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

52–941 PDF 2010

GIRLS IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM: STRATEGIES TO HELP GIRLS ACHIEVE THEIR FULL 

POTENTIAL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 20, 2009 

Serial No. 111–77 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

DANIEL MAFFEI, New York 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OCTOBER 20, 2009 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 2 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................... 3 

WITNESSES 

Ms. Eileen R. Larence, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, 

United States Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8 

Ms. Lawanda Ravoira, Director, NCCD Center for Girls and Young Women, 

Jacksonville, FL 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 18 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 22 

Ms. Tiffany Rivera, GEMS, New York, NY 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 36 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 39 

Ms. Nadiyah Shereff, San Francisco, CA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 52 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 54 

Ms. C. Jackie Jackson, Ph.D., Executive Director, Girls, Inc. of the Greater 

Peninsula, Hampton, VA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 57 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 59 

Mr. Thomas J. Stickrath, Director, Ohio Department of Youth Services, Columbus, OH 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 67 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 69 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on 

the Judiciary ......................................................................................................... 4 

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 85 

(1) 

GIRLS IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM: 

STRATEGIES TO HELP GIRLS ACHIEVE 

THEIR FULL POTENTIAL 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert C. 

‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Scott, Conyers, Pierluisi, Gohmert, and 

Poe. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Bobby Vassar, Subcommittee Chief 

Counsel; Jesselyn McCurdy, Counsel; Karen Wilkinson (Fellow) 

Federal Public Defenders Office, Detailee; Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member; (Minority) Caroline Lynch, Counsel; and 

Kimani Little, Counsel. 

Mr. SCOTT. Welcome to today’s Subcommittee on Crime hearing 

on ‘‘Girls in the Juvenile Justice System: Strategies to Help Girls 

Achieve Their Full Potential.’’ 

Ladies and gentlemen, juvenile courts are experiencing a growing 

number of cases involving girls. The number of girls in detention 

and on probation has almost doubled between 1985 and 2005. The 

growing number of girls in the system has highlighted the fact that 

girls have more intense treatment needs than boys. A recent study 

found that delinquent girls have a substantially higher rate of 

mental health problems than delinquent boys. And one of the most 

common characteristics of girls who are involved in the juvenile 

and criminal justice system is a history of physical or sexual victimization. 

Chronically, delinquent girls who were interviewed for an Oregon 

study reported that they had their first sexual encounter at an average age of about 7 years old. The majority of girls who are involved in the juvenile justice system report suffering from some 

form of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse. Sexual, physical, and 

emotional trauma is a recurrent theme in the lives of girls in the 

justice system. A study found that while only 3 percent of boys 

interviewed had documented histories of physical abuse; 77 percent 

of girls had suffered abuse. 

2 

The family lives of girls involved in the juvenile justice system 

are often chaotic at best and dysfunctional at worst. Family disruptions often result in girls being placed in the child welfare system. 

Many of these girls have parents who have abused drugs or were 

incarcerated at some point in their lives, and some of them end up 

moving from one family to another within the child welfare system, 

and then into the juvenile delinquency system. 

The abuse that adolescent girls suffer results in them having 

higher rates of depression and posttraumatic stress disorder than 

boys. And as a result of this abuse, girls are more likely than boys 

to be diagnosed with dual disorders such as mental health and substance abuse disorders. 

School failure and negative attitudes toward school are even 

more adequate predictors of delinquency in girls than boys. Truancy, suspension, poor grades or expulsion are frequently the most 

significant risk factors for girls who are repeat offenders. 

In recent years, prevention and intervention programs are focusing on specific needs of girls based on gender-specific risk factors. 

A few reports have interviewed a number of effective gender-responsive programs and found several common aspects to the most 

successful programs for girls. These programs are community, family, and relationship-focused, and in addition they provide comprehensive services and a safe place for the girls. And we have several expert witnesses who will testify at today’s hearing about what 

types of strategies and services have been successful in helping 

girls fulfill their full potential. 

Before they testify, it is my pleasure to recognize the Ranking 

Member of the Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Judge 

Louie Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Chairman Scott. 

Today’s hearing will examine the subject of girls in State juvenile 

justice systems. The goal of the hearing is to help identify strategies that will help girls reach their full potential. This hearing is 

the most recent installment in a series of hearings that this Subcommittee has held on issues within the juvenile justice system. 

Administering justice to juvenile offenders has largely been the domain of States, as there is no Federal juvenile justice system. 

Although the Federal Government does not play a direct role in 

administering juvenile justice, there are a number of juvenile justice agencies within the Federal Government and grant programs 

that work with State juvenile justice systems. The lead Federal 

agency in this effort is the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, or OJJDP, at the Department of Justice. Since 

its creation, OJJDP has supported States and communities in their 

efforts to develop and implement effective programs to prevent delinquency and intervene after a juvenile has offended. 

For example, from fiscal years 2007 through 2009, Congress pro- vided OJJDP almost $1.1 billion for grants to States, localities, and 

organizations for a variety of juvenile justice programs. Despite 

these efforts, many observers have noted that, for more than a decade, girls have increasingly become involved in the juvenile justice 

system. 

From 1995 through 2005, delinquency caseloads for girls in juvenile justice courts nationwide increased 15 percent, while boys’ 

3 

caseloads decreased by 12 percent. Also, from 1995 to 2005, the 

number of girls’ cases nationwide involving their detention increased 49 percent compared to a 7 percent increase for boys. 

This trend in juvenile delinquency has not gone unnoticed by 

Federal, State, and local policymakers. As the number of female juvenile offenders increase, State juvenile justice officials have noted 

that juvenile female offenders generally had more serious and 

wide-ranging service needs than their male counterparts. Many of 

these needs include treatment for substance abuse and mental 

health conditions. 

To address these needs, the Department of Justice tells us that 

over the last 10 to 15 years, at least 25 States have developed new 

programming for girls in the juvenile justice system. For example, 

in the early 1990’s, Minnesota began awarding model program 

grants to community-based juvenile offender programs that provided gender-specific programs to girls. 

Maryland developed a program in Baltimore to serve the population of girls on probation. In fact, the State was able to make the 

initial changes without requiring any extra funding. The State 

formed a Female Intervention Team, or FIT, that teamed up with 

area programs that were already working with girls, including the 

Urban League, the Local Physicians Association, and the Girl 

Scouts of America. 

The state of Ohio created the Stepdown program to help with reentry of juvenile offenders. The program focused on easing the 

transition from correctional facilities to private residential facilities 

and then back home. The program aimed to have family engagement at every stage of care and supervision. The program was further designed to offer the female youth intensive family therapy, 

counseling, life skills, and education to address emotional and mental health issues, family conflict issues like substance and physical 

abuse, as well as educational problems. 

Clearly, many States have the capacity and willingness to craft 

solutions to problems within their jurisdiction. The limited role of 

OJJDP should be to work with States to evaluate and identify programs that successfully address the unique challenges of female juvenile offenders. 

As Chairman Scott had mentioned, many of the female juvenile 

offenders were found to have histories of sexual abuse. What I 

found as a judge was nearly all of them had no relationship with 

a father in their lives. So that seems to be something that also is 

not addressed, and not something we can wave a wand and fix 

from Washington. But I would certainly be interested in the input 

that you have on these important issues. 

I look forward to your testimony, and yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from Michigan, the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers. The gentlemen is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am proud 

of you and the judge. Maybe it is a couple of judges up here, exjudges, and an Attorney General, all part of this important Committee, are here with us today for this discussion. I guess we are 

all used to the fact that girls and women have different problems 

4 

in the criminal justice system, and we have to do much more about 

it than we have. 

I am especially glad to see Ms. Rivera and Ms. Shereff here. I 

don’t know how much you testify before congressional Committees, 

but we welcome your presence and look forward to what you are 

going to tell us. 

And Members of the Committee and Mr. Chairman, I am not 

happy that the Acting Director over at Department of Justice, Jeff 

Slowikowski, did not see fit to come before the Committee today. 

I just called his boss, the Director of the Office of Legislative Affairs, to tell him so. This is an important hearing. What is he doing 

over there at Ninth and Constitution that he can’t be before this 

Committee right now with everybody else? 

The fact of the matter is that the authorization for juvenile justice delinquency expired in 2007, and he is still sitting down there 

at a desk somewhere talking about he can’t make it this afternoon. 

Well, brother, he is going to make it sooner than he thought he 

was, because I don’t think that that is a way to treat this subject; 

that we are all talking to ourselves, and they are sitting over—they 

are the ones that are going to put all the recommendations into 

place. So looking at it on television doesn’t get it for me, and I want 

to meet with him and the Director to see if we can’t get this thing 

brought together more and more. 

Now, there are two Committees in the Congress that have jurisdiction over this subject: Education and Labor, and Judiciary. We 

are working with Chairman Miller and Chairman Scott and the 

judges to make sure we craft some legislation that is going to get 

us somewhere. And so this is not a good foot. 

And I will go to the Attorney General, too. We won’t stop with 

the Director if this isn’t good enough. I want something. I want 

some follow-up, and I want all of these big-shots downtown that 

can’t get out here to meet with the Chairman and those of us on 

the Committee as soon as practicable, as soon as we get the benefit 

of the discussion of everybody else, these six fine witnesses that are 

here before us. 

And I ask unanimous consent to put my statement in the record, 

and thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE

JUDICIARY

In the last 20 years, the number of young women entering the juvenile justice system has increased exponentially. Accordingly, today’s hearing provides a critical opportunity for us to consider how the justice system can be made more effective generally and how the federal government can more effectively assist state and local 

communities to proactively keep these girls out of trouble. 

In 1980, 20% of all juvenile arrests were girls. By the mid-1990s, that percentage 

rose to about 25%. As of 2007, young women accounted for 29% of all juvenile arrests. 

Here’s an additional statistic. Between 1990 to 2001, there was more than a 50% 

increase in the number of juvenile delinquency cases that resulted in girls entering 

detention facilities. 

Researchers have attributed these increases in part to the rising number of arrests and detention for technical violations of probation and parole and for warrants. 

In addition, the number of girls arrested for some types of violent crimes, such 

as assaults, has substantially increased. Between 1998 and 2007, for example, juveVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:20 May 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\102009\52941.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
5 

nile male arrests for simple assault declined by 4%, while juvenile female arrests 

for the same crime increased by 10%. 

Today’s hearing should hopefully provide answers to some important questions. 

First, we need to know what are the factors behind these statistics. For example, 

is the growing number of girls charged with assault the result of changes in policies, 

such as the mandatory arrest requirements for domestic violence incidents, or simply the result of changing attitudes toward women and girls in the justice system. 

Second, we need to know how the federal government can better prevent juvenile 

delinquency. As prevention and intervention efforts have developed at the state and 

local levels in recent years, it is essential that the federal government have information about what efforts are working best. 

For instance, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention at the 

Justice Department is responsible for preventing and responding to juvenile crime, 

delinquency and victimization as well as helping states improve their juvenile justice systems. 

OJJDP is suppose to play an important role in protecting girls in the system by 

implementing prevention and intervention programs that reduce the number of 

girls’ involved in the system. 

In July, however, the Government Accountability Office released a report on 

OJJDP’s efforts to improve programs that work with girls in the juvenile justice system. 

This report concluded that while OJJDP has funded a 6-year, $2.6 million study 

group to learn about effective and promising girls delinquency programs, it was unable to identify any effective programs. 

Today’s hearing to understand why it has been so difficult to identify effective 

programs for girls. 

The GAO report also identified a third concern, namely, that OJJDP lacks a comprehensive plan to meet its objectives to fund research for girls’ delinquency programs. Although no one from OJJDP is testifying today, I would like the witnesses 

to discuss how that Office can provide a better roadmap of its work that will result 

in better support for successful girls’ programs. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today and hope that this hearing 

will serve to further our important efforts to ensure that girls are given a chance 

to achieve their full potential. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. We have also been joined by the judge 

from Texas, Mr. Poe, and the gentleman from Puerto Rico Mr. 

Pierluisi who is with us today, and would ask any additional statements, without objection, will be placed in the record. 

We have a panel of witnesses to help us consider the issues for 

the day. Our first witness will be Ms. Eileen Larence, who currently serves as Director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues 

at the U.S. Accountability Office. In her capacity at the GAO, she 

manages congressional requests to assess various law enforcement 

and Department of Justice issues as well as the state of terrorismrelated information-sharing since 9/11. 

Our second witness will be Dr. Lawanda Ravoira. She is the Director of the National Council of Crime and Delinquency Center for 

Girls and Young Women. Over 13 years she has served as the 

President and CEO of PACE Center for Girls, a Florida nonprofit 

organization that provides gender-responsive support services to 

girls. 

Our third witness will be Tiffany Ravira. She has overcome many 

obstacles in her short 19 years, but her encounter with Girls Education and Mentoring Services, the GEMS program in New York, 

which is dedicated to advocating for victims of commercial sexual 

exploitation of children, turned her life around. She is now working 

for GEMS as a youth outreach worker. 

Our next witness will be Nadiyah Shereff. She is 23 years old, 

and was born and raised in San Francisco without either of her biVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:20 May 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\102009\52941.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
6 

ological parents, because both were incarcerated. She attended 

some of the worst public schools in California, and at the age of 13 

became involved in the juvenile justice system. She learned about 

the Center for Young Women’s Development, the CYWD, while in 

juvenile hall and has worked in several leadership positions in that 

organization. 

Our next witness would be Dr. Jackie Jackson, Executive Director of Girls, Incorporated, of the Greater Peninsula of Virginia. 

Girls, Incorporated is a national nonprofit youth organization dedicated to empowering girls. Girls, Inc., of the Greater Peninsula, 

sponsors pregnancy and drug prevention programs, in addition to 

economic, science, and technological education for girls in the 

southeast Virginia region. Dr. Jackson’s doctorate is in human 

services, with a specialization in counseling services. 

Our final witness will be Mr. Thomas Stickrath, who will testify 

last. He was appointed as the Director of the Ohio Department of 

Youth Services in 2005, and received the 2009 American Correctional Association’s E.R. Cass Correctional Achievement Award, 

which is considered ACA’s highest honor. 

So we will begin with Ms. Larence. 

TESTIMONY OF EILEEN R. LARENCE, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND 

SECURITY AND JUSTICE ISSUES, UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. LARENCE. Thank you. Chairman Conyers, Chairman Scott, 

Ranking Member Gohmert, and Members of the Subcommittee, I 

am pleased to discuss the results of our review of the Department 

of Justice’s efforts to identify effective programs that address girls’ 

delinquency. As you all noted in your opening statements, the juvenile justice system has seen an increase in the number of girls’ delinquency cases. In 2007, 22 States reported that this is an issue 

affecting their juvenile justice systems. 

Experience shows that the factors contributing to girls’ delinquency are complex and the effects can be serious. Delinquent girls 

can have higher mortality rates, dysfunctional and violent relationships, poor educational achievement, and less stable work histories 

than their peers; and yet there have been few programs and little 

research devoted to this issue, although both are increasing. 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention within 

the Department takes the Federal lead in helping to identify what 

programs are effective for juveniles and in providing grant funding 

for these programs. 

You asked us to review the Office’s efforts to assess the effectiveness of girls’ delinquency programs and its plans to address its 

findings. In the response, we reviewed the results from the ongoing 

Girls Study Group which the Office funded with a $2.6 million 

multiyear cooperative agreement in 2004. The group’s goals include 

to identify effective or promising programs, gaps in research, and 

recommendations for the future. 

In summary we found that, first, the study group concluded few 

girls’ delinquency programs had been assessed, and none of the assessments showed conclusive evidence that the programs were effective. Second, relatively few resources have been devoted to this 

7 

issue. And, third, justice needs a transparent plan to address the 

group’s findings to help break the cycle of delinquency. 

The Girls Study Group, comprised of 15 members, mainly lead 

researchers in the field, identified 61 programs that specifically address girls’ delinquency. But they found that only 17 programs had 

been studied, and none of the studies showed conclusive evidence 

of effectiveness. As a result, among other things, the group called 

for increased efforts to evaluate programs to determine what works 

and to publicize successful programs to the juvenile justice community. 

We determined that the group’s approach was in line with social 

science practices and standards, but some researchers and practitioners were critical of the methods used. They feared that the 

group’s standards for effectiveness, the program assessments, 

based on a randomized controlled research design, were too hard 

to meet, and that the group thus eliminated promising programs 

that communities could use. Both the group and Justice defended 

the approach, however, saying that they wanted to ensure that 

they identify programs certain to work before communities spent 

further money on them. 

The Juvenile Justice Office has had few discretionary funds to 

devote to identifying effective girls’ programs. The Office has not 

had funding targeted to research and evaluation since it received 

$10 million in 2005 for these purposes. Since then, the Office has 

set aside about $33 million through 2008—or about 3 percent— 

from its other appropriation accounts to fund such research. But 

the girls’ delinquency issues compete with many other juvenile justice issues for these set-aside funds. 

Likewise, girls’ programs compete with other juvenile programs 

for State and local grant funding. For example, Justice reports that 

in fiscal years 2007 and 2008, States used only 1 percent of their 

Title II formula grants on girls’ programs, not quite $2 million, and 

that it could provide only about another $1.8 million in 2007 in discretionary grants for this purpose. 

Based on the Girls Study Group findings, Justice determined 

that it needs to better prepare programs for evaluation and to fund 

more evaluations. Therefore, the Juvenile Justice Office is funding 

a workshop this month to help about 10 to 12 programs prepare 

for evaluation. It also hopes to issue a solicitation in early 2010 to 

support a limited number of program evaluations, depending on 

available funding. 

Finally, the Office expects to provide more training, technical assistance, information dissemination, and programs on girls’ delinquency issues in the long term; but the Office could not provide a 

document showing the steps it would take, the people it would hold 

responsible, the deadlines it would set, and the funding it would 

commit that would provide transparency and accountability to the 

Congress, States, communities, and research field, that it was serious about addressing girls’ delinquency problems. 

We recommended that the Office develop such a plan and agreed 

with our recommendation. As a first step, it expects to issue an office-wide juvenile justice plan, the first one in 7 years, that is to 

discuss girls’ issues, among others, by the end of this year. 

8 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy 

to answer any questions. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Larence follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EILEEN R. LARENCE


ERL-1.eps
9 


ERL-2.eps
10 


ERL-3.eps
11 


ERL-4.eps
12 


ERL-5.eps
13 


ERL-6.eps
14 


ERL-7.eps
15 


ERL-8.eps
16 


ERL-9.eps
17 


ERL-10.eps
18 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Ravoira. 

TESTIMONY OF LAWANDA RAVOIRA, DIRECTOR, NCCD 

CENTER FOR GIRLS AND YOUNG WOMEN, JACKSONVILLE, FL 

Ms. RAVOIRA. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting the NCCD Center for 

Girls and Young Women to come and provide testimony at this critical hearing. 


ERL-11.eps
19 

Located in Jacksonville, Florida, the NCCD Center for Girls and 

Young Women is grounded in the courageous life experiences of 

girls and young women who are caught in the juvenile justice and 

the child welfare system. We seek to be the passionate voice for activism to ensure equitable, humane, and gender appropriate responses to improve outcomes for girls. 

Prior to coming to this hearing, I had the opportunity to meet 

with girls who are spending much of their adolescence behind razor 

wire in facilities in Florida. And I asked the girls, what would they 

say if they had the opportunity to come and speak to individuals 

who had the power to create change in how the juvenile justice system treats girls. And Maria, a thoughtful, intelligent, and unusually quiet young woman, simply said, ‘‘Ask the adults to be there 

for us, to do what our parents couldn’t do, be somebody we didn’t 

have, be a friend. We don’t have anyone really to talk to. That is 

where you can start to help us, whether we are good or bad. I have 

no one. And I really try to be good, but I always mess up.’’ 

What is Maria’s story? Maria’s dad left home when she was 7, 

after being convicted of sexually abusing her from ages 4 to 7 years 

old. And by age 11, Maria was taken away from her mother because she had been beaten with a coat hanger, and she was placed 

in foster care. 

By age 12, bouncing from foster care home to foster care home, 

Maria started smoking marijuana, which escalated to using cocaine, prescription drugs, and finally crack cocaine. She ran away 

repeatedly from the foster care homes, and by age 14 she was arrested for drug paraphernalia. And then she was violated for probation for running away again from foster care. And over the past 

3 years, before I met Maria, she had been in and out of razor-wire 

institutions. And what is important to understand in her life, she 

has never been treated for the sexual abuse and she has never 

been treated for the trauma that she experienced as a young child. 

She tried to be good, and she always messed up. 

What I believe, after two decades of advocating and providing 

services to girls and young women in the juvenile justice system, 

it is not our girls who continue to mess up; indeed, it is the juvenile 

justice system that continues to fail girls. 

What we know, as you have said, girls are the fastest growing 

segment of the juvenile justice system. And although crime rates 

are decreasing for both boys and girls, the rate of decrease for girls 

is significantly less. Also, girls are entering the system at much 

younger ages. The majority of girls, about 50 percent, are coming 

into the system and being incarcerated at 15 years or younger. 

Girls’ needs are distinctly different from boys’. What we know is 

that girls’ victimization and abuse is the pathway into the juvenile 

justice system; yet when they get into the system, their status as 

victim is quickly forgotten. And despite the fact that they are presenting with serious mental health issues, posttraumatic stress disorders, as well as attempts of self-harm and suicide, the very practices inside of institutions continue to revictimize and traumatize 

girls. These routine practices, if you have not had the opportunity 

to be inside of institutions, often trigger the posttraumatic stress 

disorders that were with girls prior to coming into the system. 

20 

What are these practices and policies that we are asking you to 

get involved in? They start with the disrobing of girls, often in 

front of men, male staff observing girls taking showers. We are witnessing strip searches of girls. We are also looking at the overuse 

of physical restraints which is simply a reenactment oftentimes of 

the rape and sexual abuse that girls have suffered prior to coming 

into the system. We also know that in many systems girls are simply an afterthought. 

What we also know about girls and young women is an estimated 

10 percent of the girls coming into the system are pregnant and 30 

percent are parents. Yet in some States and jurisdictions, we are 

still shackling girls who go into labor when we are transporting 

them to the hospital to have their child, and what we are told is 

that they are a risk to run. 

Well, as I look at the panel, I am assuming that none of you have 

given birth, except maybe the counsel. However, if you have been 

with someone who has given birth, I am certain that you would 

agree that the last thing on their mind is running away. This is 

barbaric treatment that warrants our attention. 

And girls’ abuse outside of the institution, which our studies 

show us is as high as 92 percent, is the dark heart of America. But 

inside of institutions, we also are witnessing abuse of girls. And, 

in fact, the U.S. Justice Department has sued nine States and two 

territories, alleging abuse, inadequate mental health care, as well 

as dangerous use of restraints for our girls. 

There is an urgency to act, but yet girls continue to be a low priority and too often an afterthought. We believe that girls continue 

to be squeezed into programs that were ill-designed and ill-conceived. And not only are they ill-conceived for our girls, I am not 

saying that they are designed for boys, either. But we do know that 

there is an emphasis over razor wire and control instead of treatment, and we consistently miss the mark. And the cost to society 

is high. 

There are severe short-term and long-term consequences where 

we are looking at girls locked up with high need and low public 

safety risk at sometimes over $50,000 a year to incarcerate girls. 

And we know that this predicts an entire host of issues long term, 

including physical and mental health issues, substance abuse 

issues, future arrests and incarceration. And our girls who end up 

being locked up in these facilities are at future risk for domestic 

violence and other violent relationships, as well as dysfunctional 

parenting and losing custody of their children. We must invest in 

prevention and intervention services at the community-based level. 

We are asking: How many more girls need to be scarred by years 

of neglect and abuse before we act? We know what to do. But will 

we continue to mess up as a Nation by not investing in gender-responsive services that are designed to meet the needs of girls and 

to turn their lives around? 

The NCCD Center for Girls and Young Women is calling for a 

profound shift in how we respond to girls and young women. Our 

recommendations chart both a fiscally responsible and a service-effective direction for addressing the escalating numbers of girls coming into the system. We are calling for equitable treatment for a 

fair and balanced juvenile justice system that holds girls accountVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:20 May 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\102009\52941.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
21 

able for their behavior, balanced with a commitment to addressing 

their needs. 

We know that at the Federal level we need assistance in addressing the criminalization of girls’ behavior that is grounded in mental 

health issues and abuse issues, where girls do not pose a public 

safety risk and yet they are locked up with the guise of getting 

mental health treatment. We are asking for an examination of policies and practices that negatively impact girls. And we are asking 

for a review of the resource allocation that, although the Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act—which was passed in 

1992—required gender-specific services, funding has been woefully 

inadequate. 

Changing how we respond to girls and young women is not an 

option. It is vital to the health and well-being of our local communities, our State, and our Nation, and certainly the next generation 

of children. Our girls are entitled to nothing less. 

We are hopeful that you will work with us in accepting Maria’s 

challenge to be there for girls in the juvenile justice system, to do 

the things their parents couldn’t do and, thus far, we have failed 

to do. And we believe this hearing is absolutely a critical step in 

the right direction. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ravoira follows:] 

22 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAWANDA RAVOIRA


LR-1.eps
23 


LR-2.eps
24 


LR-3.eps
25 


LR-4.eps
26 


LR-5.eps
27 


LR-6.eps
28 


LR-7.eps
29 


LR-8.eps
30 


LR-9.eps
31 


LR-10.eps
32 


LR-11.eps
33 


LR-12.eps
34 


LR-13.eps
35 


LR-14.eps
36 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Rivera. 

TESTIMONY OF TIFFANY RIVERA, GEMS, NEW YORK, NY 

Ms. RIVERA. My name is Tiffany Rivera. I am 19 years old, and 

I am currently an outreach worker for GEMS. 

Growing up, my mom and dad were addicted to drugs. My dad 

used to beat on our mom and all of her kids. My dad went to jail 


LR-15.eps
37 

when I was a little girl, and my mom was left alone to raise us six 

kids. I remember my mom always bouncing me from home to home. 

When I was 7 years old, I lived with my godmother for 2 years. 

Out of those 2 years, I was raped by my godbrother. When I was 

9 years old, I remember telling my mother I didn’t want to live 

there anymore, so she sent me to live with my aunt in Long Island. 

I stayed there until I was 11 years old, because my aunt told me 

she felt that my mother wasn’t going to be around much longer. My 

mother was very sick. Even though at this point she had stopped 

using cigarettes and using heroin, she was dealing with the after 

effects of using it for so many years. 

When I was 12 years old, my mother was hit by a car and passed 

away. Once my mother passed away, I started running away and 

got involved with the streets. I was a victim of CSEC. I had a pimp 

that physically abused me and raped me almost every day. He 

forced me to sell my body for money. I was with him for 2 years 

before having the chance to run away from him. 

I got involved with gangs and smoked weed. I was put in a mental institution at 14 years old. Once I was released, I went back 

to the streets because I did not receive real help or counseling at 

the hospital. All they did was put me on medication. 

Right after my 15th birthday, I was jumped by two 20-year-old 

women and four men. I stabbed one of the girls in self-defense. I 

was arrested 3 days later. I was locked up in the juvenile justice 

system for close to 2 years. While being in detention, I had over 

a dozen fights. I was jumped and assaulted by other residents, and 

I can remember the staff turning their backs on me and acting as 

if nothing happened. 

If you were in there for prostitution or your family history was 

written down in your file, the counselors used to put your business 

on blast. Confidentiality was never kept. If you had an STD or 

something, they would talk and spread your information with other 

girls in there. If they didn’t like you, they would lie to another girl 

so that you can get beat up. There was always favoritism. I remember being sick a few times and putting in a sick call but never 

being called for it. They would always wait until you needed to go 

to the hospital before seeing you. 

When I got arrested, I was kind of happy because I felt as if I 

was being saved. I was hoping to receive help and start dealing 

with my problems, but it was as if they completely ignored that 

part. I asked to see a counselor and they told me okay. It took 3 

months for me to see one. It was never consistent, and it didn’t 

help. All we did was play games. 

I felt as if they made us keep our problems inside. It didn’t seem 

like they really wanted to know the true story, the real issues that 

I have been dealing with my whole life; they just made me take 

three medications and told me I was just an angry girl. 

There were times we had good times, like when they had special 

performances for us to do during the holidays, but those times 

didn’t fill the void of being in detention with no one there to really 

care about me or ask about how I was really dealing with issues 

of loss, abuse, and trauma. 

While being in detention, I met GEMS through their outreach 

workers, and they referred me to their program. GEMS stands for 

38 

Girls Education and Mentoring Services. It is the only nonprofit organization in New York State that specifically deals with commercially sexually exploited domestic trafficked girls and young 

women. 

I was released on 5 years’ probation into GEMS independent living home. GEMS has helped me finish school. They helped me deal 

with my family issues and the closure of it not being my fault. I 

remember coming to GEMS and hoping things weren’t like detention. I wanted to see a real counselor and just stay away from the 

streets. GEMS asked me what I wanted from them and my goals. 

I told them, and they set up a safety plan with me and ways to 

meet my goals. They worked with me to make sure I met my goals. 

After I met my goals, I felt like a relief and that things can 

change and get better in my life. GEMS has always been there 

when I needed them and when I was in trouble or just needed 

someone to vent to. They never judged me or turned their back on 

me, and they helped me feel at home. I was able to grow up and 

deal with my problems. I understand life in the bigger picture now. 

I was able to further my passion in helping others and giving 

back. They gave me the opportunity with a job as an outreach 

worker. Now I go to juvenile detention centers, schools, child welfare, and other programs to talk to young girls. They have helped 

me with permanent housing. Although I am currently still on probation, my life has changed and I have done a 180. I can finally 

say I am happy with the way things are going with my life and 

okay with what has happened in my past. I know I have learned 

so much from my past and can use my experience to help other 

young women who may be going through something similar. 

When I go to detention centers I see the same patterns happening over and over again. I see staff actually gossiping about the 

girls right in front of them. It makes me upset because I know it 

is not cool, and that it can make a girl want to shut down completely, and, when someone is truly trying to help her, she refuses 

the help. When I sit and talk to these girls, I let them know that 

I will not turn my back on them and I will always listen and give 

them the best advice I can. If I have the resources that can help 

them, I make sure to give it to them. I build a trust bond between 

the young ladies and myself. Sometimes the girls just want someone to talk to, and I make sure I can be that person. I tell them 

if they want someone to write to, they can write me and I will 

make sure I write them back. We have a pen-pal program at 

GEMS to help the girls in detention know that there are people out 

here who care about them and want to see them succeed and heal. 

I hope to see more caring staff at these detentions that are welltrained. I hope to see that these girls receive services that they deserve and that best help them deal with their problems, whether 

it is being a rape victim, a gang member, a drug abuser, or victim 

of commercial sexual exploitation. I hope that they get to see better 

therapists with more consistency. Most of all, I hope that all adults 

who are responsible for this will listen to my testimony and work 

to make the essential changes to help our troubled and often neglected youth. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rivera follows:] 

39 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIFFANY RIVERA


TR-1.eps
40 


TR-2.eps
41 


TR-3.eps
42 

ATTACHMENT 


E-1.eps
43 


E-2.eps
44 


E-3.eps
45 


E-4.eps
46 


E-5.eps
47 


E-6.eps
48 


E-7.eps
49 


E-8.eps
50 


E-9.eps
51 


E-10.eps
52 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Shereff. 

TESTIMONY OF NADIYAH SHEREFF, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 

Ms. SHEREFF. My name is Nadiyah Shereff. I am 23 years old. 

I was born in a women’s prison where my mother was locked up. 

When I was 2 days old, I was taken from my mother and placed 

with my grandmother in San Francisco, California. I never knew 

my father, and my mother was incarcerated my entire life. 

I was raised by my grandmother who was forced to work several 

jobs to pay for the extra expense of caring for me. We lived in public housing, also known as the projects. Every day on my way to 

school, I had to navigate through drug dealers, drug addicts, and 

poor folks looking for their next crime victim. 

I saw my first shooting when I was 9 years old. My house was 

accidentally shot into twice. Luckily, no one was hit. Although 

shootings were a regular theme where I am from, the instantaneous fear that comes when you hear a gunshot always left me and 

my family trembling for days and saying things like, We have got 

to get out of these projects. We all knew it was a very real possibility that one of us could be accidentally or purposefully shot and 

killed. 

Over the years, I witnessed countless murders, many of which 

were classmates and friends. This made it difficult for me to focus 

in school, and when I was 13 I began smoking marijuana and 

drinking as a way to escape the daily violence. At that time, I 

didn’t see much of a future for myself due in part to a lack of positive role models. The positive role models that existed at the time 

were not made visible to me in my neighborhood or in my school. 

I attended the worst of the worst public schools, complete with rundown facilities, outdated books, curricula that undervalued minority communities, and overall had a very low standard of excellence. 

At 13, I got arrested for the first time and was charged with assault. I was taken to San Francisco’s juvenile hall and began a 

cycle of going in and out of detention. I was locked up 10 different 

times within a 2-year period. 

Inside juvie, I met other girls like myself who were there for 

prostitution, assault, theft, and truancy. We were not violent girls. 

We were girls who were hurting. All of us were from the same 

neighborhood, poor families, and seemed to have the same disposition of trauma and anger mixed with hopelessness. 

Being confined to a tiny cement room was one of the hardest 

things I have ever had to experience. Being locked up, all I could 

do was reflect on my life, but it didn’t seem to help. I became even 

more withdrawn and angry. I felt completely disconnected from my 

family, from friends, and the counselors inside offered no support 

for the real problems I was facing. I felt like nobody believed that 

I could actually do something positive with my life, especially the 

staff inside the facilities who treated me like a case number, not 

like a person. 

At that time, what I needed was to talk to folks about all I had 

been through, to feel connected to people, to feel useful so that I 

could find my own direction in life. I needed to heal from the trauma and be supported with love and encouragement. 

53 

It was inside the halls of juvenile hall that I was introduced to 

the Center for Young Women’s Development, also known as CYWD. 

Members of their organization came monthly to meet with all the 

young women in lockup. When it was my turn to meet with them, 

Marlene Sanchez, who is now the executive director, talked to me 

in a way that showed me she felt I had the potential to do something with my life. She said, As soon as you come out, come 

straight to CYWD. We can support you. I learned that they had a 

program run by and for previously incarcerated young women. I 

mean it when I say this: That meeting changed my life forever. 

Once out, I applied for the Sisters Rising 9-month employment 

training program and was hired in spite of just having gotten out 

of lockup. I spent the next 9 months taking part in healing circles, 

one-on-one counseling, and building sisterhood with other young 

women who shared similar experiences. I learned about our hard 

and proud history as people of color, things they never taught us 

in school. I learned about the criminal justice system and disproportionate minority confinement. I learned how to advocate for 

myself and other young women, and how to organize our community to fight for fairer policies and practices. 

CYWD gave me opportunities to lead projects and workshops 

that helped improve my community, sparking in me a passion for 

social justice and community work. The staff treated me like someone who was important, rather than a juvenile delinquent. They 

helped me enroll back in school and got me a tutor to get and keep 

my grades up. 

What if I had gone directly into CYWD instead of being locked 

up? And when I think about all the girls who are detained, how 

much better their lives would be if they were placed in programs 

like CYWD instead of jail. 

CYWD’s youth leadership development model empowers young 

women by providing them with the opportunity to advance within 

the organization. I have worked at CYWD in several leadership 

roles, beginning as a Sisters Rising intern, and now as the newest 

and youngest board member. CYWD has inspired me to dream 

more, learn more, and do more for the betterment of my future and 

the future of other young people. 

By sharing my personal testimony, I hope to convey how CYWD’s 

programs and youth leadership development models are a longterm investment for the future of young women and the future of 

this country. Through building community, having a space to heal, 

learning about my history, and having access to leadership opportunities, I became empowered. I was able to complete my juvenile 

probation, graduate high school, and go to college. I recently received my—I recently graduated from California State University 

Eastbay with a bachelor’s degree in political science, and I am now 

in the process of applying to law school. 

Thank you for your time. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Shereff follows:] 

54 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NADIYAH SHEREFF


NS-1.eps
55 


NS-2.eps
56 


NS-3.eps
57 

Mr. SCOTT. Dr. Jackson. 

TESTIMONY OF C. JACKIE JACKSON, Ph.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GIRLS, INC. OF THE GREATER PENINSULA, HAMPTON, 

VA 

Ms. JACKSON. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I am 

Jackie Jackson, executive director of Girls, Incorporated of the 

Greater Peninsula in Hampton, Virginia. My organization has been 

serving girls on the peninsula for over 60 years. Our local affiliate 

was founded as Girls Club of the Greater Peninsula in 1947. Based 

on our long history of service to girls, we honor the opportunity to 

provide our perspective today. 

As you have heard all the witnesses before me, representation of 

girls in the juvenile justice system has been on the rise for the last 

20 years. Under the leadership of the National Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention Coalition, the National Girls Inc.’s Office has worked with like-minded organizations and put forth specific recommendations for changes in Federal law to improve conditions and service for adjudicated girls. 

Girls, Inc. advocates diverting girls away from detention whenever possible and providing needed service for victims of abuse. We 

are also very concerned with the fate of status offenders, who are 

disproportionately girls, and often incarcerated over technical violations despite the fact that they pose no safety threat to the community. 

I respectfully ask your attention to these critical issues; however, 

this afternoon I want to speak to you about primary prevention, 

the most cost-effective way to address juvenile justice crimes. 

First, generally speaking, we must invest in prevention; 15 million children and youth are released from school every day without 

adult supervision. Unfortunately, after-school hours become highrisk hours for juvenile crime and other dangers for both boys and 

girls. Girls, Inc. and other programs like ours fill that gap by providing transportation, positive adult role models, and safe environment for children of working families. We serve girls every day 

from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. during the school year, and from 6 a.m. to 

6 p.m. during the summer. 

But quality prevention does not mean just a place to store children and teens with a ping-pong table and a television set. Girls 

at Girls, Inc. participate in proven research-based programs that 

nurtures their healthy development and reduce negative behavior. 

For example, an experimental design evaluation of Girls, Inc. 

substance abuse prevention program found that girls who participated were half as likely as nonparticipants to report involvement 

with abusive substance. Scientific evaluation of youth programs 

has shown reduction in vandalism, assault, drug activity, and juvenile arrests when compared to other controlled groups. 

In addition to bettering the lives of children, prevention programs also save money. In my own community, the average cost to 

house a child in one of Hampton’s facilities is about $51,000. Nationwide, estimates for secured detention ranges anywhere from 

$32,000 to $65,000 per year per youth. In contrast, 1 year of comVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:20 May 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\102009\52941.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
58 

prehensive after-school programs and summer program at Girls, 

Inc. costs less than $2,000. 

However, despite the obvious return on the investment of these 

programs, we at Girls, Inc. and other similar organizations are 

struggling. Families come to us all the time that do not even have 

the ability to pay. We try to make Girls, Inc. affordable for them 

by charging just $5 per day for us to maintain quality staff and 

programming and also providing transportation. We need investment from Congress and from the community. 

Secondly, girls prevention programs should be gender-specific, as 

we have heard. The male and female offender populations are different. Girls commit fewer violent offenses than boys. They are 

more likely to be status offenders. And girls enter the juvenile justice system with a disturbing history of emotional, physical, and 

sexual abuse. 

So, clearly, prevention programs should not be a one-size-fits-all. 

Our Girls, Inc. pregnancy prevention program and newborn program provide a forum for discussing child abuse with trained professional staff in an all-girls environment. It is critically important 

for girls to feel safe and free to discuss such sensitive issues. 

In addition, research has also showed that girls will fight with 

members and siblings more frequently than boys. Some research 

suggests that girls are three times as likely as boys to assault a 

family member. Prevention programs designed for boys, then, will 

fail to address these issues adequately for girls. 

Finally, substance abuse prevention programs must be genderspecific as well. Girls’ substance rates have now caught up with 

those of boys, but girls are more likely to accept substance from an 

older boyfriend and girls are more likely to use substance to manage stress or to lose weight. Prevention programs for girls must address healthy relationships, anxiety, and body image issues in 

order to meet the difference of girls’ needs. Unfortunately, however, 

our Nation affords too little attention to vulnerable girls. 

While preparing for this testimony, the local police department 

could not readily provide me with data breakdowns for juvenile 

crime by gender, while they quickly provided breakdowns of the 11 

most violent offenses for the last year. 

Finally, prevention should be strength-based. All children, 

whether or not we call them at-risk, deserve positive programs, not 

session after session of what they can’t or they shouldn’t do. At 

Girls, Inc. we offer financial literacy programs that help girls learn 

about planning for a financial secure future. We also offer media 

literacy programs which help girls recognize how music videos, 

lyrics, television shows, and movies glamorize sex, violence, and 

drugs. 

Girls, Inc. programs are fun, so girls want to come to Girls, Inc. 

Programs are in community centers, churches, and anywhere that 

girls are, regardless of school boundaries. Girls get to know each 

other in a positive environment, working together, and they forget 

about which school or neighborhood they are from. When tension 

may arise later between rivalry schools or neighborhoods, Girls, 

Inc. know each other as friends, and they don’t feed into the false 

rumors and reputations that causes so much danger and problems 

in our community today. 

59 

So I want to commend this Committee for convening this hearing 

today, and especially for listening to the voices of girls. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF C. JACKIE JACKSON


CJJ-1.eps
60 


CJJ-2.eps
61 


CJJ-3.eps
62 


CJJ-4.eps
63 

ATTACHMENT 


D-1.eps
64 


D-2.eps
65 


D-3.eps
66 


D-4.eps
67 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Stickrath. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS J. STICKRATH, DIRECTOR, OHIO 

DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES, COLUMBUS, OH 

Mr. STICKRATH. Thank you, Chairman Conyers, Chairman Scott, 

Ranking Member Gohmert, and distinguished Members. 

As mentioned earlier, I am the Director of the Ohio Department 

of Youth Services. And having spent over 30 years managing various aspects of adult and juvenile corrections, I know that female 

offenders present a particular set of challenges and rewards, and 

in many cases require more time and energy to manage. 

Many practitioners, like myself and like you, have heard that 

work with girls, already know that in many ways our current juvenile justice system is designed for male offenders. And criminologists continue to study the differences between male and female 

pathways to crime. They tell us that girls differ in their reactions 

to sexual abuse and other maltreatment, family and other life 

stressors, attachment and bonding, relationship violence, depression, anxiety, and peer victimization. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gohmert, the girls committed to our agency 

look similar to those that you described earlier; 91 percent are on 

our mental health caseload. Most have substance abuse issues. 

Over half have attempted suicide. And nearly all have experienced 

early childhood trauma. And while the average age of our female 

population is 16, the average school grade level is only seventh 

grade. 

My vision in Ohio has been to reduce admissions of youthful offenders to our large State institutions, consistent with public safety, and to build our community capacity. By providing research and 

data to our courts, youthful offenders are more likely to be placed 

in the environment most appropriate for rehabilitation, and the collaborative efforts of our agency and Ohio’s juvenile courts have 

supported a decrease, in the population of girls, of 65 percent over 

the past 3 years. 

Recognizing the need for a consistent and validated approach to 

evaluating youth throughout their involvement in our system, we 

created an Ohio indigenous assessment system so that juvenile 

courts could speak a common language. And I am pleased to report 

that this system was normed and validated on both genders separately, and adjustments were made to develop a final set of parameters that incorporate the different needs and risk levels of boys 

and girls. 

We have taken to heart the research and the lessons learned 

from working with the female population. Five years ago, allegations of abuse, lack of mental health treatment, and scarce education plagued the girls’ facility, much as you heard from the earlier witness. Since then, we have worked hard to change the milieu 

into one that is less penal, more program structured, and better 

prepared to effectively care for the particular challenges that this 

population presents. 

Examples include instructing our employees that come in contact 

with girls, from security staff to cafeteria workers, in a researchbased training which covers topics such as posttraumatic stress disorder; intervention strategies to reduce the use of restraints and seVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:20 May 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\102009\52941.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
68 

clusion; creating comfort rooms in all of our female units, therapeutic spaces that are designed to serve as quiet places of retreat 

to help youth calm down and avert a crisis; developing a state-ofthe-art mental health unit for girls which is richly staffed by a 

multidisciplinary team of professionals; and implementing a new, 

comprehensive, evidence-based and gender-responsive treatment 

program for our female population. The programming will be 

grounded in cognitive behavioral ideas and principles. 

We also work to strengthen each girl’s practical life skills, career 

planning and reentry, to ensure a well-planned community reentry 

strategy which is vital for any offender returning home. 

And although the work we do within our facilities to address the 

specific needs of girls is critical, the majority of girls in Ohio’s juvenile justice system are not committed to our agency, so it is vitally 

important for our local courts to have effective community tools to 

address the needs of this population. And new programs are showing promise in working with girls at Ohio in our community, including our behavioral health juvenile justice initiatives. 

Ohio, like other States, has struggled to find appropriate methods of managing the very challenging population of juvenile offenders. And jurisdictions across the country often create programs that 

may feel good but are not evidence-based and may not work, so we 

need research and evaluation support to ensure that the programs 

being administered are not harmful to the youth but, in fact, yield 

the desired successful outcomes. 

With OJJDP-funded research and program evaluations, States 

will not have to reinvent the wheel when establishing new programs for juvenile offenders. I believe that supporting the research 

for evidence-based programs will, in the long run, work to save precious State and national resources, enhance public safety, and provide effective interventions for juvenile offenders. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on this 

very important issue. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stickrath follows:] 

69 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. STICKRATH


TJS-1.eps
70 


TJS-2.eps
71 


TJS-3.eps
72 


TJS-4.eps
73 

Mr. SCOTT. And I want to thank all of our witnesses for testifying. This is tremendous information. 

We are going to ask questions under the 5-minute rule, and I 

will begin with asking Mr. Stickrath: You indicated a question on 

restraints testimony. We heard testimony about women being restrained during childbirth. Do you have a comment on that? 

Mr. STICKRATH. Well, the use of restraints and the overuse of restraints has been a concern of mine and something that we saw I 


TJS-5.eps
74 

think in our system, as probably other systems. And so we have 

worked—we just actually completed a renewed round of training on 

use of restraints and how to appropriately deal with youth when 

that situation arises. It is a concern probably in nearly every detention system and State juvenile system, and requires, I think, hiring 

the right people with the right kind of training and avoiding those 

situations. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is there a standard specifically on childbirth—restraints during childbirth? 

Mr. STICKRATH. That would be something—and fortunately we 

have not had the degree of childbirth issues in Ohio that some 

other States have had—but that is something we would avoid in 

Ohio. 

Mr. SCOTT. And you had also indicated a need for evaluations. 

Do you have specific topics that would be helpful to you to have 

more information on? 

Mr. STICKRATH. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As Mr. Gohmert indicated, 

there have been a lot of programs that are being implemented and 

tried in counties and jurisdictions and States across the country, 

including in Ohio. But, as I said, too often they might look good or 

they might feel good, like when I first did a boot camp and I was 

real proud of what I thought was going to be the result until the 

research came out. 

So I think the kind of evaluation of programing, of making sure 

that there is—based in evidence, I think would be helpful. 

Mr. SCOTT. Let me ask Tiffany and Nadiyah what kinds of programs are most important to turning people’s lives around, like 

what happened in your cases. What elements are there in the programs that are most effective? 

Ms. SHEREFF. Certainly, programs like the Center for Young 

Women’s Development and Girls, Inc., GEMS, who offer counseling, 

because a lot of times we are committing acts because there is a 

lot going on. And so I think that it is important to have that counseling and have the support to kind of get at the underlying reasons of why we are acting out and then just having a strong supportive sisterhood, you know. 

Ms. RIVERA. Also, programs that specifically deal with the trauma that these girls dealt with, whether it is family drug abuse— 

programs that specifically help them get through the family issues 

they had in the past and are able to overcome it, or whether they 

were raped or something, programs that specifically deal with that 

and they are around other people who have experienced the same 

thing so they know they are not alone, because often times girls 

feel everything that happened to them, just happened to them and 

nobody else, so they act out on that. 

Ms. SHEREFF. And then also one of the greatest things about 

being at the Center for Young Women’s Development for me was 

the fact that I was hired as an intern. And so that employment 

piece is very critical. As I mentioned, I was able to move up within 

the organization. So also having employment programs as well as 

other support. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Dr. Ravoira, you mentioned foster care. 

What is the problem with foster care that causes people to be 

bounced around and not having a secure youth? 

75 

Ms. RAVOIRA. What we found in the research that we conducted 

in Florida, we have a research report called: A Rallying Cry for 

Change, a significant number of the girls ending in juvenile justice 

had been in foster care. And they were running from foster care. 

I think it gets to the issue of foster care parents are not trained 

either on how to work with young girls and women. And so the foster care parents get overwhelmed by the issues that girls bring into 

the home, and it is the unaddressed trauma, it is some of the mental health issues that girls are bringing, and so they will run. 

So I think it goes back to a training issue in both child welfare 

as well as the juvenile justice system and a culture that doesn’t 

really celebrate all that is right about teenage girls. So foster care 

parents have no idea how they are intervening in trying to control 

girls, how that can trigger their behaviors. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Dr. Jackson, are the girls in your program already in the system? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, fortunately, we only have one girl that had 

actually been in the system. We have served last year over 1,100 

girls. And I think that is pretty good that we have only one that 

was in the system. 

When I say in the system, she didn’t stay over 30 days within 

the system, 2 years ago, and she’s no longer with the program. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now all of the others, how are they selected to participate? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, we recruit from schools. We have a partnership with all the school systems in Hampton and Newport News 

and what we do is pass out flyers and they take those flyers home 

to the parents. One thing, too, that I would like to add, the importance of parent involvement at an early age. That is very important. 

And the way that girls register for our program is pretty much 

like you will in a college. It is a semester. So every semester we 

have contact with those parents that are registering those girls. 

Also, each girl who leaves our sight has to sign out—has to be 

signed out by a parent or a guardian and also at that time we can 

at that time interact with the parents. 

And girls see the stability in being at Girls, Inc. They know Monday through Friday that we will be there and that we expect them 

to be there. So when they are brought in through the transportation, they will sign in and they will sign out by someone that 

their parent had identified for them to be picked up. And that is 

including the teenagers. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I want to thank all the witnesses for their wonderful testimony. Tiffany and Nadiyah, I appreciate the example 

you are setting just by being here and by letting people know that 

you realize the kind of self worth I hope you fully realize that you 

have and the difference you make. 

I didn’t recall either one of you testifying but it has been brought 

up in some of the statistics, did either one of you consider taking 

your own life? 

Ms. SHEREFF. No. 

76 

Ms. RIVERA. Yes, I have. It started around I guess the age of 13. 

Even while being locked up, I used to—I mean I thought about it. 

Never really tried. I mean I have cut myself repeatedly. But I remember one time being in juvenile detention and I cut myself and 

it was kind of like a cry out for help for somebody to come and talk 

to me. I had cut wound on my arms for about 2 weeks before anybody even realized that I cut myself. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Nadiyah. 

Ms. SHEREFF. No. 

Mr. GOHMERT. So you realized early on you had value, right? 

Ms. SHEREFF. Yes, but I have several friends and have been in 

detention with young women who have attempted suicide. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Apparently, it is a common thing. And it seems 

like the difference is—and it has been mentioned here—when 

somebody let’s you know that you have value, that you make a difference, that they care about you. Correct? 

Ms. RIVERA. Uh-huh. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And it seems like the programs that are most successful like we have heard about here today is where that is conveyed—it seems it is true, whether it is guys or girls. Sometimes 

it is harder to get across to a guy because they are too busy acting 

tough—but that they have value. 

Ms. Jackson, you mentioned the importance of parental involvement, but given the statistics that we know exist, that can’t be too 

easy to get parents involved, is it? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, it is not easy at all. A lot of times it is not 

even the parents; it is the counselors that are bringing the young 

people in and signing them out. It is grandparents. It is other people; foster parents. 

And so when we say parents’ involvement, just an adult person 

that is going to come in and after we are finished with them for 

the day, then we hope that someone will continue the process of 

what we are doing. 

So when we say parent involvement, we are just talking about 

the other adult that is going to take over where we left off when 

they go home. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And if there is no follow-up, then the chances of 

success are drastically minimized, right? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. We like to say also that the girls in our program grow with our program. Girls can come into our program in 

the second or third grade and they will come back the next year. 

So they begin to grow up in Girls, Inc. Since I have been with 

Girls, Inc., we have had about a 75 percent repeat of girls coming 

back through our program. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Dr. Ravoira, you mentioned about Maria and her 

quote that asks the adults to be there for us to do what our parents 

couldn’t do. Be somebody we didn’t have. And she mentioned she 

had no one. 

But I come back to what seems to me to be the biggest question, 

and maybe it is not something we have done adequate studies on, 

but why couldn’t the parents be there for them? Why wouldn’t they 

be there for them? Because it seems like whether it is a parent, it 

is a grandparent, someone; a counselor, someone like yourselves 

that conveys that message, that this child has value and they mean 

77 

something and do great things, that there has got to be something 

at the heart of why there are so many parents that don’t fill that 

need. 

Have you looked at that issue at all? 

Ms. RAVOIRA. I spent 14 years as the President and CEO of 

PACE Center for Girls, where we served about 4,000 girls annually. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Does PACE stand for something? 

Ms. RAVOIRA. PACE stands for Practical, Academic, and Cultural 

Education. It is a day treatment model; a diversion program to 

keep girls from penetrating further into the juvenile justice system. 

You know, what we found, about 75 percent of the girls that 

were served at PACE were coming from single-parent households, 

particularly moms. Many of the moms were working two or three 

jobs just to keep a house for the general children to live in. 

So they were taking care of their children. The moms were overwhelmed. And there were very few support systems in the community. And as the girls had greater needs and there was no support 

systems coming in and just trying to keep the family together, yet 

we are willing to invest in $50,000 a year to remove a daughter 

from the home as opposed to investing in keeping a family together. 

And there are models of programs where we can go into the 

home, that are very cost-effective, and try to heal that fractured 

family and keep them together. Because I will tell you, in my 20 

years of doing this work, families want to do a good job, the majority of the families I worked with, but they are overwhelmed by just 

trying to make it day by day. 

So I think it is whether or not we can provide the services to 

keep families together. And I think the girls probably found that. 

Or, whether it was a grandmother or an auntie or a mom, there 

are certainly family members who are trying. 

And so in my testimony, I am not blaming the family. I am saying that we need to wrap our arms around families who are in crisis as opposed to breaking them apart and sending their daughters 

6 hours away from home. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I would certainly agree with that; that to get to 

the very heart seems like it would be helpful to know why the family is in crisis. I have seen the same thing; mothers working two 

or three jobs trying to make it, so they are not there, and then 

some gang member shoots somebody and they ended up in my 

court. And so I understand that. But, as you mentioned, most of 

them were single-parent homes. And we come back to: Why is 

there such an epidemic? Why is the dad a deadbeat that never gets 

across to his precious daughter just how much worth she really 

has. 

Anyway, I see my time has expired, but I appreciate it, Chairman. Thank you all very much. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. The gentleman from Michigan, the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Scott. I am really impressed 

with the six of you, especially the young lady that is going to law 

school. I have encouraged a lot of people to go to law school. 

Tiffany, could I encourage you to consider it? I could. 

78 

Ms. RIVERA. I want to do special victims, a detective. 

Mr. CONYERS. You want to be a detective? Well, detectives go to 

law school. 

Ms. RIVERA. I do. 

Mr. CONYERS. You do. Okay. You know how to respond, don’t 

you? That is great. I appreciate your cooperation. 

Before I get started, just a note. There are only seven men in 

this room. How do I know? I counted them. That is not counting 

there are four up here. I counted them. And what I read into this, 

Judge Gohmert, is that there are women that are at this hearing 

that have an intense interest in this subject matter. This is not just 

Tuesday afternoon, Chairman, that it just so happened, a lot of 

women came by 2141; it doesn’t mean anything special. It does. It 

means something I interpret as very, very important to them. 

If we could hear any of their stories that wanted to come forward, I bet it would enrich this hearing even beyond what has already happened. 

Now here is the work part. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CONYERS. Of course I would yield to the judge. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I think we would be open to anyone who wanted 

to submit anything in writing that was here telling us their stories, 

anything they had to submit. 

Thank you for yielding. 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes. That is a great idea. How do we make this 

hearing—we can’t sit in a hearing much longer than we are going 

to sit in it. And here is what I have suggested through my chief 

of staff to the Chairman and to the judge. How about all of us that 

can and will, let’s gather in an informal setting and discuss some 

of the—we will have staff with us—and let’s talk about what it is 

we want the Department of Justice to do. And we called my little 

errant friend, whom I have forgiven now; I am not angry at him 

anymore; we are going to be friends—to get himself down here 

right away after this hearing. I presume he had enough initiative 

to turn on the television screen so that he heard what we have benefited from. And let’s get down to business. 

Now I also—our former Attorney General for Puerto Rico just 

told me why he may not have shown up. And we forgive him for 

that, too. The GAO ripped them from one end to the other in how 

they were dealing with girls and women in delinquency settings. 

Okay. We understand. He said, Well, look, I’m not going to face 

these guys today. I’m busy. And we understand that. But Staff Attorney McCurdy said that they conceded to all of the problems in 

the GAO criticism. Now that is a good step forward, isn’t it? It is 

not a back and forth about who did what and who is wrong and 

the finger pointing. 

So we want to sit down constructively for a short while and let’s 

get this—and we have invited Chairman Miller’s staff to join us because we are going to work out a bill together. They ought to be 

glad that we are not going to work on the bill ourselves. But we 

share in the Committees, don’t we? We don’t take each other’s jurisdiction unless severely pressed. 

So that is what I propose to Chairman Scott that we do immediately after this hearing. This is a permanent record that goes into 

79 

American congressional judiciary history. But we are going to meet 

off the record. We are going to roll up our sleeves and start moving—the bill on this subject is 2 years late. No wonder so little has 

been done. And we want to make up for lost time, don’t we? 

That is how I propose that we do it, Chairman Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. We will do. 

The gentleman from Puerto Rico. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. I likewise thank all the witnesses. I am particularly disturbed that OJJDP is not present here. They should have 

been here just listening to you and participating in this exchange. 

So I welcome what the Chairman is proposing. I think it is the 

right thing to do. 

I am troubled by a couple of things. First of all, with respect to 

Ms. Larence, the GAO’s report, it seems to me that there are no 

standards or goals or benchmarks or expectations are being imposed, or at least laid out when giving out all this Federal funding. 

That is the impression I have got. Am I right or wrong? They fund 

these programs and they don’t set any standards at the outset. 

Ms. LARENCE. It has been 7 years since they had an overall plan 

that articulated their strategies and goals for their juvenile justice 

programs. Somewhat in their defense, a lot of the moneys are 

statutorily congressionally directed so there is maybe not as much 

money that they have discretion over. So maybe that influenced 

their decisions about how seriously they needed to do that plan. 

But they are making a commitment to have one by the end of this 

calendar year. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. I see. So if we come up with a bill, I guess we can 

set some meaningful standards that would actually take into account what you have been telling us today. 

Another thing that really troubled me is this business about 

male guards watching girls in the showers and watching while 

girls are being stripped. That is outrageous. 

Ms. Ravoira, what is going on here? Is it that we don’t have 

enough female in the labor force to do these jobs? 

Ms. RAVOIRA. I think it is deeper than that. I think it is a culture 

in the juvenile justice system in many instances that doesn’t honor 

and respect girls and that it is a system that is designed for custody and control as opposed to rehabilitation and addressing the 

issues that drive girls into the system. 

And training is an issue. Staff have got—there isn’t any protocol 

that mandates gender-responsive training for staff who are inside 

of these institutions. So when you have a culture that is designed 

without even considering girls and the needs of girls and young 

women and that emphasizes custody and control and controlling 

behavior and not what you heard from these young women, the 

issues that are really driving that behavior, you create a culture 

that is extremely abusive and just negates and further victimizes 

and traumatizes girls and young women. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Finally, because I don’t want to belabor my comments, but I just hear all this about lack of counseling, not good 

enough counseling out there. So I wonder, when reviewing all these 

programs, did you see a lot of programs that are actually encouraging good counseling and intensive counseling? I refer to you, Ms. 

Larence. 

80 

Ms. LARENCE. We did not look at the individual programs, but 

the Girls Study Group looked at 61 programs that they had identified specifically for girls. They ranged in a number of issues, including substance abuse, mental health, and a wide menu of programs. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Sounds to me that that is something we could do 

as Members of Congress, is encourage better counseling for all 

these girls out there who really need it. 

So that is all I have for now. Again, I thank you. 

By the way, I tell both of you, Tiffany and Nadiyah, you did very 

well. I am not sure I could do as well sitting there. Keep it up. 

Ms. SHEREFF. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. I had a couple of other questions. 

First, Ms. Larence, you indicated a need for more research. Do 

you have specific topics for which research should be done? 

Ms. LARENCE. What the study group found is that particular 

girls programs need to be better evaluated. And so they are trying 

to determine of all the menu of programs that we discussed earlier, 

what ones really are effective. 

They are trying to identify—right now—and they are trying to 

choose 10 to 12 different programs that they will set up to be evaluated so they can better identify what ones will work for communities. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are there specific topics that prospectively need—you 

are talking about programs that are in existence today, to ascertain 

whether or not they are making a difference. Is there any research 

that would help us try to develop the appropriate programs? 

Ms. LARENCE. Well, in a separate review that we are doing for 

you as well, it is not specifically focused on girls, but it is focused 

on effective types of juvenile justice programs, and so we are looking at 8 to 10 models and what the researchers say about those 

models and which ones have been more effective than others. 

So in that report, which we expect to issue in mid December, we 

are looking at different types of programs that do prove to be more 

promising than others. At the top of the list would be family-based 

programs that do involve the family. 

The other thing that the research shows—— 

Mr. SCOTT. What about kind of a holistic, long-term prevention 

and early intervention strategy rather than kind of a focused approach, more general approach to get young people on the right 

track and keep them on the right track generally. As you know, I 

have introduced the Youth PROMISE Act, which is aimed at that. 

I know NCCD and Girls, Incorporated have endorsed that, that 

bill, which would provide grants for holistic programs to deal with 

people very early on in strategies to keep them on the right track 

from a prevention and early intervention approach. 

Is that being studied? 

Ms. LARENCE. The area that seems to be promising as well is to 

diagnose individual girls’ needs. So each girl might need a different 

menu of programs to provide the best care and support. The most 

effective programs are those that take that individual approach as 

opposed to what was mentioned earlier by one of the young ladies 

about—or Ms. Jackie, I think it was, that trying to take a one-sizefits-all approach to programs is not the most successful, and inVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:20 May 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\102009\52941.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
81 

stead try to assess the individual issues of the girls and address 

those needs with a menu. 

Mr. SCOTT. But the idea being to get each child on the right 

track and keep them on the right track with whatever needs that 

specific child has. 

Ms. LARENCE. Exactly. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Stickrath, are there adverse consequences to people that are inappropriately incarcerated? 

Mr. STICKRATH. Mr. Chairman, yes. We have actually had research by the University of Cincinnati that shows that. In our situation, where we were bringing, for instance, low- and low-moderate 

risk youth under some of the various level of service inventory, LSI 

scores, we were actually doing harm to those youth. And so that 

was where our research was going in terms of developing assessment tools so that our courts know when they are adjudicating the 

youth that level of risk. 

That goes, I think, to your earlier question in terms of looking 

for the kind of research. Know as I was trying to develop that assessment tools or develop an internal classification system for the 

youth in our facilities, we looked around and ended up, as I said, 

kind of reinventing or starting the wheel by doing it ourselves and 

spending a good bit of research dollars with our universities in 

Ohio to develop our tools. 

So those are the kind of things I think as we develop those and 

as I have developed this assessment process with the University of 

Cincinnati, or the classification, if OJJDP can serve as almost a 

clearinghouse of sorts with some of that to assist other jurisdictions, I think that would be helpful. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Stickrath, do you have suggestions that 

States should take to heart in making legislative changes in the 

States to address the needs of female juveniles in their custody? 

Mr. STICKRATH. Yes, Mr. Gohmert. I think as State legislators, 

I think, yes, look at the way we assess youth coming through our 

system, we know that detention numbers drive ultimate State institution numbers; issues, of course, of disproportionate minority 

contact. I think those are State issues and issues we are trying to 

deal with in Ohio to have more of those options for the communities. 

As we expand our local community options, treatment centers, 

we are finding evidence-based programs like multisystemic therapy, family functional therapy, things that we have heard about 

here today, work. In our case, we have had about 800 youth go 

through what we call our behavioral health juvenile justice initiative. Kids that are on a 

pathway to my agency that, through early intervention, as was 

discussed, have avoided coming to our agency. So I think as States 

push more of those kinds of initiatives, it will pay dividends in the 

long run. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. 

Ms. Larence, I appreciate your comments and what is going to 

be done by Justice. When you commented you want to involve the 

family more, you kind of looked my way because obviously that is 

82 

a concern of mine, except it seems like the problem is, for most of 

these kids, there is no family. 

And so I guess my comments were more to the effect: Why isn’t 

there a family there for these kids? What are the root causes? Because when we talk about prevention, I mean you can look one step 

back, what would prevent this, but seems like we would be bet 

served to go to the real heart of what created the different things 

along the way for prevention, in that regard, because that is something I dealt with that went across gender lines, guys and girls. Fathers just were not around. 

I took my own study, not scientific, of course, because it was people that came before me as a felony judge, but who had had no relationship with fathers. And it was dramatic. 

Why isn’t there a family there? What have we done? 

One of the things that broke my heart when I was sentencing 

adult women is I saw repeatedly the same story where, out of the 

best of intentions, we were offering a check for each child—each 

baby a female could have out of wedlock. And so one would get 

bored and say, Hey, I’m going to have a kid. I’ve got nobody at 

home for me. Nobody cares. I can get a check. 

And it seemed like we lured young women into a rut and then 

they would have another and another, thinking maybe if I have another check, then that gets me ahead, not realizing they would get 

further and further behind, and then they would either go get a job 

and not tell the welfare workers, which meant now it is a felony, 

you have got to come to court because it is welfare fraud. Some of 

them got involved in drug dealing. 

But it was heartbreaking to me that it seemed like the Federal 

Government lured them into a rut from which there seemed to be 

no escape. That we should have been looking for ways to provide 

those young women incentives to reach their potential rather than 

to get in a rut with children they were too young really to take care 

of, not finishing high school. 

Anyway, it just seems like there have got to be better ways to 

help ensure the stability of the family or at least give better odds 

for a family existing down the road. 

Why have so many fathers been deadbeats? Why have they not 

taken an interest and seen the beauty and the wonder and the 

worth of daughters they fathered. 

Anyway, there are questions out there that seem like might help 

get us to the real root of what is happened with the juveniles in 

America. But please know that, as with the Chairman and the 

Chairman of the whole Committee, my friend from Puerto Rico, my 

friend from Texas, we are very grateful for the work you have done 

in trying to get that across to young women. And I appreciate your 

being here today. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Any other questions? If not, I want to thank all of 

our witnesses for the testimony here today. It is very powerful testimony and it points out our need to make sure we focus on the 

needs of young ladies. I think we have got some direction, particularly in the area of research. 

So, without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 7 

days for inclusion of additional materials. Without objection, the 

Subcommittee now stands adjourned. 

83 

[Whereupon, at 4:08 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(85) 

1Kempf-Leonard, K. & Sample, L.L. (2000). Disparity based on sex: Is gender-specific treatment warranted? Justice Quarterly 17 (1), 89–129. 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VANESSA PATINO LYDIA, SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, 

NCCD CENTER FOR GIRLS AND YOUNG WOMEN

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for inviting members of the audience at the subcommittee hearing on ‘‘Girls in the Juvenile 

Justice System: Strategies to Help Girls Achieve Their Full Potential’’ on October 

20, 2009 to submit written testimony about the issues discussed and suggestions for 

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention(OJJDP). 

The NCCD Center for Girls and Young Women has launched an innovative approach to tackle the competing social and systemic forces as well as a range of complicated issues that impact the plight of girls in juvenile justice This work entails 

a multi-pronged approach: 1) improving the conditions of facilities, including reducing the level of physical and sexual abuse; 2) providing training and technical assistance to programs that are ill-equipped to meet the needs of girls; 3) increasing 

awareness and accurately conveying the issues and facts to stakeholders; and 4) 

continued research to fill the gaps in the field. 

In field research, I have interviewed over 100 girls inside the juvenile justice system. Their stories are reminders that our systems are not set up to address the complexities of what drives behaviors. Often the result is staff who feel challenged by 

girls’ acting out behaviors and girls who pick up additional charges inside institutions. Girls true needs often go unnoticed. Further, the common practices often contribute to deeper turmoil inside of girls’ already hurting lives. These practices include being placed naked in solitary confinement because they are a suicide risk, 

sharing undergarments, refusal to file a grievance, lack of medical or mental health 

attention, overuse of psychotropic medications, and frequent and forceful use of restraint by several staff members to ‘‘control’’ acting out behavior. More often than 

not, when girls are held down, feelings of loss of control and thoughts of previous 

abuse and victimization can be triggered. The American Civil Liberties Union reports that male corrections officers are 

‘‘allowed to watch the women when they are dressing, showering, or using the toilet, and some guards regularly harass women prisoners. Women also report groping 

and other sexual abuse by male staff during pat frisks and searches. For victims 

of prior abuse, this environment further exacerbates their trauma(2009).’’ 

Few programs have undergone documentation of their models or rigorous evaluation. In addition, the existing research lacks theoretical frameworks for how genderresponsive programs operate. This poses serious limitations regarding our knowledge of what works in programming for girls and prohibits replication of programs 

that are effective. 

The need for gender-responsive programs has been well-established. There exists 

enormous variation regarding the intervention approaches, gender-specific components, participants, activities, and desired outcomes. Even experts in the field are 

hard-pressed to identify which elements are the most effective in meeting the needs 

of girls.1 A focus on which components and processes are gender-responsive has 

been missing from the literature and is the logical scientific next step needed to 

build our understanding of which types and aspects of programming are best suited 

for girls. 

Further, these gaps in the research and conflicting perspectives between the evidence based groups and the gender-responsive groups create confusion among pracVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:20 May 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\102009\52941.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
86 

2 Hubbard and Matthews. 

3 Youth Today, March 28, 2008. Congress Probes Justice Department Grants: Did OJJDP play 

favorites with competitive bids? By Patrick Boyle. 

titioners.2 However, there are evaluation topics that can benefit girls and the field 

and which the OJJDP should consider funding. These topics and potential research 

questions include: 

Program Effectiveness 

• What are the components of gender-responsive programs that make them effective? 

• What are model culturally competent and gender-responsive strategies? 

Conditions of Confinement 

• What are the national conditions of confinement (e.g., extent of abuse, treatment, length of stays) for incarcerated girls? 

• What are the challenges faced by staff working with girls? 

• What is the extent of gender-responsive staff training across states? 

• Which states are showing improved outcomes for girls? What and how are 

they doing it? 

Alternatives to Incarceration 

• Pilot gender-specific alternatives to detention/incarceration on outcomes for 

girls (e.g., reduced charges against staff, reduced technical violations, etc). 

It is clear that more funding is needed to address the escalating numbers of girls 

in the system and provide training and assessment resources to the staff providing 

their care. Unfortunately, even when funding is available, the Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention has not given priority to the issues of girls. The 

National Council on Crime and Delinquency scored 96/100 points to develop a National Resource and Training Center for Girls in the juvenile justice system but was 

not awarded the grant. Instead, OJJDP ‘‘ bypassed the top-scoring bidders for National Juvenile Justice program grants, giving money instead to bidders that its 

staff ranked far lower.’’ 3 Even with funding of the Girls Study Group, it is not clear 

the direction of the Department in regards to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention Authorization Act and the inclusion of gender-specific services in all 

states. We would like to call for the convening of a legislative task force that would 

direct the OJJDP to submit an annual report to the Judiciary with specific plans 

to address girls in juvenile justice and the scope of request for proposals (RFP’s). 

Thank you for allowing me to submit this written testimony. 

f 

87 


A-1.eps
88 


A-2.eps
89 


A-3.eps
90 


A-4.eps
91 

f 


A-5.eps
92 


B-1.eps
93 


B-2.eps
94 


B-3.eps
95 


B-4.eps
96 


B-5.eps
97 

f 


B-6.eps
98 


C-1.eps
99 


C-2.eps
100 

Æ 


C-3.eps