U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

37–692 PDF 2008

THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND 

DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTHY 

FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES 

COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND LABOR

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 18, 2007

Serial No. 110–63

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

(

Available on the Internet: 

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Chairman 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Linda T. Sa ́nchez, California 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

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

Ranking Minority Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

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

Rob Bishop, Utah 

David Davis, Tennessee 

Timothy Walberg, Michigan 

Dean Heller, Nevada

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director 

Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTHY FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES 

CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York, Chairwoman

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

David Davis, Tennessee 

Dean Heller, Nevada 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on September 18, 2007 ..................................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

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

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2

Questions for the record sent to witnesses on behalf of Mr. Grijalva ... 102

Questions for the record sent to witnesses on behalf of Mr. Scott ........ 97

Closing remarks of .................................................................................... 104

Platts, Hon. Todd Russell, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on 

Healthy Families and Communities, Committee on Education and 

Labor, prepared statement of ....................................................................... 102

Statement of Witnesses: 

Aos, Steve, Assistant Director, Washington State Institute for Public 

Policy .............................................................................................................. 76

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 77

Responses to questions submitted for the record ................................... 80

Additional materials submitted for the record: 

Internet address for ‘‘No Turning Back: Promising Approaches 

to Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities Affecting Youth of 

Color in the Justice System,’’ report, by the Building Blocks 

for Youth Initiative, October 2005 ................................................ 80

Internet address for the King County resource guide, ‘‘Information Sharing: A facilitating tool for the agency partners, and 

their professional staff, of the King County Systems Integration Initiative,’’ 2006 ...................................................................... 80

Ambrose, Anne Marie, Director of Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice 

Services, Department of Public Welfare ..................................................... 80

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 82

Responses to questions submitted for the record ................................... 86

Additional materials submitted for the record: 

Internet address to ‘‘Detention Facility Self-Assessment: A Practice Guide to Juvenile Detention Reform,’’ Juvenile Detention 

Alternatives Initiative, a poject of the Annie E. Casey Foundation ................................................................................................... 88

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Mental Health/Juvenile Justice 

Joint Policy Statement ................................................................... 88

Clark, Hon. Kim Berkeley, administrative judge, Allegheny County Family Court ......................................................................................................... 29

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

Responses to questions submitted for the record ................................... 35

Garcia, Janet, Deputy Director, Governor Napolitano’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, Director, Division for Children ....................... 38

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

Responses to questions submitted for the record ................................... 44

Additional materials submitted for the record: 

Letter of agreement supporting dually adjudicated youth and 

their families in Arizona ................................................................ 50

Internet address to ‘‘Reducing Racial Disparities in Juvenile Detention,’’ a project of the Annie E. Casey Foundation ................. 56

Internet address to ‘‘And Justice for Some,’’ located on the Building Blocks for Youth ....................................................................... 56

Page

IV

Statement of Witnesses—Continued

Garcia, Janet, Deputy Director, Governor Napolitano’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, Director, Division for Children—Continued

Additional materials submitted for the record—Continued

‘‘Arizona Dual Jurisdiction Study,’’ by Gregory J. Halemba; Gene 

C. Siegel; Rachael D. Lord; Susanna Zawacki, prepared by 

the National Center for Juvenile Justice ..................................... 57

Internet address to ‘‘Juveniles in Adult Prisons and Jails: A 

National Assessment,’’ by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, 

U.S. Department of Justice, Oct. 2000 ......................................... 63

Internet address to ‘‘Blueprint for Change: A Comprehensive 

Model for the Identification and Treatment of Youth with Mental Health Needs in Contact with the Juvenile Justice System,’’ 

by the National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, 2007 ......................................................................................... 63

Internet address to ‘‘Prosecuting Juveniles in the Adult Criminal 

Justice System,’’ by the Children’s Action Alliance, June 2003 . 63

Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems Integration Publications ................................................................................................. 63

Internet address to ‘‘When Systems Collide: Improving Court 

Practices and Programs in Dual Jurisdiction Cases,’’ National 

Center for Juvenile Justice, June 2004 ........................................ 64

Letter from the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, State of Arizona ...................................................................... 65

Kooperstein, Hon. Deborah, administrative judge, Southampton, NY ........ 5

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8

Responses to questions submitted for the record ................................... 28

Weisman, Andrea, Ph.D., Director of Health Services, District of Columbia Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services ...................................... 68

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 70

Responses to questions submitted for the record ................................... 73

(1)

THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY 

PREVENTION ACT 

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Washington, DC

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carolyn McCarthy 

[chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives McCarthy, Clarke, Kucinich, Sarbanes, 

Altmire, Yarmuth, and Davis of Tennessee 

Also Present: Representatives Scott and Bishop of New York. 

Staff Present: Aaron Albright, Press Secretary; Tylease Alli, 

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

Ivey, Staff Assistant, Education; Deborah Koolbeck, Policy Advisor 

for Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities; AnnFrances Lambert, Administrative Assistant to the Director of Education Policy; Robert Borden, Minority General Counsel; Cameron 

Coursen, Minority Assistant Communications Director; Kirsten 

Duncan, Minority Professional Staff Member; Taylor Hansen, Minority Legislative Assistant; Susan Ross, Director of Education and 

Human Services Policy; and Linda Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/

Assistant to the General Counsel. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. I am calling the committee to order. 

The quorum is present. The hearing of the subcommittee will come 

to order. 

Pursuant to committee rule 12(a), any member may submit an 

opening statement in writing, which will be made part of the permanent record. Before we begin, I would like everyone to take a 

moment to ensure that their cell phones and BlackBerrys are on 

silent. 

I would now like to ask unanimous consent to allow the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, and the distinguished 

gentleman from New York, Mr. Bishop, to be allowed to join us on 

the dais today and participate in the hearing. Without objection, so 

ordered. 

I now recognize myself, followed by Congressman Davis from 

Tennessee, for an opening statement. 

I want to thank all of you for being here today for our hearing 

on the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Today, we 

will continue our research and education as we work towards the 

2

reauthorization of JJ. As it is with elementary and secondary education, the Federal Government’s role in juvenile justice is to create 

a guiding framework, or incentives, for the States. The States then 

work within that framework to implement their own juvenile justice systems through laws and regulations. For us, there are issues 

to explore as we work to craft a framework for the States that will 

work to benefit our young people and, ideally, to prevent them from 

being incarcerated. 

Today, we will seek an understanding of the nexus of the child 

welfare system and the juvenile justice system. Previous hearings 

have made it clear to us that these two systems do not intersect, 

and yet, they often fall short of helping each other or even communicating with each other with the challenges to foster a complete 

system of care for our young people so that we can divert them 

away from the JJ system or get them an education and proper care 

while in the JJ system. 

Along those same lines, we will explore the connection of mental 

health for the JJ system, again, in looking at both the care of youth 

in the JJ system but, more importantly, in the prevention of youth 

suffering from mental health issues from entering the system. 

Critical to the experience of the young person in the JJ system 

is the judge who presides over the case of the young person. The 

decisions made by the judge determine the future of the youth, an 

immense responsibility. We need to understand how judges function within the framework of JJDPA and what alternates judges 

have to incarcerate based on their State laws and regulations. 

Each of us on the subcommittee is committed to helping the 

young people of our Nation, and they need our help. We are not 

meeting the needs of our Nation’s young people very well. For example, many are afraid to go to school for fear of being bullied, and 

children get lost in the mental health systems that are meant to 

help or to protect them. Today, we will explore how to improve the 

JJ system, but I think we all agree that prevention and addressing 

needs on the front end will do much, if not more, to improve the 

juvenile justice system. 

Again, I want to thank you for being here today, and I look forward to your testimonies. 

I now yield to Congressman Davis from Tennessee for his opening statement.

Prepared Statement of Hon. Carolyn McCarthy, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities 

Thank you for being here today for our hearing on the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Today we will continue our research and education as we 

work towards the reauthorization of JJDPA. 

As it is with elementary and secondary education, the federal government’s role 

in juvenile justice is to create a guiding framework or incentives for the states. The 

states then work within that framework to implement their own juvenile justice systems through laws and regulations. 

For us, there are issues to explore as we work to craft a framework for the states 

that will work to benefit our young people and, ideally, prevent them from being 

incarcerated. Today we will seek an understanding of the nexus of the child welfare 

system and the juvenile justice system. 

Previous hearings have made it clear to us that these two systems do intersect, 

and yet they often fall short of helping each other, or even communicating with each 

other. 

3

The challenge is to foster a complete system of care for our young people so that 

we can divert them away from the juvenile justice system or get them education 

and proper care while in the juvenile justice system. 

Along those same lines, we will explore the connection of mental health to the juvenile justice system. Again, looking at both the care of youth in the juvenile justice 

system, but more importantly, prevention of youth suffering from mental health 

issues from entering the system. 

Critical to the experience of the young person in the juvenile justice system is the 

judge who presides over the case of the young person. The decisions made by the 

judge determine the future of the youth—an immense responsibility. We need to understand how judges function within the framework of JJDPA and what alternatives 

judges have to incarceration based on their state laws and regulations. 

Each of us on the Subcommittee is committed to helping the young people of our 

nation, and they need our help. We are not meeting the needs of our nation’s young 

people very well. For example, many are afraid to go to school for fear of being 

bullied and children get lost in the multiple systems meant to help or protect them. 

Today we will explore how to improve the juvenile justice system, but I think we 

all agree prevention and addressing needs on the front end would do much if not 

more to improve the juvenile justice system. 

Again, thank you for being here today. I look forward to your testimonies. 

Mr. DAVIS. Good morning. Thank you for joining us for another 

hearing on the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. 

Chairwoman McCarthy, I am pleased that we are continuing our 

focus on improving the juvenile justice system. 

We know that investing in prevention methods now will save 

substantial resources in the future. I am pleased to see a diverse 

panel of witnesses that can provide us firsthand knowledge of the 

juvenile justice system, describe how the Federal law is administered at the State level and provide insight as to which programs 

are working efficiently and which ones need improvement. One of 

the most important things that we can do as legislators is to craft 

legislation that prevents juvenile delinquency and encourages 

healthy child development. Although I recognize the aggressive fall 

agenda the majority is planning, I am hopeful that we will produce 

a bipartisan reauthorization bill before the end of this year. 

Finally, I would like to thank all of the panelists for being with 

us today. 

With that, I yield back to Chairwoman McCarthy. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Davis. 

Without objection, all members will have 14 days to submit additional materials and questions for the hearing record. 

I will now yield to my colleague, Mr. Bishop, to introduce our 

first witness, the Honorable Deborah Kooperstein. Go ahead. 

Mr. BISHOP OF NEW YORK. Well, first, let me thank Chairwoman 

McCarthy for giving me this honor and for yielding to me, and I 

will say that it is a true honor to have the opportunity to introduce 

my friend and colleague Deborah Kooperstein to this committee. 

Judge Kooperstein is the first female judge in the history of 

Southampton Town. She was first appointed to that position in 

1993 and has subsequently been reelected to that position three 

different times. As a judge, Judge Kooperstein has been an innovator. She has made several changes to the court system, including 

instituting a law student intern program, installing a Spanish interpreter in the courtroom, and she authored a successful grant 

proposal to hire advocates for victims of domestic violence. She also 

has been appointed by the deputy administrative judge to preside 

over one of two drug courts, handling cases for the five east end 

4

towns in something called the East End Regional Intervention 

Court, and I have had the honor of attending one of the graduation 

ceremonies of that drug court, and I can attest that it has worked, 

really, in a remarkable fashion in terms of dealing with that segment of our population, and the leadership that Judge Kooperstein 

has provided has truly been inspiring. 

So it is a pleasure to welcome you to Capitol Hill. It is a pleasure 

to see you again. I look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. 

Next, I would like to yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania, 

Mr. Altmire, to introduce our next witness, the Honorable Kim 

Berkeley Clark. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I am honored to have the opportunity to introduce the Honorable 

Kim Berkeley Clark of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Judge Clark has 

served in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas since her 

appointment in March of 1999. Currently, she is the administrative 

judge of the Family Division in Allegheny County. Prior to this position, Judge Clark served as the supervising judge of the Family 

Division’s juvenile court. In her capacity as a juvenile and family 

court judge, Judge Clark has been appointed to a variety of committees and boards relevant to today’s discussion, including Pennsylvania’s Domestic Relations Rules Committee, the Pennsylvania 

Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission, and the Governor’s Commission on Children and Families. 

In addition, Judge Clark recently ended her term as President of 

the Allegheny County Bar Association where she was the first African American woman to serve as president. Prior to serving on the 

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, Judge Clark was an assistant and deputy district attorney in Allegheny County for almost 

16 years. While in the District Attorney’s Office, Judge Clark headed the Crimes Persons Unit, which handled all of the sexual assault and child abuse cases in Allegheny County. As an assistant 

and deputy district attorney, Judge Clark tried over 150 jury trials, 

including the first gang-related and drive-by shooting homicide 

cases in Allegheny County. Judge Clark is a frequent lecturer, 

speaker and panelist on the subjects of child abuse, sexual assault 

prosecution and juvenile law. She has clearly the wealth of experience to address this committee today, and I am pleased that she 

has taken time from her job to join us today. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to introduce Judge 

Clark. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Altmire. 

Our next witness, Ms. Janet Garcia, comes to us from the Office 

of the Governor of Arizona. Mr. Grijalva wishes he could be here. 

We were actually upstairs, working on Leave No Child Behind, but 

he is also a chairperson of a subcommittee, and that is where he 

is. 

Let me say at this particular point, too, many of the members 

care passionately about this issue, and we have members sitting 

here today who are on the full education committee, and they 

asked to sit here. So, even though it looks sparse up here, believe 

5

me, all your words and your testimony have been read because it 

is something that we do care about. 

Anyway, Mr. Grijalva wishes he could be here to introduce you, 

but he is chairing another hearing at this time. 

Ms. Garcia is the Deputy Director of the Governor’s Division of 

Children, which works to promote a coordinated and integrated 

system of care for children, young people and families. Furthermore, the division also oversees the juvenile justice program. We 

look forward to learning of Arizona’s work in coordinating its child 

welfare system and the juvenile justice system. 

Our next witness is Dr. Weisman, who will share with us her extensive experience and enterprise working on mental health issues 

surrounding young people in the juvenile justice system. In her 

current position, she oversees all medical and behavioral health 

services contained or permitted in Washington, D.C. She has 

served in many director positions as a mental health expert and in 

court cases and has authored papers on the mental health needs 

of incarcerated individuals and their conditions of confinement as 

they impact the mentally ill. We expect to learn from you about 

what we can do to improve the juvenile justice system in regard to 

mental health. 

Next, we will hear from Dr. Steve Aos. He is the Assistant Director of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy in Olympia, 

Washington. His expertise is in cost benefit analysis to be used in 

both the public and private sectors. Today, he will share his work 

on examining aspects of the juvenile justice system and the challenges and the results from States which have implemented some 

of his recommendations. We will look forward to learning how he 

can help States implement evidence-based research into policy from 

you. 

Our final witness, Anne Marie Ambrose, is here today to share 

Pennsylvania’s work on its JJ system. Ms. Ambrose, a 13-year advocate for young people at the JJ system, currently is responsible 

for the operation of four regional offices which serve various public 

and private child welfare and juvenile justice needs. She will share 

with us the forward steps that Pennsylvania has taken to address 

delinquency and other aspects of the JJ system. 

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

let me explain our lighting system. Split between you, you will see 

a lighting system that is going to be green, yellow and red. It is 

a shame that we can only, really, hear your testimony for 5 minutes, because I know you have a lot more, and the same will go 

for the members. We have 5 minutes to ask questions, and after 

that, I give a little bit of leeway. You know, I will do a light tap 

with my nails. If I have to, I will go to the hammer, and I do not 

like doing that, so I do not have to say anymore about that. 

We will now hear from our first witness, Judge Kooperstein. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEBORAH KOOPERSTEIN, 

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE, SOUTHAMPTON, NY 

Judge KOOPERSTEIN. Good morning. Thank you very much for inviting me, Congresswoman McCarthy. It is an honor for me. I am 

a town justice. For those of you who do not know what that means, 

I am a part-time town justice. I practice law when I am not sitting 

6

on the bench, and I have been doing this for 14 years. I am considered a judge interested in problem-solving courts. I know my time 

is precious, but Congressman Davis, I cannot resist telling you that 

I am a Lady Vols’ season ticketholder and go down to Knoxville at 

least twice a year. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Judge KOOPERSTEIN. In any event, I have been asked to talk 

about the East End Regional Intervention Court and our youth 

court and why they dovetail. 

I am an adult court criminal court judge. However, in New York 

State, New York State defines an ‘‘adult’’ as someone 16 years of 

age, and frankly, I believe that classification causes difficulties for 

that teenage offender. I have on my docket at least three dozen 16-

, 17- and 18-year-olds charged with serious crimes, most of them 

involving drugs. I have been very fortunate to have had the opportunity to start this East End Regional Drug Court because so many 

of those teenagers really need the supervision that weekly appearances before a judge provide with drug testing every single day if 

necessary. 

Now, why that is important is because they are children even 

though they are not juveniles within our State system. Why do I 

say that dovetails with our youth court? Because, this year, we redefined and reorganized our youth court. We have a youth bureau 

in our town of Southampton now, which administers the court, but 

for the first time, the judges are involved, so we follow what is 

known as a ‘‘restorative justice model,’’ a problem-solving court. 

So there are real cases being heard by these teenage jurors who 

are being prosecuted by these teenage prosecutors and who are 

being defended by teenage defense attorneys, and they are mostly 

going to be drug cases. In the past, we really had just quality of 

life cases in this court, but it turned into something—although valuable as an exercise, it really was a moot court competition. Now 

it is a real trial situation, and they are dealing with juveniles who 

have probation officers, these cases are referred from Probation, 

and I think it is very, very important to see how these problemsolving courts can help. We have a DARE program that ends in the 

6th grade, and then in those very critical junior high school years, 

these children are left to drift. With a combination of our youth 

court that is operating now and doing very, very well and our East 

End Regional Drug Court which has graduated a number of teenagers with heavy, heavy drug charges against them, I see real 

progress in our town. Congresswoman McCarthy knows this, that 

we have not had one person who graduated from our drug court rearrested in over 31⁄2 years, and although our pool is very small, 28 

graduates, I think it shows that, if you have a judge who is actively 

supervising any court, be it a juvenile court or an adult court, and 

you have accountability and you can reach defendants who are 

charged with nonviolent crimes, you are going to have results. 

The combination of intensive rehabilitation, supervision, accountability, and a judge, I believe, is a combination that brings good results. For me, supervising the youth court this year and being one 

of the East End Regional Intervention Court judges is truly the 

best part of my job, and my law firm where I practice 2 out of 3 

weeks has been very supportive of me, and I am allowed to go 

7

every Tuesday afternoon and preside. Although, this Tuesday, I explained that I believed it was more important for me to come down 

here and speak to you. So we will be testing our defendants today, 

and I will get the report on my BlackBerry, but I thought, today, 

if I could get your ear and tell you that with very few resources—

and I am talking about a budget of our youth court of $3,000 a year 

and a budget of our East End Regional Drug Court of $45,000 a 

year—you get results, results that last, and I have many people in 

my drug court who I have put in jail before. 17-year-olds tell me 

they started using when they were 11 or 12. They are the best 

source of information for me. 

I want to thank you very much for your time and attention. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Judge Kooperstein. 

[The statement of Judge Kooperstein follows:]

8


koop-1.eps
9


koop-2.eps
10


koop-3.eps
11


koop-4.eps
12


koop-5.eps
13


koop-6.eps
14


koop-7.eps
15


koop-8.eps
16


koop-9.eps
17


koop-10.eps
18


koop-11.eps
19


koop-12.eps
20


koop-13.eps
21


koop-14.eps
22


koop-15.eps
23


koop-16.eps
24


koop-17.eps
25


koop-18.eps
26


koop-19.eps
27


koop-20.eps
28

[Judge Kooperstein’s responses to questions for the record follow:]

Responses to Questions From Judge Kooperstein 

In answer to Congressman Raul Grijalva’s question ‘‘What role, if any, does the 

judiciary play in your state with regard to the review or approval of release plans 

of youth offenders?’’ I must say that the judge reviews the release plans and must 

approve them. The plans are compiled by the Probation Officer assigned and the facility where the juvenile is lodged. There is a strong presumption, although rebuttable, in the recommendation’s of the staff and director of the facility. 

My response to Congressman Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott’s 5 questions is as follows: 

1.The only consequences that result from imprisoning juveniles with adults are 

negative. Juveniles entering the world of calloused, hardened adult defendants are 


koop-21.eps
29

recruited by career criminals. Putting these groups together is a twisted form of networking; when the juveniles are released they re-enter society with the clothes on 

their back, a few dollars and contacts acquired from the inside who recommend 

them to their cohorts on the outside engaged in criminal activities. 

2. The results of imprisoning juveniles convicted of status offenses is once again 

providing them with contacts in the world of career criminals. In addition, if you 

imprison juveniles convicted of status offenses the punishment most definitely does 

not fit the crime thus violating Gilbert & Sullivan’s maxim. These juveniles haven’t 

even committed a crime, they are really reacting and acting out and the root causes 

of this behavior go unaddressed in a jail and the anti-social behavior become ingrained. 

3. The most effective ways to decrease the proportion of minorities in the juvenile 

justice system is to target the drug dealers who often employ them as runners just 

because they are juveniles and at the same time to provide hope in the tangible 

form of after school jobs which are more than menial but are jobs in areas a juvenile 

has told a school counselor they want to pursue as a career. 

4. I do not have enough experience to form a judgment with regard to juveniles 

with mental illness. 

5. Yes, the availability of quality education is a vital condition of confinement. 

However, placing these juveniles with really dedicated, quality teachers requires 

giving these teachers an incentive, an increase in compensation or an attractive benefit package, to attract them to a very challenging group of students. 

Please thank both Representatives for their interest in our youngsters. 

Regards, 

DEBORAH KOOPERSTEIN. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Now we will hear from Judge Clark. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KIM BERKELEY CLARK, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE, FAMILY DIVISION, 5TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA, PITTSBURGH, PA 

Judge CLARK. Thank you. Good morning. 

Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, I would like to 

thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today, and I am 

pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the proposed reauthorization of the JJDP Act and of the continuation of OJJDP. I am 

here on behalf of the National Council of Juvenile and Family 

Court Judges, and the National Council supports the reauthorization of JJDPA and the continuation of OJJDP. 

I was specifically asked to talk to you today about what I can 

and cannot do as a judge in Pennsylvania to help children and families, to describe what continuing education is like for judges, to describe what alternatives there are to incarceration of juvenile offenders in Pennsylvania, and how often I feel free to refer you to 

these programs, what preventative measures I recommend to help 

prevent youth from entering my courtroom, and the challenges that 

judges like me continue to face every day. This is difficult to do in 

5 minutes. 

I would like to begin with this thought to help put things in perspective, and this goes to how most of society, I think, feels about 

juvenile and family court. There have been times when I have had 

encountered a person, and upon discovering that I am a juvenile 

court judge, they make a comment to me like, ‘‘Oh, it is so awful 

that you have to work with all of those bad kids and all of those 

bad parents.’’ statements such as this could not be more wrong, 

and I acknowledge that there are some bad kids, probably, and 

some bad parents, but they represent a very small fraction of the 

cases that judges see. 

30

What I mostly encounter are kids and parents in bad situations, 

and I mention this because, when we talk about delinquency, we 

cannot talk about delinquency without talking about dependency 

and custody and protection from abuse and all of those things, and 

I always say that we define and label our kids by how they first 

enter our courthouse, whether they come in through the child welfare system or through the juvenile justice system. 

I see people who are affected by poverty, drug and alcohol addiction, mental health instability, homelessness, mental retardation, 

youth, kids having kids or combinations of some or all of the aforementioned. What I see is parents who do love their children but 

who do not have the tools to properly raise and nurture them in 

this society today, and I see kids who are really bright and who 

would have so much potential but for their dire circumstances 

which provide them little chance for hope or success, and as a result, they make poor choices. 

These children and their parents struggle every day, and some 

of them are just really existing instead of living life to its fullest 

and looking for goals, and I am saddened by the fact that the public does not see what I see and that sometimes society tends to look 

the other way. 

As a family court judge, I hear dependency cases, child welfare 

cases, delinquency cases, which are juveniles charged with committing crimes. I hear termination of parental rights and adoption 

cases, custody cases, protection from abuse, mental health commitments, and drug and alcohol commitments involving juveniles. As 

a juvenile and family court judge, I make decisions that forever affect the lives of children and families in my county. I remove children from their homes and communities and from the care of their 

parents and from everything that they know and maybe are comfortable or familiar with, because they are in need of treatment in 

an out-of-home setting. 

I terminate parental rights and finalize adoptions. Though, on occasion, I make decisions that result in a child’s being tried as an 

adult rather than a juvenile, but with the help of many who work 

in the system, I am sometimes able to have parents reunify with 

their children where juveniles successfully complete their conditions of supervision, and their cases are closed, and in some cases, 

children have permanent and lasting relationships with adults. 

In Pennsylvania, we are fortunate to have many other options 

than secure incarceration for juvenile offenders, and we utilize residential programs for many of these offenders. Obviously, the key 

is prevention and providing services and education for judges, and 

OJJDP helps with this. 

To sum up, I would say judges in my position need to have adequate training. We are asked to be part social worker, part physician. We are supposed to understand developmental goals, behavioral issues, drug and alcohol addictions, psychological issues, the 

dynamics of sexual and physical abuse. With this, we need training, and we need collaboration and cooperation with others, and 

OJJDP helps with this in terms of the training. 

I thank you for this opportunity to be heard today. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Judge Clark. 

[The statement of Judge Clark follows:]

31

Prepared Statement of Hon. Kim Berkeley Clark, Administrative Judge, 

Allegheny County Family Court 

Madam Chair and members of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities, thank you for this opportunity to testify before you here today. I am Kim 

Berkeley Clark, Administrative Judge of the Allegheny County Family Court in 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and I am here on behalf of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and judges across the nation who hear our nation’s 

most difficult cases—those related to children and families. Our caseloads include 

issues such as child abuse and neglect, juvenile delinquency, domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health, divorce and a myriad other issues affecting society 

today. 

We are pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the proposed reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974 and 

continuation of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) 

of the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. We appreciate the 

Subcommittee’s attention to this important task. The National Council of Juvenile 

and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) supports the reauthorization of the JJDPA and 

the continuation of OJJDP. When the JJDPA was originally enacted in 1974, many 

representatives of the NCJFCJ testified before the U.S. Senate in support of the legislation. The NCJFCJ continues today in its support of the JJDPA and continuation 

of the OJJDP. 

The Need for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has served a critical 

role in supporting the field of juvenile justice since its inception. OJJDP has provided critical education, technical assistance, research and statistics, and publications to all disciplines involved in the juvenile justice arena. These programs have 

proven effective in improving court practice in the handling of cases related to children, youth and families. Professionals who are supported by the work of OJJDP 

include judges, attorneys (public defenders, prosecutors, and child advocates), juvenile probation officers, detention personnel, child welfare professionals, volunteers, 

treatment providers and a wide variety of other juvenile justice professionals. 

Juvenile court judges who oversee cases involving children, youth and families can 

help effect changes in the behavior of the youth who appear before them. Judges 

are in a unique position to be able to hold others accountable. This includes not only 

the youth before them, but also their family members, schools and the many other 

professionals within the system. Seasoned judges throughout the nation report that 

they are seeing multiple generations of the same family over time. Judges realize 

that they must break the cycles of abuse, delinquency, substance abuse, and other 

issues negatively impacting families today in order to sustain their efforts in providing better outcomes for children and families. 

The role of the juvenile and family court judge has evolved significantly over time. 

Where judges were once primarily responsible for making decisions in a case as impartial magistrates with little connection to the children, youth and families before 

them, judges now have assumed multiple additional roles. Juvenile and family court 

judges today are working with children and their families, the attorneys assigned 

to their cases, social workers, probation personnel, schools, substance abuse counselors, treatment providers and others to find the best solutions to the issues confronting our nation’s families. Judges are working with stakeholders in their courts 

and communities to develop better ways of doing business. Judges are reaching out 

into the community to identify, develop or import resources necessary to meet the 

needs of children and families in their caseloads. And finally, judges are reaching 

out to policy makers to request support for best practices and to request needed resources to improve the system’s response to child maltreatment, substance abuse, 

juvenile delinquency and more. Judges understand the importance and benefits of 

collaborating with other system professionals and communities to improve outcomes 

for children and families. 

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges 

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges is the nation’s oldest 

judicial membership organization. Now celebrating its 70th year, the NCJFCJ has 

more than 2,000 members. With support of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, NCJFCJ has worked for decades to provide education, technical 

assistance, research, statistics, publications and other assistance to judges and professionals in the field. 

The NCJFCJ provides training/education, technical assistance and other resources 

to as many as 20,000 to 30,000 professionals annually. The focus of this work is to 

provide judges and others with the latest state-of-the-art information and tools to 

32

enable them to make better decisions on behalf of children and families, to guide 

systemic change in their communities, and to understand the issues faced by the 

families whose cases they must hear on a daily basis. Topics addressed by the 

NCJFCJ include: child abuse and neglect, juvenile delinquency, domestic violence, 

substance abuse, and family law issues, among other topics. A significant portion 

of this work is funded by OJJDP. 

As an example of the NCJFCJ work funded by OJJDP, from 1992-1995, in response to a systemic need for a document that outlined best practices in handing 

child abuse and neglect cases, the NCJFCJ developed the RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases.1 This document 

was published in 1995, and was endorsed by the Conference of Chief Justices, the 

American Bar Association and the Conference of State Court Administrators. This 

document was foundational in the sea change underway today in improved practice 

by judges, court professionals, child welfare professionals and others in handling dependency cases. National programs, state initiatives and individual jurisdictions 

have used this document as a blueprint for change—as many as 30,000 copies have 

been disseminated nationally to date. Significant positive results have been noted 

and a few of these are listed below: • In the Congressional drafting of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, 

the RESOURCE GUIDELINES was used as a guide for best practices as contained 

within the legislation; • State Court Improvement Programs, as supported by the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, used the document to assist states in developing state 

court improvement program plans; • The Pew Commission’s Report on Foster Care was largely based upon the principles stated in the RESOURCE GUIDELINES. 

The OJJDP-funded Victims Act Model Courts Project at the NCJFCJ was developed to identify courts willing to change practice and ready to embrace the key principles of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES. This Project provides Model Courts with 

the training, technical assistance, evaluation and research needed to improve practice in jurisdictions; statewide implementation is an additional goal in many of these 

courts. Currently, 31 jurisdictions around the country serve as Model Courts; these 

courts are committed to improving court practice and to serving as models for other 

courts nationwide outside the project as they strive to improve practice. Model 

Courts, as laboratories for change, provide a basis of information to others regarding 

successes and failures, what works and what doesn’t work. Model court personnel 

serve as trainers, mentors, site hosts and guides in sharing their work far beyond 

the 31 Model Courts involved in this project. 

Listed below are examples of success in the Victims Act Model Courts Project: 2

• Of the courts involved in the project, three are the nation’s largest juvenile or 

family court systems. These include: Cook County (Chicago) Child Protection Division of the Juvenile Court, New York City Family Court, and Los Angeles County 

Juvenile Court. At one time, these three jurisdictions alone represented nearly half 

of the nation’s children in foster care. Thanks to a decade of focused collaboration 

between the courts and system stakeholders and the NCJFCJ, the total number of 

children in foster care in these courts and nationwide has begun to decrease. In 

each of these jurisdictions caseloads have been examined, issues delaying timely 

permanency have been addressed, and adoptions have increased, among other accomplishments. As a result, the numbers of children in foster care in these three 

jurisdictions have significantly decreased over time. In Cook County alone, a caseload of over 50,000 children in out-of-home care in 1996 has been reduced to fewer 

than 10,000. Caseloads in Los Angeles County have dropped from over 50,000 children in foster care in 1997 to 30,000 most recently. 

• Innovations in courts resulting from the work of the NCJFCJ’s Model Courts 

Project have proven inspirational to others. For example, Adoption Saturday was 

initiated in the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court in 1998. In order to clear a backlog of adoption cases in that court, Presiding Judge Michael Nash initiated an event 

which enlisted the help of volunteer judges, court staff, attorneys, social workers 

and others on a Saturday. Volunteers were immediately forthcoming and during 

that first Adoption Saturday event, hundreds of cases were heard. The court’s 

celebratory atmosphere on that date has inspired additional events each year in Los 

Angeles County. In 2006, that court celebrated its 23rd Adoption Saturday; thousands of adoptions have been finalized since that first Adoption Saturday event. 

• National Adoption Day—Additionally, the Adoption Saturday event has been 

used as a model for National Adoption Day sponsored each year by the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption. This event is held on the Saturday before Thanksgiving 

and is next scheduled for November 17 in 2007. During its initial year, this event 

drew only a handful of courts. However, in 2006, National Adoption Day was celeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:45 Apr 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-63\37692.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
33

brated in all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, during 250 adoption events. These events resulted in adoption of 3,300 children nationwide—in one 

day. 

An additional example of the significant work of the NCJFCJ as funded by the 

OJJDP is the Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines Project. In 2005, the NCJFCJ produced another pivotal document in changing court and systems practice. The JUVENILE DELIQUENCY GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Juvenile Delinquency Cases3 was developed by a committee of system stakeholders, and when 

published was endorsed by the Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State 

Court Administrators, the National Association of Counsel for Children and the Bureau of Juvenile Justice, State of Michigan. This document provides a blueprint for 

systemic improvement in juvenile justice cases, and is now being used by a number 

of courts nationwide as they examine statutes and protocols, identify problem areas, 

plan for change and implement new practices and procedures. A Juvenile Delinquency Model Courts Project4 as funded by OJJDP is beginning to impact the system nationwide in ways demonstrated by the Victims Act Model Courts Project over 

the past ten years. Without the support of OJJDP to fund some of this work, the 

improvements in handling delinquency cases now beginning to emerge would not 

have been possible. 

Another example of the work funded by OJJDP and produced by the NCJFCJ, is 

a series of three audio recordings available on CD. Telling Our Stories from Juvenile 

Court, You Can Make a Difference—Stories from Juvenile Court and You Can Make 

a Difference III—More Stories from Juvenile Court5 document success stories of 

troubled teenagers referred to the juvenile court, as well as how judges and court 

professionals can make a difference in a child’s life. One of these success stories is 

that of former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson. 

The Impact of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

NCJFCJ believes that federal recognition of the uniqueness of juvenile courts and 

the children and youth under their watch should continue. We urge Congress, as 

it considers reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, 

to consider the following: 

• The juvenile justice system is unique and provides a distinct and important 

focus on issues related to children and youth. Juveniles are not miniature adults 

and must be treated differently than adult criminals. They are strongly influenced 

by their families and their peers, and often they can be diverted or rehabilitated 

from a life of crime with proper mentoring, programming and support. There is extant research showing that adolescent brains are not fully developed. With the infusion of medical and psychiatric research and collaboration with juvenile justice professionals, we are learning more all the time about how to better intervene and assist youth who appear before us. Juvenile courts are an important factor in changing behavior, and the programs supported by OJJDP provide judges and other system professionals with the knowledge, skills and tools needed to better serve the 

children and youth on their caseloads. 

• The juvenile justice system is a broadly focused arena which includes prevention (child protection) and juvenile delinquency. For a comprehensive approach to 

children and youth, this entire arena requires a special focus within OJJDP. Recognizing this early on, over a decade ago a child protection division was created within 

OJJDP to focus on programming to address the needs of children who had been 

abused and neglected. The NCJFCJ has worked with OJJDP since 1992 to develop 

best practices in the handling of child abuse and neglect cases, to develop a blueprint for change, and to implement best practices and improved outcomes for children and families in jurisdictions across the nation. As previously noted, this Victims Act Model Courts Project serves as a cornerstone of the work of the Child Protection Division. Research has proven the link between child abuse and neglect and 

juvenile delinquency.6

• Funding to state and national programs, through grants and cooperative agreements, which support training, technical assistance, publications, research, and 

model programs, provides a comprehensive and integrated approach to addressing 

juvenile justice issues. The OJJDP, over time, has developed effective programs 

which provide a comprehensive approach to dealing with juvenile offenders, as well 

as children who have been abused or neglected, who are dealing with substance 

abuse issues, and whose needs cannot be met in any other way. 

• OJJDP’s work in development of programs has changed the landscape in terms 

of government’s response to juvenile delinquency. The Office’s support for programs 

in juvenile sanctions, juvenile delinquency model courts, juvenile drug courts, gangs, 

disproportionate minority contact, and others have provided support to jurisdictions 

across the nation as no other funding streams have. 

34

• Training for Judges. Well-trained and skilled judges are critical to a well-functioning juvenile justice system that holds youth, families and system stakeholders 

(including themselves) accountable. Judges are responsible for holding youthful offenders accountable, ensuring community safety and providing for the needs of children and youth who have come into the system either through delinquent acts or 

through no fault of their own. 

Programs of OJJDP are cost-effective and thoroughly evaluated. Statistics maintained through OJJDP-funded programs allow analysis both over time and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Information being developed by OJJDP-funded programs 

is being widely disseminated through training, conferences, publications, websites 

and other electronic means. 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has played a significant role in representing issues related to justice for children and youth within the 

U.S. Department of Justice since its inception. OJJDP serves various functions, including: • providing a voice for juvenile justice and child welfare/delinquency prevention 

issues within the U.S. Department of Justice; • supporting innovative programs for handling children, youth and their families; • supporting research, training and technical assistance for juvenile justice system and cross-system professionals; • providing national juvenile justice statistics; • providing leadership in developing best practices and guiding courts and systems nationwide toward improved practice throughout the continuum—from prevention to diversion and beyond. 

OJJDP’s programs support development of assessment tools; assessment of systems practice; research on changing trends; research on best practices; use of early 

service delivery; development of technology; and removal of impediments for information-sharing among agencies. 

Juvenile Justice Statistics—The Need for a Continued Focus by OJJDP 

The need for a continued focus on juvenile justice issues by a federal agency mandated with that task remains a high priority for professionals in the field. National 

statistics provided by the National Center for Juvenile Justice, the research arm of 

the NCJFCJ, detail trends in the system.7 These trends note the need for continued 

vigilance and programming in the juvenile justice arena. 

Arrest statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation show substantial 

growth in juvenile violent crime arrests from the late 1980s until 1994. This was 

followed by ten years of decline. However, this long-term downward trend was broken in 2005 with a small annual increase (2%) in Violent Crime Index Arrests. More 

specifically, 2005 saw an increase in juvenile arrests for murder (20%) and robbery 

(11%). It is significant to note that while juvenile male arrests for simple assault 

declined between the mid-1990s and 2005, female arrests increased. Without a focused office such as OJJDP to address these trends with new and innovative programs as they arise, there would be no ability within the justice community to reverse or address trends as needed. 

Conclusion 

The mission of OJJDP is to provide national leadership, coordination and resources to prevent and respond to juvenile delinquency and victimization. Through 

the wide range of programs implemented by that office, juvenile and family courts, 

juvenile justice systems, child welfare systems, and related fields are receiving critical training, technical assistance, support and encouragement to improve systemic 

response to issues related to children and youth. With the resources provided by 

OJJDP, juvenile and family courts are better able to serve those children and their 

communities. The NCJFCJ fully supports the reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, and the continuation of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

On behalf of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and individual judges nationwide, I would like to thank you for inviting me to participate 

in this hearing on this important piece of legislation. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions you may have. 

ENDNOTES

1 RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases 

(1995). National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Reno, NV. Available online at 

<http://www.ncjfcj.org/images/stories/dept/ppcd/pdf/resguide.pdf> 2Status Report 2005: A Snapshot of the Child Victims Act Model Courts Project (2006). National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Reno, NV. Available online at <http://

www.ncjfcj.org/content/blogcategory/365/434/>

35

3 JUVENILE DELINQUENCY GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Juvenile Delinquency Cases (2005). National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Reno, NV. Available online at <http://www.ncjfcj.org/images/stories/dept/ppcd/pdf/JDG/juveniledelinquencyguidelinescompressed.pdf> 4 Juvenile Delinquency Model Courts are currently located in: Pima County, Tucson, AZ; El 

Paso County, El Paso, TX; Hamilton County, Cincinnati, OH; Erie County, Buffalo, NY; Lackawanna County, Scranton, PA; Buchanan County, St. Joseph, MO; and 3rd District Court (Salt 

Lake, Tooele & Summit Counties), Salt Lake City, UT. 5Telling Our Stories from Juvenile Court (2000), You Can Make a Difference—Stories from 

Juvenile Court (2002) and You Can Make a Difference III—More Stories from Juvenile Court 

(2002). CD Audio Recordings. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Reno, NV. 6Widom, C. (2000). Childhood Victimization: EARLY Adversity, LATER Psychopathology. 

Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice Journal. 7Snyder, H. (in press). Juvenile Justice Bulletin: Juvenile Arrests 2005. Washington, D.C: 

OJJDP. 

[Judge Clark’s responses to questions for the record follow:]

March 16, 2008, 

Hon. GEORGE MILLER, Chairman; Hon. CAROLYN MCCARTHY, Subcommittee Chairwoman, Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR REP. MILLER AND REP. MCCARTHY: Thank you for the opportunity to testify 

at the September 18, 2007 hearing of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families. It was 

an honor and a privilege to do so. 

I have received the questions from Representatives Scott and Grijalva. Attached 

are my responses. If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to 

ask. Thank you again for the honor of testifying on September 18. 

Very truly yours, 

KIM BERKELEY CLARK. 

I. What consequences result from imprisoning juveniles with adults? 

The research is increasingly clear that prosecuting juveniles as adults leads to 

higher recidivism rates than treating youth within the juvenile justice system. 

When incarcerated with adults, youth can be victimized in many ways and are exposed to adults who are involved in criminal activities. The negative outcomes from 

imprisoning Juveniles with Adults are well documented. 

The outcomes in Juvenile Justice System are far superior to the Criminal Justice 

System. In Pennsylvania, for the year 2005, only 12.6% of offenders recidivated; only 

11% of juveniles had a violation of probation; 94.2% of juveniles completed their 

community service; total community service hours completed 536,196; 85.3% of offenders paid restitution in full; $2,362,067.45 in restitution was paid. 

The 2006 figures are equally impressive for Allegheny County, my jurisdiction. 

1. Probation staff collected and dispersed $218,866.00 in restitution to crime victims. (One juvenile paid a staggering $11,900.00 in restitution at the time of case 

closing.) At case closing, 75% of restitution ordered by the court was paid in full. 

2. Probation staff collected and submitted to the state $36,484.90 for the Crime 

Victim’s Compensation Fund. 

3. In 2006 Probation staff collected and submitted $55,622.38 towards the District 

Justice Fund and the Victim Awareness Fund. 

4. Probation staff collected and submitted $8,575.07 towards the Substance Abuse 

Fund. 

5. Youth under Court supervision, whose cases were closed in 2006, performed 

68,754 hours of community service. At case closing, 96% of court ordered community 

service was completed in full. 

6. In 2006, 88% of the youth under supervision of Allegheny County Juvenile Probation were NOT adjudication of a new offense or crime. 

The Criminal Justice System would be hard pressed to even produce outcomes of 

any kind. 

Moreover, in Pennsylvania we are very fortunate that judges have many options 

in dealing with juvenile offenders. We have a wide variety of services and programs 

that have all embraced balanced and restorative justice. Judges in Pennsylvania almost never send a child outside of Pennsylvania for placement. However, because 

of the wide variety of programs and services in Pennsylvania, our state receives 

many children from all over the United States for placement (and sometimes outside 

of the United States). We also have a wide variety of services that give judges an 

alternative to placement. In Pennsylvania only 11% of children receive out of home 

placement as a disposition for their first delinquent offense. 89% of children are 

placed on probation for their first offense. The vast majority of these cases close sucVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:45 Apr 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-63\37692.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
36

1See also, ‘‘Effects on Violence of Laws and Policies Facilitating the Transfer of Juveniles for 

the Juvenile Justice System to the Adult Justice System’’ and ‘‘Recommendation Against Policies 

Facilitating the Transfer of Juveniles for Juvenile to Adult Justice Systems for the Purpose of 

Reducing Violence’’, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2007. 

cessfully, with no further court appearances. 80% of Pennsylvania juvenile offenders 

in placement are in residential programs as opposed to state-run, secure programs. 

The following editorial appeared on May 11, 2007, in the New York Times. 

Juvenile Injustice 

The United States made a disastrous miscalculation when it started automatically 

trying youthful offenders as adults instead of handling them through the juvenile 

courts. Prosecutors argued that the policy would get violent predators off the streets 

and deter further crime. But a new federally backed study shows that juveniles who 

do time as adults later commit more violent crime than those who are handled 

through the juvenile courts. 

The study, published last month in The American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 

was produced by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent 

research group with close ties to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

After an exhaustive survey of the literature, the group determined that the practice 

of transferring children into adult courts was counterproductive, actually creating 

more crime than it cured. 

A related and even more disturbing study by Campaign for Youth Justice in 

Washington finds that the majority of the more than 200,000 children a year who 

are treated as adults under the law come before the courts for nonviolent offenses 

that could be easily and more effectively dealt with at the juvenile court level. 

Examples include a 17-year-old first-time offender charged with robbery after 

stealing another student’s gym clothes, and another 17-year-old who violated his 

probation by stealing a neighbor’s bicycle. Many of these young nonviolent offenders 

are held in adult prisons for months or even years. 

The laws also are not equally applied. Youths of color, who typically go to court 

with inadequate legal counsel, account for three out of every four young people admitted to adult prison. 

With 40 states allowing or requiring youthful offenders to spend at least some 

time in adult jails, state legislators all across the country are just waking up to the 

problems this practice creates. Some states now have pending bills that would stop 

juveniles from being automatically transferred to adult courts or that would allow 

them to get back into the juvenile system once the adult court was found to be inappropriate for them. 

Given the damage being done to young lives all over the country, the bills can’t 

pass soon enough.1

II. What consequences result from imprisoning juveniles convicted of status offenses? 

Imprisoning status offenders would have many of the same consequences as mentioned above. Additionally, my experience is that many runaways and ‘‘ungovernable’’ children are trying to escape abusive situations. Why would anyone even consider sending a truant youth to a ‘‘school of crime and criminal behavior’’? 

III. What are the most effective ways to decrease the proportion of minorities in the 

juvenile justice system? 

First and foremost, juvenile justice systems must identify this issue as a priority, 

monitor their policies and practices, engage minority communities in addressing the 

issue, and strive to recruit and hire staff from these communities. The simple answer is to create more diversion programs for the police and court systems. This 

would especially be true for urban areas. The larger answer is figuring out how to 

address at risk kids before they become engaged in more serious delinquent behavior. Allegheny County has recently implemented a new program called Stop Now 

and Plan. SNAP is an example of an early intervention approach that will work 

with youth between the ages of six (6) and twelve (12) who have had contact with 

the police or who have identifiable behaviors that put them at risk to become juvenile offenders. To reiterate, in Pennsylvania only 11% of children receive out of 

home placement as a disposition for their first delinquent offense. 89% of children 

are placed on probation for their first offense. The vast majority of these cases close 

successfully, with no further court appearances. 

I would encourage you to review the MacArthur Models for Change—Systems Reform in Juvenile Justice (an initiative supported by the John D. and Catherine T. 

MacArthur Foundation). MacArthur identified Disproportionate Minority Contact 

(DMC) is one of four (4) areas for reform in the juvenile justice system. For Pennsylvania, MacArthur’s approach entails: 

37

1. a detailed analysis of existing county-level data on delinquency case processing; 

2. exposure of deficiencies, inconsistencies, and gaps in the data available; 

3. identification of local models of DMC data collection and reporting practice; 

4. statewide efforts to promote better DMC data collection and reporting and to 

better use the data currently available; 

5. identification of local jurisdictions and specific decision points for which the 

data suggest that race or ethnicity may be a factor in decision making; and 

6. targeted training and technical assistance in areas where the data reveal significant disparities. 

IV. What are the most effective ways to decrease the proportion of individuals with 

mental illness in the juvenile justice system? 

We must improve screening and assessment of youth entering the juvenile justice 

system and divert as many youth as possible to services within the mental health 

and/or child welfare systems. 

Again, I would encourage you to review the MacArthur Models for Change—Systems Reform in Juvenile Justice. This report states the following: 

‘‘In a model system, professionals in the fields of juvenile justice, child welfare, 

mental health, substance abuse, and education would work collaboratively to 

produce better outcomes for youth and their families. County agencies and public 

schools would provide services to young people who misbehave as a result of mental 

health problems and would not refer them to the juvenile justice system unless their 

offenses were serious. If such youths were arrested, the juvenile justice system 

would be able to tap into community-based mental health services. Juvenile probation officers and juvenile court judges would be knowledgeable about adolescent development and mental health and would have access to high-quality assessments 

and appropriate services. Young offenders’ privacy rights would be maintained, and 

agencies would be able to collect and share information appropriately.’’

MacArthur has identified the following goals for Pennsylvania: collaboration at 

the state and county levels, creation of interagency teams to expedite placement 

and/or delivery of services, adoption of a single multi-system screening and assessment instrument for all youth, promulgation of policies to reduce contact with the 

juvenile justice system and to divert youth into community-based programs, development of blended/integrated funding, and delivery of evidence-based practices. 

V. Are there any conditions of confinement issues, including the availability of education that must be addressed in the JJDPA reauthorization? 

I’d like to see something that requires ‘‘year round’’ education in all juvenile correctional/treatment facilities. In addition to education services while a youth is in 

placement, the reauthorization should be very clear about the value of good reentry 

planning. A strong statement needs to be made about aftercare both in the community and in school. A connection to work should also be identified and meaningful 

vocational training, with certification, should be offered. 

VI. What role does the judiciary play in your state with regard to the review or approval of release plans of youth offenders? 

Unlike many jurisdictions, judges in Pennsylvania must approve the release plans 

of youth offenders and youth offenders may only be released from placement by 

order of court. 

Additionally, judges are required to hold placement reviews at least every six (6) 

months to monitor a juvenile’s progress in placement. These reviews are judge driven. The following questions should be answered at each review hearing. 

1. Is the juvenile making adequate progress in meeting the original goals of the 

disposition? 

2. Have the juvenile, the juvenile’s family, the probation department, the staff of 

the placement facility, and any other service providers done what the court has ordered or expected? 

3. Is out of home placement still necessary? 

4. Is a modification of the original disposition order needed? 

5. What steps have been taken to prepare for the juvenile’s return to the community? 

If the juvenile is in a Title IV-E reimbursable placement, in addition to the above 

inquiry, the judge is also required to make formal permanency findings. 

Although the judge receives recommendations from the probation officer, the staff 

from the placement facility, the lawyers, and many others, it is the judge, and only 

the judge, who determines whether or not a youth has satisfied his or her treatment 

goals, whether or not the juvenile can be released from placement, and when the 

juvenile’s case is closed. 

38

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Ms. Garcia. 

STATEMENT OF JANET GARCIA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ARIZONA 

STATE OFFICE FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES 

Ms. GARCIA. Good morning. I am honored to have been asked by 

Chairwoman McCarthy to speak on behalf of the Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention Act and the link between child welfare 

and juvenile justice. 

As Chairwoman McCarthy mentioned, one of the duties of the 

Division For Children, which I oversee, is to staff the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission, which is the Arizona State Advisory 

Group on juvenile justice as required by JJDPA. I was also a member of the State advisory group for 6 years prior to coming into my 

current position. So, prior to joining the Governor’s Office, I spent 

over 20 years working with troubled youth and families in the community. My experience allowed me to see firsthand the devastation 

caused by young people by abuse, abandonment and family disruption to young people and the barriers to improvement caused by a 

siloed system of services, a challenge throughout the United States. 

One of the most consistent programs for youth in my years in the 

community was the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Program, and I was happy to see that in the most recent reauthorization of the JJDP Act in 2002, this body recognized the link between 

child maltreatment and juvenile delinquency and articulated requirements that promote the interaction and coordination of childserving systems. Unfortunately, the additional priorities coupled 

with the 55-percent decrease in Federal funding over the last 5 

years has hindered efforts by the States to make reforms in this 

area. 

So what is the link between child welfare and juvenile justice? 

In 2005, there were nearly 900,000 substantiated cases of abuse 

and neglect in the United States. The Child Welfare League of 

America’s review of the research found that victims of child maltreatment are 59 percent more likely to commit delinquent acts 

and one-third more likely to commit violent acts as adults. Maltreated children are also more likely to experience a range of mental health, substance abuse, occupational and educational problems 

during adolescence and adulthood. 

A National Council on Juvenile Justice study on Arizona youth 

found that an incredible 73 percent of youth ages 14 to 17 with an 

active dependency had at least one delinquency referral. 49 percent 

were on probation, and 51 percent had been detained. Clearly, we 

must do better to identify and to divert these children and youth 

at the earliest possible point. 

Arizona has set about making changes in our system to address 

these issues. In January 2007, the Directors of the Departments of 

Health Services, Economic Security and Juvenile Corrections and 

the Chair of the Committee on Juvenile Courts signed the Letter 

of Agreement supporting duly adjudicated youth and the accompanying framework for interagency practice that was developed by 

an interagency task force. 

In May 2006, the Arizona State Advisory Group and the governor’s Division for Children jointly held a child welfare/juvenile 

justice summit for 15 multidisciplinary county teams and a State 

39

team, out of which the Interagency Coordination and Integration 

Initiative was established. A set of outcomes and strategies have 

been developed, and multiple committees are moving forward on 

priorities, including the publication of an information sharing 

guide, the organization of data across systems for better service delivery, and the development of prevention initiatives to divert 

youth from going deeper into the system. 

Our county teams have also moved forward with on-the-ground 

reforms, including that Maricopa County has collocated staff from 

Probation, Child Welfare and Mental Health at their juvenile detention centers to develop joint plans of service, and Pima County 

now holds child and family team meetings in the detention centers 

to move low- and medium-risked youth out of detention with appropriate support. The Arizona State Advisory Group has continued to 

provide leadership and financial support for these efforts. 

I would respectfully recommend that Congress expedite the reauthorization of the JJDP Act, incorporating language being proposed 

by the Child Welfare League of America and their colleagues to 

further strengthen and define the expectation for States to address 

the link between child welfare and juvenile justice, that Congress 

restore and increase funding of the JJDPA so that States have the 

resources necessary for studying, planning, implementing, and 

evaluating coordinated and integrated approaches to service, and 

finally, that OJJDP work together with national leaders, including 

CWLA and NCJJ to capture and to disseminate effective strategies 

from the field for collaboration and integration. 

Thank you for your concern about this issue, and thank you for 

giving me the opportunity to speak this morning. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Ms. Garcia. 

[The statement of Ms. Garcia follows:]

Prepared Statement of Janet Garcia, Deputy Director, Governor 

Napolitano’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, Director, Division 

for Children 

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

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

known as the JJDPA, and specifically, to speak on the link between child welfare 

and juvenile justice. 

My name is Janet Garcia and I am the Deputy Director of Arizona Governor 

Janet Napolitano’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and the Director of the Division for Children (DFC). The overall mission of GOCYF is to keep Arizona’s Families Safe, Strong and Prosperous. In addition to the Division for Children our office includes the Division for School Readiness, the Division for Substance Abuse Policy, the Division for Women and the Division of Community and 

Youth Development. The Division for Children’s purpose is to work to promote a coordinated and integrated system of care that responds quickly and comprehensively 

to the needs of children, youth and families with focus on those with involvement 

in state services. One of the duties of the Division for Children is to staff the Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission, which is Arizona’s State Advisory Group (SAG) 

on Juvenile Justice as required by the JJDPA. This Commission is comprised of 24 

members appointed by the Governor, each of whom has training, experience and 

special knowledge concerning the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency 

and the administration of juvenile justice. Our membership includes representation 

from juvenile justice agencies, other child- and family-serving agencies, private nonprofit organizations, locally elected officials, citizen-volunteers and youth. For the 

six years prior to joining the Governor’s Office, I served as a member of Arizona’s 

SAG representing community-based agencies. 

Prior to joining the Governor’s Office, I was the Executive Director of Tumbleweed 

Center for Youth Development (Tumbleweed). Tumbleweed is a community-based, 

non-profit agency located in central Phoenix and serving runaway, homeless, abused 

40

and delinquent youth and their families. I spent 20 years at Tumbleweed, first as 

a direct service provider, then as a program manager and, for 15 years as the Executive Director of the agency. My experience at Tumbleweed allowed me to see first 

hand the devastation caused to young people by abuse, abandonment and family 

disruption. I also was privileged to witness the incredible strength and resilience as 

well as the tenacity of hope in many of youth and families who passed through our 

doors. Many of the youth and families served had multiple challenges that required 

assistance from multiple systems. A frequent frustration for youth, families and the 

staff members supporting them was the often siloed systems that provided piecemeal assistance and sometimes set forth contradictory expectations that made success elusive. This experience of a fragmented system represents a microcosm of the 

experience of children, youth and families in need and those who assist them 

throughout the United States. 

Inclusion of coordination requirements in 2002 reauthorization of the JJDPA 

One of the most consistent programs in my years in the community and before 

was the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Program, both the Title II program and the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program. I was delighted to see that 

in the most recent reauthorization of the act in 2002 this body recognized the link 

between child maltreatment and juvenile delinquency, recognized the need for systems to coordinate to address the complex needs of our most at-risk children and 

families and articulated requirements that promote the interaction and coordination 

of these systems including that: 

• States, to the maximum extent possible, must establish policies and systems to 

incorporate relevant child protective services records into juvenile justice records for 

the purpose of establishing and implementing treatment plans for juvenile offenders. 

• States must ensure that juvenile offenders whose placement is funded by Title 

IV-E Foster Care receive all the protections included the foster care system, including a case plan and a case plan review. 

• The federal government will study juveniles who were under the care or custody 

of the child welfare system or who are unable to return to their family after completing their disposition in the juvenile justice system. The study shall include an 

examination of the extent to which state juvenile justice systems and child welfare 

systems coordinate services and treatment, the federal and local sources of funds 

for placements and services, and local sources of funds for placements and services, 

and the barriers faced by states in providing services to these juveniles. 

In addition to these provisions, the 2002 JJDPA reauthorization broadens the categories available to states to fund juvenile delinquency prevention and treatment. 

Unfortunately, the additional priorities coupled with the 55% decrease over the last 

five years in federal funding to the states for improvement of their juvenile justice 

systems has led to states being forced to choose between important funding priorities. Progress in reforming state systems to better integrate and coordinate systems 

has undoubtedly been hindered by the presence of fewer resources to not only maintain compliance with ongoing mandates but to address additional requirements. 

What is the link between child welfare and juvenile justice? 

The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) has recognized the undeniable link 

between child maltreatment and juvenile delinquency and has accepted the mantle 

of leadership in addressing the need for improved cooperation between systems for 

the achievement of better outcomes for youth and families involved in multiple systems. A survey of the research conducted by CWLA documents the long-term consequences of child abuse and neglect including the increased likelihood of abused 

and neglected youth being involved in the juvenile justice system. 

In 2005, there were just less than 900,000 substantiated cases of abuse and neglect in the United States. As disturbing as these official figures are in describing 

the human tragedy, they mask the real toll of child abuse and neglect in the country. The research presented in CWLA’s work, Understanding Child Maltreatment 

and Juvenile Delinquency: From Research to Effective Program, Practice, and Systemic Solutions provides undeniable evidence that victims of childhood maltreatment often enter the juvenile justice system and become tomorrow’s serious and violent offenders. Our nation’s maltreated children are not only more likely than other 

children to commit delinquent acts as adolescents and crimes as adults, but they 

are also more likely to experience a range of mental health, substance abuse, occupational, and educational deficiencies during adolescence and adulthood. Though 

many of these children demonstrate a remarkable resiliency and can grow up to be 

productive adults, credible research reflects that abused and neglected children are 

41

nearly one-third more likely to be arrested for violent crimes later in life. These 

youth are 59% more likely to commit delinquent acts than non-maltreated youth. 

Arizona is fortunate to have been the site of one of the only comprehensive efforts 

to drill down further on this issue by studying dual jurisdiction youth. That is, 

youth who have been declared dependent due to abuse, neglect or abandonment and 

who have also been found delinquent by the juvenile court. The Arizona Dual Jurisdiction Study (Executive Summary Attached) was conducted by the National Center 

for Juvenile Justice for the Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the 

Courts, Dependent Services Division. 

For the study, summary information on each child’s involvement with the court 

was extracted from the Juvenile On-line Tracking System for all juveniles with active dependency, delinquency or status referral/petition in state FY2002 (7/1/01 

through 6/30/02) for four of Arizona’s fifteen Counties, two urban and two rural, representing over 80% of the states population. Data was available on each case 

through August 2003. Some of the findings of the study include: 

1. Youth with histories of court involvement on dependency matters are twice as 

likely to recidivate if referred on a delinquency offense as juveniles with no history 

of dependency court involvement (62% vs. 30%) 

2. In contrast to general population juveniles where girls are less likely to 

recidivate than males, girls with dependency court involvement are as likely as their 

male counterparts to re-offend. 

3. Seventy-three percent of youth ages 14—17 with an active dependency had at 

least one delinquency referral, 49% were on probation and 51% were detained at 

some point. 

4. Dual jurisdiction youth tend to start their delinquency careers earlier and have 

a more extensive and serious delinquency history than court youth without dependency court involvement. 

This study of Dual Jurisdiction youth did not specifically address differential impact by race and ethnicity; however, it is clear that youth of color are over-represented in the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system. It is also clear 

that this over-representation increases at the deep end of the juvenile justice system 

just as it does for youth with involvement in the dependency system. NCJJ has proposed to OJJDP a follow up study that would include a closer analysis of race and 

ethnicity of dually adjudicated youth. 

Clearly, children who suffer maltreatment are more likely to become involved 

with the juvenile justice system. They are also more likely to need support services 

from other child serving agencies that provide mental health and supported education services. We must take ownership of this problem, fully acknowledge the consequences, and develop collaborative, multi-system solutions to prevent child abuse 

and neglect and interrupt the costly trajectory—in human and financial terms—of 

these children as they digress toward a lifetime of delinquency and adult criminality. 

Another major research project that is supported by OJJDP funding, Pathways to 

Desistance for Serious and Violent Offenders is looking at factors that contribute to 

the trajectory of offending in a cohort of 1,200 youth (now young adults) from Maricopa County, Arizona and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Principle investigator Dr. Edward Mulvey and his research team are currently gathering data from the child welfare system at both sites with the intent to analyze the effect of child welfare involvement on delinquency and criminal behavior of individuals in the study. This 

effort will provide additional valuable information on the effect of maltreatment on 

delinquency and on adult criminal behavior. 

National efforts to address the link between child welfare and juvenile justice 

Based on the research, including the findings of the Arizona Dual Jurisdiction 

Study, the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) has published a Special 

Project Bulletin, When Systems Collide: Improving Court Practices and Programs 

in Dual Jurisdiction Cases, (attached) that makes a compelling case for coordinated 

multi-system interventions that interrupt this remarkably costly trajectory for our 

nation’s most disadvantaged youth. In the bulletin, the authors outline five areas 

in which child welfare and juvenile justice agencies can work to coordinate and improve their services for dual jurisdiction youth. These include: 

• Screening and assessment 

• Case assignment 

• Case flow management 

• Case planning and supervision, and 

• Interagency collaboration 

CWLA, through the support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, has developed the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems Integration IniVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:45 Apr 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-63\37692.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
42

tiative (summary attached). The initiative provides consultation and technical assistance to juvenile justice, child welfare, and other relevant youth-serving organizations and agencies regarding the connection between child maltreatment and juvenile delinquency, and the need for an integrated approach to programs and services. 

The initiative uses a four-phase framework for strategic planning that is designed 

to improve outcomes for dual jurisdiction youth and families or those who populate 

multiple youth systems. The effort is designed to develop reformed statutes, policies, 

procedures, protocols, and practices that will lead to improved outcomes. The CWLA 

framework, articulates the many issues in which CWLA focuses its consultation, 

training and technical assistance. These include: 

• Mobilization & Advocacy 

• Establishment of Governance & Structure 

• Multi-system Data Collection & Management 

• Information Sharing & Confidentiality 

• Coordination of Funding Resources 

• Multi-system Screening and Assessment 

• Legal & Policy Analysis (federal, state, and local) 

Arizona’s efforts at integration and coordination between child services systems 

In December 2004, in response to the NCJJ report on Arizona’s dual jurisdiction 

youth, the Governor’s Division for Children took the lead in organizing an interagency taskforce to develop an agreement and framework for working together to 

provide coordinated, integrated services to youth and families involved in multiple 

systems. The group included representatives for child welfare, mental health, the 

courts, probation, parole and family members. Policy makers and practitioners as 

well as state and local representation were sought. The Division for Children, Youth 

and Families within the Arizona Department of Economic Security provided ongoing 

staffing and leadership to bring this diverse group of individuals together to develop 

the Letter of Agreement Supporting Dually Adjudicated Youth and the accompanying Framework for Interagency Practice Protocol. (A copy is included in the appendix.) In January 2007, the Directors of the Departments of Health Services, Economic Security and Juvenile Corrections signed the agreement as did the Chair of 

the Committee on Juvenile Courts. This landmark document sets out an agreement 

between Arizona’s primary child serving agencies to increase integration and collaboration and sets out a framework by which this system improvement will occur. 

Another major effort to better integrate and coordinate our child serving system 

was launched in May 2006 when the Arizona SAG and the Governor’s Division for 

Children jointly held a Child Welfare Juvenile Justice Summit. At our invitation, 

multidisciplinary teams from each Arizona county and a state-level team—totaling 

nearly 250 attendees—gathered together to participate in a learning and planning 

Summit to help promote greater integration in the provision of services to children 

and families in their communities. The Child Welfare League of America provided 

training in their planning Framework at the Summit and has continued to provide 

invaluable technical assistance as we have moved forward with the planning and 

implementation of Arizona’s model. The Summit, supported by funds administered 

by the Arizona SAG, led to the official establishment of the Interagency Coordination and Integration Initiative, which is currently working to (1) identify youth and 

families at-risk for multiple systems involvement earlier, (2) provide more comprehensive and effective services, and (3) cultivate improved outcomes for children 

and youth who are at-risk for, or who have experienced maltreatment. A set of outcomes and strategies (copy attached) have been developed from which a blueprint 

for action is being completed. Parallel to the completion of the blueprint, multiple 

committees are moving forward to take action on some of the priority items including: 

• The Letter of Agreement is being disseminated and discussed across the state 

to staff at all levels. A training curriculum is being developed combining in person 

and web-based approaches. 

• An information sharing guide patterned on the guide produced in King County, 

Washington is being developed to clarify the guidelines for sharing information between systems that both protects confidentiality and dispels common myths that restrict the flow of important information. 

• Methods are being developed to find and organize data across systems so that 

direct service workers have the information necessary to appropriately serve youth 

and families and so that we have the information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of our efforts on behalf of these youth and families. 

• We are looking at ways to prevent penetration of youth deeper into the child 

welfare, mental health and juvenile justice systems including: 

43

–Identification and support of younger siblings of our highest risk youth to prevent the trajectory of these younger siblings into the system. 

–Joint training of agency and community provider staff on adolescent development and principles of positive youth development. 

–Updating of licensing and contract regulations to reflect current best practice approaches including strength-based service and positive youth development approaches. 

While the state team has gone about identifying and addressing barriers to integration, we have remained aware that the actual activities of integration and coordination happen at the local service level. Therefore, it is most encouraging that in 

many areas of our state, local teams are moving forward with specific changes in 

policy, procedure and practice to better serve youth involved in multiple systems. 

Ten of Arizona’s fifteen Counties have interagency teams that continue to meet to 

address issues and develop processes to work together for better outcomes for youth 

and families. Some of the activities of the County Teams include: 

• Maricopa County now has co-located staff from Probation, Child Welfare and 

Mental Health at each of the two juvenile detention centers. These teams work together to develop case plans to divert status offending and incorrigible youth out 

of the delinquency court. 

• Pima County now holds Child and Family Team meetings in the detention centers to move low and medium risk youth out of detention with support systems in 

place to lower the risk of return. 

• Cochise, Graham and Greenlee Counties, three contiguous rural counties in 

southeast Arizona, have developed a formal agreement regarding how staff from different child serving agencies and across county boundaries will interact with one another to present a seamless system of care to youth and families. 

• Pinal County has partnered with the Governor’s Division for Children to obtain 

a pilot grant from the federal Shared Vision for Youth Partnership to implement 

a pilot program called Partners Assuring Youth Success (PAYS) providing peer mentoring and work force skill development to youth aging out of the child welfare and/

or juvenile justice system to improve employment outcomes for enrolled youth. 

The Arizona SAG has continued their commitment to this effort and to the engagement of local communities through committing funding for ’mini-summits’ 

planned by interested local teams to assist them in moving forward local initiatives 

to better integrate and coordinate services. Casey Family Programs has agreed to 

match SAG funding to allow more counties this opportunity. 

Challenges 

• While the work of this Initiative has been extremely rewarding and valuable, 

long term change involves changing organizational cultures around sharing of information and collaboration of effort. It has been important to look for and celebrate 

short-term wins on what must be a sustained journey. 

• Categorical funding requirements create barriers to coordination and integration of services and can create competition between agencies for use of limited resources. 

• Decentralized systems including Arizona’s mental health system and education 

system require the engagement of multiple entities with sometimes diverse opinions 

and approaches. 

Recommendations 

1. Congress should expedite reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice Delinquency 

Act incorporating language being proposed by the Child Welfare League of America 

and their colleagues to further strengthen and define the expectations for states to 

address the link between child welfare and juvenile justice. 

2. Congress should restore and increase funding of the JJDPA so that states have 

the resources necessary for studying, planning and implementing and evaluating coordinated and integrated approaches to service. 

3. OJJDP should work together with national leaders addressing the link between 

child welfare and juvenile justice including CWLA and NCJJ to capture and disseminate effective strategies from the field for collaboration and integration. 

[Ms. Garcia’s responses to questions for the record follow:]

44

GOVERNOR’S OFFICE FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES, 

State of Arizona, October 1, 2007. 

Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House 

Office Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MILLER AND CHAIRWOMAN MCCARTHY: Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the U.S. House of Representatives Education and Labor 

Committee, Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities. Below are my answers to the additional questions posed by Representatives Scott, Grijalva and 

Yarmuth. I have attached supporting documents where appropriate. Please let me 

know if I can be of any further assistance. 

The following five responses address Representative Scott’s questions.

Question: What consequences result from imprisoning juveniles with adults?

Imprisoning juveniles with adults does not improve public safety, nor does incarceration with adults help youth make an appropriate transition to adulthood. A 

2000 publication from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance 

titled Juveniles in Adult Prisons and Jails reported that youth held in adult jails 

are five times more likely to be the victims of sexual attacks and eight times more 

likely to commit suicide than youth held in juvenile institutions. 

While I served as the Executive Director of Tumbleweed, a community-based, nonprofit agency serving runaway, homeless, abused and delinquent youth and their 

families, I participated as a member of the Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee in 

October 2001 convened by the Children’s Action Alliance (CAA). The Committee examined issues surrounding the transfer of juveniles to adult court and explored options for system improvement. The purpose of the Committee was to identify key 

issues surrounding the treatment of juvenile offenders as adults and help CAA set 

priorities for future juvenile justice advocacy efforts that could be initiated to promote positive changes. CAA ultimately produced a report, Prosecuting Juveniles in 

the Adult Criminal Justice System that includes the data from interviews and site 

visits to county jail facilities in Maricopa and Pima counties. The findings from that 

report include: 

• Services for youth prosecuted as adults are extremely limited at the national 

and state levels—largely because facilities and agencies designed to serve adults do 

have not have the capacity to address the unique needs of adolescents. For example, 

even though Pima County Adult Probation Department estimated that at least 80% 

of juveniles had diagnosed mental disorders, counseling services were extremely limited. 

• Adult jails in Arizona are not equipped to respond to the special needs of juveniles. There were many reasons for this, including the extra costs associated with 

providing age-appropriate or developmentally-appropriate services. At the Madison 

Street Maricopa County jail, education programs were limited to 3 hours per day 

and did not provide an option for obtaining a diploma. 

• There is extremely limited training for jail personnel related to juvenile issues 

and needs. Some law enforcement and jail personnel were reluctant to accommodate 

the needs of youth in jails because they believed that harsher conditions would lead 

to more deterrence. However, in my experience, and as the recent adolescent development research confirms, adolescents do not rationally consider the consequences 

of their actions before acting. Rather, harsh environments contribute to youth problems. 

A national publication produced by the Bureau of Justice Assistance entitled Juveniles in Adult Prisons and Jails: A National Assessment, released in 2000. The 

major findings of that report are: 1) approximately 107,000 youth under age 18 are 

incarcerated on any given day. Of these approximately 14,500 are housed in adult 

facilities; 2) the actual number of youth who experience incarceration in an adult 

prison is much higher than the 1-day count, with an estimated 13,876 juvenile state 

prison admissions in 1997; and 3) few states operate programs specifically designed 

to meet the needs of youthful offenders. The key recommendations of that report are 

for states to develop specialized programs that will be responsive to meet the developmental needs of youthful offenders, and to enhance the expertise and training for 

staff working with youth. I would propose that these activities are best accomplished by keeping youth in the juvenile justice system with strong training and 

support for staff in that system to provide developmentally appropriate services that 

enhance positive outcomes for youth and for the community.

Question: What consequences result from imprisoning juveniles convicted of status 

offenses?

The Arizona State Three-Year Plan for addressing JJDPA priorities includes an 

emphasis on the use of home and community-based care for status offenders and 

45

bolstering overall use of alternatives to detention. We see school success and family 

engagement as paramount in improving the life circumstances of vulnerable and at 

risk youth. Out of home placement or use of detention disrupts a children’s sense 

of well being as well as his/her educational progress. Sadly, too, youth of color are 

more often detained than their white counterparts. 

Detention in general, and particularly for status offenders, has been widely shown 

to be destructive rather than productive. Nearly 70% of detained youth are held in 

facilities operating above capacity, nationwide. Under such conditions, discipline can 

become unduly harsh; education and medical and mental health treatment are often 

meager. Among youth in crowded detention facilities, there are a high number of 

reports of suicidal behavior, as well as stress-related and psychiatric illness. The 

Annie E. Casey Foundation’s review of research on the effects of detention on youth 

has found that rather than being a deterrent to delinquency, multiple confinements 

in detention is a powerful predictor of future delinquency with more predictive certainty than weapons charges, gang membership or poor parenting. 

Here in Arizona we have turned to evidenced-based models, such as the Annie E. 

Casey Foundation’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) which provides states and communities—including ours—with tools to reduce reliance on secure confinement and to provide appropriate detention alternatives for status offenders. There are now approximately 75 JDAI sites in 19 states and the District 

of Columbia. 

In Arizona, Pima County (Tucson area) is a participating JDAI site and has been 

highly successful in lowering the numbers of youth in detention without negatively 

impacting recidivism or failure to attend court hearings. Between 2003 and 2007 

Pima County Juvenile Court has lowered the average daily population in detention 

from 173 to 127. They have revised their intake screening tool to assure that the 

instrument is objective and focused on the youths risk to the community. They have 

created strong partnerships with the mental health and child welfare system so that 

youth are not detained due to unaddressed mental health or dependency issues. 

They have, in partnership with community providers, opened a range of community 

alternatives including an Evening Reporting Center for youth on Intensive Probation, and a diversion program for youth referred on minor domestic disturbance 

charges. The Pima County site and other sites around the country can act as models 

for other jurisdictions in the country on reforming our system so that detention is 

used only to assure public safety and assure youth appear at court hearings, its 

original and legitimate purposes. 

New York-based Vera Institute of Justice’s Center on Youth Justice has also made 

inroads in addressing status offenses by increasing objective decision-making in status offense processes. In 2002, New York State contracted with Vera Institute to improve systems and services for status offenders and their families in 23 counties. 

Several counties have now taken steps to refine their intake processes to incorporate 

more immediate crisis intervention, develop programmatic alternatives to non-secure detention and foster care placement, and provide more supportive services to 

status offenders and their families—especially truants—in lieu of court intervention. 

Momentum generated from these local reforms prompted the state to pass amendments to New York’s Family Court Act in 2005 that enhance diversion requirements 

for status offenders and narrow the circumstances under which status offenders 

may lawfully be detained, see www.verainstitute.org.

Question: Effective ways to decrease proportion of minorities in the juvenile justice system?

Youth of color have been found to be overrepresented at nearly every point of contact with the juvenile justice system—and the finding is disturbingly persistent over 

time. The disparities are most pronounced at the arrest stage but the effects tend 

to accumulate through each subsequent processing stage, subtly amplifying the 

original differences, so that the racial and ethnic make-up of a ‘‘deep-end’’ commitment facility (juvenile corrections institution or adult prison) at the end of the line 

is often grossly disproportionate to that of the youth population at large. Whether 

these stark inequalities are the result of biases in decision-making, social or economic differences that are merely correlated with race and ethnicity, or more complex structural factors—such as the availability of resources, services, and alternatives in some communities and not others—they are unacceptable in a democratic 

society. 

The W. Haywood Burns Institute is currently working in multiple jurisdictions 

across the country including Pima County, Arizona is a leader in addressing issues 

related to Disproportionate Minority Confinement. In May 2004, Pima County Juvenile Court and community stakeholders began a collaborative effort to eliminate disparate treatment and improve outcomes for minority youth involved in the juvenile 

46

justice system in conjunction with their Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative. 

Essential to the success of their initiative, has been their development and implementation of a strategic plan that included five goals, specific objectives to achieve 

those goals, concrete action steps, and clear timeframes for action. Pima Counties 

Plan and recent accomplishments can be viewed on their website at http://

www.pcjcc.pima.gov/jdai/jdai.htm. 

The Building Blocks for Youth Initiative for Youth 2005 Publication No Turning 

Back (Executive Summary Attached) enumerates some of the promising approaches 

to addressing DMC including: • Advocates should intentionally focus on racial and ethnic disparities. • Solid research and relevant data are powerful tools for reform. • Effective reform usually requires multiple strategies. • Media advocacy can be a powerful tool to level the playing field • Success can be measured in multiple ways including the central goal of eliminating disparity but also including reduction in overall rates of incarceration so that 

result in fewer youth of color being detained, changing allocation of funding to better address DMC, and amending laws the disparately effect youth of color. 

Attached is a report from JDAI explaining the process for addressing racial disparities, Pathway 8: Reducing Racial Disparities in Detention.

Question: What are the most effective ways to decrease the proportion of individuals with mental illness in the juvenile justice system?

The National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice recently released, 

Blueprint for Change: A Comprehensive Model for the Identification and Treatment 

of Youth with Mental Health Needs in Contact with the Juvenile Justice System 

(attached). The Blueprint is the first ever systematic review of the juvenile justice 

system in its entirety—from intake to re-entry—to identify ways in which mental 

health service delivery strategies can be strengthened. The bottom line presented 

in the report is not complicated: 

• Stronger partnerships are needed between the juvenile justice and mental 

health systems. 

• Improved and systematic strategies are needed for early screening and assessment of youth coming into contact with the system so that mental health issues are 

accurately identified. 

• Enhanced diversion opportunities are needed so youth with mental health needs 

can be treated in the community; and 

• Juvenile justice agencies need increased access to effective mental health treatment. 

The report also sets forth nine principles that could be adopted in the JJDPA as 

guiding principles for jurisdictions addressing mental health issues in juvenile justice. These principles include: 

1. Youth should not have to enter the juvenile justice system solely in order to 

access mental health services or because of their mental illness. 

2. Whenever possible and when matters of public safety allow, youth with mental 

health needs should be diverted into evidence-based treatment in a community setting. 

3. If diversion out of the juvenile justice system is not possible, youth should be 

placed in the least restrictive setting possible, with access to evidence-based treatment. 

4. Information collected as part of a pre-adjudicatory mental health screen should 

not be used in any way the might jeopardize the legal interests of youth as defendants. 

5. All mental health services provided to youth in contact with the juvenile justice 

system should respond to issues of gender, ethnicity, race, age, sexual orientation, 

socio-economic status, and faith. 

6. Mental health services should meet the developmental realities of youth. 

7. Whenever possible, families and/or caregivers should be partners in the development of treatment decisions and plans made for their children. 

8. Multiple systems bear responsibility for these youth. While at different times, 

a single agency may have primary responsibility, these youth are the community’s 

responsibility and all responses developed for these youth should be collaborative in 

nature, reflecting the input and involvement of the mental health, juvenile justice 

and other systems. 

9. Services and strategies aimed at improving the identification and treatment of 

youth with mental health needs in the juvenile justice system should be routinely 

evaluated to determine their effectiveness in meeting desired goals and outcomes.

Question: Are there any conditions of confinement issues, particularly regarding 

availability of education that must be addressed in the JJDPA reauthorization?

47

In reauthorizing the JJDPA, Congress has the opportunity to raise awareness of 

the importance that conditions of confinement have in maintaining the safety and 

wellbeing of youth. Arizona has very personal experience in this regard having been 

investigated by the US Department of Justice under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) in June 2002 as a result of inadequate attention to 

the conditions of 3 of our juvenile institutions. Evidence of abuse was found as well 

as inadequate facilities, educational programming, and mental health services. 

Once the conditions were brought to light, however, Arizona cooperated with the 

Justice Department to make substantial improvements such that on September 21, 

2007, the U.S. Department of Justice dismissed the case against us. Although Arizona is no longer under investigation, we will remain vigilant and ensure that conditions do not deteriorate. JJDPA can provide leadership in raising the awareness 

of proper conditions of confinement, so that states are more aware of the dangers 

that lurk in their institutions and vigilant about protecting the rights of some of 

their most vulnerable youth. If the JJDPA included specific recommendations for 

proper conditions, such as those included in the JDAI Self-Assessment Practice 

Guide, I believe youth incarcerated in institutions across America would benefit. Alternatively, the JJDPA could offer states incentives to create independent monitoring offices to identify harmful conditions in their juvenile facilities. The establishment of independent state monitoring authorities with sufficient power to require 

changes where harmful practices are found could ensure that youth are not housed 

in unsafe and detrimental environments. 

Beyond protecting youth from dangerous situations it is important that we provide quality education, mental health and skill building services to youth during 

their period of confinement so that the potential for successful reintegration is enhanced. It has been established that detention and incarceration interrupts normal 

development and distance youth from the positive institutions in the community. It 

is crucial that we do not further disadvantage youth by allowing them to lag further 

behind in educational achievement and allowing mental health issues to go 

unaddressed. 

The following response addresses Representative Grijalva’s question.

Question: I am developing legislation to authorize a reentry formula grant program 

to states to support pre-release planning and reentry services targeted to youth offenders. Would such funds be helpful to your state?

Yes, funds to support pre-release planning and reentry services would be very 

helpful to Arizona. 

National research indicates that the recidivism rate for juvenile parolees ranges 

from 55 to 75 percent. An Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections study found 

that 44% of youth released from a department facility in 1999 had re-entered an 

Arizona state facility (returned to Juvenile Corrections or entered Adult Corrections) 

within 36 months of release. 

With approximately 100,000 youth with significant mental health, substance 

abuse, educational and behavioral needs as well as normal developmental needs, returning to the community from residential placement each year successful reintegration is a challenge for across the country. Unfortunately, most of the resources have 

been focused on the period of time that youth incarcerated in a facility with inadequate attention to the pre-release planning and reentry to the community. 

A review of The MacAruthur Foundation Models for Change Pennsylvania site 

publication on Aftercare and the National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile 

Justice Publication Critical Intervention Point: Re-entry indicates a consistent set 

of principles and priorities necessary for successful reintegration of youth into the 

community including: 

• Strong collaboration at the state and county levels to align institutional treatment planning and programming with reintegration and programs and services 

• Timely, accurate information exchange 

• Enhanced training for institutional staff and community providers in content 

areas crucial to healthy youth development and successful post-institutional adjustment including the need for a graduated system of responsibility and freedom 

• Training and other support to help system, community and family players advocate effectively for aftercare and planning services 

• Continuous and consistent access to services 

• Coordination of efforts to re-enroll young offenders in school 

• Support for more uniform monitoring of aftercare planning and service provision 

The importance of each of these principles has been borne out in my 20 years of 

experience in the community and should be considered for inclusion in legislation. 

When the above principles are applied and youth succeed in complete a basic eduVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:45 Apr 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-63\37692.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
48

cation program, develop basic job skills and develop sustained positive relationships 

with caring adults the potential for success increases exponentially. 

After three years of intensive work to improve conditions in the institutions under 

the Department of Justice, Civil Rights of Incarcerated Persons agreement, Arizona 

is committed to maintaining the gains accomplished in our facilities but also to 

turning attention to building stronger reintegration services. Support in the form of 

a formula grant would assist us in comprehensively addressing this issue. 

The following six responses address Representative Yarmuth’s questions. Note: 

Question 7 is a repeat of question 2 on Representative Yarmuth’s list.

Question: In your written testimony you discuss the fact that it is clear that children of color are overrepresented in the child welfare system and the juvenile justice 

system. You continue on to discuss the deep end of the JJ system. Can you elaborate 

on what you mean be deep end in the JJ system and discuss the correlation?

Multiple national research studies have found that children of color are over-represented in both the child welfare and the juvenile justice system. This over-representation escalates as the level of intervention intensifies. 

Youth of color are increasingly over-represented in the juvenile justice system as 

the intensity of intervention increases. And Justice for Some, a publication (attached) of the Building Blocks for Youth Initiative, documents that while representing just 34% of the United States population in 1997, minority youth represented 62% of the youth in detention, 67% of youth committed to juvenile corrections facilities and 75% of youth admitted to adult prisons (the deepest end of the 

system). Over-representation has consistently been documented when controlling for 

a wide range of factors including severity of offense and prior offenses. 

In the child welfare system children of color are more likely to be the subject of 

reports of abuse, more likely to be assigned for investigation and when abuse is substantiated more likely to be placed in out-of-home care. The gap is largest between 

African-American and Caucasian children with the United States Children Bureau 

reporting that in 1997 56% of African American children receiving child welfare 

services were in out-of-home settings such as foster homes while 72% of Caucasian 

children received services in home. This over-representation of children in out-ofhome care in the child welfare system is significant to the juvenile justice system 

because, as the National Council for Juvenile Justice Study of Arizona youth found, 

youth in out-of-home care were more likely to become involved in the juvenile justice 

system and more likely to penetrate more deeply into that system.

Question: Can you go into detail on some of the barriers experienced by AZ as it 

attempts to integrate the child welfare and JJ systems, and what role, if any, the 

Federal government can play in helping states break down these barriers?

The juvenile justice, child welfare, mental health and education systems are all 

discrete systems in Arizona with separate missions, visions and goals. The juvenile 

justice system is further bifurcated into the County Court and Probation system and 

the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) with youth committed to 

the state for institutionalization and treatment when problems escalate. 

Some of the separation of duties and responsibilities is necessary to accomplish 

the complex set of responsibilities we have for our children. However, when children, youth and families are involved in multiple systems, it is also important for 

individuals to various systems to communicate and coordinate so that services of 

non-duplicative, non-contradictory and comprehensive but manageable. When systems do not work together it is common for children and their families to have conflicting case plans, conflicting appointments, overwhelming schedules of expectations 

and to consequently become discouraged and overwhelmed. 

The Federal government can assist in breaking down barriers by: 

• Providing direction to states on what information can be shared and with whom 

• Relaxing restrictions on funding so that some funds can be pooled together to 

address complex cases in a comprehensive manner 

• Re-examine funding rules that reward the placement of dependent children and 

youth in out of home care settings and provide disincentives for in-home services 

and relative placements despite current research that consistently shows children 

and youth have better outcomes when families can be kept intact or, when this is 

not possible relatives are utilized as an alternative placement. 

• Including in the JJDPA specific expectations that state systems develop information sharing policies and institute policies regarding the coordination of cases 

across systems 

• Restore and increase funding for JJDPA authorized programs so that states 

have adequate resources to develop, implement and evaluate coordination and integration initiatives.

49

Question: In your written testimony you presented statistics from the Arizona Dual 

Jurisdiction study which you believe has shown that children who suffer from dependency issues are more likely to have negative juvenile justice outcomes than nondependent youth. • Do you believe enough is currently being done to treat dependency issues among 

the juvenile population either in detention or in probation?

No. Outcomes for youth with dependency issues who are involved in the juvenile 

justice system are consistently worse than for youth without dependency issues. Increased special attention is necessary to address the special needs of this population.

• What more could be done at the federal level to deal with dependency issues in 

the juvenile justice system?

1. Emphasize early, comprehensive assessment for children and youth consistent 

across systems so that the needs of the child and family are fully understood. 

2. Support family involvement and home-based services in accordance with effective practice 

3. Support expanded substance abuse treatment for parents and for youth to prevent family disruption and/or minimize the length of separation 

4. Support the development of model information sharing guides (such as the King 

County Guide attached) that set out the parameters for sharing information under 

federal law and provide a blueprint for incorporating state guidelines.

Question: In your written testimony, you mention the need for interagency collaboration between the child welfare and juvenile justice communities.

• Are there any privacy issues involved in these kinds of collaborations? 

• Under what circumstances should juvenile justice practitioners have access to 

child welfare case-files that include medical histories?

Yes, privacy issues must be considered when engaging in collaborative efforts. 

However, laws concerning confidentiality allow for sharing of information between 

professionals when doing so is in the best interest of the child. This, along with protecting a child’s right to due process should be the guidelines by which we decide 

when juvenile justice professionals have access to files including medical information. We are finding that often, the failure to share information is due to a lack of 

understanding of the parameters of confidentiality. An important part of the collaborative process is to develop and publish and train staff on clear guidelines for information sharing across systems. Arizona is currently developing such a document 

modeled after the King County, Washington Information Sharing Guidebook (attached).

Question: How can the Federal government help to address the decentralized systems that engage multiple entities in the care of children with diverse goals and procedures, if possible?

• Examine federal funding streams to eliminate disincentives and create incentives for sharing resources across systems 

• Establish expectations and incentives for collaboration and integration across 

systems 

• Support research and technical assistance to states and localities to accomplish 

system re-structuring and re-training of the workforce

Question: In your written testimony, you list 7 items that lead to improved outcomes for children in both the child welfare and JJ systems. I’d be interested in 

learning if you feel that the Committee should explore including such activities in 

JJDPA, and if so which ones and how might we do so?

I believe you are referring to the steps articulated in the Child Welfare League 

of America Framework for Coordination and Integration listed on page 7 of my 

original testimony. If this is correct, I would suggest that the ideas behind these 

steps be incorporated into the JJDPA but that a requirement to utilize this model 

exclusively would be too restrictive to state and local entities addressing this issue. 

Inclusion of expectations that states address multi-system data collection, information sharing, coordination of funding resources, cross-system screening and assessment and integrated case planning and management along with appropriate resources and support to accomplish these tasks should be included in the JJDPA. 

Sincerely, 

JANET GARCIA, Deputy Director GOCYF, 

Director Division for Children. 

[Additional materials submitted by Ms. Garcia follow:] 

50

[Letter of agreement supporting dually adjudicated youth and 

their families in Arizona follows:]


agree-1.eps
51


agree-2.eps
52


agree-3.eps
53


agree-4.eps
54


agree-5.eps
55


agree-6.eps
56

[Internet address to ‘‘Reducing Racial Disparities in Juvenile Detention,’’ a project of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, follows:]

http://www.aecf.org/upload/publicationfiles/reducing%20racial%20disparities.pdf 

[Internet address to ‘‘And Justice for Some,’’ located on the Building Blocks for Youth website, follows:]


agree-7.eps
57

http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/justiceforsome/jfs.html 

Arizona Dual Jurisdiction Study

By GREGORY J. HALEMBA; GENE C. SIEGEL; RACHAEL D. LORD; SUSANNA ZAWACKI

This report was prepared by the National Center for Juvenile Justice, the research 

division of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, for the Arizona Supreme Court, Adminstrative Office of the Courts, Dependent Children Services Division. 

Executive Summary—Introduction and Background 

In March 2003, the Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts 

(AOC) entered into a contract with the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) 

to conduct a study of youth who experience simultaneous dependency1 and delinquency court involvement. These so-called ‘‘dual jurisdiction’’ or ‘‘dually involved’’ 

cases2 pose unique dilemmas for juvenile courts and child welfare agencies across 

the country. 

The Arizona study required NCJJ to examine barriers to effective court handling 

of dual jurisdiction cases, and to provide recommendations to address the challenges 

posed by this population. NCJJ worked closely with the AOC and the four study 

sites (the juvenile courts in Cochise, Coconino, Maricopa, and Pima counties) to establish the study’s parameters. 

A growing body of research confirms the strong correlation between child maltreatment and subsequent delinquency. There has been very little research, however, conducted on how best to process or intervene in cases in which an adolescent 

is concurrently before the court on both delinquency and dependency matters, particularly teenagers 13 years of age and older. Numerous questions arise regarding 

the proper court response in these matters (including whether case consolidation is 

appropriate), the degree of case coordination between juvenile probation/parole, 

child welfare and behavioral health required to effectively intervene in these cases; 

and how best to access and fund the myriad of expensive services these youth typically need to at least provide them a realistic opportunity to spend their teen-age 

years in living arrangements that have some semblance of permanency, a realistic 

opportunity to become functional, law-abiding adults, and to address immediate and 

long-term community safety issues. 

The findings of a brief national survey conducted by NCJJ, covered in a paper 

funded through an Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) 

grant and entitled When Systems Collide: Improving Court Practices and Programs 

in Dual Jurisdiction Cases (see Appendix A), and our experience in numerous courts 

across the country, confirm that a relatively small number of courts, probation departments, and child welfare agencies have instituted special court practices and/

or comprehensive programs specifically for dual jurisdiction matters. This paper (developed in conjunction with work on this current project) highlights promising courtbased practices and programs that have the potential to address the difficult challenges posed by dual jurisdiction cases. It is an initial effort to present what juvenile 

courts are currently doing or what juvenile courts can do to improve coordination 

of dual jurisdiction matters.3

Dual jurisdiction cases present unique challenges to the juvenile court/juvenile 

probation, child welfare, and the behavioral/mental health communities. Because of 

their complexity, these cases drain scarce resources from child welfare agencies, probation departments, behavioral health systems of care, and the courts themselves. 

They prompt unintended duplication of case management efforts. They usually 

guarantee the influx of multiple parties and professionals, some with conflicting 

goals and missions, adding substantial costs and detracting from effective and timely action. 

Almost by definition, dual jurisdiction youth defy singular categorization. Dual 

system youth display an exceptional range of behaviors, needs, and risks. We believe, along with many child welfare and juvenile justice professionals in Arizona, 

that the unique characteristics of dual jurisdiction cases and the systemic impact 

these cases present, require different approaches than standard probation, standard 

child welfare, or standard behavioral health case management. The challenge, of 

course, is how to implement effective changes in times of austere resources. 

This report documents some of the special approaches being taken in each of the 

four study sites. Until a few years ago, efforts to more effectively handle dual system matters in Arizona have been marred by the often adversarial relationships between CPS and juvenile probation. This dynamic tension was frequently related to 

the lack of resources and funding to serve this special population, as well as the 

58

‘‘lack of clarity as to the roles and responsibilities’’ of juvenile probation and CPS 

in the supervision, case management and provision of services in these cases. Much 

has changed in this regard. Fieldwork conducted in the four targeted counties, reveal evidence of expanded interagency collaboration and cooperation at the local and 

state levels, though a strong consensus persists regarding the need to continue to 

improve. 

We believe this study provides empirical support for handling dual jurisdiction 

cases differently than others. Two data sets were analyzed over the course of this 

study—an extract of data from the participating county juvenile courts’ automated 

systems (JOLTS),4 and data manually collected by NCJJ project staff from court 

files (that is, legal files maintained by the Clerk of the Court’s office and social files 

maintained by court probation staff and CPS liaison staff). 

Analysis of JOLTS Data 

Data extracted from JOLTS represent the court history of all juveniles with an 

ACTIVE dependency, delinquency or status referral/petition in FY2002 (7/1/01 

through 6/30/02) for the four counties included in our study—Cochise, Coconino, 

Maricopa and Pima counties. Each record in the JOLTS extract data set represents 

the summarized court history involvement of a child on all delinquency, status and 

dependency matters through FY2003 and is current through August 2003. 

The JOLTS extract data file allows for comparison of the dual jurisdiction population with those of juveniles only active with the court on a delinquency matter in 

FY2002. These latter youth are referred to as our delinquency-only comparison population. The JOLTS data extract also permitted NCJJ staff to identify the dual jurisdiction population—that is, minors eight years of age and older at the start of 

the fiscal year (July 1, 2001) who were involved with the court on both dependency 

and delinquency matters at some point during FY2002. The process was further refined to ensure that the court’s involvement on these matters truly overlapped within the fiscal year. 

Extensive court history data are available on all youth active with the court during the fiscal year on dependency, delinquency and/or status matters. This includes 

basic demographic data (date of birth, gender, race/ethnicity), as well as dates of 

first court involvement, overall number of referrals/petitions, and most serious offense/allegations data. Data on probation supervision, probation placements, detention and commitments to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC) 

are also available. Probation placements are defined as youth on probation placed 

in private group homes and residential treatment facilities paid for, at least in part, 

by the juvenile court through a special fund appropriated annually by the State Legislature to fund a range of programs and services for delinquent and incorrigible 

youth.5

A number of conclusions can be drawn from our analysis of JOLTS data that 

should be taken into consideration as Arizona re-examines how its juvenile courts 

identify and process the cases of juveniles with a court history of both dependency 

and delinquency involvement. These include: 

1. Youth with histories of court involvement on dependency matters are twice as 

likely to recidivate if referred on a delinquency offense than juveniles with no history of dependency court involvement (62% compared to 30%, respectively). 

2. Recidivism rates for first-time referred females with dependency court histories 

are similar and somewhat higher than for their male counterparts (65% versus 61%, 

respectively). Among the general population of juveniles referred for the first time 

for a delinquent act, males are considerably more likely to recidivate than females—

33% for males and 23% for females. 

3. Dependent children over the age of eight are also very likely to be (or become) 

involved with the court on delinquency matters. The likelihood increases substantially for children 14 years of age and older.6 That is, 73% of active FY2002 dependent youth ages 14-17 had been referred to the court on at least one delinquency referral and 57% had been petitioned to the court on a delinquency matter prior to 

August 2003. Furthermore, 49% of these older dependent juveniles ultimately were 

placed on probation supervision and 51% were at some point detained. 

4. While only comprising a very small fraction of a juvenile court’s informal diversion caseload (1%), dual jurisdiction youth comprise an increasingly larger portion 

of a court’s deeper-end FY2002 delinquency caseload. This includes youth on probation supervision (7%) and a subset of these youth placed in a probation placement 

(42%). 

5. Arizona juvenile courts have a substantial number of juveniles who are both 

delinquent and dependent. In the state’s two largest counties, there are hundreds 

of juveniles who are both dependent and on probation supervision. The vast majority of these youth spend at least a portion of their time on probation in a group 

59

home or residential treatment facility—sometimes paid for fully or in part by the 

juvenile court. 

6. Dual jurisdiction youth tend to start their delinquency careers at an earlier 

age—considerably earlier than delinquency-only youth on probation supervision and 

somewhat earlier than juveniles placed in a probation placement. This includes age 

at first delinquency referral, petition, as well as detention and placement on probation supervision. 

7. The delinquency histories of dual jurisdiction youth tend to be more extensive 

and serious than a court’s general probation population but not as extensive or serious as those delinquency-only youth who spent at least a portion of FY2002 in a 

probation placement. 

8. Lastly, dual jurisdiction youth were twice as likely to be committed to ADJC 

by August 2003 (then end of our tracking period) than delinquency-only juveniles 

on probation supervision (14% compared to 7%, respectively). However, dual jurisdiction youth were considerably less likely to be committed to ADJC by that time 

than delinquency-only juveniles spending time in a probation placement (14% 

versus 23%, respectively). 

Analysis of Case File Data 

The second data set analyzed for the Arizona Dual Jurisdiction Study reflects 

data manually collected by NCJJ project staff from court files—that is, legal files 

maintained by the Clerk of the Court’s office and social files maintained by the court 

and/or CPS liaison. Findings from this analysis focus solely on those dual jurisdiction youth on probation supervision during FY2002 from Maricopa and Pima counties. 

A total or 204 case files were reviewed—129 from Maricopa and 75 from Pima. 

These cases were randomly selected from a list of potential dual jurisdiction cases. 

For a juvenile to be on this list, (s)he must have had both a dependency petition 

active and been on probation supervision during some portion of FY2002. Instances 

in which the youth’s involvement with the juvenile court on both dependency and 

delinquency matters did not overlap within the fiscal year were discarded and replaced with new cases. 

Case files were reviewed over the course of an eight-month period beginning in 

June 2003 and ending in February 2004. A follow-up review of subsequent court activity for these cases was conducted this past summer and early fall (July—September 2004). This follow-up provided critical information on delinquency and dependency case outcomes—including dependency case closures and recidivism on any 

subsequent delinquency, status offense and/or probation violation filings. 

Through the case file review, NCJJ staff were able to collect an extensive amount 

of data on each child. This includes basic demographic data (date of birth, gender, 

race/ethnicity) as well as data on prior CPS involvement, prior/current involvement 

with the juvenile court on dependency and delinquency matters,7 key case assignments,8 presenting family and child problems, detailed placement histories, delinquency and dependency hearing dates, and services ordered in minute entries and/

or recommended in case worker and juvenile probation officers reports. 

Utilizing this data set, project staff were able to better identify the challenges facing the judiciary, juvenile probation officers, CPS case managers, service providers, 

and others, in adequately servicing and sanctioning dual jurisdiction youth. Highlights from this analysis include the following: 

1. For most dual jurisdiction youth (62%), the delinquency petition resulting in 

the youth’s placement on probation was filed prior to the filing of the petition alleging that the juvenile was dependent (and this did not vary much be county). 

2. The timing of dependency petition filings was strongly correlated with the referral source—privately-filed petitions were almost always filed after the initiation 

of delinquency proceedings (92%). The reverse was also true—AG/CPS dependency 

petitions were frequently filed first—but the correlation was not as strong (58%). A 

number of agency-initiated dependency petitions were filed after the initiation of delinquency proceedings—particularly in Pima County. 

3. These data should not, however, be interpreted to infer that most families of 

dual jurisdiction youth named on privately-filed dependency petitions had no previous CPS contact. That is, almost two-thirds of these families had been the subject 

of at least one prior report (65%) and slightly more than half (51%) were the subject 

of at least one substantiated report. Pima County cases were more likely to be the 

subject of a prior CPS report/substantiated report regardless of the referral source. 

4. Additionally, 25% of the families of dual jurisdiction youth named on private 

dependency petitions had been the subject of a prior dependency petition which had 

been previously closed by the juvenile court—which is only slightly lower than the 

30% found in the AG/CPS cohort. 

60

5. Our sample population of dual jurisdiction youth on probation supervision in 

FY2002 generally began their delinquent involvement with the juvenile court at an 

early age. However, only a small percentage of these juveniles were placed on probation for a serious charge—that is, a person or property felony (7% and 11%, respectively). 

6. The vast majority of families of dual jurisdiction youth displayed a range of 

problem attributes—the most frequent being parental substance abuse (78%), domestic violence (70%), and housing/financial problems (61%). Additionally, documentation was found in the case files indicating that in 55% of the cases reviewed 

there was a history of either or both parents being incarcerated. Families referred 

to the juvenile court on privately-filed dependency petitions were only slightly less 

likely to be experiencing these problems but this may be an artifact reflecting better 

documentation of family problems in agency-initiated petitions. 

7. The percentage of dual jurisdiction families with a documented history of domestic violence and parental incarceration are considerably higher than found in the 

2000 Arizona CIP-Re-Assessment Study and may be particularly pertinent to behavioral problems experienced by dual wards. However, these findings should be considered very preliminary and subject to further examination. 

8. Substance abuse was the most prevalent issue documented—80% overall—

among juveniles in our dual jurisdiction study cohort. The case file review also 

found that 61% of dual jurisdiction youth had been diagnosed as having severe emotional/mental health problems, a like amount (61%) were taking psychotropic medications (often, multiple types), and 39% had a history of being sexually abused. In 

more than a quarter (27%) of the cases, documentation existed to suggest these juveniles were seriously considering or had attempted suicide. Educational concerns 

were also consistently identified—including chronic truancy problems (76%), severe 

academic deficiencies (59%), special education needs (44%), and a diagnosed/suspected learning disability (23%). The data reflect little variation by county on these 

measures. 9. In general, females were considerably more likely to exhibit deficiencies in most 

of the above need areas than males. Substance abuse problems were almost universally a problem (91%) and suicide ideations and/or attempts were also far more 

prevalent among females—more than double that of the male population (44% compared to 19%, respectively). Lastly, almost two-thirds of females had been sexually 

abused compared to slightly more than a quarter of the males (64% versus 28%, respectively). 

10. Both Maricopa and Pima counties are committed to ensuring consistency in 

judicial oversight across delinquency and dependency matters. However, this is not 

the case for attorneys assigned to represent these juveniles. In many respects, this 

is a structural issue in that the Public Defender’s Office represents juveniles in delinquency matters in both counties, while court-appointed attorneys represent minors in dependency matters in Pima County, and attorneys from the Legal Advocate’s Office or other court appointed attorneys represent juveniles in dependency 

matters in Maricopa County. Lastly, in more than half of the cases in which a GAL 

was assigned, the same GAL was assigned to advocate for the child’s ‘‘best interest’’ 

on both delinquency and dependency matters before the court. This was more likely 

the case, however, in instances in which the GAL filed the private dependency petition. 

11. Very few dual jurisdiction youth in either county were relatively stable as regards to their living arrangements. During the study period, the vast majority experienced six or more placements changes and almost half moved 11 or more times 

after a delinquency or dependency petition was filed (regardless of which came 

first). Additionally, almost all dual jurisdiction youth spent at least some time in 

a group home and/or residential treatment center (90%) and this did not vary much 

by referral source, gender or county. On average, dual jurisdiction youth spent almost half of their time in such placements (46%). This dwarfs the average amount 

of time dual jurisdiction youth spent living with parents (12%) or in other morehome like environments such as relative care (13%) and foster homes (4%). 

12. The vast majority of these juveniles (89%) spent time in a juvenile detention 

center during the study period and, in most instances, experienced multiple detention stays. On average, these youth spent as much time incarcerated (13%) as they 

did living with parents (12%). 

13. Probation outcomes for most dual jurisdiction youth were, in varying degrees, 

unsuccessful or otherwise problematic. On the positive side, 30% of our dual jurisdiction population satisfactorily completed their probation terms—even if their performance was not necessarily stellar. Outcomes for the remaining 70% of cases were 

generally unsatisfactory including a considerable portion of youth who were eventually committed to ADJC, referred to adult court, remained on probation until their 

61

18 birthday at which point they aged out of the system, or were released and subsequently placed on probation on new charges. 

14. Regardless of their probation outcomes, almost all dual jurisdiction youth included in the study experienced subsequent referrals and petitions to the juvenile 

court on delinquency, status offense and/or probation violation matters—92% were 

referred and 87% were petitioned one or more times. On average, dual jurisdiction 

youth were referred for delinquency, status and/or probation violation offenses a 

total of 5.1 times and petitioned 3.5 times after being placed on probation. 

15. Dual jurisdiction youth also tended to experience poor outcomes with respect 

to types of permanent living arrangements in place at the time dependency petitions 

were closed. Both counties experienced difficulties placing youth in home-like settings at case closure. Only a quarter of dual jurisdiction youth in our study were 

either living at home (with one or both parents) or were permanently placed with 

a relative/guardian at petition closure. The two most common outcomes were either 

that the petition was closed when a youth reached the age of majority (33%) or the 

petition remained open as of July 2004—for an average of 4.6 years (32%). As best 

we can determine, almost all of the youth aging out of the system were either in 

congregate care, incarcerated or AWOL at the time of their 18th birthdays. 

16. During their time on dual jurisdiction status, youth were in court frequently—

an average of almost once per month on either a delinquency or dependency matter. 

Very few hearings held by the court in dual jurisdiction cases, were consolidated 

hearings in which both delinquency and dependency matters were addressed. 

Shared Responsibility for Dual Jurisdiction Wards 

Who should take responsibility for supervision, case management and servicing 

dual jurisdiction youth can be a sensitive issue, one that reflects differences of opinions as to where lines should be drawn (or merged) between the child welfare and 

juvenile justice systems. These varying perspectives also reflect traditional differences in the missions that have guided child protection and juvenile probation. 

Historically, from the CPS perspective, there have been concerns that the juvenile 

courts and their probation departments, too often, turn to the agency for assistance 

in funding needed placement and related treatment services for troubled youth who 

are primarily delinquent juveniles. CPS funds are not unlimited and at least some 

agency administrators have emphasized that when funds are used to place or treat 

delinquent youth, there are fewer resources for non-delinquent (dependent) children. 

For CPS, the circumstances found in dual jurisdiction cases may not initially meet 

the agency’ criteria or threshold needed for prompt formal dependency action. Instead, the agency may offer voluntary services that families may or may not participate in. For the agency, the conundrum associated with dual jurisdiction matters 

seem particularly acute when a juvenile first comes to the attention of the juvenile 

court via a delinquency or status offense referral, is petitioned and adjudicated as 

delinquent or incorrigible, with dependency proceedings initiated at a later date because of what is perceived as limited juvenile justice funding options. Typically, 

these are cases in which the dependency action is initiated through the filing of a 

dependency petition by a court-appointed GAL. 

In contrast, at least some juvenile court and probation officials have cited the 

need for CPS to intervene earlier, and more effectively, in the lives of maltreated 

children, including the need to file dependency petitions before a youth experiences 

formal delinquency involvement. These juvenile court and probation officials view 

the initiation of dependency proceedings as frequently legitimate in that the initial 

investigation of the youth and family often uncovers a serious and/or, possibly, longstanding history of neglect (if not specific physical or sexual maltreatment). 

One of the goals of this study is to assist CPS, the juvenile courts, and juvenile 

probation to move beyond any lingering focus on which agency is ultimately ‘‘responsible’’ for these cases, to greater recognition of the need for expanded interagency 

collaboration. In the past couple of years, there has been considerable movement by 

CPS, the juvenile court, and probation departments to acknowledge that both entities share responsibility in supervising and servicing this population. 

This effort at gradual consensus-building and interagency collaboration requires 

continued nurturing. Growing workload demands, the lack of funding resources, few 

specialized placements and related services, as well as the general difficulties facing 

line staff from both organizations in turning around the lives of these juveniles can 

ultimately frustrate these efforts. Interviews conducted in the four targeted counties 

indicate a clear recognition that shared responsibility, coordinated case management, interagency collaboration and consistent judicial oversight are keys to addressing the needs of dual jurisdiction wards and their families as well as ensuring 

that community safety is not unduly compromised. The juvenile court should conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:45 Apr 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-63\37692.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
62

tinue to play a critical role in ensuring that all stakeholders remain committed to 

these principles. 

A number of innovative protocols and collaborative efforts implemented in recent 

years in the four counties are highlighted in Chapter 4 of this study. These include 

improved screening and assessment which often involves CPS and mental health liaisons, increased use of interagency resource staffings, and other continuing efforts 

to form collaborative partnerships to construct individualized case plans, access 

services and, in general, improve overall case management and supervision. While 

much still needs to be done, stakeholders in each of the counties should be commended for their efforts to date in re-examining and reconstructing how the needs 

of dual jurisdiction youth and their families are collectively addressed. 

Summary of Recommendations 

Comments made by key stakeholders during county interviews revealed strong 

agreement on the need to improve how juvenile courts, their probation departments, 

CPS, behavioral health, and the schools handle dual jurisdiction cases. Overall, this 

consensus and the findings contained in this report, reflect the need to treat dual 

jurisdiction matters differently than others. What form this differential approach 

takes, however, is a matter for ongoing discussion and planning at the local and 

state levels. 

In preparing this summary of recommendations, we considered the findings from 

our JOLTS and case file review data analyses, the key themes identified during 

county interviews, and our own experiences in numerous juvenile/family courts 

across the country. We hope these recommendations prove useful as state and local 

officials continue to strive for ways to improve outcomes for these difficult cases. 

These recommendations are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5. 

1. Revise intake assessment/screening procedures for dual jurisdiction cases. 

2. Explore ways to keep the same attorneys assigned in dependency and delinquency matters, and provide special training for attorneys handling these cases. 

3. Examine the potential benefits and drawbacks of creating court teams for dual 

jurisdiction cases. 

4. Carefully assess the benefits and drawbacks of having assigned CASA volunteers serve as surrogate parents for special education purposes. 

5. Establish or modify diversion programs to address issues presented by dual jurisdiction youth. 

6. Continue and expand efforts that reduce prolonged detention stays for dual system juveniles. 

7. Examine the feasibility of combining delinquency and dependency hearings—

especially for disposition and post-dispositional matters when appropriate 

8. Take appropriate steps to reduce delays in obtaining school records and improve school attendance. 

9. Revisit options for funding interagency supervision models. 

10. Co-locate Behavioral Health, CPS, and Probation where feasible. 

11. Carefully assess programs that report positive effects on dual jurisdiction 

youth and expand capacity where appropriate. 

12. Consider modifying ‘‘medical necessity’’ criteria when deciding to move dual 

jurisdiction youth from more to less restrictive settings. 

13. Providers may need special training to more effectively address the effects of 

prior child sexual abuse victimization and exposure to domestic violence on dual 

wards. 

14. Substance abuse continues to be a major problem area for dual jurisdiction 

youth and their families and efforts should be expanded to improve access to and 

the effectiveness of substance abuse treatment programs for both adolescents and 

parents/guardians.. 

15. Improve permanency planning and permanency outcomes for dual jurisdiction 

cases. 

16. Improve prevention and early intervention efforts. 

17. Establish written interagency agreements and protocols for dual jurisdiction 

cases. 

18. Improve information sharing across agencies at all stages of dual jurisdiction 

matters. 

19. Develop and implement specific cross-training opportunities relevant to dual 

jurisdiction. 

20. Identify single point of contact persons within all RBHAs to address delays 

in assessments and services. 

21. Provide special training for group home personnel on handling dual jurisdiction youth. 

22. Conduct regular interagency case reviews of dual jurisdiction cases. 

63

23. Continue efforts to increase access to federal funding (e.g., Title IV-E) and find 

innovative ways to pool funds for placements and services. 

24. Establish a video conferencing pilot project for selected out of county providers 

to enhance hearing attendance and reduce cost and time demands. 

25. Address challenges associated with dependent youth who have been committed to the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections. 

ENDNOTES

1Like many states, Arizona law and Arizona’s juvenile courts use the term ‘‘dependency’’ to 

refer to child abuse and neglect cases. 2 In this report, ‘‘dual jurisdiction,’’ ‘‘dual involvement,’’ ‘‘dual wards,’’ and other similar terms 

will be used interchangeably to denote youth with co-occurring dependency and delinquency 

court involvement. 3Please see Gene Siegel and Rachael Lord. When System Collide: Improving Court Practices 

and Programs in Dual Jurisdiction Cases. Technical Assistance to the Juvenile Court: Special 

Project Bulletin (Summer 2004), NCJJ, Pittsburgh, PA. The paper can be accessed on-line at: 

http://ncjj.servehttp.com/NCJJWebsite/pdf/dualjurisdiction.pdf. (downloaded on November 19, 

2004) 4 JOLTS is an acronym for Juvenile On-Line Tracking System. Each of the state’s 15 juvenile 

courts utilizes JOLTS to track both its dependency and delinquency caseloads. However, there 

are three slightly different versions of JOLTS existing in Arizona. 5 Youth placed in private group homes or residential treatment facilities funded solely through 

CPS and Arizona Behavioral Health Care System funds cannot be identified as such in the 

JOLTS extract database. 6While no data are available in JOLTS, we suspect these types of patterns would be maintained for youth who were informally involved with CPS. The authors suspect that prior or concurrent informal CPS involvement would be a very good indicator of future recidivism for juveniles referred to the court on their first delinquency referral. 7This includes aggregate and most serious offense data related to delinquency, probation violation and status offense referrals prior to the youth’s placement on probation in FY2002 as well 

as post-placement on probation supervision. These data are current through August 2004 or a 

youth’s 18th birthday, whichever came first. 8This includes judge and commissioner case assignments, attorneys assigned to represent the 

child on delinquency and dependency matters, as well as any GALs and CASA volunteers who 

may have been appointed. 

[Internet address to ‘‘Juveniles in Adult Prisons and Jails: A National Assessment,’’ by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, Oct. 2000, follows:]

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/182503.pdf 

[Internet address to ‘‘Blueprint for Change: A Comprehensive 

Model for the Identification and Treatment of Youth with Mental 

Health Needs in Contact with the Juvenile Justice System,’’ by the 

National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, 2007, follows:]

http://www.ncmhjj.com/Blueprint/pdfs/Blueprint.pdf 

[Internet address to ‘‘Prosecuting Juveniles in the Adult Criminal 

Justice System,’’ by the Children’s Action Alliance, June 2003, follows:]

http://www.azchildren.org/display.asp?pageId=62&parentId=11

Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems Integration Publications 

Through the support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, 

CWLA established the Juvenile Justice Division in July 2000 with the objective of 

supporting the education of juvenile justice, child welfare, related youth-serving organizations and agencies, and CWLA members regarding the connection between 

child maltreatment and juvenile delinquency, and need for an integrated approach 

64

to programs and services across the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. 

CWLA has developed a range of publications that support this work. These include:

Guidebook for Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare System Coordination and Integration: Framework for Improved Outcomes (by Janet K. Wiig, with John A. Tuell)

Built from years of CWLA collaborations and partnerships, co-sponsorship of state 

and local symposia, regional training, technical assistance, consultation experiences 

and examination and use of the most credible research, program and practice evidence the Guidebook will help state and local jurisdictions achieve greater system 

coordination and integration. (www.cwla.org/programs/juvenilejustice/jjguidebook)

Promoting a Coordinated and Integrated Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice System (by John A. Tuell)

CWLA believes that system integration and reform is best accomplished through 

a comprehensive strategic planning process that includes youth and families, and 

a broad-based representation of youth-serving organizations. This approach uses the 

best information, research, and practices to guide the process. The framework detailed in this bulletin outlines the components of this process and action strategy 

that states and local jurisdictions must consider to implement a more coordinated, 

integrated child welfare and juvenile justice system. (www.cwla.org/programs/

juvenilejustice/jjpubs)

Understanding Child Maltreatment and Juvenile Delinquency: From Research to 

Effective Program, Practice, and Systemic Solutions (by Wiig, Janet K., Widom, C. 

A., with John A. Tuell)

This monograph will aid agency and organizational leaders, policymakers, administrators, judges, attorneys, and practitioners in the field of juvenile justice and 

child welfare in understanding the relationship between abuse and neglect and juvenile delinquency and advance the effort in developing practical program, practice, 

and system responses to this important issue. This document describes the best research on the connection between child maltreatment and juvenile delinquency. Also 

included is a description of a wide array of promising responses for improving outcomes for dual jurisdiction youth. (www.cwla.org/programs/juvenilejustice/ucmjd)

A Guide to Legal and Policy Analysis for Systems Integration (by Jessica 

Heldman)

Experience gained from work in several jurisdictions provides the background for 

this valuable guide. The publication details the process of examination of the legal, 

policy, and procedural mandates unique to each agency/organization in order to 

make recommendations for changes that will contribute to improved coordination of 

initial decision-making, case management, and service delivery. (www.cwla.org/programs/juvenilejustice/jjpubs) 

Please feel free to contact: John A. Tuell at jtuell@cwla.org or Wayne Promisel at 

wpromisel@cwla.org 

[Internet address to ‘‘When Systems Collide: Improving Court 

Practices and Programs in Dual Jurisdiction Cases,’’ National Center for Juvenile Justice, June 2004, follows:]

http://ncjj.servehttp.com/NCJJWebsite/pdf/dualjurisdiction.pdf 

[Letter from Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, 

State of Arizona, follows:]

65


nap-1.eps
66


nap-2.eps
67


nap-3.eps
68

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Ms. Weisman. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREA WEISMAN, DIRECTOR OF HEALTH 

SERVICES, WASHINGTON, DC, DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH REHABILITATION SERVICES 

Dr. WEISMAN. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the subcommittee, to the members of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities. 

I am a doctor of clinical psychology and the Director of Health 

Services at the District of Columbia’s Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services. Prior to my current position, I was Director of 

Behavioral Health Services at the Maryland Department of JuveVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:45 Apr 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-63\37692.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK

nap-4.eps
69

nile Services. Public officials and advocates in both mental health 

and juvenile justice welcome your concern about the very serious 

issue of the prevalence of mental health disorders among youth 

who come into contact with the juvenile justice system. 

While juvenile arrest rates have generally declined since 1997, 

there are still over 2 million youth who are arrested and who come 

into contact with the Nation’s State and local juvenile justice systems each year. The now widely accepted prevalence data indicate 

that as many as 70 percent of youth who come into contact with 

the system have one or more diagnosable mental health disorders 

and that as many as 25 percent suffer serious disorders, causing 

impaired functioning in one or more life domains. By comparison, 

it is estimated that 10 percent of children and adolescents in the 

general population suffer from mental illness severe enough to 

cause some level of impairment, but these data alone fall short in 

really understanding the complexity of the issues our youth and 

our systems face in addressing these problems. 

There are other statistics we need to consider to really put this 

into context. For example, children of color are disproportionately 

represented in juvenile justice systems across the country. The 

data clearly show that youth of color are more likely to be arrested, 

locked up before trial, sent to State facilities after adjudication, and 

to spend more time incarcerated than white youth even when they 

are charged with the same categories of offense, but there is one 

more context setting parameter. There is growing evidence documenting the nearly pervasive experience of trauma among incarcerated youth prior to incarceration. 

Some studies report prevalence rates as high as 93 percent for 

boys and 84 percent for girls. ‘‘trauma’’ refers to the experience or 

exposure to violence, physical, sexual or emotional abuse or neglect. 

Trauma for these youth come in the form of family violence and 

close contact with violence among friends and in their communities 

in addition to being victims. The trauma our youth have experienced is pervasive, and it is multigenerational. If we do not treat 

the whole family system, we will be less successful in responding 

to the needs of our youth. 

Juvenile justice systems have struggled to develop the range of 

behavioral health services that satisfactorily address the needs of 

children and families. For example, the partnership between the 

MacArthur Foundation and the National Center on Mental Health 

and Juvenile Justice through the Foundation’s Model for Change 

Initiative has led to some significant improvements in the collaboration strategies between State-level mental health and juvenile 

justice agencies. 

In addition, SAMHSA’s Center for Mental Health Services’ System of Care work in numerous States has provided both the philosophy and the strategies for interagency collaboration among childserving agencies, including mental health, child welfare, education, 

and juvenile justice. Children and adolescents cross multiple agencies, and programs and services must come from the combined efforts and collaboration among them all. 

There are several core values and strategies in approaching these 

problems, many of which are already embodied in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. We must be institutionalized 

70

status offenders for status offenses are those that only a minor can 

be charged with, such as truancy, running away and curfew violations. These are the very behaviors we would expect from a youth 

being sexually abused or otherwise traumatized. Incarceration is 

not good for anybody, and for traumatized youth, it recapitulates 

their original trauma experiences. 

A critically important development in recent years is the systematic identification of youth with mental health or substance abuse 

disorders as early on as possible. We must screen youth with validated instruments upon their first contact with juvenile justice 

agencies, and this screening must lead to culturally sensitive, evidence-based treatments whether within juvenile justice agencies or 

facilities in the community. We must divert youth whenever public 

safety concerns allow and redirect them to community-based treatments with proven effectiveness. We must use evidence-based 

treatments. 

Quite a lot is now known about the kinds of services and supports that work most effectively with the juvenile justice population. These interventions bring therapeutic services into the 

home in varying degrees of intensity and duration to work with the 

youth and family in natural settings, and we must keep youth out 

of adult jails. They suffer significantly higher negative outcomes 

than youth in juvenile facilities from higher suicide rates to the increased likelihood of being victims of assault or abuse, and when 

they are in adult jails, we must keep them sight-and-sound separated from adults so as to minimize the likelihood of their being 

abused or exploited, and States and local jurisdictions must be held 

accountable to assess and to address the racial and ethnic disparities affecting youth of color that exist throughout the juvenile justice system. 

These basic protections must be a priority for this committee to 

ensure that youth in need of mental health treatment who come 

into contact with the juvenile justice system are, whenever possible, able to receive effective services in their homes or in the community, and these are the protections afforded by the JJDP Act. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Ms. Weisman. 

[The statement of Dr. Weisman follows:]

Prepared Statement of Andrea Weisman, Ph.D., Director of Health Services, 

District of Columbia Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services 

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to the members of the Subcommittee on 

Healthy Families and Communities. I am a doctor of clinical psychology and the Director of Health Services at the District of Columbia Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services. Prior to my current position, I was Director of Behavioral Health 

Services at the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services. 

Public officials and advocates in both mental health and juvenile justice welcome 

your concern about the very serious issue of the prevalence of mental health disorders among youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice system. 

While juvenile arrest rates have generally since declined since 1997, there are 

still over two million youth who are arrested and come into contact with the nation’s 

state and local juvenile justice systems each year.1 The now widely-accepted prevalence data indicate that as many as 70% of youth who come into contact with the 

juvenile justice system suffer one or more diagnosable mental health disorders, and 

that 25% suffer serious disorders causing impaired functioning in one or more life 

domains.2 That means that as many 1,400,000 of these youth have at least one diagnosed mental health disorder and that as many as 500,000 have disorders of significant severity to cause dysfunction. By comparison, it is estimated that 10% of chilVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:45 Apr 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-63\37692.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
71

dren and adolescents in the general population suffer from mental illness severe 

enough to cause some level of impairment. When we consider the frequently co-occurring substance abuse disorders, the numbers are astronomically high. 

But these data alone fall short in really understanding the complexity of the 

issues our youth and our systems face in addressing these problems. There are other 

statistics we need to consider to really put this into context. For example, children 

of color are disproportionately represented in juvenile justice systems across the 

country.3 The data clearly show that youth of color are more likely to be arrested, 

locked up before trial, sent to state facilities after adjudication and spend more time 

incarcerated that white youth, even when they are charged with the same categories 

of offense. 

Another piece of the puzzle is this, and I’ll use the District to exemplify: According 

to Annie E. Casey’s Kids Count4 statistics, the District surpasses national averages 

on issues such as low birth weight of babies born, infant mortality, child deaths, 

teen deaths, teen births rates, teen high school drop out rates, teens not in school 

and not working, children living in poverty and children living in single parent 

households. 

When I worked for the District’s Department of Mental Health 5 years ago, their 

penetration rate—that is, the number of children and adolescents to whom services 

were being provided was just under 1% of all youth. This is an example, but children throughout the country are underserved by mental health systems. And I don’t 

think it’s too big a leap to claim that judging from disproportionate number of children of color who wind up in the juvenile justice system with diagnosed mental 

health disorders—which public mental health systems are especially under serving 

this youth population. 

There’s one more context setting parameter. There is growing evidence documenting the nearly pervasive experience of trauma among incarcerated youth prior 

to their incarceration. Some studies report prevalence rates as high as 93.2% for 

boys and 84% for girls.5 Trauma refers to the experience or exposure to violence, 

physical, sexual or emotional abuse or neglect. Trauma for these youth comes in the 

form of family violence and close contact with violence among friends and in their 

communities, in addition to being the being the victim of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse or neglect. Internalizing trauma responses include: emotional numbing, 

depression, decline in functioning, confusion, nightmares and flashbacks. 

Externalizing trauma responses are evidenced in interpersonal conflicts, aggressive 

and risky behaviors, substance abuse and school avoidance or refusal.6 These are 

entirely characteristic of incarcerated youth and likely account for the resulting diagnoses of oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder and other hyperkinetic 

disorders that make up a majority of the 70% of youth diagnosed as having a mental health disorder. The trauma our youth have experienced is pervasive and it is 

multi-generational. If we don’t treat the whole family system we will be less successful in responding to the needs of our youth. 

Juvenile justice systems have struggled to develop the range of behavioral health 

services that satisfactorily address the needs of children and families. For example, 

the partnership between the John D. and Catherine T. McArthur Foundation and 

the National Center on Mental Health and Juvenile Justice through the foundation’s Models for Change initiative has led to some significant improvements in the 

collaboration strategies between state level mental health and juvenile justice agencies. 

In addition, SAMHSA’s Center for Mental Health Services’ System of Care work 

in numerous states has provided both the philosophy and the strategies for interagency collaboration among child serving agencies, including mental health, child 

welfare, education, and juvenile justice. Children and adolescents cross multiple 

agencies, and programs and services must come from the combined efforts and collaboration among them all—from the identification of a youth with mental health 

needs to their treatment in programs and services that all agencies have a collective 

interest in developing. 

There are several core values and strategies in approaching this effort, some of 

which are already embodied in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Act: 

1. Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders 

Status offenses are those that only a minor can be charged with such as truancy, 

running away and curfew violations. These are the very behaviors we would expect 

from a youth being sexually abused or otherwise traumatized—many girls are running away from abusive adults in their families or neighborhoods. Locking girls up 

for what may be adaptive or survival behavior is wrong. Incarceration is not good 

72

for anybody, and for traumatized youth it recapitulates their original trauma experiences. 

2. Early Identification of Youth with Mental Health or Substance Abuse Disorders 

A critically important development in recent years is the systematic identification 

of youth with mental health or substance abuse disorders with validated screening 

instruments (such as the MAYSI-2,7 GAIN-Q,8 and Trauma Severity Index9 ) upon 

their first contact with juvenile justice agencies. Screening must lead to culturally 

sensitive, evidenced-based treatments—whether within juvenile justice agencies or 

facilities or in the community. 

3. Diversion to Community-Based Programs 

Whenever public safety concerns allow, youth should be diverted from detention 

or incarceration to home- or community-based treatments with proven effectiveness. 

4. Use of Evidenced-based Treatments and Services 

Quite a lot is now known about the kinds of services and supports that work most 

effectively with the juvenile justice population. These include Multi-systemic Therapy, Functional Family Therapy and Multi-Dimensional Treatment Foster Care.10

These interventions bring therapeutic services into the home (or foster home) with 

varying intensity and for various durations to work with the youth and family in 

natural settings. 

5. Adult Jail and Lockup Removal 

Youth locked up in adult jails suffer significantly higher negative outcomes than 

youth in juvenile facilities, from higher suicide rates to increased likelihood of being 

victims of assault and abuse.11 Youth under the age of 18 should not be held in 

adult jails, whether they are charged in the juvenile justice system or the adult 

criminal justice system. 

6. ‘‘Sight and Sound’’ Separation 

Youth held in adult jails [or prisons] even for brief periods of time, such as for 

screening or waiting for transport to juvenile facilities, should be kept completely 

separated from adult inmates to reduce the likelihood of their being abused or exploited. 

7. Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) 

States and local jurisdictions must be held accountable to assess and address the 

racial and ethnic disparities affecting youth of color that exist throughout the juvenile justice system. 

These basic protections must be a priority for this committee to ensure that youth 

in need of mental health treatment who come into contact with the juvenile justice 

system are able, whenever possible, to receive effective services at home or in their 

communities. 

Let me share with you now the singular efforts of the District in creating a model 

for change. DYRS has implemented Positive Youth Development as its signature 

focus. PYD incorporates a culturally competent, strength-based, family-focused 

agenda for those youth in the District who further penetrate and are committed to 

the District’s juvenile justice system. DYRS has also adopted a public health model 

for its health services—both medical and behavioral health. With the recognition of 

trauma as the central issue with which most of our youth are faced and the multigenerational nature of this phenomenon, DYRS has adopted a set of strategies that 

incorporate families, schools, living unit staff and multiple agencies in the development of family recovery plans. 

ENDNOTES

1Snyder, Howard N. National Criminal Justice Reference Service: Juvenile Arrests, 2000. 

2 Blueprint for Change: A Comprehensive Model for the Identification and Treatment of Youth 

with Mental Health Needs in Contact with the Juvenile Justice System. Skowyra, Kathleen and 

Cocozza, Joseph. The National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice. January 2006. 3State Disproportionate Minority Confinement Data. W. Hayward Burns Institute at 

www.BurnsInstitue.org. 4 Annie E. Casey Kids Count, 2007. 

5 Hennessey, M. et al. Trauma among girls in the juvenile justice system. Washington, DC: 

Juvenile Justice Working Group of the National Child Traumatic Stress Network, 2004. 6 Hodes, Gordon R. Responding to Childhood Trauma: The Promise and Practice of Trauma 

Informed Care. National State Mental Health Program Directors. National Technical Assistance 

Center 7Grisso, T. and Bynum, R. Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument Version 2, 2000. 

8Titus, J.C. and Bennett, M. The GAIN-Q (GQ): The Development and Validation of a Substance Abuse and Mental Health Brief Assessment, 2003. 

73

9Ford, J.D., Chapman, J.F. Hawke, J. and Albert, G. Trauma Among Youth in the Juvenile 

Justice System. 

Program Brief, National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, 2007. 

10 Burns, B., Hoagwood, K. and Mrazek. P. Effective Treatment for Mental Disorders in Children and Adolescents, in Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, Vol. 2, No. 4. 1999:199-

244. 11 ACT 4 Youth Juvenile Justice: A Nationwide Initiative Addressing Reauthorization of the 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA). Core Requirements at http://

www.act4djj.org/about—reauirements.html. 

[Ms. Weisman’s responses to questions for the record follow:]

LIVINGSTON STREET, NW, 

Washington, DC, October 1, 2007. 

Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House 

Office Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MILLER AND CHAIRWOMAN MCCARTHY: Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional comments to add to my testimony before the U.S. House 

of Representatives Education and Labor Committee, Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities. 

Youth in Adult Facilities 

Unfortunately, too many youth in America are exposed to the dangers of adult 

jails and prisons. On June 30, 2006, there were 2,364 juveniles in state prisons, a 

7.1% increase since the year before. There were also 6,104 juveniles in adult jails—

4,836 were held as juveniles in the juvenile court system, and 1,268 were held as 

youth in the adult criminal system.1 Adult facilities are often unsafe for other adults 

but because of their size and age, youth are especially vulnerable. A report by the 

Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons found that ‘‘violence remains 

a serious problem in America’s prisons.’’ 2 Sexual violence varies across systems and 

states, but almost every system experiences problems with sexual violence. According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics report, about 36% of the reported allegations 

of sexual violence in 2006 involved staff sexual misconduct; 34% inmate-on-inmate 

nonconsensual sexual acts; 17% staff sexual harassment; and 13% inmate-on-inmate 

abusive sexual contacts. This report also found that 13% of the victims of substantiated incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence in jails were juveniles under 

the age of 18—a surprisingly high percentage of victims. In contrast, youth under 

18 were 0% of the perpetrators of sexual violence in jails.3

Youth are also particularly susceptible to suicide when placed in jails. According 

to another Bureau of Justice Statistics report, Suicide and Homicide in State Prisons and Local Jails, jail inmates under 18 had the highest suicide rate (101 per 

100,000) of all inmates. While the most common cause of death for jail inmates over 

18 is illness, that is not true for youth. A few other facts are particularly important 

to note from that study. First, jail inmate suicides were heavily concentrated in the 

first week spent in custody (48%). Almost a quarter of all jail suicides took place 

either on the day of admission to jail (14%) or the following day (9%). Second, of 

all offender groups, public-order offenders spent the shortest time in custody prior 

to committing suicide; half of their suicides took place in the first three days of custody. Finally, rates of inmate suicide were closely related to jail size, with the smallest facilities recording the highest suicide rates.4 These findings are particularly relevant to the reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act 

(JJDPA) because many people do not realize that youth held in jails for even very 

limited periods of time are at a great risk of suicide. These findings support my recommendation to extend the core protections to cover youth in the adult system as 

well. 

Conditions of Confinement 

The first national survey of juvenile facilities conducted in 1990-92 by Abt Associates for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, found that children were repeatedly held in short-term isolation (one to 24 hours) with many youth 

being isolated for more than 24 hours; youth frequently were suicidal and were not 

given appropriate treatment. Unfortunately those abusive practices have not yet 

ended. 

Six years ago state officials closed the South Dakota State Training School after 

federal litigation by the Youth Law Center revealed that staff regularly sprayed confined youth with pepper spray, chained them by their wrists and ankles to the four 

corners of their beds, and locked them in their rooms for days and weeks at a time. 

More recently, the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. 

74

Department of Justice has found horrendous restraint, isolation, and use of force 

practices in state facilities in Louisiana (staff ‘‘hog-tied’’ youth, physically beat 

youth, used mace on youth); Mississippi (staff ‘‘hog-tied’’ youth, shackled girls to a 

pole, kept girls in ‘‘dark room ’’); and other states.5 Earlier this year, an investigation of Texas Youth Commission facilities revealed more than 2,000 complaints of 

abuse in over 50 facilities. Unfortunately, the Texas Youth Commission has declined 

to follow the recommendations of a commission created to investigate the abuses 

and has proposed increasing the use of pepper spray at its facilities. The JJDPA 

should send a clear signal to juvenile justice facilities nationwide that such practices 

are unacceptable. 

In reauthorizing the JJDPA, Congress has the opportunity to include prohibitions 

on the use of some especially dangerous practices. These include use of chemical 

agents; use of pain compliance techniques; hitting, kicking, striking, or using 

chokeholds or blows to the head; use of four- or five-point restraints, straightjackets, 

or restraint chairs; tying or placing in restraints in uncomfortable positions; periods 

of excessive isolation; restraining to fixed objects; restraining in a prone position or 

putting pressure on the back; using physical force or mechanical restraints (including shackling) for punishment, discipline, or treatment; and use of belly belts or 

chains on pregnant girls. These recommendations are based on the recommendations of experienced attorneys, physicians, and psychologists who have seen such 

practices firsthand in states throughout the country. The recommendations are in 

keeping with national standards for conditions in juvenile detention facilities created by the Annie E. Casey Foundation for its Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative. The standards include the combined insight of 15 national experts, myself 

included, as to effective best practices for safe and humane juvenile facilities. 

In addition, states should be encouraged to create independent monitoring offices 

with authority to investigate and seek remedies of harmful conditions in their juvenile facilities through the use of incentive grants. Establishing independent state 

monitoring authorities with sufficient power to make necessary changes where 

harmful practices are found could significantly improve the quality of conditions in 

facilities nationwide. Currently there is only one main agency available to investigate and remedy such abuses. The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department 

is been able to pursue some investigations under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act. Private, nonprofit legal advocacy organizations such as the Center 

for Children’s Law and Policy, Youth Law Center, and National Center for Youth 

Law, who have historically improved conditions of confinement through litigation, 

have been hampered by procedural and other obstacles in the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Justice 

Department has no authority, experience, or expertise to conduct such investigations. The Prison Rape Elimination Commission focuses on one portion of the problem—sexual abuse of inmates in adult and juvenile facilities—but has no authority 

to conduct individual investigations or pursue remedial litigation. 

Mental Health Services 

The U.S. Surgeon General has found that debilitating mental disorders affect one 

in five U.S. youth, but access to effective treatment is often limited. In July 2004, 

Rep. Henry A. Waxman and Sen. Susan Collins released the results of a national 

survey of juvenile detention facilities that assessed the inappropriate detention of 

youth with mental illness. The survey found that without access to treatment in the 

community, many mentally ill youth were warehoused in detention facilities, even 

if they did not have any criminal charges pending against them. Criminal justice 

and juvenile justice agencies across the nation need to use more diversion programs 

to ensure that people with mental illness are not unnecessarily criminalized. Diversion programs provide an alternative to incarceration by linking individuals to community-based mental health and substance abuse services, housing, medical care, 

income supports, employment and other necessary services. With appropriate diversion programs in place, youth with mental illness can get the appropriate services 

they need without ending up in the juvenile or criminal justice systems. 

In well-run juvenile justice agencies, youth are screened upon arrival at secure 

facilities to identify the need for further evaluation for mental illness, and to ensure 

that any mental health needs that require immediate attention, such as suicidal 

youth and youth on psychotropic medications, are identified and their needs promptly met. However, some facilities have not adopted systems to identify youths’ needs, 

and many more are unable to provide adequate services due to insufficient staffing.6

For many youth with serious mental illness, a juvenile detention center or correctional institution will never be able to meet their treatment needs. Those youth 

should be served in more appropriate settings such as community and residential 

treatment centers. In fact, youth who have not previously experienced mental illness 

75

often develop mental disorders while in secure confinement. A recent report by the 

Justice Policy Institute, The Dangers of Detention: the Impact of Incarcerating 

Youth in Detention and Other Secure Facilities, found that placing youth in secure 

confinement itself caused mental distress. For one-third of the incarcerated youth 

with depression, the onset occurred after they were incarcerated.7

The JJDPA could help address these problems by providing incentives or requiring states to ensure that youth who cannot be served appropriately in secure juvenile facilities are diverted to more appropriate sites for their care. In addition, adequate mental health staffing to promptly and effectively treat youth in crisis and 

those with long-term treatment needs could be required of all states. The combination of diverting youth who cannot be treated in secure juvenile justice settings combined with ensuring timely and appropriate treatment for those who remain would 

have important effects on the safety of youth both with and without disabilities. 

Education 

Approximately 36% of youth involved in the juvenile justice system are estimated 

to have learning disabilities,8 yet staff of facilities often fail to identify these needs. 

Youth come to juvenile justice with a high incidence of school failure and truancy, 

in many cases because schools have failed to identify and meet their educational 

needs.9 School failure, disability, and ethnic minority status combine to put children 

and youth at risk for involvement with the juvenile justice system.10

Once incarcerated, youth are, literally, ‘‘captive audiences.’’ Facilities have the opportunity to nurture school success in a time when attendance is both required and 

enforceable, and can be excellent places to meet youths’ educational needs. Unfortunately, facilities often fail to identify youth with disabilities, and they frequently 

lack resources to meet their needs. Facilities also are faced with a wide range of 

abilities, from first grade level readers to college-level youth. Common problems at 

facilities include failure to provide meaningful access to the curriculum for limited 

English speakers, failure to hold school for sufficient hours per day, and failure to 

provide sufficiently challenging work for more highly achieving youth. 

Additional challenges face youth returning to their home communities. Frequently, systems do not sufficiently plan for youths’ return to their home schools, 

so they experience educational disruption when they are released. They often lose 

credit for the work they did while incarcerated when facility schools fail to transfer 

records to youths’ home school systems. Increased communication and planning for 

youths’ re-entry to their communities can greatly increase their likelihood of success. 

A first step in the process of correctional education reform would be requiring 

minimum standards for educational programs in juvenile detention and confinement 

facilities that approximate those in public school programs. Federal agencies could 

propose incentives for states and local jurisdictions that achieve and maintain minimum standards for the operation of correctional educational programs. Agencies 

could develop a pilot program that involves technical assistance and support as 

states apply for and meet accreditation standards.11 Congress could choose to address some of these failures through the JJDPA by requiring the development of 

minimum standards for educational programs in juvenile detention and confinement 

facilities that approximate those in public school programs. The JJDPA could also 

include incentives for states that achieve and maintain minimum standards in their 

correctional educational programs. OJJDP, in partnership with other federal agencies, could provide technical assistance and support as states increase their capacity 

for effective correctional education programs.12

Sincerely, 

ANDREA WEISMAN, PH.D., Chief of Health Services, 

DC Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services. 

ENDNOTES

1 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2006, June 2007. 

2Gibbons, J.J., & Katzenbach, N.B. (2006, June). Confronting Confinement. The Commission 

on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons. 3 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006, August 2007. 4 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Suicide and Homicide in State Prisons and Local Jails, August 

2005. 5See U.S.D.O.J. Findings Letters, http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/findsettle.htm# CRIPAletters. 6Detecting Mental Disorder in Juvenile Detainees: Who Receives Services, Linda A. Teplin, 

et al. 95(10) Am. J. Public Health 1773 (Oct., 2005), available at: http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/10/1773. 

76

7 Justice Policy Institute, The Dangers of Detention: The Impact of Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Secure Facilities. 8Pamela Casey and Ingo Keilitz, Estimating the Prevalence of Learning Disabled and Mentally Retarded Juvenile Offenders: A Meta-Analysis, in UNDERSTANDING TROUBLED AND 

TROUBLING YOUTH 82-101 (P.E. Leone ed. 1990), pp. 89-94. 9Foley’s extensive review (2001) of the research on the academic characteristics of incarcerated youth found that in general: (a) their intellectual functioning has been assessed at the lowaverage to average range; (b) their academic achievement levels range from fifth to ninth grade; 

(c) they have significant deficits in reading, math, written language, and oral language compared with non-incarcerated students; (d) those who recidivate have significantly lower levels 

of intellectual and academic functioning than those who do not; and (e) school failure is a common experience. Foley, R. M. (2001). Academic characteristics of incarcerated youth and correctional educational programs: A literature review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 248-259. 10Peter E. Leone, et al., School Failure, Race, and Disability: Promoting Positive Outcomes, 

Decreasing Vulnerability for Involvement with the Juvenile Delinquency System, The National 

Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice, pp. 2-5, available at http://www.edjj.org/

Publications/list/leone—et—al-2003.pdf. 11Peter E. Leone & Sheri Meisel, Improving Education Services for Students in Detention and 

Confinement Facilities, a publication of EDJJ: The National Center on Education, Disability, 

and Juvenile Justice, available at http://www.edjj.org/Publications/list/leone—meisel1997.html. 12Peter E. Leone & Sheri Meisel, Improving Education Services for Students in Detention and 

Confinement Facilities, a publication of EDJJ: The National Center on Education, Disability, 

and Juvenile Justice, available at http://www.edjj.org/Publications/list/leone—meisel1997.html. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Mr. Aos. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE AOS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, 

WASHINGTON STATE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY 

Mr. AOS. Madam Chair, members of the committee, my name is 

Steve Aos. I am an assistant director and an economist with the 

Washington State Institute for Public Policy. 

The Institute conducts nonpartisan research at the request of the 

legislature in Washington State, and I want to talk to you a little 

bit today about what we have done in Washington State for our 

legislature, and some of the principles that we have found may be 

helpful to you as you consider the reauthorization. Our legislature 

was interested, actually, in a broader question. It wanted to know 

how to reduce crime, one, and, two, how to do it cost-effectively, 

how to actually do the smart thing so that you can save reduced 

crime rates and save taxpayers’ money in the process. So we began 

to look at their request and a wide range of options—options in the 

prevention system, in juvenile justice and in adult corrections. 

In conducting a thorough review of the research literature, we 

found 571 solid studies in all of those areas, control group kinds 

of studies, of what works and what does not to reduce crime. We 

found some things that do not work and some things that do. Then 

we also did an economic analysis of those programs. 

What we produced then for our legislature is kind of a consumer 

reports, a list, of what works, what does not ranked by what we 

think is the kind of rate of return we can give taxpayers with the 

different programs. That research has been used now by our legislature, I am happy to report in this 2007 session, to substantially 

reform the way we spend our money in all three of those systems, 

in the prevention system, the juvenile justice system and in the 

adult corrections system. 

What we did find when we did that work is that we think we 

can avoid buildings several new prisons, adult prisons, down the 

road, particularly if we concentrate on some prevention programs 

and some juvenile justice programs. Those look particularly attracVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:45 Apr 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-63\37692.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
77

tive to us. Economically, they can save taxpayers in our State a 

considerable amount of money. For example, let me just pick out 

one that is in the juvenile justice system, a program that we are 

implementing now in Washington State. It is called Functional 

Family Therapy. This is a program that was done outside of Washington State. We looked at it. We looked at all seven studies that 

had been done of it. We thought it made sense. 

We imported it into Washington State, put it into our juvenile 

court system. The State funded that program. We evaluated it. We 

found out that it is working pretty much as we thought it would 

once we had good quality control of that program, and we think it 

is saving taxpayers about $7 for every $1 it puts in, and additionally, because there are fewer crimes committed by those juveniles, 

we think it is saving about another $7 or $8 to the crime victims 

or to people who are not victimized. So its total return is about $15, 

a benefit per $1 of cost, so it looks awfully attractive to us. 

The lessons that I think I would like to leave the committee with 

here, if you want to learn anything about what we have tried to 

do in Washington State, is that, one, the first thing is that the research has progressed in the last 10 years. We know a lot more 

now about what works and what does not work, and that is useful 

to put that into action now. We have done it in Washington State. 

We would suggest it would be a good thing to put that information 

into play as you reauthorize. 

The second thing that we have looked at is, if you think about 

this as an investment as you might do on Wall Street, you know, 

what kind of portfolio of spending do you want to do? What we 

have tried to do in Washington is to put an increasing percentage, 

the greatest percentage—70 or 80 percent of what we spend our 

money on are on the things that are on this list, things for which 

we already have evidence that work and do not work, and we move 

money out of things that do not work and put it into things that 

work, and then we reserve about another 20 or 25 percent for 

things that we do not know yet as to whether they work or not. 

‘‘research and development’’ is what it is called in the business 

world. You do those. You put some of the money into that research 

and development part of the portfolio, and then we make sure that 

we conduct those evaluations. 

So we are already on the road in Washington State, we think. 

The legislature has taken a big step forward this session to try to 

implement some of these programs, some of these things that work. 

We have shifted money out of things that do not work. We were 

doing some things that did not make any sense to us based on rigorous research, and we have moved those dollars into things where 

we think we can give taxpayers a better return on their dollar. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Aos. 

[The statement of Mr. Aos follows:]

Prepared Statement of Steve Aos, Assistant Director, Washington State 

Institute for Public Policy 

Thank you Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. I am Steve Aos, Assistant Director of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy. The Institute I 

work for was created by the Washington State Legislature in 1983 to carry out nonpartisan research on projects as directed by the Legislature. 

78

I have been asked to discuss recent work we have done for the Washington State 

Legislature on juvenile justice issues. Since our Legislature has taken a broad view 

of crime and ways to reduce it, I will also broaden my remarks on the juvenile justice system to encompass our analysis of prevention programs for youth before they 

become involved in the juvenile justice system, and, at the other end of the age spectrum, cost-effective public policy options for adult offenders. As I discuss, we have 

found that all three efforts are needed if a state is to implement a long-term crime 

reduction strategy that uses taxpayer money efficiently. 

Legislators in Washington State asked my Institute to examine a straightforward 

question: What works to reduce crime—and what doesn’t? 

They wanted us to apply rigorous standards to identify the specific ‘‘evidencebased’’ public policy options they could exercise. They also wanted to know whether 

the options could pass an economic test. That is, if an option can reduce crime, then 

does the program also save taxpayers more money than the option costs? Thus, the 

two hallmarks of our work are its explicit focus on evidence-based options and on 

sound economics. Washington legislators wanted to identify public policies that pass 

both tests. 

We have published a number of reports on our work. Our October 2006 study—

‘‘Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, 

Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates’’—contains the full set of options we have 

identified to date. I will briefly summarize our findings today; the full document is 

available on our website: www.wsipp.wa.gov. 

In short, this is what we did and what we found. We conducted a systematic review of all research evidence we could locate to identify what works, if anything, 

to reduce crime. We found and analyzed 571 rigorous comparison-group evaluations 

of adult corrections, juvenile justice, and prevention programs, most of which were 

conducted in the United States during the last 30 years. We then estimated the benefits and costs of many of these evidence-based options from the perspective of 

Washington State. That is, if Washington were to implement any of these options, 

would they be beneficial to the state? Finally, we projected the degree to which alternative ‘‘portfolios’’ of these programs could affect future prison construction 

needs, criminal justice costs, and crime rates in Washington. 

We found that some evidence-based programs can reduce crime, but others cannot. Per dollar of spending, a number of the successful programs produce favorable 

returns on investment. Public policies incorporating these options can yield positive 

outcomes for Washington. We then projected the long-run effects of three example 

portfolios of evidence-based options: a ‘‘current level’’ option as well as ‘‘moderate’’ 

and ‘‘aggressive’’ implementation portfolios. 

We found that if Washington successfully implements a moderate-to-aggressive 

portfolio of evidence-based options, a significant level of future prison construction 

can be avoided, Washington taxpayers can save about two billion dollars, and crime 

rates can be reduced. Perhaps most significant for your hearing today, we found 

that several of the most cost-effective options are in the juvenile justice and prevention areas. 

Before discussing our findings in a bit more detail, I want to report to you that 

the 2007 Washington Legislature used the Institute’s findings to alter substantially 

the State’s approach toward some criminal justice policies. The Legislature has 

shifted funding away from some previous efforts that have not proven successful 

and moved those funds toward evidence-based cost-beneficial programs. In addition 

to shifting funding, the 2007 Legislature also increased funding levels for some of 

the most economically attractive options on our list. The Legislature expects a payoff for its action: as a result of these new investments, the Legislature now expects 

future crime rates and criminal justice costs to be lower than they otherwise would 

be. In effect, Washington has placed a fiscal bet on these options and now must deliver the results for the taxpayers who pay for the programs. 

As we did our research, the first thing we learned is that a coherent set of crime 

reduction policies must be broad in scope and be targeted at the long run. We found 

that it is necessary to think about a ‘‘portfolio’’ of public policy options if the longterm goal is to reduce crime and save taxpayers money. Thus, the strategies that 

we identified are in three broad public policy areas: prevention, juvenile justice, and 

adult corrections. We found that some well-researched prevention programs for children and their families can reduce crime down the road. We also found that several 

juvenile justice programs designed for youth already in the juvenile justice system 

are critical elements of an overall crime reduction strategy. Finally, we identified 

a number of effective and cost-beneficial options in the adult corrections system. 

The important point from our work is this: a coherent long-term strategy involves 

all three elements—prevention, juvenile justice, and adult corrections. Our overall 

conclusion is one of good news: In the last two decades, research on what works and 

79

what doesn’t has developed and, after considering the comparative economics of 

these options, this information can now be used to improve public resource allocation. 

For the topic of this hearing in particular, we found that cost-effective prevention 

and juvenile justice programs are a very significant part—perhaps over half—of the 

solution for Washington to achieve long-term reductions in crime rates as well as 

net reductions in criminal justice costs. A significant way to avoid having to build 

adult prisons down the road is to implement evidence-based cost-beneficial prevention programs for youth and for youth in the juvenile justice system. 

Some Specific Findings 

The findings from our study center on three questions: what works to reduce 

crime; what are the economics of each option; and how would alternative portfolios 

of these options affect Washington’s prison construction needs, state and local criminal justice costs, and crime rates? 

I have attached an Exhibit from our October 2006 study that summarizes some 

of the key findings from our current systematic review of the evaluation research 

literature. As the Exhibit reveals, we found a number of programs that have demonstrated statistically significant reductions in crime outcomes. We also found other 

approaches that do not achieve a statistically significant reduction in recidivism. 

Thus, the first lesson from our evidence-based review is that some programs work 

and some do not. A direct implication from these mixed findings is that public policies that reduce crime will be ones that focus resources on effective evidence-based 

programming while avoiding ineffective approaches. 

An example of the information provided on the attached Exhibit is the juvenile 

justice program called ‘‘Functional Family Therapy’’ (FFT). This program follows a 

specific training manual and approach. The FFT program, which has been implemented in Washington, involves an FFT-trained therapist working for about three 

months with a youth in the juvenile justice system and his or her family. The goal 

is to increase the likelihood that the youth will stay out of future trouble. We located and meta-analyzed seven rigorous evaluations of this program—one conducted 

in Washington—and find that the average FFT program with quality control can be 

expected to reduce a juvenile’s recidivism rates by 15.9 percent. 

We also wanted to know what the economics looked like for FFT. To do this we 

estimated benefits from two perspectives: taxpayers’ and crime victims’. For example, if a program is able to achieve statistically significant reductions in recidivism 

rates, then taxpayers will spend less money on the criminal justice system. Similarly, if a program produces less crime, then there will be fewer crime victims. For 

the FFT program, we find that the program costs, on average, $2,325 per juvenile 

participant. The 15.9 percent reduction in recidivism rates that we expect FFT to 

achieve generates about $34,146 in life-cycle benefits, measured in terms of the taxpayer and crime victim costs that are avoided because of the reduced long-run level 

of criminal activity of the youth. Thus, the net present value of this juvenile justice 

program is expected to be $31,821 per youth. 

Bottom Line 

The purpose of our legislatively directed study was to test whether evidence-based 

public policy options could: (a) lower the anticipated need to build new prisons, (b) 

reduce state and local fiscal costs of the criminal justice system, and (c) contribute 

to reduced crime rates. 

We found that there are economically attractive evidence-based options in three 

areas: adult corrections programs, juvenile justice programs, and prevention. Per 

dollar of spending, several of the successful programs produce favorable returns on 

investment. Public policies incorporating these options can yield positive outcomes 

for Washington. 

We also found that if Washington can successfully implement a moderate-to-aggressive portfolio of some of these evidence-based options, then a significant level 

of future prison construction can be avoided, state and local taxpayers can save 

about two billion dollars, and net crime rates can be lowered slightly. In particular, 

we found that cost-beneficial prevention and juvenile justice programs play a critical 

role in a long-term crime control strategy for Washington State. 

Finally, as I mentioned earlier, the 2007 Washington Legislature used this information to make significant changes to the way it funds the state’s prevention, juvenile justice, and adult corrections systems. 

Madam Chair, this concludes my testimony. 

[Mr. Aos’s responses to questions for the record follow:]

80

[VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL], 

October 1, 2007, 

Hon. GEORGE MILLER, Chairman; Hon. CAROLYN MCCARTHY, Subcommittee Chairwoman, Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

Thank you for the honor of testifying to the Subcommittee on Healthy Families, 

September 18, 2007. 

In your follow-up letter you asked for answers to some additional questions from 

Representative Robert C. Scott. Representative’s Scott’s questions concern, primarily, the effects of confinement of juvenile offenders in adult corrections systems, 

the effects of confinement of status offenders, and ways to decrease minorities and 

those with mental illness in the juvenile justice system. 

Unfortunately, I do not have research results on the topics concerning confinement. As my testimony indicated, I conduct research at the request of the Washington State Legislature and, to date, our Legislature has not asked us to look into 

these topics. There is research in the nation on these matters, but I have not reviewed it. 

In terms of ways to reduce the proportion of minorities in the juvenile justice system, I refer the Committee to the testimony I delivered. The Table in my testimony 

lists the programs that we have found to be effective in reducing juvenile offending. 

We have found some of these programs to be equally effective for all groups of juveniles. For example, we found that the program called ‘‘Functional Family Therapy’’ 

works equally well with minority and non-minority juvenile justice populations. We 

recommend that these evidence-based programs become an integral part of a State’s 

overall strategy of cost-effectively reducing crime. As I also noted, we have found 

that some prevention programs also work; we also recommend the adoption of these 

programs as an effective way to reduce the chance that crime will be committed in 

the first place. Washington State, for example, has recently substantially increased 

its investments in these programs. 

Thank you again for allowing me to testify. 

STEVE AOS, Assistant Director, 

Washington State Institute for Public Policy. 

[Additional materials submitted by Mr. Aos follow:] 

[Internet address for ‘‘No Turning Back: Promising Approaches to 

Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities Affecting Youth of Color in 

the Justice System,’’ report, by the Building Blocks for Youth Initiative, October 2005, follows:]

http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/noturningback/ntb—fullreport.pdf 

[A copy of the King County resource guide, ‘‘Information Sharing: 

A facilitating tool for the agency partners, and their professional 

staff, of the King County Systems Integration Initiative,’’ 2006, 

may be obtained by contacting Casey Family Programs at the following Internet address:]

www.casey.org 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Ms. Ambrose. 

STATEMENT OF ANNE MARIE AMBROSE, DIRECTOR, CHILD 

WELFARE AND JUVENILE JUSTICE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT 

OF PUBLIC WELFARE, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Ms. AMBROSE. Thank you. 

Good morning. I am Anne Marie Ambrose, the Director of Child 

Welfare and Juvenile Justice Services for the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania. I am happy to have this opportunity to be here today 

81

to represent Pennsylvania as well as juvenile justice administrators 

and advocates on the critical importance of the reauthorization of 

the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. 

The JJDPA has been critical in supporting juvenile justice system improvement and for delinquency prevention. The establishment of the Pennsylvania State Advisory Group and the Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention Committee within the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency in 1978 has provided tremendous leadership and commitment to improving the juvenile justice system and to providing a consistent focus on delinquency prevention. This important work has been accomplished 

over the past several years primarily because of the strength of the 

JJDPC. 

We are appointed by the governor without regard for political affiliation, but based on experience, expertise and dedication in the 

field of juvenile justice. Our committee is composed of judges, probation officers, researchers, youth and victim advocates, defenders, 

district attorneys, practitioners, community leaders, providers, and 

educators. We have the best and the brightest engaged in intensive 

discussions and planning to create a framework for juvenile justice 

and delinquency prevention goals for Pennsylvania youth and families. 

We believe in the fair, humane and just treatment of all youth 

in the juvenile justice system. We believe that all youth have the 

promise and potential to become productive citizens through our juvenile justice mission of balanced and restorative justice, which includes the protection of the community, accountability for offenders 

and competencies to enable children to become responsible and productive members of the community. The JJDPC meets quarterly 

and submits a plan to the governor every 2 years. Subcommittees 

meet quarterly as well to drive the work and to make recommendations in critical priority areas such as female services, evidencebased prevention, as well as disproportionate minority confinement. 

Through the years, our committee has used the goals of the 

JJDPA and critical Federal funding as a springboard for juvenile 

justice reform that has become a national model. Devastating cuts 

in Federal funding over the last few years have forced the committee to reevaluate our work and focus even more on prevention 

as well as the sustainability of programs. 

Our key priority areas are evidence-based prevention, disproportionate minority contact, after care, and behavioral health. The 

JJDPC has used much of their Federal funding over the years to 

invest in over 160 evidence-based prevention and intervention programs such as multidimensional treatment, foster care, functional 

family therapy, and multisystemic therapy. 

In the absence of any good research that establishes that public 

safety is enhanced by prosecuting juveniles in adult court or in 

placing them in institutions, Pennsylvania has invested in supporting youth and families in their communities. In order to build 

our current prevention efforts and to build more instate capacity, 

planning is underway to develop a resource center for evidencebased prevention and intervention practices. As you have heard on 

this panel, these interventions are both cost-effective and have 

proven outcomes. Important resources like this require stable FedVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:45 Apr 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-63\37692.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
82

eral funding to succeed. In 2003, the JJDPC priorities became the 

foundation for our work with the MacArthur Foundation’s Model 

for Change Initiative. The partnership with MacArthur has been 

critical to advancing JJDPC’s priorities and in seeking to promote 

broad juvenile justice system reform in the areas of after care, 

mental health and disproportionate minority contact. 

Pennsylvania believes in keeping children and families together 

whenever possible and in using the least restrictive intervention 

necessary. We have implemented performance-based standards 

launched by the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators 

and supported by OJJDP to ensure quality of care in juvenile correctional facilities for youth who require secure confinement but believe that most youth should be served in the community, if possible. 

Pennsylvania’s SAG—the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Committee—have helped to create a model juvenile justice 

system. In 2005, of 45,504 delinquent dispositions, only 3,487 

youths were placed in out-of-home care. Much of our good work has 

been built around the core protections for children found in the 

JJDPA. Those protections should be maintained and strengthened 

through reauthorization. 

Our work has been made increasingly difficult because of significant cuts in funding. OJJDP should be charged with not only holding States accountable for adhering to the goals of JJDPA, but for 

providing technical assistance to States in order to achieve those 

goals. Incentive funding should also be made available for States 

that are able to demonstrate the ability to create innovative and 

effective local initiatives that provide treatment to youth involved 

in the juvenile justice system while keeping communities safe. 

OJJDP should be responsible for measuring outcomes in States 

that receive Federal funding. Positive outcomes for youth, families 

and communities must be achieved in order to maintain and to increase Federal funding. 

I hope that I have been able to communicate the critical importance of the reauthorization of the JJDPA. It has helped create a 

synergy in Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system that recognizes 

the need to provide an opportunity for redemption for our troubled 

youth while valuing the importance of community protection and 

the community’s critical role in achieving youth redemption. Our 

reform efforts would not have been possible without Federal funding that was available over the last several years. In order to sustain our progress and to continue to make critical investments in 

prevention, including evidence-based programs, we must receive 

additional Federal funding. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address you on this very important issue. I encourage Congress not only to support but to also 

strengthen the JJDPA. Thanks. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Ms. Ambrose. 

[The statement of Ms. Ambrose follows:]

Prepared Statement of Anne Marie Ambrose, Director of Child Welfare and 

Juvenile Justice Services, Department of Public Welfare 

Good morning members of the Healthy Families and Communities Subcommittee. 

I am Anne Marie Ambrose, the Director of Child Welfare and Juvenile Justices 

83

Services at the Office of Children Youth and Families in the Department of Public 

Welfare for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

Thank for the opportunity to be here today to represent Pennsylvania as well as 

juvenile justice administrators and advocates on the critical importance of the reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA). 

The JJDPA has been critical in supporting juvenile justice system improvement 

and for delinquency prevention. The establishment of Pennsylvania’s State Advisory 

Group (the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Committee) within the 

Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency in 1978, has provided tremendous leadership and commitment to improving the juvenile justice system and to 

provide a consistent focus on delinquency prevention. 

This important work has been accomplished over the past several years primarily 

because of the strength of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Committee (JJDPC). We are appointed by the Governor without regard for political affiliation but based on experience, expertise and dedication in the field of juvenile 

justice. 

Our committee is composed of judges, probation officers, researchers, youth and 

victim advocates, defenders, district attorneys, practitioners, community leaders, 

providers and educators. 

We have the best and brightest engaged in intensive discussions and planning to 

create a framework for juvenile justice and delinquency prevention goals for Pennsylvania youth and families. 

Pennsylvania has a proud history of full compliance with the core requirements 

of the JJDPA, which include: Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (with a particular emphasis on the special needs of girls), Jail Removal, Sight and Sound Separation, and Disproportionate Minority Contact. The Core Protections have all been 

longstanding goals of Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system. 

We believe in the fair, humane and just treatment of all youth in the juvenile justice system. We believe that all youth have the promise and potential to be productive citizens through our juvenile justice mission of Balanced and Restorative Justice. 

In the early 1990’s high violent juvenile crime rates raised concerns as to the effectiveness of juvenile justice system intervention. Out of these concerns, Act 33 of 

Special Session No. 1 was passed by the Pennsylvania General Assembly in November 1995. Act 33 amended Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Act to provide that, consistent 

with the protection of the public interest, the purpose/mission of the juvenile justice 

system is ‘‘* * * to provide for children committing delinquent acts programs of supervision, care and rehabilitation which provide balanced attention to the protection 

of the community, the imposition of accountability for offenses committed and the 

development of competencies to enable children to become responsible and productive members of the community.’’

The new purpose clause in the Juvenile Act is rooted in the philosophy of ‘‘balanced and restorative justice,’’ which gives priority to repairing the harm done to 

crime victims and communities and which defines offender accountability in terms 

of assuming responsibility for the harm caused by his/her behavior and taking action to repair that harm to the extent possible. 

In response to recommendations presented to the Governor in 1997 by the JJDPC, 

the Commonwealth has developed a strong juvenile justice and delinquency prevention infrastructure that has helped to make Pennsylvania a national leader in juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. 

In 1998, the Committee adopted a mission statement and guiding principles for 

Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system in order to guide the operation of the system 

and shape system policy. 

The JJDPC meets quarterly and submits a plan to the Governor every two years. 

The JJDPC Subcommittees meet quarterly as well to drive the work and make recommendations in critical priority areas such as female services, evidence-based prevention and intervention practices as well as disproportionate minority contact. 

The JJDPC in coordination with PCCD’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has administered federal funding under the JJDP Act to advance 

overall juvenile justice system improvement and for delinquency prevention. 

Through the years our committee has used the goals of the JJDPA and critical 

federal funding as a springboard for juvenile justice reform that has become a national model. 

Title II funds have supported a broad range of juvenile justice and delinquency 

prevention projects and this has been the most stable federal funding source over 

the last several years. 

These funds have focused on 4 main areas: compliance monitoring activities to 

maintain compliance with the federal JJDP Act, addressing the issue of disproporVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:45 Apr 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-63\37692.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
84

tionate minority contact in the juvenile justice system, implementing model delinquency prevention programs and overall juvenile justice system improvement efforts. 

The Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG) Program was created to encourage state and local governments to hold delinquent youths responsible for their offenses through accountability-based sanctions. 

Local units of government have been able to use these funds covering the entire 

spectrum from entry-level diversion programs such as Youth Aid Panels to Intensive 

Aftercare services for sex offenders. 

Title V funds under the JJDP Act have been used to support sustainability efforts 

for Pennsylvania’s Communities That Care (CTC) initiatives. Title V funds support 

projects that were developed and implemented through the efforts of CTC risk-focused Prevention Policy Boards at various locations throughout Pennsylvania. 

The CTC initiatives help to sustain community collaboration and prevention/intervention programs that create safe places for children and youth, reduce problem behaviors among children and youth, and teach children and youth healthy beliefs and 

clear standards. 

Title V funds under the JJDP Act were used to launch Pennsylvania’s CTC RiskFocused Prevention Initiative in 1994 and CTC is still a critical prevention planning 

process used by many communities around the Commonwealth. 

Devastating cuts in federal funding over the last few years have forced the committee to reevaluate our work and focus even more on prevention as well as sustainability of programs. 

Through the leadership of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency’s Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Committee (JJDPC) and its 

system partners, Pennsylvania continues to be a model for the nation in its approach to preventing and appropriately responding to delinquency. The combination 

of state leadership and vision with local autonomy and innovation is the strength 

of our system and future progress will depend on continued commitment and leadership. 

Key priority issues targeted for improvements are: 

1. Evidence-Based Prevention and Intervention Practices 

2. Disproportionate Minority Contact 

3. Aftercare 

4. Behavioral Health 

Pennsylvania is considered a leader in juvenile crime prevention. 

Since 1998, PCCD, through the leadership of the JJDPC, has funded over 160 

model prevention/intervention programs with a combination of federal and state 

funds. 

The JJDPC has used much of their federal funding over the years to invest in 

evidence-based prevention/intervention programs such as Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care, Functional Family Therapy and Multisystemic Therapy. 

In the absence of any good research that supports locking youth up, Pennsylvania 

has invested in supporting youth and families in their communities. 

In order to build on our current prevention efforts and build more in-state capacity, planning is underway to develop a Resource Center for Evidence-Based Prevention and Intervention Practices. 

The overall purpose is to support the proliferation of high quality and effective 

juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs throughout Pennsylvania. We 

want to improve and promote Pennsylvania’s knowledge of effective juvenile justice 

and delinquency prevention programs and practices by advancing recognized standards of research for determining program effectiveness. 

Funding will support the start-up and operation of prevention or intervention programs proven to be effective, and ensure Evidence-Based Program models are implemented with fidelity and adherence to quality assurance standards. PCCD’s OJJDP 

will serve as a resource to the field related to the implementation of evidence-based 

programming as well as support local innovative intervention programs designed to 

achieve the juvenile justice system goals of community protection, offender accountability, and competency development to ensure all programs meet a minimum 

threshold of quality and effectiveness. 

A vital part of the overall initiative will be collaborating with all state agencies 

on planning and programming related to juvenile delinquency prevention and the 

reduction and prevention of violence by and against children. 

Another key aspect is supporting providers and probation departments in documenting their activities so that programs/departments can track their performance 

and report their outcomes in a standardized way that would ultimately support research into what programs work best with which offenders/respond to community 

risk factors. 

85

As you will hear on this panel, these interventions are both cost-effective and 

have proven outcomes. Important resources like the Resource Center for EvidenceBased Prevention and Intervention Practices require stable federal funding to succeed. 

In 2003, the JJDPC priorities became the foundation for our work with the MacArthur Foundation’s ‘‘Model for Change’’ Initiative. 

Pennsylvania was the first state selected to participate in the ‘‘Models for Change’’ 

initiative supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Pennsylvania was chosen due to its favorable reform climate and seems poised to become 

an exemplary system. 

Having a strong State Advisory Group like the JJDPC, was a key factor in Pennsylvania’s selection and due to strong partnerships among state stakeholders-judges, 

district attorneys, public defenders, community leaders, and city, county, and state 

officials. 

The partnership with the MacArthur Foundation has been critical in advancing 

the JJDPC’s priorities in seeking to promote broad juvenile justice system reform 

in the areas of aftercare, mental health services, and disproportionate minority contact. 

Pennsylvania believes in keeping children and families together whenever possible and using the least restrictive intervention necessary. We have implemented 

Performance-based Standards (PbS) launched by the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators (CJCA) and supported by the federal Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to insure quality care in juvenile correctional 

facilities for youth who require secure confinement but believe that most youth 

should be served in the community if possible. 

The Department of Public Welfare has created an Integrated Children’s Services 

Initiative to bring together all child-serving systems in an effort to make appropriate planning decisions. The juvenile justice system should only be for youth who 

pose a risk to the community and require ongoing court supervision. 

Education, mental health and families working together with probation can identify appropriate diversion resources to meet the mandates of Balanced and Restorative Justice. Federal funding is needed to stabilize and expand this innovative practice. 

Pennsylvania’s SAG, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Committee 

have helped to create a model juvenile justice system. In 2005, of 45,504 delinquent 

dispositions, only 3487 youth are placed in out of home care. 

Much of our good work has been built around the core protections for children 

found in the JJDPA. Those protections should be maintained and strengthened 

through the reauthorization. Our work has been made increasingly difficult because 

of significant cuts in funding. 

OJJDP should be charged with not only holding states accountable for adhering 

to the goals of the JJDPA but for providing technical assistance to states in order 

to achieve those goals. Incentive funding should also be made available for states 

that are able to demonstrate the ability to create innovative and effective local initiatives that provide treatment to youth involved in the juvenile justice system 

while keeping communities safe. 

OJJDP should be responsible for measuring outcomes in states that receive federal funding. Positive outcomes for youth, families and communities must be 

achieved in order to maintain and increase federal funding. 

I hope that I have been able to communicate the critical importance of reauthorization of the JJDPA. It has helped create a synergy in Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system that recognizes the need to provide the opportunity for redemption for 

our troubled youth while valuing the importance of community protection and the 

community’s critical role in achieving youth redemption. 

Our reform efforts would not have been possible without federal funding that was 

available over the last several years. 

In order to sustain our progress and continue to make critical investments in prevention, including evidence-based programs, we must receive additional federal 

funding. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address you on this very important issue. I encourage Congress to not only support but also strengthen the JJDPA. My written 

testimony includes references to additional information on juvenile justice issues. 

Please use these resources and continue to promote policy that values and supports 

all of our youth. I am happy to answer any questions you might have regarding my 

testimony. 

[Ms. Ambrose’s responses to questions for the record follow:]

86

1 Bishop, D.M., Frazier, C.E., Lane, J., & Lanza-Kaduce, L. (2002, January). Juvenile transfer 

to criminal court study: Final report. p. 15. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office 

of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 2MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice. 

(2006, September). Issue Brief 5: The changing borders of the juvenile justice system: Transfer 

of adolescents to the adult criminal court. 

BUREAU OF CHILD WELFARE AND JUVENILE JUSTICE SERVICES, 

1401 N. 7TH STREET, 4TH FLOOR, 

Harrisburg, PA, September 27, 2007. 

Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House 

Office Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN MILLER AND CHAIRWOMAN MCCARTHY: Thank you for the opportunity to supplement my testimony I gave before the U.S. House of Representatives 

Education and Labor Committee, Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities on September 18, 2007. The following provides my response to questions submitted by Representative Scott. 

Consequences of Imprisoning Juveniles with Adults 

Imprisoning juveniles with adults does not improve public safety, nor does incarceration with adults help youth make an appropriate transition to adulthood. Youth 

leaving adult facilities not only come out without the education and skills necessary 

to succeed and retain jobs, but they have also spent time with career criminals. 

Available evidence suggests that juveniles who experience the adult criminal justice 

system commit more subsequent violent crimes following release than juveniles retained in the juvenile justice system. A study done in Florida compared 315 ‘‘bestmatched’’ pairs of youth. These youth were matched based on age, race, gender, previous offenses, and such. The study found that while 37% of youth who were given 

juvenile sanctions re-offended, 49% of the youth receiving adult sanctions re-offended.1 In addition, there is insufficient evidence to believe that transferring youth 

to the adult system is an effective deterrent to crime either. 

In addition, the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development has conducted extensive research that shows that children in adult facilities 

face harsher settings and experience more developmental problems than children in 

juvenile correctional settings.2 Correctional administrators across the country recognize the ill-effects of housing youth in adult facilities and the Council of Juvenile 

Correctional Administrators (CJCA) has issued a policy statement against the placement of youth in adult facilities. 

Consequences of Imprisoning Status Offenders 

Placing youth who have committed status offenses in lock-ups is stigmatizing and 

counters all goals of rehabilitation. Detention/incarceration interrupts educational 

progress, pro-social relationships with peers, family, caring adults, and often undercuts job training and employment opportunities. Feelings of social isolation and a 

sense of hopelessness are exacerbated not reduced during imprisonment—in essence 

making it more likely that a young person will feel alienated. Common sense and 

research tells us that imprisonment is not a positive approach to status offending 

behavior. Status offenders are youth who engage in behavior only considered delinquent because they are under the age of majority—such as breaking curfews, running away from home, skipping school, underage drinking, etc. Such youth often 

commit status offenses in response to underlying problems. 

The Coalition for Juvenile Justice (CJJ), which serves as the national association 

of the State Advisory Groups (SAGs) appointed by Governors under the JJDPA, 

urges strict prohibitions on the use of locked detention/incarceration of status offenders. CJJ calls for appropriate services and supports within a family and home 

environment whenever possible and at all times close to home and in a healthy 

school and community context. CJJ cites that it is both contrary to both federal law 

and to effective practice to lock up status offenders, see www.juvjustice.org. CJJ is 

joined in its view by more than 160 organizations that have come together under 

the ‘‘Act-4-JJ Campaign’’ of the National Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Coalition, see www.act4jj.org. 

Here in Pennsylvania, we have found that home- family and community-based 

care for status offending youth is by far the most effective approach. 

Effective Ways to Reduce DMC 

To effectively reduce racial and ethnic disproportionality, a coordinated body of juvenile justice and community stakeholders must engage in an intensive, data-driven 

examination of juvenile justice policies, procedures, and practices that may disparVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:45 Apr 07, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\HFC\110-63\37692.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
87

ately impact youth of color. At present there are two major initiatives going on 

across the country that are actively making progress in reducing racial disparities: 

the MacArthur Foundation’s Models for Change Initiative; and the Annie E. Casey 

Foundation’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI). 

As I mentioned in my testimony, Pennsylvania has a model juvenile justice system and is part of the MacArthur Foundation’s Models for Change Initiative. Reform work in the DMC area begins with the effort to understand the problem statistically. Since 1989 the DMC Subcommittee of Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention Committee has used arrest, juvenile court, and detention 

admissions data compiled by the National Council on Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) to 

monitor statewide trends in the handling of youth involved at various stages of the 

juvenile justice system, identify emerging problems at certain stages for some 

groups, and target finite resources for system reform. The data have also been used 

to track the extent to which members of minority groups are beneficiaries of alternative processing options such as diversion from court or home detention. 

Local juvenile justice stakeholders with access to these indicators at the county 

level can begin to ‘‘look for the story behind the numbers’’ and develop strategies 

to assure nondiscriminatory decision-making across population groups and identify 

areas that may need more in-depth examination. With guidance from the DMC Subcommittee, the Center for Children’s Law and Policy, under Pennsylvania’s partnership with the MacArthur Foundation’s Models for Change initiative, is working in 

three Pennsylvania counties to help facilitate an examination of racial data at the 

county and neighborhood levels and to plan system improvements intended to reduce disparities. The Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission has been successful at enhancing the reliability and completeness of the state’s data on the processing of juveniles of Hispanic ethnicity. These efforts have resulted in the issuance of a Racial 

Coding Booklet which provides detailed instructions and guidance to local juvenile 

courts and probation departments on techniques for gathering accurate information 

regarding the race and ethnicity of youth involved in Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice 

system. Models for Change also addresses DMC at the local level, through demonstration projects involving partnerships with local courts, probation departments 

and citizens. In Berks County, Models for Change is working with stakeholders on 

four task forces to reduce Hispanic overrepresentation through language capability 

and cultural diversity, education and workforce development, detention alternatives 

and nontraditional services. 

Mentally-ill Youth 

The Models for Change Initiative in Pennsylvania is also working to improve mental health services for youth. Our vision is that by 2010 every county will have a 

comprehensive model system that: (1) prevents the unnecessary involvement of 

youth who are in need of mental health treatment, including those with co-occurring 

substance abuse disorders, in the juvenile justice system; (2) allows for the early 

identification of youth in the system with mental health needs and co-occurring disorders; and (3) provides for timely access by identified youth in the system to appropriate treatment within the least restrictive setting that is consistent with public 

safety needs. 

This effort is prompted by the recognition that many youth in contact with the 

juvenile justice system have significant mental health and co-occurring substance 

abuse treatment needs. Youth with unidentified and untreated mental health and 

co-occurring substance abuse needs are unable to participate fully in their families, 

schools and communities, and are at high risk of becoming involved in offending behavior. Once in the juvenile justice system, untreated youth pose a safety risk to 

themselves and others. Moreover, they are hindered in their ability to participate 

in their own rehabilitation, be accountable for their actions, and develop competencies, in accordance with the principles of balanced and restorative justice 

(BARJ) as incorporated into Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Act. In order to promote these 

purposes, we are committed to implementing policies that promote the early identification of youth with mental health and co-occurring substance abuse needs, appropriate diversion out of the juvenile justice system, and referral to effective, evidencebased treatment that involves the family in both the planning for and delivery of 

services. Concurrent with these efforts, we are also working to ensure that safeguards are in place to avoid the misdiagnosis and/or overdiagnosis of youth in the 

juvenile justice system, as well as to protect youth’s legal interests and rights. 

Pennsylvania’s commitment to cross-systems collaboration to achieve this vision 

is further premised on the understanding that no one system bears sole responsibility for these youth. Youth are the community’s responsibility, and all policy responses developed for them, on both the state and county level, should be collaborative in nature, reflecting the input and involvement of all child-serving systems 

88

as well as family members. Attached is a copy of our Mental Health and Juvenile 

Justice Joint Policy Statement. 

Conditions of Confinement Issues 

The 1994 Congressionally-mandated ‘‘Conditions of Confinement’’ report of juvenile facilities documented how facilities were unsafe for youths and staff, provided 

inadequate health and mental health services, were overcrowded, and generally 

were not meeting the expectations for juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. 

The report called for the development and implementation of Performance-based 

Standards (PbS), launched in 1995 by the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators (CJCA). In 2004, PbS won the ‘‘Innovations in American Government 

Award’’ by Harvard University’s Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation for addressing the issues of confinement: safety, security, fairness, health/

mental health services, education, programming and rehabilitation as well as preparation to return to the community. Currently 180 correction and detention facilities 

across the country have volunteered to implement PbS (adopt the standards, report 

outcome data and integrate the improvement process), but they need financial support to continue to use PbS as OJJDP funding is ending. Incentive funds could encourage the remaining 1,000 public facilities to adopt PbS. PbS has been effective 

in bringing accountability and transparency to juvenile agencies and facilities. 

In the reauthorization of the JJDPA, conditions of confinement issues could be addressed by: 

1) Establishing and supporting standards and programs that demonstrate effectiveness at keeping youths safe, provide rehabilitation services that work, and are 

continually reviewed and revised as more recent research and information becomes 

available. 

2) Supporting efforts to monitor facilities, programs, and agencies to ensure they 

are keeping kids safe and providing rehabilitation. Rewards and incentives should 

be available for facilities, programs, agencies that continually improve how they 

care for and treat youths and have outcome data to demonstrate positive impact on 

youths’ lives. 

3) Supporting research on specific practices within facilities to develop evidencebased approaches similar to evidence-based research on community-based treatments. 

4) Prohibiting the use of especially dangerous practices, including the use of chemical agents; use of pain compliance techniques; hitting, kicking, striking, or using 

chokeholds or blows to the head; use of four- or five-point restraints, straightjackets, 

or restraint chairs; tying or placing in restraints in uncomfortable positions; periods 

of excessive isolation; restraining to fixed objects; restraining in a prone position or 

putting pressure on the back; using physical force or mechanical restraints (including shackling) for punishment, discipline, or treatment; and use of belly belts or 

chains on pregnant girls. These dangerous practices have been prohibited within the 

JDAI Detention Facility Self-Assessment (attached), recommendations compiled by 

experienced attorneys, physicians, and psychologists who have seen the ill-effects 

such practices across the country. 

Sincerely, 

ANNE MARIE AMBROSE, 

Director. 

[Additional materials submitted by Ms. Ambrose follows:] 

[Internet address to ‘‘Detention Facility Self-Assessment: A Practice Guide t Juvenile Detention Reform,’’ Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, a poject of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, follows:]

http://www.jdaihelpdesk.org/Pages/PracticeGuides.aspx 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Mental Health/Juvenile Justice Joint 

Policy Statement 

The Mental Health/Juvenile Justice (MH/JJ) Work Group of the Pennsylvania 

MacArthur Foundation Models for Change Initiative is comprised of representatives 

from the juvenile justice, mental health, child welfare, drug and alcohol, and education systems as well as families. Our vision is that by 2010 every county will have 

a comprehensive model system that: (1) prevents the unnecessary involvement of 

89

youth who are in need of mental health treatment, including those with co-occurring 

substance abuse disorders, in the juvenile justice system; (2) allows for the early 

identification of youth in the system with mental health needs and co-occurring disorders; and (3) provides for timely access by identified youth in the system to appropriate treatment within the least restrictive setting that is consistent with public 

safety needs. The MH/JJ Work Group’s goal is to engender the systems change necessary to make this vision a reality, including minimizing barriers that impede 

county innovation. 

This effort is prompted by the recognition that many youth in contact with the 

juvenile justice system have significant mental health and co-occurring substance 

abuse treatment needs. Youth with unidentified and untreated mental health and 

co-occurring substance abuse needs are unable to participate fully in their families, 

schools and communities, and are at high risk of becoming involved in offending behavior. Once in the juvenile justice system, untreated youth pose a safety risk to 

themselves and others. Moreover, they are hindered in their ability to participate 

in their own rehabilitation, be accountable for their actions, and develop competencies, in accordance with the principles of balanced and restorative justice 

(BARJ) as incorporated into Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Act. In order to promote these 

purposes, the MH/JJ Work Group is committed to implementing policies that promote the early identification of youth with mental health and cooccurring substance 

abuse needs, appropriate diversion out of the juvenile justice system, and referral 

to effective, evidence-based treatment that involves the family in both the planning 

for and delivery of services. Concurrent with these efforts, the MH/JJ Work Group 

will work to ensure that safeguards are in place to avoid the misdiagnosis and/or 

overdiagnosis of youth in the juvenile justice system, as well as to protect youth’s 

legal interests and rights. 

The MH/JJ Work Group’s commitment to cross-systems collaboration to achieve 

this vision is further premised on the understanding that no one system bears sole 

responsibility for these youth. Instead, these youth are the community’s responsibility and all policy responses developed for them, on both the state and county 

level, should be collaborative in nature, reflecting the input and involvement of all 

child-serving systems as well as family members. This commitment is in line with 

the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare’s requirement that counties annually submit Children’s Integrated Services Plans. 

The Fundamentals of a Comprehensive Model System 

Our goal is to support every Pennsylvania county in developing, through a collaborative effort among all child-serving systems and families, a comprehensive system 

that features the key components of identification, diversion, short term interventions and crisis management, evidence-based treatment and continuity of care/

aftercare planning for youth with mental health needs and co-occurring substance 

abuse issues. Such a system will integrate families into the planning for and delivery of services, and ensure that youth’s legal rights are protected at all stages. 

Screening and Assessment 

1. Mental health and substance abuse screening is available as needed at key 

transition points in the juvenile justice system to identify conditions in need of immediate response. 

2. Instruments used for screening and assessment are standardized, scientificallysound, contain strong psychometric properties, and demonstrate reliability and validity for identifying the mental health and substance abuse treatment needs of 

youth in the juvenile justice system. 

3. Safeguards ensure that screening and assessment is used to divert youth out 

of the juvenile justice system and into mental health and/or substance abuse treatment when appropriate, and information and/or statements obtained from youth are 

not used in a way that violates their rights against self-incrimination. 

4. All youth identified as in need of immediate assistance receive emergency mental health services and substance abuse treatment. 

5. All youth identified as in need of further evaluation receive a comprehensive 

assessment to determine their mental health and substance abuse treatment needs. 

6. Youth are not subjected to unduly repetitive screening and assessment. 

7. All personnel who administer screening and assessment instruments are appropriately trained and supervised. 

Continuum of Services 

Diversion 

8. Youth and their families have timely access to evidence-based treatment in 

their communities, such that youth do not have to enter the juvenile justice system 

90

solely in order to access services or as a result of mental illness and co-occurring 

substance abuse disorders. 

9. Diversion mechanisms are in place at every key decision-making point within 

the juvenile justice continuum such that youth with mental health needs and cooccurring substance abuse disorders are diverted from the juvenile justice system 

whenever possible and when matters of public safety allow, including into the dependency system as appropriate. 

10. Juvenile justice professionals, including judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys 

and probation officers, receive training on how youth with mental health and co-occurring substance abuse disorders can be diverted into treatment. 

11. Youth who have been diverted out of the juvenile justice system are served 

through effective community-based services and programs. 

12. Diversion programs are evaluated regularly to determine their ability to effectively and safely treat youth in the community. 

Short-Term Interventions and Crisis Management 

13. Secure detention facilities and shelter care programs have services adequate 

to provide short-term interventions and crisis management to youth with mental 

health needs and co-occurring substance abuse disorders, in order to keep them safe 

and stable while awaiting a permanent placement. 

Evidence-Based Treatment 

14. Assessment data is used to develop comprehensive treatment plans for adjudicated youth as part of their disposition. 

15. Representatives from all relevant child serving systems (i.e., juvenile justice, 

child welfare, mental health, substance abuse, education, etc.) and families engage 

in the development and implementation of comprehensive treatment plans. 

16. If diversion out of the juvenile justice system is not possible, youth are placed 

in the least restrictive setting possible with access to evidence-based, developmentally-appropriate treatment services. Such services are tailored to reflect the individual needs and variation of youth based on issues of gender, ethnicity, race, age, 

sexual orientation, socio-economic status, and faith. 

17. Qualified mental health and substance abuse personnel are in place to provide 

treatment to youth in the juvenile justice system. 

18. In-state capacity provides support for evidence-based treatment programs and 

their proliferation. 

19. Mechanisms are in place to continually measure and evaluate the effectiveness of various treatment modalities, as well as the quality of service delivery. 

Continuity of care/aftercare 

20. Representatives from all relevant child serving systems (i.e., juvenile justice, 

child welfare, mental health, substance abuse, education, etc.) and families are engaged in the development and implementation of comprehensive treatment plans to 

ensure continuity of care as youth move to new juvenile justice placements, appropriate aftercare when youth are released from placement to the community, and to 

aid in the youth’s transition to adulthood. 

Family Involvement 

21. Families engage with all relevant child-serving systems in the development 

and implementation of comprehensive treatment and aftercare plans for their children. 

22. All services are child-centered, family focused, community-based, multi-system 

and collaborative, culturally competent and offered in the least restrictive/intrusive 

setting as possible, and these CASSP principles are followed in all treatment planning and implementation. 

Funding 

23. Sustainable funding mechanisms are identified to support all services identified above as comprising the continuum of care, particularly for screening and assessment, evidence-based treatment practices, and cross-training of professionals 

from the various child-serving systems. 

Legal Protections 

24. Policies control the use of pre-adjudicatory screening and/or assessment information, as well as information gathered during post-disposition treatment, to ensure 

that information is not shared or used inappropriately or in a way that jeopardizes 

the legal interests of the youth as defendants, including their constitutional right 

against self-incrimination.

91

NOTE: This policy statement is based, in part, on many of the principles and recommendations 

found in Blueprint for Change: A Comprehensive Model for the Identification and Treatment 

of Youth with Mental Health Needs in Contact with the Juvenile Justice System (Draft January 

2006) developed by the National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice at Policy Research Associates, Inc. with support from The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE can be found at www.ncmhjj.com. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Let me say that we are working very 

hard to see if we can increase funding because that is on the top 

of everybody’s list. We are working under restraints because we do 

believe ‘‘do and pay as you go,’’ but we are going to try to do what 

we can. 

With that being said, listening to all of your testimony, and you 

are hands-on, I mean, you are the ones who are actually working 

with these young people. You can see the results. You see where 

the weaknesses are. As we go forward in trying to reevaluate the 

funding, certainly we will see what we can do to improve the programs. I think that is important and where all of you come in. 

One of the things I would ask you and you can expand on, because I know 5 minutes is not enough time to go through everything you have to say. So one of the things I would say to you is, 

as we look at reauthorization, I want each and every one of you to 

give your opinion as to what is the most important thing from what 

you see that we could do to improve the reauthorization. 

One of the things, before I came to Congress, I was a nurse. So, 

to me, prevention, as far as I am concerned, is the number one 

issue, and hopefully, we are going to deal with a lot of that as we 

reauthorize Leave No Child Behind because, again, when we see 

healthy children, children who are stable in school, that also will 

prevent them, hopefully down the road, from going into the juvenile 

justice system. 

So, with that, I certainly would open it up to Judge Kooperstein, 

if you want to start, on what you think is the one thing. We will 

take money off the table because we are already fighting for that. 

Judge KOOPERSTEIN. We are taking money off the table in terms 

of prevention, Congresswoman. 

I do not get to see people who have not committed a crime or who 

have been arrested as a juvenile through the youth court because 

I am in a town and am aware of what is going on in the town, basically, from my successful drug treatment court. They are teenagers, 

two of whom I have established a close relationship with, it is hard 

to believe, but I have put them in jail, and now we have a relationship, which, of course, a judge is never supposed to have with a defendant, but in the drug treatment court, it is permitted, and Matt 

tells me what he thinks, so I would like to tell you what he says. 

He is 19 years old. He was a football star at Southampton High 

School, a very bright boy, addicted to three different drugs, really 

destroying his life, and he told me that the DARE program is very 

good, but then after the 6th grade, there is nothing available. 

Those junior high school years are critical. We have puberty, which 

I believe is a very important thing to consider, and the brain is developing. New kinds of thoughts are coming into their heads, and 

the availability of the drugs, I hope, we all understand is there. So 

they are vulnerable. They are going through a phase of rebellion 

with their parents, and they need something to guide them. Matt 

92

likes the youth court, but until recently, it was not very popular 

and supported. If we are talking about prevention, something involving that is very good to me, and that would not even involve 

a judge. If you want real prevention and you want nobody to get 

arrested, then we need to give our adolescents something else because of the fact that the family alone cannot give them the support because of the factors that face us in this country, and in my 

town, a lot of it comes down to drugs—the availability of them, the 

susceptibility of an adolescent and the fact that it is an experimental time, and it is not a gentle time, so they are really out 

there, and we need to protect them, and we need them to believe 

us. 

Now, these teenagers can tell when you are not telling the truth, 

so they have held me to a very high standard, Congresswoman. It 

has been good for me. I learned to cut out a lot of the nonsense, 

and I talk very directly to them, and they respond. You know, they 

really do respond if they see you take a real interest, even the 

hardened ones, even the ones doing Oxy every day, Ecstasy at 

night, all the things that Matt was doing—pot, coke, everything. 

He finally was able to believe somebody was really not just pushing 

him over. He is just going through a phase. Let us just wait it out 

and hope for the best. 

So those are my thoughts. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

It is my fault for not explaining that I want to try to get an answer from each one of you. So, if you could, go a little bit faster, 

and just sum up the one issue that you think is important that we 

should do. 

Ms. Clark. 

Judge CLARK. Thank you. 

I think, certainly, prevention is important, but there is another 

thing that I would like the committee to consider in terms of those 

children who are already in the system and who are about to age 

out, the juvenile delinquent children who are in placement who are 

getting ready to turn 18 or, in some cases, 21, and we have to close 

the books on them, and we have not provided them with the skills 

to make it on their own. They are the children who are in the child 

welfare system who are about to age out of the system, and they 

are homeless. They have not achieved their education, and we have 

not provided them with the tools that they need. I think this is 

something that we really need to focus on with these kids. We have 

seen an increase of even older children entering the child welfare 

system, becoming dependent at 14, 15 and 16 years of age, and we 

have a little bit of time to work with them, and we need funding 

for programs that can help these children. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Ms. Clark. 

Ms. GARCIA. I would say that early identification of youth maltreatment is really the key to diverting youth out of the system. We 

often assume that youth become dependent, and then they are later 

found delinquent. What the NCJJ study found in Arizona is that 

it often is the delinquency that sheds light on the family and exposes the years of abuse and trauma that the child has suffered. 

So, if we can identify early the kids who are being maltreated and 

provide intensive family services when possible to preserve and to 

93

heal the family, then those youth will not continue down the road 

towards delinquency. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Ms. Garcia. 

Ms. Weisman. 

Dr. WEISMAN. Yes, I actually agree. We should not be surprised 

that the evidence-based practices that have proven most effective 

are those that work with the family—as have been mentioned, the 

multisystemic therapy, functional family therapy, multidimensional, therapeutic foster care—all of those strategies that work in 

the natural setting and with the family unit as such, and I think 

that the system of care, the values and concepts of all agencies 

working together promote those kinds of effective treatments. 

I think the most important issue is, again, the significant trauma 

and abuse that so many of the children have experienced. Again, 

as I said, it is multigenerational, and unless we work with the family system per se, we are not going to be effective in working with 

youth individually. So I would encourage us to take more of a public health view on the ills of our youth and especially those who do 

wind up coming into contact with the juvenile justice system. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. Aos. 

Mr. AOS. Yes. I would suggest that if the reauthorization focused 

on evidence-based treatment, practices—wheels cost a lot of money 

to invent, and we do not need to reinvent some of these. It takes 

one of you to invent wheels, and there are already a number of 

models out there that have been shown to work, including the 

Nurse-Family Partnership, Madam Chair, that employs nurses as 

a form of prevention, and then the other programs have been mentioned. So, if I were to offer one bit of advice, it would be again to 

put a substantial portion of what you do in the reauthorization into 

programs that have already been shown to work, that we do not 

need to reinvent the wheel. It costs a lot of money to do that. Let 

us just go out there and do the things that we are pretty confident 

at this stage reduce crime. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Ms. Ambrose. 

Ms. AMBROSE. Yes. I would recommend strengthening the Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention so that they are actually holding States accountable for doing good things for youth 

in the juvenile justice system and then providing incentive funding 

for use of evidence-based practice and prevention services for youth 

that we know work. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. I want to thank you all. 

Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Thank you, panelists, for being here today. You have offered 

some great testimony. 

Judge Kooperstein, thank you for your support of the Vols. I appreciate that. We have talked a lot about outcomes today. I wish 

we had had a different outcome this past Saturday. It was not as 

good as I would have liked for it to have been. 

How are youth chosen for your youth court? 

Judge KOOPERSTEIN. Beginning this year, they are referred by a 

probation officer, by a juvenile probation officer, from her docket. 

94

Mr. DAVIS. How many have actually participated in youth court 

today? 

Judge KOOPERSTEIN. Well, if we begin from the beginning in the 

early 1990s, I would say well over 200. The statistics and the documentation is scant. In the last year, we had 36 participate, by that, 

I mean also staff the court—be the judge, the jury, the prosecutor, 

and the defendant. We have had six trials to date this year, and 

they are lengthy, and two of them involved substantial drug cases. 

Mr. DAVIS. Tell me about one of your major success stories 

through the drug court. 

Judge KOOPERSTEIN. I have spoken about Matt, but I will tell 

you about someone else, another teenager who was a cocaine addict, who came into the treatment court pregnant. Very soon after 

she entered, we found out she was pregnant, and she got clean, and 

that was highly significant because not only did she get clean, but 

her baby was born drug free. 

Mr. DAVIS. That is a great success story. 

Judge KOOPERSTEIN. That is a double success. 

Mr. DAVIS. That is a great success story. Thank you. 

Just real quickly, Mr. Aos, in your testimony, you discussed research to conduct evidence-based approaches. 

Can you tell us how you define those ‘‘evidence-based approaches’’? 

Mr. AOS. Well, before I started this job, I did not need reading 

glasses. I do now. 

What we found was by searching all of the well-researched 

things that have ever been tried anywhere in the country, and so 

we really combed all of the research studies, throwing out the ones 

that did not have good comparison groups and just keeping the 

ones that were very well-controlled trials at these interventions. 

So, when we come to conclusions about what works and what does 

not work, it is based on those rigorous studies that have been tried 

somewhere in the country. Some of them have been in Washington 

State. Most of them, of course, have been elsewhere. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did those approaches actually net an economic return? 

Mr. AOS. Pardon me? 

Mr. DAVIS. Did you see some economic benefit from using those 

approaches. 

Mr. AOS. Yes. So, after we reviewed all of the literature as to 

what reduces crime or child abuse or any of the other outcomes of 

interest to our legislature, we then put on our economic green eye 

shades, and we said, well, how much money does it cost to do those 

programs on the one hand, but then to the degree that they 

achieved an outcome that our legislature was interested in, like 

less crime or less child abuse, what is that worth to us in Washington State, both as taxpayers, because if we reduce crime, we do 

not have to spend as much on police and on prisons and also, as 

well, to the victims who are not victimized. So we added up the 

benefits, calculated what we thought were the reasonable assumptions about the benefits of these programs and the costs based 

upon that rigorous research. So that is sort of the green eye shade 

thing that we did to try to come up with our list. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. 

95

Then I have one last question of Ms. Ambrose. 

First, let me say congratulations on being selected as the first 

State to participate in the MacArthur Foundation’s Model for 

Change. Can you tell me how your State was selected? 

Ms. AMBROSE. Yes. There was intensive research done by the 

MacArthur Foundation. I think there were lots of reasons why 

Pennsylvania was selected. The main reason was probably the 

strength of our juvenile advisory board. We had lots of leadership 

in place who were already engaged in many reform efforts that 

MacArthur research showed were reasons to invest in juvenile justice. So we feel very fortunate to be part of that network. There is 

a national resource bank that is available to States that are participating in the effort, and so we have been real recipients of additional, not only research, but expertise nationally in order to advance our juvenile justice reform efforts. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Davis. 

Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses. It has been very helpful testimony. 

Mr. Aos, you indicated that you could reduce crime and save 

money by focusing on well-researched programs before crimes occurred rather than wait and try to lock people up after they occur; 

is that right? 

Mr. AOS. That is correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. I wasn’t sure whether you counted in cost savings. 

Did you count just the criminal justice costs, or did you add in the 

costs to victims and other costs to society? 

Mr. AOS. Yes, Congressman, we did both. We certainly were interested in any savings that would accrue to taxpayers, but we also 

added up if there is less child abuse, if there is less crime, there 

will be savings to people who weren’t victimized, to kids who 

weren’t victimized, to other people who aren’t victimized by those 

crimes. So we used actually some numbers that were computed by 

the Federal Government to estimate those victimization cost savings, avoided costs, so that our estimates do include both of those. 

Mr. SCOTT. Did you include savings that would be generated by 

reduced welfare, because some of these programs, by empowering 

children, getting them on the right track, and more likely to be employed and need social services, do you count other savings outside 

of the criminal justice system? 

Mr. AOS. Yes, sir, we do when we think there is a reason to believe that some of those savings are causally related to the outcome 

achieved. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Ms. Weisman what can we do in the foster care system to help 

reduce crime? 

Dr. WEISMAN. Again, I think that multidimensional, therapeutic 

foster care has been shown to be effective. It is one of the most intensive home- or foster-home-based interventions that can be provided, but there is just not enough of it. In the District we have 

very few slots, as they say. And there is just an under——

96

Mr. SCOTT. Those that go from foster home to foster home are 

at high risk of getting in trouble, and we end up spending a lot of 

money on them. Would it make more sense to spend the money up 

front in the focused foster care programs that you are talking 

about, or would it make more sense to spend less, wait for them 

to mess up, and spend millions of dollars on prison and other costs? 

Dr. WEISMAN. Clearly the answer is yes, it would make more 

sense to spend more money earlier on and not to have these youth 

progress inevitably to more expensive institution-based, whether 

they be juvenile justice systems or prison systems, adult correctional systems. 

Whenever possible some of the evidence-based practices should 

be attempted in the home. I think youth who bounce from one foster care to another foster care family are doubly, triply and exponentially further traumatized by those experiences. We clearly 

don’t want those things to happen, and clearly there needs to be 

more training, more support services to those families that would 

serve as foster care families. They do, frankly, much better with 

younger youth, but when the youth reach their teenage years, then 

they are becoming involved in the juvenile justice system. 

Inevitably the overwhelming number of kids in the juvenile justice system have started out in the child welfare system, and so a 

lot of further attention and resources need to be spent in the child 

welfare system working with families reunification and options for 

them in their natural homes and settings. 

Mr. SCOTT. Does that include possibly helping children 18 to 24 

who, quote, age out of foster care? 

Dr. WEISMAN. Yes. As a matter of fact, I am agreeing with Judge 

Clark, who noted her concern and the field’s concern about the lack 

of independent living programs for these youth. In fact, my husband and I took in a youth at that juncture in our own lives, a 

youth who had aged out of the foster care system and had nowhere 

to go. We took her in at that point and helped her to become independent and self-sufficient. But there needs to be more families 

like ours, and there needs to be more programs that truly work 

with the youth on their life skills and abilities to take care of themselves in the community. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

I wanted to ask one other question for the record, because I know 

my time is up, and that is if the panelists could just tell us what 

is wrong with locking up juveniles with adults, and what is wrong 

with locking up status offenders? Those are part of the core requirements of the JJDPA, and we just want that for the record. 

What is wrong with locking up juveniles with adults and locking 

up status offenders? And I yield back. 

Ms. AMBROSE. Are we waiting for someone to answer? I am 

happy to answer. 

Mr. SCOTT. My time is up. Ms. Clarke, I think, wanted to ask 

questions. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. The bells that you heard, we have to go 

down for a vote. 

Ms. Clarke, if you would go forward. But with Mr. Scott, I know 

that he would like an answer and possibly could they write it up 

to us and get it to the committee? That would be great. 

97

[The information follows:]

[VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL], 

September 20, 2007. 

Hon. DEBORAH KOOPERSTEIN, Administrative Judge, 

40 A Newtown Lane, East Hampton, NY. 

DEAR JUDGE KOOPERSTEIN: Thank you for testifying at the September 18, 2007 

hearing of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families. 

Representative Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (D-VA), a member of the Committee, has 

asked that you respond in writing to the following questions: 

What consequences result from imprisoning juveniles with adults? 

What consequences result from imprisoning juveniles convicted of status offences? 

What are the most effective ways to decrease the proportion of minorities in the 

juvenile justice system? 

What are the most effective ways to decrease the proportion of individuals with 

mental illness in the juvenile justice system? 

Are there any conditions of confinement issues, including the availability of education that must be addressed in the JJDPA reauthorization? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions to the 

Committee staff by COB on Tuesday, October 2, 2007—the date on which the hearing record will close. 

If you have any questions, please contact the Committee at 202-225-3725. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, Chairman, 

Committee on Education and Labor. 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Healthy Families Communities. 

[VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL], 

September 20, 2007. 

Hon. KIM BERKELEY CLAR, Administrative Judge, 

Family Law Center, Ross Street, Pittsburgh, PA. 

DEAR JUDGE CLARK: Thank you for testifying at the September 18, 2007 hearing 

of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families. 

Representative Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (D-VA), a member of the Committee, has 

asked that you respond in writing to the following questions: 

What consequences result from imprisoning juveniles with adults? 

What consequences result from imprisoning juveniles convicted of status offences? 

What are the most effective ways to decrease the proportion of minorities in the 

juvenile justice system? 

What are the most effective ways to decrease the proportion of individuals with 

mental illness in the juvenile justice system? 

Are there any conditions of confinement issues, including the availability of education that must be addressed in the JJDPA reauthorization? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions to the 

Committee staff by COB on Tuesday, October 2, 2007—the date on which the hearing record will close. 

If you have any questions, please contact the Committee at 202-225-3725. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, Chairman, 

Committee on Education and Labor. 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Healthy Families Communities. 

[VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL], 

September 20, 2007. 

JANET GARCIA, Deputy Director, 

Governor’s Office for Youth and Families, West Washington, Phoenix, AZ. 

DEAR MS. GARCIA: Thank you for testifying at the September 18, 2007 hearing 

of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families. 

Representative Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (D-VA), a member of the Committee, has 

asked that you respond in writing to the following questions: 

What consequences result from imprisoning juveniles with adults? 

98

What consequences result from imprisoning juveniles convicted of status offences? 

What are the most effective ways to decrease the proportion of minorities in the 

juvenile justice system? 

What are the most effective ways to decrease the proportion of individuals with 

mental illness in the juvenile justice system? 

Are there any conditions of confinement issues, including the availability of education that must be addressed in the JJDPA reauthorization? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions to the 

Committee staff by COB on Tuesday, October 2, 2007—the date on which the hearing record will close. 

If you have any questions, please contact the Committee at 202-225-3725. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, Chairman, 

Committee on Education and Labor. 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Healthy Families Communities. 

[VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL], 

September 20, 2007. 

ANDREA WEISMAN, PH.D., Chief of Health Services, 

Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services, Mt. Olivet Road, NE, Washington, DC. 

DEAR DR. WEISMAN: Thank you for testifying at the September 18, 2007 hearing 

of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families. 

Representative Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (D-VA), a member of the Committee, has 

asked that you respond in writing to the following questions: 

What consequences result from imprisoning juveniles with adults? 

What consequences result from imprisoning juveniles convicted of status offences? 

What are the most effective ways to decrease the proportion of minorities in the 

juvenile justice system? 

What are the most effective ways to decrease the proportion of individuals with 

mental illness in the juvenile justice system? 

Are there any conditions of confinement issues, including the availability of education that must be addressed in the JJDPA reauthorization? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions to the 

Committee staff by COB on Tuesday, October 2, 2007—the date on which the hearing record will close. 

If you have any questions, please contact the Committee at 202-225-3725. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, Chairman, 

Committee on Education and Labor. 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Healthy Families Communities. 

[VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL], 

September 20, 2007. 

STEVE AOS, Assistant Director, 

Washington State Institute for Public Policy, East Fifth Avenue, Olympia, WA. 

DEAR MR. AOS: Thank you for testifying at the September 18, 2007 hearing of the 

Subcommittee on Healthy Families. 

Representative Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (D-VA), a member of the Committee, has 

asked that you respond in writing to the following questions: 

What consequences result from imprisoning juveniles with adults? 

What consequences result from imprisoning juveniles convicted of status offences? 

What are the most effective ways to decrease the proportion of minorities in the 

juvenile justice system? 

What are the most effective ways to decrease the proportion of individuals with 

mental illness in the juvenile justice system? 

Are there any conditions of confinement issues, including the availability of education that must be addressed in the JJDPA reauthorization? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions to the 

Committee staff by COB on Tuesday, October 2, 2007—the date on which the hearing record will close. 

99

If you have any questions, please contact the Committee at 202-225-3725. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, Chairman, 

Committee on Education and Labor. 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Healthy Families Communities. 

[VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL], 

September 20, 2007. 

ANNE MARIE AMBROSE, Director, 

Bureau of Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Services, N. 7th Street, 4th Floor, Harrisburg, PA. 

DEAR MS. AMBROSE: Thank you for testifying at the September 18, 2007 hearing 

of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families. 

Representative Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (D-VA), a member of the Committee, has 

asked that you respond in writing to the following questions: 

What consequences result from imprisoning juveniles with adults? 

What consequences result from imprisoning juveniles convicted of status offences? 

What are the most effective ways to decrease the proportion of minorities in the 

juvenile justice system? 

What are the most effective ways to decrease the proportion of individuals with 

mental illness in the juvenile justice system? 

Are there any conditions of confinement issues, including the availability of education that must be addressed in the JJDPA reauthorization? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions to the 

Committee staff by COB on Tuesday, October 2, 2007—the date on which the hearing record will close. 

If you have any questions, please contact the Committee at 202-225-3725. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, Chairman, 

Committee on Education and Labor. 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Healthy Families Communities. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Ms. Clarke? 

Ms. CLARKE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I want 

to congratulate you on this very excellent panel, and thank the 

panelists for their commitment to this area of expertise. 

I am from New York City, and there is a debate that has begun 

to simmer regarding the police presence in our public high schools, 

the impact on the development of at-risk youths in our schools 

which have been labeled or stigmatized as most dangerous as part 

of the No Child Left Behind authorizations. Behaviors that a couple of decades ago may have sent students to the principal’s office 

for detention now can send students to the local precinct for detention. 

Could you give us a sense of, in our search for safety and security in our school environments, are there some unintended consequences that we need to take heed with, or are we creating a culture of self-fulfilling prophecy, given the social and mental indicators that many of you have talked about with respect to juvenile 

delinquency? 

And I want to direct this question particularly to Dr. Weisman 

and to Ms. Garcia, as you spoke about early identification, our public schools tend to be that place. And if anyone else wants to give 

an answer with our time constraints. 

100

Ms. GARCIA. Absolutely schools are the place. Most great schoolteachers will tell you that they can identify the young people who 

are going to be in trouble, so they are the place. 

I will tell a story that one of our judges tells about a young person that came to their detention center. He was acting out in the 

classroom when they were taking the high-stakes testing that Arizona does, the AIMS test. He refused to take the test, was flipping 

ahead on the test, an ADHD child. When the teacher redirected 

him, he got mouthy. She called the principal. The principal came 

in, the resource officer came in. The kid got a little aggressively 

acting out, the police were called, ended up in handcuffs, ended up 

in a juvenile detention center. The kicker to the story is the child 

was 8. 

She tells that story to show how far it has sometimes gone, that 

schools feel that they have to be so focused on high-stakes testing 

and getting the No Child Left Behind met that they forget about 

the social needs of the child. Schools have a lot on their plate, but 

we definitely need to support them, and fund them, and provide 

services at the school level in order to identify and provide services 

to young people to keep them out of the system. 

Ms. WEISMAN. Yes. When I was working in Maryland, nearly 

one-third of all the arrests in Baltimore City came from the 

schools. These were school-based arrests for behavior that was engaged in in the school; disruptive behavior to be sure, but not the 

sort of behavior that required a youth being locked up for it. 

It is unwise and unwelcome to have youth who engage in disruptive behavior treated by the juvenile justice system. Indeed the juvenile justice system has become the repository for kids with behavioral and emotional health problems, and that is really wrong. 

There are negative outcomes, because there are kids who do commit offenses and who do require, for public safety concerns, being 

locked up, and putting all youth together under the same umbrella 

and in the same facility means unwanted outcomes for those who 

should not be there. 

Judge KOOPERSTEIN. Congresswoman, just briefly. Congresswoman, I agree there are unintended consequences. In our little 

town, though, there are police officers who are very good with the 

kids, and it is overkill to bring in a force and then just arrest. But 

if we could build on the D.A.R.E. Program, which in our town is 

run by police officers who have the skills—and I don’t mean just 

the police power to put on the cuffs, I mean who care and can relate—if we build on that so that those are the officers called if 

there is a disruption in the school, because an officer who is well 

trained can diffuse a situation. That officer doesn’t have to just say, 

you are going in, you are getting locked up. So I just ask you to 

think about that, too. 

Judge CLARK. When I first took the bench in 1999, we had an 

influx of juvenile delinquency petitions being initiated by the school 

system, assaults on teachers, which are felonies, and some of them 

were two kids getting into a fight, the teacher goes to break it up, 

and the teacher gets knocked down, no injuries, and it got to be 

problematic. 

One of the things that our judges did was meet with the school 

officials to say that we are not going to allow all of these cases to 

101

come into court. In other words, sometimes, I guess, the judges 

have to take control of their own court system and provide some 

reasonable alternatives for what can be done for some of these children. 

Disruptive behavior is very different than criminal behavior, and 

status offenses are offenses that should not warrant incarceration 

or removal from home, but providing services to work or to try to 

identify why children are engaging in these behaviors; in other 

words, making some assessment early on, and an appropriate assessment. 

At some time the court has to, I think, take control of the situation and be in control of its own court, because they can file a petition, but the court has to intervene and take some action as well. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Thank you, Ms. Clarke. 

As you heard the bells, we are voting, so I am going to submit 

my closing statements for the record. 

What I want to say to each and every one of you, again, I thank 

you for your service on what you are doing back in the community, 

but I also thank you for coming here in front of us and giving us 

information. 

I have been here in Congress long enough, and we are going to 

work really hard on the reauthorization, but I also know we won’t 

have every solution, but it will be a start. And with your testimony 

it gives us a lot food for thought for what needs to be done. 

The ray of hope that I also see is we are reauthorizing Leave No 

Child Behind, so there are going to be a lot of different programs 

in that particular reauthorization that hopefully will work with our 

young people from pre-K and through junior high. 

The D.A.R.E. Program and many other programs, why in God’s 

name they forget middle schools I have no idea. I mean, that is 

when almost all students, especially our young women today, too, 

need that extra help. So hopefully we can do something about that. 

The most encouraging thing is through this committee we were 

able to pass a mental health parity program, which I think has 

long been in need not just for children, but for adults also. 

The world has become more aggressive. We see our young children, I see my grandchildren, are certainly more aggressive than 

some of us were brought up, and those situations that schools are 

having a hard time dealing with. We have teachers that are supposed to be teaching, not being social workers, not being police officers in the room. 

So as I said, we are not going to be able to have all the solutions, 

but with your testimony and your information, hopefully we are 

going to make it a better bill and have hopefully the end goal protect our children of this Nation and make them good citizens, and 

that certainly is the goal of this whole committee. 

As previous ordered, Members will have 14 days to submit additional materials for the hearing record. Any Member who wishes 

to submit follow-up questions in writing to the witnesses should coordinate with the Majority staff within the requested time. 

[The information follows:]

102

Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Russell Platts, Ranking Minority 

Member, Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities 

Good morning. Thank you for joining us for another hearing on the Juvenile Justice Prevention and Delinquency Act. Chairwoman McCarthy, I am pleased that we 

are continuing our focus on improving the juvenile justice system. 

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

in the future. I am pleased to see a diverse panel of witnesses that can provide first 

hand knowledge of the juvenile justice system, describe how the federal law is administered at the state-level, and provide insight as to which programs are working 

efficiently, and which, if any, need improvement. I also look forward to hearing testimony regarding the link between juvenile delinquency and mental illness. 

As I have mentioned during previous hearings, I believe that one of the most important things that we can do as legislators is to craft legislation that prevents juvenile delinquency and encourages healthy child development. Although I recognize 

the aggressive fall agenda that the majority is planning, it is my hope that this subcommittee will produce a bi-partisan reauthorization bill before JJDPA’s expiration 

this year. In addition, I encourage the inclusion of authorization of funding for quality home visitation programs such as the Nurse Family Partnership and Parents as 

Teachers in the reauthorization. Research shows that families that participate in 

home visitation services rely less on public assistance, have fewer problems with 

substance use, and have substantially less involvement with the criminal justice 

system. 

Finally, I would like to thank all of the panelists for being with us today. With 

that, I yield back to Chairwoman McCarthy. 

[Questions for the record submitted by Mr. Grijalva follow:]

[VIA FACSIMILE], 

September 26, 2007. 

Hon. DEBORAH KOOPERSTEIN, Administrative Judge, 

40 A Newtown Lane, East Hampton, NY. 

DEAR JUDGE KOOPERSTEIN: Thank you for testifying at the September 18, 2007 

hearing of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families. 

Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), a member of the Subcommittee, has asked 

that you respond in writing to the following question: 

What role, if any, does the judiciary play in your state with regard to the review 

or approval of release plans of youth offenders? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions to the 

Committee staff by COB on Tuesday, October 2, 2007—the date on which the hearing record will close. 

If you have any questions, please contact Committee staff at 202-225-3725. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, Chairman, 

Committee on Education and Labor. 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Healthy Families Communities. 

[VIA FACSIMILE], 

September 26, 2007. 

Hon. KIM BERKELEY CLARK, Administrative Judge, 

Family Law Center, Ross Street, Pittsburgh, PA. 

DEAR JUDGE CLARK: Thank you for testifying at the September 18, 2007 hearing 

of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families. 

Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), a member of the Subcommittee, has asked 

that you respond in writing to the following question: 

What role, if any, does the judiciary play in your state with regard to the review 

or approval of release plans of youth offenders? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions to the 

Committee staff by COB on Tuesday, October 2, 2007—the date on which the hearing record will close. 

If you have any questions, please contact Committee staff at 202-225-3725. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, Chairman, 

Committee on Education and Labor. 

103

[VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL], 

September 26, 2007. 

ANNE MARIE AMBROSE, Director, 

Bureau of Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Services, N. 7th Street, Harrisburg, 

PA. 

DEAR MS. AMBROSE: Thank you for testifying at the September 18, 2007 hearing 

of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families. 

Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), a member of the Committee, has asked that 

you respond in writing to the following question: 

I am developing legislation to authorize a reentry formula grant program to states 

to support pre-release planning and reentry services targeted to youth offenders. 

Would such funds be helpful to your state? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions to the 

Committee staff by COB on Tuesday, October 2, 2007—the date on which the hearing record will close. 

If you have any questions, please contact Committee staff at 202-225-3725. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, Chairman, 

Committee on Education and Labor. 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Healthy Families Communities. 

[VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL], 

September 26, 2007. 

JANET GARCIA, Deputy Director, 

Governor’s Office for Youth and Families, West Washington, Phoenix, AZ. 

DEAR MS. GARCIA: Thank you for testifying at the September 18, 2007 hearing 

of the Subcommittee on Healthy Families. 

Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), a member of the Subcommittee, has asked 

that you respond in writing to the following question: 

I am developing legislation to authorize a reentry formula grant program to states 

to support pre-release planning and reentry services targeted to youth offenders. 

Would such funds be helpful to your state? 

Representative John Yarmuth (D-KY), a member of the Subcommittee, has asked 

that you respond in writing to the following questions: 

1. In your written testimony you discuss the fact that it is clear that children of 

color are over-represented in the child welfare system and the JJ system. You continue on to discuss the deep end of the JJ system. Can you elaborate on what you 

mean by deep end in the JJ system and discus the correlation? 

2. Can you go into detail on some of the barriers experienced by AZ as it attempts 

to integrate the child welfare and JJ systems, and what role, if any, the Federal 

government can play in helping states break down these barriers? 

3. In your written testimony you presented statistics from the Arizona Dual Jurisdiction study which you believe has shown that children who suffer from dependency issues are more likely to have negative juvenile justice outcomes than non-dependent youth. 

• Do you believe enough is currently being done to treat dependency issues 

among the juvenile population either in detention or in probation? 

• What more could be done at the federal level to deal with dependency issues 

in the juvenile justice system? 

4. In your written testimony, you mention the need for interagency collaboration 

between the child welfare and juvenile justice communities. 

• Are there any privacy issues involved in these kinds of collaborations? 

• Under what circumstances should juvenile justice practitioners have access to 

child welfare case-files that include medical histories? 

5. How can the Federal government help to address the decentralized systems 

that engage multiple entities in the care of children with diverse goals and procedures, if possible? 

6. In your written testimony, you list 7 items that lead to improved outcomes for 

children in both the child welfare and JJ systems. I’d be interested in learning if 

you feel that the Committee should explore including such activities in JJDPA, and 

if so which ones and how might we do so? 

7. Can you go into detail on some of the barriers experienced by AZ as it attempts 

to integrate the child welfare and JJ systems, and what role, if any, the Federal 

government can play in helping states break down these barriers? 

104

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions to the 

Committee staff by COB on Tuesday, October 2, 2007—the date on which the hearing record will close. 

If you have any questions, please contact Committee staff at 202-225-3725. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, Chairman, 

Committee on Education and Labor. 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Healthy Families Communities. 

Chairwoman MCCARTHY. Without objection, this hearing is adjourned. 

[The closing remarks of Mrs. McCarthy follow:]

The Closing Remarks of Chairwoman McCarthy 

I want to thank each of you today for taking the time to explain the barriers, challenges, and successes in your work in the multiple issues that we sought to understand today. Our previous hearing, which was an overview of JJDPA and how it 

works, clearly showed that there are direction connections between the juvenile justice system, mental health, and child welfare, the importance of evidence-based preventions and interventions, and the necessity of working with the States and the 

Judges within them to break down barriers between systems and work to craft guidance for a continuum of care for the young people of our nation. Your testimony 

today will guide us on the path of reauthorization to address these issues. I am not 

sure that in one reauthorization we can break down all the barriers, but I hope that 

we can lay the groundwork to motivate States to go beyond what they find in the 

reauthorization and to work for what is truly best for our nation’s children. 

Thank you again for being here today. 

[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ