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

96–822 PDF 2016

REVIEWING THE JUVENILE JUSTICE 

SYSTEM AND HOW IT SERVES 

AT-RISK YOUTH 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, OCTOBER 8, 2015 

Serial No. 114–31 

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 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

Bradley Byrne, Alabama 

David Brat, Virginia 

Buddy Carter, Georgia 

Michael D. Bishop, Michigan 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Carlos Curbelo, Florida 

Elise Stefanik, New York 

Rick Allen, Georgia 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Ranking Member 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

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 Pocan, Wisconsin 

Mark Takano, California 

Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York 

Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts 

Alma S. Adams, North Carolina 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on October 8, 2015 ............................................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce 1 

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

Scott, Hon. Robert C., Ranking Member, Committee on Education and 

the Workforce ................................................................................................ 3 

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

Statement of Witnesses: 

Baxter, Sloane, Youth Advocate, Washington, DC ........................................ 49 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 51 

Cohen, Derek, Deputy Director, Center for Effective Justice, Texas Public 

Policy Foundation, Austin, TX ..................................................................... 40 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 42 

Goldsmith, Tim, Dr., Chief Clinical Officer, Youth Villages, Memphis, 

TN .................................................................................................................. 66 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 68 

Teske, Hon. Steven, Chief Judge, Clayton County Juvenile Court, 

Jonesboro, GA ............................................................................................... 57 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 59 

Additional Submissions: 

Mr. Cohen: 

Responses to questions submitted for the record ........................................... 77 

Promoting Safe Communities .......................................................................... 169 

Chairman Kline: 

Letter dated October 8, 2015 from Fight Crime: Invest in Kids .................. 196 

Nolan, Tim, Ph.D., Executive Director/CEO, National Centers for Learning Excellence, Inc., Child and Family Centers of Excellence, Inc., 

Waukesha, WI: 

Four Points in Time: Defining the Success of Our Nation’s Head Start 

Investment ..................................................................................................... 202 

Quality Early Childhood Education: Enduring Benefits ............................... 206 

Judge Teske: 

Gender Injustice System-Level Juvenile Justice Reforms for Girls ............. 92 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) Policy Recommendations ............................................................................................... 199 

Mr. Scott: 

Prepared statement of American Civil Liberties Union ................................ 07 

Prepared statement of ACT 4 Juvenile Justice Campaign ........................... 21 

Prepared statement of Human Rights Campaign .......................................... 24 

Prepared statement of National Indian Education Association ................... 29 

Prepared statement of National Head Start Association .............................. 34 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

REVIEWING THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM 

AND HOW IT SERVES AT-RISK YOUTH 

Thursday, October 8, 2015 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in room 

HVC-210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. John Kline [chairman of the 

committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Kline, Foxx, Walberg, Rokita, Messer, 

Brat, Carter, Bishop, Grothman, Curbelo, Allen, Scott, Davis, 

Courtney, Fudge, Wilson of Florida, Pocan, Clark, and DeSaulnier. 

Staff Present: Lauren Aronson, Press Secretary; Janelle Belland, 

Coalitions and Members Services Coordinator; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; Nancy Locke, 

Chief Clerk; Dominique McKay, Deputy Press Secretary; Brian 

Newell, Communications Director; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; James Redstone, Professional Staff Member; Alex Ricci, Legislative Assistant; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director; Leslie Tatum, Professional Staff Member; 

Sheariah Yousefi, Staff Assistant; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Austin Barbera, Minority Staff Assistant; Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director; Christian Haines, 

Minority Education Policy Counsel; Tina Hone, Minority Education 

Policy Director and Associate General Counsel; Brian Kennedy, Minority General Counsel; Michael Taylor, Minority Education Policy 

Fellow; and Saloni Sharma, Minority Press Assistant. 

Chairman KLINE. A quorum being present, the Committee on 

Education and the Workforce will come to order. 

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to today’s hearing on the juvenile justice system. I’d like to thank our witnesses for joining us 

as we engage in a growing national conversation about how to set 

at-risk youth and juvenile offenders on the pathway to success. 

Some may be wondering why the Education and the Workforce 

Committee is holding a hearing on an issue that might otherwise 

fall under the Judiciary Committee’s purview. After all, the words 

crime, court, judge, jail are not terms we frequently hear in this 

committee. So why are we here today? Because keeping our communities safe and supporting at-risk youth requires more than an 

adjudication system and a detention facility. It requires education, 

rehabilitation, and family participation, a joint effort by parents, 

teachers, community members, and civic leaders to prevent crimiCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

nal behavior and support children who have engaged in illegal activity. 

The stakes are high for these youth and the communities they 

live in. Research shows children who have been incarcerated are up 

to 26 percent more likely to return to jail as adults. They are also 

26 percent less likely to graduate high school. These are hardly the 

outcomes vulnerable children and their families deserve. They also 

have detrimental short- and long-term effects on our society, imposing costs on the taxpayers and jeopardizing the safety of others. 

This is an issue that directly impacts our families and our neighborhoods, and we all have a role to play in addressing it. 

Recognizing the value of a collaborative approach to juvenile justice, Congress passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act in 1974. The goal of the law is to educate at-risk youth 

and rehabilitate juvenile offenders so they can become productive 

members of society. The law is based on the premise that the juvenile justice system can create positive opportunities for children 

who would otherwise go without. 

As we will hear from our witnesses, many juvenile justice programs have helped children develop the life skills they need to hold 

themselves accountable and earn their own success. Of course, not 

all programs have experienced the same results. That’s why States 

and communities are constantly looking for new ways to better 

serve at-risk youth. 

For example, many States are investing in alternatives to juvenile detention facilities, such as community and family-based support services to help children get back on track. It appears these 

efforts are making a difference. Between 2001 and 2011, crime and 

incarceration declined dramatically across the country. The rate of 

incarceration fell by 46 percent, and the rate of juvenile offenses 

fell by 31 percent. 

While these trends are heading in the right direction, we still 

face the stark reality that there are more than 2 million children 

involved in the juvenile justice system. Meanwhile, many more are 

at risk of entering the system because of difficult circumstances 

that too often lead to juvenile delinquency, such as poverty, broken 

families, and homelessness. 

As we discuss ways to better serve at-risk youth and juvenile offenders through education and rehabilitation, we have the privilege 

today of hearing from Sloane Baxter, someone who faced many of 

these challenges as a juvenile offender and who knows firsthand 

how community-based programs can set youth on a better path. 

Mr. Baxter, thank you for the example you’re setting. By sharing 

your story with us today, you are helping make a difference in the 

lives of others. We look forward to hearing from you and the rest 

of our distinguished witnesses. 

Before I conclude my opening remarks, I want to commend my 

colleague, Ranking Member Scott, for his longstanding leadership 

on this important issue. I look forward to hearing from him today 

and to working with him in the future. 

With that, I yield to Mr. Scott for his opening remarks. 

[The statement of Chairman Kline follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman, Committee on 

Education and the Workforce 

Some may be wondering why the Education and the Workforce Committee is holding a hearing on an issue that might otherwise fall under the Judiciary Committee’s 

purview. After all, the words ‘‘crime,’’ ‘‘court,’’ ‘‘judge,’’ and ‘‘jail’’ are not terms we 

frequently hear in this committee. So why are we here today? Because keeping our 

communities safe and supporting at-risk youth requires more than an adjudication 

system and a detention facility. It requires education, rehabilitation, and family participation—a joint effort by parents, teachers, community members, and civic leaders to prevent criminal behavior and support children who have engaged in illegal 

activity. 

The stakes are high for these youth and the communities they live in. Research 

shows children who have been incarcerated are up to 26 percent more likely to return to jail as adults. They are also 26 percent less likely to graduate high school. 

These are hardly the outcomes vulnerable children and their families deserve. They 

also have detrimental short- and long-term effects on our society, imposing costs 

onto taxpayers and jeopardizing the safety of others. 

This is an issue that directly impacts our families and our neighborhoods, and we 

all have a role to play in addressing it. Recognizing the value of a collaborative approach to juvenile justice, Congress passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention Act in 1974. The goal of the law is to educate at-risk youth and rehabilitate juvenile offenders so they can become productive members of society. 

The law is based on the premise that the juvenile justice system can create positive opportunities for children who would otherwise go without. As we will hear 

from our witnesses, many juvenile justice programs have helped children develop 

the life skills they need to hold themselves accountable and earn their own success. 

Of course, not all programs have experienced the same results. That’s why states 

and communities are constantly looking for new ways to better serve at-risk youth. 

For example, many states are investing in alternatives to juvenile detention facilities—such as community- and family- based support services—to help children get 

back on track. It appears these efforts are making a difference. Between 2001 and 

2011, crime and incarceration declined dramatically across the country. The rate of 

incarceration fell by 46 percent, and the rate of juvenile offenses fell by 31 percent. 

While these trends are heading in the right direction, we still face the stark reality that there are more than two million children involved in the juvenile justice 

system. Meanwhile, many more are at-risk of entering the system because of difficult circumstances that too often lead to juvenile delinquency, such as poverty, broken families, and homelessness. 

As we discuss ways to better serve at-risk youth and juvenile offenders through 

education and rehabilitation, we have the privilege today of hearing from Sloane 

Baxter, someone who faced many of these challenges as a juvenile offender and who 

knows firsthand how community-based programs can set youth on a better path. 

Mr. Baxter, thank you for the example you’re setting. By sharing your story with 

us today, you’re helping make a difference in the lives of others. We look forward 

to hearing from you and the rest of our distinguished witnesses. 

Before I conclude my opening remarks, I want to commend our colleague, Ranking 

Member Scott, for his long-standing leadership on this important issue. I look forward to hearing from him today and to working with him in the future. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to thank you for 

calling this hearing today on the juvenile justice system. You have 

properly explained why juvenile justice is in this committee, the 

Education and the Workforce Committee, not in Judiciary. That’s 

because the most effective solutions to juvenile crime and delinquency are prevention, particularly education, and not waiting for 

crimes to occur and responding with the criminal justice system. 

It’s been over 100 years since we have established the juvenile 

court system in America. The juvenile system recognizes that children are generally less capable of having the requisite intent and 

maturity to commit crimes, and therefore, a rehabilitative and educational response to their misconduct, as opposed to a criminal justice response, is more appropriate. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

Over the 20th century, State juvenile justice systems evolved 

separately and without Federal oversight. In time, many became to 

resemble the 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 system 

in each State. 

JJDPA has three main components. The first act established core 

protections and other mandates 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 Federal requirements and 

provided delinquency prevention programs. And, finally, it created 

the Federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 

OJJDP, to oversee juvenile justice programs. 

In the 13 years since we last reauthorized the program, there’s 

been a wealth of knowledge and research that has been created 

that needs to be integrated into our Federal juvenile justice policies. For example, we’ve seen positive results some States have had 

from investing in alternatives to incarceration and secure detention. I know that our witnesses today will be able to speak to some 

of the work being done around the country in small residential settings as opposed to large child prison warehouses and reform 

schools that marred our past. 

We have also documented the power evidence-based policies have 

in reducing crime and saving money. The Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention continues to fund and document practices and programs that have proven research bases and have 

marked impact on communities through prevention and intervention. 

We have recognized the role that misguided school discipline 

practices, coupled with an unresponsive juvenile justice system, 

what they play in creating what’s called the school-to-prison pipeline with students being arrested and referred to the juvenile justice system for minor offenses at early ages that traditionally had 

been resolved in the principal’s office. 

And perhaps more importantly, we have begun to realize around 

the country the role that trauma plays in the lives of disengaged 

youth. This is especially true in the lives of girls, the fastest-growing demographic in the juvenile justice system. The FBI statistics 

tell us that between 1980 and 2005 the rates of arrest for violent 

offenses, including physical assault, sexual assault, and homicide 

increased 78 percent for girls, while declining 6 percent for boys. 

Research also shows that of girls entering the juvenile justice system, they are twice as likely as boys to report sexual abuse and 

girls are four times more likely than boys to have experienced sexual assault. 

I would be remiss if I didn’t tell you that we know from briefings 

that will be taking place today at 11 o’clock, hosted by our colleague Karen Bass of California on this very topic, that is the rise 

of girls in the juvenile justice system and the link between sexual 

abuse and juvenile delinquency and what some researchers are 

calling the sexual-abuse-to-prison pipeline. We know that understanding trauma is often central in these young girls’ and boys’ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

lives, and understanding that is essential to helping them turn 

their lives around. 

Now, policy changes alone are not the only reason we need to reauthorize JJDPA. The current reauthorization expired in 2007, and 

while the law still remains technically in effect, the authorization 

levels—the guidelines on how Congress should appropriate funds— 

are no longer in effect. We had a rude awakening in the House earlier this year when the appropriations bill appropriating money for 

the Department of Justice zeroed out multiple accounts under the 

act. And since there’s no current authorization to point to in law, 

we were unable to amend the appropriations bill to include some 

funding. 

The chairman of the subcommittee who zeroed out the funding, 

did so by pointing out, in part, the fact that the program has not 

been reauthorized for 8 years and as such was either unnecessary 

or not a priority. The Senate recognized the need for Federal funds, 

and they restored the funding in their version of the Appropriations Act, but we’re still likely to have the same problem year after 

year until we have a reauthorization of this program. 

The Senate has taken the lead in reauthorizing the act, and they 

have a bill which passed out of committee and will be considered 

on the floor sometime in the near future. And I’m committed to 

working with you, Mr. Chairman, here in the House to produce a 

bill that will build on what we’ve learned in the last 13 years, and 

it’s my sincere hope that we can get a bill on the President’s desk 

before the end of this Congress. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses today 

and hope we can move forward in a bipartisan manner for reestablishing JJDPA as guideposts for the juvenile justice policy for our 

country once again. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Scott follows:] 

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

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Good morning. Chairman Kline, I’d like to thank you for calling this hearing 

today on our Juvenile Justice System. 

It has been over 100 years since we established a juvenile court system in America. The juvenile system recognized children as generally incapable of having the 

requisite intent to commit crimes, therefore requiring a rehabilitative and educational response to their misconduct 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 protections 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. 

In the 13 years since we last reauthorized the program, there has been a wealth 

of knowledge and research created that needs to be integrated into our federal juvenile justice policies. 

We have seen the positive results some states have had from investing in alternatives to incarceration and secure detention. I know our witnesses here today will 

be able to speak to some of the work being done around the country in small resiCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

dential settings, as opposed to the large child prison warehouses and reform schools 

that marred our past. 

We have documented the power evidence-based policies have in both reducing 

crime and saving money. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 

or OJJDP, continues to fund and document practices and programs that have proven research bases and make marked impact in communities through prevention and 

intervention. 

We have recognized the role that misguided school discipline practices, coupled 

with an unresponsive juvenile justice system, play in creating a School to Prison 

Pipeline, with students being arrested and referred to the juvenile justice system 

for minor offenses at early ages. 

And, perhaps most importantly, we have begun to realize around the country the 

role that trauma plays in the lives of our disengaged youth. This is especially true 

in the lives of girls, the fastest growing demographic in the juvenile justice system. 

FBI statistics tell us that between 1980 and 2005, rates of arrest for violent offenses— including physical assault, sexual assault, and homicide—increased 78 percent for girls while declining 6 percent for boys. Research also shows that of girls 

entering the juvenile justice system are twice as likely as boys to report sexual 

abuse and girls were four times more likely than boys to have experienced sexual 

assault. 

I would be remiss if I didn’t let all of you here know about a briefing that will 

be taking place at 11 today, hosted by our colleague Karen Bass of California, on 

the this very topic, the rise of girls in the juvenile justice system and the link between sexual abuse and juvenile delinquency – what some researchers are calling 

the sexual abuse to prison pipeline. 

Understanding the trauma that is often central in these young girls’ and boys’ 

lives is essential to helping them turn their life around. 

Policy changes alone though are not the only reason we need to reauthorize 

JJDPA. The current authorization expired in 2007. And while the law remains in 

effect, the authorization levels – the guidelines as to how Congress should appropriate funds – are no longer in effect. There was a rude awakening in the House 

this year when the Appropriators, in their FY 2016 bill appropriating money to the 

Department of Justice, zeroed out multiple accounts under JJDPA. And since there 

was no current authorization to point to in law, we were unable to amend it. The 

chairman of the subcommittee who zeroed out the funding did so pointing in part 

to the fact that the program had been out of authorization for 8 years, and as such 

was either unnecessary or not a priority. The Senate recognized the need for federal 

funds for juvenile justice so they restored funding in their version of the appropriation bill. But we are likely to have this same problem year after year, making the 

fight for juvenile justice funding an uphill climb until we have a reauthorization of 

JJDPA. 

The Senate has taken the lead in reauthorizing JJDPA and they have a bill which 

has passed out of Committee and will be considered on the Senate floor sometime 

in the future. I am committed to working with Chairman Kline here in the House 

to produce a JJDPA bill as well that builds on what we’ve learned in the last 13 

years, and it’s my sincere hope we can get a bill to the President’s desk before the 

end of this Congress. I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses today 

and I hope we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to reestablishing JJPDA 

as the guidepost of juvenile justice policy for the country once again. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

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 official hearing record. 

[The information follows:](Scott)26-57 breakdown in transcript 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 96822.026
8 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 96822.027
9 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 96822.028
10 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 96822.029
11 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 96822.030
12 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 96822.031
13 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 96822.032
14 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 96822.033
15 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 96822.034
16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 96822.035
17 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 96822.036
18 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 96822.037
19 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 96822.038
20 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 96822.039
21 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 96822.040
22 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 96822.041
23 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 96822.042
24 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 96822.043
25 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 96822.044
26 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 96822.045
27 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 96822.046
28 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 96822.047
29 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 96822.048
30 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 96822.049
31 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 96822.050
32 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 96822.051
33 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 96822.052
34 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 96822.053
35 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 96822.054
36 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 96822.055
37 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 96822.056
38 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 57 here 96822.057
39 

Chairman KLINE. It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished witnesses, but I want to make an administrative announcement. We have a hard stop here this morning. This is somewhat unusual, but these are somewhat unusual times, at least on 

this side of the aisle. We have a hard stop at 11:45. So I’ll be encouraging my colleagues to move with alacrity. 

So our witnesses today, we have Mr. Derek Cohen. He’s the deputy director for the Center for Effective Justice at the Texas Public 

Policy Foundation in Austin, Texas. Mr. Cohen has presented several papers to the American Society of Criminology, the Academy 

of Criminal Justice Sciences, and the American Evaluation Association on the implementation and outcomes of various criminal justice policy issues, including juvenile justice. 

Mr. Sloane Baxter is a youth advocate here in Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Baxter received help and healing at Boys Town’s family-style, 

community-based therapeutic residential program after referral 

from the juvenile justice system. While at Boys Town, he participated with other system-involved youth in publishing a collaborative book of poetry, entitled ‘‘Concrete Dreams.’’ Mr. Baxter successfully graduated high school and currently works full time as a 

coffee barista and runs his own home improvement business. 

The Honorable Steven Teske serves as the chief judge of the Juvenile Court of Clayton County in Jonesboro, Georgia. In 2012, 

Judge Teske was appointed to the Criminal Justice Reform Council 

focusing on reforms to juvenile justice in Georgia. He is a past 

president of the Council of Juvenile Court Judges of Georgia and 

is a member of the board of trustees of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. 

Dr. Tim Goldsmith is chief financial officer with Youth Villages 

in Memphis, Tennessee. Dr. Goldsmith has direct responsibility for 

the clinical research placement services and performance improvement departments at Youth Villages, an intensive youth diversion 

and intervention services program, and has been directly involved 

in the development and implementation of evidence-based programs at Youth Villages. 

I will now ask our witnesses to please stand and raise your right 

hand. 

[ Witnesses sworn.] 

Chairman KLINE. Let the record reflect the witnesses answered 

in the affirmative. 

Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony, let me 

briefly explain our lighting system. We allow 5 minutes for each 

witness to provide testimony. When you begin, the light in front of 

you will turn green. When 1 minute is left, the light will turn yellow. At the 5 minute mark, the light will turn red and you should 

wrap up your testimony as quickly as you can. 

This high-tech hearing room that we’ve got here in the Visitor 

Center actually gives you a clock, so you can take a look at that 

as well. 

When we get to questions from members of the committee, we 

are going to limit that time to 4 minutes instead of 5 minutes because of the hard stop we’ve got here. So if you will start to edit 

your questions now, that would be good. 

Mr. Cohen, you’re recognized. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

40 

TESTIMONY OF MR. DEREK COHEN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR EFFECTIVE JUSTICE, TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION, AUSTIN, TX 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the rest of the committee, for inviting me here today. My name is Derek Cohen. I’m 

the deputy director for the Center for Effective Justice at the Texas 

Public Policy Foundation and in our Right on Crime campaign. We 

thank Chairman Kline and the committee for taking up this important issue. 

While not the widely most understood element of public policy, 

juvenile justice is certainly one of the most critical. In Texas alone, 

it costs us eight times what it costs to incarcerate an adult to incarcerate a juvenile. In the community, that is four and a half 

times. These costs per day pale in comparison when taking into account the potential long-run expenses associated with repeat offending costs reasonably expected to accrue if the juvenile criminal’s activity continues unabated. 

The malleability of juveniles’ behavior, however, offers great potential for rehabilitation and great potential for the youth to be diverted from a life of crime. 

Like its adult counterpart, too, juvenile justice has experienced 

a rampant uptick in the application of law and formalized proceedings to address behavior of dubious criminal blameworthiness. 

This is experienced twofold by juveniles, as they are subject not 

only to the prevailing criminal law, but also to a body of status offenses, actions not criminal if committed by an adult, like truancy, 

incorrigibility, or running away, and so on. While not traditionally 

criminal in nature, these offenses still might land a juvenile behind 

bars. 

The valid court order, or VCO, exception included in previous reauthorizations of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Act permit the confinement of status offenders for failing to honor 

a court order mandating they do not commit the specific reoffense. 

Not only does this confinement of status offenders cost precious resources and limited juvenile compliant bed space, it often fails to 

address the root causes that triggered that offense in the first 

place. Further, it suggests that the State’s role is to intercede with 

disciplinary issues traditionally reserved for family and the community. 

In 2013, an estimated 2,524 youth were detained with the most 

serious crime being a status offense during a 1-day census. An 

analysis of the data-gathering method conducted by us at the Texas 

Public Policy Foundation suggests that this estimate may actually 

underestimate the total by 3.68 times, the true number of status 

offenders being confined over the course of a year being closer to 

8,404. Removal of this exception from future reauthorizations of 

the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act should 

strongly be considered. 

We’ve made key reforms to our juvenile system in the State of 

Texas and produced noteworthy results in State-level commitments 

and general expenditures on juvenile justice. Each session, legislators have implemented reform, some minor, some major, that 

prioritize community-based treatment alternatives to costly incarceration, and the bill that went through this session aimed on 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

41 

keeping juveniles closer to home. This bill is estimated to save tens 

of millions of dollars over the next 5 years, as well as produce better outcomes in recidivism. 

In the fiscal year 2006, 2,738 juveniles were committed to secure 

facilities in Texas. By fiscal year 2013, the number of commitments 

had dropped to 818, a drop of over 70 percent. This drop allowed 

the State to close or consolidate seven facilities. 

These reforms were attended by a commensurate drop in nominal spending, with State expenditures on juvenile justice being the 

lowest it’s been since fiscal year 2001, a drop of 16 percent from 

2005 to 2012 alone. 

If done properly, juvenile justice policy can intervene in a nascent criminal career, preventing future victimization at the hands 

of the offenders and drains on law enforcement and correctional resources. However, selecting and implementing these practices must 

be left to the respective States who stand to gain both financially 

and socially from getting it right. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The testimony of Mr. Cohen follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

42 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 163 here 96822.163
43 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 164 here 96822.164
44 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 165 here 96822.165
45 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 166 here 96822.166
46 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 167 here 96822.167
47 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 168 here 96822.168
48 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 169 here 96822.169
49 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Baxter, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. SLOANE BAXTER, YOUTH ADVOCATE, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. BAXTER. Good morning, Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Scott and members of the committee. My name is Sloane Baxter, and I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you all today. I am 

22 years old, and I’m here to share my personal experience with 

the juvenile justice system. 

I was the at-risk youth we’re talking about today. Like a lot of 

other young people, who find themselves involved with the juvenile 

justice system, my family and I had challenges. My parents did the 

best they could, but both my mom and dad had drinking problems 

when I was young. By the time I was 11 or 12, I had become used 

to taking care of myself and doing things without much supervision. 

At school, things were up and down for me. I have ADHD. Teachers didn’t always know the best way to help me. At home I started 

staying out late and hanging out with older guys. But by the time 

my parents realized the path I was on and tried to correct it, I 

didn’t want to hear it. 

I started getting in serious trouble at 14 years old. When my parents separated, I came back to visit my dad and we got into an argument on a late night. My dad was intoxicated and I had been 

drinking as well. After that argument, I left the house, and although I had never been in trouble with the law before, I decided 

to try to steal a car. I broke the car window, but didn’t get any further than that. When I walked away from the car, I was quickly 

caught by police and arrested. 

Breaking that window, trying to steal that car at 14 was really 

a cry out for help, an effort to control things that were out of my 

control. I know that now. 

I was detained at a youth service center, which is YSC, and 

placed on probation that I didn’t comply with. I continued to 

missed curfew, drink alcohol, and occasionally smoke marijuana. 

There was no positive intervention with me at this point. Probation 

monitored me, but didn’t do anything to implement help or assistance in my circumstances. 

I was ultimately committed to DYS, or Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services. Despite no new charges and a low risk level 

in the community, I spent most of the next year locked up at YSC, 

and then Oak Hill, which was a detention center for young youth. 

Oak Hill was a terrible, terrible place for me. The kids would get 

in fights with each other, fight guards, and, you know, pretty much 

just run around as they felt need. I was 15 years old and depressed 

when staff from Boys Town came out to Oak Hill to interview me. 

I didn’t know what to expect, but when I arrived, it was so different from the institutional, locked facilities where I had been. 

Boys Town was the first place that I had went where I felt that 

people actually cared about what they did and they actually cared 

about what I did. 

It was a positive, nonhostile environment. The expectations to 

learn and succeed were clear. It was a family-oriented atmosphere, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

50 

and I lived with my Family Teachers, the trained married couple 

who implemented the Boys Town motto of care and support of staff. 

Payton and Yadelska Wynne became like a second set of parents 

to me. 

At Boys Town I had individualized care while Boys Town helped 

me. And finally, me admitting that I had a problem and them giving me the help I needed, I ended up going to rehab. And then I 

went back to finish the program with the Wynnes. Through the 

good times and the bad times, Boys Town was persistently supporting me. I was actually able to help other guys in the house, and 

we were a positive influence on one another. 

With all the skills I had learned at Boys Town, I became a peer 

mediator at school and I graduated successfully in 2012. Life still 

presents difficult circumstances, but now I have the skills to handle 

those situations as they come. I didn’t learn anything positive 

locked up at YSC or Oak Hill, but at Boys Town I learned all kinds 

of skills that I still use today with my family and on my job. 

I have been employed with the same major corporation as a coffee barista for 4 years at Union Station, and I run my own small 

home improvement business. I’m self-reliant, and I have a better 

relationship with my parents today. My dad and I had a lot of 

struggles, but now I can actually tell him I love him. I haven’t been 

rearrested, and I won’t be. I have different visions for my life and 

possibilities for myself. 

Boys Town was a program that helped me and so many others 

just like me turn our lives around. But I’m not any different from 

any of those guys and themselves. The difference is that someone 

didn’t just lock me up and give up on me. Instead, I got help and 

support in my community, and I was able to take charge for myself 

for the long term. 

I easily could have been a statistic. Instead, I’m a taxpaying, contributing member of society. There is that possibility in every 

young person, as long as you, me, and all of the rest of us are willing not to give up on them before even really giving them a chance 

to start. 

Thanks for inviting me to be here. Thank you. 

[The testimony of Mr. Baxter follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

51 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 96822.003
52 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 96822.004
53 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 96822.005
54 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 96822.006
55 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 96822.007
56 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 96822.008
57 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you, sir. 

Judge Teske, you’re recognized for 5 minutes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE STEVEN TESKE, CHIEF 

JUDGE, CLAYTON COUNTY JUVENILE COURT, JONESBORO, GA 

Judge TESKE. Good morning, Chairman Kline, Ranking Member 

Scott, and members of this committee. 

In addition to the 16 years I’ve spent on the court, I’ve been involved in the juvenile justice system in many other capacities. 

You’ve mentioned one, Chairman Kline, and that is serving my 

Governor, Nathan Deal, on the Criminal Justice Reform Commission, but I state that specifically because we studied the juvenile 

justice system and it resulted in sweeping recommendations that 

were unanimously approved by our State legislature. 

This morning I would like to focus on our current juvenile justice 

system and the need to reauthorize the JJDPA. We do not have a 

national centralized juvenile justice system. Consequently, laws, 

policies, and procedures can vary widely from State to State and 

among local jurisdictions. This creates a patchwork of juvenile justice systems that result in inconsistent outcomes for youth, families, and communities, including youth exposure to physical, mental, and emotional injury. 

To address these inconsistencies and improve outcomes for youth 

and community safety, Congress passed the JJDPA in 1974. This 

act is designed to bring consistency in juvenile justice best practices among all the States by identifying four protections based in 

research that are core to delinquency prevention and rehabilitation. 

I’ll name them quickly. 

The deinstitutionalization of status offenders, DSO. Status offenses are not crimes if committed by an adult. They include skipping school, running away, unruly behavior, and possession or use 

of alcohol. Under the JJDPA, with rare exceptions, status offenders 

may not be held in secure detention because it introduces them to 

truly delinquent youth that becomes a training ground to delinquency. 

Jail removal. Youth charged with a delinquent act may not be 

detained at adult jails, and for the same reason status offenders 

should not be locked up with delinquent youth. Children who are 

housed in adult jails are eight times more likely to commit suicide, 

two times more likely to be assaulted by staff, 50 percent more 

likely to be attacked with a weapon than children in juvenile facilities. 

The third one, sight and sound. Same reason. In those rare exceptions when children are placed in adult jail, sight and sound 

contact with adults is prohibited. 

And then lastly, disproportionate minority contact, DMC. Studies 

indicate that youth of color receive tougher sentences and are more 

likely to be incarcerated than white youth for the same offenses. 

States are required to assess and address the disproportionate contact of youth of color at all points in the justice system. 

The JJDPA is intended to create a Federal-State partnership for 

the administration of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention 

by providing funding, planning, and technical support to address 

the core protections. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

58 

JJDPA has been a game changer in the juvenile justice field. For 

example, when I took the bench in 1999, my county was inundated 

with high commitment rates to State custody, overwhelming probation caseloads, of which most were kids of color, and nonviolent offenders and high reoffense rates. Using an approach mirrored in 

Ranking Member Scott’s Youth PROMISE Act, I created a number 

of evidence-based programs and practices using Federal funding. 

These programs, seeded by Federal funds from JJDPA, have accomplished the following: Number one, an 83 percent decrease in 

our detention population; a 75 percent reduction in detention of minority youth; 77 percent fewer commitments to State custody; 70 

percent fewer commitments of minority youth. And, despite all of 

that, our juvenile crime rate went down 62 percent. 

In our efforts to reform juvenile justice statewide, which was led 

by our Governor, Nathan Deal, these Clayton County programs 

have become a model for reform. We have seen great success in 

Georgia, but we must be able to continue to capitalize on that momentum to ensure our children and communities are safe. 

To that end, I recommend the following. Number one, enhanced 

judicial training to keep up with the specialized field of juvenile 

justice; reauthorize the JJDPA for the reasons I just mentioned 

and so that new research in evidence-based trauma and foreign 

practices can be implemented nationwide; strengthen the disproportionate minority contact core protection of JJDPA; and eliminate the use of detention of status offenders and promote less 

harmful and more effective alternatives to detention. 

Given the momentum in the Senate with the recent passage of 

the reauthorization in the Judiciary Committee, I believe this committee must begin its work to reauthorize the outdated JJDPA. 

Chairman, your committee now has an opportunity to improve 

upon a historical and strategic act of Congress that has assisted 

States like mine to keep our communities safe and put youth on 

a better path. 

I want to express my gratitude to you, Chairman Kline and this 

committee, for holding this hearing, and I look forward to working 

with you in any way I can. 

[The testimony of Judge Teske follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

59 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 96822.009
60 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 96822.010
61 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 96822.011
62 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 96822.012
63 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 96822.013
64 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 96822.014
65 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 96822.015
66 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you, Judge. 

Dr. Goldsmith, you’re recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. TIM GOLDSMITH, CHIEF CLINICAL 

OFFICER, YOUTH VILLAGES, MEMPHIS, TN 

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Thank you so much, Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Scott, for having us at this setting today. 

I’d like to talk a bit today about what’s it’s like for a provider 

to work with these families. We serve youth and families and the 

community across the Nation. With recent events with some of our 

troubled young people, it’s even more important that we take this 

focus now. 

Members here have already mentioned some of the alternatives 

to juvenile justice and also some of the decrease. Let me tell you 

a bit about our work and our charge. 

Youth Villages is a nonprofit organization serving more than 

23,000 at-risk youth and their families in 12 States and the District of Columbia, and even in these States of some of the members 

here, and also in this judge’s court. Our organization has received 

numerous accomplishments, but part of them are focused on the 

issues that were mentioned here already: Cost effectiveness and 

positive results and impacts. That has been our focus. 

In my role as Youth Villages’ chief clinical officer over the last 

26 years, I’ve led the development and implementation of intervention aimed at improving the outcomes of at-risk youth. But I want 

to be clear, we did not start there. Initially, all that we were was 

a congregate care lockup facility. At that point in time, we had a 

good bit of outcome research that showed, surprisingly to us, that 

the more treatment that we provided in a group setting, the worse 

the kids did. Imagine our chagrin when we found out the longer 

they stayed, the worst they did. 

At that point in time, we changed our intervention strategy and 

focused on intensive in-home services, particularly Intercept and 

multisystemic therapy, which addresses the needs of youth who 

have been involved in the juvenile justice system and in the foster 

care system. 

Many of the youths, as Sloane mentioned here today, have challenges, but these trajectories can be changed. These young people 

come from chaotic, troubled, and it’s already been mentioned here 

the trauma that these young people have is dire. The families are 

in dire circumstances. And more importantly, in many locations, 

many people believe that these youth are beyond repair. These 

youth have had trauma, they have real challenges in thinking 

skills, and now over the past 10 years we know even more about 

the impact of growing up in trauma and impact on adolescent brain 

development. We know more now. 

So many of our programs now focus on changing these trajectories. It is intensive, it’s family focused, it’s cost effective, with a 

major focus on safety, a major focus on the impact on victims, and 

that most of these youth have been victims themselves. 

A quick story about Ben, a young person that we worked with 

in our multisystemic therapy program. Forty criminal charges before we became involved with him. After that, he was placed in our 

multisystemic therapy program. He and his family were seen for 3 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

67 

weeks and remarkably did well. And even when he got finished, 

went back to some of the people that he had stolen from and asked 

for an apology and apologized to them and offered to work for them 

for free. 

So there is evidence and strong evidence that the interest in community-based services works. We can do more. Initially, when we 

started, initially with judges, like this one next to me, it was a 

tough sell, because they were concerned about community safety, 

and certainly that is true. But our results started speaking for 

themselves, and our programs were strengthening families and 

strengthening communities. 

Seventy-five percent of youth, as has been mentioned here before, 

in youth facilities are confined for nonviolent offenses. The interesting part is that these children, these young people, they will 

come home, and they will be taxpayers, and they will vote. And so 

we need to do what needs to be done now to be able to make certain that happens. 

And as has been noted, scientific evidence suggests that incarceration is not developmentally appropriate and that youth confinement may actually lead to a higher risk of reoffending later in life. 

Our experience has shown that these programs work as long as 

they are family focused, they allow us to address the root issues 

within families, and they allow us to focus on the concrete needs 

of all families. And it’s also cost effective, on average $426 a day 

for youth in a residential setting compared to $100 a day for our 

programs. 

I believe that our work demonstrates that alternatives to juvenile 

incarceration are not only necessary, but possible and cost effective, 

because these youth will be back in your community. Ultimately, 

this benefits everyone, because these stronger families mean 

stronger neighborhoods and stronger communities. 

Thank you very much for your interest and allowing us to speak. 

[The testimony of Mr. Goldsmith follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

68 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 96822.016
69 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 96822.017
70 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 96822.018
71 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 96822.019
72 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 96822.020
73 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 96822.021
74 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you, sir. 

Thanks to all the witnesses. You stayed within the time limits 

remarkably well. 

I’ll remind my colleagues that we’re going to be limited to 4 minutes, because we have the hard stop at 11:45, just over an hour. 

So I’ll recognize myself for 4 minutes. 

I’m just going to keep going with you, Dr. Goldsmith. You were 

on a good roll there. We hear a lot, I hear a lot, about how onesize-fits-all approach is not very effective, that you need multiple 

approaches. Could you just take a couple of minutes and elaborate 

on why multiple approaches are needed and why they work? 

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Certainly. It’s interesting when you note that a 

good number of youth, when they go through the juvenile justice 

system, typically for the first time, they are typically referred for 

two things, individual therapy and parenting classes. And I know 

the judge knows this. 

Some of the judges also know that the number one least effective 

intervention for youth like this is individual therapy. The dilemma 

is, in many courts across the Nation, is that they have no other options. They provide what they can unless the judges have worked 

with their States and with their Federal legislatures to provide 

services. 

So most of these youth who come in we work with in multiple 

systems. We work with the family, we work with the youth individually, we work with school systems, we work within the community, and most importantly for these young people, we work with 

their peer groups. 

So the one size, really, you are exactly right, does not fit all. You 

have to work across multiple systems to provide impacts. When you 

think of a parent who had a negative experience in school, and perhaps were a dropout themselves, and then you ask them to go and 

advocate for their youth in that school system where perhaps that 

same principal was the person who kicked the parent out. 

So it takes a tremendous amount of work across multiple areas 

that focuses on a large number of different strategies and a large 

number of different interventions for parents. I have yet to meet 

a parent that did not want to be a good parent. Lots of times they 

just don’t know how. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you very much. 

I yield back and now recognize Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just follow up with Dr. Goldsmith. How does the bill, the 

Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act, fund the programs 

that you’re recommending? 

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I’m not fully familiar with all of the different 

components of how the bill funds these. I know that it has a focus 

on delivering alternatives to juvenile justice services, and it was 

the initial start of that. Some of the components that the judge 

mentioned in terms of confinement are also a component of some 

of the programs that we serve, particularly in reference to disproportionate minority confinement. But I’m not familiar with all 

of the components of that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

75 

Judge Teske, I noticed that nobody suggested that we try more 

juveniles as adults. Could you tell me what you can do for a juvenile in juvenile court to reduce recidivism that criminal court 

judges can’t do? 

Judge TESKE. Yes, sir. You know, first, in distinguishing the role 

of a juvenile court judge from an adult judge really comes down to, 

you know, the juvenile and the adolescent brain of the juvenile. I 

mean, you know, their frontal lobe isn’t developed until age 25, and 

that’s the part that holds—supposed to be holding the hands to the 

rest of our limbic system. So, you know, and they are hormonally 

charged up. So we have to be more patient with them. We have to 

give them time. They are under neurological construction. I mean, 

they are neurologically wired to do stupid things. Okay? 

I’m not saying they’re stupid, because they have a great capacity 

to do wonderful things, but we can destroy that capacity if we use 

a hammer, okay, to beat them up. And so we need to slow down. 

We need to take the system, slow it down. 

And to follow up, you know, on Dr. Goldsmith, keep in mind 

there are eight criminogenic factors, there are eight causes of delinquent behavior. And that’s why, you know, the one-size-fits-all 

can’t work, because kids may have different reasons for why they’re 

committing delinquent acts. Family function, their peers, substance 

abuse, cognition, okay? 

And so what we are able to do is that we can fashion things, 

okay, a treatment plan. You know, in the adult world, there are no 

treatment plans. It’s either this, 1 to 5 years, mandatory minimums, 20 years. I mean, who’s talking about fixing them? Put on 

probation, have conditions of probation, now go and sin no more. 

We don’t do that in the juvenile justice system, or we shouldn’t do 

that in the juvenile justice system. We need to slow down, fashion 

treatment plans. It’s not about punishment, it’s about helping fix 

these kids and their families. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Cohen, you mentioned Right on Crime is focused on reducing 

crime and saving money in the process. Can you give a few examples of programs that reduce crime and save money that you have 

been involved in? 

Mr. COHEN. Certainly. Just confining it to the State of Texas 

alone, you know, over the last two legislative sessions, two things 

we’ve engaged on are issues of ticketing, you know, how do children 

come about getting these minor, these Class C misdemeanors. In 

2013, Senate bills 393 and 1114 functionally removed the ability 

for ticketing on Class C misdemeanors from school. Now, those 

misdemeanors in school, you know, basically turned into an adult 

criminal record very, very quickly. We had the same issue going on 

up until this last session with truancy. 

We had similar success in the State of West Virginia. West Virginia had just passed their Senate bill 393, which had addressed 

many of the confinement on status offense issues, including truancy. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Cohen, my time is about to expire. 

Chairman KLINE. Yes, sir. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

76 

Mr. SCOTT. If you could provide those to us in writing, as many 

of those programs you can, so we can review them, I’d appreciate 

it. 

Mr. COHEN. Be happy to sir. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

77 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 96822.022
78 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 96822.023
79 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. Dr. Foxx, you’re recognized for 4 minutes. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank our panel today. The information you’ve provided 

has been very enlightening. I did have an opportunity many years 

ago to work with a facility that worked with children who’d been 

sexually and physically abused. And their focus after many years 

became family centered. And I learned a great deal at that time 

about the efficacy of family-centered therapies and family-centered 

treatments. So I’m really pleased to hear the comments that you 

all have been making about the programs that you’re highlighting 

here. 

Dr. Goldsmith, I’ll try to follow the example of my chairman and 

ask you a question. You and other witnesses have testified to the 

importance of using evidence-based interventions, and my colleagues will tell you, I’m a big fan of that. In your experience, how 

do you most accurately measure interventions for their effectiveness? 

Mr. GOLDSMITH. It’s a great question, because lots of times people have interventions with no evidence, and there are those out 

there. 

What we do in our programs, all of the evidence-based strategies 

that we use, the best ones have what we call fidelity measures. 

And so it’s like having a plan and you want to be certain that you 

follow the plan. And so we have measures that we use in ours that 

allow us to track the integrity in how closely the intervention strategy follows the way that the model was developed. 

That’s most important, because lots of times people go to training, they get some training, and then they leave, and then they go 

out and attempt to implement the intervention. And if there’s no 

ongoing strategy to know are you doing this the way it was designed, then it doesn’t happen. 

The second thing that we do at our organization that we measure 

the impacts of our programs 6, 12, and 24 months post-discharge, 

because we were looking for long-term, lasting change. And what 

we want to be able to do is to show a funder, a representative, a 

parent, if you put your child and you and your family participate 

in this program, we can tell you what the results are based on 

what your presenting issues are at 6, 12, and 24 months post-discharge across the five main areas that impact juveniles, which 

would be school, association with law enforcement, mental health 

needs, and return back to a long-term care setting. 

Those are the types of things that we measure, because that’s 

what people are interested in. Basically, if you finish the program, 

are you in school and are you a functioning member of society like 

all adolescents should be? So that’s how we go about doing this, fidelity measures and the outcome measures. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Pocan, you’re recognized. 

Mr. POCAN. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

having this hearing. I know our Ranking Member Scott has made 

a long career of trying to have juvenile justice reform, and having 

this in this committee is really appreciated. So thank you. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

80 

Mr. Cohen, I am one of the more progressive Members of this 

body, and I’m big fan on Right on Crime. I spent about 20 minutes 

last year on the phone with Grover Norquist and talking to him 

specifically about this. And I know Ranking Member Scott asked 

you to share with us in writing some of the other reforms. My question is, how many States are you currently doing this in with Right 

on Crime is active? Do you know that? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. If we’re including adult interventions as well, 

we are active in about 39 States. 

Mr. POCAN. Thirty-nine States. That’s fantastic, because this is 

an issue where, you know, again, we’ve been tough on crime and 

tough on crime, but I think we’re finally getting smart on crime, 

and we’re working together. 

And this is, I think, a great collaboration. 

On some of the programs that you’re doing that you’re aware of, 

what can we do at the Federal level to help incentivize some of 

these reforms? 

Mr. COHEN. Well, to be honest with you, sir, I think the important thing is to point out the successes that these reforms have had 

in the States. These are reforms that have not only saved money 

in the short term, they have also saved exponentially more in the 

long run when we back out the cost of repeat offending, back out 

the marginal cost of the justice system. These are all areas of savings that we have for getting the policy right. 

You know, in Texas, I mentioned in my oral testimony, we consolidated much of our juvenile system, prioritized the regionalization, kept juveniles and treatment closer to home so that they still 

can be integrated into their community, still can be integrated into 

their school system. By that, we have spent 16 percent less, and 

this is in nominal dollars over the course of a decade. You know, 

with inflation that’s almost 20 percent less. So these are the types 

of selling points that should be made to the States. 

Now, the States themselves, the police power, which includes the 

juvenile justice system, ultimately belongs to the States. The States 

should recognize it is in their best interest that this what they can 

expect with these programs. 

Mr. POCAN. Sure. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

Let me ask you another question, it’s a little bit of a curve ball, 

I guess. But, unfortunately, some people, the political season, still 

try to take advantage of this, and we watched this in Nebraska in 

a congressional district where they ran very much a Willie Horton 

type ad based on the reforms that you’re all advocating for and 

doing them in States like Texas. 

Is there anything that we can do around that? Because I think 

there’s such a great left-right alliance on this. This shouldn’t be a 

partisan issue at all to try to move forward. How can we try to stop 

that kind of behavior to try to really move these issues forward? 

Mr. COHEN. Well, I think the proof of concept to that particular 

question is simply in the statistics. You know, we’ve made these, 

some minor reforms in some cases, aggressive reforms in others in 

the State of Texas, and we have the lowest crime rate that we’ve 

had since 1968. 

The reforms advocated by Right on Crime is not tantamount to 

soft on crime. You know, we still punish. However, we just make 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

81 

sure that when we do we just don’t take the—you know, to borrow 

from the doctor and the judge—we don’t take a one-size-fits all approach. You know, if we have a low-level offender that could be better treated in the community and at no cost to public safety, let’s 

do that. That is going to cost us 10 times less than it is to actually 

reserve bed space for that issue. And that person is going to still 

pay taxes, that person is going to still maintain contact with their 

family, they are still going to work their job. These are all benefits 

that you don’t have if you just incarcerate as a knee-jerk reaction. 

Mr. POCAN. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Chairman, just in closing, in Wisconsin, I was in the 

legislature. Scott Walker, as a State legislator, Gwen Moore, as a 

State legislator, and I had helped placed a ban on placing juveniles 

at the supermax prison. We used to have 16- and 17-year-old kids 

there. So it can really work. And I just want to, again, applaud 

Right on Crime and what they’re doing. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Rokita, you’re recognized. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Chairman. 

And good morning, everyone. I appreciate everyone’s testimony. 

Back when I used to practice law, I did a bit of juvenile law. And 

Judge, I will tell you, it really didn’t matter, frankly, what my clients did, my goal was to try to keep them out of the system, because if they succumbed to the system we were going to lose them 

forever, most likely. 

And your professional testimony, each one of you, reaffirms that 

today, that I thought I was doing the right thing back then. That 

doesn’t mean we let them go. We really presented the court with 

a lot of strong options and consequences and tried to take care of 

the problem ourselves. 

And that was 20 years ago, and it seems like the practice, the 

industry, even if you want to call it that, has gotten a lot better, 

and your testimonies are proof of that. 

I really only have two questions. The first one would be to Mr. 

Cohen. I want you to reemphasize what it takes, from an options 

perspective, to not let these persons become repeat offenders. 

Mr. COHEN. Certainly. And that’s, you know, I would actually 

throw back also to the testimonies from Dr. Goldsmith and Judge 

Teske, as well, is that the— 

Mr. ROKITA. Please. I’ll let them comment too. 

Mr. COHEN. The one-size-fits-all approach, it never works. And 

that’s also why Right on Crime specifically advocates for keeping 

most of the juvenile justice interventions at least primarily a Statelevel initiative, because the offenders in Texas aren’t going to look 

like the offenders in Alaska and California, Vermont, et cetera. 

So having multiple options because of the varying criminogenic 

risk factors, having multiple options because of the various factors 

that cause the intersection with the criminal justice system are all 

issues that need to be addressed, and those are best sussed out at 

the local level, the people who have the most hands-on data for 

what their specific needs for the juvenile system is going to look 

like. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

82 

So what we did in Texas, or one of the general models that we 

use in Texas is that we have a commitment-based refunding model. 

In other words, once we set a baseline of how many people are referred to the State, anything above that baseline they have to pay 

for, anything below that baseline they get a bit of a refund for. This 

is a kind of a micro version of the incentive-based funding models 

that you see a lot of the providers use in other States. 

Mr. ROKITA. Judge, same question, anything to add there? 

Judge TESKE. I agree with Mr. Cohen. In Georgia, we’ve done the 

same thing. We have a juvenile justice reinvestment program. 

The problem has been in the past, going back 20 years ago, is 

what I call the default problem, where judges are looking at a kid, 

and they don’t want the kid to go to jail, to be committed to the 

State, but they say: ‘‘But I don’t have anything in the community 

for this kid.’’ So by default, they do that. So we had to get money 

to the local level just like Texas, and that’s how we did it. 

But specific to your question is this: We need to follow what we 

now know, after 40 years of research, which has made juvenile justice truly a specialized field, okay, and distinguishes us from the 

adult court judges is very simple. There is what’s called the risk 

principle, the needs principle, the responsivity principle, and the 

treatment principle. I don’t have time, of course, to go into it. But 

as I once told Congressman Scott about 2010, Google it. Just go to 

‘‘what works in community corrections juvenile justice’’ and you can 

get it, and that’s how we’re supposed to do it. 

Mr. ROKITA. And, Doctor, let me have you yield. I want to get 

to Mr. Baxter, if you don’t mind, in 15 seconds. 

Mr. Baxter, what advice do you have for kids coming up and following in your footsteps, so to speak, so that they don’t get trapped 

in the system? 

Mr. BAXTER. I would have to say, the biggest thing for me was 

my peers and seeing how they were affected differently because 

they couldn’t express themselves differently. So their perspective 

was very statistical. 

I would probably say— 

Mr. ROKITA. How do they avoid your missteps? 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has, unfortunately, expired. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you very much. 

Chairman KLINE. Ms. Fudge, you’re recognized. 

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

Thank you, Ranking Member Scott. 

I thank you all for being here today. 

Judge Teske, in your experience, what effect does poverty have 

on the youth you see in your courtroom, part one? And are there 

any programs that you are aware of that deal both with rehabilitation of the young person, but also pathways out of poverty for their 

families? 

Judge TESKE. Excellent question. Poverty, as we know from the 

research, can drive crime. And it’s about time that we start taking 

a look at poverty as a driver of crime and developing programs 

around that. 

Let me just put this in a nutshell, okay? We need to study juvenile crime like we study diseases, all right? You identify at-risk 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

83 

populations, identify the causation, and then develop a treatment 

plan. 

Diseases don’t occur by chance. Diseases are not randomly distributed. Disruptive behaviors don’t occur by chance. They are not 

randomly distributed. They can easily be studied and they can be 

fixed. But when we study them, we find what the drivers are. I’ve 

already mentioned that there are eight of them, but we’re finding 

out there’s one, I think eventually there will be one called trauma 

added to it. 

But even deeper than that, the reason there’s a lot of trauma is 

because we get it from our poor kids who are coming to the court. 

Eighty percent, we do trauma assessment in our court, as much as 

80 percent of the kids who come in our court have been traumatized. Traumatized people traumatize people, okay? 

Now, what are the programs to do that? There’s a number of 

them, have been mentioned here: Functional family therapy, multisystemic therapy, cognitive restructuring. The seven challenges in 

terms of drug treatment. But it must go much deeper than that. 

We must build relationships in our community among both the private and the public sector, the businesses as well as the public. 

What we’ve done in Clayton County is we developed an independent backbone agency with a board of directors. The school system, which houses kids every day, Monday through Friday, they 

send the chronically disruptive kids to this independently backbone 

agency to do what? To assess, develop a treatment plan, monitor, 

get programs in the home, and most of them are poor families. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much. 

And I want to go back to Mr. Sloane. First, I’m sure that you 

hear from people all the time, Mr. Baxter, how proud we are of 

you. And I am proud of you today. And I thank you so much for 

being here. And I thank you for providing your deeply personal account of how you ended up here today. 

So my question for you is, what do you think that we can do, 

what kinds of positive interventions or interactions that we can 

have with young people before they get to Oak Hill? 

Mr. BAXTER. One of the things that worked for me best was I always had someone talking to me who knew a little bit more about 

things than I did. So regardless of where I was, there was always 

someone who would notice me, because I would observe things 

where I was at. I didn’t really get into the physical aspect of being 

in these facilities and things like that. I was more of a—I had to 

stimulate my mind almost to keep sane. 

So with that being said, the biggest thing was people believing 

in me, because with someone believing in you, they have to give 

you responsibility, and with responsibility becomes failure. Failure 

makes you learn on your own. So I would say them giving me the 

firsthand opportunity to fail or succeed on my own. 

Ms. FUDGE. Well, thank you. I think you’re a great success. 

Thank you for being here. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Walberg, you’re recognized. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

hearing today. It brings me back to a number of years ago when 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

84 

I was in the State legislature, and while my wife and I were away, 

our oldest son was assaulted on a bicycle trail, the bicycle destroyed. And, fortunately, he didn’t lose his eye. Two thugs, juvenile delinquents, as they were called, beat him. 

And what was frustrating was when we offered an opportunity 

to the courts for alternatives to incarceration in a juvenile home, 

and that alternative was for them to spend the month of August 

with our family, my son, who they had beat, and myself, scraping 

our barn and painting our barn together, and suffering the wonderful opportunity to eat my wife’s home food cooking, but more than 

anything, we thought it would give an opportunity for an alternative for them to see victims as human beings, and for our family 

to work in turn with them attempting to right a wrong. 

And that wasn’t allowed by the courts. And I know one of those 

went on—both went to juvie home and one went on to prison subsequent to that. So the hearing today, this discussion is important. 

Dr. Goldsmith, how does work fit in when we discuss the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act? 

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I’m sorry, I don’t fully understand. 

Mr. WALBERG. How does work fit in? I guess I’m talking about 

the dignity of work. We often today don’t talk about work being 

dignified. Any work, any good work, is dignified, no matter how 

much remuneration you make. How does that fit into the Delinquency Prevention Act? 

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Right. Right. As been mentioned here, it was a 

critical component. You heard Mr. Baxter talk about his work experience now. And it’s all part of the community systems that we try 

to embed youth in when you work in in-home, family-focused community systems. Part of that system is the community, and you try 

to find those support systems within that community. Work is an 

essential component of where that can occur. 

Another one of our programs works with youth who are exiting 

the juvenile justice system. And we just finished a randomized clinical trial of that program with good success. A big component of 

that is the educational and vocational aspects of youth becoming 

involved in their community and involved as a taxpaying, working 

citizen. 

So over and over and over again our impact show the greater exposure they have to law-abiding, working adults, the better their 

experience later. 

Mr. WALBERG. And meaningful work opportunities? 

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Yes, sir. I mean, I would imagine if you showed 

up in Judge Teske’s court with the exact same case, he would probably go with you, would be my suspicion. 

Mr. WALBERG. I would hope. I would hope so. 

Mr. GOLDSMITH. But those sorts of opportunities are rare, quite 

honestly, because, as Mr. Baxter has mentioned, lots of times when 

you get into systems, they see these kids as beyond repair, and 

they just need a consequence. And if you really stop and read files 

about what do these kids actually experience, it is horrendous. 

Mr. WALBERG. Let me just jump over to Mr. Baxter and ask, 

what challenges did you face in trying to find meaningful work? 

Mr. BAXTER. I do home improvement on the side now, but I was 

doing it with my dad for a while, and it wasn’t something I would 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

85 

see myself doing for a longevity of time because of how strenuous 

it is. Outside of that, because he was my dad, he, of course, gave 

me a job, but I started wanting more independence for myself to 

say I did it for myself. 

Mr. WALBERG. Okay. 

Mr. BAXTER. Kind of with, like, negative and positive reinforcement. 

Mr. WALBERG. Some of those that you see in the juvie system 

right now, what challenges did you see for them in getting that? 

You went on and did your own. 

I see my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. I’m going to rescue you, Mr. Baxter. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. DeSaulnier, you’re recognized. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

and the ranking member for this hearing and the panelists. 

I’m going to date myself. I worked for a juvenile court in the ’70s, 

in the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and I’ve always had 

interest in this because of that through local government in California and State government. 

But what I want to ask you about, particularly Mr. Cohen and 

the judge, is sustainable funding. So in California, one of the things 

we struggle with is when the economy is doing well we put money 

into intervention and prevention, particularly for young people. We 

now know what the best investments are, but bringing that to scale 

and maintaining it has been a struggle. Might be somewhat unique 

to California because we depend too much on capital gain tax, so 

when we’re doing well, we do this. But because juvenile probation 

doesn’t have a big political constituency, it’s always a struggle. 

So at one point when I was in local government the Foundation 

Consortium in California, Irvine and Packard, came to us at the 

State level and the local level and said: We’re not funding any 

more programs unless you do a reinvestment strategy. And over 

generations we know you can save money if you do intervention, 

prevention. 

So can you talk a little bit about sustainable funding, knowing 

we know what is going to be the best even though it takes, as you 

say, not one-size-fits-all. Judge, could you talk about it a little bit? 

Maybe Mr. Cohen. 

Judge TESKE. Yes, sir. Let me use first RECLAIM Ohio, because 

they were the first in the country to do reinvestment and redirect, 

established in 1995, yet it survived, okay, the economic turndown. 

And so I’d like to use that as a model picture for, you know, sustainability in terms of funding in the most difficult times. 

And what it’s really about—and it’s going to depend on each 

State, whether it’s a home rule State or whatever, in terms of how 

it governs. But in Georgia, you know, what Governor Deal has done 

is say: Okay, we are going to create a special line item, okay, we’re 

going to put it in the Department of Juvenile Justice budget. We 

are going to have staff around that, manage that. You know, the 

devil’s in the details. 

What’s happened because of these reforms, bed space has gone 

down. So, for example, those counties, which are many, that have 

received the reinvestment money—we call them incentive grants— 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

86 

the commitment rate is down 62 percent. Okay? So imagine how 

that resonates in terms of funding. Already, in the short time, we 

have already saved the State $85 million. Okay? 

Now, not all $85 million needs to go back into juvenile justice, 

right? Okay? So everyone is winning on this, including the infrastructure of the State, whether it be transportation or whatever, 

but we are dedicating those moneys, okay, on this formula basis, 

to go—now, the reason we got the money much sooner is because 

Governor Deal smartly said—asked the legislature for $5 million, 

okay, to hurry up and field this and get it started quick so the reinvestment money can be realized sooner. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you. 

Mr. Cohen, I don’t want to exceed the chair’s admonition about 

my 4 minutes, so if you could just briefly. 

Mr. COHEN. Certainly. And Judge Teske did very well to point 

towards Ohio’s RECLAIM program insofar as how a juvenile justice 

reinvestment strategy could work. 

The only thing I would add to that conversation is, I am not 

aware of a particular model of jump-starting a reinvestment that 

doesn’t require at least a small modicum of upfront costs. Now, you 

can expect to recoup that cost in a very short time horizon on many 

of these programs, but to think that it’s nothing but just a downhill 

cost slope is a bit premature. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Mr. Cohen. 

I yield the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Carter, you’re recognized. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, gentlemen, thank you all for being here. 

Let me start off by saying for the past 10 years I have had the 

honor of serving in the Georgia State Legislature. And during the 

legislative session of 2013, I was actually cosponsor of the juvenile 

justice reform that you speak of, Judge Teske, and we passed that 

during that session. It was signed into law in May of 2013 by Governor Deal. 

As you just stated, it went into effect in October of 2014, and in 

a 9-month period we’ve seen a 62 percent decrease in cost. And 

that program has really turned out to be a great program. We’re 

very proud of it there. 

What I want to ask you very quickly is that, you know, phase 

one, which included new intake procedures, education, and family 

support, we saw the felony commitments go down, as I mentioned. 

Do you believe that works, the family support and the education 

part of it? 

Judge TESKE. Yes, sir, it does. And by the way, let me say thank 

you for your yea vote, okay. 

Mr. CARTER. Sure. 

Judge TESKE. Yes. So we use, to give you an example, most of 

the counties now, if not pretty much—maybe all of them, but by 

far most of them use functional family therapy and multisystemic 

therapy, because the number one cause of delinquency by way of 

research is family function. Okay? So if you have family dysfunction, that becomes the greatest cost. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

87 

So you want to create the best protective buffer, and that’s to 

build up the family, which means you have to get into the home 

to do it. You have to stop just treating the child. You have to look 

at the family, which tends to be many of the origin of the attitudes 

and other behaviors of the child leading to delinquency. 

Yes, we have found it to be true. My probation officers are tickled 

pink that they have FFT. They are seeing a difference in the parents. 

Mr. CARTER. Well, let me mention also that while I was in the 

Georgia State Senate, I also served as chairman of State Institutions and Properties, which included being on the Appropriations 

Committee, and being over appropriating for corrections. And we 

were faced with cuts that we were forced to make as a result of 

the decrease in revenue in our State. 

And part of those cuts that we made were to move some of these 

low, like truancy and curfew violations that we had in the most secure juvenile beds, we moved them down to the less secure and to 

the family and at-home probation. 

And Mr. Baxter, what I want to ask you is this. Now, please understand where I’m coming from. I ask you this because I suspect 

that you know people who have been through both the most secure 

facilities and the less secure facilities. Can you tell a difference in 

those people? 

Mr. BAXTER. Yes, I can. I’d say the ones that had the higher security are 9 times out of 10 they are more likely to come out worse 

than they were when they first went in. When they come back, 

they are more aggressive. When they come back, they are out of 

tune with society, things, update in technology and everything is 

always up, up, up, up, up. They come home, nothing’s the same. 

So now you’ve taken somebody and you’ve erased everything they 

know, put them somewhere, taught them something, that it’s either 

prey or predator almost when you’re there. So when you come back 

out, they have that same mentality because nothing is there to prevent that from happening. 

So it’s a recycled mentality. So they do come out worse when it’s 

a higher level of security as opposed to a program that implements 

skills to go back into society. 

Mr. CARTER. Great. Thank you, Mr. Baxter, for being here. 

Thank all of you for being here. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Ms. Wilson, you’re recognized. 

Ms. WILSON OF FLORIDA. Thank you. 

Chairman Kline, I was excited to hear that you were calling a 

hearing on the subject of prevention and reduction of juvenile delinquency. As you know, I have dedicated my life to saving young 

men of color from the juvenile and criminal justice system. So I’m 

delighted for this committee to take up this issue, and I welcome 

the panelists here today. 

I also applaud Ranking Member Scott for his tireless leadership 

and unwavering dedication to this issue. I know we share the 

strong commitment to preventing poor outcomes for at-risk youth, 

especially young men of color. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

88 

From my personal experience as a school principal, I know how 

important it is to reach children and give them the support, encouragement, and resources they need to make good choices for 

themselves and their futures. I also think there should be greater 

emphasis on school-based intervention and prevention programs. 

Almost a quarter of a century ago, I founded the 5000 Role Models of Excellence Program, a program that has provided a model for 

dropout prevention initiatives across the Nation. Since its inception, 5000 Role Models has awarded more than $10 million in 

scholarship to minority boys and helped thousands of young men 

turn their lives around. 

There are 98 chapters in the Miami-Dade County Public Schools, 

the fourth-largest school district in the Nation. Both Representative Curbelo and I represent them. There are 70 chapters in 

Pinellas County Public Schools, which is St. Petersburg, Florida. 

And there are 40 chapters in Duval County Public Schools, which 

is Jacksonville, Florida. 

They take field trips to prisons, jails, and courtrooms so they can 

see firsthand how their actions can impact their lifelong goals. 

They have choices, extremely important choices. So they are exposed to the right choices and the wrong choices. 

They tour colleges, universities, and technical institutions. The 

5000 Role Models founded its own fire college to train emergency 

medical technicians and future firefighters for the entire State of 

Florida. We partner with Cadillac dealerships, the firefighters 

union, the pipefitters union, and the Port of Miami to train its future workforce. 

These young men are also taught to respect the law, respect 

women, respect teachers, and others who are in charge. They learn 

to respect their elders, their parents, respect their peers, and respect themselves. They learn all this from people who love them 

and take time to listen to them. 

This is a school-based program that encourages these boys of 

color to remain engaged in school. Studies show that when children 

are more behaviorally and emotionally engaged in school, they are 

less likely to be delinquent. As we move forward, I urge my colleagues to focus on this connection and how reauthorization of 

JJDPA can reflect this reality. 

Mr. Baxter, I want to commend you for your work and turning 

your life around. Can you tell me, do you think you would have 

benefited from an in-school-based program to give you the encouragement, support, and one-on-one mentoring you needed at the 

time when you said you were in trouble and probation did not help 

you? 

Mr. BAXTER. I did a few school things. One, I can’t remember the 

name of the program, but it was basically a metropolitan police 

program where they have certain officers inside schools and they 

pick, like, one or two students out of the school to go to this program. I can’t remember the name of it, but that was one. 

But Boys Town also helped me out a lot because any facility that 

I was at, I was at a different school now. Chelsea School is basically a private school for kids with LD. So the times that I got sent 

out of State, my counselor would hop on the horn and bring me my 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

89 

work so I could stay caught up on IEP and my curriculum. So, yes, 

school does help a whole lot, yes. 

Ms. WILSON OF FLORIDA. I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Bishop, you’re recognized. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And thank you to all of you that have come to testify today on 

such an important subject. I want to thank the chair for taking this 

subject up and giving us some time for us to discuss. 

I’ve got kind of a unique perspective. I was a former prosecutor, 

but also a former defense attorney, so I’ve seen both sides of this. 

And I have also kind of witnessed firsthand the mentality in the 

judicial system with regard to crime and that in many cases the 

solution is always throwing the book at whomever that person is 

in front of the court that day, as if that would solve all problems. 

We know firsthand that, in fact, that’s not the case, and especially this is true with the Nation’s youth. There are opportunities 

to intervene. There are opportunities to provide alternative sentencing in ways to address issues that aren’t necessarily just punitive in nature. 

That’s why I’m really grateful that, Mr. Baxter, you’re here today 

to really share. I think it’s very brave of you to be here, for you 

to share your personal experience, to use that negative in your life 

as a positive, to help influence others in the future. And the fact 

that you are here today discussing public policy and ways that you 

can take your experience and expand it across the board for everybody to benefit from, I’m proud of you, and I just want you to know 

that. I’m very proud of you for being here today. And I’ll give you 

a chance to speak. 

I wanted to ask you, you were talking about when you were 14 

years old and you broke that window that day, did you have any 

experience beforehand? Tell me about your family experience. I 

know you said there was alcohol involved at the time. Did you have 

an intact family unit? Tell me about what was in your mind that 

day that caused you to go down that path. 

Mr. BAXTER. On that day I just wanted to get away. I wanted 

to get away from everything. A car means you’re mobile. So I could 

go anywhere I wanted to at the time. But of course, I was unsuccessful at that. 

The biggest thing was I was trying to control something that I 

had no control over. My parents tried to control me, and they didn’t 

have control over me either. So it’s basically that challenge, when 

things—the perspective I had then was moreso like if one thing 

doesn’t go your way and you start out as an A, it is harder to maintain an A than it is to start from an F and make it all the way 

back up. 

So that was kind of me wanting things to be right, wanting people to notice, getting the attention to make that difference, but I 

just expressed it in the wrong way, which eventually cost me more 

in the end. 

Mr. BISHOP. So, obviously, you weren’t thinking of the consequences down the line. You were expressing yourself at the time. 

But you indicated that you have had experience in both the heavy, 

traditional form of incarceration and also with Boys Town. What 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

90 

lessons did you learn at Boys Town that got you where you are 

today? I’m impressed by the fact that you have just absolutely 

turned your life around and now are using your lesson as a tool for 

good. 

Mr. BAXTER. They definitely give you social skills. So far as time 

management, which I still work on that one, there’s some other 

ones, being self-reliant, and everyday things, disagreeing appropriately, which was a really big one. And that’s a really big one for 

youth all around the board as well. That’s something that we don’t 

know how to do. There’s debate and there’s argument. You know, 

there’s no disagree appropriately, that’s unheard of. 

They also have a point card system, which basically keeps track 

of your positive and your negative behaviors for the day, which reinforces if you’ll have your privileges at the end of the week or you 

don’t. If you don’t, you have to work on skills every day until you 

make those privileges back. 

So it’s something that you end up internalizing after a while because it’s actually what you want. They give you more responsibility. The more you learn, the more responsibility you get. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, sir. 

I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Ms. Clark you’re recognized. 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Scott. 

And to Mr. Baxter, I just want to say first, we all struggle with 

time management, as the chairman can tell you. 

Chairman KLINE. Some more than others. 

Ms. CLARK. But mainly, I want to thank you for giving voice to 

millions of young people with your testimony today and just tell 

you how much I admire your courage and your eloquence and the 

way you’re building your life. 

And we have seen great successes, and I’m grateful to the panel 

not only for being here today, for your work over the past few decades, and really the decrease that we’ve seen in juveniles who are 

in the criminal justice system overall. We have come very far from 

when I was a prosecutor in the early ’90s and we had the mythology that was so corrosive to our public policies of the superpredator 

juvenile that was, you know, coming to our families and to our 

homes. And I’m very grateful that we have come so far. 

But there is one trend that we’re seeing that is alarming to me, 

that arrests among girls have grown by 45 percent and detention 

has grown 40 percent while we’re seeing an overall decrease. And 

for girls of color, this is even more startling, 3 times as likely to 

be referred to a court and 20 percent more likely to be detained. 

A recent report just came out that said girls are over four times 

more likely than boys to have been sexually abused before their juvenile justice involvement. 

So my question to you, and we touched, Chief Judge Teske, on 

this in your testimony and in response to some questions before, 

is trauma-informed practices are critical to how we do this. Can 

you explain a little bit, in a practical manner, what that means in 

the courtroom? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

91 

Judge TESKE. Yes. First of all, in a practical way, it means, first 

of all, very basic, is making sure that doors don’t slam and make 

noises. It means stop shackling kids in the courtroom that don’t 

need to be shackled. 

Ms. CLARK. Do you see higher rates of shackling for girls? 

Judge TESKE. Well, there are still plenty of jurisdictions that do 

indiscriminate shackling. They shackle everyone who comes into 

the courtroom, regardless of the nature of the crime they are 

charged with, which is counterintuitive to the presumption of innocence. 

But other things, you know, we need to be more practical. I can 

help explain the increase. We changed the laws around domestic violence. So now the States have, you know, when the police arrive, 

whoever the predominant aggressor is, identify that person and remove them. 

Well, because girls, with their unique needs and the trauma that 

many of them suffer, their behavior becomes their language. His 

behavior became his language. And so they pick up a knife. But 

that’s just what they’re doing, they’re trying to speak. They do it 

through their behavior. They get arrested. That’s when you start 

seeing the increases. 

If we can start looking at exceptions and mitigating factors for 

girls in these circumstances, we’re going to do better off. 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you. And can you tell me, implementing these 

trauma-informed practices, have you seen a difference in recidivism? Do you have those stories to tell? 

Judge TESKE. Yes, I do, and I can send those to you. I will be 

glad to do that, because I know we’re getting ready to run out of 

time. But, yeah, I’ll be glad to it. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

92 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 60 here 96822.060
93 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 61 here 96822.061
94 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 62 here 96822.062
95 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 63 here 96822.063
96 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 64 here 96822.064
97 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 65 here 96822.065
98 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 66 here 96822.066
99 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 67 here 96822.067
100 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 68 here 96822.068
101 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 69 here 96822.069
102 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 70 here 96822.070
103 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 71 here 96822.071
104 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 72 here 96822.072
105 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 73 here 96822.073
106 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 74 here 96822.074
107 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 75 here 96822.075
108 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 76 here 96822.076
109 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 77 here 96822.077
110 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 78 here 96822.078
111 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 79 here 96822.079
112 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 80 here 96822.080
113 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 81 here 96822.081
114 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 82 here 96822.082
115 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 83 here 96822.083
116 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 84 here 96822.084
117 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 85 here 96822.085
118 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 86 here 96822.086
119 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 87 here 96822.087
120 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 88 here 96822.088
121 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 89 here 96822.089
122 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 90 here 96822.090
123 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 91 here 96822.091
124 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 92 here 96822.092
125 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 93 here 96822.093
126 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 94 here 96822.094
127 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 95 here 96822.095
128 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 96 here 96822.096
129 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 97 here 96822.097
130 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 98 here 96822.098
131 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 99 here 96822.099
132 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 100 here 96822.100
133 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 101 here 96822.101
134 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 102 here 96822.102
135 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 103 here 96822.103
136 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 104 here 96822.104
137 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 105 here 96822.105
138 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 106 here 96822.106
139 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 107 here 96822.107
140 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 108 here 96822.108
141 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 109 here 96822.109
142 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 110 here 96822.110
143 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 111 here 96822.111
144 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 112 here 96822.112
145 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 113 here 96822.113
146 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 114 here 96822.114
147 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 115 here 96822.115
148 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 116 here 96822.116
149 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 117 here 96822.117
150 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 118 here 96822.118
151 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 119 here 96822.119
152 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 120 here 96822.120
153 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 121 here 96822.121
154 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 122 here 96822.122
155 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 123 here 96822.123
156 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 124 here 96822.124
157 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 125 here 96822.125
158 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 126 here 96822.126
159 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 127 here 96822.127
160 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 128 here 96822.128
161 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 129 here 96822.129
162 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 130 here 96822.130
163 

Judge TESKE. But, yes, it’s not anecdotal. You know, we do have 

statistics around that where trauma-informed practices make a difference. 

Ms. CLARK. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentlelady. And everybody’s awareness of time management has gone up. 

Mr. Allen, you’re recognized. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, panel, for sharing your work here with us today. 

And, Mr. Baxter, you have incredible testimony. And I would just 

like to ask you first, obviously, you are mentoring younger people. 

What is it that you share with them that would have made a difference which would have turned your life around before you went 

down the—I mean, do you have to experience these? Do you have 

to experience these things like, you know, youth detention and 

things like that to learn a lesson or is there some way we can get 

to them early before they actually make maybe the same mistakes 

you did? 

Mr. BAXTER. I think it’s definitely a way to get to it before it happens. One way, I think Ms. Wilson was saying, was definitely about 

school, because school is directly connected to your home. That’s 

the only way that you would be able to get in between that, between the community, the youth, and the school. So these are all 

things that are kind of necessity for us to have something on our 

mind at all times. 

Then I didn’t really know, you know, the perspective of an adult 

to a youth, You know, so I was kind of lost. And me being lost, I 

was trying to find my way. So, yeah, I might have known you touch 

a stove you might get burned, I know that, but I’m going to do it 

anyway, you know, to see what the—how it goes. You know, so I 

was curious, I was very, very curious because no one was telling 

me anything. So I had to find out on my own. 

So something I would have to say would be schools, schools oriented. 

Mr. ALLEN. Judge, you and Governor Deal have worked extensively on this justice reform in Georgia, and I congratulate you on 

your efforts. 

You know, one of the things that’s concerning to—should be concerning to all of us is the fact that, for whatever reason, the family 

is not working. And it’s very difficult out there for our kids. I mean, 

they are the ones that suffer. What do you see as—how can we restore the family unit in this country? 

Judge TESKE. I made reference to it earlier, but I’ll mine it down 

a little bit further, and that is in our local communities building 

collaborative relationships that laser focus on our families. My suggestion would be that the best formula is to identify the kids who 

are dropping out of school. I mean, who would ever think that 

keeping kids in school would improve graduation rates, okay, you 

know? But the thing is, is that how goes graduation, so goes crime. 

And so that’s why juvenile justice is so important, because all 

kids become adults. If you want better adults, then help our kids. 

And so what that means is, is that the formula goes like this: Develop a profile of the kids dropping out of school, then determine 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

164 

their needs. You are going to find that most of the kids dropping 

out are from poverty and are traumatized. 

Then you have to develop a collaborative community plan that 

strategically addresses that. And like I said, what communities are 

doing now are developing these independent backbone agencies 

that are referral sources, and that’s the laser focus that gets into 

the homes where schools can’t get, courts can’t get, you see, yeah. 

Mr. ALLEN. Yeah, schools have a tough time. We had a superintendent say: You know, I could do a lot better job if I had better 

parents. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Mrs. Davis, you’re recognized. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I certainly look forward to a strong bipartisan reauthorization of the juvenile justice 

bill. 

I really appreciate Mr. Baxter. We always point to whoever is 

here, the young person who—because it’s important. It’s so important to hear that voice. And so I appreciate the fact that you, you 

know, related to the fact that people would need to be up to date 

on technology. The world kind of like has gone by when someone’s 

in a detention facility that is not reaching out in the way of bringing people up to date. 

But I also wanted to ask you more about the training of staff, 

of individuals, of providers in a few areas. Certainly, in terms of 

anything related to sexual assault, abuse, and also how they deal 

with racial implicit bias, cultural competency. 

Did you see a big difference in terms of the staff that you 

interacted with in different facilities, the community versus a detention facility? And what can we, what should we be doing? Is this 

something that should be built in any kind of legislation that we 

do, that we’re making sure that people are being trained properly? 

Mr. BAXTER. I’m glad you asked that question. There’s a difference in training very much from a person who is at a detention 

center from someone who is at a residential campus that teaches 

you things. The residential campuses, of course, they have minor 

defense for themselves. At these facilities, that’s all they’re doing. 

All they’re doing is managing people. You know, you don’t really 

have a voice, so they’re managing physical bodies. That’s their job. 

Their job is hands on. 

With other programs and things, programs like his, [Mr. Goldsmith’s] they have to find out who you are first and then they put 

things in your way for you to run back around and get, almost as 

planting a small seed and letting it grow. 

So, yes, the training is very different so far as between detention 

centers and places like Boys Town, or in things like that, because 

they don’t have the skills in these facilities, lockdown facilities, 

they don’t have the skills. They’re not trained on that. You know, 

they’re not trained to emotionally stabilize someone, or anything, 

or give them too much more knowledge outside of what they may 

already know. So, yes. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. And for those of you, you know, Judge and 

others, is it too naive to think that some of those skills could be 

built into any facility, or do you think they are, actually? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

165 

Judge TESKE. Well, no, I think it is too naive, quite frankly. I’m 

going to go out there because, think about it for a moment, in Georgia, 65 percent of all kids who go into a secure facility reoffend 

within 3 years of getting out, and of crimes much worse than what 

even put them in there. Forty percent—nearly 40 percent of the 

kids we put in secure lockup in Georgia were low-risk offenders. 

That’s not a really good investment on taxpayer dollar. 

And I agree with Mr. Baxter, it’s because when you put kids in 

a secure facility you’ve separated them from their family. We’ve all 

been—everyone here who’s spoken has acknowledged it’s about the 

family. Well, how can you really be serious and I be serious about 

fixing kids when we know family is number one, but we put them 

in prison and take them away from their family? And now I’ll shut 

up. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. I think my time is almost up. 

I wanted to just ask as we move forward, because this is the 

Education and the Workforce Committee as well, of understanding 

what kind of communication, what kind of support, what kind of 

training is necessary to expand in our schools? What would you 

build in? What would you like to see as we move forward? And we 

know that there are great schools that do a good job, but I think 

it should be part and parcel of everything that we do, and appreciate your input. 

Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Mr. Curbelo. 

Mr. CURBELO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Baxter, thank you for your very valuable testimony. You 

have a very moving story, but it’s also a personal story and it takes 

courage and humility to state it in such a public forum. So thank 

you very much also for giving us a good example of what works and 

what doesn’t work. 

It’s clear to me that we’re in the midst of a fast-paced evolution 

in the juvenile justice system. In Miami-Dade County Public 

Schools, where I had the privilege of serving on the board, as did 

my colleague Ms. Wilson, who you heard from earlier, they have 

done away with out-of-school suspensions, something that would 

have been unheard of just a few years ago and something that I 

certainly support. 

So it’s clear that we’re moving from a punishment-based system 

to a rehabilitation-based system, from exclusion to inclusion. What 

I want to ask you, and I will get to as many of you as I can, is 

what do you think we can do through a potential reauthorization 

to accelerate the pace of this evolution and to really have a smart, 

youth-centered juvenile justice system? I’ll start with Mr. Cohen. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. 

Well, you mentioned out-of-school suspensions, and that was an 

issue that we looked at briefly in the Texas Legislature. You know, 

the issue with out-of-school suspension is that, especially for an 

issue like truancy, you’re going to punish the child for skipping 

school by making sure that they don’t go to school. It just seems 

to be one of those nonsensical issues, or nonsensical ways of addressing a serious issue. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

166 

When it comes to school discipline writ large and what the Federal Government can do, I would actually say, again, it’s about 

making the information known of what has worked in the various 

States that it has worked in. When it comes to some sort of mandatory compulsion through a grant scheme, I’m not necessarily sure 

that always is going to beget the outcomes that this body wants 

simply because that creates a dependence on the Federal Government for something that they should be wanting to do themselves. 

Now, you know, there are certain—there are practices that probably should be incentivized over others, but that in and of itself 

doesn’t mean that the State or even the locality should be going to 

the Federal Government looking for them to fund a particular program when it’s the State or the locality that stands to reap the 

windfall of getting it right. 

Mr. CURBELO. Mr. Baxter, do you think that there are activities 

that we can incentivize through this reauthorization to perhaps encourage more of the programs like the one that saved your life 

through this reauthorization? 

Mr. BAXTER. Probably the most positive thing I can come out 

with, that is most likely mentor programs, because like I said, 

when I was young I just simply didn’t have anyone to kind of go 

through it with me or explain what exactly I was feeling. So I 

would say mentor programs. 

Mr. CURBELO. Thank you. 

Anyone else have anything they’d like to add? 

Judge TESKE. Yes, sir. First of all, if you could go to the 2010 

report from the Federal Advisory Committee for Juvenile Justice, 

there is a chapter in there on the school-to-prison pipeline that I 

chaired and helped draft that gives specific recommendations. 

But as to the reauthorization under DMC, kids of color in some 

studies are six times more likely to be suspended out of school than 

their white counterparts for the same offenses. Okay? 

So that’s low-hanging fruit. If we can incentivize where some 

way schools can develop, you know, alternatives to suspension, like 

we in the courts are doing alternatives to detention, you know, we 

could really, really hit this DMC issue really good. And maybe also 

take a look at the IDEA, because up to 70 percent of kids with disabilities have been reported being incarcerated in juvenile facilities. 

Mr. CURBELO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Grothman, you’re recognized. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Thank you very much. 

A couple of questions. First of all, for Mr. Teske, you mentioned 

a second ago the role that poverty plays in these problems. It’s always been a pet peeve of mine when people talk about poverty, because to me poverty in our society is not—when I think of poverty, 

it should be, you’re old enough to remember, pictures on Time magazine of Biafra or Bangladesh and kids with protruding stomachs. 

In our society, poverty means living in a heated and air-conditioned apartment. Recently there was a study that, I think, 85 or 

80 percent of the people in poverty have at least two TVs, most 

have cars, and such. 

I’m going to ask you, is the problem kids living in poverty or is 

the problem kids living with a difficult home life with a welfare 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

167 

lifestyle? In other words, is it a material problem or is it is a problem of parents providing a horrible role model for their kids? 

Judge TESKE. The issue of poverty is extremely complex, and I 

understand, you know, the foundation of your question and distinguishing Bangladesh and here. And I certainly understand that. 

Here in the United States, while there are some places, even in 

Tennessee, the Smoky Mountains, there are folks who are living 

without. But let’s go to the urban area. That’s really what we’re 

talking about. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Not necessarily. 

Judge TESKE. Yeah, but, you know, in the urban area, you know, 

when we talk about poverty, you know, we’re talking about the 

gunshots that he heard, okay, the alcoholism, and things that all, 

that’s true. But what’s causing that to happen even to the parents, 

okay, and especially given the fact that, unfortunately, in this 

country we still have a problem of too many people of color in poverty. 

I’m just going to tell from you a white southern judge, okay, 

which we were pretty good at Jim Crow laws enslaving people of 

color, okay, I’m just going to tell you right now it’s a matter of 

histrionics. You know, after 300 years of doing that, just because 

we have a whole lot of freedoms that happen overnight doesn’t 

mean that people can get out of that hole overnight. So that— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. You’re avoiding my question. Poverty is normally an economically defined term. Is the problem an economic 

one in which people do not have enough money or are we dealing 

with more of a social situation in which we have people who by historical and world standards are wildly wealthy? 

Judge TESKE. No, both. I’m sorry, sir. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Do you see what I’m saying? 

Judge TESKE. It’s both. It’s both. But It’s driven first by money 

that then leads to all the social issues, as Mr. Baxter is here shaking his head up and down because he personally lived it, you know. 

And I see it too. I was a parole officer in inner-city Atlanta for 10 

years. I dealt with— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Do you believe the problem is a lack of things 

you can buy with money? Do you really think if somebody is living 

in a two-bedroom, two-bath, air-conditioned apartment with gadgets and enough food that you’re obese, that the problem is a money 

problem, or is it a role model problem with the parents? 

Judge TESKE. Well, I think it’s all of that. See, I’m not disagreeing with you. I think it’s all of that. The question is, which 

came first, the chicken or the egg? You know, I mean, you know, 

it’s not only that they’re living in a project, okay, but it’s where the 

projects are, with the guns and the drugs and all of that around 

them that itself creates trauma. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. I’ll ask the final question of Mr. Cohen. 

One of the things that bothers me when you guys generate statistics, and you’re all good at generating statistics, is in determining the root causes here, you know, you look at educational 

achievement, or in poverty, however that’s defined, but you don’t 

talk about family background. Could you give us some statistics of 

family background, you know, the type of family you’re with, and 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

168 

the degree to which that is impacting the people that wind up in 

the system? 

Chairman KLINE. Let me interrupt here. The gentleman’s time 

has expired. If you have that answer, Mr. Cohen, if you could submit it for the record that would be very helpful. 

Mr. COHEN. Will do. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

169 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 131 here 96822.131
170 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 132 here 96822.132
171 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 133 here 96822.133
172 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 134 here 96822.134
173 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 135 here 96822.135
174 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 136 here 96822.136
175 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 137 here 96822.137
176 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 138 here 96822.138
177 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 139 here 96822.139
178 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 140 here 96822.140
179 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 141 here 96822.141
180 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 142 here 96822.142
181 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 143 here 96822.143
182 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 144 here 96822.144
183 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 145 here 96822.145
184 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 146 here 96822.146
185 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 147 here 96822.147
186 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 148 here 96822.148
187 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 149 here 96822.149
188 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 150 here 96822.150
189 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 151 here 96822.151
190 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 152 here 96822.152
191 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 153 here 96822.153
192 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 154 here 96822.154
193 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 155 here 96822.155
194 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 156 here 96822.156
195 

Chairman KLINE. We’re about 3 minutes away from a hard stop. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. I want to ask 

unanimous consent to submit a letter from Fight Crime: Invest in 

Kids into the hearing record on behalf of Mr. Thompson from Pennsylvania. Hearing no objection, the letter is submitted. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

196 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 96822.024
197 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 96822.025
198 

Chairman KLINE. And I’ll now recognize Mr. Scott for any closing 

remarks he has. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I think we have heard a fairly consistent message, particularly from Right on Crime, that we can reduce crime 

and save money by making strategic investments in prevention, 

early intervention, rehabilitation, especially education, family therapy, and trauma-informed services. 

Judge Teske mentioned that a way of doing this would be 

through a process similar to the Youth PROMISE Act. We’ve heard 

support of the core requirements, and it appears that there’s a consensus on approving the legislation. 

So Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you as we reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, 

and ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a list of policy 

recommendations from the Juvenile Justice Coalition ACT4. 

Chairman KLINE. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

199 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 96822.058
200 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 59 here 96822.059
201 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. I want to again thank 

the witnesses. I will add my thanks and congratulations and admiration to Mr. Baxter for boldly stepping forward and sharing his 

story. 

I commend you, everybody at the table. But the statistics that 

Mr. Grothman was talking about in terms of recidivism and lower 

incarceration all seem to be moving in the right direction, exception 

being what Ms. Clark was talking about with girls, with young 

women. 

So we’ve got some work to do here. You’ve been very, very helpful. 

There being no further business, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Additional submission by Dr. Nolan follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

202 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 157 here 96822.157
203 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 158 here 96822.158
204 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 159 here 96822.159
205 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 160 here 96822.160
206 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 161 here 96822.161
207 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 162 here 96822.162
208 

[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER