmentally different from adults in 

ways that are critically relevant to our discussion of delinquency 

and crime. 

This will not be a news flash to many parents of adolescents, or 

those of who remember our own adolescence, that kids are different. But I am here to say that the news is, this is not only based 

in personal experience or stereotype, but in science. 

The advances in behavioral and brain research already mentioned support this fundamental tenet of the juvenile justice system 

and the JJDPA. 

To illustrate, I will focus briefly on two major aspects of adolescents’ brain and behavior functioning. 

The socio-emotional network of the brain refers to systems responsible for emotion, rewards, social processing of information, 

which we know undergo major changes in early adolescence at the 

same time that we see behaviors that include increased sensationVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:07 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-55\36466.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
40

seeking, increased and easier emotional arousal in young teens and 

increased attentiveness to social information and the influence of 

peers. 

So, adolescence is characterized by a social-emotional system 

that is easily aroused and highly sensitive to social feedback. 

At the same time, adolescence is characterized by a still immature cognitive control system. Although intellectual ability peaks by 

about age 16, the capacity for planning, future orientation and the 

ability to regulate oneself involve portions of the brain that continue to develop well into young adulthood. 

These areas, sometimes called the CEO of the brain, activate 

during what we might consider mature or deliberate thinking—the 

abilities to identify and consider future consequences, understand 

possible sequences of events and control impulses. 

As a result, adolescents are less able to control impulses, less 

able to resist pressure from peers, less likely to think ahead, and 

more driven by the thrill of rewards. 

Moreover, the effects of immaturity are probably even greater 

outside the control of the laboratory. Compared to adults, juveniles’ 

cognitive capacity is undermined by the socio-emotional system I 

was talking about in particular circumstances—circumstances that 

are not controlled, not deliberate and not calm, circumstances that 

likely encompass much of the adolescent delinquency risk. 

Theories suggest that with maturation to adulthood comes the 

integration of these two systems, bringing their influence into 

greater balance and perhaps contributing to the reduction of risky 

behavior that we see in adulthood. 

Now, let me be clear. The advances in brain imaging techniques 

are exciting and offer windows into the structure and function of 

the brain that we could only dream about. 

However, this research is still at its early stages. I cannot definitively tell you that certain regions of the brain are directly responsible for risky behavior, immature thinking or delinquent acts. 

What we can tell you, however, is that our initial brain research 

is consistent with the decades of behavioral research, documenting 

important differences in the cognitive capacities, psychosocial development and behavior of adolescents compared to adults. 

Now, there are certainly adults who engage in risky behavior or 

act immaturely. They crucial distinction based on developmental 

research, though, is that adolescents as a class are more likely to 

demonstrate these deficiencies due to normative development that 

is incomplete. Most will mature into law-abiding, productive adult 

citizens. 

As a result, the research I describe on developmental differences 

challenges policymakers and practitioners to sort and manage a 

young population that can appear simultaneously adult-like and 

immature. 

So, what guidance can developmental research provide? 

I believe that the body of behavioral and brain research calls into 

question assumptions made by some that juveniles are simply miniature adults, because they are capable of committing certain offenses. Prior to age 16, they are different intellectually and emotionally. After age 16, they are still different emotionally. 

41

While many laws allowing or requiring juveniles to be tried as 

adults use age-based determinations, we really need to consider developmental maturity. 

The importance of separating youth from adults in correctional 

settings cannot be overemphasized. Used for a shortened time perspective, for example, can mean that the same amount of time in 

isolation for a disciplinary infraction can have a more severe or excessive impact on youth than it does adults. 

One study comparing youth in the adult system to the juvenile 

system found that juvenile sanctions had an affect on youths there, 

because they gained something—skills or hope. Adult sanctions use 

reported tended to have an effect, because they cost them something—a loss of hope, safety or respect. 

It is incumbent upon us to ask questions about outcomes that extend beyond recidivism to pathways of positive development, and 

the JJDP emphasis on prevention is crucial. These findings support 

the importance of a developmentally appropriate system that simultaneously works to prevent and reduce offending, while offering 

the opportunity for youth to follow a successful and productive developmental pathway. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Woolard follows:]

Prepared Statement of Jennifer L. Woolard, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of 

Psychology, Georgetown University 

Madame Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families 

and Communities, and the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this afternoon about the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. As a developmental and community 

psychologist who specializes in adolescence and the law I share with you some of 

what behavioral science research can contribute to the policy discussion about responses to youth. 

First, adolescents are developmentally different from adults in ways that are critical to behaviors that are relevant to the justice system. Although the belief that 

adolescents are different may appear patently obvious to parents of adolescents or 

those of us who recall our own youth, the critical point here is that advances in behavioral and brain research support a fundamental tenet of the juvenile justice system itself—that these differences are critical to behaviors relevant to the justice system. In my brief time I will focus on two major aspects of adolescents’ functioning—

what my colleague Laurence Steinberg calls the cognitive control network and the 

socio-emotional network. 

The socio-emotional network refers to brain systems responsible for emotion, rewards, and social processing. Imaging research shows that these brain regions undergo major changes in early adolescence that are related in part to hormonal 

changes of puberty. These changes coincide with characteristics of adolescence such 

as increased sensation-seeking, increased/easier emotional arousal, and increased 

attentiveness to social information. So, adolescence is a time characterized by a 

socio-emotional system that is easily aroused and highly sensitive to social feedback. 

At the same time, adolescence is characterized by a still-immature cognitive control system. When we talk about the cognitive system we’re not just talking about 

intellectual ability, which does increase throughout childhood and adolescence but 

really reaches its peak at about age 16—perhaps disappointing news to those of us 

well beyond those years. We’re also talking about planning, future orientation, and 

the ability to regulate oneself. These critical abilities involve prefrontal and anterior 

cingulate portions of the brain that continue to develop well into young adulthood. 

These areas are responsible for what we might consider mature or deliberate thinking—the abilities to identify and consider future consequences, understand possible 

sequences of events, and control impulses. 

As a result, adolescents are less able to control impulses, less able to resist pressure from peers, less likely to think ahead, and more driven by the thrill of rewards. 

Adolescents’ psychosocial functioning, even at the age of 18, is significantly less mature than that of individuals in their mid-20s. Moreover, the effects of immaturity 

42

*Although even in this situation, it is not clear that these youth would be fully mature in 

the ways described above. The combination of serious crime with perceived lack of amenability 

or risk to public safety is neither a necessary nor sufficient guarantee of mature development. 

are probably even greater outside the control of a laboratory. For example, under 

conditions of emotional arousal or stress juveniles’ cognitive capacity to think like 

adults is undermined by that socioemotional system. Risky behavior may be produced by these competing systems but in adolescence it’s not a fair fight—the 

socioemotional system has an advantage in the circumstances that are not controlled, deliberate, and calm—circumstances that may encompass much of adolescent delinquency. Theory suggests that with maturation comes the integration of the 

two systems, bringing their influence into greater balance and perhaps contributing 

to the reduction in risky behavior we see in adulthood. 

Let me be clear—the advances in brain imaging techniques such as Functional 

Magnetic Resonance Imagine are exciting and offer windows into the structure and 

function of the brain. However, research is still at the early stages. We cannot definitively tell you that certain regions are ‘‘responsible’’ for risky behavior, immature 

thinking, or delinquent acts. It cannot be used to evaluate individual development, 

assess guilt or innocence, or give a probability of recidivism or responsiveness to 

treatment. It cannot tell us where adolescence ends and adulthood begins. What it 

does do, however, is tell us that our initial brain research is consistent with the decades of research documenting important differences in the cognitive capacities, psychosocial development, and behavior of adolescents compared to adults. 

The research on developmental differences challenges policymakers and practitioners to sort and manage a young population that can appear simultaneously 

adult-like and immature. Because it is a period of broad and fundamental change, 

adolescence is a time of incredible diversity within and among youth. Individuals 

may differ from each other, but the same adolescent may be more or less advanced 

in various specific capacities. For example, he may be able to think in quite sophisticated ways, but be emotionally immature. Also, age is not a consistent marker of 

maturity. Two fifteen-year-olds may vary widely in their physical appearances, cognitive abilities and social experiences. Adolescents face common developmental tasks 

but approach them in different ways and at different rates; variability is the norm. 

Out of this variability, we know that most adolescents mature into law-abiding, productive adult citizens. So, what guidance can developmental research provide? 

I believe the body of behavioral and brain research calls into question assumptions made by some that juveniles are simply ‘‘miniature adults’’ because they are 

capable of committing certain offenses. For example, while many laws allowing or 

requiring juveniles to be tried as adults facilitate categorical distinctions based on 

physical age, the expressed rationales for transfer legislation are tied to developmental maturity—which are often not equivalent. If the historical intent of transfer 

laws were met, i.e., the removal of a small number of serious offenders who are 

unamenable to treatment or pose a serious risk to public safety, one might argue 

that the youth who end up in the criminal justice system indeed represent the mature, hardened criminal for whom development differences are nonexistent or irrelevant.* In contrast, the expansion of transfer mechanisms has resulted in a larger, 

more heterogeneous population with many for whom that maturation is likely not 

yet complete. 

The reality of managing young offenders it is not simply a matter of adjusting existing adult programs and practices; rather, it requires a qualitatively different approach. The importance of separating youth from adults in correctional settings cannot be overemphasized. Youths’ foreshortened time perspective, for example, can 

mean that the same amount of time in isolation imposed for disciplinary sanctions 

for adults can have a more severe or excessive impact on youth. One study comparing the perceptions of youth transferred to the adult system with those retained 

in the juvenile system found that over 60% of the youth rated prison as having a 

negative impact on their attitudes and behaviors, in part because staff treated them 

negatively or apathetically. Youths reported that juvenile sanctions had an effect because they gained something (e.g., skills, hope, services); adult sanctions tended to 

have an effect on attitudes and behavior because they cost something (e.g., loss of 

hope, safety, respect). 

It is incumbent upon researchers and policymakers to ask questions about outcomes that extend beyond recidivism to include pathways of development (e.g., appropriate relationship formation, individual capacities) and positive engagement in 

the larger society (e.g., employment, contributions to society). I applaud your interest in these issues and encourage you to consider the resources that developmental 

research can offer through systematic theory and evidence. These findings, at a minimum, support the importance of a developmentally appropriate juvenile justice sysVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:07 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-55\36466.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
43

tem that simultaneously works to prevent and reduce offending while augmenting 

the opportunity for youth to follow a successful and productive developmental pathway. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

And I appreciate all the testimony. 

Being that we only get 5 minutes also to ask the questions, make 

our statement and to receive your answers, it is always hard when 

you have a panel that is offering so much information. 

So, I guess what I will say to the whole panel, if you could, on 

very short answers, if you have them, is that, as we go through the 

reauthorization, you are all experts in your own little way on dealing with juvenile justice. 

What do you think is probably the most important thing that we, 

as members of Congress, that are going to be doing the reauthorization—we always know it is money; we already know that—but 

what other areas do you think that we need to work on? 

Mr. Johnson, could you start off? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam Chair, I really believe that the first thing 

that you could do is put a premium on prevention efforts, regardless of what that is. 

As the people have said here today, prevention is really—and it 

is something that I have found changes people’s lives, whether it 

is in medicine, mental health and so forth. 

The other thing I think you could do, and probably the strongest 

thing you could do is make sure that the office of OJJDP has the 

ability to provide states with the technical assistance and the support they need to bring this out to a broader level of people. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. My background before I came here was 

a nurse. So, prevention has always been my key word on almost 

everything that I do here, with education and everything else. 

Mr. Freed? 

Mr. FREED. I would suggest that you demand information on 

what works, and fund that. Fund the most effective programs that 

people can describe to you that work. 

Early intervention to me is the key, whether it is after a child 

commits his or her first offense, or whether it is before. 

I mean, I spend too much time seeing people come through the 

system, going back in jail. I can name you families in town and in 

the county that they keep coming through the system. There are 

some people we are not going to reach. We need to reach those kids 

before they get in there, or the first time they get in there. 

So, I would say, as much intervention as possible, as early as 

possible. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Specifically, Madam Chair, in the current 

iteration of the JJDP Act, too many core purpose areas are listed 

as possible uses for federal funding in Section 223, describing the 

requirements for state plans. 

Regrettably, some core purposes have little to do with effective 

support for compliance with core requirements or the promotion of 

best practices. 

Please consider ways to trim back the current laundry list of divergent possibilities, so as to emphasize and elevate compliance 

with the core requirements and initiatives that strive to limit a 

44

young person’s court involvement out of home placement or any 

sort of confinement while ensuring community safety. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, judge. 

Mr. Jones? 

Mr. JONES. I think that there should be more programs like the 

CISP all over the United States, because everybody makes mistakes. And not only should you punish people, but at least give 

them a chance and teach them ways to better themselves. 

Because where I am from, you see a lot of things. And usually 

you follow your environment, you adapt to your environment. 

And this program, it is a good way to have everyone—it is a good 

way to show everybody that there is another way to do things, and 

you can get whatever you want, but there is a legal way to do it. 

I think this program is very good for people who are like me. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Jones. 

Professor? 

Mr. SHEPHERD. Well, I certainly agree with what others have 

said, and especially the fact of strengthening OJJDP and increasing congressional oversight to make sure that what is communicated to the states is evidence-based. 

In light of the anniversary of Gault, and as a law teacher, I think 

emphasis on the competency of counsel is very important. Another 

hat I wear is as chair of the Virginia Indigent Defense Commission. 

And we have spent 2 years developing standards of practice for 

lawyers in juvenile court. And they were promulgated on April 1st, 

and govern every lawyer who practices in juvenile court in Virginia. 

We are one of only two states that have done this, and I would 

like to see OJJDP directed to help develop similar standards of 

practice that can then be tailored in each state to local practice and 

raise the bar for representation of children, not only on what happens in the courtroom, but on programs that work. 

A lawyer that knows what works, even if the juvenile is found 

guilty, that kid is going to be a round peg placed in a round hole. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Doctor? 

Ms. WOOLARD. I agree, as well. 

And I want to encourage you all to consider examining the capacity of OJJDP’s research portfolio. Much of what each of the speakers here has said is driven in part by evidence-based, systematic 

research, either to understand risk factors, protective factors or to 

help understand what works. 

And I think research, partnered with those folks that are on the 

front line, is going to help ensure that OJJDP and this act could 

drive the research agenda, rather than simply waiting for others to 

respond to its needs. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Again, I want to thank all of you. 

I spend an awful lot of time in my schools when I am home on 

Mondays, and seeing so many of my young people, who I think are 

terrific kids. We also see an increase in gangs all over Long Island. 

And a lot of these kids are good kids, but they unfortunately got 

into—they are really looking for companionship. 

45

I have always been one to say, if we could start at the grade 

schools, start prevention in grade schools, then we would not be 

handling the problems that we are handling now. 

After-school programs I think are terrific. 

Through other committee work that we have done, we have seen, 

when we were looking just even at obesity and nutrition with children. Obviously, in the underserved areas we see worse conditions 

than that. 

But physical education every single day helped those children, 

number one, focus better. Certainly had a better mental outlook 

and tended to have higher marks and did not get into trouble. 

So, all of our community work, I think, does pull together. Because I look at things in a circle. How does it start, and how do 

we complete that circle, so that we have a complete child and hopefully a complete future? 

I think it is extremely important that we get this right, not only 

for the economical security of this nation in the future, but even 

for homeland security future. 

With that, I yield to Mr. Platts for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Again, my sincere thanks to all of you for your outstanding testimony here at the hearing, as well as your written testimony. All 

of you in some way touched on the issue of prevention and emphasize that. 

And Mr. Johnson, I think in your written you said it well. It 

says, ‘‘At its heart, the JJDPA is a prevention act,’’ and what we 

are after. 

Along those lines, Dr. Woolard, in your discussion you talked to 

us very much about the biological developmental differences, a lot 

of which relates to mental health and the challenges of our youth. 

Two of our colleagues, Patrick Kennedy and Jim Ramstad, are 

the leaders on mental health parity, which is a wholly different but 

very much related issue, I think, that a number of the juveniles 

that we are dealing with and maybe more serious juvenile 

delinquents have mental health problems. 

How would you rate the importance of, as we go through the reauthorization, of targeting additional assistance to mental health, 

the shortage of mental health providers in the broad sense, and 

then specifically in the school settings, to a greater number of 

counselors, elementary school counselors and middle school counselors? 

Ms. WOOLARD. Well, I would agree that it is of critical importance. And I think if we take the holistic approach that Madam 

Chair was talking about just a moment ago, we see that we have 

historically been reactive with mental health services. We have 

waited for people to ask or cry for help or demonstrate for help. 

And I think if we take the prevention approach we have been 

talking about here, then the notion that there would be additional 

services, both within the juvenile justice system—we know, for example, that the vast majority of young people who are in pretrial 

detention exhibit at least one type—symptoms of at least one type 

of significant diagnosis. And that is often not met through treatment at that time. 

46

That if we not only look at resources there during that system, 

but as you suggest, if we think about the other contexts in which 

kids are living those lives and families living those lives, school is 

certainly a critical intervention point at which we could see beefing 

up the ability to provide mental health services so that we could 

be talking about prevention and early intervention, rather than 

seeing these full-blown mental health problems we see when they 

are older. 

Mr. PLATTS. And we certainly are making progress. I know, you 

know, my children in the same school district I grew up in are now 

going into the third and fifth grade. And in our community at large 

in central Pennsylvania, it is more the norm to have counselors in 

the elementary schools, to have the school psychologist districtwide, but very involved. 

I do not remember that at all. There was no counselor in my elementary school, as there is now with my children’s school. 

But I am also in an area that has got more significant resources 

for our public schools. And I do not think that is the norm across 

the country, to have that access. So, it is something I think maybe 

we need to look at. 

District Attorney Freed, David, you talked about the Nurse-Family Partnership program and legislation that I am a co-sponsor of, 

the education begins at home. 

Again, very much, when we talk early education and prevention, 

this is about as early as you get. It is helping new parents learn 

the skills of parenting, so that they can provide that stability and 

support and example at home. 

In your work as district attorney—and I know there is not an 

exact answer you can give—but how would you classify the family 

settings of the juveniles you come into contact with, and more likely, not having a positive example at home, versus less, you know, 

common? 

Mr. FREED. It is far more likely that there are problems in the 

home with the juveniles that we see come before us. 

You are always going to have the kid that went bad. You do not 

understand the explanation of how this kid could end up behaving 

that way. 

But generally what we see are the juveniles are acting out, because of some issue in the home, because of abuse, because of neglect, or because of, frankly, a complete lack of supervision or 

meaningful guidance by the parent, or more particularly, in our 

more crime-prone areas, the aunts or grandmother who is raising 

the child. 

A lack of meaningful male role models is a huge problem in our 

community. That is why I think after-school programs, such as 

Boys and Girls Clubs, scouting—anything you can think of to support that would be perfect. 

The Nurse-Family Partnership, one of the main reasons I support it is because it starts as early as you can start. 

You know, I talked about Quincy and Jordan, and I am happy 

that I could put those names on the Congressional Record and they 

will be there forever, because I honor and tribute those boys every 

day of my life. 

47

And I am convinced that if we could have helped out those families, Quincy would not have been starved to death and Jordan 

would not have been beaten to death. They would have been taken 

out or the parents would have known better. 

Mr. PLATTS. And I think that is one of the important lessons of 

your collective testimony. The investment we make up front, 

whether it is the home visitation programs or other prevention, you 

know, mental health counseling, that most importantly, the impact 

on the lives of these children and, in a broader sense, the community, will be dramatic. 

And we have to understand, it is hard to do here in Washington, 

because the way we budget everything is we are only going to look 

at what we are going to spend this year, not what we are going 

to—you could probably save next year and 5 years and 10 years. 

And so often, the focus on prevention gets short-circuited, because 

it does not work from the way our budgeting process works. 

But we need to get beyond that and understand that investing 

now will save taxpayers money down the road much more and do 

right by the youth of our country. 

So, my thanks to all of you again for your testimony. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. And I thank you, Mr. Platts. But I am 

telling you, we are going to work on trying to get the money where 

it goes to. 

Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

We have heard—I appreciated the testimony from all of the witnesses. We have heard that prevention programs work. We have 

heard about the crime reduction with Boys and Girls Clubs, Big 

Brothers, Big Sisters, the Nurse-Family Partnership, a 60 percent 

reduction in crime. So, we obviously know what to do. 

I would ask Professor Shepherd, just about every jurisdiction in 

the country tries the most heinous criminals as adults already. 

Is there any question in the literature that the editorial this 

morning in the ‘‘New York Times’’ which cites a study that says 

children handled in adult courts and confined in adult jails committed more violent crime than children processed through the traditional juvenile system? 

Is there any question in the literature, in the research, that trying more juveniles as adults—those not now tried as adults, but 

trying more juveniles as adults—will increase crime? 

Mr. SHEPHERD. Mr. Congressman, the research is pretty consistent. I am not aware of a single study that indicates that trying 

juveniles as adults protects society or impacts positively on the behavior of those juveniles. 

One of the earliest studies was done by Dr. Jeffrey Fagan in the 

late 1980s for OJJDP, and it was not published by OJJDP for a 

number of years. It was suppressed. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, let me ask you another quick question. 

Treating juveniles life without parole, do other countries than 

the United States subject juveniles to life without parole? 

Mr. SHEPHERD. Mr. Congressman, as you are probably aware, 

the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child treats 

life without parole just like capital punishment. 

48

And we are the only nation in the world that has not ratified 

that convention. So, we are the only nation that does it as a practice. 

Mr. SCOTT. Let me ask Dr. Woolard a couple of questions, because the mental health aspects of this are extremely important. 

And there is probably no Congressman more active in mental 

health than the gentleman from Rhode Island, Representative Kennedy, who is a strong supporter of mental health. And we are just 

delighted to see him here today. 

In terms of gang policy, what deterrent effect does the criminal 

justice system have on juveniles in terms of joining gangs? 

Ms. WOOLARD. Well, Congressman, the research that I am aware 

of—and there have been a couple of different reviews that have 

looked at various strategies for intervening with kids involved in 

the systems. 

My read is that the general consensus is that programs that emphasize a deterrent approach, such as a punishment approach, 

straight-up punishment in the criminal justice system, at best do 

not reduce recidivism, and at worst they exacerbate recidivism. 

So, the research that looks at risk and protective factors for 

going into gangs talks about some of the factors that were already 

mentioned in terms of the search for connection, for companionship, for guidance that may be lacking in other areas. 

So, my read is that more appropriate intervention would be directed at those factors, rather than taking a straight-up punishment approach. 

Mr. SCOTT. Your testimony says that you rated prison as having 

a negative effect on juvenile sanctions, because the youth reported 

sanctions, juvenile sanctions have positive effects, because they 

gain something. And adult sanctions tended not to work, I guess, 

because they lost some things. 

When I was in college, I learned that positive reinforcement was 

a better behavior modifier than punishment. 

Can you translate that into what we ought to be considering for 

juvenile crime policy? 

Ms. WOOLARD. Well, I think you may have said it better than I 

could have at this point. 

One of the messages that comes out of research, which came 

from colleagues in Florida, examining and comparing matching 

kids who had stayed in the juvenile system versus those who were 

transferred, is that we can think about both opportunities and 

costs. 

And if we think about the way that we want to reduce negative 

behavior, we not only need to think about eliminating that negative 

behavior, but putting something positive in its stead. And so, the 

kinds of approaches that look at positive reinforcement or a focus 

on strength and opportunity, I think provide a more well-rounded 

approach than those that focus simply on suppression or trying to 

prevent negative behavior. 

Mr. SCOTT. And so, how should our gang reduction, juvenile justice policy reflect that? 

Ms. WOOLARD. Well, I think that by its name, gang reduction, it 

is only talking about half of the equation. And so, a gang reduction 

policy that is designed to stop kids from getting into gangs has got 

49

to examine both the reasons why they are getting in and the reasons or pathways that they might need in order to get out. And the 

pathways in order to get out have got to offer positive opportunities. 

I currently work with some local nonprofits in D.C., one in particular called Peaceaholics, groups that are addicted to peace, that 

are working with young people in the district and trying to keep 

the out of gangs. 

And one of the things that they emphasize tremendously is that 

we have got to offer the constructive opportunities for kids to either 

not go into that gang in the first place or for them to come out. 

And that it is incumbent upon us to create that context for those 

kids, rather than saying ‘‘Don’t be in a gang, but now go figure out 

what else you are supposed to do.’’

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

And now, our colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Good to have you all with us today. 

Judge Lawrence, what key factors do you see contributing to juvenile crime in New Hampshire—my favorite New England state, 

by the way; sorry about that, Mr. Kennedy—and how does the 

state address those factors? And in what ways is your courtroom 

directly or indirectly affected by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act? 

That is a three-pronged question I threw at you. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. That is fine. I am happy to answer it. I will start 

with the last part of your question first. 

My courtroom is affected through efforts of the Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention Act through a detention reform project 

that I happen to head up in the state. But we, from time to time, 

are asked to detain young people. 

And through efforts of the committee and the co-chair, we have 

developed dispositional guidelines—or a detention assessment 

screening instrument, sorry—which has allowed us to objectively 

measure the risk of a child and determine whether that child 

should be detained, as opposed to a subjective decision which has 

been made in the past. 

Generally, if a child irritated someone enough, they were detained. And if they did not irritate you enough, they were not detained. And that is not a basis to make a detention decision. 

It is interesting, when you detain a child and you have a similarly situated child—same crime, same socioeconomic background—

the child you detain has a greater chance of sinking deeper into the 

system, and ultimately a greater chance of recidivating, versus the 

child you did not detain at the front end. 

So, it is just—the system works and the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act promotes that. And OJJDP has done 

some work in the detention reform area. 

In terms of factors to reduce juvenile delinquency, it is really a 

question of—it is really sort of the analysis would be reducing the 

risk factors, but really increasing the strength factors. 

50

And in a way it is quite simple. If you set up an environment 

for the children who come before you and families, really similar 

to the environment you might like to create and to raise your own 

children in. 

We try to connect our children to the community as much as we 

can. We get them involved in as many activities as we can. We do 

homework with them when they are young. 

We do all the things that contributed to their positive element. 

And it is trying to structure an environment for the families who 

do not do that, to do that. And you do see changes. 

One of the things that we often do is, we will take a photograph 

consensually of a child and family when they come in. And 6 

months or a year later, and the affect and the demeanor of both 

the family and the child, having done some positive things with 

them, is dramatically different. 

So, you really can have an effect on whether or not delinquent 

behavior is enhanced or increases or decreases. So, those are a couple of answers to your question. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Your Honor. 

Dr. Woolard, what impact do parents have in preventing juvenile 

crime? And do parents impact the psychology of juveniles? 

I ask that, doctor, because I have known juveniles who had superb parents who become criminals. Conversely, juveniles with parents who are rotgut sorry, who are clean as mountain water. 

Ms. WOOLARD. That is right. 

Mr. COBLE. What do you say to me? 

Ms. WOOLARD. I say yes, you are right. 

I think parents are actually one of my focuses in the research 

that I do. And I want to say a couple of things in response to your 

question. 

One is, I think parents have alternately been cast as both cause 

and cure for delinquency, depending on what era we are in in juvenile justice reform. 

I think the answer is that they can serve as both. And it depends 

a lot on the circumstances. 

I think that parents are—I want to be clear that juveniles are 

accountable for their behavior. I think that one of the groups that 

does not have representation in a sense in our juvenile justice system is parents. There is no one who—they do not have the kind 

of standing to be involved in the way that we would like them to 

be involved, unless judges and courts pull them in in that way. 

So, I think we can think about not just focusing on the child, but 

focusing on that family context. Some kids are able to surmount 

very difficult circumstances and——

Mr. COBLE. And before my red light illuminates and the chairman comes after me, I want to ask Professor Shepherd a question. 

Professor, have there been any reliable studies that have identified the reasons for the decline in juvenile crime in the last 30 

years? 

Mr. SHEPHERD. Mr. Congressman, that is probably the hardest 

question that anyone could ask. There have been a lot of speculation about what causes juvenile crime to spike and what causes it 

to decline. And there is no consensus about it. 

51

You may recall, in the late 1980s, there were some very dire predictions that we were going to have a bloodbath caused by juvenile 

super-predators as we neared the year 2000, because of the children of the baby boomers. And those demographic studies proved 

to be terribly, terribly wrong. Juvenile crime went down. 

We really do not know. And I think the researchers that I have 

the most respect for, like Howard Snyder at the National Center 

for Juvenile Justice in Pittsburgh, the research arm of the National 

Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, are frank enough to 

say, we can track it, but we are not sure what the causes are. 

But there is a study going on now to try and identify and segregate out some of those factors that are significant. And hopefully, 

we will have that very soon. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Professor. 

Thank you all for your testimony. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

My colleague from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

In the short period time I need to see how many questions I can 

get in, and I would appreciate short answers, if at all possible—

not required, but appreciated. 

Judge Lawrence, in speaking of the practice of restorative justice, 

let me ask you specifically. Where do re-entry efforts fit into this 

equation of restorative justice? And how should they be weighed? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Well, first of all, I guess I would say that if you 

had less re-entry—in other words, less people having to re-enter—

you would end up with better outcomes. But assuming you do have 

people re-entering, then sort of the principles of balanced and restorative justice, you would end up with probably victim-offender 

mediation, perhaps, on the re-entry, if it was not done at the front 

end. 

And you would have them connect with the community more 

positively in terms of re-entry, so that they had some support from 

the community. They were not just viewed as someone who has 

gone away, done their time and we forget about them. In fact, the 

community would more or less embrace them. So, those are some 

principles I would employ. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Let me just follow up on another in 

your written testimony. 

In talking about the challenges and positives that you see in 

terms of juvenile justice prevention efforts, in diverse communities 

like my county of Pima that I am from, can you make the comparison between those efforts with diverse communities like Pima 

County, and then more homogeneous communities? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Well, I think you have to call upon members of 

the community, actually, to determine what efforts they want to 

make with regard to reconnecting this child who is re-entering. 

They need to reconnect with the family. They need to reconnect 

with the child. 

But I think it has to be community-driven, based on community 

values, based on the cultural values that are inherent in that community. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

52

And Mr. District Attorney, you mentioned high recidivism for 

high-risk offenders. And just quickly, what did you see as the most 

effective re-entry transition practices to reduce this recidivism rate, 

to prevent, for lack of—spanning the definition of prevention—to 

prevent recidivism? 

Mr. FREED. The best way to prevent recidivism is to essentially, 

when the—if it is a juvenile or an adult who is leaving the system, 

do some sort of an exit interview, determine what services are 

needed for that person and make sure the person gets the services. 

That is one of the biggest problems we have. We can all debate 

about who should be in jail and who should not, how long they 

should be there and how shouldn’t they. 

But we can all agree that, when they get out, if we just send 

them out with no services, they will fail. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Dr. Woolard, just a quick question. Where does scholastic competence, literacy, school achievement, closing that gap, doing well 

in school—where does that fit into prevention? 

Ms. WOOLARD. Well, we certainly know both that that is a tremendous risk factor for youths to begin engaging in delinquency 

and those that are already in the system are often achieving below 

grade level, often more than one grade level below. 

So, if we think about both in terms of primary prevention, that 

engagement with school, it is certainly something that we want to 

emphasize and to work on. And for those that are already involved 

in the system, providing the supports for them to become academically successful is a critical intervention strategy. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Key linkage, right? 

Ms. WOOLARD. Yes. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

And my last question—and I have some others for Captain Johnson and other people that I did not have a chance, and I will submit those questions so that—well, for you to submit to the committee in writing. 

Mr. Jones, what is the most important thing you try to share 

with the kids that you are now mentoring in your program? What 

is the most important thing you share with them? 

Mr. JONES. Well, where I am working now? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. 

Mr. JONES. Well, I let them know about the mistakes I made and 

try to hope that they do not follow in my footsteps. I tell them 

about everything that I learned, so that they do not make the same 

mistakes I did. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. That is a good answer. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

And our next, Mr. Gohmert of Texas? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And I do appreciate everyone’s time and being here. Obviously, 

this is an extremely serious issue, because we are talking about the 

future of the country. And obviously, that goes hopefully to all of 

our hearts. 

Judge Lawrence, you made—you had a litany of things that we 

need to do everything to—excuse me. Did you need me? Okay. 

53

The litany of things we need to try to do, one of which was do 

everything we can to keep them close to home. And of course, as 

I am sure you have dealt with, or maybe it is not as big a problem, 

but some of them do not have much of a home. 

You know, you would think, well, one thing we might could do 

is set up a way to try to help single women trying to raise children, 

which was an issue that was dealt with in the 1960s. 

And the thing they came up with, out of an abundance of warm 

feelings and hope for doing the right thing, let us start giving single women that are just trying to get by, because there are not that 

many, but they are dealing with deadbeat dads, let us give them 

a check for every child they can have out of wedlock. 

And 40 years later, we have gotten what we paid for. 

And when we hear about those, we really do not like to lock 

young people up, and we have heard some anecdotal stories. 

Let me tell you about a fruit stand vendor in Smith County. Little did he know that there was a juvenile judge in the county that 

gave a young man chance after chance, because that judge really 

did not want to lock this guy up. Chance after chance, he kept offending. He kept telling him, don’t do it again. 

Anyway, he could have been locked up for a period of time toward the end of his juvenile term, but he was not. He got with a 

couple of friends. They decided to rob a bank. They decided not to 

do it in their own car. 

So, they went and found a lady driving a red Suburban, followed 

her to her rural home, and then she had neighbors standing out 

in the yard, so they decided not to kill her and take her car. 

But they drove along and they saw a sweet, elderly man who is 

just a fruit stand vendor, and decided they would jack his car. So, 

they got out, went to talk about his onions and fruit. 

Ended up, when no one was looking, they made him get in his 

truck. They did not realize it was a standard. They drove him 

about a quarter of a mile down a rural road, right by his stand. 

The chance they gave him apparently was to let him run a few 

steps before he was sentenced to capital murder by this informal 

panel, and shot and killed there. 

Had he been incarcerated, the guy might still be vending fruit in 

Smith County. 

So, as a judge myself, I know that—and I did not handle juvenile 

cases, but I handled the results of some badly handled juvenile 

cases, like that one—there is a desire not to lock anybody up. But 

what I ran into over and over were juveniles who dealt with judges 

and teachers—and before that, parents—who had never followed 

through on what they said. 

I had kids come before my court as an adult, who had never actually met anybody who did what they said. A parent would say, 

‘‘Don’t do that again,’’ but there were no consequences. A teacher 

would say, ‘‘Don’t do that again,’’ but there were no consequences. 

So, I determined I would be compassionate, I would use probation liberally for those who had not had a chance. But once I gave 

someone a chance, I wanted them to meet someone who always did 

what he said. 

I do not know too many judges, if any, that always revoked. And 

I told everybody I put on probation, if you violate, you will meet 

54

somebody who does what they say. You will meet a judge who will 

send you to prison. 

And I have had people hate me for a while, and some parents 

come back and say, you turned—you saved my child. They finally 

met someone that did what they said. 

So, in all of this consideration of wanting to protect society on 

the one hand, but on the other to help these youth to reach their 

God-given abilities and talent, and not get sloughed off into some 

system, sometimes it takes hitting rock bottom with somebody who 

will be tough and love them in a tough way. 

And I do not want that perspective to be lost, as well. So, I had 

to submit it. I see my time is running out. 

Madam Chair, thank you for giving me that opportunity. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. Yarmuth from Kentucky? 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to all the 

witnesses. 

I have one question for Judge Lawrence. In Kentucky, despite 

JJDPA’s prohibition against detaining status offenders in locked facilities, we have more than 1,300 non-criminal status offending 

youth in lockups, partly due to overuse of the valid court order. 

I was wondering what your recommendations might be on how 

we would strengthen the prohibitions and provide other resources 

to take care of these youth in need of protective custody. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. At the federal level, I guess my approach would 

be to try to put some incentives into the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act that either increased the amount you 

might get if you reduced the number that are locked-up status offenders. 

Right now there is a penalty, of course, that takes away money. 

But maybe reverse it and say you will get more if you reduce that 

particular practice. It is another way of inducement. 

On the state level, which you could certainly induce, perhaps induce a policy change, a statutory change, that basically takes locking up status offenders out of the selection of tools that a judge 

has, or a probation officer might be able to recommend. 

I mean, there is nothing that says that you have to lock those 

kids up. 

I understand the level of frustration, but taking status offenders, 

kids who will not go to school, and thinking you will get them to 

go to school by locking them up, there is not anything that supports that. 

So, those are two particular approaches that you might take in 

terms of federal initiative, and also recommending to the state that 

they take a look at their law, which, after all, is the actual law that 

is going to control the decision that the judge is making or the probation officer is recommending. 

Mr. YARMUTH. And then, I guess I would like to make a comment 

and throw it open to the panel. 

Last week during our recess, we in Louisville had a forum that 

I sponsored on homeless and runaway youth. And we had about 90 

people, many from around the region, some national experts. 

And what was very clear in listening to all of these experts was 

that, in so many of these cases, there is a tipping point in a youth’s 

55

life, sometimes not so much, but sometimes a very specific one, 

which determines whether they go in a positive direction or a bad 

direction. 

And when I look at the juvenile justice system, it seems like 

what we are looking at is a tipping point in the life of many people. 

The entry into the juvenile justice system itself is a tipping point. 

And I throw that open for comment, because we have heard a 

couple of times about the continuum of services needed. And I 

know that when we have dealt with issues such as what we were 

talking about, runaway homeless youth, it is the same type of message that we got. 

Yes, there are a lot of different services. Yes, there are a lot of 

individual points of contact that are helpful. But unless that continuum is there, and even though the tipping point might deflect 

one in the right direction, that that is a critical part of the entire 

process. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Just a brief response. 

Sometimes, if you take the approach, which is that—my analogy 

is that, if you look at a railroad track and the child is moving down 

the track and they are going to spill over the rails, they are going 

to fall down in the bed, as long as they do not roll too far out into 

the field. But the entire time they are moving down the track, that 

is maturation. 

So, sometimes it is just dealing with a child over and over again, 

but they sort of mature out of that behavior. Sometimes they do 

reach the tipping point. Sometimes for community safety, you do 

need to take more restrictive action. 

But a lot of times, it is simply not placing a box around the child 

and a box around yourself, particularly as a judge, and then setting 

up expectations that you are going to respond in some harsh way 

and some punitive way to this child. 

So, the other thing I would comment on is that, it is always interesting to me to look at a child, and with people we grew up with, 

we could say, well, that person, when they got to be 25 or 30, was 

going to be very successful and the opposite of this person. But actually, it turned out the opposite way. The scholar in high school 

turned out to be the dropout. The person who broke the law repeatedly turned out to be the chief of police. 

So, it is really difficult to make a prediction at times about what 

is going to happen with someone who is a dropout, who has really 

nothing. 

But I think you keep working with them, and keeping in mind 

all the time community safety, which you have to do. But you have 

to allow that maturation process to continue and to keep them in 

as positive an environment as you can while that process is going 

on. 

Mr. YARMUTH. One quick question while I have a few seconds 

left. 

We have a program that deals with incarcerated veterans. There 

is a pilot program that is being conducted in several places in the 

country, which does provide this continuum of services, once they 

are released. It has reduced the recidivism rate, I know in the state 

program that we have, from like 67 percent, the normal rate, to 

down under 10 percent. 

56

You may not have numbers, but is there any kind of quantification you can do of the improvement in recidivism rates with this 

type of approach in juvenile justice? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. I think there certainly is. I would refer, perhaps, 

Professor Shepherd might have some particular information on 

that. And also, we could provide you with some information. The 

Coalition for Juvenile Justice could provide you with that information, if that would be helpful. 

Mr. SHEPHERD. Certainly, the earlier comments about re-entry, 

I think there is a renewed focus on re-entry in the juvenile justice 

system. And it is important, in my judgment—and the research 

seems to support this—that when a juvenile is in the system, they 

need to be involved in re-entry, well prior to being released. 

If they go back into the same neighborhood, into the same family 

where they got in trouble before, without any monitoring or support, they are at high risk to re-offend. 

And I think it is important to make sure that kids get back into 

school, that they get mental health services in the community, if 

they have not been getting them previously. 

And yet, ironically, sometimes they get more mental health services in the juvenile justice system than they do in the broader community. And I think that re-entry does significantly reduce recidivism. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Ms. Clarke? 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

I want to thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member 

Platts for this very instructive and important hearing here today. 

You know, I am a new member here, but I was a councilmember 

in the City of New York. I used to chair the Committee on Fire and 

Criminal Justice Services. 

And this has been an issue that we have been struggling to address aggressively in New York City, coming up with what we considered to be best practices and really addressing the concerns of 

our young people and, by extension, our community. We have so 

many young people in a densely populated area. 

I am glad to hear the discussion around re-entry. 

But what we found to be very helpful in New York City is actually discharge planning, which is before the young people actually 

leave the doors of a detention center, setting up a prescription, a 

plan that has been connected to community services, be it nonprofits, be it religious institutions, that could help those families 

and the community, by extension, in receiving those young people 

and making sure that their health care needs are attended to, that 

their—whatever concerns they may have, that they are addressed—and that the environment that they left, that may have 

put them into the pathway to criminal activity could be addressed, 

as well. 

So, I am so glad to hear that so many of you on the panel have 

looked into those issues. And I would like to suggest that, as a best 

practice, we look in that direction. 

I know, certainly, as a district attorney, you are looking to make 

those connections with partners in the community to be able to 

subvert young people from having to do hard time, as they call it—

57

as I would call it, quite frankly, if I were a kid—to alternatives to 

detention. 

My question has to do with sexually deviant behavior. We had 

a big conversation in the City of New York with our public schools, 

quite frankly, about how we identify and deal with adolescents to 

address the issue of sexually deviant behavior, and perhaps the 

maturation of what we now see as a growing population of sexual 

predators that society just really does not know how to deal with. 

I think that your research—and you may have stated that, Dr. 

Jennifer, or perhaps it was Professor Shepherd—has shown that, 

because of the development of the brain, you are more likely to be 

able to change that behavior in an adolescent, in a youth, than you 

are once that person reaches adulthood. 

Could you speak to—or anyone on the panel—speak to any information that you have heard or seen that could help communities 

that are now dealing with large populations of ex-offenders, be residing in their communities in adults, but perhaps doing the preventive end for young people and looking at how our school systems 

could help us facilitate that? 

Ms. WOOLARD. Well, I think that—I think that certainly there is, 

particularly, I think, on the clinical side of psychology, some research that could be informative that I would be happy to pass 

along to you and to the committee, that talks about this particularly difficult issue about sexual offending among adolescents. 

Because really, the challenge—as it is more broadly, when we 

think about juvenile offenders—is trying to figure out who are the 

ones that we need to be most worried about? And who are the ones 

that are going to age out, or are going to be able to be successful 

with the proper help and intervention? 

I am not sure that we can answer that question definitively yet, 

but there are certainly some studies that have examined the efficacy of treatment for adolescent sex offenders, some that have 

looked at the benefits of cost of things like placing adolescents on 

sex offender registries and things like that. 

So, I would be happy to get some of that information for you and 

for the committee to be able to look at that. 

Mr. SHEPHERD. I would add that I did address this some in my 

written testimony. And there are a couple of references attached to 

my written testimony, the Association for the Treatment of Sexual 

Abusers report from last year on children with sexual behavior 

problems. 

And what we do know is that intervention is much more successful with adolescents and children than it is with adults. And the 

irony is, we are putting a lot of these kids into adult court, and the 

adult correctional system, where they do not have the treatment 

that would have been available to them in a juvenile setting. 

We also know that kids who engage in sexual behavior, sometimes experimentation. They are going through puberty. They are 

not really molesters or pedophiles. And we need to deal with them 

in a different fashion than we do adults. 

But both federal and state law tend to now treat them under the 

same umbrella, and that makes little sense. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. Sarbanes from Maryland? 

58

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. Chair, for the 

joint hearing on this very important topic. 

I just had—wanted to get the panel’s reaction. Representative 

Gohmert was talking about how these children often never encounter anyone who does what they say they are going to do. 

The examples he gave were where you said to someone they were 

going to have consequences, and then they did not get those consequences. I actually thought he was going in a different direction 

and was going to talk about all the instances in which services and 

support are promised to children and then nothing ever happens. 

And I invite any of you to speak to the system’s ability to respond when the needs of children are identified. I mean, the discharge planning approach, obviously, is a critical one. But if, once 

these youth are back in the community, the service does not come 

through and the support is not there, then we fail them again and 

we have basically written a ticket to nowhere. 

So, if you could comment on that. 

And also then, if you could give me your perspective on whether 

we should be thinking of new delivery models for these services. I 

mean, it is not just a resource question, potentially. It may be that 

some of the old ways of doing things—and you think of services 

that are sort of Balkanized, as opposed to holistic—whether delivering service to a child really means delivering service to a family, 

for example. 

What are all the implications of that to make sure the service is 

delivered and it is delivered in a way that is going to have the best 

effect? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Maybe I will take a stab, since I think the congressman’s comments earlier were directed at me, and I will take 

a stab at it. 

From a judge’s point of view, I think what you can do to make 

sure things are done is to have frequent reviews. It is a simple 

process. But if I do not think the agency is doing its job, I will have 

them in each week to make sure that the service that this child 

needs is being delivered. 

So, that is one simple thing. Yes, that means more on your docket. Yes, it means more time. And yes, it adds up a cost. But that 

cost may be less than not providing the services that you promised, 

which hopefully will result in the outcome that you want. 

So, that is one simple way of assuring that the agency is doing 

what it says it is going to do. 

Some states have a setup where once a judge determines the 

guilt or innocence of the child, the child is actually turned over to 

an agency to be dealt with. And sometimes they get lost in those 

bureaucracies and there is not the accountability. 

I tend to think, with a well-trained who he or she really knows 

what they are doing in terms of youth development, et cetera, if 

they can ride herd on that case and make sure that services that 

were ordered are delivered, and that if they are not working, new 

services are devised and a new plan is developed, you can have a 

much better outcome than a judge who is not overseeing cases and 

not following up. 

If I commit a kid for a serious crime to our youth development 

center, many judges just turn the case over. I do not. 

59

I review the case once a month, even though the child is in that 

development center, because I want to know what progress is being 

made. If it is not sufficient, maybe I will come up with another 

plan and take the kid out of there. 

And also, I know when their discharge date is and I begin planning for that discharge 2 or 3 months ahead of time. 

So, those are some techniques that could be used. 

Mr. SARBANES. Anybody else? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Representative, one of the things that we found in 

Arizona was that, when you were talking about a system or how 

you holistically look at a child, we found out that there were barriers at the federal level and also at the state level, that did not 

let systems communicate. 

And as you had a child that moved through the system, what you 

would find is that the systems do not talk to each other, either 

through technology. There are a lot of things that prohibit those 

agencies from even identifying who those children are, such as 

HIPAA, depending on where those children are. 

What we did in Arizona, talking about the importance, I think, 

of a SAG, or state advisory groups, is it allowed us to bring about 

250 people from across the state from all of our different counties. 

And what that led to was an agreement. 

And it is called the Interagency Coordination and Integration Initiative, which actually is a contract and a letter of agreement between state agencies to start looking at identifying youth and families at risk for multiple systems involvement earlier, provide more 

comprehensive and effective services and cultivate improved outcomes for children and youth who are at risk and who have experienced maltreatment. 

So, I think that is a holistic view that we are using with the 

state and at an agency level, that I think will not only fix some of 

these things, but help people communicate, because kids do get 

segregated and pushed off into different systems. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson, 

and to the ranking member, to the chairperson of my subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Crime in Judiciary. Let me welcome all of you and thank you for providing such a breath of fresh 

air. 

I have served on the Judiciary Committee for a number of years. 

I have served in the majority for a few months. 

But I recall working with now-chairman, then ranking member, 

Mr. Scott and Mr. Conyers at the sort of the pinnacle of the crime 

reform of the mid-1990s, when the rage, judge, was lock them up 

and somewhat throw away the key. 

The tragedy was, of course, that it was trickling down—or trickling up—into the juvenile justice system. And the attitude was how 

hard can the hammer be. 

We took a traveling tour to a number of states. California was 

one of them. And it seems as if, that every law enforcement officer 

that we encountered—not police, but policymakers, attorney generals and others—were engaged in how hard we could hit in the 

juvenile system. 

60

I do not know whether we have benefited from that. And I think 

that if we have a legislative opportunity, it is to listen to the distinguished lady, doctor and the rest of you on how we can craft legislation or amendments going forward to allow thoughtful scholars 

and advocates such as yourselves to be able to move this agenda. 

And I am going to use provocative analogies and would like to 

hear your thoughts. 

I am looking at the organization chart, and I know that the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention area reports directly to the 

attorney general. And that, in and of itself, puts it as a sort of laworiented scenario. 

I also notice that the state formula has some really good principles in it to get these state grants. And I mention juveniles are 

not to be detained or confined in any facility in which they would 

come into contact with adult offenders. Juveniles accused of nonstatus offenses can only be confined in adult jails or lockups for a 

short period of time. 

And these are criteria that would help you get monies in states 

who show they are attempting to reduce the disproportionate confinement of minorities. 

My quick question is, this factual situation. Judge, you have 

come before you an outstanding student on the way with scholarships, a person who is a leader or the king of the senior class, et 

cetera. And they had a prom night sexual encounter. 

And all of the indicia suggest an alternative. They are then incarcerated as an adult and there seems to be no remedy. 

How do you use your—no remedy in terms of the release—how 

do you use your thinking to address that question? It is a sexual 

incident. It was known at the beginning that it was consensual. 

And the person has their future before them, but, as I hear my colleague on the other side of the aisle about young people must know 

a beginning and an end, how to use your thoughtfulness on this. 

My question to Mr. Freed, very quickly. We talk about detaining 

of youngsters. What about a system that is broken. The detention 

center is filled with child predators. And so, the detained individual 

that you are sending them to a youth commission, for example, is 

being subjected to sexual abuse by those who are charged with 

their guardian or, if you will, protection? 

Judge? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. My comments would be that the judge really creates the culture, or the culture in the courtroom, maybe a culture 

in the community that they are in, a culture in the state, to the 

extent they have influence. 

And so, I think if people’s understanding of what your expectations are, and if I let them know my expectations are, to take the 

example you gave me, that this young person should probably not 

be transferred, should probably not go to the adult system, then 

you take that off the table, and people begin to think in different 

ways. 

Okay, how can we address what happened here to make sure 

that community safety is considered, to make sure that the victim 

is appropriately considered, but to make sure that in the end, this 

sort of act does not repeat itself. 

61

And the research is there. But what you really have to let people 

know is that we are not going to take this case and simply certify 

and send the adult system, and if people know that to begin with. 

One of the key factors in the system working effectively is that 

people have some predictability about what the people who can 

make the decisions are going to do. And if you can establish that 

culture, it allows people then to begin to think simply in different 

ways about how we are going to address the issues that were created by this crime being committed. 

So, that is one approach from a judicial perspective. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Is Mr. Freed allowed to answer? 

Is Mr. Freed allowed to answer the question? Thank you, Madam 

Chair. 

Mr. FREED. The key to the juvenile justice system, especially 

when a child is placed, is collaboration among all the parties. And 

I think that actually goes to what Representative Sarbanes was 

asking about also. 

We may disagree on who should be locked up and for what reason and for how long. However, when a child is detained, it is our 

responsibility to ensure the safety of that child. 

So, I know that in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, evaluations are done, and children who are placed are placed in very specific places that treat specific symptoms that those children show. 

So, it is incumbent on us to ensure the safety of kids, even if they 

are detained, and even if it is for a length of time. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And come down hard on those who would violate them—adults who would violate them, who have been in their 

custody. 

Mr. FREED. Without a doubt. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank you. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

With that, Mr. Platts has to leave. He has another hearing starting at 4:00. So, he is going to say a few words, and then I would 

like unanimous consent so Patrick Kennedy can ask some questions. 

Hearing none——

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

One, Patrick, I am sorry I will not hear your engagement. And 

as I referenced earlier, I really appreciate your leadership with Jim 

Ramstad on the mental health parity, which relates so much to 

this issue. 

I just want to again thank each of you. As I said to the chair, 

the six of you, your knowledge that you have brought with you 

today and shared with us has been tremendous, and is really going 

to benefit us as a committee and, ultimately, the Congress in total, 

as we move forward with reauthorization to take what has been 

certainly a very effective prevention act, as Mr. Johnson referenced 

it, and make it even better for the good of our youth and ultimately 

our nation. 

So, my sincere thanks. My apologies that I need—the National 

Security Subcommittee hearing I need to run off to next. But we 

appreciate all of you coming down. 

And Dave, we will look forward to seeing you back on the 19th. 

So, thank you, Madam Chair. 

62

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Platts. 

With that, certainly, my colleague from Rhode Island——

Mr. KENNEDY. Thanks. 

Mr. Platts, let me thank you very much and say, I hope we get 

to do a hearing on the mental health component alone, with respect 

to juvenile justice, because I think it is such a—70 percent of the 

juvenile justice—thank you; I know you have got to go to a hearing—70 percent of the juvenile justice population is identified with 

a mental illness. 

I mean, we have to have a hearing on its own about mental 

health, if we are going to address the juvenile justice problem. And 

I hope that working with the chairwoman, we will be able to put 

together a hearing on that. 

I would like to say one thing that I think has come through loud 

and clear from the testimony that I have heard so far. And that 

is, if you want to reduce recidivism, and you want to do what is 

effective and follow what the science has shown us so far, you cannot mix kids with adults. 

That has been the intent of the juvenile justice law, and we 

ought to make it clear in the reauthorization, once again, that irrespective of whether the states prosecute kids, as adults, or not, we 

are not going to house kids with adults. 

And, with respect to the status offenders, that the whole provision that has kind of run amok with respect to the valid court 

order exception with the runaway, has been, you know, where the 

kids keep running away. 

And it has allowed the judges to have to keep keeping those kids 

in prison as a result. That needs to be taken out, and those kids 

need to be put in alternative settings. 

You cannot keep kids in these prisons, if you have got someplace 

else to put them. We have got to find other places to put status offenders. You cannot keep them in jail. You are just—all the evidence shows, you are just setting them up for future problems. 

They are going to be in jail. They are going to be learning with 

more serious offenders how to commit worse crimes. 

I mean, hello? I mean, this is not rocket science. Let us invest, 

and with this reauthorization in alternative housing for status offenders, let us get rid of this valued court order exception, so there 

is no excuse for these judges to keep these status offenders in jail. 

Let us get rid of this notion that kids can be in jail with adults, 

no matter whether the states prosecute them as adults or not. And 

let us make that as part of federal law very clear, loud and clear. 

And I think Derrick Johnson made the point very clear. There 

has got to be a holistic view of this. And if you are not linking the 

kids with the schools, you are not going to get the prevention. 

So, but if schools are not talking about the delinquency, that the 

teacher knows that the kids got the problems with their academics, 

how are you going to start to do the prevention? 

We are going to have to in this reauthorization, put monies aside 

that allow that interagency coordination that you, Derrick, talked 

about doing already. We are going to have to formalize. You are 

going to have to give us what you have done already, and we are 

going to have to use that as a template and codify that in our reauthorization. 

63

Because it seems to me that that is what we are going to have 

to—would be a good model for us to embark upon, where we bring 

together all the players in the community and make sure everybody is talking to each other, because what seems to be happening 

in this field is that the kids are falling through the cracks between 

the mental health providers, the substance abuse providers, the 

court people and the educators, and the justice and the judge. And 

everybody is talking about the kids, and then the kids are falling 

through the cracks. 

So, getting that comprehensiveness seems to me the—I just want 

to say, as a member of the Appropriations Judiciary Subcommittee, 

I just came from that, and we added over $80 million to Title V 

and $60 million to JBAG, so we are increasing over last year’s 

budget, which is a hopeful sign that we are finally moving in the 

opposite direction, whereas the last 5 years we have eviscerated 

the Title V money by over $230 million. 

So, now we are back, moving in the right direction. 

But I thank the chair for giving me an opportunity to say a few 

words, and look forward to working with her. 

And just say, in terms of prevention, 3 percent of our foster care 

youth make up 40 percent of our juvenile justice youth. So, this is 

all in prevention, like the chair acknowledged at the outset. Three 

percent of our foster care make up 40 percent of our juvenile justice. 

It is all in the—and that is why we need to take the at-risk parents. That is why we have got to look at SAMHSA. They have got 

starting early, starting smart. And they have got Parent Corps. 

Those are mentoring programs for at-risk parents—parents who 

have substance abuse problems that are the highest risk. 

If the parent has got the problem, you guarantee the kid is going 

to have a problem. The most important influence on a child’s life 

is the parent. And that is why we have got a link. 

If we put money in this reauthorization to—or, you know, authorization to work with those other agencies, what we are going 

to do is set up those linkages that will allow us to coordinate better, to better make sure we have that holistic view that Mr. Johnson was speaking of. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy, and thank 

you for your input. I know that we are going to get mental parity 

this year. I mean, I just know we are. 

And thank you for the extra money right now. You could have 

pushed a little bit harder. We needed a little bit more. [Laughter.] 

Mr. KENNEDY. We still have the floor to go. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Correct. 

I do not know if anyone has—if anyone who needs to catch a 

plane, or if they are in a rush, because a number of members have 

asked if they could ask a second round of questions. 

We will probably have votes coming up in a half-hour or so. But 

it is going to be up to the panel, because we have kept you here 

for about 2 hours already. 

Terrific. 

I am going to ask the first question. I can do that. I am the 

chairwoman. 

64

I wanted to ask you, Judge Lawrence, when judges are working 

with juveniles, do they go through any courts or learning how to 

work with juveniles? Do they get the latest research on what is out 

there and what they could do to possibly help these juveniles as 

they go through and to help them make decisions? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Some do and some do not. 

I think, if you took a look at the background of a lot of judges, 

you would find that they never took a course in juvenile delinquency, and never took a course in child development, abnormal 

psychology. 

They really often do not come with a base that you might like 

them to come with in terms of juvenile work, but some do. And obviously, there is significant training that you can avail yourself of. 

And I think the move to family courts is an important move, because one of the critical factors of a judge who is really interested 

in this work is that they want to do it. Often, judges get assigned 

to a family court docket, a juvenile docket and they are not terribly 

interested in it. 

If they are not terribly interested in it, it does not work, you are 

not going to highly value, and you are not going to highly value the 

people who are in front of you. 

So, I think the move towards family courts is important. But 

also, if you are going to appoint or elect—whatever the process is—

a judge in particular to juvenile cases, you want to know about his 

or her background. And if they have the requisite early training 

and early interest, it will bode well for their work later on with juveniles. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. I do not even know if we can do that. 

Is there any way through your committee that we could recommend that those that are serving as judges towards—I have no 

idea what the laws are on that. 

I will let you think about it. 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, we could probably propose to have funding for 

seminars and things like that. I am sure Professor Shepherd could 

make recommendations on that. 

But I think the availability of seminars and other professional 

development would clearly be possible. 

Mr. SHEPHERD. A good deal of the funding under the JJDP Act 

goes to the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges 

for operating their college programs, primarily in Reno, Nevada. 

A lot of states, unfortunately, with budget cuts in the late 1990s 

and early 2000s, cut back on judicial training and education. And 

I know there are fewer judges in Virginia that are being sent by 

the state when they assume the bench to Reno to go through the 

college. 

And I think it is particularly critical with the juvenile and family 

court bench, because, as we have already discussed here, it is so 

interdisciplinary. The judges need to be able to understand what 

Dr. Woolard and her colleagues are saying and what people from 

the social work profession are saying. They need to know the brain 

research. 

And they need to know what due process means for kids, as opposed to adults, because they are different. They have different 

competencies. And I think that is very important. 

65

Some of it is money, but some of it I think can be embedded in 

the act and directing the office to support these programs, not only 

through the council, but through the states. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Well, that is why I was wondering, because I know in New York State, the judges have to take so many 

hours of educational or some sort of upgrade. I guess it is every 

year. I am not sure. I have not followed them. I am definitely going 

to look into it now. 

But that is something that we can work with the governors then 

on trying to bring those kind of courses into—even if it is only a 

suggestion. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. I know that states would welcome the input from 

the committee and from the legislation, encouraging state legislators to beef up JJDP education budgets, because that is where the 

rubber meets the road. 

If there is no money in the state budget and there is sort of not 

the encouragement to put it there, the ability to educate judges on 

evolving topics such as adolescent brain science, unless they have 

a particular interest in the area, it is not going to happen. 

And I know in our state, until this year, we have had tremendous cutbacks in our judicial education branch budget, which has 

made it extremely difficult to get judges together to educate them. 

So, anything you can do in that direction would be helpful. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Well, I don’t know if you noticed lately; 

there has been a lot of bashing of judges. 

Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

First I would like to ask unanimous consent to introduce in the 

record the New York Times editorial that I referenced earlier, today’s editorial, which ends by saying, ‘‘Trying children as adults, 

except in isolated cases involving extreme violence, is both inhumane and counterproductive.’’

And I would like to introduce this into the record. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Without objection. 

[The editorial follows:]

[From the New York Times, July 12, 2007, Editorial]

Juvenile Justice 

One of Congress’s most crucial tasks will be to strengthen and update the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Passed in 1974, the law required the 

states to move away from the practice of locking up truants and runaways—and to 

refrain from placing children in adult jails—in exchange for federal grant dollars. 

Congress’s goal then was to move the states away from failed policies that often 

turned young delinquents into hardened criminals and toward a framework based 

more on mentoring and rehabilitation. But the states have increasingly classified 

ever larger numbers of young offenders as adults, trying them in adult courts and 

holding them in adult prisons. 

The damage wrought by these policies is vividly outlined in a federally backed 

study issued this spring. It reports that children handled in adult courts and confined in adult jails committed more violent crime than children processed through 

the traditional juvenile justice system. Other studies show that as many as half of 

the juvenile offenders sent to adult courts were not convicted there—or were sent 

back to the juvenile system, but often after spending time in adult lockups. Equally 

disturbing is the fact that youths of color are more likely to be sent to adult prisons 

than their white counterparts. 

Reauthorization hearings begin today and members need to listen closely to what 

the experts are saying. Trying children as adults—except in isolated cases involving 

extreme violence—is both inhumane and counterproductive. 

66

Mr. SCOTT. It also says that studies show as many of half of juvenile offenders sent to adult courts were not convicted there. They 

are sent back to juvenile system, or not convicted, but often after 

spending time in adult lockup. 

Now, Professor Shepherd, insofar as status offenders do not 

count as prior criminal offenses in adult court, is it true that 

those—if you increase the number of juveniles tried as adults—you 

are talking about the marginal ones not tried now would be if you 

pass the new law—if you increase the number of juveniles tried as 

adults, is it true that they are likely to get less time in adult court 

than they would in juvenile court? 

Mr. SHEPHERD. I think studies show that to be true, Congressman Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. So, after you crack down on crime and all the political theater that is involved, they are going to end up with less 

time in adult court than they would have had in juvenile court. 

Mr. SHEPHERD. That is very true. 

The experience in Virginia, when they widened the net for transfer to adult court in the 1990s, but at the same time they allowed 

the criminal court judges to give blended sentences, where the juvenile could serve part of the time in a juvenile facility, well, probably more than half of our kids that are transferred get blended 

sentences, which means that the criminal court judge knows the 

kids should not be there in the first place. They ought to be dealt 

with in the juvenile system. 

And we in Virginia and some other states have a dilemma under 

the act. And interpretation from OJJDP says we cannot put those 

juveniles in juvenile facilities beyond their 18th birthday plus 6 

months. 

And in Virginia, our effort to keep adolescents, convicted as 

adults, in the juvenile system, segregated from adults, are really 

being thwarted by an interpretation of OJJDP that is not explicit 

in the act. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

If we want to reduce crime—we have talked mostly about prevention. Are there any criminal laws that we should look at? I 

mean, do we need any new criminal laws to reduce juvenile crime? 

Okay. Moving right along. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SHEPHERD. If you could embody in the act a very simple 

statement. A dear friend who is now deceased, unfortunately, a 

great juvenile court judge from Texas, who was a president of the 

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, said we 

need to invest resources in the playpen, and we will not have to 

spend as much in the state pen. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Dr. Woolard, can you tell me the effect that death penalty or 

mandatory minimums have on juvenile behavior? Whether or not 

the existence of draconian and mandatory minimums or the death 

penalty are helpful in reducing juvenile crime? 

Ms. WOOLARD. Well, you are asking whether facing mandatory 

minimums have a salutary effect on juvenile crime? 

The meta-analyses that have examined more punitive and deterrent approaches to crime, as opposed to more rehabilitative approaches again find that they are at best ineffective and usually—

67

at best do not have an effect, and usually actually have a negative 

effect. And so, they would be more likely to exacerbate recidivism 

than they would be to reduce it. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Ms. Clarke? 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

I did want to thank and acknowledge Shannon Jones for being 

here today and for sharing with us his transition. I am very proud 

of you. 

One of the things that you mentioned about your transition 

through the CISP program was that, what helped you was being 

held accountable. And I wanted to find out from you what that 

meant, what being held accountable meant and what made that 

different from perhaps what being in CISP holding you accountable 

meant different from maybe the social set or environment that you 

were growing up in. 

Do you understand where I am coming from? 

Mr. JONES. Yes. 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you. 

Mr. JONES. Being held accountable I meant, when we mess up, 

we know that we are definitely going to have consequences. 

When I am in my social state, people think that they can get 

away with things. They do not really think of the consequences. 

They are thinking of right now. 

And so, when we start doing whatever we are doing, we are not 

thinking of the consequences. We are just thinking of what my 

friends, we are just going to do this or do that, and not thinking 

about the consequences that are going to happen, or that can happen. 

But in the CISP program, you know for sure there is going to be 

consequences. There is no way of getting around it. 

Ms. CLARKE. And in the CISP program, what did those consequences consist of? 

Mr. JONES. Being sent to placements or being able—or having to 

stay later, or things like that. We get boot camp or——

Ms. CLARKE. Okay. I just wanted you to explain why that was 

a deterrent to you from doing the things that you used to do, perhaps, when you were not put in that kind of environment. 

Boot camp for some people is like fun, right? So, can you give a 

little bit more insight into—there was something that happened 

that said to you, you know, I am going to take the responsibility, 

notwithstanding what the crowd is doing or the folks in my neighborhood are doing. I have this chance now, and I am going to make 

a difference. 

And there were certain people in that environment that assisted 

you either through positive reinforcement or you know what the 

consequences are. 

I think it is important, if people have a clear sense of what that 

meant in terms of your transformation. I just wanted to try to get 

that on the record. 

Mr. JONES. Well, it was—we had victim awareness groups in the 

CISP program. And what it really does, it shows everything you do, 

68

you are not only hurting yourself, you are hurting everybody 

around you. 

And I have family. Back when I was locked up, before I was sent 

to the CISP program, I was missing out on a whole lot of things. 

A lot of things changed while I was there. 

And the CISP program lets me be home. Like with the ankle 

bracelet, I cannot leave the house, but I am still home. I get to see 

my niece and my brothers and cousins, whoever. I still get to see 

my family on a regular basis. 

And for me that is big. I do not know where I would be if I could 

not see my family every day. 

So that was a big consequence. I did not want to get sent to a 

place for something stupid. 

Ms. CLARKE. I want to thank you again, and I want to encourage 

you to use the energy that you have developed through this process 

to be of assistance to other young people. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Ms. Jackson Lee? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And a 

double thank-you, because I did have additional questions, and I do 

appreciate it very much. 

I am going to do some rapid-fire questioning, because I want to 

get a sense of all of you. And again, I thank you, apologize many 

of us for missing portions of your testimony. We are scanning it, 

but we are in a number of places at once. 

Mr. Johnson, I just thank you. And you seem to be an expert. 

You see a lot of materials in your name in Arizona. 

But quickly, is there a positive impact with juveniles in leg irons 

and shackles and handcuffs? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not believe so. I believe that children, especially since all the brain development that has been talked about. 

It brings out the worst in them. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You all are giving us bits and pieces and 

chunks of how we look to the reauthorization and the improvement 

of this, so do not think that we are shooting these brief questions, 

but we are trying to get sort of the overview of what we are trying 

to do. 

And I think Patrick Kennedy said it well, but I want to expand 

on it. 

Do not put children in settings, if they are detained and they are 

being guarded by those who are sexually abusing them. Do not put 

children in systems where there is no sentencing. It is called the 

juvenile detention centers. 

So that if they are intimidated by an adult, they speak back, 

they are there for 6 months. And their parents do not even know. 

And before you know it, they have got 10 months added on. And 

it goes on and on and on. 

So, I am going to raise questions going in that perspective. 

Mr. Jones, may I thank you, as well. And you indicated that, 

when you are out with your boys—and I might not have the right 

terminology—you are not thinking about mandatory sentencing or 

the death penalty. Is that correct? 

69

If you are out there doing something, is that a deterrent? Is 

somebody thinking that I am going to get the death penalty while 

they are out there? 

Mr. JONES. Yes, ma’am. Nobody thinks that. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Are they thinking about it? I did not hear you. 

Mr. JONES. No, of course not. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. They just—they are rolling with the 

crowd. 

Mr. JONES. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. This alternative that you have now—and let 

me congratulate you for being in it. And let me also congratulate 

you for indicating to us how important family is. 

I do not know why, when people are incarcerated, we all of a 

sudden think they do not have the human needs that all of us 

have. 

Can you tell me what is in your future? What do you want to 

do, Mr. Jones, in your future? 

Mr. JONES. Well, I have college in my future. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And if you had stayed in a criminal justice 

system, incarcerated, would that have been your goal? Do you 

think you would have gotten to that point? 

Mr. JONES. No, I do not think so. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Why don’t you say it loudly? 

Mr. JONES. Because before I was into the CISP program, my 

grades were not good and college was definitely not a goal for me. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So, you want to say it again. No, you would 

not be directed in that direction. 

Mr. JONES. No——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But now you are. 

Mr. JONES. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Professor Shepherd, that is what I want to get 

to. You are the thinker on these questions, or the writer and the 

thinker. 

This whole question of detention and a loose system of sentencing—and I am talking about when a child is put in a juvenile 

system—and this whole system. 

And I cite a particular state that has suffered, Texas, with a 

whole litany of accusations on sexual abuse of the child by those 

who are responsible for guarding the child—and that is the wrong 

terminology—and the constant abuse of adding sentencing. 

What does that do? And what do we do in the reauthorization to 

even look at the so-called youth commission systems that say they 

have no alternatives but to put children in that kind of setting, 

with untrained persons supervising them? 

Mr. SHEPHERD. Congresswoman, that is——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And Dr. Woolard, please feel free to jump in. 

Mr. SHEPHERD. That is where the evidence-based research comes 

in. We know that states that have developed programs in recent 

years, like Missouri, that have proven effective in reducing recidivism, have done away with the large, central, juvenile correctional 

facilities, the reformatories, and instead have gone to smaller, community-based programs. 

They have put their money into hiring well-educated, highlytrained staff. They are more staff intensive than they are 

70

architecturally intensive. And they have had much fewer problems 

than we have seen in Texas, in Maryland, in Louisiana, in some 

other states, where there have been abuses in the large institutions. 

And the programs that are most effective, like functional family 

therapy and multi-systemic therapy, are largely community-based 

and non-institutional. They are based on having highly-trained 

staff people who work with the kids in their family, in the community with their peers and in the schools. And that is where the kids 

are going to change their behaviors and be successful. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do you think that occurs—and Dr. Woolard, 

if you could quickly answer—do you think that occurs if a child has 

done something violent, as well? 

Ms. WOOLARD. It does. And actually, multi-systemic therapy, 

which Professor Shepherd talked about, actually takes into their 

program serious violent offenders that would have otherwise been 

incarcerated. So, it certainly does. It can. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So, if we write legislation, we should write it 

in the context of really putting incentives—and I thank you, 

Madam Chair—to change the attitudes of these states. 

Ms. WOOLARD. Absolutely. But moving towards evidenced-based 

programs that are community based, I think would be positive. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. You are welcome. 

Mr. Sarbanes from Maryland? 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you. 

This is for Dr. Woolard. 

I am struck by how sort of the brain research part of this discussion is so reminiscent of the discussions we have been having with 

respect to early childhood education. In other words, where brain 

research is confirming all of the sort of right impulses that we had 

about what should happen at the early childhood stage, and beginning now to really drive best practices there in ways that were not 

happening before. 

How hopeful are you, and how quickly do you think it will happen, that this brain research will start to kick in in a way that will 

start to drive policy with respect to services, juvenile services, and 

so forth? 

And would you hazard a guess at what percentage of the current 

response to these issues is going to end up being aligned with what 

the brain research shows, or will show? 

Ms. WOOLARD. Although I teach probability and stats, I do not 

think I want to give you a number at this point about that. 

But I am optimistic and hopeful that the brain research, I think 

is an important component of the larger portfolio of research, as I 

was mentioning, on both brain and behavior, that is confirming, I 

think, what the impulses were for the formation of the juvenile 

court and what got lost in some of the debate as we have seen some 

of the more draconian reforms. 

Which is that children and adolescents are different. They are 

still growing. As my grandmother would say, they are done cooking 

yet. And so, we have got to, I think, respect that developmental 

process. 

71

The pictures from the brain imaging research I think are compelling powerful for a lot of people in combination with the behavioral 

research, to say that we do have the opportunity for continued 

growth. It is not finished. And that the focus on intervention and 

rehabilitation is an appropriate way to go. 

Mr. SARBANES. Great. I cannot wait to tell my 13-year-old son tonight that he is not done cooking yet. [Laughter.] 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes. 

I want to thank Mr. Scott and Mr. Forbes from the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security for 

joining us today, as the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and 

Communities begins its reauthorization process on the Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. 

I want to thank each and every one of you. I think that you can 

tell from the members that were asking you questions, we really 

want to do what we can. We know that—you know, obviously, we 

want to work with our young people. We want to make sure that 

they have the best opportunities to have a good life, to be productive in this society. 

For too many years we know that we have been spending more 

money on prisons than we have on schools. I would like to see that 

reversed. 

I think that if we get our children young, we are not going to see 

them in prison. We can have certainly equality for all children. And 

I think that is the theme that our speaker, Nancy Pelosi, wants us 

to see this year. 

With the information, we have increased the money, as far as the 

appropriations this year. I think that is a good start. 

So, with that, I would like to say thank you again for indulging 

us and staying here a little bit longer. 

I want to say that, as previously stated, members will have 14 

days to submit additional materials for the hearing record. Any 

member who wishes to submit follow-up questions in writing for 

the witnesses should coordinate with the majority staff within the 

requested time. 

Without objection, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Altmire follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jason Altmire, a Representative in Congress 

From the State of Pennsylvania 

Thank you Madam Chair for holding this important hearing on the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. 

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act was passed in 1974. Since 

then it has been reauthorized several times, most recently in 2002. The original 

focus of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act was almost exclusively 

on prevention and rehabilitation, however, subsequent reauthorizations of the law 

have put an additional emphasis on more punitive measures. 

As the Education and Labor Committee prepares to reauthorize this legislation, 

it is important that we examine its entire history in order to determine which programs and policies have had the greatest impact on preventing juvenile delinquency 

and keeping communities safe. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues 

on this committee to make the Juvenile Justice and Prevention Act as effective as 

possible. 

Thank you again, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing. I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

72

[Questions for the record sent to Mr. Johnson follow:]

[VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL] 

July 13, 2007, 

Mr. DERRICK K. JOHNSON, Vice-Chair, 

Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission, State Advisory Group, Mesa, AZ. 

DEAR MR. JOHNSON: Thank you for testifying at the July 12th, 2007 joint hearing 

of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities and the Subcommittee 

on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. 

Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), a member of the Healthy Families Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following question: 

Could you talk more about the specific steps that Arizona has taken under the 

DMC mandate? Are there additional ways that the JJDPA could strengthen the 

DMC mandate? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the question by COB 

Monday, July 23, 2007—the date on which the hearing record will close. If you have 

any questions, please contact us. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman. 

[Response from Mr. Johnson follows:]

July 23, 2007. 

Hon. GEORGE MILLER, Chairman, 

Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee on Education and Labor at the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities hearing entitled ‘‘Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act: Overview and Perspectives,’’ held on July 12, 2007. 

In response to the request for additional information by Representative Raul 

Grijalva (D-AZ), a member of the Healthy Families Subcommittee, I respectfully 

submit in the following information about the steps Arizona has taken under the 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 2002 to address the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) mandate. Reauthorization of the JJDP Act 

would continue to support States’ efforts to address the disproportionality of minority youth who are served by the juvenile justice system. Furthermore, and equally 

important to the JJDP Act’s reauthorization is the appropriation of prevention funding for programs authorized by the JJDP Act. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide both written and verbal testimony to 

the importance of the JJDP Act and to provide further information in response to 

Representative Grijalva’s request. 

Respectfully, 

DERRICK JOHNSON, 

Vice Chair, Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission. 

ARIZONA’S DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONTACT INITIATIVES 

Arizona’s State Advisory Group, the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission, in 

partnership with the Governor’s Division for Children has implemented the following activities and programs in response to the mandate of the Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002 to address the Disproportionate Minority 

Contact (DMC) within Arizona. These activities include the following: 

• Development of an annually updated Arizona State DMC Plan inclusive of DMC 

Data for state level and three jurisdictions and plans for state and local DMC reduction efforts; 

• Establishment of a Statewide DMC Committee; and 

• Funding to support state and local DMC reduction activities 

Arizona’s State Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Plan 

Each year, as part of its mandate to address DMC in Arizona, the Arizona State 

Advisory Group, the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission, in partnership with the 

Governor’s Division for Children develops a State DMC Plan that outlines Arizona’s 

activities to address DMC. This plan incorporates data for state level DMC measures and DMC measure for three jurisdictions (three counties identified for implementing DMC reduction efforts). The Plan also provides an overview of the Statewide DMC Committee and its activities, goals, objectives and anticipated outcomes 

73

and accomplishments. Arizona’s DMC plan also includes a summary of the previous 

year’s activities for state level activities and the activities of the three jurisdictions 

as well as planned activities for the coming year. 

As part of the state’s DMC plan, each jurisdiction implementing targeted DMCreduction activities is complying with the OJJDP implementation guidelines to include Assessment, Interventions, Evaluation/Performance Measures, and Monitoring. In utilizing these guidelines, Arizona has established a system in which Relative Rate Index Data (the Relative Rate Index (RRI) is a nationally recognized and 

adopted measure for measuring potential areas of disproportionality). RRI data is 

updated and reviewed at minimum every three years to monitor and track changes 

in DMC trends. Additionally, the state is committed to monitoring and tracking the 

interventions that work to reduce DMC. The state captures and evaluates interventions against current DMC data to ensure that goals, objectives, activities are targeting prevention and improvements to the system where DMC occurs. 

Arizona remains in full support of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act and will continue to work towards the solutions that will address the disparate number of minorities in the juvenile justice system. Through efforts at the 

State level, including the commitment of the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission, 

Arizona will continue to utilize the relative rate index calculations to conduct further analysis and help guide the State’s plan for reducing DMC. 

In November 2006, the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission held its annual Strategic Planning Session and reviewed its current efforts to focus on reducing DMC 

in Arizona and renewed its strategic initiatives that work to address DMC. As dictated by the core protections of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Act, the Commission is committed to developing effective strategies and programs 

to address minority youth that come in contact with the juvenile justice system. Essential to this effort is the establishment of an integrated and comprehensive approach to identifying opportunities for community-level change with respect to policing, developing culturally competent assessments and services, and identifying existing model programs and available resources to impact the issue. 

State Level Efforts—State DMC Committee 

The Commission’s Statewide DMC Committee, made up of representatives from 

all points of contact within the juvenile justice system and other key juvenile justice 

stakeholders, has been charged with developing a response to the Commission’s 

strategic initiatives around this area. Memberships includes representatives from 

the community, police department, Maricopa County Juvenile Court and Juvenile 

Probation, Pima County Juvenile Court and Juvenile Probation, the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections, researchers from the Arizona State University, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, and the Arizona Supreme Court, members of 

the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission and staff from the Governor’s Division for 

Children. 

Identified as its primarily initiative, the DMC committee is working to utilize the 

data that is gathered on a statewide basis for DMC. Utilizing statewide data collected through Arizona Administrative Office of the Court’s (AOC) Juvenile On-Line 

Tracking System (JOLTS) and the AOC’s Building Block initiative, the DMC committee hopes to target specific causes or contributing factors to increase contact and/

or commitment of minority youth with prevention strategies that are applicable and 

address specific county or community factors. 

In its role as a standing committee of the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission, 

the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Committee is committed to the fair 

and equitable treatment of minority youth in the Arizona juvenile justice system. 

The DMC Committee continues to collaborate with the Administrative Office of the 

Courts, the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections, and other juvenile justice 

stakeholders in addressing DMC. To that end, the DMC Committee developed a series of strategic objectives in an effort to identify and address issues that contribute 

to disproportionate minority contact and minority overrepresentation in the Arizona 

juvenile justice system. 

Strategies for 2006-2008 of the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission’s DMC Committee: 

Strategy One: 

Continue to identify and address issues of DMC 

Strategy Two: 

Support, promote and replicate existing model programs that are being used in 

Arizona and nationally 

Strategy Three: 

Collaborate with granting body of AJJC to increase coordination among funding 

sources to fully address gaps 

74

Strategy Four: 

Collaborate with other entities to establish statewide benchmarks for data collection and analysis 

Strategy Five: 

Support Arizona’s Building Blocks Initiative and Maricopa County and Pima 

County’s DMC-reduction activities 

Funding to support state and local DMC Reduction Activities 

The Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission (AJJC), through the Planning and 

Grants Committee, has made it a priority to continue to fund prevention and intervention programs that work with minority youth and families as an overall effort 

to address DMC. 

As local prevention efforts continue to do their part in addressing DMC, the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission will continue to support systemic efforts to address the overrepresentation of minorities in the juvenile justice system. As noted 

in the list of State’s Priority Juvenile Justice Needs/Problem Statements, there is 

an increased need for delinquency prevention programs and alternatives to detention that are culturally appropriate to address the unique needs of at-risk minority 

youth. 

This will be accomplishment by the following implementation steps. 

1. Make funding available to communities for programs that serve as alternatives 

to detention (deinstitutionalization of status offenders, jail removal, alternatives to 

detention and diversion programs that are gender responsive and culturally appropriate). 

2. Make funding available for diversion programs that will divert youth from the 

formal juvenile court process. 

3. Train and educate law enforcement, probation personnel, judges and other juvenile justice professionals on the DMC core requirement parameters. 

4. Provide community-level reports regarding the facilities that effect compliance 

and the community’s current compliance status. 

5. Provide funding that will improve the juvenile justice system including the appropriate use of research-based programs. 

6. Work with the Building Blocks Initiative that analyzes data in Arizona to accurately identify decision points within the system that are of greatest concern with 

regard to disproportionate minority contact. 

7. Work with the Pima County Community Advisory Board as they continue to 

address Disproportionate Minority Contact in Pima County. 

8. Work with the Pima County Juvenile Court Center and the JDAI/DMC Executive Committee to implement the Annie E Casey Foundation grant for Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI) and Disproportionate Minority Contact. 

9. Fund community programs, training and educational forums to reduce the incidence of disproportionate minority representation in the juvenile justice system. 

10. Promote collaboration around DMC efforts among the state agencies and organizations directly involved with the juvenile justice system, including the Arizona 

Department of Juvenile Corrections, Administrative Office of the Courts and the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission. 

During FY2007 and FY2008, the DMC Committee of the AJJC will continue in 

its efforts to identify model program and best practice strategies that could be used 

in Arizona to reduce DMC. A key strategy in this effort has been to include representatives of key community and juvenile justice stakeholders on the DMC Committee. DMC Committee representation includes representative members from Maricopa County, the Arizona Building Blocks Initiative, the PCJCC JDAI/DMC Executive Committee, as well as from the Department of Juvenile Corrections. With representation from the PCJCC JDAI Executive Committee, the DMC Committee can 

support as well as learn from the strategies and implementation. 

Local Jurisdiction Efforts 

Jurisdictions conducting targeted DMC reduction activities include Maricopa 

County and Pima County and Yuma County; however, the majority of activities 

have taken place in Maricopa County and Pima County. Yuma County was selected 

as a third jurisdiction for data analysis for its increasing minority population; however, currently has fewer programs targeting the areas found with evidence of DMC 

as compared to the other identified jurisdictions. It is important to note that the 

number of juveniles who came in contact with the system in Maricopa County and 

Pima County represent 70% of the total youth who were referred in FY2006. Yuma 

County continued to report the third highest youth referred count in FY2006. 

75

Maricopa County 

Utilizing the ‘‘Building Blocks’’ model of the Youth Law Center, the Arizona Supreme Court, with support by the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission, undertook 

a multi-year project that attempts to reduce minority over-representation in the justice system and to promote rational and effective justice policies. 

This project began as a response to the rapidly increasing over-representation of 

young people of color in the justice system. The project proactively addresses the 

concerns of disproportionate minority representation in an integrated multiple-strategy campaign that includes (1) research, (2) analysis of decision making in the field, 

(3) direct advocacy for minority youth in the justice system, (4) building a constituency for change at the local, state, and national level, and (5) development of communications, media, and public education strategies. 

Included in Arizona’s Building Blocks Initiative is a focus on Maricopa County, 

one of the two jurisdictions with significant targeted DMC-reduction activities. The 

Building Blocks Initiative aims to reduce the over representation of minority youth 

in the justice system through a coordinated effort among state and local stakeholders. 

The initial findings of the System Analysis for Maricopa County found that over 

representation was present in three areas of analysis—Arrest, Probation, and within 

Juvenile Corrections. Within the area of arrest, data suggests that over representation occurs for Part One and Part Two crimes for minorities. Further analysis is 

being conducted to explore data on police attempts to contact parents, the impact 

of special units targeting specific youth, and explore the feasibility of differentiating 

youth questioned but not arrested compared with those arrested. 

In the area of probation, data suggests that over representation of minority youth 

occurred for youth violating terms of probation as found within the decision to request a petition for such violations. This finding occurred for minority youth on 

standard as well as intensive probation. Further analysis will be conducted to assess 

prior offenses and dispositions and impact on movement through system as well as 

the ethnicity of the officer filing the probation violation petition. 

The system analysis and community assessment of Maricopa County also identified an area of Maricopa County as having a high concentration of minority youth 

as well as a high number of youth referred to the juvenile court. 

In an effort to reduce the number of youth detained, coupled with data gathered 

from the Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department that identifies truancy 

as a leading cause of youth referrals to court, targeted intervention programs have 

been implemented to reduce DMC in Maricopa County. Specifically, Maricopa County’s Gateway Project, the City of Phoenix PASS initiative, the City of Tempe’s Strategies for Success program, and the Cultural Pride Linking Communities of Chicanos 

Por La Causa, were identified with a component that targets minority youth within 

its delinquency prevention efforts to reduce potential contact with the juvenile justice system. 

Two additional activities were either continued or implemented in FY06 with support from the findings of the community assessment; these include the Education 

Success Program (ESP) truancy prevention program and an Alternative to Suspension program. 

Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department is implementing the Maricopa 

County Gateway Project. This is a collaboration project funded with Title V prevention funding that coincides with the ESP program and the Alternative to Suspension 

program, targeting the Cartwright School District and adjacent areas. One strategy 

of the Gateway project is to redirect and refocus already existent resources and programs in the community, crate a new collaborative intervention strategy, and target 

at risk and first truancy referrals and their families for intensive intervention services. Truancy has been seen as a ‘‘gateway’’ behavior that places youth at risk for 

future negative activity. Youth from the high-risk areas identified as well as first 

time truancy referrals and their families will enter one of two blue print programs 

selected as part of the Gateway Project—Functional Family Therapy (FFT) and 

Multisystemic Therapy (MST). 

The goal and outcome objectives of the Gateway project are to reduce truancy 

through community collaborations, promote the development and expansion of family centered services, expand communication and cooperation among all youth involved, augment efforts to prevent re-offending and support individual progress, and 

provide rapid response delivery of services. Data from Maricopa County Juvenile 

Court revealed that a disproportionate number of status offense referrals and additional data reveal a high number of truancy referrals from the Maryvale area. This 

program is targeting the Maryvale area, specifically three zip codes identified as 

high risk. 

76

The Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department and community providers, 

Touchstone and Tumbleweed, have partnered with Safe School sites in target zip 

codes to provide evidenced based programs to families. This intervention has demonstrated effectiveness in assisting families with skills necessary to engage, motivate, and change behavior. 

These services work not only with the at risk youth, but with the entire family 

to address the family as a system. These services are available, as needed, with bilingual counselors. The approach of FFT (Functional Family Therapy) and MST 

(Multisystemic Therapy) empower parents with skills and resources to independently address the issues that arise when raising teenagers, and provide ways to cope 

with family, peer, school and neighborhood problems. 

Recruitment occurs by enlisting current programs and initiatives within the target area. School personnel and Safe School Officers, School Resource Officers, and 

Probation Officers are among those who identify youth in the target areas as most 

at risk of truant behavior and assess the case for referral into the Gateway project. 

Programming is also targeted to youth that have already been referred to Court on 

a truancy referral. 

Additional efforts from Maricopa County Juvenile Probation include its collaborative project with the City of Phoenix (located within Maricopa County) that coordinates the activities of its C.U.T.S (Court Unified truancy Suppression) program with 

the City of Phoenix’s at-risk prevention programs. Both programs are targeting high 

rates of minority youth referrals for truancy. 

The truancy prevention program is a collaboration of representatives committed 

to reducing the number of youth, primarily minority youth, which are referred to 

court. This collaboration involves school principals and administrators, Maricopa 

County Juvenile Probation, the City of Phoenix’s Operation AIM (Attendance is 

Mandatory), City of Phoenix Police Department, and City of Phoenix At-Risk Youth 

Division. The Education Success Program (ESP) program was implemented in two 

6th Grade Centers (schools only serving 6th grade students) that opened in the 

2004-2005 school year. Elementary schools within the Cartwright School District 

within Maricopa County fed into the two 6th Grade Centers. 

Maricopa County’s Education Success Program (ESP) program is focused on providing prevention and early intervention strategies for at risk youth in the target 

area, which includes a high population of minority youth and families. The ESP program placed a full time Family Resource Officer within the Cartwright School District to provide intervention efforts for at-risk youth and their families. Referrals 

were directed to the Family Resource Officer to avoid formal court involvement and 

youth and families were directed toward appropriate services. 

During FY06, funding was used to support an Alternative to Suspension program 

in Maricopa County. This program was implemented in the Atkinson Middle School 

District within the Maryvale/Cartwright School District. This school is made up of 

a population of approximately 1,000 students with a demographic breakdown of 80% 

Hispanic, 8% African-American, 10% white and 2% Native American. This school 

district was identified as having an increasing rate of referrals to juvenile court 

along with an increased number of student suspensions. This school was also reporting an increasing number of student suspensions, estimated at 75-100 per year, 

placing a high number of youth at-risk of delinquency, being detained, or not continuing on to high school. The goal is this program is to provide an alternative 

school suspension program to allow for continued educational services, coupled with 

behavioral health and human service components also being provided in the students case planning. 

In 2007, Maricopa County Superior Court implemented its Community Services 

Unit. This program will bring together the Juvenile Court, Juvenile Probation, the 

Arizona Department of Economic Security’s CPS unit, and the local Regional Behavioral Health Provider to provide wrap around services to youth and families who 

come in to contact with the court. The CSU will assess and triage referred families 

as well as those who walk in needing service. The goal of the CSU is to divert child 

and families away from formal court or detention involvement by bridging the gap 

between needed services and the court involvement often times needed to access 

such services. Hispanic youth and families are the second highest ethnic group who 

are referred to Maricopa County Juvenile Court. 

Free Arts of Arizona, a non-profit within Maricopa County, was funded to implement a delinquency prevention program targeting minority youth. Free Arts of Arizona will provide a range of activities to youth in shelters, residential, and group 

homes throughout Maricopa County. The current population served by this program 

is youth ages 14-18 with ethnic make up of 42% white, 34% Hispanic, 15% African 

American, 5% Native American, and 4% other. This program was selected for its 

target population of youth of color in the child welfare system as a prevention to 

77

further system penetration and more importantly, to prevent the flow of youth from 

the dependency system into the juvenile justice system. 

Two alternative to detention programs were awarded formula grant funding to 

begin programs in 2007. Tumbleweed Center for Youth Development will provide 

space for at-risk, runaway and homeless youth ages 11-18. Tumbleweed utilizes various outreach efforts to work with local police and detention center intake personnel 

to promote awareness to and provide an alternative to secure holding and placement 

within detention. In addition to providing an alternative to detention, human services, case management, Family Functional Therapy and other counseling and family 

support are available. This program primarily serves Hispanic and African American youth. 

The Valley of the Sun YMCA was selected to provide an alternative to detention 

in Maricopa County. In partnership with the Maricopa County Juvenile Probation 

Department, the Valley of the Sun YMCA will service youth who live primarily in 

three zip codes considered to be the highest risk for arrest and detention (primary 

zip codes for referral to juvenile court). The program is designed to serve as an alternative to detention by helping divert youth who would otherwise be detained due 

to limited alternatives in the community. Using a community based, multifaceted 

approach, the YMCA will implement an Evening Reporting Center to increase availability of pre-sentencing alternatives and reduce already overcrowding of detention. 

The target population is primarily Hispanic. 

The City of Phoenix continues to operate its prevention program, Personal and 

Student Success (PASS). This intervention program targets a population of at-risk 

youth with a high percentage of minority youth. The City of Phoenix Human Services Department completed a need assessment of the schools and surrounding communities that are part of the PASS Initiative. The schools partnering in the PASS 

Initiative are Camelback High School, Cesar Chavez High School, and South Mountain High School. Staff identified Risk Factors and Protective Factors based upon 

the assessment of factors associated with school drop out. 

The strategies and approaches utilized in the PASS Initiative are consistent with 

and build upon state and local efforts. The activities are based on a strong foundation of research to ensure quality, effective programming. The activities were selected to guarantee cultural and gender sensitivity and age appropriateness, as 

much of the target population is minority youth. The City markets community and 

City resources that are effective in drop out prevention and recovery, develop a system of service coordination, and expand City and community resources to assist 

schools. One of the most effective programs identified by the Graduate Phoenix Task 

Force was the City of Phoenix Human Services Department’s longitudinal school 

based program. The PASS Initiative is an enhancement and expansion of that highly successful program. 

The PASS Initiative works with 9th grade students to assist with the transition 

from middle school to high school. The PASS Initiative caseworker provides longterm, intensive services to a small target group of at risk students. The complement 

of services is based on an individualized assessment for each student. In addition, 

the Initiative caseworker provides short-term services to the remaining 9th graders. 

The services include classroom presentations, conflict mediation, assessment and referrals, and crisis intervention. 

The goals of the PASS Initiative are to demonstrate increased service coordination 

by providing a continuum of comprehensive services to at-risk students, and for students among at the three target schools to demonstrate increased academic success 

and increased social skills and healthy beliefs. Services are being provided to the 

target students that include support groups, skill-building groups, individual supportive counseling, conflict resolution, and assessments and referrals. The baseline 

data for the students has been established and the final outcomes will be measured 

at the end of the school year. 

In addition to the program activities mentioned above, the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission awarded seven new programs in early 2007 that will target DMC 

reduction activities. Four of these programs will implement delinquency prevention 

efforts primarily serving minority youth. These programs provide community based 

services that work to eliminate contact with various points of the system. Three of 

the programs were funded to provide an alterative to detention. These programs 

specifically target minority youth and zip code and/or community areas identified as 

high arrest and referral areas. Programs activities for FY2007 are outlined below. 

Two additional programs were awarded funding to provide services within the 

City of Phoenix. The City of Phoenix was awarded funding for its Getting Results 

through Encouraging Attendance and Transition (GREAT) Program. This program 

will complement and expand the City’s First Offender Program that provides services to youth, 6 to 17, who have committed their first status offense or misdemeanor 

78

offense, primarily referrals for truancy. The goal of this program is to work with 

youth who have been identified as being chronically truant, approaching a formal 

petition to court for having the maximum allowable truancies. Services will include 

individual assessments, case management, conflict resolution workshops, and individual and family counseling. The target population is primarily Hispanic youth. 

Greater Phoenix Youth at Risk, a non-profit program located in Maricopa County, 

will begin its New Pathways Mentoring Program in 2007. This program will target 

at-risk youth ages 14-17; current program population is 66% Hispanic youth. The 

program targets primarily truant, suspended or expelled youth or youth that would 

other otherwise not be in school. While the behavior of these youth would typically 

label them as being delinquent, the majority of youth served by this program have 

yet to be formally charged. 

The City of Tempe’s Strategies for Success program, also within Maricopa County, 

continued in FY2006. The program was implemented in the fall FY2004 and identified among its target populations at-risk youth to include a high percentage of minority youth. The Strategies for Success is a collaborative effort between the City 

of Tempe, Community Services Department, Tempe Elementary School District, 

Scales Professional Development Elementary School and Gililland Middle School, 

and the East Valley Boys and Girls Club. 

As a part of its needs assessment, data from the City of Tempe showed that a 

significant portion of referrals to juvenile court came from Gilliland Middle School 

students in the Tempe Elementary School District and that Gilliland Middle School 

student test scores are the among the lowest in the district. Primary goals and objectives of the Strategies for Success program include a reduction of Gililland students’ involvement in delinquent and other risky behaviors as measured by a decrease Gililland students referrals to juvenile court by 10% after two years and to 

have youth participation in one or more of the proposed programs as measured by 

increase in knowledge of personal and social competency skills by at least 10% at 

the end of the program cycle. 

Identified needs include bilingual counseling services for students and their families and structured after-school activities and tutoring services for Gililland Middle 

students. Through 2006, bilingual counseling services were provided to 91 participants, primarily between the ages of 5 and 11; 63 of the 91 participants were Hispanic or Latino. Intervention programs targeting minority youth in 2006 served 195 

high school aged youth; 57% of participants were Hispanic or Latino; 15% of participants were Black or African American. 

Another agency targeting delinquency prevention and alternatives to detention for 

youth in the City of Tempe, Tempe School District is Chicanos Por La Causa. Funding to support this agency began with the 2004 funding cycle to implement its Cultural Pride Linking Communities program in two middle schools within the Tempe 

Elementary School District. The specific high-risk neighborhoods associated with 

these two sites are the El Rio and La Victoria neighborhoods in Tempe. The Cultural Pride Linking Communities program is a comprehensive and holistic approach 

that includes participation of youth and their families in the program. The program 

participants are Chicano or other ethnic and economically disadvantaged students 

and their families. Parent and siblings of participant youth were also served. 

Pima County 

Pima County Juvenile Court Center (PCJCC) has long been focused on efforts 

that work to address youth of color being over-represented in the juvenile justice 

system. In 1997, an Intercultural Relations position was created. In 2002, the National Center for Juvenile Justice conducted a technical assistance project to guide 

PCJCC in implementing interventions to reduce Disproportionate Minority Contact 

(DMC). The presiding judge also reconvened the Community Advisory Board, which 

took on the task of assisting PCJCC in addressing DMC, and created the Minority 

Overrepresentation Work Group. In 2003, the Pima County Juvenile Court Director 

crafted a PCJCC DMC Action Plan, and in 2004, PCJCC appointed the court’s first 

DMC coordinator. 

In 2004, the Pima County Juvenile Court Center spearheaded the Pima County 

DMC Initiative with a community event. The Pima County Juvenile Court Community Advisory Board, in partnership with the Pima County Juvenile Court and the 

Minority Over-representation Committee, held a symposium regarding Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) in the Pima County juvenile justice system. There 

were 60 participants in attendance at the six-hour symposium, representing a cross 

section of the community and the juvenile justice system. This event brought together key stakeholders that included community policy-decision makers, local elected official, judges, community service providers, law enforcement, faith-base leaders, 

juvenile court officials, and youth advocates to discuss and set a course of action to 

79

address the issue of disproportionate minority contact within the juvenile justice 

continuum in Pima County. 

A goal of the Pima County Symposium was to create an organization or governing 

body to organize the data collection, system analysis, and activities and information 

sharing regarding the Pima County DMC Initiative. Following the DMC symposium, 

a DMC Executive Committee was established. This executive board is made up of 

key stakeholders that will be tasked with reviewing the system analysis data as 

well as conducting a comprehensive review of the detention risk assessment form. 

In October 2004, Pima County was selected as an Annie E. Casey Foundation replication site for the Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI). The Pima 

County Juvenile Court Center (PCJCC) has also partnered with the W. Haywood 

Burns Institute to address the issue of DMC. PCJCC is the first JDAI site in the 

nation to implement the Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative with the work of 

the W. Haywood Burns Institute at the inception of the initiative. 

The objectives of the JDAI are to safely eliminate inappropriate or unnecessary 

use of secure detention, minimize failures to appear in court and incidence of delinquent behavior, and well as to improve conditions in secure detention facilities. The 

JDAI and DMC collaboration that has been established involves key community and 

juvenile justice stakeholders. The PCJCC JDAI/DMC Executive Committee includes: 

the Tucson Police Department, Chicanos Por La Causa, the Tucson Indian Center, 

the School Districts of Tucson Unified and Sunnyside, the Offices of the Pima County Attorney and Public Defender, the Regional Behavioral Health Authority, the Department of Economic Security Child Protective Services, and the Pima Count Juvenile Court. The focus of the three-year grant is to create safe alternatives to confinement for children accused of committing crimes. 

With the announcement of the AECF grant, the Pima County DMC Executive 

Board became the JDAI/DMC Executive Committee and serves as the oversight 

body for the JDAI project and plan implementation. Additionally, the Chief of Police 

in Pima County has endorsed the DMC reduction plan and integrated the plan into 

the strategic plan of the Pima County Police Department. 

The JDAI/DMC Executive Committee is currently focusing on two strategies. One 

focus includes the JDAI project and associated activities. A second focus of the Executive Committee is a review of Pima County’s risk assessment and detention screening tool. An additional strategy involves training of judicial staff using the Casey 

Family Programs of Arizona curriculum, ‘‘Undoing Racism.’’ This training is used 

to discuss racism among judges and other staff and community members involved 

with youth. 

During 2006, Pima County continued its community assessment and data collection activities. The System Analysis for Pima County is currently being implemented and involves a review of data covering a ten-year period and assesses numerous points of contact with youth. These points include paper referral detainment 

of youth, detention, disposition to probation and juvenile corrections, and violations 

of probation. Variables in the system analysis for Pima County include but are not 

limited to ethnicity, race, gender, socioeconomic status, and severity of offense. 

During FY2006, PCJCC staff completed a comprehensive profile of children in detention. Factors considered include age, race/ethnicity, gender, nature of offense or 

referral, day/time of arrest, and length of stay in detention. PCJCC Information 

Technology staff created geo-maps identifying the residence of detained minors. Additional geographic-related data was compiled from law enforcement, behavioral 

health, and other sources. This data is being used to identify specific strategies to 

reduce the inappropriate use of detention and disproportionate contact. 

Successes noted in 2006 include: 

• Average daily population in detention (ADP) reduced from 173 in 2004 to 135 

in 2005 and continued to decrease into 2006

• Average daily population of African American juveniles reduced from 20 in Q1 

of 2005 to 13 in Q1 of 2006

• Average daily population of Native American juveniles reduced from 18 in Q1 

of 2005 to 11 in Q1 of 2006

• Average length of stay (ALOS) in detention reduced from 16.83 days in 2004 

to 14.11 days in 2005

• Average length of stay for African American juveniles reduced from 22 days in 

Q1 of 2005 to 12 days in Q1 of 2006

• Average length of stay for Hispanic juveniles reduced from 16 days in Q1 of 

2005 to 14 in Q1 of 2006

• Average length of stay for Native American juveniles reduced from 24 days in 

Q1 of 2005 to 19 in Q1 of 2006

Source: Pima County Juvenile Court Center

80

Additional accomplishments in FY06 were completed around specific problems 

areas. These include: 

Risk Assessment Instrument: With technical assistance from the Annie E. Casey 

Foundation, this group has reviewed and revised the screening tool used to determine whether a minor will be detained, by removing subjective factors and other 

criteria that may result in inappropriate detention, specifically of minority youth. 

Data revealed a significant amount of detention intake overrides (70%) were falling 

into two categories: Family dysfunction/Domestic Violence and Substance Abuse. 

Provisional Warrants: This group has developed a modified warrant and related 

procedures to be used in cases where a minor fails to appear for a court hearing 

but does not appear to be a threat to the community. Probation officers will have 

the discretion not to arrest minors subject to such warrants where it appears that 

the parents will assure the minor’s attendance at the next hearing. 

Ad Hoc Target Site: Two areas were identified in the community from which a 

high percentage of minority youth are referred to the detention center. The Executive Committee and the DMC Coordinator is beginning to implement a strategy to 

work in partnership with these local communities to identify ways in which arrests 

can be avoided or minors released from detention with appropriate services and supervision in place. 

Probation Violators: A large percentage of the detention populations are minors 

on probation who commit ‘‘technical’’ violations of the conditions of probation (e.g., 

curfew violations, failure to attend school, etc.) This group will develop a profile of 

this population and develop strategies to avoid inappropriate use or overuse of detention as a sanction. 

Decision to Detain: A period of time in detention is often sought by prosecutors 

and probation officers as a consequence when a juvenile repeatedly violates the conditions of probation. The use of a graduated response system is also a key principle 

of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Juvenile Delinquency 

Guidelines, which PCJCC is implementing as part of their Model Delinquency Court 

project. An internal court committee is reviewing the probation conditions and developing a graduated response system to ensure the use of consistent and appropriate criteria in making the decision to request detention as a consequence. 

Length of Stay: In 2006, the PCJCC Detention Division has fully implemented the 

‘‘Step Up’’ program for all detained juveniles. This behavioral education program 

pairs detained youth with detention staff mentors, improves their decision-making 

skills, and prepares them to return to the community without re-offending. Initial 

surveys show that youth completing the program believe that it has helped them 

make positive changes and better decisions, has taught them to be accountable for 

their actions, and has prepared them to return to school or employment. Collaborating with Davis Monthan Air Force Base, Detention has also begun a community 

mentor program, pairing over 100 service personnel with detained juveniles to provide a positive and supportive relationship both in detention and back in the community. 

Alternatives to Detention: Juvenile probation is currently maximizing the use of 

electronic monitors as an alternative to detention. The court is also in discussion 

with a community provider to expand it current services to support a day/evening 

reporting center. Juveniles needing increased structure and supervision can be released on condition that they attend this center after school, where they can receive 

additional services such as tutoring, substance abuse counseling, and behavior education. The court has also committed to developing a pre-adjudication community 

supervision program. 

Analysis of the RAI data has revealed two specific areas needing alternatives: juveniles charged with domestic violence and chronic substance abusers. Juveniles 

charged with domestic violence are arrested and usually cannot safely be returned 

to their homes immediately. With a grant in 2005 from the United States Bureau 

of Justice Administration, the court has hired a domestic violence coordinator who 

will work with probation and community stakeholders to develop alternatives to arrest as well as to detention. 

Neighborhood Pilots: The Executive Committee reviewed comprehensive demographic and referral data to identify two neighborhoods with strong leadership, significant Hispanic and African American populations, and high numbers of referrals 

to the Juvenile Court. PCJCC is partnering with the ‘A’ Mountain and Sunnyside/

Elvira neighborhoods with a goal of developing community-based alternatives to detention that will have the most beneficial impact, particularly on youth of color. The 

first step in that process has been the completion of a community profile for each 

neighborhood. Working with over 150 community leaders, parents, court-involved juveniles and other youth, a subcommittee has completed neighborhood mapping, developed a community matrix of services, and conducted focus groups to complete the 

81

profiles. When the profile reports are complete, the Executive Committee will work 

with the neighborhoods to identify and develop neighborhood-based strategies and 

alternatives to detention. 

Because native youth are not concentrated in any specific geographic area, a different strategy was needed to address issues facing this population. Pima County 

Juvenile Court reached out to both the Tohono O’odham Nation and the Pasqua 

Yaqui Tribe, and begun to meet on a regular basis to establish an ongoing dialogue 

on native youth. The Court has invited tribal spiritual leaders to meet with native 

youth in detention and provide spiritual services to them. Detention staff is also 

working with tribal service providers to increase communication and enhance continuity of services once a youth is released to the community. 

Education Subcommittee: substantial numbers of youth involved in the juvenile 

justice system are failing to receive the education they need to succeed in life. Many 

are either not enrolled in school, or have been suspended or expelled as a result of 

the behavior that brought them into detention. Many have unmet needs for special 

education. And, the more their education is interrupted by periods of detention, the 

farther behind they fall. 

Although not expressly made a part of the original strategic plan, a subcommittee 

including the leadership of two of the largest school districts in Pima County are 

examining issues arising from the juncture between schools and the Juvenile Court. 

The first task is to collate and compare data from the two systems to identify and 

create a profile of the youth. This data will be used to examine school discipline, 

arrest and charging policies and practices, to determine the extent to which they 

contribute to inappropriate juvenile detention. 

This subcommittee will also consider the creation of school-based councils in the 

two pilot neighborhoods (’A’ Mountain and Sunnyside/Elvira) to develop ways to reduce referrals to the juvenile justice system and improve educational outcomes for 

court-involved youth. 

Pima County Juvenile Court Center also utilizes funding to support the Pima 

County Northwest Community Justice Center in operating a community assessment 

center and alternative to detention with intensive intervention programming. The 

program offers a continuum of services and programs for juveniles and their families, including mentoring, drug screening, cognitive skills building, and family counseling. 

In 2007, Pima County Juvenile Court Center will continue to develop interventions that support service delivery in non-detention settings, redistribute court resources to implement necessary interventions, evaluate interventions in relation to 

intended outcomes, and develop and maintain best practices for those youth who do 

require detention. 

The Pima County Juvenile Court Center, as part of its JDAI/DMC Initiative, has 

identified the following three priorities for 2006/2007: 

• Stakeholders ensure that key decisions are not adversely affected by cultural 

or language factors; 

• Develop and implement a system of graduated responses for delinquent behavior and violations of probation, both pre-and post-dispositions, including both sanctions and therapeutic/remedial interventions; 

• Ensure the availability of appropriate services and placements to facilitate and 

support the safe release of medium-risk minors. 

Planned Activities for Pima County Juvenile Court Center in FY2007, as part of 

its overall DMC reduction efforts, include a focus of the following areas: 

• Establish communication strategies: to orient PCJCC staff, stakeholders and 

the general community as to the developed DMC/JDAI values, vision and goals; to 

provide timely up-dates regarding the various systems changes being implemented; 

to develop a DMC/JDAI cadre of trainers within PCJCC that will work with staff 

and newly hired staff; and to devise the mechanisms to continually obtain input and 

feedback from staff, stakeholders, parents and youth. 

• Conduct Community Asset Mapping: in early 2007, PCJCC completed the first 

phase of its Community Profile. The Community Profile includes a Service Matrix 

of all program services for youth in the designated target site area. The next phase 

is to conduct a physical mapping of the target site area and compile information into 

a synthesized report of community strengths, challenges, and needs. This information will be used to identify approach alternatives that meet the needs and caps of 

these communities. 

• Develop specific community-based alternatives: to provide alternatives to detention in the local communities where youth live for the low and medium risk youth 

who would otherwise be detained and/or have no services. 

82

• Implement evaluation: continue to conduct and review periodic evaluations of 

the DMC/JDAI work plans to determine the outcomes, revise work plan if necessary, 

compare data results with calendar year 2003 baseline date. 

• Establish a Single DMC/JDAI Master Action Plan: to incorporate the Juvenile 

Detention Alternatives Initiatives (JDAI) and the Haywood Burns Institute strategies into the PCJCC DMC original action plan and to monitor and track progress. 

• Implement Focus groups: to obtain information from youth and parents about 

what works, and what could be improved about the Juvenile Justice System and 

other community services, and evaluate the allocation of resources to consider other 

appropriate alternatives. 

• Broaden base of DMC champions: Identify, recruit and orient new target community stakeholders to join in the reduction of DMC. 

• Detention Self-Inspection: PCJCC has completed its Detention Self Inspection 

that includes a review of 175 points. 

Pima County Alternative to Detention Programs 

In early 2007, Pima County Juvenile Court was awarded funding to implement 

an additional detention alternative program. The need for this program was identified as part of the system analysis, community assessment, and various data collection and review efforts conducted as part of Pima County’s JDAI/DMC Initiative. As 

stated previously, an analysis of the Risk Assessment Instrument data revealed two 

specific areas needing alternatives: juveniles charged with domestic violence and 

chronic substance abusing youth. A further review of data revealed that juvenile domestic violence poses a serious and complex issue. Pima County Juvenile Court Center annually receives approximately 1,500 youth referrals for domestic violence offenses. Due to law enforcement guidelines, half of the youth arrested for these 

charges are brought to the detention center. 

Pima County Juvenile Court recognized that many of these youth were detained 

primarily because an appropriate alternative did not exist. Using formula grant 

funding, PCJCC will establish a Domestic Violence Reception Center to provide a 

community-based, non-secure facility to serve as an alternative to detention as well 

as an alternative to arrest. This Center will utilize existing support services within 

the county to provide a range of services such as short-term respite, placement for 

youth requiring longer stays, crisis intervention services, and assessments for referrals to local behavioral health service providers. 

Yuma County 

As noted earlier, Yuma County was selected as the third jurisdiction as this county has a significant minority youth population. The Yuma County Juvenile Justice 

Center began a court improvement project in early 2004 that consists of implementing recommendations made under a technical assistance project by OJJDP that 

include establishing a DMC committee, contracting for youth and family services for 

delinquency prevention and intervention efforts targeting Hispanic youth, increasing 

capacity and use of alternatives to detention to reduce secure detention of youth offenders and youth who violate conditions of probation. 

Yuma County Juvenile Justice Center is currently utilizing funding to support diversion and alternative to detention services for youth. The program serves both 

probationers and non-probationers who are detained at the Yuma County Juvenile 

Detention facility. Ages served ranges from 12 to 17 years of age and include both 

male and female detainees. The goal of the program is to deter and minimize recidivism rate of juveniles returning to the Yuma County Detention Center by providing 

pro-active skills necessary to prevent future delinquent behavior and substance 

abuse. 

Yuma County is currently consulting with both Maricopa County and Pima County to review each jurisdiction’s DMC reduction efforts, strategies, challenges and 

successes. It is anticipated that Yuma County may establish a group to begin implementing targeted reduction activities in 2007. 

Arizona remains in full support of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act and will continue to work towards the solutions that will address the disparate number of minorities in the juvenile justice system. Through efforts at the 

State level, including the commitment of the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission, 

Arizona will continue to utilize the relative rate index calculations to conduct further analysis and help guide the State’s plan for reducing DMC. 

As dictated by the core protections of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission is committed to developing 

effective strategies and programs to address minority youth that come in contact 

with the juvenile justice system. Essential to this effort is the establishment of a 

continued, integrated and comprehensive approach to identifying opportunities for 

83

community-level change with respect to policing, developing culturally competent assessments and services, and identifying existing model programs and available resources to impact the issue. 

[Additional submission by Mr. Johnson follows:]

A CAMPAIGN OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE & DELINQUENCY 

PREVENTION COALITION

the collective voice of more than 150 organizations nationwide 

JJDPA Statement of Principles 

We, the undersigned, urge the Congress to adhere to the following four principles 

in approaching the Reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA). These principles are grounded in research and their efficacy underscored by the fact that the JJDPA has for more than 30 years provided direction 

and support for juvenile justice system improvement and, thereby, significantly contributed to the diminution of juvenile crime and delinquency. 

I. Keep children and youth out of the justice system: Whenever possible, keep children and youth out of the juvenile and criminal justice systems by addressing their 

needs and those of their families early and effectively. 

II. Ensure equity and competence: Do everything possible to ensure equity and 

competence with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language, gender and sexual orientation, in legal representation before the courts and throughout all system practices and policies. 

III. Ensure responses appropriate to a young person’s age and stage of development: Do everything possible to ensure that children and youth in the justice system 

are treated in an ageappropriate manner and provided with developmentally appropriate, evidence-based services and supports. Ensure, when needed, that sanctions 

are appropriate to a youth’s age and offense. 

IV. Strengthen the federal partnership with state and local governments: 

Strengthen the federal role in supporting state and local needs by providing sufficient resources and appropriations for jurisdictions to effectively implement the 

JJDPA, to fully comply with its core requirements/protections and to ensure state 

and local adherence to high standards of performance. 

What is the JJDPA? 

Why care? 

Each year, juvenile courts handle an estimated 1.6 million delinquency cases and 

adjudicate youth delinquent in nearly 7 of every 10 petitioned cases. The daily census of youth under age 18 who are incarcerated is 97,000—yet, it is estimated that 

25 percent of them are detained while awaiting placement or court proceedings. 

Many youth who are confined are nonviolent and highly amenable to the benefits 

of rehabilitative services and supports provided in non-institutional home and community based settings. Juveniles in the courts have been shown to suffer from higher than average incidence of mental/behavioral health problems, learning disabilities 

and school failure, as well as under-addressed family intervention and support 

needs. Moreover, for more than two decades, state-level data have shown that youth 

of color have been overrepresented at every stage of the juvenile justice system. 

Additionally, some researchers estimate as many as 200,000 youth have their 

cases processed in adult criminal court each year as a result of prosecutorial or judicial waiver, statutory exclusion for certain offense categories, or because they reside 

in states with a lower age of criminal jurisdiction (age 16 or 17). On any given day, 

an estimated 7,000 youth under the age of 18 are inmates in adult jails, of these 

90% are being held ‘‘as adults.’’ Youth who are not under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court are not covered by the JJDPA’s core requirements/protections. 

Right now, juvenile arrest rates are at historically low rates—lower than any levels recorded since the 1980s. Nationwide, law enforcement agencies arrest approximately 2.2 million persons under the age of 18 each year, yet in nearly half of all 

cases the most serious charges are larcenytheft, simple assault, a drug abuse/liquor 

law violation or disorderly conduct. Furthermore, research indicates that youth of 

color are detained more often and for longer periods of time than their white counterparts for the same low level offenses. 

The continuing success of effective juvenile crime prevention and deterrence depends on Congress strengthening both the provisions of the JJDPA, as well as the 

funding resources needed to fulfill such provisions to the greatest possible extent. 

Data sources: Snyder, Howard N. and Sickmund, Melissa. 2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency PrevenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:07 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-55\36466.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
84

tion. www.ncjj.org; Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2005. Childhood on Trial: The 

Failure of Trying and Sentencing Youth in Adult Criminal Court, Washington, DC. 

www.juvjustice.org 

How could adherence to these principles guide JJDPA reauthorization? 

I. Keep children and youth out of the justice system: Whenever possible, keep children and youth out of the juvenile and criminal justice systems by addressing their 

needs and those of their families early and effectively. • Continuum of Care: Support an array of prevention and intervention strategies 

for children and families in collaboration with providers of educational, medical, 

mental/behavioral health, after school, workforce development services, and others, 

utilizing theory- and evidence-based practices. • Detention Alternatives: Develop and sustain community- and family-based alternatives to locked detention, both pre- and post-adjudication. • Effective Reentry and Reconnection: Help young people leave the system, return 

home and stay home. Provide for effective reconnection to schools, families, community-based family support and/or counseling, jobs, and housing, upon release from 

confinement. 

II. Ensure equity and competence: Do everything possible to ensure equity and 

competence with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language, gender and sexual orientation, in legal representation before the courts and throughout all system practices and policies. • Reduce Racial and Ethnic Disparities: Given disproportionately high representation of youth of color in the justice system, it is imperative to direct major federal 

resources to states/localities to implement system-change strategies designed to reduce racial and ethnic disparities. In turn, states/localities should report their 

progress in reducing racial/ethnic disparities, as well any forms of differential treatment of youth of color as compared with their white counterparts, at all stages from 

surveillance/arrest to reentry. • Cultural and Linguistic Competence: At all system contact points, services and 

supports given to children, youth and families, as well as institutional conditions, 

must be linguistically and culturally competent. • Due Process Rights: The promise of due process rights for juveniles remains 

largely unfulfilled. Jurisdictions should ensure that youth have timely access to 

competent and qualified defense counsel and are required to consult with counsel 

prior to waiving their constitutional right to such counsel. • Ensure Safety: All populations of youth, especially those who have proven susceptible to harm such as girls, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth, and 

children with serious mental/behavioral health concerns, must be safe when in the 

care or custody of the justice system. 

III. Ensure responses appropriate to a young person’s age and stage of development: Do everything possible to ensure that children and youth in the justice system 

are treated in an ageappropriate manner and provided with developmentally appropriate, evidencedbased services and supports. Ensure, when needed, that sanctions 

are appropriate to a youth’s age and offense. 

• Incentives: Provide incentives to state and local jurisdictions to develop and implement developmentally appropriate services and supports for children and families 

that emphasize limited system contact and research-driven approaches to youth development. 

• Normal Adolescent Behavior vs. Delinquency: Guard against juvenile and criminal justice system responses that are unduly punitive, criminalize normal adolescent 

behavior or assume that youth competence and culpability equals that of adults. 

• Restorative Justice: In response to offending, implement policies, programs and 

practices that seek to restore the victim and the community and hold the youth offender accountable. 

• Take Steps to Extend Federal Protections to All Youth Until Age 18 or Older: 

Provide incentives for states to take necessary steps to ensure that the four JJDPA 

Core Requirements/Protections are applied as faithfully as possible to all youth until 

the age of 18, or to youth older than age 18 who are under extended juvenile jurisdiction, whether they have been tried in the juvenile or criminal court. 

IV. Strengthen the federal partnership with state and local governments: 

Strengthen the federal role in supporting state and local needs by providing sufficient resources and appropriations for jurisdictions to effectively implement the 

JJDPA, to fully comply with its core requirements/protections and to ensure state 

and local adherence to high standards of performance. 

• Optimal Funding: Ensure that funding authorizations in the JJDPA are provided at optimally effective levels to fulfill the all of the mandates of the JJDPA, 

as well as those contained in related juvenile justice programs, such as the Juvenile 

Accountability Block Grant (JABG) program. 

85

• Grants for State/Local Needs: Ensure that the federal role under the JJDPA is 

responsive to state-identified/locally-identified needs and the State Plan process, including field-based and field-strengthening research and evaluation to refine and expand the array of best and evidence-based practices. 

• Performance Measures: Establish and support states and localities to set, implement and monitor performance measures for achieving the highest possible standards for safe, effective and competence-building systems, programs, policies and 

practices. Provide resources to support training, technical assistance and information dissemination in line with state needs. 

We, the undersigned organizations and leaders, seek the support of Congress to 

see the aforementioned principles are assured in the Reauthorization of the federal 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA): 

NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Policy Section 

American Correctional Association 

American Probation and Parole Association 

American Psychiatric Association 

Asian Law Caucus 

Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) 

ATTIC Correctional Services 

Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law 

Camp Fire USA 

Campaign for Youth Justice 

Center for Children’s Law and Policy 

Center for Juvenile Justice Reform and Systems Integration, Georgetown University 

Child Welfare League of America 

Children’s Defense Fund 

Coalition for Juvenile Justice 

Correctional Education Association 

Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators 

Covenant House 

Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health 

International CURE Generations 

United Girls Inc. 

Justice Policy Institute 

Juvenile Law Center 

Legal Action Center 

Mental Health America 

Muslim Public Affairs Council 

National Alliance for Faith and Justice 

National Alliance to End Homelessness 

National Association for Children of Alcoholics 

National Association of Counties 

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers 

National Association of Home Builders 

National Center for Youth Law 

National Collaboration for Youth 

National Community Education Association 

National Council of La Raza 

National Disability Rights Network 

National H.I.R.E. Network 

National Human Services Assembly 

National Juvenile Defender Center 

National Juvenile Justice Network 

National Network for Youth 

National Parent Teacher Association 

National Partnership for Juvenile Services 

National Recreation and Park Association 

National Urban League Policy Institute 

National Youth Advocate Program 

Penal Reform International 

Physicians for Human Rights 

Residential Care Consortium 

Southern Poverty Law Center 

The National Center for Lesbian Rights 

The Sentencing Project 

86

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations 

United Church of Christ, Justice and Policy Ministries 

United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society Voices for America’s Children 

W. Haywood Burns Institute 

YMCA of the USA 

Youth Law Center 

STATE AND LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS

Alabama: 

Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program Alabama Youth Justice Coalition Children 

First Foundation Legal Aid Society of Birmingham Prodigal Child Project 

Southern Juvenile Defender Center The Ordinary People Society 

Alaska: 

Gastineau Human Services Corporation 

Arizona: 

Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission—The Arizona State Advisory Group Children’s Action Alliance Friendly House 

California: 

Asian and Pacific Islander Youth Advocacy Network (AYAN) California State Juvenile Officers’ Association Center for Juvenile Law and Policy, Loyola Law School 

Los Angeles Leadership Academy Mothers for Peace Pacific Juvenile Defender 

Center Para Los Ninos Watts/Century Latino Organization Youth Justice Coalition/Free L.A. 

Colorado: 

Pendulum Foundation 

Connecticut: 

Center for Children’s Advocacy, University of Connecticut School of Law Connecticut 

Juvenile Justice Alliance Office of the Child Advocate, State of Connecticut 

Delaware: 

Delaware Center for Justice Delaware Collaboration for Youth 

District of Columbia: 

Justice 4 DC Youth! Coalition Latin American Youth Center 

Florida: 

Children’s Campaign, Inc. Florida Keys Children’s Shelter, Inc. Latino Leadership 

Inc. Law Offices of Public Defender Bennett H. Brummer, 11th Judicial Circuit 

Redlands Christian Migrant Association 

Illinois: 

Child Care Association of Illinois Illinois Collaboration on Youth Illinois Parent 

Teacher Association John Howard Association of Illinois Juvenile Justice Initiative Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender Youth Network Council 

Indiana: 

Indiana Juvenile Justice Task Force, Inc. Leadership & Renewal Outfitters 

Kansas: 

Kansas Advisory Group on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention—The Kansas State Advisory Group 

Louisiana: 

Families and Friends of Louisiana’s Incarcerated Children (FFLIC) Juvenile Justice 

Project of Louisiana 

Maryland: 

Maryland Juvenile Justice Coalition 

Massachusetts: 

Citizens for Juvenile Justice Criminal Justice Institute, Harvard Law School 

Michigan: 

Michigan Council on Crime and Delinquency 

87

Mississippi: 

Mississippi Youth Justice Project 

Missouri: 

Missouri Juvenile Justice Association Youth In Need 

Nebraska: 

Voices for Children in Nebraska 

Nevada: 

East Las Vegas Community Development Corporation 

New Hampshire: 

Child and Family Services of New Hampshire 

New Jersey: 

Northeast Juvenile Defender Center 

New Mexico: 

Hands Across Cultures New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department—

The New Mexico State Advisory Group New Mexico Council on Crime and Delinquency 

New York: 

New York Juvenile Justice Coalition Goodhope Youth Home, Inc. Center for Community Alternatives Youth Represent 

North Carolina: 

Action for Children North Carolina 

North Dakota: 

Lutheran Social Services of North Dakota 

Ohio: 

Alliance of Child Caring Service Providers Children’s Defense Fund of Ohio Juvenile 

Justice Coalition (Ohio) Law Office of the Montgomery County, Ohio Public Defender North East Ohio Health Services Voices for Ohio’s Children Juvenile 

Justice Initiative 

Oregon: 

Partnership for Safety and Justice Salem/Keizer Coalition for Equality 

Pennsylvania: 

Community Commitment Inc. Congreso de Latinos Unidos Juvenile Detention Centers’ Association of PA 

South Dakota: 

Parents Who Care Coalition 

Tennessee: 

Latino Memphis, Inc. Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth (TCCY)—The 

Tennessee State Advisory Group 

Texas: 

Southwest Key Program Tejano Center for Community Concerns Texas Coalition 

Advocating Justice for Juveniles 

Utah: 

Utah Commission on Criminal Justice and Juvenile Justice—The Utah State Advisory Group 

Vermont: 

South Royalton Legal Clinic at Vermont Law School Children and Family Council 

for Prevention Programs—The Vermont State Advisory Group 

Virginia: 

Citizens United for Rehabilitation of ErrantsVirginia, Inc. JustChildren Program of 

the Legal Aid Justice Center MidAtlantic Juvenile Defender Center, University 

of Richmond Law School Virginia Coalition for Juvenile Justice 

Washington: 

TeamChild Washington Defender Association 

88

Wisconsin: 

Counseling Center of Milwaukee, Inc. La Casa de Esperanza, Inc. La Causa Wisconsin Council on Children and Families 

[Internet link to the Coalition for Juvenile Justice report, ‘‘Childhood on Trial: The Failure of Trying & Sentencing Youth in Adult 

Criminal Court,’’ dated 2005, submitted by Mr. Johnson, follows:]

http://www.appa-net.org/resources/pubs/docs/CJJ-Report.pdf 

[Additional materials submitted by Mr. Jones follow:]

A Boy’s Life: Former Drug Seller Tries to Start Over

By STEVE MELLON, Post-Gazette; Saturday, June 02, 2007

Rashon lives with his grandmother as he deals with the legal consequences of 

having marijuana in his school locker. 

He sits in a former laundry in Garfield in an oversize chair wearing an oversize 

white T-shirt and tennis shoes laced with alternating red and white strings. 

His hair, cut close around a cherubic face, is perfectly groomed with those little 

breaks of waves the guys like to wear. He talks of his days using and dealing marijuana. He’s 13. 

Rashon’s mother had five boys, but the siblings have never lived together. His 

mother has been a drug abuser for all his 13 years. 

‘‘I smoked [marijuana] outside. I smoked inside. I smoked walking around in public, just smoking,’’ he says as he clutches his hands to his knees. ‘‘I thought I was 

bored if I was not high. I had money, jewelry. I had ‘rep,’ ‘‘—he was someone others 

could count on to sell them the weed they needed to get high. 

‘‘It made me feel noticed.’’

An eighth-grader who likes rap music, basketball and math class, Rashon is one 

piece of a fraying social tapestry that includes up to 3 million other inner-city young 

black men across the nation. The common threads in their lives include 

fatherlessness, alienation from formal education, forays into criminal activity and a 

diminishing hope about their future—predictors that studies show push them into 

lives on the margins of society. 

Rashon is now in the Community Intensive Supervision Program, or CISP, an Allegheny County house arrest program that aims to keep kids like him in school, in 

their communities and out of trouble. CISP made Rashon available to the Post-Gazette on the condition his last name not be used. 

Rashon has a large family. 

His mother had five boys, the oldest is 24. Rashon is the third child. 

The boys never have lived together. Some of his siblings are scattered into foster 

homes. For all of his life, his mom has been a drug abuser. Because of her addiction, 

he never has lived with her. From the time he was six months old, he lived in a 

Hill District housing project with a great aunt. She fed him and clothed him and 

let Rashon sleep on a couch in the living room. 

When he lived with his great aunt, Rashon smoked weed. He walked the streets 

at all hours. Bored with school, he seldom went to class. 

He now lives in East Liberty in a tidy two-story home with his maternal grandmother. She calls the stocky young man with a dark-brown complexion Shon, and 

he’s lived with her for about nine months, since shortly after he was busted at 12 

for having a marijuana blunt in his middle school locker. 

At 67, Grandma Carleen has raised four boys and two girls. She has 11 grandchildren and one great-grandchild. 

She has raised Shon’s younger brother, Ron, since birth. She leads a visitor into 

her sunny little living room with the big sliding doors. Here all the furniture is 

snugly fitted in plastic. On a nearby shelf are family photographs. There are several 

of the younger brother and scores of his academic awards. 

There are no photos of Shon. 

Grandma Carleen, a widow, has worked hard to make a comfortable life. Her 

modest dwelling is on a quiet street, and she has sisters living in houses on both 

sides of her home. 

She is making the most of her life: She doesn’t mind getting up with the dawn, 

as she’s often out the door early to water aerobics, line dancing or exercising. 

89

‘‘These are supposed to be my years,’’ she says, reflecting on the sacrifice of having to now raise Shon, too. 

Shon, she says, ‘‘didn’t get the right start. I took him in because he had nowhere 

else to go.’’

Rashon’s mother infrequently comes around. He sees her, he might get a hug, but 

she remains a mystery to him. 

How old is she? 

Like many teens, Rashon likes rap music, basketball and math class. 

‘‘I don’t even know. Ain’t that crazy?’’ he asks, shaking his head. ‘‘I don’t know 

how old my mom is.’’

He’s working to let it go, but it’s tough. 

‘‘Sometimes I wake up in the morning and think of my mom and be mad and go 

to school. The first thing someone says to me, I just snap.’’

It makes him angry not having her there on holidays. Not having her there to 

talk about his math grade. Not having her there to help him avoid the same drugabusing path she walked on. But he downplays it. 

‘‘Hopefully, she’s doing good. I don’t get my hopes up. I got my own life to worry 

about, not hers.’’

In 13 years, Rashon has seen his father twice. As he recalled, with each visit 

there was acknowledgement, but no affection. No hug. No handshake. No nothing. 

Once, there was a phone call. Rashon thought it was a wrong number. 

‘‘I can’t even remember if he called me son or Rashon. He said ‘Wussup with you? 

How you been doing lately?’ ’’

His dad, back in jail since last August, has a long list of burglary charges that 

stretch back to before Rashon was born. 

‘‘To tell you the truth, I really don’t care if I saw him or not. For some reason, 

I really don’t care,’’ says Rashon. 

‘‘I can’t even say if I love him or not.’’

This is not always the world that Rashon imagines. 

When he daydreams, he sees a world with his father. 

‘‘Things would be different if he was around. If he was here, we’d play basketball 

together or something. Watch a movie or something. Ya know, a father and son 

thing.’’

In his dreams, it’s always a happy place. Then reality crashes into it. 

‘‘I really don’t know if I love him. I don’t know him. I love my mom, though,’’ he 

says plainly, matter-of-factly. ‘‘I don’t know why, she’d ain’t never been here for me, 

either. 

‘‘But for my dad, I can’t find a place for him in my heart.’’

Rashon was 12 when he first began smoking marijuana. He was on the street, 

hanging out with Black Hawk, Dom, Hard Tizzy and ’nem. 

He was always the youngest, and he wanted to be like the older guys. They were 

16, 17, 18. They called Rashon by the nickname Young Shig. 

Young Shig sold marijuana. 

Young Shig got high almost every day. 

Young Shig sometimes made $375 a week selling drugs. Add that up, and Young 

Shig would have cleared $19,500 in a year. Tax free. 

Most of which he spent buying more marijuana for himself or gambling it away. 

In fact, Young Shig called life on the street a blast. 

This is despite the fact that three of his friends have been shot or killed because 

of gang-related drugs and violence. 

Young Shig may have been having a blast, but Rashon wasn’t. 

‘‘I noticed my grades started dropping. I started missing school and everything. 

My whole life felt like it was going down the drain. I mean, to miss 45 days from 

school in one semester, that’s terrible. Now, I go to school every day.’’

While a student at Milliones Middle School in the Hill District, Rashon left the 

house about 7 every morning. He met with his friends and smoked a couple of 

blunts before going to class. They smoked on the city steps or near the shadowy, 

empty spaces outside of his great-aunt’s apartment. 

One day, he stuffed a half-smoked blunt into the corner pocket of his bubble jacket. The strong odor permeated the locker and after the vice principal confronted 

him, he confessed that it was his. 

He was charged with intent to distribute and sent to juvenile court. 

The judge saw his record of school absences and sent him to the Community Intensive Supervision Program. 

Looking to give him structure on a personal level, as well, the court suggested 

he move in with his grandmother. 

It is a beautiful Easter. 

90

Rashon is with family. He is standing and grinning at himself in the mirror. It 

is his first time in a new suit. 

‘‘I feel different. Handsome,’’ he says, purring over his faux snakeskin dress shoes. 

Before leaving for morning service, his younger brother ties Rashon’s tie. It’s a 

skill Rashon has never learned. 

Grandma is a retired operating room technician who sometimes worked two jobs 

to support her family. 

She is a petite, church-going woman, and she is strict. When Shon came in, the 

rules came out. For a young man not used to many restrictions, he now had a long 

list: clean your room, get your pants off your butt, wash the dishes, turn the music 

down. 

In her house, her call for order and obedience upsets him and he believes she 

thinks of him as ‘‘the devil.’’

‘‘No, I don’t think he is the devil,’’ said his grandmother. ‘‘But he puzzles me. I 

say, ‘What is wrong with this boy?’ ’’

After his day is over at Sunnyside school, a van picks up Rashon and delivers him 

to CISP. There he is among a thicket of young men who have all been pricked by 

trouble at school, petty crime or drug abuse. 

CISP is a chance for the counselors to stuff some accountability into their souls 

before they are let go. 

Young men—ages 10 to 18—who come into the program get monitors on their ankles and are electronically tethered to their homes, work places or school. The program is run by the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, and youth come every 

day. Here they do homework, chores and have meals. They must account for their 

time in community service, their grades, and talk about restitution for their crimes. 

Rashon is one of the youngest in the group. 

Before he came here, he had missed an entire semester at school. His grades were 

in the dump. 

‘‘When I first came in with Rashon, I saw a very needy, high energy child,’’ says 

Barry Canada, 52, a family counselor the young men call Uncle B. 

‘‘Every day with him was a new adventure. I would tell my wife, this kid is killing 

me. I wanted to put him on the next boat [and send him] into the woods.’’

Uncle B now has wrapped his steady arms around Rashon. He takes him to lift 

weights, helps with family counseling sessions and visits Rashon’s school. 

CISP has a structure and consequences. 

The goal, says Uncle B, is to take the street out of Rashon. 

The presence of Uncle B and other ‘‘old heads’’—role models—living and articulating a different value system has helped keep Rashon more steady and focused. 

‘‘I’ve always been respectful,’’ he says, ‘‘but I’m just a better young man now—

in a lot of different categories.’’

Part of his optimism has come from realizing that he can live away from the corners. 

‘‘I never knew I was this smart,’’ says Rashon, reflecting on the change of perspective the program has given him. 

‘‘Beneath the rough stuff, this kid is intelligent,’’ says Uncle B. ‘‘I think he’s starting to see what we wanted to produce in him.’’

When he leaves CISP, the program will help him enroll in tutoring, a basketball 

league and other aftercare. 

‘‘He has a future. A real bright future,’’ says Uncle B. ‘‘He’s ready for the next 

step, but he’s got to have the discipline.’’

The transition from the streets has not been without its bumps. 

Weeks of good behavior are sometimes followed by bouts of what Rashon calls ‘‘I 

don’t-care-attitude’’ days. 

His monitoring ankle bracelet, removed a few weeks ago, was back on after he 

was inexplicably late for school and talking out of order during an accountability 

session at CISP. 

Rashon has lost old friends, and he’s been forced to examine some harsh realities 

about his family life. 

But in recent weeks, he has impressed counselors, his therapist and teachers. 

Here’s what Rashon has to say: 

‘‘I will never sell drugs another day in my life. I will never smoke another chemical. I can say that with a straight face. I know what it done to my parents. I see 

that selling drugs is hurting someone’s family.’’

And, just as easily as he opens it, he shuts the door on being an adult. 

He flashes his boyish smile and bounces off to play ping-pong with a CISP counselor. 

91

EPILOGUE

Rashon is free now. He ‘‘graduated’’ from CISP May 24. Uncle B cut the electronic 

monitor from his ankle, and his CISP family gave him a round of applause. 

Because of some early behavioral problems, it took him 10 months to finish the 

six-month program. But he’s finished. 

In a few days, he’ll graduate from eighth grade. His neighborhood high school is 

Peabody, but, in the fall, he wants to attend Schenley. 

In a few days, he’ll begin a summer job with Urban Youth Action. 

He has no idea what it is he’ll be doing. 

‘‘I really don’t care,’’ he smiles. ‘‘It means I can get my own account, make my 

own money, and I don’t have to hustle no more.’’

The Post-Gazette will continue to follow Rashon, and at the end of the series provide an update on where he is and how he’s doing. 

2006 CISP Annual Report

James Rieland, Director of Allegheny County Probation;

Kimberly Booth, Director of CISP 

INTRODUCTION

The legal entity that governs the Community Intensive Supervision Program is 

the Court of Common Pleas, Family Division—Juvenile Section. The Administrative 

Judge is the Honorable Kim Berkeley Clark, and the Director of Juvenile Court 

Services is James Rieland. The CISP Program Manager is Kimberly Booth. The 

CISP Program Coordinators are George Kinder and James Tucker, who both report 

directly to the CISP Program Manager. 

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the Community Intensive Supervision Program is to provide an 

alternative to institutionalization for youth under Court supervision who continue 

to commit delinquent acts. 

CISP Goals and Objectives are as follows: 

1) To provide drug and alcohol education, intervention and treatment to youth 

and their families. 

2) To operate an intensive supervision program for repeat offenders in the community with balanced attention to the offender, community and the victim. 

3) To minimize/prevent recidivism on the part of youth in CISP and thereby reduce the number of court supervised youth who require institutionalization. 

4) To provide a real world learning experience in the community rather than an 

artificial or sterile environment of an institution. 

5) To maintain failure to adjust discharges from CISP at no more than five percent (5%). 

PROGRAM PURPOSE 

The Community Intensive Supervision Program (CISP) is operated by the Court 

of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Family Division—Juvenile Section and has 

been in operation since June 1990. CISP functions as an alternative to institutionalization for repeat juvenile offenders, and starting in January 1997, CISP has functioned as an aftercare program for youth released from institutional placements. 

These offenders have continued to challenge the resources, both human and financial, of the Court. The Court continues to experience an increase in total referrals 

and an increase in the severity of offenses. Institutional beds are filled to capacity 

across the state. Institutions (both public and private) have created waiting lists for 

counties wishing to commit youth to residential programs. In an effort to address 

these problems, the Court has developed the Community Intensive Supervision Program. Also, it is a statistically proven fact that youth exiting institutional placements have a tendency to recidivate at a high rate within the first six months after 

release. Therefore, it made sense that CISP would expand the use of the CISP Program for aftercare services. 

The CISP Program provides the Court with a community-based alternative to residential care for selected, chronic juvenile offenders, and also serves as an aftercare 

program for youth released from institutions. A full range of programming, including drug screening, is offered in five (5) specially designed neighborhood centers during afternoon and evening hours, seven (7) days per week. Supervision of youth continues throughout the night by use of an active electronic monitoring system. In adVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:07 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-55\36466.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
92

dition to traditional probation department personnel, the program is staffed by 

paraprofessional ‘‘Community Monitors,’’ who are adult residents of the same neighborhoods in which the youth reside. 

TARGET POPULATION 

Youth from three geographic regions of the City of Pittsburgh, one in Wilkinsburg 

and one in McKeesport have been chosen to participate in CISP. The three specific 

city regions are Garfield, Hill District and Homewood. The areas selected for the 

project have traditionally experienced a high rate of institutional placement. The 

CISP Program is designed for male juvenile offenders (ages 10-18) from the targeted 

neighborhoods who were on probation, continued to recidivate and would be institutionalized but for the existence of this alternative. 

Property offenders make up for the majority of youth placed into the CISP Program. The Court continues to experience an influx of crack related cases; therefore, 

youth with crack related offenses are eligible for CISP. Sex offenders are not eligible 

for the CISP Program. 

Since the CISP Program is neighborhood based, a youth must live in one of the 

designated neighborhoods to be placed in CISP. Youth remain in their own communities and are introduced to positive community resources. Placement into the CISP 

Program must be court ordered by the Judge. 

Each of the CISP centers will have very distinct referral boundaries. In order for 

a child to be committed to the CISP Program, he must live in one of the identified 

neighborhoods. The geographic boundaries for each of the centers will be identified 

by census tract. 

The GARFIELD Center will include the following census tracts, neighborhoods 

and zip codes:

Census Tract Neighborhood Zip Code 

30802, 30804, 30806, 30809, 30903 ........................ Bloomfield 15224

30810.98 ..................................................................... Bloomfield 15224

30601, 30603, 30604 ................................................. Lower Lawrenceville 15201

30901, 30902 ............................................................. Central Lawrenceville 15201

31011 .......................................................................... Upper Lawrenceville 15201

31018, 31005 ............................................................. Stanton Heights 15201

30807 .......................................................................... Friendship 15206/15232

31014.97; 31014.98 ................................................... Morningside 15206

31016, 3l017 .............................................................. Garfield 15224

31114 .......................................................................... Garfield 15206

31113, 31115, 30818 ................................................. East Liberty 15206

31102, 31106, 31111 ................................................. Highland Park 15206

31204, 31208 ............................................................. Larimer 15206

The HILL DISTRICT Center will include the following census tracts, neighborhoods and zip codes:

Census Tract Neighborhood Zip Code 

30101 .......................................................................... Uptown 15219

30103 .......................................................................... Bluff 15219

30201, 30203, 30302 ................................................. Central Business District 15219

30305, 30314 ............................................................. Crawford-Roberts 15219

30407, 30409 ............................................................. South Oakland 15213

30406, 30405, 30402, 30411 .................................... Central Oakland 15213

30404, 30403, 30507, 30810.97 ............................... North Oakland 15213

30501, 30511 ............................................................. Upper Hill 15219

30502 .......................................................................... Middle Hill 15219

30509 .......................................................................... Bedford Dwellings 15219

30510 .......................................................................... Terrace Village 15219/15213

30506, 30605 ............................................................. Polish Hill (S. of Bigelow Blvd.) 15219/15213

The HOMEWOOD Center will include the following census tracts, neighborhoods 

and zip codes:

93

Census Tract Neighborhood Zip Code 

31201, 31202, 31203 ................................................. Lincoln-Lemington-Belmar 15206

31207 .......................................................................... Homewood West 15208

31301, 31302, 31305 ................................................. Homewood North 15208

31303, 31304 ............................................................. Homewood South 15208/15221

31405 .......................................................................... Point Breeze South 15208

55650, 55651 ............................................................. Penn Hills 15235

55238, 55650 ............................................................. Verona 15147

The WILKINSBURG center will include the following census tracts, neighborhoods and zip codes:

Census Tract Neighborhood Zip Code 

31306 .......................................................................... East Hills 15221

55604, 55605 ............................................................. Wilkinsburg South 15221

55611, 55612 ............................................................. Wilkinsburg North 15221

55606, 55610 ............................................................. Central Wilkinsburg 15221

55614, 55615 ............................................................. East Wilkinsburg 15221

55151, 55152, 55153, 55154, 55155 ........................ Swissvale 15218

55161, 55162 ............................................................. Edgewood 15218

55120, 55128, 55129 ................................................. Braddock 15104

55140 .......................................................................... N. Braddock; Rankin 15104

The MCKEESPORT center will include the following census tracts, neighborhoods 

and zip codes:

Census Tract Neighborhood Zip Code 

55509, 55512, 55513 & 55519-55524 ...................... McKeesport 15132

55031, 55032 ............................................................. White Oak 15131

54870 .......................................................................... Dravosburg 15034

55010 .......................................................................... Versailles 15132

54980 .......................................................................... Liberty 15133

55003 .......................................................................... Port Vue 15133

54993, 54994 ............................................................. Glassport 15045

PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES 

The purpose of the Community Intensive Supervision Program is to provide an 

alternative to institutionalization for youth under Court supervision who continue 

to commit delinquent acts and also serves as an aftercare facility for youth who 

have been successfully released from institutional placements. CISP objectives are 

as follows: 

1) To operate an intensive supervision program for repeat offenders in the community, which provides balanced attention between offender, community and victim. 

2) To successfully impact the recidivism of youth in CISP, thereby impacting the 

number of youth requiring institutionalization. 

3) To provide a real world learning experience in the community, rather than an 

artificial or sterile environment of an institution. 

4) To maintain Failure to Adjust discharges from CISP at no more than 2%. 

5) To make CISP effective enough to significantly impact the Court’s overall institutional budget. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 

CISP operates in five community centers: Garfield, Hill District, HomewoodBrushton, Wilkinsburg and McKeesport. Each center has the capacity to program 

30-35 youth for a total of 150-175 youth system-wide. The centers are open seven 

days a week from 2:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. Youth are normally in the center or participating in required activities from 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. All youth are supervised, monitored and held accountable twenty-four (24) hours a day. 

94

PARENTAL SUPPORT 

All youth in the CISP Program live at home with their parent(s) or guardian. 

Parental involvement is vital to the overall success of a youth in the CISP Program. 

Parents are invited to be involved in all aspects of their child’s participation in 

CISP. 

Youth are held accountable for their behavior and conduct while in their home 

under their parents’ supervision. Parents are a vital link between the home, school 

and CISP. 

SUPERVISION 

Upon admission to the CISP Program, all youth are confined to their house on 

house arrest under the direct supervision of their parents. Youth are permitted to 

attend school/work and CISP activities. Youth are given a predetermined amount 

of travel time to and from approved destinations. Parental involvement and support 

are of paramount importance to youth successfully completing program requirements. CISP staff work closely with parents regarding supervision issues. 

ELECTRONIC MONITORING 

All youth placed in CISP are monitored by the BI-Home Escort series electronic 

monitoring system developed by BI Inc. based in Boulder, Colorado. This system has 

the ability to record all entries and exits from the youth’s house by the youth. Each 

youth is assigned a transmitter, which is worn on the lower calf/ankle area. Each 

youth is assigned a monitoring device that communicates with the Command Center 

located at our Eastern District Probation Office through a standard phone line. 

The BI9010 transmitter incorporates state-of-the-art electronic technology. The 

transmitter is the size of a common business card and weighs only 3.8 ounces. It 

is waterproof and tamperproof. Included in this series of equipment is the BI9000 

drive-by unit, which is a hand-held monitor. It permits the electronic monitoring of 

clients by just driving by their home, school, place of employment, or in the community. 

The in-home monitoring system provides continuous, 24-hour a day coverage of 

youth in CISP. At any time, day or night, it can be determined if a youth is in his 

home. The only exception to this is youth committed to CISP for aftercare from institutional placements. These youth will not be monitored by the EMS system but 

are required to attend program every day at least the first thirty (30) days of their 

placement and receive curfew calls in the evening from the community monitors to 

ensure their accountability. 

The police have photographs of the youth on electronic monitoring. The police are 

provided with a court-authorized warrant to apprehend any CISP client that violates his house arrest. This violation can occur either by the client leaving their 

house during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. or if they tamper with their transmitter. One staff member, as well as one alternate from each CISP center, functions 

as an electronic monitoring system (EMS) specialist. Their duties and responsibilities include coordinating, activating and reporting on the electronic monitoring system for each center. 

TREATMENT PROGRAM 

The major treatment issue in CISP is drug and alcohol education, assessment and 

treatment. All youth are involved in some aspect of Drug/Alcohol Programming. 

Youth are involved in individual counseling, group counseling, peer counseling 

and family intervention, CISP staff operate out of a Reality Therapy approach; however, the program is flexible enough to meet individual youth and family needs. 

Family support of CISP is vital; therefore, the youth’s family is invited to participate in all CISP activities and programs. Daily contact is maintained with the 

youth’s family to insure that the youth is complying with parental requirements. 

The primary treatment objective for each youth in CISP is to develop pro-social 

norms and behaviors. This is achieved through exposing the youth to numerous topical seminars and educational programs. CISP staff facilitates these programs; however, outside speakers and experts are utilized when needed. 

Every aspect of the CISP Program is designed to change negative behaviors 

through education and through positive role models. 

95

DRUGS/ALCOHOL 

Substance use, abuse and dependency continue to have a devastating impact on 

inner-city communities. Crime, unemployment, family dysfunction, and other mental 

health issues are all exacerbated by the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. The 

youth in these areas often suffer the most. The majority of CISP clients have been 

adversely influenced by the drug culture. Whether they were enticed into drug sales, 

drug usage, live with addicted parents, or all of the above, they have been victimized as a result of the influx of drugs (legal or not) into their neighborhoods. 

The CISP Substance Unit is aware of these issues and addresses them via a continuum of care. The unit operates a prevention program in each area it serves offering information and support to local schools and community groups. Secondly, the 

unit conducts a series of educational groups with CISP clients on drug use, and 

evaluates each youth’s involvement with drugs. A key tool in the assessment of all 

clients is the Roche On-Trak urinalysis, which is randomly administered. Upon completion of the assessment, a referral is made to the appropriate level of care; prevention and outpatient treatment are given by CISP Substance Abuse Counselors; inpatient treatment or residential care if done by other providers who are partners with 

the program. Lastly, the CISP Substance Abuse Unit is able to provide aftercare 

services to youth as they return from various treatment facilities. 

SCHOOL/WORK 

Youth placed in the CISP Program are permitted to continue attending school and 

are also permitted to work. All youth in this phase of the program are held accountable for daily attendance and performance. Youth attending school are required to 

have their teacher sign the youth’s daily attendance log. CISP staff also maintains 

close contact with school attendance officials. Additionally, CISP staff work closely 

with school officials on performance and discipline issues. For the most part, youth 

remain in the same school they are attending prior to placement in CISP. This allows for continuity for the youth and school officials. CISP youth have the same educational opportunities that all other Pittsburgh School District youth enjoy. 

Specialized educational programs (Options Center, Allegheny Intermediate Unit) 

are utilized when and where appropriate. These services are utilized for school suspensions, tutoring, evaluation, and youth advocacy. 

Part of each day in the CISP Program is dedicated to learning, homework or other 

educational activities. Through the efforts of the Allegheny Intermediate Unit a 

tutor is providing educational services in each CISP Center on a daily basis. Where 

possible, outside resources are used; however, CISP staff is directly involved in educational activities. 

As mentioned, youth are permitted to work while in the CISP Program. When a 

youth has a job, his hours and travel requirements are verified prior to working. 

If a youth owes restitution, he is required to make regular payments through the 

Juvenile Court Restitution Department. 

RECREATION 

Recreation is a very important component the CISP Program. This area helps 

youth to have the opportunity to develop and promote structured recreational activities, physical education activities and cultural activities. These goals are met by 

teaching these youth appropriate recreational skills, sportsmanship, and socially acceptable behavior in the community. 

The CISP Program schedules a series of recreational, physical, educational and 

cultural activities several days a week in each center. The length of the activity depends on the other scheduled activities in each Center each day. Every child in the 

CISP Program participates in these activities depending upon their individual situation. Recreational activities include, but are not limited to, memberships in the Boys 

Club, YMCA, and the use of City and/or County parks recreational facilities, ball 

fields and swimming pools. The Centers also make arrangements with local movie 

cinemas, museums, libraries, sporting events, and various recreational and cultural 

activities and events throughout the City of Pittsburgh. 

COMMUNITY SERVICE 

Community service is an integral component of the CISP Program. All youth participating in CISP are required to perform community service. 

The primary purpose of community service is to hold offenders accountable for 

their actions by requiring them to perform community service as a way of symbolically ‘‘paying back’’ the community for the wrong they have done. Community servVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:07 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-55\36466.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
96

ice projects most often occur in the youth’s neighborhood. However, occasionally 

youth are involved in major City of Pittsburgh events, such as the Great Race. The 

youth can also be involved with nonprofit organizations like hospitals, but most 

often, they are working on community activities. Community organizations and 

Pittsburgh Clean City Committee, Inc. are utilized to identify community projects. 

The CISP Program, through its community service effort, can help preserve and 

maintain the local environment and give needed assistance to those public, private, 

nonprofit and community-based agencies that depend on volunteer help. Offenders 

gain positive work experience and by ‘‘volunteering’’ they gain some inner satisfaction from knowing their work is appreciated by the community. 

SMOKING/TOBACCO 

For many years now, the Surgeon General’s Office and other health organizations 

have clearly spelled out the major hazards of smoking and using tobacco products. 

The addiction of smoking is a major concern of the CISP Program. The Community 

Intensive Supervision Program will not permit youth to use any tobacco products 

while under direct supervision. 

As positive role models to youth, CISP staff are not permitted to smoke or use 

any tobacco products while on duty. 

SANCTIONING SYSTEM 

Youth who are noncompliant with CISP program rules and expectations are sanctioned by short-term placement in a ‘‘backup’’ unit or by going to Shuman Detention 

Center. The ability to remove a youth temporarily from his home due to program 

violations is absolutely vital for a successful program. Youth and families must understand that participation in CISP is an alternative to long-term placement in a 

residential program; therefore, negative behavior results in serious consequences for 

the youth and swift and firm action from CISP staff. 

STAFF 

Each center has a staff of fourteen (14). By job title they are as follows: Center 

Supervisor; Assistant Supervisor/Casework Manager; Secretary; Substance Abuse 

Counselor; nine (9) Community Monitors; and one (1) part-time Community Monitor. This staffing pattern is necessary in order to provide seven-day coverage. When 

possible, staff members were selected from the communities where they will work. 

This was done in order to provide youth with positive adult role models from their 

own communities. Most staff in the program work an eight-hour shift from 3:30 p.m. 

to 11:30 p.m. 

The supervisors and assistant supervisors have a minimum of a Bachelor’s Degree, and the community monitors have a minimum of a high school diploma; however, most of the monitors who were hired have some post-secondary education; several have a Bachelor’s Degree. 

There are two program coordinators and a program manager to handle all the administrative duties of the program. These positions require a minimum of a Master’s 

Degree. 

RESEARCH 

The CISP Program was evaluated by the National Center for Juvenile Justice, 

which is located in Pittsburgh, from 1990-1992. The National Center is the Research 

Division of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, which is located in Reno, Nevada. 

The Program was evaluated on three levels: 

(1) Qualitative/Formative; 

(2) Quantitative/Descriptive; and 

(3) Community Reaction. 

Qualitative/Formative 

This portion of the evaluation was largely descriptive and designed to chronicle 

the start-up and operation of the program. 

Quantitative/Descriptive 

This section of the evaluation systematically gather information which was coded 

and analyzed to produce a picture of the client population, the results of the classification and selection process, the amount and type of program intervention, instances of violations, client outcome and costs. 

97

Community Reaction 

This portion of the evaluation examined how well CISP has been integrated into 

the various communities. The employment of indigenous community workers, locating centers in neighborhoods, conducting community service projects, and involving 

local services are all designed to actively involve the community in participating in 

and accepting the program. 

The CISP Program has also been evaluated by Duquesne University Graduate 

Center for Public Policy. This research involves a follow-up evaluation of youth from 

CISP who successfully completed CISP from 1990 to the present. This research has 

been conducted by Norma Feinberg, Ph.D., Gail Stevens, Ph.D., and Charles Hanna, 

Ph.D. from Duquesne University. A summary of the data revealed that 55% of the 

successful program participants did not recidivate (arrest) in either the juvenile or 

adult systems. 

The CISP Program is also participating in research being conducted by the National Center for Juvenile Justice as Allegheny County Juvenile Court was one of 

four jurisdictions selected from applicants across the United States to participate in 

the Accountability Based Community Intervention (ABC) Program. The program 

purpose is to develop a system-wide strategy of intervention, treatment and rehabilitation for juvenile offenders in Allegheny County. The project includes a systematic 

review of Allegheny County Juvenile Court’s service needs to identify gaps or areas 

that need increased attention and to create a plan for developing and implementing 

these services (Strategic Plan 1996-1999). 

PROGRAM OPERATION COST 

The CISP Program is jointly funded through grants and county dollars. If the CISP Program is operating at full capacity, the per diem is $64.00. Comparison of 

this per diem with the cost of institutionalization, which averages approx. $265 a 

day depending upon where the youth would be placed, obviously results in a significant cost savings. 

CISP 2006 Annual Report 

The CISP Program continued to grow and develop in 2006 in terms of the number 

of youth served and the continuation of an aftercare component for youth being released from institutional placements. CISP continued to strive to fully implement 

the Balanced and Restorative Justice Philosophy by giving balanced attention to the 

offender, community and the victim. 

The CISP Program continues to operate from five neighborhood center locations. 

The three original community locations in Garfield, Hill District and Homewood 

have been open since the start of the program in 1990. The fourth location in 

Wilkinsburg opened in April 1994, and the fifth location in McKeesport opened in 

July 2001. 

Staffing 

The CISP staff experienced relatively minor turnover in 2006. There were several 

promotions, new hires, resignations and transfers to other departments in Juvenile 

Court in 2006. 

Staff training 

Training during 2006 consisted of several training sessions for the entire CISP 

staff as well as individual training sessions for various staff members. In 2006 various CISP staff and supervisors attended the following training and staff development sessions: 

CISP Annual Workshop—Working with Families; Probation Officer Workshop focusing on Cultural Diversity; Restorative Community Justice Forum, Basic Principles of Restorative Justice; Self-Defense; Senior Monitor Role and Responsibilities; 

Safety Awareness; Handcuff Recertification; CPR and First Aid; Youth & Law Enforcement Forum; PA Conference on Juvenile Justice; Single Parents; Youth and the 

Internet; Summit on Racism; and several computer trainings in word, excel, outlook 

and power point. AIDS/HIV, Victim Sensitivity—A Body in Motion; Support Staff 

retreat, Working with African Males from High-Risk Environments; Group Counseling; Examining Urban Subculture & Delinquent Youth and Motivational Interviewing. 

Training continues to be viewed as an important function for the continued success of the CISP Program. Training was facilitated through our training supervisor, 

Ron Seyko, and the CISP Supervisors and Program Coordinators. Each CISP employee is required to attend at least (20) hours of training. The Supervisors, ProbaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:07 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-55\36466.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
98

tion Officers and Drug and Alcohol Counselors are required to obtain (40) training 

hours. 

BARJ involvement 

In 2006, CISP continued to serve as one of the three model demonstration sites 

in the U.S. to participate in the Balanced and Restorative Justice Project (BARJ). 

The BARJ model provides an effective framework for developing responsive juvenile 

justice system. Restorative justice, as a guiding philosophical paradigm, promotes 

maximum involvement of the victim, offender and the community in the justice 

process. Victim panels, which were started in 2004 and sponsored by the Victim’s 

Center, were continued in 2006. CISP and Victim’s Center held three victim panels 

in 2006 in Wilkinsburg, McKeesport and the Hill involving all five CISP centers. 

George Kinder, CISP program Coordinator continued as a member of the Community Education Initiative Committee for Allegheny County Juvenile Court, which 

met monthly in 2006. This committee plans and coordinates BARJ community activities and events throughout the year for Allegheny County Juvenile Court. The 

main objective of the committee in 2006 is the planning and coordination of activities during Juvenile Justice Week. This committee sponsored several activities and 

events during Juvenile Justice Week including the Juvenile Court Open House, 

BARJ Forum, BARJ essay and poster contest and a recreational activity with delinquent youth. This committee also sponsored a play called ‘‘Body in Motion’’ in May 

2006 depicting the impact of crime on victims in a theatrical setting. Over 500 juvenile justice professionals, juvenile offenders, victims and community members attended this event. 

CISP was mentioned in a Pgh. Post Gazette article dated 12.4.06 regarding juvenile justice. It stated, ‘‘Allegheny Co. also uses the CISP program, an after-school 

and weekend program, that enables teens to complete community service work ordered by judges. 

In June 2006, Kim Booth and George Kinder help organize and facilitate BARJ 

training in Westmoreland County on Community Restorative Justice for ten counties in Western Pennsylvania. 

Restitution 

Restitution is a process whereby a juvenile offender makes either monetary payment to the victim, provides service to the victim, or engages in community service 

work. Restitution provides the court with a dispositional alternative for juvenile offenders that are both constructive and appropriate for the offense. The types of restitution services are: 

Monetary Restitution—financial payment directly to victim. 

Community Service—symbolically paying back the victim thru service to community. 

The anticipated result of restitution is to bring about an increased sense of responsibility to juvenile offenders for their delinquent acts and to restore the victim 

or community through financial repayment or service in the community. 

Financial Restitution Collected in 2006

In 2006, the CISP program continued to make a good effort to document and collect financial restitution in each of the five CISP centers. The following is the total 

amount paid by youth committed to their respective CISP center:

Homewood .............................................................................................. $5,397.42

Wilkinsburg ............................................................................................ $3,314.38

McKeesport ............................................................................................. $2,724.00

Garfield ................................................................................................... $1,317.50

Hill .......................................................................................................... $1,314.50

Total restitution ................................................................................. $14,067.80

99

RESTITUTION

Community service in 2006

Community service continues to be an excellent learning experience for CISP, and 

community members continue to express very positive comments regarding these 

types of community projects performed by CISP youth. Several community service 

projects in all five CISP centers are now counted on as a regular service to these 

communities. CISP continues to participate in yearly community service projects. 

Each youth in the CISP program is required to complete 100 hours of community 

service for regular program and 50 hours for aftercare before he is positively discharged from the program. In 2006, youth in all five CISP centers completed approximately 17, 200 hours of community service. 

This involved such projects as cleaning lots, painting houses, cleaning streets, distributing community newspapers, shoveling snow, cutting grass, moving furniture 

and set up and clean up at community festivals. Here’s a highlight of some of the 

major community service projects in each of the five community centers in 2006. 

GARFIELD COMMUNITY SERVICE

Jan &-Feb.—painted Women’s Shelter on the North Side. 

May 20—passed out over 500 computers at Langley High School. 

August 18—set up and cleaned up for the CYF Annual Picnic at Schenley Park. 

Nov. 7—Roll to the Polls—transported eighteen (18) senior citizens to vote. 

Dec. 14—Toys for Tots—passed out toys to needy children in the East Liberty 

community. 

HILL DISTRICT COMMUNITY SERVICE

Throughout the year—Parental Stress Center-completed such projects as painting, 

cleaning floors and carpets, moving furniture, set-up the library, set-up for Easter 

celebration; wrapping gifts for Christmas; and set up and tearing down tables and 

booths. 

Aug.12&13—NAACP—set up for community festival that lasted for the weekend 

at Mellon Park. Clients painted children’s faces and played games with them; 

cleaned up the park after the event. 

November—B-PEP—clients passed out flyers and stuffed envelopes. 

Every Tuesday—Beulah Baptist Church Food Bank—clients unloaded trucks and 

helped with organizing the packages. 

HOMEWOOD COMMUNITY SERVICE

Jan.-Dec—Mt. Ararat Baptist Church Meal Ministry—prepared and distributed 

meals to senior citizens in the community. 

Jan.-Dec.—Boys & Girls Club serving as youth counselors. 

Jan.-Oct.—Community clean-up within the Homewood area. 

December—Kwanzaa Celebration—youth facilitated a community-wide Kwanzaa 

celebration for the public. 

MCKEESPORT COMMUNITY SERVICE

Every Tuesday & Thursday—Glenshire Woods Nursing Home—clients go there to 

interact with the elderly residents. McKeesport CISP also has clients who work 


jones1.eps
100

there because of the relationship between the program and the weekly visits to the 

home. 

Every Saturday—Angora Gardens—clients work off required community service 

hours while working to keep the Angora Gardens looking nice. 

Jan thru April—helped paint women’s shelter on the North Side. 

Summer 2006 (every Tuesday)—Motor Dome Speedway—clients cut grass and 

painted grandstand at the race course 

Oct. 7—AIDS Walk—City of McKeesport—client participated in this annual event 

to get information on AIDS awareness; all five CISP centers participate. 

WILKINSBURG COMMUNITY SERVICE

Jan.-March—painting project at Women’s Shelter on the North Side. 

May-Nov.—Turner Football Field—regular clean-up and maintenance. 

June&Aug.—painted and cleaned up at Lincoln Community Center in Penn Hills. 

Nov. 7—Roll to the Polls—took elderly people to the polls to vote. 

Every weekend clean and sweep PAT Bus way. 

Dec.—Toys for Tots—passed out toys to needy children. 

Victim awareness group progress 

Victim Awareness Groups were started in the CISP Program in each center in 

June 1996. A new curriculum was implemented by all four CISP Centers in February 1999 and implemented at the fifth CISP Center in McKeesport in 2001. This 

curriculum was designed by William E. Sarbo and Valerie R. Bender for the Center 

for Victims of Violent Crime under a grant from the Pennsylvania Commission on 

Crime and Delinquency. The CISP staff received updated training on this curriculum in 2004. Each CISP center holds separate meetings, which are facilitated 

by a victim awareness specialist from each center. These meetings involve a total 

of 15 hours. This curriculum teaches the impact of victimizing others. 

In 2006, these victim awareness groups continued to be facilitated in each of the 

CISP centers on an ongoing basis. The CISP will continue to fully implement the 

goals of the Balanced and Restorative Justice within the program and strive to improve their services with the victim, community and the offender. 

In 2006, CISP continued the practice of conducting exit interviews for youth who 

successfully completed the program. During the exit interviews the youth answer 

questions concerning BARJ principles and victims’ issues. The victim’s center and 

CISP staff continue to facilitate these exit interviews assisted by community representatives. 

Also in 2006, CISP continued to refer certain cases to Pittsburgh Mediation Center for face-to-face meetings between the offender and victim in selected cases. 

Awards and celebrations 

In July 2006, CISP held a 16-year anniversary picnic at North Park. All CISP 

center staff, court staff, youth and their family members attended. Activities included a full picnic style meal, softball games, and relay races, swimming at North 

Park Pool and interaction and fun all day. 

In October 2006, the CISP presented a cash donation in the amount of $510 to 

the Center for Victims of Violence and Crime, Executive Director, Stephanie Walsh, 

at a presentation during Juvenile Court Week. CISP participants from all five centers conducted a carwash and donated the proceeds to the Center as part of a restorative justice project. This was the 7th year for this event and CISP has risen over 

$7500 since that time. Also, several CISP youth won awards during Juvenile Court 

Week for their BARJ related posters and essays. 

In August 2006 during the Annual CISP Training Workshop held at Hosanna 

House Re-Treat Center; staff with 15, 10 and 5 years of service were featured and 

recognized. 

Drug and alcohol component of CISP 

The CISP Program recognizes the prevalence of drug and alcohol abuse in its target communities as well as the severity of the consequences of substance abuse for 

CISP clients. As a result, the program continues to address these issues on two levels: 

1) Prevention/Education 

2) Outpatient Intervention 

Substance abuse prevention 

The objective of the CISP D&A prevention program is to provide D&A education 

to youth within an educational setting or community center. CISP collaborates with 

local school or community center officials in targeting at-risk youth. The CISP’s inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:07 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-55\36466.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
101

tention is to implement curriculum that will educate youth about the potential consequences of drug and/or alcohol use. CISP encourages elementary and middle 

school-aged youth to make positive choices that will be a deterrent for drug and/

or alcohol usage. 

The CISP Drug & Alcohol Unit provides prevention service in the catchments 

areas within the five neighborhoods where the centers are located. The prevention 

targeted population is youth between the ages of 6-13. The community schools that 

are serviced by CISP are Turner Elementary (Wilkinsburg), Arsenal Middle School 

(Garfield) and Miller Elementary (Hill District). 

CISP prevention curricula focus primarily on drug and alcohol education and social skill development. Drug and alcohol education will include: pharmacology, mental, social, emotional and legal consequences. Social skill development will include: 

self-awareness/acceptance, values clarification, sharing/inclusion, anger management, conflict resolution and decision-making. 

Substance abuse intervention 

The Substance Abuse component of the CISP Program is based on two premises. 

The first premise is that there is a very high correlation between delinquent behavior and substance abuse among adolescents. The second premise is that traditional 

treatment has been largely ineffective for delinquent and minority children. Therefore, the substance abuse staff provides intervention that addresses the unique concerns of our clients from a culturally specific framework. 

The CISP Substance Abuse staff provides youth with the opportunity to make better, more informed choices about drug and alcohol use through improved problem 

solving and refusal skills, as well as alternatives to drug dealing. Additionally, CISP 

holds clients accountable and personally responsible for their behavior through natural consequences, including referrals to long-term placements or more restrictive 

treatment environments when necessary as well as sanctions. 

CISP Substance Abuse Intervention provides two levels of services. They are Education/Assessment and Outpatient Intervention for those CISP clients who exhibit 

issues related to substance abuse. 

Assessment: 

Consists of the evaluation of all new clients including a psychosocial history of the 

adolescent and his family, diagnostic interviews, and the completion of the assessment package. 

Intervention: 

Involves assigning clients to the most appropriate tract, no intensive or intensive 

drug and alcohol outpatient, or in extreme cases, referral to an inpatient facility. 

Placement in this phase is based on drug and alcohol history, family history, and 

the client’s ability to maintain abstinence while in the CISP program. Outside referrals are made by D&A counselors in conjunction with the CISP treatment team for 

those clients who exhibit a higher level of drug and alcohol care. 

During this period, group norms and expectations are established that allow the 

group to become a therapeutic community. At this stage, all clients have individualized treatment plans and participate in a 16-week drug and alcohol educational 

group curriculum. Intervention includes individual counseling, principles of group 

psychotherapy, behavior modification and reality therapy. 

CISP is in its eighth year of working in collaboration with of Narcotics Anonymous (NA) and the Hill House Association. All clients in the outpatient intervention 

tract attend weekly NA meetings. Additionally, many clients who have addicted parents are identified and taken to Children of Alcoholics (COA) support groups. The 

CISP Substance Abuse Unit continued to sponsor weekly NA (Narcotics Anonymous) 

meetings in 2006 through the efforts of Patricia Rogers, D&A Unit Supervisor, with 

the assistance of NA. These NA meetings were specifically established for clients of 

the CISP program that have substance abuse issues, and these meetings are recognized by NA as part of its international fellowship. 

Aftercare: 

Upon completion of the intensive phase, an aftercare plan is devised to assist clients with their transition back into the community. Aftercare consists of establishing a positive support network to reinforce sobriety, developing a relapse prevention plan, and to aid the client in their recovery efforts. It also includes follow-up 

contacts on a bimonthly basis to determine each client’s adherence to the recommended aftercare plans. 

The D&A unit began performing mental health screens by tracking mental health 

clients entering the CISP program. The tracking involves identifying the client, the 

mental health diagnosis, the treatment provider, medication and current MH status. 

CISP tracked a total of ninety (90) mental health cases in 2006. 

102

D&A assessments 

The total number of drug and alcohol assessments for 2006 were 174. There were 

a total of 194 commitments in CISP in 2006. Therefore, assessments were completed 

in 174 of the 194 commitments in 2006, which is 90%. 

2006 D&A ASSESSMENTS

2006 D& A Assessments: The CISP D&A Unit completed a total of 212 Educational Groups in 2006.

Community involvement 

The CISP Program continues to receive visits from various Juvenile Court professionals from all over the country who wanted to obtain more information and visit 

the program in person. The CISP program received several visitors in 2006 from different agencies and courts throughout the country; there were also on-site visits 

from numerous new probation officers from Juvenile Court, new community monitors and student interns. They received an intensive eight-hour orientation and 

training about CISP and restorative justice. 

CISP supervisors, the program coordinators, the program director and other CISP 

staff continued to be involved with various community organizations and continued 

to be active participants in community task forces and meetings in 2006. 

CISP program coordinators and CISP manager 

In 2006, George Kinder and James Tucker, CISP Program Coordinators, and Kim 

Booth, CISP Manager, were actively involved in several community meetings and 

committees. 

Court and Community Collaborative Committee 

George Kinder and Kim Booth continued to serve on this committee in 2006. 

There were several meetings in 2006 throughout the state in Monroeville and New 

Stanton, Pa. The members of this committee are juvenile justice professionals, mental health professionals, community leaders, and faith-based leader’s organizations. 

In 2006, this committee planned and sponsored the second community justice forums held in Westmoreland County in June of 2006. This purpose of these community justice forums is to provide technical assistance and practical applications to 


jones2.eps jones3.eps
103

juvenile justice professionals throughout the state a working model to engage and 

include the community in the juvenile justice system. 

Computerized Forms Committee 

Kim Booth served on this committee in 2006. The purpose of this committee is 

to rewrite forms for the computer for standardized use by all Juvenile Court employees. 

Disproportionate Minority Contact Committee 

In October 2003, Kimberly Booth was selected to serve as member of the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Subcommittee of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency’s (PCCD) Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Committee (JJDPC). The committee was established to assess and address the 

over-representation of minority juveniles in Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system, 

especially secure juvenile facilities. 

This committee completed a very successful training workshop on police community relations in October 2006. In 2006, this committee continued to meet regularly 

to plan additional strategies and training workshops with the focus on police work 

with minority youth. 

BARJ Community Education Initiative Committee 

In 2006, George Kinder continued to participate on the BARJ Community Education Initiative committee chaired by Connie Przybyla. This committee started in 

2003 and has met monthly since that time. The purpose of this committee is to create community awareness and provide educational activities regarding restorative 

justice in the community. In 2006, this committee sponsored several activities during Juvenile Justice Week in October 2006 including a BARJ Forum, Open House, 

BARJ poster and essay contest, and several recreational activities for youth. The 

BARJ forum was facilitated by court director Jim Rieland and involved a presentation by police officer and school official on Internet crime. 

B-Pep (The Black Political Empowerment Project) 

James Tucker, CISP Program Coordinator, continued to serve as an advisory 

board member with B-Pep to help coordinate the registration and transporting of 

elderly, minority and disadvantaged citizens to vote. 

Hill District Community Collaboration Committees 

James Tucker was an advisory board member for Male Coalition, Cultural Policy 

Council, and Anger Management services for Center for Family Excellence. He also 

was an advisory board member for the Hill District Community Consensus Group, 

Hill District Community Collaborative Corporation, and the Store Front Initiative. 

Garfield CISP 

Garfield CISP continues to be actively involved with numerous community organizations; however, the Bloomfield-Garfield Corp (BGC) continues to be their main 

community focus, and after 17 years, this relationship is still flourishing. This past 

summer the youth participated in a summer youth employment program sponsored 

by the BGC. These youth were provided with a paid work experience for doing various physical and human services work in and around the Garfield community. PO 

Monique Powell recently resigned her position as an active BGC board member after 

serving for eight years. PO Jan Adams will replace her in 2007. In addition to working for Garfield CISP, Jan is also a community resident. The following is a list of 

other community contacts and activities made by members of Garfield CISP: 

Apangea Program—10 youth participate in this computer program which is an online after school tutorial program in math. 

Tree of Hope—a grass roots victims program with an emphasis on helping the 

children of murder victims. In Sept 2006, escorted two vanloads of children and 

their parents to K-Mart to shop for school clothing. 

Opening of new gym in the East Liberty community—community member Ed 

Ackrie with the assistance of Garfield CISP were very active in helping to set up 

this gym. It is now open to the community with free weights, a boxing ring, and 

other exercise equipment. 

Hill district CISP 

In the Hill District staff continued its membership with the Hill District Community Collaborative Corp; Center for Family Excellence Cultural Policy Council; Zone 

2 Public Safety Meetings; Hill House Assoc. Consensus Group Meetings re: recreation, beautification and safety issues; and numerous other community organizations. The following is a list of community activities and contacts made by members 

of the Hill District CISP: 

104

Abraxas Workbridge—employment initiative program 

Boys and Girls Club—employment—Great Start Program. 

Beulah Baptist Church—community service food bank. 

Carnegie Library Hill Dist. Branch—friends of the library. 

Center for Family Excellence—member of male coalition, cultural policy council and 

anger management services. 

Center for Youth & Families—community service, activities, festivals, advisory 

board member. 

Center for Victims of Violent Crime—youth support and community service. 

Head Start Program—distributed flyers for head start sign-ups. 

Hill Dist. Community Consensus—advisory board member, storefront project. 

Hill Dist. Community Development—distribution of newsletter, info mailings 

Hill House Assoc.—Young Fathers Program, community meetings. 

House of David—youth development programs. 

INCS Holistic Educational Rehab Center—community service. 

Life Works—initial assessment and evaluation of clients’ mental health services. 

Maleness to Manhood—youth programs, computer training, community service. 

Mercy Behavioral Health—mental health services. 

Northwestern Human Services—mental health services. 

Parental Stress Center—young male programs/community service. 

Penn State Cooperation Extension—nutrition classes. 

Spectrum Family Network—family services. 

Uptown Community Alliance—participated in community clean-ups & membership. 

WPIC—assessment & evaluation of clients; mental health services and counseling; 

staff training; community service. 

Zone 2 Safety Council—community safety and monitoring and membership. 

Homewood CISP 

Barry McCrary and his staff were very active in community meetings and programs including the Homewood YMCA (Attending various meetings regarding community issues and employment), Westinghouse High School (making various presentations to students), and attending and participating in other community council forums. The following is a list of community contacts and meetings Homewood CISP 

staff made during the year: 

Boys and Girls Club—provided job opportunities for youth. 

Ethnan Temple Seventh Day Adventist Church—collaborated and provided space to 

hold the Maleness to Manhood meetings open to the public. 

Hosanna House—utilized services provided by the Fatherhood Initiative Program. 

Mt. Ararat Baptist Church—community service by working in the meal ministry 

and delivering food to senior citizens. 

Wilkinsburg Community Ministry—picked up used furniture for less fortunate members of the community. 

McKeespost CISP 

The center supervisor, John Fiscante, has maintained an active working relationship with the City of McKeesport and the McKeesport Collaborative. The following 

is a list of community activities and contacts made by members of the McKeesport 

CISP center: 

Abraxas WorkBridge—provided community service, employment and educational opportunities. 

Auberle Home—teen parenting counseling. 

Center for Victims of Violent Crime—administered tests to clients upon release from 

program. 

City of McKeesport/McKeesport Task Force/Neighborhood Initiative—contacts in the 

community for lawn care and snow removal for the elderly; involved us in citywide projects, such as Environmental Day. 

Community Accountability Panel—attended panel hearings. 

Creative Ministries/Triumphant Prayer Ministries—provided community service, 

spiritual and mentoring services. 

Boys & Girls Club/Salvation Army—provided mentoring, employment opportunities 

and mentoring services. 

McKeesport Collaborative—provided community service, mentoring and educational 

services. 

Glenshire Woods Nursing Home—provided employment opportunities and community service. 

McKeesport Collaborative—did community service and attended AIDS walk. 

McKeesport Housing Authority—use of Crawford Rec Center for gym during CISP 

basketball league. 

105

McKeesport Weed & Seed/NAACP—provided community service opportunities. 

Mon Yough—provided community service projects at Angora Gardens. 

Wilkinsburg CISP 

The following is a list of community activities and contacts made by members of 

the Wilkinsburg CISP center staff and their supervisor, Ginger Kinsel: 

Spectrum Family Network—provided clients and parents with anger management 

counseling and other issues. 

Boys & Girls Club—provided clients with employment opportunities. 

Allegheny Intermediate Unit—provided alternative education to students. 

Community Connections for Families—works with mental health clients in the 

Wilkinsburg School District. 

WorkBridge—provided clients with a work experience in order to pay their restitution. 

Project Life—provided counseling services to clients. 

Drug and alcohol unit 

Patricia Rogers, D&A Supervisor, and her staff Earnest Frazier (Hill), Jennifer 

Thompson (McKeesport), Taryn Simko (Wilkinsburg) and Marvin Randall (Garfield) 

were actively involved in the following community activities and initiatives: 

Juvenile Justice Week—held information tables, which provided drug and alcohol 

education and program overview at the open house during Juvenile Court 

Week. 

(CLEAR) Coalition of Leadership, Education and Advocacy for Recovery—Patricia 

Rogers met with other members of CLEAR to develop strategies to enhance 

community awareness of the extent of alcohol, tobacco and other drug use and 

its consequences. 

Take Your Daughter to Work Day—the CISP D&A Unit volunteered and distributed 

D/A information during this event. 

Housing Authority Clean Slate—this community collaborative focused on drug-free 

communities in Allegheny County. 

Allegheny County Air Show—CISP staff took the youth on a field trip to the Air 

Force Air show. 

Boys Scouts of America—participated in this year’s summer outreach camp and educated youth on drug & alcohol prevention / awareness. 

Sandcastle Water Park—CISP program enjoyed a day of summer fun. 

Summer Curriculum—the CISP Drug & Alcohol Unit since 2001 started collaboration with Allegheny County Jail, Allegheny County Coroner’s Office and the 

Adult Drug Court for a series called ‘‘Jail, Institutions and Death.’’ This sixweek summer curriculum was designed to expose the CISP clients to the real 

life and times of chemical dependency and the harmful consequences. 

National Adoption Day—Supervisor Patricia Rogers volunteered and participated in 

this special event. 

Mt. Ararat Baptist Church—presentation at the Hill CISP by Rev. Benjamin 

Calvart on Strengthen and Healing Communities. 

Recreation and cultural activities 

Recreation and cultural activities continue to be an important component of the 

CISP Program. These activities allow youth to have the opportunity to develop and 

promote structured recreational, physical, educational, and cultural activities. These 

goals are met by teaching youth appropriate recreational skills, quality of sportsmanship, exposure to cultural events, and socially acceptable behavior within the 

community. 

The CISP Program continues to schedule a series of recreational, physical, educational and cultural activities several days a week at each center. Recreational activities within the community in 2006 included, but were not limited to: Pitt football 

and basketball games; Pirate baseball; 2006 MLB All-star Baseball Game; Penguins 

hockey; Cleveland Cavaliers; Steelers Football; Showcase Cinemas; Idlewild Park; 

Harmarville Hoops; Sandcastle; Kennywood Park; Fright Fest Station Square; 

Hartwood Acres Festival of Lights; and use of city public schools’ recreational facilities and county ball fields. Also, several prison tours were conducted. 

In 2006, CISP continued to utilize Tickets for Kids for ticket donations to various 

recreational and cultural activities. This been a major source of funding for recreational activities for the CISP program. 

In February 2006, George Kinder, Program Coordinator, started and organized an 

intramural basketball league for CISP, along with two other community teams including East Presb Church and The House a team from Homewood at the Crawford 

Village gym in McKeesport. The season consists of eight weeks of regular intramural basketball games from Feb. until April 2005, which concluded with playoffs. 

106

East Pres Church from East Liberty finished in first place and the CISP All-star 

team finished in second place. An awards ceremony and pizza party was held at the 

gym after the finals. Trophies were given to 1st and 2nd place team. CISP started 

and organized an all-star team from the CISP Centers and played several games 

against the two other community teams. 

In May 2006, George Kinder, Program Coordinator, Larissa Mackey from 

Homewood and Lee Smith from Wilkinsburg CISP organized and facilitated the 

CISP intramural softball league. This involved all five CISP centers. The season 

consists of six weeks of regular intramural softball games from May until June 

2006, which concluded with playoffs. The Wilkinsburg CISP center finished in first 

place and Hill CISP finished in second place. An awards ceremony and pizza party 

was held at North Park after the finals in June 2006. Trophies were distributed to 

the 1st and 2nd place teams and medals to all the teams who participated. 

Two new recreational activities were continued in 2006—a weightlifting contest 

held at Homewood CISP in Oct. 2006 and a ping-pong tournament held at 

Homewood CISP in December 2006. 

Cultural activities continue to be a very important aspect of the CISP Program 

as it exposes the youth to various art, theatre and educational experiences in the 

community. These activities help shape positive social and moral values and foster 

a sense of community pride. Some of these activities were as follows: Great Blacks 

in Wax Museum; several plays at local theaters and churches; and all five CISP centers attended and participated in Black History Month activities in several schools 

and community centers throughout the five neighborhoods. 

School involvement 

CISP staff continues to have a good relationship with all of the schools attended 

by CISP youth. These schools are visited daily by the school/aftercare community 

monitor specialists for data regarding attendance, behavior and academic performance by CISP youth. The staff also attends numerous conferences with parents and 

school personnel throughout the school year. CISP continues to place a high priority 

on the client’s educational performance. 

The Allegheny Intermediate Unit (AIU) has been providing educational services 

to CISP youth since CISP began. The services include testing, interim school placements, GED tutoring, and classes for youth who are suspended. AIU continues to 

provide a tutor at each CISP center for approx. an hour and a half Monday thru 

Thursday. These tutors help youth with homework and often assign additional work 

to strengthen any weak areas. Tutoring services in the CISP centers are now being 

paid through the CISP operational budget. 

The School/Aftercare Community Monitor continues to be responsible for monitoring the school attendance/performance of the CISP students. These staff also 

have the additional responsibility of providing aftercare services to youth who have 

been committed to CISP after their release from an institution. 

The School/Aftercare Community Monitor Specialist in each CISP center monitors 

the daily attendance, obtains grades, behavioral reports, and attends and participates in school conferences with school counselors, vice principals and principals. 

Each school specialist covers a geographic area that encompasses several schools in 

their neighborhood CISP center. During the summer months, the School/Aftercare 

Community Monitor Specialist monitors and facilitates clients who obtain summer 

employment and helps to monitor the community service projects in their center. 

Their duties also include supervision of the aftercare clients in each of their respective centers. 

Electronic monitoring 

One staff member, as well as one alternate, from each CISP center continues to 

function as an Electronic Home Monitoring (EHM) Specialist. Their duties and responsibilities continue to include coordinating, activating, and reporting on the electronic monitoring system for each center. 

In 1998 CISP was able to obtain the ability to install the EHM system in clients’ 

homes that previously did not have a telephone. This procedure involves the CISP 

program installing a telephone line and phone in these homes that enables the 

EHM system to function. 

Each CISP center continues to have the ability through the use of remote work 

stations to review their specific clients electronic ‘‘leaves and enters,’’ as well as the 

client’s overall compliance with their out-of-the-home approved schedules. These remote work stations are programmed through the electronic monitor’s main computer 

hub located in the Eastern District Office. The main benefit of having the remote 

work stations is that it enables each CISP center to respond more efficiently and 

quicker by looking up their own client’s movements, determine if the client violated 

107

or abided to their schedule, and have the ability to respond with real time consequences if a violation occurred. 

Sanctioning 

In 2006, youth continued to be sanctioned in-house, at Shuman Detention Center, 

Allegheny Academy sanction unit, and Vision Quest Boot Camp. In-house sanctions 

included staying late in program or doing additional community service. Youth in 

CISP are sanctioned for violating program rules and regulations such as not attending school/school suspensions, missing program at CISP, electronic monitoring violation, major behavior problems in center, positive drug/alcohol tests, etc. 

2006 SANCTION STAT’S

The positive rate for all tests is only 4.7%. This is a low rate given the fact 18% 

of the youth committed to CISP in 2006 were committed for a drug related offense.


jones4.eps jones5.eps
108

2006 Aftercare commitments 

During 2006, the CISP Program received (54) aftercare commitments. This represents 28% of all the 2006 commitments to CISP. The number of aftercare commitments by CISP center is as follows: 

In 2006 the 54 aftercare commitments to CISP were received from the following 

institutions: 

George Jr. Republic—17

Abraxas—5

Summit Academy—8

Harborcreek—2

Pressley Ridge—7

VisionQuest—1

YDC-New Castle—6

YFC #3—1

Adelphoi—6

Bradley Center—1

2006 CISP Discharges 

In 2006, the CISP Program had 205 youth who were discharged. 

Positive Discharges: 144 youth or 70%

Negative Discharges: 61 youth or 30%

205 youth or 100%

Discharge Percentages: Positive Discharges—70%; Negative Discharges—30%

1) New Offense—5%

2) Failure to Adjust—14%

Of the total 322 youth served during 2006 only 15 (5%) committed new criminal 

acts while in the CISP Program.


jones6.eps
109


jones7.eps jones8.eps
110


jones9.eps jones10.eps jones11.eps
111

Second Chance: House-Arrest Program for Juveniles Finds That 

Community Service Helps Rehabilitate Offenders

By LILLIAN THOMAS, Post-Gazette; Sunday, August 07, 2007

A few months ago, James Eversole was in a stolen car being chased by police. The 

friend who was driving wrecked it, and Eversole, 17, ended up before a judge. 

Eversole learned about his new life on house arrest with an anklet and a crew of 

adults breathing down his neck. 

One of the few places he was allowed to go was a McKeesport personal care home, 

where he was to put in community service hours. 

Now Eversole is an employee of Glenshire Woods Personal Care Home, serving 

coffee and setting tables for the senior citizens he’s been playing cards with on Tuesday and Thursday evenings for the past several months. 

Eversole and three others hired by the home are in the Community Intensive Supervision Project, a house-arrest program started in 1990 by the Allegheny County 

juvenile court system. 

An integral part of CISP is community service, said Jim Rieland, director of juvenile court services in Allegheny County. The program aims to make children who 

have broken the law understand the effects of their actions and to build up connections between them and others in their communities. 

Youth at all five CISP centers do 100 hours or more of community service, such 

as picking up litter or cutting grass, during their six to eight months in the proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:07 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-55\36466.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK

jones12.eps jones13.eps
112

gram. The McKeesport center, started in 2001, has been strong in making community links, Rieland said. 

‘‘We require community service as a way for our clients to give back to the community they victimized,’’ said John Fiscante, supervisor of the McKeesport center. 

He was interested in finding a way to create one-on-one relationships with residents. 

‘‘We tried to go around the community and find a place. At first we were unsuccessful,’’ he said. But last year, he talked with the administrators of Glenshire 

Woods, who agreed to try evening visits from four or five of the center’s youth each 

week. 

It was a bit awkward at first, but once the cards and checkers were broken out, 

the conversation started flowing, said David Herchelroath, probation counselor at 

the CISP center. The kids initially had to be badgered into going to Glenshire, he 

said, but now they all want to go. The Glenshire residents, who hadn’t done much 

card playing before, now have the tables set up and are ready to start games of 

Tonk, 500 and Uno as soon as the boys walk in the door. 

‘‘Miss Mary, Miss Viola, Miss Karen, they are waiting for us when we come,’’ said 

Derrick Stanford, 16, who was arrested on charges of using and selling drugs. 

Officials from both CISP and Glenshire were happy with the results—livelier seniors, kids forming bonds with older people in their community. 

A month or so ago, Fiscante and the center’s administration began to discuss the 

possibility of hiring some of the boys to work there. Two—Eversole, 17, and Claude 

Sims, 16—are working there now as nutrition aides. They set and clear tables, serve 

beverages and help residents at mealtimes. 

Stanford and Tim Chavis, 16, will begin work shortly. All four are nearly done 

with the CISP program. 

Everyone involved is taking a risk. The personal care home, the court system, the 

supervisors of the CISP center and the boys all stand to lose if they blow it. 

A spokeswoman for the corporation that owns Glenshire said it was the first arrangement of this kind she’d ever heard of. 

‘‘We do work with other community organizations, like job corps, but this is the 

first one of this kind I’m aware of,’’ said Holly Gould, director of communications 

for Glenshire Woods’ owner, Milwaukee-based Extendicare Health Services Inc., 

which runs 440 nursing homes, assisted living centers, rehabilitation clinics and retirement communities in the United States and Canada. 

Fiscante knows he’s out on a limb. But the CISP philosophy is based on the idea 

that juvenile offenders are most likely to change their behavior permanently by 

being at home, closely supervised, rather than in a juvenile facility. 

Most ordered into the program are property offenders, Rieland said—‘‘burglary, 

auto theft, misdemeanor retail theft, charges related to drugs, drug use and sales.’’ 

Judges do not send those who have committed violent crimes or who are repeat offenders to the program. 

They are supervised 24 hours a day. They are permitted to be at home, at the 

CISP center, at school and at work if they have a job. At the McKeesport center, 

a staff of 14 supervises a group which ranges from 15 to 22 juveniles who live in 

the McKeesport Area School District. 

The boys report to the center every afternoon and are dropped off at home around 

9 p.m. After that, center staff members make phone checks and home visits. The 

electronic monitoring devices the juveniles wear on their ankles let CISP staff know 

if they are anywhere they aren’t supposed to be; violations show up on a computerized system that is monitored day and night. 

Police have photos of all the CISP youth in case they disappear. If they are in 

violation, they are taken to Shuman Juvenile Detention Center. 

Probation officers are involved in the program, which includes frequent group 

meetings to discuss problems or successes. There is a drug and alcohol counselor 

on staff, and the juveniles are regularly drug tested. They also pay restitution, 

where required, and write letters of apology to victims, where appropriate. 

‘‘We’re trying to change everything,’’ Fiscante said. Boys must respond with ‘‘yes, 

sirs’’ and ‘‘ma’ams’’ to all adults. 

During a card game last week, resident Viola Vano dealt and the game clicked 

along with the efficient ease of familiar routine. The boys talked to their older companions, leaning over to discuss the hands and play. They were routinely and consistently polite, minding their ‘‘yes, ma’ams.’’

Gould, the spokeswoman for Extendicare, said that, because CISP itself is so unusual, she didn’t expect to get more requests of this sort from other facilities. 

‘‘I think it’s fairly unique. We will evaluate the success after a period of time. We 

are always looking for ways to bring people into the long-term care industry, and 

volunteering, to see if they are interested in the work, is a good way to do that.’’

113

Young Men in Trouble Reflect on Their Lives: Garfield Program Helps 

Youths Deal With Their Crimes, Street Life and Absent Fathers

By ERVIN DYER, Post-Gazette; Saturday, June 02, 2007

Listen as young men in the CISP program discuss the absence of fathers in their 

lives. 

In a dimly lighted room in Garfield, there is a circle of 14 young men. 

Their voices are deepening, and the fuzz of new moustaches shades their upper 

lips. They are 13 to 18 years old, and each has an electronic monitoring device on 

his ankle. One by one, they stand to recount the positives or negatives of their week. 

In the circle, they stand before men like Rick Cokley, a broad-chested overseer. 

He is both cheerleader and bullwhip. 

There is much that must be accounted for in the circle—school performance, community service, drug use. Mr. Cokley celebrates their good behavior and chastens 

them when they miss the mark. 

Linking behavior and consequence is a core part of the Community Intensive Supervision Program as it aims to keep youth offenders out of jail and to get them 

to take responsibility for their actions. 

CISP is run by the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. Its philosophy is 

that young offenders are most likely to change by being at home, closely supervised 

and mentored, rather than in a juvenile facility. 

Most are ordered into the circle because they are property offenders, charged with 

burglary, auto theft, misdemeanor retail theft, or have charges related to drugs. 

The electronic monitoring devices let CISP staff know if the juveniles are anywhere they aren’t supposed to be; violations show up on a computerized system. If 

they are in violation, youth are taken to Shuman Juvenile Detention Center. 

Probation officers are involved in the program, which includes frequent group 

meetings to discuss problems or successes. There is a drug and alcohol counselor 

on staff, and the juveniles are regularly drug tested. They also pay restitution, 

where required, and write letters of apology to victims, where appropriate. 

Youth at all five centers do 100 hours or more of community service, such as picking up litter or cutting grass, during their six to eight months in CISP. 

The program served 322 youth last year: two-thirds of them were positive discharges, meaning they were placed on probation or released from CISP and their 

case was closed. The others came back into the system for committing new offenses 

or failing the program. 

In one corner of the Garfield center where the young men sit, there are vials of 

urine, waiting to be tested for drugs. In another, there is a ping-pong table and 

weight-lifting machines. Of the 14 young men in the circle, 13 are black. Ten of 

them have no relationship or very limited involvement with their fathers; 10 of the 

14 say they know someone who’s been shot; nine say they know someone who’s been 

killed. Almost all raise their hand to acknowledge that they have struggled in 

school. 

The circle doesn’t tell the story of every young black male in society, but its members reflect the circumstances of the 3 million inner-city black males who scholars 

say seem to be especially affected by poverty, street life and social alienation. 

And in Pittsburgh, a city with double-digit rates of unemployment for black males, 

a small black middle class that is strained to push for policy changes to address the 

issues, the situation is severe. Nearly 70 percent of black families in Pittsburgh do 

not have fathers in the homes, according to studies done by the University of Pittsburgh Center on Race and Social Problems. 

Bundles of bottled-up angst and misspent emotion, the boys in the circle are ready 

to tell their stories. Because of confidentiality, the Post-Gazette is not fully identifying the young men, but they come from all over Pittsburgh and spoke about 

fatherlessness, their experiences with violence and their hopes. 

‘‘The stereotype is that we were raised in a negative society, so we show negative 

action by being negative people, like stealing cars, selling drugs and stuff like that,’’ 

says Shannon, 17, of East Liberty. He was arrested a few months ago for conspiracy 

to commit armed robbery. He now lives with his father and is watched by two older 

brothers, both college graduates. 

Many of the young men admitted their choices have drawn them close to living 

the stereotype. They say they have made mistakes, but want to be looked at as individuals. 

‘‘People see us, and they don’t want to be bothered,’’ says Shannon. ‘‘We feel like 

all people are judging us’’ and because of how they dress, the choice of music and 

the way they talk, ‘‘everybody sees us as young black people and a bad race.’’

But they are far from immune to the pressures. 

The negativity ‘‘comes from like the person in the neighborhood who got everything. Like respect and everything,’’ said Shannon, who plans to enroll in CommuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:07 May 02, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-55\36466.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
114

nity College of Allegheny County after he finishes the program. ‘‘You want to follow 

in his footsteps and have all that money and girls and jewelry and all that. You 

want to strive and do whatever it is to be that person. 

‘‘It’s pretty hard to really open your eyes [and see something different] when everybody is trying to live up to that image. You kinda want to try to fit, so you go 

down the wrong path. You try to take the fast way out because it just seems easier.’’

A short time in their presence and the personalities creep forth: in the circle, 

some rest with their chins on their hands, silent; others chat away, eager to express 

themselves. 

At one point, they argue the merits of self-determination and its impact on getting 

an education. 

‘‘If you don’t do well in school, that’s yo fault,’’ says Mike, 17, of Highland Park. 

‘‘I ain’t go blame it on the teachers. You pay attention, you go [learn] something. 

If they talked about some girls or some money, everybody would soak that up.’’

Mike is at CISP for violating his probation for aggravated assault. He lives with 

his mom and five siblings and dreams of earning a business degree from Robert 

Morris University and ‘‘owning something.’’

He’s expecting his first child this fall. 

The young men have heard the studies and watched the news reports that warn 

they are an endangered species. 

They run through the same list of negative influences in their lives as the ones 

the experts cite. They talk about living without fathers. 

Carl, 16, of Larimer is the oldest of eight children: four on his mom’s side and 

four on his father’s side. 

His father left the family when he was 2. He wants his father to be a father. ‘‘Yo’ 

mom can’t raise you,’’ he said. 

Most of what Carl shares with his dad are telephone conversations from Houston. 

His father, he said, speaks too often about drinking and the men he’s punching out 

in the bars. Too little does he ask about his son’s life or know what to encourage 

or congratulate him on. ‘‘My dad talks like he’s my best friend. He’s still making 

the same mistakes I am,’’ said Carl, who writes his own rap music and works the 

cash register in his mom’s store in Lawrenceville. 

‘‘We don’t know right from wrong. No fathers to teach us. If my dad was there, 

half the stuff I did, I probably never would have done.’’

Most said that they believed CISP was making a positive difference in their lives. 

‘‘This is a big turnaround for everybody,’’ said Shannon. ‘‘I think if their eyes 

wasn’t open before, it’s open now because we got positive role models now, and you 

have no choice but to do what’s right.’’

‘‘People should care about us,’’ said Shannon, ‘‘because we’re not a lost cause. 

We’re just people who made a mistake. But we’re not going to continue to mess up. 

Everybody wants to do something with their life.’’

Youth Service Hours Pay Off: Teens Serve Their Community as They Serve 

Their Time

By BARBARA WHITE STACK, Post-Gazette; Monday, October 04, 2004

At first, it was forced labor done under court order—delinquents washing and 

painting, buffing and staining in a sweltering McKeesport church last summer. 

Later, it became a labor of pride by teens who stopped counting the hours worked 

toward completion of their community service sentences and began looking forward 

to the tiny congregation’s first service in its refinished sanctuary. 

‘‘They chose to show us the best side of themselves,’’ said Virginia Burda. She and 

her husband, Tom Burda, serve as pastors for the New Jerusalem Holiness Church 

in McKeesport. 

For two months last summer, three to eight teens sentenced to the McKeesport 

Community Intensive Supervision Project—called CISP—arrived at the church 

every day to help the Burdas renovate the ramshackle place of worship. 

They learned new skills. They built an enduring relationship with the Burdas. 

And beyond changing the church’s appearance, they changed themselves. 

This project and others sponsored by the Allegheny County juvenile probation department demonstrate why the county increased both the number of community 

hours worked by delinquents and the percentage of delinquents who completed their 

court-mandated hours. 

The second annual report card of the county’s juvenile court, to be released during 

Juvenile Justice Week which begins today, will show that 98 percent of delinquents 

freed from court supervision in 2003 completed their community service sentences, 

which typically are 100 or more hours. In 2002, that figure was 96.6 percent. 

That year, the youths worked 68,791 hours. In 2003, their hours rose to 69,654. 

115

Jim Rieland, the county’s chief probation officer and director of juvenile court 

services, believes those numbers may be the highest in the country. That’s something he would know from his frequent travels nationwide promoting the concept 

of Balanced and Restorative Justice, which was adopted by Pennsylvania during a 

reform of juvenile justice in 1995. 

The concept widens the traditional focus of juvenile court——reforming errant 

youths——to include efforts to help victims and protect communities. 

Community service is a big part of that. 

John Fiscante, probation supervisor at the McKeesport CISP program, explains 

that the community service projects create a relationship between the youngsters 

and community residents that makes it harder for the teens to repeat their offenses. 

For example, in McKeesport, where the population is dominated by senior citizens, delinquents in the CISP program work off their community service hours by 

mowing lawns and weed whacking for residents too frail to do the work themselves. 

All that’s asked in exchange is a glass of pop or a sandwich. The eating promotes 

talking. The seniors get to know the scary teens. The youths get to know the scary 

old people. 

‘‘An emotional bond is formed,’’ Fiscante said. ‘‘The boys know who lives in that 

house now. It is no longer just a house on the street.’’

The reporting of the community service hours served is part of the Balanced and 

Restorative Justice concept. The community has a right to know just how well its 

juvenile justice system is working, and the reporting, now in its second year, is part 

of that. 

Rieland is trying to get every chief probation officer in the state to do it, and he 

promotes the idea when he travels. 

His report card this year shows a decrease in repeat offenses while youngsters are 

on probation, from 13 percent in 2002 to 11 percent in 2003. 

The percentage of youngsters who did not violate the terms of their probation remained the same at 94 percent. 

The amount of restitution paid rose from $138,979 to $155,911, but the percentage of youngsters who paid in full dropped from 81 percent to 77 percent. 

In addition to reporting the numbers to the public, it’s crucial to collect and study 

them so the department knows where it must improve, Rieland said. 

One reason the community service numbers are so high, he said, is that youngsters frequently complete more hours than required. 

Fiscante said it’s not unusual for a youngster to perform 200 hours when sentenced to 100. 

Fiscante is always looking for meaningful community service projects. He just set 

up one with Glenshire Woods, a McKeesport nursing home. Teens visit the seniors 

there twice a week now; they play checkers and cards and wheel the seniors around. 

When he heard about the needs of the Burdas’ church last summer, Fiscante was 

intrigued. When he walked through the church building the first time, he was horrified. 

‘‘I felt something was going to fall on me from the ceiling,’’ he said. ‘‘It was that 

terrible.’’

The youngsters started work in July, under direct supervision of the Burdas and 

a CISP worker. The boys performed some tasks requiring limited skills, like washing and painting walls. But Tom Burda also taught them to repair plumbing in the 

church bathroom, to buff and stain hardwood floors, and to set and clean pews. 

The Burdas had bought the church on Soles Street 21⁄2 years earlier but had only 

been able to conduct services in a small, restored section of the fellowship hall. With 

the boys’ help, they held their first service for approximately 25 members on Aug. 

1. 

The Burdas gave the boys lunch each day—fun food like pizza and chicken and 

hoagies that the youngsters considered far superior to CISP fare. Virginia Burda 

said those times with the boys were the best. 

‘‘I really enjoyed sitting and talking with them,’’ she said. 

When the work was done, the Burdas e-mailed photos across the country to their 

14 sister churches. And, at a service, they recognized the youngsters for their hard 

work. 

‘‘We promised them that as long as they lived, this would be their church and told 

them that they had invested in the church in a way that makes them a part of it 

as long as we are in existence,’’ Virginia Burda said. 

Before they found the old church in McKeesport, the Burdas had conducted services in a home in Duquesne. They felt drawn to the dilapidated church and bought 

it not knowing how they would ever restore it. 

Then Fiscante showed up. 

116

‘‘We thought the CISP young people and community service were an answer to 

our prayers,’’ she said. 

[Questions for the record sent to Mr. Lawrence follow:]

[VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL] 

July 13, 2007, 

Hon. PAUL H. LAWRENCE, 

Judicial Branch-Goffstown District Court and the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 

State of New Hampshire, Goffstown, NH. 

DEAR JUDGE LAWRENCE: Thank you for testifying at the July 12th, 2007 joint 

hearing of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities and the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. 

Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), a member of the Healthy Families Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following questions: 

1. Please talk more about the transfer of youth to the adult court and placement 

of youth in adult jails. What are the implications for the reauthorization of the 

JJDPA? 

2. When considering your recommendation to trim back the laundry list of core 

purposes in JJDPA, what basic tenets should we keep in mind to guide us? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the question by COB 

Monday, July 23, 2007—the date on which the hearing record will close. If you have 

any questions, please contact us. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman. 

[Response from Mr. Lawrence follows:]

July 23, 2007. 

Hon. GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman, Education and Labor Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you for the opportunity to testify at the July 

12th, 2007, joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities and the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, titled 

‘‘The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act: Overview and Perspectives.’’ 

I truly appreciate the committees’ consideration of and attention to the issues related to the reauthorization of this important statute. 

Today, I am writing in response to questions posed to me, following the hearing 

by Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) a member of the Healthy Families Subcommittee: 

1. Please talk more about the transfer of youth to the adult court and placement 

of youth in adult jails. What are the implications for the reauthorization of the 

JJDPA? 

Currently, all U.S. states, territories and the District of Columbia have laws that 

allow for the transfer/waiver of juveniles under the age of majority into adult criminal court. However, a recent study from the Centers for Disease Control, submitted 

with the written hearing testimony of Dr. Jennifer Woolard, Georgetown University, 

found that transfer of minors to adult court for prosecution and sentencing has, at 

best, no effect on public safety and, at worst, causes the transferred juveniles to become more likely to recidivate and to re-offend in more violent ways. The CDC report amplifies the findings and recommendations of two comprehensive reports on 

the topic, also included in the hearing record: Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2005, 

‘‘Childhood on Trial: The Failure of Trying & Sentencing Youth in Adult Criminal 

Court’’ and Campaign for Youth Justice, 2007, ‘‘The Consequences Aren’t Minor: The 

Impact of Trying Youth as Adults and Strategies for Reform.’’

In its reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act 

(JJDPA), Congress can ensure responses that are more appropriate to a young person’s age and stage of development. Several leadership organizations, the Coalition 

for Juvenile Justice and the Campaign for Youth Justice, among more than 150 

other national and state-based organizations, recommend that the reauthorization 

seek to phase in an expansion of the core protections of the JJDPA to apply to all 

youth until the age of 18, whether tried and sentenced in juvenile or adult criminal 

court. Specifically, by consensus, this group of organizations recommends the following changes in the statute with which I concur: 

117

• Amend Sec. 223(a)(13(A) to require states and local jurisdictions to 

• remove all youth charged as adults and detained in adult jails pending trial, 

allowing for a four-year phase-in period for needed change to state statutes, and 

• implement the American Bar Association (ABA) standards for youth convicted 

as adults in adult jails and prisons, as contained in the ABA’s publication, Youth 

in the Criminal Justice System: Guidelines for Policymakers and Practitioners, 

again allowing for a four-year phase-in. 

• Amend Sec. 252 (b) to require the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention (OJJDP) to provide intensive Technical Assistance (TA) to states and 

counties to comply with the above provisions. 

• Add a new (f) to Sec. 222 to provide incentive funding and technical assistance 

resources for model demonstration programs regarding effective and timely removal 

of youth from adult incarceration settings. 

• Amend Sec. 204(b)(7) to require OJJDP to——

• work with states and counties to collect ongoing data on youth in the adult 

criminal justice system, including age, race, ethnicity, gender, offense, pre-trial detention, transfer mechanism, sentencing outcome, placement pre and post trial in 

jails, prisons or juvenile facilities, and 

• conduct research on the outcomes of filing juveniles as adults in criminal courts, 

i.e. does it increase or decrease public safety and violence?; how does it impact facility conditions?; does it effect the state of developmentally appropriate services and 

programs for youth in adult jails and prisons? 

• Amend Sec. 103(25) to clarify that the core requirements of the JJDPA expressly prohibit any contact of youth with adults in adult jails and prisons. 

• Amend Sec. 103(26) to ensure that the core protections for children in the 

JJDPA apply to youth over age 18 in ‘‘extended juvenile jurisdiction’’ (EJJ) states 

so that these youth are not considered ‘‘adults’’ and states are not forced to remove 

them from juvenile jurisdiction. 

2. When considering your recommendation to trim back the laundry list of core 

purposes in JJDPA, what basic tenets should we keep in mind to guide us? 

My recommendation is to use as guidance the basic tenets embodied by the ‘‘Act4-Juvenile Justice Statement of Principles’’ submitted into the record with the testimony from witness Captain Derrick Johnson, Phoenix, Arizona, and signed by the 

same body of more than 150 national and state organizations mentioned above. 

It is critical to squarely focus allowable uses of State Formula Funds (Title II 

Funds) on support for compliance with the JJDPA core requirements [See Sec. 102 

and Sec. 223 (a) (7) (B)]. There may be efforts to engulf the JJDPA with priorities 

such as character education or law enforcement initiatives which are more appropriately managed in other statutes and under other authorities. 

More specifically, I would recommend amending Sec. 223 (a)(7)(B) to strongly promote: 

• Alternatives to detention and incarceration; 

• Home and community based mental/behavioral health care for children; 

• Discharge planning and access to aftercare services; and 

• Access to effective quality counsel for children. 

Additional important statutory changes could be made in the following sections: 

Amend Sec. 223 (6)(B)(iii) and Sec. 223 (9)(C), (J) and (S) to ensure that mental 

health and substance abuse screening, assessment and referrals include culturally 

and linguistically appropriate services, and involvement of families in service design 

and delivery. 

Elevate and amplify the work under current Sec. 223 (a) (22), known as the core 

requirement on ‘‘Disproportionate Minority Contact,’’ by strengthening it to require 

that OJJDP and its agents assist states and localities to achieve actual reductions 

in racial/ethnic disparities and differential treatment of youth of color in the justice 

system from the point of surveillance and arrest to the point of re-entry. 

It is also important to prohibit the use of JJDPA funds for ineffective programs, 

such as boot camps, scared straight programs, unlicensed private facilities, and 

large residential institutions. Such prohibitions can be appropriately added to Sec. 

299 (C) (a) (2) in the reauthorization. Furthermore, it is critical to prioritize and 

focus the Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) office’s research and technical assistance functions so that they truly support states’ efforts 

to comply with the core protections in the JJDPA. This can be done through adding 

more directive language regarding the functions of the OJJDP Administrator and 

staff in Sections 251 and 252 of the JJDPA. It is essential to ensure that OJJDP 

is responsive to state-identified/locallyidentified needs and the State Plan process, 

including support in Sec. 251 for field-based and field-strengthening research and 

evaluation to refine and expand the array of best and evidenced-based practices. 

118

Moreover, several states are reporting that their technical assistance requests regarding serious compliance concerns related to the Deinstitutionalization of Status 

Offenders (DSO) and Sight and Sound Separation of adult and juvenile inmates 

presently go unanswered by OJJDP. Yet, OJJDP was originally designed and authorized to support the mandates and precepts of the JJDPA. Congress must ensure 

sufficient oversight and transparency to intervene as needed to require assistance 

for states who are working to meet the mandates of the JJDPA. 

Thank you once again for requesting my views. Please let me know if you have 

any additional questions or areas where my colleagues and I can be of any further 

assistance to you. I serve on the board of an excellent resource organization that 

is centrally involved in the ‘‘Act-4-Juvenile Justice’’ effort, the Coalition for Juvenile 

Justice. The executive director, Nancy Gannon Hornberger (202-467-0864, ext. 111 

and nancy@juvjustice.org) and deputy executive director, Tara Andrews (202-467-

0864, ext. 109 and andrewsnjuvjustice.org) stand by, ready to help. and are 

networked with many other expert groups and individuals. 

Thank you, too, for your stewardship of this important federal statute which so 

positively affects the lives of youth and families and shapes more promising futures 

for them, their families and communities. 

Sincerely, 

PAUL H. LAWRENCE, 

Judge, Goffstown District Court;

Immediate Past Chair, Coalition for Juvenile Justice. 

[Internet link to Coalition for Juvenile Justice 2003 annual report: ‘‘Unlocking the Future: Detention Reform in the Juvenile Justice System,’’ submitted by Mr. Lawrence, follows:]

http://www.issuelab.com/downloads/8015CJJ—-—2003—Report—-—Unlocking—

the—Future.pdf 

[Internet links to Coalition for Juvenile Justice briefs, parts I 

and II, ‘‘What Are the Implications of Adolescent Brain Development for Juvenile Justice?,’’ submitted by Mr. Lawrence, follows:]

http://juvjustice.org/media/resources/resource—134.pdf 

http://juvjustice.org/media/resources/resource—138.pdf 

[Questions for the record sent to Mr. Shepherd follow:]

[VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL] 

July 13, 2007, 

Mr. ROBERT E. SHEPHERD, JR., B.A., LL.B., 

Emeritus Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University, University of Richmond 

Law School, Richmond, VA. 

DEAR MR. SHEPHERD: Thank you for testifying at the July 12th, 2007 joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities and the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. 

Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), a member of the Healthy Families Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following question: 

You mentioned the importance of research by the Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). What studies, if any, have been conducted on Native 

American youth in the juvenile justice system? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the question by COB 

Monday, July 23, 2007—the date on which the hearing record will close. If you have 

any questions, please contact us. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman. 

[Response from Mr. Shepherd follows:]

119

July 19. 2007. 

Hon. GEORGE MILLER, CHAIRMAN, 

House Education and Labor Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, 

DC. 

DEAR CONGRESSMAN MILLER: Thank for your letter of July 13, 2007, forwarding 

on a question from Congressman Raul Grijalva regarding Native American youth 

in the juvenile justice system, and what studies the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has conducted on such youth. 

The Office has on its staff an outstanding resource, Laura Ansera, Tribal Youth 

Program Coordinator, and she may be reached at (202) 514-5679, laura.ansera( 

usdoj.gov. There have not been a lot of recent studies published by OJJDP, but 

those that are most relevant include Youth Gangs in Indian Country, NCJ 202714 

(2004), OJJDP’s Tribal Youth Initiatives, NCJ 193763 (2003), United National Indian Tribal Youth, Inc., NCJ 189412, Evaluation/Assessment of Nat ajo Peacemaking, NCJ 187675 (1999). OJJDP’s Program of Research for Tribal Youth, FS 

2001 10 (2001), and Training and Technical Assistance for Indian Nation Juvenile 

Justice Systems, FS 99105 (1999). There are some data from 2006 and earlier that 

have recently been released and published regarding youth prosecuted federally that 

include information on Native American youth and may be found at 

http:llojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstabb/nr2006/downloads/ehapter4.pdf , with the information on Native American youth may be found on page 1 17. There are additional resources that may be found outside of OJJDP and I particularly recommend the Coalition for Juvenile Justice’s publication, Enlarging the Healing Circle, published in 

2000, and there are two excellent outside resources I can refer you to, one is Terry 

L. Cross, Executive Director of the National Indian Child Welfare Association who 

may be contacted at (503) 222-4044, info@nicwa.org and Michael Guilfoyle, Consultant on American Indian Justice and Cultural Competence who may be reached at 

(208) 285-1271. niguilfoyle@firstpic.org. The Coalition for Juvenile Justice Publication may be obtained from them at (202) 467-0864, extension l 11, for the Executive 

Director Nancy Gannon Hornberger, and it may be downloaded at 

www.juvjustice.orglfactsheet—3.html. 

There is a serious dearth of research on American Indian/Tribal youth in the 

courts and in the juvenile justice system, but section 251 of the Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention Act only provides that the Administrator of OJJDP ‘‘may’’ 

do a number of things in the research and evaluation line and, as I mentioned in 

my testimony, that should probably be changed to ‘‘shall’’ and set forth a research 

agenda that Congress would like to see the office pursue. I might also note that the 

Federal Advisory Committee on 

Juvenile Justice has included several recommendations in its most recent reports 

to Congress and the President regarding the development of a different formula for 

‘‘pass-through funds’’ to go to the tribes for juvenile justice activities. 

Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance to you, to Congressman 

Grijalva, or to your staff. I will forward an electronic version of this letter to Deborah Koolbeck and I am sending Congressman Grijalva of this letter. 

With best wishes for your committee’s consideration of the reauthorization of this 

important piece of legislation, I am 

Very truly yours, 

ROBERT E. SHEPHERD, JR., 

Emeritus Professor of Law. 

[Additional submission by Ms. Woolard follows:]

120


cdc-1.eps
121


cdc-2.eps
122


cdc-3.eps
123


cdc-4.eps
124


cdc-5.eps
125


cdc-6.eps
126


cdc-7.eps
127


cdc-8.eps
128


cdc-9.eps
129


cdc-10.eps
130


cdc-11.eps
131


cdc-12.eps
132


cdc-13.eps
133


cdc-14.eps
134


cdc-15.eps
135


cdc-16.eps
136


cdc-17.eps
137


cdc-18.eps
138


cdc-19.eps
139


cdc-20.eps
140


cdc-21.eps
141

[Internet link to Campaign for Youth Justice report, ‘‘The Consequences Aren’t Minor,’’ dated March 2007, submitted by Ms. 

Woolard, follows:]


cdc-22.eps
142

http://www.campaign4youthjustice.org/Downloads/NEWS/National—Report—

consequences.pdf 

[Internet link to International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 

article, ‘‘Juveniles Within Adult Correctional Settings: Legal Pathways and Developmental Considerations,’’ Vol. 4, No. 1, 2005, submitted by Ms. Woolard, follows:]

http://www.iafmhs.org/files/Woolardspr05.pdf 

[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.]

Æ