U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

24–499 PDF 2017

PROVIDING VULNERABLE YOUTH THE HOPE 

OF A BRIGHTER FUTURE THROUGH JUVENILE 

JUSTICE REFORM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, 

ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 

Serial No. 115–5 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn ‘‘GT’’ Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

David Brat, Virginia 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Rick W. Allen, Georgia 

Jason Lewis, Minnesota 

Francis Rooney, Florida 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Tom Garrett, Jr., Virginia 

Lloyd K. Smucker, Pennsylvania 

A. Drew Ferguson, IV, Georgia 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Ranking Member 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Takano, California 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Donald Norcross, New Jersey 

Lisa Blunt Rochester, Delaware 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Adriano Espaillat, New York 

Brandon Renz, Staff Director 

Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, ELEMENTARY, AND 

SECONDARY EDUCATION 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana, Chairman 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn ‘‘GT’’ Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

David Brat, Virginia 

Tom Garrett, Jr., Virginia 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Ranking Member 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on February 15, 2017 ....................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Polis, Hon. Jared, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 

Elementary, and Secondary Education ....................................................... 4 

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

Rokita, Hon. Todd, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education ............................................................. 1 

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

Statement of Witnesses: 

Cubbon, Hon. Denise N., Administrative Judge, Lucas County Juvenile 

Division .......................................................................................................... 29 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 31 

Flannelly, Mr. Patrick J., Chief of Police, Lafayette Police Department ..... 22 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25 

Reed, Mr. Stephen M., Executive Director, Safe Place Services, YMCA 

of Greater Louisville. .................................................................................... 36 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 39 

Williams, Ms. Meg, Manager, Office of Adult and Juvenile Justice Assistance, Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department of Public Safety .................................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 16 

Additional Submissions: 

Judge Cubbon, response to questions submitted for the record ................... 62 

Mr. Polis, letter dated November 22, 2016 from The Secretary of Education .............................................................................................................. 7 

Chairman Rokita: 

Slide: Fast Facts on Juvenile Justice ...................................................... 58 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 61 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

PROVIDING VULNERABLE YOUTH THE HOPE 

OF A BRIGHTER FUTURE THROUGH 

JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM 

Wednesday, February 15, 2017 

House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and 

Secondary Education 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Todd Rokita [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Rokita, Roe, Messer, Brat, Garrett, 

Polis, Fudge, and Bonamici. 

Also Present: Representatives Foxx, and Scott. 

Staff Present: Courtney Butcher, Director of Members Services 

and Coalitions; Tyler Hernandez, Deputy Communications Director; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education and Human Resources 

Policy; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Dominique McKay, Deputy Press 

Secretary; James Mullen, Director of Information Technology; 

Brian Newell, Communications Director; Krisann Pearce, General 

Counsel; James Redstone, Professional Staff Member; Mandy 

Schaumburg, Education Deputy Director and Senior Counsel; 

Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Leslie Tatum, Professional Staff 

Member; Sheariah Yousefi, Legislative Assistant; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Jacque Chevalier, Minority Deputy Education Policy Director; Denise Forte, Minority 

Staff Director; Mishawn Freeman, Minority Staff Assistant; and 

Christian Haines, Minority Education Policy Counsel. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you for reminding me that I am not 

loud, you are the first one in a long time that has said that to me. 

A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 

Elementary, and Secondary Education will come to order. Good 

morning, and welcome to today’s hearing. 

Like much of the work we do as members of the Education and 

the Workforce Committee, we are here to discuss an effort that is 

all about opportunity and putting individuals on a path that will 

actually help them earn success in life. In this case, that effort is 

reforming the juvenile justice system. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

Of course, juvenile justice reform is not just a concern for those 

of us here today. It is something that has long been a national priority. 

Through their juvenile justice systems, State and local leaders 

are working to promote communities that are safe. Communities 

that help children learn and grow into productive members of society. Communities that provide opportunities for all of our children, 

regardless of their background or past mistakes, to pursue their 

dreams and achieve their goals. 

For decades, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Act has coordinated Federal resources to help improve those State 

juvenile justice systems. 

The law primarily focuses on education and rehabilitation to support efforts keeping at-risk youth out of the system, as well as efforts providing juvenile offenders already in the system the second 

chance they need to move forward with their lives in more positive 

ways. 

Today, more than 1 million young men and women across the 

country are involved in the juvenile justice system. That includes 

children as young as 10, all the way to the cusp of adulthood, a 

wide swath. 

One million. That is a noteworthy number on its own, but it does 

not even include the countless others who are at risk of becoming 

involved in the system because of circumstances such as poverty, 

homelessness, or other difficulties at home. 

That statistic provides an idea of the size and scope of the system, but it is even more important to understand what being a part 

of the juvenile justice system actually means for each of those 2 

million kids. 

In many cases, it means being at a disadvantage, not fully understanding what the potential of a future holds, and not even realizing that opportunities exist to turn things around. 

In fact, youth who have been incarcerated are 26 percent less 

likely to graduate from high school than their peers, and 26 percent more likely to engage in other unlawful activity and return to 

the system as adults. 

We, as a society, have to help children avoid becoming one of 

those statistics, and we can accomplish that by helping some stay 

out of the system altogether and by helping others come out of the 

system with the opportunities and the motivation they need to 

chart a better course for themselves. 

Given the social and economic challenges facing our country, that 

is no small feat. However, through a collaborative effort among 

parents, teachers, and local community members, it can be done. 

That is why we are here today, to discuss our role in that collaborative effort and to begin considering what steps Congress can 

take to help State and local leaders better serve vulnerable youth. 

Last year, we advanced a number of bipartisan reforms that I am 

particularly proud of, to provide State and local leaders the flexibility they need to meet the needs of youth in their cities and 

towns, focus on proven strategies, and improve accountability and 

oversight, both to help kids succeed and protect taxpayers, which 

is also important. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

Ultimately, these reforms would set kids up for long-term success, helping them gain the skills they need to become productive 

adults and promoting opportunities for them to achieve success. I 

am certain those common-sense reforms will help guide the work 

ahead as we renew our effort to improve the juvenile justice system. 

As a father, I want my children to have every opportunity they 

need to succeed in life, and I work very hard to ensure they do. I 

also work hard to ensure they understand it is their responsibility 

to seize those opportunities. Unfortunately, not all children are in 

the same position, and those are the kids we are here to help 

today. I look forward to continuing our work to provide them with 

the hope for a brighter future. 

With that, I would like to recognize my friend, the ranking member, Congressman Polis, for his opening statement. 

[The statement of Mr. Rokita follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Rokita, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education 

Good morning and welcome to today’s hearing. Like much of the work we do as 

members of the Education and the Workforce Committee, we’re here to discuss an 

effort that is all about opportunity and putting individuals on a path that will help 

them earn success in life. In this case, that effort is reforming the juvenile justice 

system. 

Of course, juvenile justice reform isn’t just a concern for those of us here today. 

It’s something that has long been a national priority. Through their juvenile justice 

systems, state and local leaders are working to promote communities that are safe. 

Communities that help children learn and grow into productive members of society. 

Communities that provide opportunities for all children—regardless of their background or past mistakes—to pursue their dreams and achieve their goals. 

For decades, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act has coordinated 

federal resources to help improve those state juvenile justice systems. The law primarily focuses on education and rehabilitation to support efforts keeping at-risk 

youth out of the system, as well as efforts providing juvenile offenders already in 

the system the second chance they need to move forward with their lives in positive 

ways. 

Today, more than one million young men and women across the country are involved in the juvenile justice system. That includes children as young as ten all the 

way to those on the cusp of adulthood. That’s a noteworthy number on its own, but 

it doesn’t even include the countless others who are at risk of becoming involved 

in the system because of circumstances such as poverty, homelessness, or difficulties 

at home. 

That statistic provides an idea of the size and scope of the juvenile justice system, 

but it’s even more important to understand what being a part of the juvenile justice 

system actually means for each of those two million kids. In many cases, it means 

being at a disadvantage, not fully understanding what potential the future holds, 

and not realizing that opportunities exist to turn things around. 

In fact, youth who have been incarcerated are 26 percent less likely to graduate 

from high school than their peers and 26 percent more likely to engage in other unlawful activity and return to jail as adults. 

We, as a society, have to help children avoid becoming one of those statistics, and 

we can accomplish that by helping some stay out of the system all together and by 

helping others come out of the system with the opportunities and the motivation 

they need to chart a better course for themselves. Given the social and economic 

challenges facing our country, that’s no small feat. However—through a collaborative effort among parents, teachers, and local community members—it can be 

done. 

That’s why we are here today—to discuss our role in that collaborative effort and 

to begin considering what steps Congress can take to help state and local leaders 

better serve vulnerable youth in their communities. 

Last year, we advanced a number of bipartisan reforms to provide state and local 

leaders the flexibility they need to meet the needs of youth in their cities and towns, 

focus on proven strategies, and improve accountability and oversight both to help 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

kids succeed and protect taxpayers. Ultimately, these reforms would set kids up for 

long-term success, helping them gain the skills they need to become productive 

adults and promoting opportunities for them to achieve success throughout their 

lives. I’m certain those commonsense reforms will help guide the work ahead as we 

renew our effort to improve the juvenile justice system. 

As a father, I want my children to have every opportunity they need to succeed 

in life, and I work very hard to ensure they do. I also work hard to ensure they 

understand it’s their responsibility to seize those opportunities. Unfortunately, not 

all children are in the same position, and those are the kids we are here for today. 

I look forward to continuing our work to provide them the hope of a brighter future. 

With that, I will now recognize the ranking member, Congressman Polis, for his 

opening remarks. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Chairman Rokita, for organizing this bipartisan hearing today. I want to thank our terrific witnesses. I am 

especially honored to have Ms. Williams from Colorado to talk 

about my home State’s efforts to engage in meaningful prevention 

and intervention services. 

While Congress is often portrayed as hyperpartisan, where many 

issues divide along party lines, juvenile justice is among the many 

issues where both parties have traditionally been able to work together and develop policies with broad stakeholder support. 

Just last Congress, our committee reported out a bill to reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, or 

JJDPA, and that bill went on to pass the whole House 382 to 29. 

That was the first time in the last 15 years either chamber of Congress got a bill to authorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention Act on the floor. 

Unfortunately, it was not able to make it across the finish line 

in the Senate. This session I hope we can come together again, get 

a vehicle to authorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act out of the committee, out of the House, out of the Senate, to the President’s desk for signature, to make a difference for 

children. 

It has been over 100 years since we established a juvenile court 

system in our country. The juvenile system was designed based on 

the idea that children were not merely smaller versions of adults, 

and our response to their misconduct should be aimed at intervention and rehabilitation as opposed to a more typical criminal justice 

response. 

Over the 20th century, State juvenile justice systems evolved 

separately and in different ways without significant Federal oversight. In time, many actually came to resemble adult systems with 

little focus on children or rehabilitation. 

In response, Congress passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act in 1974. It created important guardrails 

that protect children in the juvenile justice system. 

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act has three 

main components. First, to establish core requirements that States 

must adhere to regarding the treatment of children in the juvenile 

justice system. It authorized formula and competitive grants to 

help States run their juvenile justice systems in line with the requirements and provide delinquency prevention programs. Finally, 

it created a Federal office, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, to oversee juvenile justice programs. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

Since its adoption in 1974, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention Act has truly helped improve treatment for juveniles in 

the justice system, and helped reduce disparities in treatments 

across the States. 

A reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act would create an opportunity to codify best practices 

that have been engaged in by various States over the last 15 years, 

including important elements of the bill, like using evidence-based 

practices, unique needs of girls in the juvenile justice system, implementation of trauma-informed care, cost-effective alternatives to 

incarceration that don’t harm public safety, and efforts to end the 

school-to-prison pipeline by allowing school discipline policies with 

the juvenile justice system. 

In my own State of Colorado, we have made progress by reforming the procedures that prosecutors use to charge juveniles in 

court, and just this year, we were able to authorize retroactive 

elimination of juvenile life without parole for many young offenders. 

While I think there are some things to celebrate, there are also 

serious issues we need to address in both the juvenile justice system and discipline procedures used within our public education system. 

One of those is the continued use of corporal punishment, seclusion, and restraints in both our education and juvenile justice systems. There is no logical reason that in 2017 children can go to 

school in this country and still be subject to physical punishments, 

but in 19 States, that is still the case. Research shows us that corporal punishment is used disproportionately against minority students and students with disabilities. 

Former Education Secretary John King, in November 2016, sent 

a letter to State governors and chief school officers calling for the 

elimination of corporal punishment, suggesting that in some States 

the punishment could legally be classified as assault or battery. 

At this time, I would like to introduce the letter from Secretary 

King into the record. 

Chairman ROKITA. Without objection. 

Mr. POLIS. Again, this Congress, my good friend, Alcee Hastings 

of Florida, introduced bipartisan legislation to outlaw corporal punishment in U.S. schools. Just like the core protections of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, we need to enact a 

Federal protection for students in schools and in juvenile facilities 

from physical abuse. 

In closing, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and determining how we can support our work here in Congress to get to 

the point where we can reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act and get it across the finish line. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

[The statement Mr. Polis follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jared Polis, Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education 

Thank you Chairman Rokita, for organizing this hearing this morning, and I’d 

like to thank the witnesses for agreeing to testify today. I’m especially honored to 

have Ms. Williams on the panel to speak about the work being done in our home 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

state of Colorado to provide meaningful prevention and intervention services to 

Colorado’s juveniles. 

While Congress is often seen as a hyper-partisan setting where many issues are 

divided along party lines, juvenile justice is an issue where both parties have traditionally worked together and developed policies with broad support. Just last Congress, our Committee reported out a bill to reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act or JJDPA, and that bill went on to pass the whole House 

by a vote of 38229. That was the first time in the last 15 years that either chamber 

of Congress got a bill to reauthorize JJDPA passed on their floor. In the spirit with 

which we came together to accomplish that last year, I hope that we can come together again this year and get a vehicle to reauthorize JJDPA out of our committee, 

passed out of both chambers, and onto the President’s desk for signature. 

It has been over 100 years since we established a juvenile court system in America. The juvenile system was designed based on the idea that children were not 

merely small adults, and our response to their misconduct should be aimed at intervention and rehabilitation as opposed to a criminal justice response. Over the 20th 

century, state juvenile justice systems evolved separately and without federal oversight. In time, many came to resemble adult systems, with little focus on children 

and their rehabilitation. 

In response, Congress passed the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention 

Act in 1974. It creates the federal guardrails that protect our children in the juvenile justice systems in each state. JJDPA has 3 main components. The act first established core requirements and other mandates states must adhere to regarding 

the treatment of children in the juvenile justice system. It authorized formula and 

competitive grants to help states run their juvenile justice systems in line with the 

federal requirements and provide delinquency prevention programs. Finally, it created the Federal Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to oversee juvenile justice programs. 

Since its adoption in 1974, JJDPA has improved treatment overall for juveniles 

in the justice system and helped reduce disparities in treatment across states. A reauthorization of JJDPA creates an opportunity to codify best practices that have 

emerged in various states over the past 15 years including, the use of evidencebased practices, the unique needs of girls in the juvenile justice system, the implementation of trauma-informed care, cost-effective alternatives to incarceration that 

do not harm public safety, and efforts to end the ‘‘School to Prison’’ pipeline by 

aligning school discipline policies and juvenile justice systems. 

In my home state of Colorado we have made progress by reforming the procedures 

prosecutors use to charge juveniles in adult court. And just this year we were able 

to authorize retroactive elimination of juvenile life without parole for many young 

offenders. 

And while I think that there are many things to celebrate, there are still some 

serious issues that we need to address in both the juvenile justice system and discipline procedures in our education system. One of those is the continued use of corporal punishment, seclusion and restraints in both our educational and juvenile justice systems. 

There is no logical reason that in 2017, children can go to school in this country 

and be subject to physical punishments. But in 19 states that is still the case. Research shows us that corporal punishment is used disproportionately against minority students and students with disabilities. Former Education Secretary John King, 

in a November 2016 letter to state governors and chief school officers, called for the 

elimination of the practice, suggesting that in some states, the punishment could 

be legally classified as assault or battery. 

[Committee staff have a copy of the letter to introduce into the record.] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 24499.020
8 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 24499.021
9 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 24499.022
10 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 24499.023
11 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 24499.024
12 

And again this Congress, my good friend Alcee Hastings of Florida, has introduced bipartisan legislation to outlaw the practice in US schools. Just like the core 

protections of JJDPA, we need to enact a federal floor of protection for students in 

schools and in juvenile facilities. 

So in closing, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and determining how 

we can support their work here in Congress and get to the point where children 

in every juvenile justice system have strong protections and the resources they need 

to turn their life around. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Mr. Polis. Pursuant to Committee 

Rule 7(c), all members will be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the permanent hearing record, and without 

objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow 

such statements and other extraneous material referenced during 

the hearing to be submitted for the record. 

I will now turn to the introduction of our distinguished witnesses, and I recognize Mr. Polis for the first introduction. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. I am very honored to have Ms. Meg Williams from Colorado. She serves as the manager of the Office of 

Adult and Juvenile Justice Assistance within our Division of Criminal Justice at the Colorado Department of Public Safety. 

Ms. Williams is responsible for the management of Federal and 

State programs that assist with and improve the criminal and juvenile justice systems. Ms. Williams has over 25 years of experience 

in social services, both in adult and juvenile justice arenas, in both 

Ohio and Colorado, and we are thrilled to welcome her to the committee today. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Mr. Polis. Let me introduce a 

dear friend of mine who is a good man from a community that I 

am very fond of, and that is Chief Patrick J. Flannelly. 

He serves as the chief of police of Lafayette, Indiana, and is the 

at-large director for the Indiana Association of Chiefs of Police. Previous to his role as chief of police, Chief Flannelly served on the 

Gang Response Investigative Team with the Lafayette Police Department. 

We also have joining us today Judge Denise Navarre Cubbon, 

who serves as the Lucas County administrative judge in Lucas 

County, Ohio. 

In addition to this position, Judge Cubbon also serves on a number of committees and boards, including the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges’ Board of Trustees, and the Supreme Court of Ohio Advisory Committee on Children, Families, 

and the Courts. 

Previous to this, Judge Cubbon served as the Lucas County assistant prosecuting attorney where she was assigned to the Juvenile Division, Criminal Division, and Senior Protection Unit. 

Finally, Mr. Matt Reed serves as the executive director of Safe 

Place Services for the YMCA in Louisville, Kentucky. In this position, Mr. Reed oversees the only place in the region where teens 

and their families can obtain immediate and free shelter and counseling to support individual circumstances that arise from being 

homeless, running away from home, and being in danger, such as 

in situations dealing with abuse or neglect. Welcome, Mr. Reed. 

I will now ask our witnesses to raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

13 

Chairman ROKITA. Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. Thank you. 

Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me briefly 

explain our lighting system. I do this for us up here as much as 

for you. You each have 5 minutes to present your testimony. 

When you begin, the light in front of you will be green. With 1 

minute left, it will be yellow, and when it is red, you will be expected to have your comments wrapped up or you will have to wrap 

them up. At that point, members will each have 5 minutes to ask 

their questions. 

With that, Ms. Williams, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MEG WILLIAMS, MANAGER, OFFICE OF ADULT 

AND JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSISTANCE, DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Thank you very much, Chairman Rokita and 

Ranking Member Polis. I am very honored to be asked to be here 

today, and I want to provide you information regarding juvenile 

justice, and to describe partnerships in place with States in addressing critical concerns. 

Again, my name is Meg Williams. I am here on behalf of the Department of Public Safety in Colorado where I serve as the designated juvenile justice specialist, and just so that you know, all of 

you within States have someone similar to me in my position in 

your State. Get to know them if you want to learn more about what 

your State is doing. 

In Colorado, not unlike other States, we continue to grapple with 

juvenile crime and the needs of the youth that find themselves 

caught in the justice system. Research has found that these juveniles come to us with profound needs due to histories of abuse or 

neglect, trauma, and poverty, some of the things you said this 

morning in your introduction. They have educational disabilities 

and mental health and substance abuse issues. 

In Colorado, the population of youth that have penetrated to the 

highest level of services, which is commitment, and that is akin to 

adult prison, are predominately male, and an average of almost 17 

years old. They have an extensive history of prior out-of-home 

placement, often due to prior social service involvement, and they 

are assessed as needing treatment level substance abuse and mental health services. 

How does the Federal Government factor into our work at the 

State? The leadership of the Federal Government through the 

JJDPA—thank you so much for trying to once again pass it—provides a roadmap for States to not only serve and protect juveniles 

who come into contact with our justice system, but also in preventing future victimization and upholding community and public 

safety. All are equally important. 

The act also established the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and they serve as a partner to the States. They 

provide leadership through research evaluation. They set rules and 

regulations regarding the care and custody of juveniles, and they 

provide training and technical assistance, as well as necessary 

funding. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

14 

When States agree to participate in the act, we agree to adhere 

to those four core requirements that you spoke about, about the appropriate holding of juveniles, and also to address disproportionate 

minority contact. 

We are also required to establish a State advisory group, which 

is comprised of government, nongovernment experts, reflected by 

the needs of the kids who come into our justice system, so that can 

include the courts, education, social services, and mental health. 

Also, we have a requirement of a minimum of one-fifth youth. 

Let me tell you, our youth are amazing in guiding us at the State 

level. We are also required to develop a plan every 3 years, and 

through that, we develop it through looking at data. What do the 

kids look like? What are their needs? What is the availability of the 

services that we have identified that they need to address their 

issues and what funding is available, and how can we best use our 

Federal dollars to fill the gaps? 

Although we have seen many improvements in our field, our 

work is not done. Our Nation still needs to have a concerted focus 

on juvenile justice, as the needs of youth appear to be more difficult to address. 

We need continued laser vision on addressing juvenile justice 

through the lens of what truly works, grounded in what we know 

about adolescent brain development, and just the period of adolescence in which we know kids have a much less developed capacity 

to self-regulate themselves. Anyone who is a parent remembers 

this. 

They are more easily influenced developmentally to external influences, peer pressure, and other perceived incentives, which are 

actually sometimes bad incentives for kids, and have less ability to 

make judgments and decisions that are really future-oriented. All 

of this contributes to them potentially engaging in risky behavior, 

and it leads to a higher probability of negative and harmful consequences. 

We also know that economically disadvantaged minorities are 

disproportionately represented in our justice system. We are now 

more fully recognizing the prevalence of mental health, substance 

use and abuse, history of child abuse and neglect, and trauma to 

those youths. 

Knowing these facts and transforming our systems in concert 

with these continues to be a challenge. We need your support, your 

assistance, and your partnership in continuing to hold our youth 

accountable for their behaviors, but by also then working towards 

reduced future victimization and increased public safety, but we 

need to do it in ways that recognize and respond to the needs of 

these youth. 

We need you to understand there are other Federal agencies that 

should be involved in juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. 

It is not just a justice issue. It truly isn’t. We need others from 

Health and Mental Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services, SAMHSA, Workforce Development—these kids are going 

to age into becoming adults—just to name a few. 

Those partnerships remain vital to our collective success as a Nation and to us as States, but, more importantly, to the youth as individuals. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

15 

Thank you very much. 

[The testimony of Ms. Williams follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 24499.001
17 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 24499.002
18 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 24499.003
19 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 24499.004
20 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 24499.005
21 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 24499.006
22 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Ms. Williams. Chief, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF PATRICK J. FLANNELLY, CHIEF OF POLICE, 

LAFAYETTE POLICE DEPARTMENT 

Chief FLANNELLY. Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member Polis, and 

all the members of the House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here. It is my 

pleasure. I am honored to be here. 

I serve as the chief of police for the Lafayette, Indiana Police Department, and also at-large director for our State Chiefs Association. 

Additionally, I am a member of Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, a 

national organization of chiefs of police, sheriffs, prosecutors, and 

violence survivors. We have over 5,000 members nationwide and 

have at least one member represented in 97 percent of the congressional districts. 

I bring this experience to speak about juvenile justice reforms my 

State has adopted, the positive impact those reforms have had on 

public safety, and how Congress can support the efforts by reauthorizing the JJDPA. 

Nationwide, juvenile recidivism remains a serious problem. For 

far too many young people, their first arrest is only the beginning 

of their run-ins with the law. Our studies have shown that if a 

youth 14 years old or younger becomes a second-time offender, 

their likelihood of future brushes with law enforcement spikes to 

77 percent. Nationwide, 40 percent of young people who come in 

contact with the juvenile court will come before the court at least 

one more time. 

This cycle damages public safety, drains law enforcement resources, and does not put at-risk youth back on the right track. 

More needs to be done to ensure that if a youth offends and has 

their first contact with the juvenile justice system, it will be their 

last. 

Recognizing this challenge, Indiana has undergone reforms at 

the State level and at the county level to better address juvenile 

delinquency. 

In 2006, Marion County joined the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, or JDAI. The strategy reprioritizes existing funding away from detention facilities and into community-based alternative programs. In 2009, my county of Tippecanoe joined the initiative. In 2013, these reforms went statewide. 

Research has shown that effective community-based alternatives 

to detention for low to moderate risk youth can significantly reduce 

the likelihood that youth will get into trouble again. 

These intervention programs engage family, coaching parents 

and youth in the skills they will need to change a young person’s 

behavior. 

This is an important part of fixing the problem, since many 

youths we see are following in the footsteps of family members or 

peers who have previously gone down the wrong road. 

Two of the anti-recidivism programs at work in my State are 

functional family therapy and multisystemic therapy. Randomized 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

23 

control trials have found that these programs can cut youth recidivism by 50 to 62 percent. 

It is important to note that confinement may be necessary for 

some juveniles with a very high risk assessment or due to the severity of the offense. However, confinement should be reserved for 

only that small segment of juveniles who pose a threat to public 

safety. 

For the majority of juvenile offenders, the more effective approach, and cost-effective, involves community-based initiatives 

that we have described. 

I have seen the positive effects of these juvenile justice reforms 

firsthand. After starting the JDAI in Tippecanoe County, we were 

able to cut juvenile arrests from just over 1,600 in 2008 to 755 last 

year. That is a reduction of 891 arrests in just over 7 years. 

Not only does that save us the costs associated with each arrest, 

we also canceled plans to build a 32-bed security detention facility 

at an anticipated cost of $22 million. Using methods such as MST, 

FFT, and ART programs, beginning in 2008 and through the end 

of 2016, 427 youth have successfully completed the program, and 

to date, 51 percent have yet to recidivate. 

In early 2014, we implemented two programs, Policing the Teen 

Brain and Juvenile Justice Jeopardy, as strategies to enhance how 

youth approach officers and vice versa. This work is paying significant dividends. 

In the 2 subsequent years, we were able to reduce the number 

of arrests involving juveniles that involved battery on law enforcement, resisting law enforcement, and disorderly conduct by 31 percent. By teaching our officers and youth more productive and 

meaningful ways to interact, we are reducing conflict and improving relationships. It is our goal that every police officer in the county and eventually the State completes this course. 

While States have led the way in juvenile justice reform, we cannot do it alone. JJDPA provides critical grants to States that help 

support our juvenile justice systems, including these alternatives to 

detention. 

Reauthorization to update this law is long overdue, to ensure the 

best outcomes for the communities we serve. I was excited to see 

the committee introduce the bill last year to reauthorize the JJDPA 

and the Supporting Youth Opportunity and Preventing Delinquency Act. That bipartisan bill made important updates to Federal law that would support the advancements made in Indiana 

and many other States. 

The bill also emphasizes continuing programs that help kids 

from involvement in crime in the first place, including evidencebased monitoring or mentoring and voluntary home visiting. Many 

States have expanded the use of those programs in recent years as 

well, and support through a Federal reauthorization would help 

continue this work. 

I appreciate this committee’s work on behalf of this important 

issue and was encouraged to see such a strong bipartisan vote to 

pass it in the House of Representatives. I hope a similar reauthorization will make it into law this Congress. I am glad to support 

you in this effort, and happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

24 

[The testimony of Chief Flannelly follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

25 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 24499.007
26 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 24499.008
27 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 24499.009
28 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 24499.010
29 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Chief. Judge, you are recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DENISE NAVARRE CUBBON, 

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE, LUCAS COUNTY JUVENILE DIVISION 

Judge CUBBON. Good morning. Thank you. Chairwoman Foxx 

and Ranking Member Scott, Subcommittee Chair Rokita, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Polis, and members of the committee, 

thank you so much for inviting me to come to talk to you about the 

children that I see every day and other judges see in their courtrooms and their families, addressing issues very personal to their 

families, and very important for us to assist them in making important changes in their lives. 

I am not going to introduce myself because thank you, you have 

done that for me. I can tell you that in my years of experience in 

juvenile justice it became very apparent, especially when I took the 

bench 12 years ago, that our efforts in the 1990s to keep communities safe, although it was well-intentioned, maybe had a lot of unintended outcomes. 

Walking into my courtroom and other courtrooms across the 

country, looking at the children appearing before me, it was very 

clear we had a disproportionate minority contact. Lots of unnecessary use of incarceration to control behavior without services accompanying that. 

Programs intended to keep children out of the community became programs that were the stepping stone with non-compliance, 

putting them into the juvenile justice system. 

So I say all of that to say that we are an enlightened body now. 

We are a community that understands the value of research. We 

are the community that understands the value of brain science, 

looking at adolescents, where they come from, looking at best practices, looking for technical assistance to assist each and every one 

of us as judges in our respective communities to help families and 

children make changes. 

Ironically enough, I took a train down here today. I spent a few 

days in New York City at a meeting with over 400 judges and professionals in the area of juvenile justice, a meeting where we had 

an opportunity to engage in judicial and professional education 

looking at juvenile justice, as a matter of fact. 

I can tell you there were probably judges and professionals from 

just about every one of your States that were there. I know States 

sitting next to me right now were there for sure. 

It is so exciting to think that you are continuing to carry the 

torch for reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention Act, because we spent so much time while we were 

there talking about programs, research, development in the area of 

juvenile justice to address those issues that are evidence-based, 

best practices, innovative, to address the needs of the particular 

children that we serve every day, and to be able to develop programming to address the special needs of some of those particular 

subgroups that you talk about, like girls, mentally ill children, substance abuse issues impacting development, looking for great programming to assist them. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

30 

Judges, we have a unique perspective. We sit in the courtroom 

and we see the families, we hear the stories, and we know how important it is to have all these programs and opportunities that my 

colleagues in this room are all obviously agreeing with. 

Juvenile justice reform is on its way. The children that we see 

in our courtrooms, many of which should not be in courts, they 

have the opportunity through diversion programs to correct those 

issues that brought them to the court’s attention. We have children 

on the other end, those children that have some serious behavior 

issues that are compromising public safety, and a secure facility for 

them is important, but is meaningless unless they have specific 

programming to address their needs. 

All those kids in between that we see regularly, with lots of other 

issues than just their presenting behavior, they may have trauma. 

Many children have trauma today; we know that from the work of 

OJJDP: mental health issues, developmental delays, special educational needs, children who are running away from their homes 

because of abuse and neglect, homelessness. We can go on and on 

and on. Those are the issues that we the judges want to address 

with programming so we can help these kids make important 

changes in their lives so they can be productive. 

I hope you ask me some questions about things that are going 

on in my community, and any other questions that can help you 

in doing your important work. Thank you. 

[The testimony of Judge Cubbon follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

31 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 24499.011
32 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 24499.012
33 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 24499.013
34 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 24499.014
35 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 24499.015
36 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Judge. You know, I have to say 

for the record that I am disappointed. I was hoping that you would 

help me meet a milestone today. As a former practicing trial attorney, I was waiting for the time in my life where I could tell a judge 

that she was out of time and she needed to be quiet. I am going 

to have to wait. 

Thank you, seriously, for your testimony. It was enlightening. I 

appreciate it, everyone so far. 

Mr. Reed, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN MATTHEW REED, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAFE PLACE SERVICES, YMCA OF GREATER LOUISVILLE 

Mr. REED. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Rokita, Ranking 

Member Polis, and all members of the Subcommittee on Early 

Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing. 

My name is Matt Reed. I currently serve as the executive director of YMCA’s Safe Place Services in Louisville, Kentucky. I have 

had the privilege to work with at-risk youth for over 20 years. Our 

programs at Safe Place provide judicial and law enforcement partners with effective and evidence-based alternatives and have tangible and measurable results in keeping kids out of the justice system. 

Since 2005, Safe Place has operated a Juvenile Field Release 

Program. The Field Release Program is a partnership with law enforcement, juvenile court, and our youth detention center. The goal 

of this program is to provide law enforcement a safe release option 

as an alternative to detention when they encounter a juvenile who 

has committed a misdemeanor or nondetainable criminal offense. 

Since full inception, approximately 1,900 juveniles have been 

served by Field Release, helping decrease overall youth detention 

numbers by 60 percent. However, the most significant impact of 

the Field Release Program has been the number of youth who gain 

immediate access to in-house or community partner referrals. Fifteen percent of our Field Release youth are placed directly in 

YMCA’s Shelter House Program, which is our 24-hour residential 

program for 12- to 17-year-olds. They find immediate safety and 

support. 

Over 76 percent overall of our Field Release youth leave our care 

with either an in-house or community partner service referral in 

place, such as drug treatment, mental health therapy, or a mental 

health evaluation. 

During 2010 and the 2011 school year, Safe Place also successfully operated a truancy diversion pilot project in response to the 

increasing number of youth missing more than 10 days of school 

per year. The model program served approximately 40 youth per 

year. Most entered the program having missed 75 or more days of 

school and were experiencing other challenges such as low academic achievement, substance abuse in the home, poverty, and unstable housing. 

Before funding was cut at the State level in 2012, this program 

cut truancy rates by 73 percent, and successfully diverted 67 

youths from commitment to State’s custody. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

37 

In 2016, most recently, we have received a Title II grant through 

the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet. Funding for this 

grant was provided by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of 

Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention. 

We are very excited about this opportunity, and it is actually 

called the Opportunity Program. The Opportunity Program is designed to engage at-risk youth and first-time nonserious offenders, 

ages 10 to 14, in programs that reduce their rate of entry into the 

juvenile justice system. 

Our program has three service components. First, it has a mock 

truancy court for our middle school youth. We have an early elementary school intervention component for children who have at 

least one parent incarcerated. Throughout the program we provide 

intensive case management services through our pods of 10 weeks, 

as we work with the kids and families. 

The results are very positive so far. Forty-eight kids have been 

served since launching in October. Of those, 46 have no new involvement with juvenile court, and 65 percent have no additional 

unexcused absences from school. 

With permission, I would like to conclude my remarks by sharing 

a success story that best captures the value of our communitybased programs. 

This is Cassidy’s story. At age 12, Cassidy was living a life that 

no child should ever have to endure. First introduced to drugs at 

the age of 12, Cassidy lived in what is often known as a trap house, 

a haven for drug dealers and buyers, constantly streaming in and 

out at all hours. 

On days Cassidy actually attended school, her experience was 

very difficult when she came home. She would find one drug dealer 

in the living room, one in the kitchen, and another propped up in 

the dining room. There were guns, pot, powders of all kinds lining 

the tables. Smoke was everywhere and noise was everywhere, but 

her mother was nowhere to be found. 

Sometimes transactions even occurred in her bedroom. Those 

were some of the scariest for a 12-year-old girl. 

Cassidy routinely missed 40 to 70 days of school during middle 

school and 92 days of school her freshman year. In the summer of 

2012, Cassidy’s life would change forever. After being arrested for 

possession of a handgun and drug paraphernalia, her mom refused 

to give up the dealers and chose to pin it on Cassidy, but this 

turned out to be the best part of this story because it turned things 

around for Cassidy. 

Those charges were straightened out, and Cassidy came to our 

shelter program. After receiving counseling and being placed with 

her grandparents, Cassidy went on to do wonderful in school. 

Because of the support of our case manager, Linda, her word was 

never broken to Cassidy, and after completing tutoring and counseling classes, Cassidy graduated high school on time, and eventually sat for the ACT. Thinking that she would not score well, Cassidy actually scored a 24 on her ACT, still a sophomore in high 

school. Today, Cassidy is at the University of Louisville, maintains 

steady employment, and recently became a mom. 

We are very proud of her success and the success of this program. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

38 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. This important and critical reform work is needed, and your diligence and 

dedication is greatly appreciated by all of us across the country. 

[The testimony of Mr. Reed follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

39 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 24499.016
40 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 24499.017
41 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 24499.018
42 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 24499.019
43 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you, Mr. Reed. I am going to hold on 

my questions as chair and recognize the chairwoman of the full 

committee, Dr. Foxx, for 5 minutes of questioning. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Chairman Rokita, and thanks to all the 

witnesses who are here today. Thank you very much for being here. 

Chief Flannelly, you have referenced alternatives to incarceration 

your department is involved in to help at-risk and committed 

youth. Can you discuss the importance of service options to ensure 

a child is placed in the best program to prevent him or her from 

being a repeat offender? 

Chief FLANNELLY. Thank you, ma’am. Yes. One of the processes 

we have in place in Tippecanoe County, and this was the pilot that 

started in 2009, when a young person would be arrested, whether 

it be for a status offense or any offense, they were brought into an 

intake facility. 

We had specially trained personnel in that intake facility that 

would run them through some questionaires. We can provide copies 

of what those questionnaires look like. 

You get an understanding of what is the core issue with the individual that you are dealing with right now. A lot of times what we 

see out on the street in law enforcement are really just the symptoms of much larger problems. 

By being able to identify what some of those core issues are, we 

can direct them into the appropriate services at a much faster rate. 

The sooner we get them into the right services, the better outcomes 

we get. The numbers have really just been astounding over the last 

few years. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you very much. Ms. Williams, in order to ensure that taxpayer funds are well spent, it is important to measure 

accurately the effectiveness of programs. Are there particular challenges associated with measuring the effectiveness of juvenile justice programs? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Representative Foxx. There are always challenges in being able to evaluate the effectiveness of programs. To do a true evaluation is actually a very expensive process, 

because you need to have control groups to actually do the comparison, to be able to attribute change to a particular intervention. 

What we do in Colorado is we are very strict about making sure 

that they are collecting data, short of being able to do a true scientifically based evaluation. Then we are able to collect data. We 

really take a look at it on a quarterly basis to make sure that they 

are serving the numbers of kids and we are beginning to see the 

outcomes. 

The other thing we do is when there are particular programs 

that show promise, we will use our Federal funds that Congress allocates to us in Title II to conduct more in-depth evaluations, that 

we would otherwise not be able to do. 

I think it is incredibly valuable to be able to fund programs, and 

we will only fund programs where there is some evidence to suggest that they work, and they can show us studies that say this is 

based on sound science. Then we can determine whether or not we 

are beginning to see such results and then determine if we want 

to invest in an even further more scientifically based evaluation. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

44 

Mrs. FOXX. I am very happy to hear that. Several of you have 

talked about evidence-based and best practices. That is encouraging to know you are using the evaluations that you have to do 

that. 

Mr. Reed, you talked about the services you provide in your community. Is it possible that a young person can learn about these 

services on their own, or is it always when they come into the system in some way before they are connected with a service? 

Mr. REED. Actually, we have found that being proactive and very 

active in the community is critical to ensure that the kids know 

about our programs prior to any involvement with the justice system. 

I believe a community partnership strategy is very important so 

that the word spreads and we can get to our kids and young people 

much sooner before they begin to commit their criminal offense. 

I think it is possible, but it is really incumbent upon the organizations and community providers to have a continuum and a strategy to get the word out. That is sometimes looked at as maybe an 

indirect resource, but I think it is very critical to put resources into 

the education of young people. We spend a lot of time in schools, 

talking with young people in schools about our services. Thank you. 

Mrs. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Polis, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Chairman Rokita. Ms. Williams, in both 

the House and Senate bills that were passed to authorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, the term ‘‘dangerous 

practice’’ was defined as, ‘‘An act, procedure, or program that creates an unreasonable risk of physical injury, pain, or psychological 

harm to juveniles subjected to the act, procedure, or program.’’ 

Both bills required States in their State plans to, ‘‘Describe the 

policies, procedures, and training in effect for the staff of juvenile 

State correctional facilities to eliminate the use of dangerous practices, unreasonable restraints, such as the shackling of pregnant 

juveniles during labor and delivery, and unreasonable isolation, including by developing effective behavior management techniques.’’ 

My question for you is would Colorado have any trouble conforming to this requirement? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Representative Polis. I do not believe 

we would have any problems in Colorado. In fact, this is something 

that our State legislature has been addressing, and to be quite honest, our Division of Youth Corrections, which is responsible for both 

the detention and commitment of juveniles under juvenile justice, 

has responded quite well to the suggestions. We have a representative of Youth Corrections on our State advisory group. They are an 

amazing partner with us and are well aware of the JJDP Act. 

Mr. POLIS. Given your multi-state experience, do you think any 

State would have trouble conforming to those requirements? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I believe some States—I honestly do not know 

enough about each State. I think there may be some States who 

struggle with it. What I would suggest is that there are enough of 

us other States who have been able to address it. 

That is the beautiful part of the JJDP Act, it really provides a 

learning community among all the States and territories and we 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

45 

can help each other. So if there are other States who are struggling 

with this particular issue or any of them, I am often called upon 

to help, and I have called other States to help on particular issues, 

so I would suggest we have solutions available. 

Mr. POLIS. I ask because we have all seen the horror stories 

about the use of restraints on children in juvenile facilities. It was 

just a year ago this January that Gynna McMillen, a 16-year-old 

girl, died of cardiac arrhythmia in a Kentucky juvenile detention 

center after she was placed in the Aikido-styled restraint by center 

staff for refusing to remove her sweatshirt during booking. 

The restraint she was placed in is now one that is outlawed in 

Kentucky public schools, but it is still allowed by the Department 

of Juvenile Justice. While there is a suggestion that if the center 

staff had checked on Gynna through the night, every 15 minutes, 

as required by regulations, she might not have died, there is the 

question of whether the restraint played a role in her death, and 

evidence to that effect has been presented in the courts. 

I wanted to raise that story to highlight the need to train juvenile justice facilities and faculty to deescalate situations, resort to 

dangerous practices only when necessary, and to point out that 

Gynna was at the secured facility after police were called while she 

was getting into a fight with her mother. 

Judge CUBBON, I wanted to ask you about the indiscriminate use 

of shackles in juvenile courts. As you know, in most States juveniles are shackled often for court appearances without any proof of 

a flight or safety risk, and that is in contrast to adults, where 

courts have found there usually has to be a compelling security interest to necessitate shackling. 

In my home State of Colorado, the individual judicial districts 

have each recently developed their own procedures on shackling, 

and in many other districts there is now the rebuttable assumption 

that a juvenile offender does not need to be shackled or the practice 

has been prohibited except for a few violent offenders. I understand 

that is also the case in Ohio where you preside. 

Judge CUBBON. That is correct. 

Mr. POLIS. Can you tell me what your experience has been with 

this? Have you felt any less safe in your courtroom when juvenile 

offenders came before you unshackled? 

Judge CUBBON. I can tell you this is another example of how education can enlighten parties when you are talking about a topic, 

just like solitary confinement issues, along the same lines. 

In the State of Ohio, we had a directive and request from the 

Ohio Supreme Court for the judges to look at the shackling procedures. As you can imagine, 88 counties in the State of Ohio and 

88 different opinions. 

I really believe that once we circulated the research and the information, conversations with law enforcement, and amongst the 

judges, core personnel, and the people that we as judges have control over in the courthouses, we decided the research would indicate that even having a presumption against shackling would be 

beneficial. 

Do I feel frightened in my courtroom? No, I do not. I don’t. I 

think as we continue to educate the judges across the country on 

that issue, creating presumptions against shackling, I think that 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

46 

will be an example of a procedure that will be eliminated across 

the country. I really do. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. Dr. Roe, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, thanks to all 

the panel members. I think you do some of the most important 

work done in this country. You have young people whose entire 

lives are ahead of them that can go in two directions. One is not 

a very good direction. 

Just a personal story. I had an opportunity when my son—remember, stupid is on the Y chromosome. He rolled the principal’s 

yard at age 12 or 13 and was caught. We had to go to juvenile 

court. God bless Judge Underwood, who sentenced him to writing 

out ‘‘I will never roll a house again’’ 1,000 times. His father was 

not real happy about that trip. 

The story ends with he is a successful futures trader/owner in 

Chicago, Illinois. I thank Judge Underwood to this day, and had no 

more problems after that. 

I am a little distressed. We have a system, you are at the end 

of a problem that started to none of your doing. In our area now, 

we have an entire neonatal intensive care unit with drug-addicted 

babies. Twenty-five percent of those babies end up in foster care in 

the State of Tennessee in 1 year. 

It is the saddest thing in the world to see, and it is an enormous 

social cost, and an enormous cost to those children in the way they 

end up in their lives and where they end up. 

Chief, I am just going to ask, and any of you, what do you think 

the main reason for children entering the juvenile justice system 

is? If there is a thing you could put your finger on, what would it 

be? 

Chief FLANNELLY. I think you just touched on it, sir. It is incredibly sad. I think a lot of times for young police officers, it is one 

of the biggest adjustments they have, when you enter into the profession, you have a certain amount of idealism and you feel really 

good about the opportunity to go out and help, and you quickly realize that for some of the issues that you are facing, there is no 

law enforcement solution. 

I think over the years through evidence-based practices and 

other means, and just raising the level of professionalism across 

the board, we have made tremendous advances in our profession 

and others. 

I like to talk about in Indiana or in Lafayette in our PD, we like 

to consider ourselves one spoke on a much larger wheel. We try to 

focus on the problem and then look to see what kind of community 

resources we have in place that can help address the specific problem. 

I think that is the ultimate question, how do we address these 

issues at the earliest possible time so we can create the best outcomes down the road. 

Mr. ROE. Chief, there has obviously been a lot of negative aspects 

of police officers. You have seen this in the last couple or 3 years. 

How do you interact with young people who already have a very 

negative view? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

47 

We have a very active community policing in my hometown. It 

is a small town of 65,000 people. My hat is off to those folks who 

every day go out. There is a resource officer at the school. I think 

children can get trust in by getting to know that police officer. How 

do you cross that bridge? 

Chief FLANNELLY. Community outreach is a key component to 

that. We have expanded in our agency. We are a midsized agency, 

142 officers. We have dedicated four officers just for that purpose 

alone. We have a school resource officer. We have DARE officers. 

All those things where we can create relationships that we know 

will help. 

Quite frankly, for law enforcement, we are fighting a battle on 

multiple fronts, and it is a perception battle as much as anything 

else. It can be very difficult when you are trying to do the best 

work you can for those best outcomes. A lot of times, there is just 

a lack of understanding of what the core issues are. 

I think you mentioned it, we are downstream from those issues. 

By the time the problems come to the attention of law enforcement, 

there were a lot of opportunities where we could have probably intervened, a lot of it really starting at the family level. What are the 

conditions in the home? What are the conditions in that child’s environment that might be affecting which path they go? 

Unfortunately, when children are exposed, such as the story we 

heard about with Cassidy, that is an everyday, all-day-long thing 

for police officers in this country. 

Like the YWCA, we have very similar programs in Lafayette 

where we can intervene early. I think that is our best chance for 

success: outreach, trust. Just like the programs I mentioned earlier, those are also important parts where we can conduct this 

training. Juvenile Jeopardy is a perfect example where we have 

learned to interact with juveniles. 

Mr. ROE. Chief, thank you. My time has expired. But, Mr. Reed, 

I think you have had a successful career because you impacted one 

person’s life. Thank you for that. 

Mr. REED. Thank you. 

Chairman ROKITA. The gentleman’s time has expired. Ms. Fudge, 

you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

all so much for your testimony and for your work trying to protect 

our children. I know it is trying but very rewarding kind of work. 

I just want to say some years back in another life I was the 

mayor of a small city. Our police chief put in place midnight basketball, something very, very simple, for the police and for juveniles to interact together. During that hour and a half, it received 

not one call to the police department. So, interventions do help. 

Your Honor, thank you for being here. I, too, obviously am from 

Ohio. Pleasure to see you. Certainly, you are aware that since the 

last reauthorization of this act, funding has decreased by more 

than half. Tell me how it has affected your work, and what the real 

cost is if we do not invest in our future, in our children. 

Judge CUBBON. Well, first, I would like to respond for a second 

to Mr. Roe to say that being a juvenile court judge is probably one 

of the best jobs around the country, because we have an opportunity to participate and walk the walk with the family, making 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

48 

important changes in their lives, and the successes are enormous. 

One success at a time keeps us going. 

We are from Ohio. I am from Northwest Ohio. We have had our 

financial times in our community where we had to do a lot of cutting of our funding. It was an opportune time for us because this 

is the time when juvenile and adolescent brain science research 

was coming about. People were beginning to look at the way they 

handled children differently, are there better ways and practices, 

best practices, using data to make decisions. 

It was a great opportunity for us to look at resources and talk 

about maybe we should be reallocating them into programs that 

work, and into processes that work. 

There is great value for police officers and departments that 

want to begin diversion programs. They keep those kids out of 

court that probably do not need to be there in the first place. 

On the other end of the spectrum, we had an opportunity to develop our reentry programming for the kids who were, in fact, incarcerated, creating roadmaps for them to come home, using our 

resources wisely, so when they came home they were prepared to 

put into practice the work they had done in the institution, like 

cognitive behavioral therapy, family therapy, and such, but all the 

kids in between. 

We had an opportunity to focus on the children who had highrisk needs, investing our money wisely for efforts for them to make 

changes in their lives. And then the lower level kids, keeping them 

out of the system as best we can, supporting the families with community-based programming, respecting the families, having the 

community join us as partners so they can help us in assisting kids 

in making those changes in their lives, like schools and other organizations, mental health, becoming active partners. 

Ms. FUDGE. Did the decrease in funding affect these programs? 

That is really my question. 

Judge CUBBON. I would say the decrease in funding has kind of 

limited the opportunities for other communities across the country 

to take advantage of them. 

When you become enlightened and you understand the work and 

you understand what is important in developing your programming, like letting the data show your results and such, you can 

kind of lie, but so many jurisdictions across our country really need 

that assistance. Talking about things like shackling, educating 

their communities. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much. Mr. Reed, same question. 

Mr. REED. Yes, I believe the first part of your question was the 

cost without the program, and it can be answered in terms of the 

State of Kentucky, if I might share, for a young person who let’s 

say goes on to prison, for example. Let’s say that is where they continue to head, that and the loss of potential income, that is about 

$100,000 per youth right now in the State of Kentucky. 

There is a significant financial cost. There is obviously a social 

cost when these programs are not available. Folks like Cassidy, we 

will not see those young people in school. 

In terms of how this decrease in funding has affected us, from 

our perspective, it has been a barrier in the sense of not being able 

to establish long-term planning for the programs that we have deCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

49 

veloped that seem successful and have shown results. Those are 

the programs we want to double. Those are programs we want to 

have additional funding for so that when we have to reassess and 

look for different funding sources, I think that delays our ability to 

serve more youth. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. 

Chairman ROKITA. The gentlelady’s time has expired. I thank the 

gentlelady. Mr. Garrett, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to 

thank each one of the members of the panel for the impressive 

work you do. 

Judge, my hat tipped to you. I served for about 10 years as a 

prosecutor, including time as an elected prosecutor. The worse 

thing that ever happened to me was when the person who handled 

our juvenile court system would be out sick and I would have to 

go in there and navigate that second set of rules and understand 

the purpose of the system is different at that level. 

I wanted to ask you about your observations as it relates to prosecutors and their training in dealing with juveniles. I know we 

have had some problems with funding for prosecutorial training 

here in the past few years and in continuing to fund that. 

Do you see a marked difference based on the attitude, education, 

and experience level of prosecutors as it relates to the juveniles 

with the goal of getting them out of the system, and what would 

your observations and thoughts be about how we can help? 

Again, if the goal is diversion and a failure, for lack of a better 

word, or prevention, a much better word, from people entering the 

adult criminal justice system, what sort of things do you think we 

can do to train the people on that end of the criminal justice system to get better outcomes for young people? 

Judge CUBBON. I can say this first, in my 23 years, spending 

most of my time in the juvenile division, you are absolutely correct, 

there is a difference between being a prosecutor in the juvenile division and being a prosecutor in the adult division. I am here to 

tell you that I am one of those people who went to the adult division and said no, thank you, I am going to go back to juvenile court 

because this is the court of hope, right? 

Mr. GARRETT. Right. 

Judge CUBBON. Right? I always say sometimes you have to take 

advantage of opportunities. I seriously believe that prosecutors, 

probation officers, the court, service providers, entering into interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary training or education is a winwin for the families that we serve, in whatever your role or capacity is. 

If you are a prosecutor, you are representing the victim. I 

learned this early on as a prosecutor, victims of juvenile cases, juvenile offenses, always want to give the child a chance to make 

changes in their lives. We know so much more now that I believe 

the prosecutors can assist us with that message to the victims and 

to the community, talking about we have to keep the public safe. 

That is their responsibility, the court’s responsibility, and everybody else’s. 

At the same time, having conversations about having effective 

screening tools, assessment tools, to make determinations about 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

50 

these risky behaviors a result of a trauma trigger, are they a result 

of maybe some social determinants that are getting in the way of 

them going to school, such as hunger, homelessness, is there abuse 

going on in their homes. 

Prosecutors having conversations and being trained and attuned 

to those kinds of situations can fashion their recommendations to 

the court to make important changes in these kids’ lives because, 

let’s be honest, if we have high-risk and moderate-risk behaving 

children and we can give them appropriate services to change their 

behaviors, then we have the likelihood for a safer community. 

Coming together as a team. I can tell you the National Council 

of Juvenile and Family Court Judges has offered training for prosecutors, as they do with public defenders and others, looking at it 

as a joint effort to make recommendations that are in the best interest of the child and their family and, likewise, in the best interest of the community. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you, Judge. I do not have a lot of time remaining. Ms. Williams, you are from Colorado. Colorado has been 

a leader as it relates to legalization of cannabinoids, and it is something where I see a failure on our part here at the Federal Government level because essentially if you enforce federal law one way 

in one State and differently in another, then you fail to have equal 

justice by virtue of the fact that justice that is not blind is not justice. 

To me, I want to watch and see what happens in Colorado, and 

I’d like to have the states have a stronger purview over their own 

policy vis-a-vis this Tenth Amendment thing. Do you have any experience or insight as to the juvenile justice experience in Colorado? 

I have been looking at a lot of the data, which some of it is actually quite encouraging, actions taken in Colorado with relation to 

cannabinoids. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Thank you very much, Representative Garrett. 

Actually, the division that I work in is responsible for collecting 

data regarding marijuana in our State. To be quite honest, it is 

still very early. We do have conflicting data. Some Federal data 

suggests it is getting worse for young people and others that say 

actually use is going down. 

I think we need more time to decide. 

I do think regardless of whether it is being driven by the increased exposure to marijuana, we still have a drug issue in our 

country. Certainly in Colorado, opioids are actually a bigger problem than any, and the need for treatment and treatment that will 

work is probably even more important for us and for other States 

in the Nation. 

Chairman ROKITA. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROKITA. The prosecutor did a good job of dropping a 

question with 2 seconds to go. The gentlewoman from Oregon is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and ranking member, and thank you to all our witnesses. This is a great 

discussion. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

51 

I wanted to just point out this interconnectedness, following up 

on some of the questions that have been asked. Just yesterday I 

had in my office a group of healthcare providers from Oregon. 

With our Medicaid expansion, we have coordinated care organizations. These happen to all be from rural areas. 

They talked about the work they are doing really based on the 

CDC–Kaiser adverse childhood experience (ACE) study, which is 

now several years old, but they talked about the recognition that 

childhood abuse and neglect affects later in life, and working with 

early learning hubs and having that coordinated care is making 

such a difference. They call it ‘‘self-healing communities.’’ 

Based on the same model, our neighbor to the north, in one county in Washington, they saw teen births down 62 percent, youth suicide and attempts down 98 percent, youth arrests for violent crimes 

down 53 percent, and dropout rates down 47 percent. 

My point is this is something that our healthcare providers are 

working on in rural communities with our Medicaid expansion dollars, and I urge all my colleagues to keep things like this in mind 

as we talk about things like health care reform, and also as we talk 

about how we engage students in school. 

For example, our career and technical education bill that passed 

the House, but not the Senate. If we are engaging students in 

school, they are much more likely to stay engaged and out of the 

criminal justice system. 

I wanted to also ask, one of my priorities is for those youths who 

are in the system, I am really concerned about preserving the continuity of their education. Making sure they have access to quality 

education while they are in the juvenile justice system is really 

critically important to their reentry. 

We have a great partner in Oregon, our Oregon Youth Authority. 

They are responsible for more than 1,300 young adults in the juvenile justice system. They had 150 youth who earned their high 

school diplomas and GEDs last year. 

I wanted to ask the panel, but I will start with Judge Cubbon, 

how can an update to the JJDPA promote the continuity of education for youth who are incarcerated? How can we best support 

the youth who are returning to traditional schools after they have 

been incarcerated? I’ll start with the Judge. 

Judge CUBBON. Thank you. I would say that we have frustrating 

conversations about education amongst this population of kids regularly. We in the State of Ohio are lucky that our Department of 

Youth Services has made a concerted effort to help kids get credit 

recovery, maybe pursue a GED for the older children that are incarcerated, and to start to look at their special educational needs 

while they are in the institution, so when they can come home, 

they are better prepared for whatever their educational setting is 

going to be. 

Ms. BONAMICI. What are the barriers? Why are not more students able to continue their education while they are incarcerated? 

Judge CUBBON. I do not want to say it is mandated in Ohio, but 

it is pretty much mandated in Ohio until they are 18 in the institutions. To me, the more frustrating part is we have these kids that 

are ready, willing, and able to come back home and ready to go into 

a GED program, continuing ed program, and their success is limCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

52 

ited in the beginning. They are coming home after a period of time, 

so they have to re-indoctrinate themselves in their homes and in 

the community, and that bad kid memory, oh, there is that kid 

again. 

I think it is really vitally important that we begin partnering in 

a more deliberate way with the education system leading the way 

to help us help those kids and answer those questions. 

I know that is really vague, but it is really an area that is really 

very frustrating. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Does anyone else have a response in my remaining 36 seconds? 

Mr. REED. I will be very quick. I think one challenge is being 

confined in detention, in secure confinement, would mean you are 

posing a risk to the community. It is for safety. I think there is a 

philosophical difference. You are going into the justice system because you are a risk to the community. 

I really feel it is hard to fold education into that because the intent of the justice system is to keep the communities safe. I think 

it needs to expand or we need to deal with the fact that the intent 

of justice is safety and, therefore, I am a huge believer in let’s keep 

as many out as possible. 

Ms. BONAMICI. One of the intents, but my time has expired, and 

I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROKITA. The gentlelady is correct, her time has expired. I am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes at this time. 

Starting with you, Chief, you talked about a couple of programs, 

Policing the Teen Brain and Juvenile Justice Jeopardy, and you 

have answered questions around that, I believe, already. 

Mine is specific. How do these programs impact your officers’ 

daily shifts? Is this complementary to it? Is this another task? Enlighten us. 

Chief FLANNELLY. The training that we conduct with the officers, 

we do it in an environment outside of their work day. The programs, they typically run 2 to 3 days. We actually have peers that 

will train; we have peer-to-peer trainers. 

Chairman ROKITA. Is that good or bad? Do they do that willingly? 

Chief FLANNELLY. Absolutely. 

Chairman ROKITA. Is it on their own time? 

Chief FLANNELLY. No, we do it on department time. At first, we 

were a little concerned as to how it was going to be accepted, but 

once the officers get in there, they realize the science behind what 

they are learning, and this is going to be a very effective tool for 

them when they are having these interactions out on the street and 

in moments of crisis. 

We do not deal with people in the calm moments. We are called 

because something significant has happened, whether it is a crime, 

a fight, whatever that might be. 

It is a great opportunity for officers to understand they might not 

be talking to the prefrontal cortex of a 16-year-old. They are talking to the midbrain. For them to understand, okay, he may be saying some things right now and he does not really mean it. They 

have just a better understanding. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

53 

Chairman ROKITA. Ultimately, this helps them in their daily 

work? 

Chief FLANNELLY. It helps significantly. We have had tremendous feedback, and now we have officers that look forward to going 

through the program. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you. Mr. Reed, Ms. Williams, and perhaps you have talked about various agencies that engage one another as they serve the same youth. Talk to me more specifically 

about how that is coordinated, if there is waste involved, how you 

manage that coordination when youths are being serviced by more 

than one program or agency. 

Mr. REED. I think it is very important to have a central agency 

that is coordinating and staying in communication with the other 

providers. I also think it is important to have—one of the things 

I have with my staff, my staff sit on key community advisory 

boards and coalitions to stay in tune with what programming is 

going on. And on a specific level, I think it is important that we 

as organizations recognize what our role is, what we are good at, 

and bring that to the table. 

I think it is important in partnerships that you have the decision 

makers at the table. There is nothing more frustrating when partners come together and folks are not able to follow through or 

make that commitment. 

Chairman ROKITA. Is this something, Mr. Reed, where we should 

rely on local leadership and leaders being leaders, or is this something that we can legislate here in terms of more impactful overlap 

or no overlap, however it would work? 

Mr. REED. I think anything that could provide incentive on the 

back end of services from a funding perspective would be a wonderful step. 

One of the challenges, I think, for example, if there was some 

sort of incentive-based opportunity to acquire funding, that would 

help galvanize and line people up to this work in a way that is not 

sort of spinning our wheels, that is how it feels, to have something 

to reach for. 

Chairman ROKITA. What does ‘‘spinning your wheels’’ mean? Can 

you give me an example? 

Mr. REED. Sure. I will give you an example. When decision makers are not at the table, let’s say the funding source is something 

that you receive as a result of a grant, for example. I think organizations need to be held accountable to the commitments they make 

within those funding proposals. 

I feel like when that accountability is not there, that is what I 

am referring to, it feels like we are spinning our wheels. We are 

not maximizing the opportunity we have with the gifts and contributions and the grants that we receive. I have been a big proponent of that in our organization. 

Chairman ROKITA. Thank you. I have questions for the other two 

witnesses, but there is no way it is going to happen in 15 seconds. 

I am going to try to get with you afterwards via email or something, and maybe you can respond back. I appreciate it. 

I yield back. Mr. Scott, the ranking member of the committee, 

you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

54 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding 

this hearing. I think it is important to note that all of the discussion about how we can effectively reduce crime has been focused 

on prevention, early intervention, and rehabilitation, and not in the 

after-the-fact, simpleminded slogans in sound bites of how much 

punishment we can inflict and waste the taxpayers’ money. 

Ms. Williams, can you explain why it is cost effective to invest 

in prevention rather than wait until children drop out of school, 

join a gang, get caught, and then impose draconian sentences after 

they get caught? Can you say how expensive it is to pay for that 

strategy when effective prevention and early intervention services 

can be provided? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Representative Scott. Thank you for 

your leadership over the years. I truly appreciate it. 

Yes, you have all heard an ounce of prevention is worth a pound 

of care, correct? When we look at the cost of serving youth—I call 

it ‘‘earning your way deeper into the system,’’ because the kids 

have obviously done things that they have earned their way deeper 

into the system. 

In Colorado, and I think it is going to be similar elsewhere, when 

youth will earn their way into what is our version of youth commitment, which is adult prison, it can run upwards of $350 per day 

per youth, and that includes treatment. It can cost $2,300 to $4,800 

per case on probation. 

When you add up those numbers against the numbers of youth 

who find their way into our system, it is pretty extreme. And yet, 

if you are working with a young person, if you are working with 

a child that you have identified, for example, in school who is starting to struggle, they are starting to not show up, even at a young 

age, and the schools are able to pull in their multidisciplinary partners, let me tell you, you get people around the table like in a multidisciplinary process, you start talking, and you realize you are 

overlapping and there are ways that one system can pull out of 

doing this and fill this other gap, and then you are not wasting 

funds. 

So, working in a multidisciplinary way where you identify these 

young people as early as possible allows you to get in there and 

provide services to them, but, more importantly at that point, you 

are providing services to the families. 

When a youth goes into our youth justice system, sometimes people forget they are going to go home, and if we have not addressed 

those issues that were happening in the home before they came to 

us, they are not going to be real successful when they go back. 

I am very proud in our State because they really focus on family 

engagement all the way through, but the earlier we do that, the 

more success we are going to have, because you are not going to 

have behaviors entrenched. The kids are not going to be starting 

to think of themselves as a criminal. They are going to see success 

in developing relationships in their communities that are positive 

rather than negative. I hope that helps. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. You mentioned the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and Research. Have you been getting research from them? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

55 

Ms. WILLIAMS. To be quite honest, in the past couple months, I 

have not been looking for it. I am not sure how much they have 

been able to do. Just as States have suffered reductions in funding, 

so have they. Like I said, research costs money. I would hope we 

could all start being able to do more of that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Judge Cubbon, can you tell me what you 

can do as a juvenile court judge that a juvenile referred to adult 

court would not get? 

Judge CUBBON. In our State, in order to be tried as an adult, the 

prosecutor or the State has to show that there is no opportunity 

for rehabilitation in the juvenile justice system within a finite period of time. 

Mr. SCOTT. You have to do that before the transfer? 

Judge CUBBON. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. If they are not transferred, are there services you can 

provide that the adult court judge cannot do? 

Judge CUBBON. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. There is a thing called a ‘‘valid court order’’ which allows some judges in some States to lock up children who are found 

in violation of status offenses, offenses that would not even be a 

crime but for their age. 

Does Ohio allow judges to lock up children because of status offenses? And is that process important, to be able to lock up people 

for status offenses? 

Judge CUBBON. As you know, the valid court order exception is 

a court order that can be used to hold juveniles who are maybe 

under the jurisdiction of the court for those status offenses that you 

are talking about. 

I am in a jurisdiction where we have actively looked for community responses to assist those children who are unruly children, are 

status offenders, and do not need to be incarcerated, they do not 

need to be before the court. 

If you can develop a system of well-intentioned, meaningful responses based on their needs, using screening tools and assessment 

tools to address their issues, then incarcerating them no longer becomes an option, right? 

The reality is for a lot of these children, incarcerating these children hurts them. Many of these children are victims of trauma, 

abuse, neglect, and all sorts of other issues. We are not a mental 

health institution. We are not a disability institution. We are not 

respite care for foster parents. 

When the community understands that, maybe we can develop 

some ways to approach— 

Chairman ROKITA. The gentleman’s time has expired. The ranking member is recognized for closing. 

Mr. POLIS. I want to thank the chairman and I want to thank 

our witnesses for being here today, and for each of your commitments to our Nation’s youth. 

I think it is clear from today’s hearing that progress is being 

made in many States across the country that is data-driven and 

science-based. 

For example, Ms. Williams, thanks for sharing some of the work 

you are helping lead in Colorado; Mr. Flannelly, describing some of 

the innovative approaches in Indiana. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

56 

In addition to this progress, we need to do more work to reform 

and improve our juvenile justice system at the Federal level. 

As we heard today, youth that are in the juvenile justice system 

are predominately male and people of color. I also want to point out 

that more must be done to protect LGBTQ youth, particularly 

transgender youth, in a gender-appropriate manner. Studies have 

also shown that LGBTQ youth are overrepresented in the juvenile 

justice system and are more vulnerable to discrimination and abuse 

within the system. 

There is also the continued use of dangerous practices, including 

some that have resulted in death, like restraints and corporal punishment that occur within the juvenile justice system. 

The best way to address these issues is at the Federal level 

through reauthorizing the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, which has not been reauthorized since 2002. As we 

heard today, it needs to be updated to keep up with the latest research and best practices for protecting vulnerable youth. It needs 

to be updated so that funding can be restored to its full authorization levels. 

I do want to take this opportunity to point out that funding for 

the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act has dropped 

over the past several years, and without a new law, we are not only 

expecting States to comply with outdated policy, but we are expecting them to do it with less and less funding. That really underscores the need to pass a new law. 

In the last Congress, the committee worked in a bipartisan way 

to mark up and pass the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act reauthorization. We successfully passed the bill on the 

floor with overwhelming bipartisan support. 

I am optimistic we can do that again this Congress. I look forward to working with my Republican and Democratic colleagues to 

achieve that goal, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate the witnesses’ testimony as well. I continue to learn a lot. I am grateful 

for your leadership and the leadership of those you represent 

across the country that do the work that you do, as Dr. Roe mentioned during his questioning. You are on the front lines and you 

see this every day, and your leadership is needed and appreciated, 

first and foremost by me. 

To cut through the bureaucracy a little bit, I am going to use my 

closing remarks to get a couple of questions on the record. You cannot respond, but we will provide you with a transcript if you would 

like, free of charge, Judge. 

Ms. Williams, actually Mr. Scott asked my question or similar to 

it, and you covered it. I am satisfied there. 

To the judge, you mentioned you are the ‘‘court of hope,’’ and as 

a former practitioner sometimes in the juvenile system, I completely agree. My data point is small, it is one court system, and 

it was probably 13 to 15 years ago now. 

Almost every time when I would bring a client through, my goal 

was to keep them out of the system because, in fact, there was no 

hope, I felt, when they got in there with other juveniles, and they 

came out more hardened criminals, in my opinion. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

57 

That does not mean we did not want personal responsibility to 

be upheld. There were lessons to be learned, and I tried to craft 

pleas that reflected that. Sometimes it worked, and sometimes I 

was met with—I do not know how to describe it—almost automaton, no. And present company excepted, of course, but no, this is 

the rule, this is how we do it here in this county, whether it was 

law enforcement or the prosecutor, and that was sometimes disappointing. Again, 15 years ago. I would have hoped that we have 

learned and got beyond that. 

My question would be—Dr. Roe’s example is perhaps a good one. 

His son was made to write 1,000 times as part of his punishment. 

Do you feel that the judges have that kind of latitude, to craft creative personal responsibility measures as they see fit? Is the discretion there, or do you feel you are actually worried about the ACLU 

or someone like that jumping in and saying, no, they cannot shovel 

that person’s driveway as part of their punishment, or whatever 

the creative solution might be? They have to go through this or the 

county is going to get charged with more money in a lawsuit that 

has to be defended. So, better to just put them in the system because we know the county cannot get sued that way. 

I think you see where I am going with my question. I would appreciate your professional opinion in that regard. Thank you very 

much. 

I appreciate the ranking member’s comments about the bipartisan nature of this. I expect the same this Congress. I will say the 

funding to a large extent was there in the solution we had and it 

was paid for, the other part of this, because if you come to my personal office and anywhere you go on the Internet, you see that we 

are $20 trillion in debt. 

And that does not mean our subject today is not a priority. It 

means that if it is a priority, as it should be, we should be asked 

to ask ourselves and the country what is less of a priority to pay 

for this, so we do not give these youth an additional problem, which 

is going to be 30- to $50 trillion in debt by the time they are of 

age. I think that is a reasonable balancing act that we should be 

performing. 

I would like to close my comments by referencing Mr. Reed and 

his accountability comments, his testimony. I think that is key to 

all of us. I think if we are truly leaders, as you are, and people you 

represent, you can find those ways to make that happen. 

In fact, we had some accountability reform measures put in as 

a bipartisan act from last time, and I expect we will see it again. 

With that, thank you again, I appreciate the witnesses, and I appreciate the members who stayed and were able to participate 

today, and I am grateful for the work of this committee from last 

Congress and what is to be done this Congress. 

With that, seeing no further business before the committee 

today, we stand adjourned. 

[Additional submission for the record by Mr. Rokita follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

58 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 24499.029
59 

[Questions submitted for the record and their responses follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

60 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 24499.025
61 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 24499.026
62 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 24499.027
63 

[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 24499.028