U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

32–309 WASHINGTON : 2018

JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM IN THE MODERN 

ERA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 22, 2017 

Serial No. 115–37 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

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


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

MATT GAETZ, Florida 

MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIE ́ RREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

TED LIEU, California 

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland 

PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington 

BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, HOMELAND SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIONS

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Vice-Chairman 

JIM SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

TED LIEU, California 

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 22, 2017 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

The Honorable Louie Gohmert, Texas, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

Homeland Security, and Investigations; Committee on the Judiciary ............

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Virginia, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Michigan, Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 6 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Alan Hanson, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Grant 

Programs, Department of Justice 

Oral Statement .................................................................................................

Mr. Joe Vignati, Assistant Commissioner and Chief of Staff, Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 7 

Mr. Devon McDonald, Chief of Staff and General Counsel, Indiana Criminal 

Justice Institute 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 9 

Mr. Jim SaintGermain, Co-Founder, Preparing Leaders of Tomorrow 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 11 

Ms. Liz Ryan, President & CEO, Youth First 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 13 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
(1) 

JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM IN THE MODERN 

ERA 

THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, HOMELAND

SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC 

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

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Goodlatte [chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Gohmert, Chabot, Ratcliffe, 

Roby, Gowdy, Jackson Lee, Conyers, Deutch, Bass, Jeffries, and 

Lieu. 

Staff Present: Anthony Angeli, Counsel; Scott Johnson, Clerk; 

Joe Graupensperger, Minority Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on 

Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations; Veronica 

Eligan, Minority Professional Staff Member; Mauri Gray, Minority 

Crime Detailee; and Monalisa Dugue, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel for Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and 

Investigations. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Good morning. The Subcommittee on 

Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations will come 

to order. And without objection, the chair is authorized to declare 

recesses of the subcommittee at any time. And we welcome everyone to today’s hearing on juvenile justice reform in the modern era. 

And I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

Throughout history, societies have struggled to establish appropriate ways to deal with juvenile offenders. Punitive measures for 

juvenile offenders and provision of care for juvenile delinquents is 

discussed in the code of Hammurabi, the Talmud, and Rome’s 12 

Tables. Today we recognize that societies must aim for juvenile justice systems that protect public safety, hold justice involved youth 

appropriately accountable, and provide treatment and rehabilitative services tailored to the needs of youth and their families. We 

can all agree that juvenile offenders must be treated differently 

than adult offenders. 

Congress recognized this fact in 1974 when it passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act. This legislation and its progeny 

have established core requirements for States in building their juvenile justice systems. It induces States to deinstitutionalize status 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
2 

offenders prevent youth from being detained with adult offenders, 

and address disproportionate minority contact with the juvenile 

justice system. There are very few juveniles in custody in the Federal system. 

In fact, there are approximately 30. Most are there because they 

have been charged as adults in Washington, D.C., or on tribal 

lands. According to the Department of Justice, these juveniles tend 

to be older, generally between 17 and 20 years of age, are typically 

sentenced for sex-related offenses, and have typically committed 

violent offenses and have a history of responding to interventions 

and preventative measures in the community unfavorably. They 

are sentenced by the Federal courts to the custody of the Federal 

Bureau of Prisons as a last resort. 

Conversely, at the State level on any given day there are around 

50,000 juveniles in residential facilities. Juveniles 12-years-old or 

younger comprise 1 percent of the detained juvenile population, 

while 17-year-old juveniles comprise about a third of the juvenile 

population. Due to the fact that nearly all juveniles in the criminal 

justice system are State level offenders, federalism plays an important role in improving juvenile justice. It has allowed States to try 

out various initiatives and see what is effective and what is not. 

Indeed, I am glad to see States exploring ways to reduce recidivism 

and improve youth outcomes by using evidence-based and evidenced-informed programs, practices, and policies. 

I am pleased to welcome Mr. Vignati from Georgia, and Mr. 

McDonald from Indiana to today’s hearing. Georgia and Indiana 

are at the forefront of juvenile justice reform and have implemented numerous programs to help reduce recidivism and rehabilitate youths. I am particularly impressed by their commitment to 

using risk assessment instruments in lowering the number of juveniles in residential facilities and their efforts to assure all juveniles 

in secure facilities have access to education through the school districts where the facility is located. I look forward to hearing more 

about these initiatives and others that have been successful. 

Even though State systems and the Federal systems are distinct, 

I have always maintained that the States are laboratories of democracy and they can show the national government what works 

and what does not. And more importantly, what reforms can be accomplished without endangering public safety. As you know, in the 

114th Congress, this committee led the way in the formulation of 

criminal justice reform legislation. We plan to continue that effort 

in this Congress. So, I want to thank all of you for being here 

today. I will introduce all of the witnesses in a moment. But first, 

I want to hear from the ranking member of this subcommittee, the 

gentlewoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee, who has been a 

champion for juvenile justice for as long as I have known her. And 

welcome. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I want 

the audience to know that we feel very important today because we 

have the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member 

of the full committee at the criminal justice committee. So, I know 

that the chairman will ask us not to applaud, but I am going to 

applaud because I am very happy for them to be here. We thank 

you very much. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
3 

There we go. And I think the point is, is that this is a very important hearing today. And I thank the chairman and the ranking 

member for their courtesies. All of those who are gathered, thank 

you for your interest. I know that there are many in the audience 

that have spent their lives work helping us on juvenile justice reform. 

And Jenny Collier, I want to thank her for her longstanding 

work that she has engaged in and the organization Campaign for 

Youth Justice for the work that they have done and the work that 

they will continue to do. I want to acknowledge the members that 

are here and particularly our members are coming, but I want to 

acknowledge Congresswoman Karen Bass, who has a longstanding 

history in youth justice issues particularly youth in foster care. And 

Hakeem Jeffries from New York, who has also had a very esteemed 

record in dealing with criminal justice reform. And I want to thank 

our other members who are en route, Mr. Raskin and Mr. Richmond, and others who are en route. Again, thank you again for the 

hearing on this important issue of juvenile justice reform in the 

modern era. 

I very much look forward to working with my colleagues on both 

sides of the aisle to move forward meaningfully as we tackle the 

challenges laced in our juvenile justice system and welcome this 

opportunity to hear from each of you as experts this morning. I 

would like to thank our witnesses, Ms. Liz Ryan, President and 

CEO of Youth First, who has a storied history in reform, and I look 

forward to her testimony on the major savings that have come 

about by doing the right thing. 

Mr. Jim SaintGermain, who I was enormously impressed with as 

I walked in this morning, co-founder of Preparing Leaders of Tomorrow, he has lived the system and will be able to tell us first 

hand of his experiences. Mr. Joe Vignati, who represents major 

changes in the State of Georgia. And he will testify to their impact. 

Mr. Devon McDonald, the same in Indiana. And he will testify to 

their impact. I think the good news is these are Democrats and Republicans. 

Thank you all for your willingness to be here and to help enlighten members of Congress on what is happening at the ground 

level both good and bad. 

I want to dedicate this hearing to Kalief Browder who learned 

how to commit suicide, according to this article, on Rikers Island. 

On June 6th, 2015, Kalief Browder took his own life at his home 

in the Bronx. He was 22 years old. He had been released from 

Rikers Island adult institution even though he was allegedly segregated 2 years earlier ending an ordeal that had begun on a 

spring night in 2010 when he had been arrested for robbery at 16. 

He spent the next 3 years in jail trying to prove his innocence and 

would not commit or acknowledge guilt. He said he was innocent. 

For, as I understand the fact, the individual with the backpack 

that he was supposed to have stolen was out of the country at the 

time of the incident. For about 2 of those years he was held in solitary confinement where he attempted to commit suicide several 

times. The charges against him were eventually dropped. And by 

the way, it took a long time for him to get counsel. And of course, 

the story goes on to tell his story. This is a tragedy. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
4 

As a ranking member of the crime subcommittee, I am committed to finding ways to work collaboratively with the chairman, 

my colleagues, and experts like yourselves in order to move forward effectively on juvenile justice reform. I am pleased to say that 

the subcommittee understands the importance of juvenile justice 

reform, and this hearing is indicative of the bipartisan desire to address the most vulnerable segment of our society: juveniles. 

While some may feel that the Federal Government should leave 

reform measures to the State, I believe that there is but one child 

in the Federal system, and that is one too many if there is one 

child. But more importantly, I believe that collaboration between 

the Federal Government and State government is an important 

statement of what America believes in and that we will help other 

States that have not yet moved to that position. There is a unique 

distinction between juveniles and adult offenders. Trends in the 

States and the information presented in this hearing will inform efforts to reform the prosecution and incarceration of juveniles at the 

Federal level, but making a statement for those who are dealing 

with children, if I might use that terminology, all over the Nation. 

Our children need us. We are losing them in great numbers either to the streets, gang violence, to our justice system, or, tragically, by death. It is time for all of us to wake up and say, ‘‘No 

more.’’ No to the policies that are robbing them of their youth by 

throwing them away into the adult penal institutions. No to the 

policies that look to cut essential funding as proposed in the President’s 2018 budget, and that have proven over the years to the profound impacts on juveniles. We should all collaborate on what is 

good. The numbers that I have heard are maybe in the millions 

and billions that one can save across the Nation if our States will 

all collectively realize these are our children. We must not allow 

cuts or elimination of youth programs, as this will exacerbate the 

problems we are trying mightily to remedy through reform. 

I was a member of the city council when this Congress passed 

midnight basketball. I know there was a lot of humor in that by 

some. I also know that as things change, elections change, there 

was a rush to get rid of midnight basketball. But I am a city council member, and I want to testify to you that we use midnight basketball in Houston, Texas. And I would go to the parks as I insisted to the parks and recreation, ‘‘Take advantage of midnight 

basketball.’’ And I would meet gang leaders there playing basketball and, as well, doing homework in the parks that were open till 

a little after midnight in Houston, Texas with the midnight basketball funds. 

Currently, the President’s budget proposals cuts in the beginning 

that will adversely impact youth and further deplete equal access 

to proper health, adequate workforce justice, and solid education. 

Elimination or cuts of these programs will further contribute to the 

disproportionate treatment of juveniles and issue at heart of the juvenile justice crisis. This goes on for Health and Human Services, 

et cetera, AmeriCorps; $700 million reduction may impact the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, which is so 

much a part of the work that we do in the Judiciary Committee. 

It must be noted that the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, which is an underpinning of that agency, has not been 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
5 

reauthorized in more than a decade. I look forward to working with 

the chairman on reauthorizing as he has done with the ranking 

member, the juvenile block grant programs, which will enhance the 

safety of our youth and our legislation adds a component of bullying prevention and intervention. 

We need to capture the moment to see how we can save our 

youth and work on the childhood errors. We must address the disparity in treatment as well documented by the Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Coalition in its recent report, and be honest when we 

look at the national data. While there are varying degrees of concern for multiple aspects of our juvenile justice system, the racial 

disparity is particularly alarming. The cases brought against black 

youth were three to four times higher than their white, Hispanic, 

and American Indian counterparts and nine to 16 times higher 

than the rates for Asian youth. 

In 2014, white youth made up 56 percent of the U.S. population 

under juvenile court jurisdiction, but black youth meanwhile, were 

at numbers higher than that. Although white youth represent the 

largest share of the delinquent caseload with their respective representation to the incarcerated population declining, black and Hispanic represented a higher number in the incarcerated population. 

So, we need to use these facts and these science to make sure 

that we do what is right for our children. We have overwhelming 

support from many organizations to move forward. As I indicated, 

I think that this is a bipartisan effort. And as we spend so much 

money to lock up our young people, let’s spend a lot of money to 

invest in our young people. This juvenile justice system was created in 1899 in Chicago on the basis of separating youth from the 

adult criminal justice space. Sometimes this has not happened in 

our current system. Therefore, we want to do better. The Supreme 

Court last year ruled that a 2012 precedent banning mandatory 

sentences of life without parole for juvenile killers must be applied 

retroactively due to reliable scientific evidence that shows the 

human brain does not reach full implementation until the ’20s. 

So, thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman, for ensuring that we 

can move forward. I want to just conclude by saying I indicated I 

was dedicating this to Kalief Browder. None of us lived his life. 

None of us were incarcerated in Rikers Island that are sitting here 

on this panel for a period of our life. How would anyone imagine 

what that felt like at 16 years old? What do we know that Kalief 

could have been? A loving son to his mom who has passed away? 

A brother to his siblings and a great leader in the city of New York. 

My heart pains for him and the millions of other children that face 

this. 

And so, I want to say to the attorney general, his recent memo 

that takes away prosecutorial discretion from persecutors and his 

recent announcement to provide additional Federal manpower to 

12 States, we must give serious attention to what impact that may 

have on juvenile justice reform in the modern era. I look forward 

to hearing the witnesses. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much 

for yielding and I yield back. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thank you very much, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

As the ranking member of the subcommittee noted, the ranking 

member of the full committee is also with us today. The gentleman 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
6 

from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, who has been a leader in criminal justice reform including juvenile justice reform. And I now recognize 

him for his opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much, Chairman Goodlatte. Top 

of the morning to all of you. I want to thank the chairman and the 

former subcommittee chairman, Trey Gowdy, for working with our 

distinguished Texas colleague Sheila Jackson Lee, the ranking 

member, and me, to schedule this important hearing. It is important for all the reasons that have been stated so far. 

All of us, public officials, community leaders, and parents, have 

a special duty to do all we can to provide every opportunity for our 

children and young people to start their lives in environments that 

enhance their chances of living healthy and productive lives. And 

all young people need encouragement and proper guidance as they 

begin to make increasingly consequential choices that impact themselves and others. Unfortunately, sometimes young people violate 

our laws and we must continue to examine the appropriate ways 

to respond, both in terms of accountability and helping them get 

back on track. As we examine these very issues in this hearing 

today and determine the role we should play in developing related 

policy in the future, we should keep several considerations in mind. 

First, advances in brain science and technology are helping us 

better understand how the adolescent brain functions. We now 

know that young people’s brains continue to mature until early- to 

mid-20s. And adolescent’s brains are different from adult’s brains 

both structurally and in how they are influenced by chemicals produced by the body. Child brain development experts have concluded, as a result of their studies, that adolescents are less culpable than typical adults because of their diminished-decision making capacity. And critically, behavioral and brain development research shows that children who commit crimes are more likely to 

reform their behavior and have a better chance at rehabilitation 

than adults. Secondly, the good news is that much of the recent experience with respect to juvenile justice reform in the State confirms that what the science is telling us: that evidence-based strategies to reduce overall reliance on confinement and residential commitment for juveniles actually leads to improve public safety. 

Now, as a result juveniles in this country are, according to the 

Pew Center research, much less likely to be arrested for violent 

crime and committed to State custody than they were 15 years ago. 

During that period, the juvenile violent crime arrest rate fell 46 

percent. The States are experimenting with reforms that are working. And I hope that we continue and increase our support of these 

efforts. 

Finally, as we examine strategies to intervene when juveniles 

violate the law, we must also do more to prevent these violations 

from occurring in the first place. There are a range of programs 

that we must not abandon, which include proper physical and mental health care, nutritional assistance, early childhood education, 

and giving young people better options for after school and free 

time activities. In fact, we must pursue comprehensive communitydriven and evidence-based prevention initiatives through legislation such as the Youth Promise Act. We know what works and we 

must empower more communities to put research into practice. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
7 

And so, I hope this hearing begins a constructive and bipartisan 

discussion of these issues. 

And so, again, I thank not only the Chairman Goodlatte, but especially my colleague Sheila Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT [presiding]. Thank you. The gentleman yields back 

and, without objection, other members’ opening statements will be 

made a part of the record. 

And we have a very distinguished panel today. We will begin by 

swearing in our witnesses before introducing them. So, if you will 

all stand and raise your right hands please. Do you swear that the 

testimony that you are about to give before this committee is the 

truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God? 

Thank you. Let the record reflect that all the witnesses responded 

in the affirmative, and you may all be seated. 

And now, introducing our witnesses, our first witness is Joe 

Vignati, who is the Assistant Commissioner and Chief of Staff of 

the Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice. Our second witness is 

Devon McDonald, who is the Chief of Staff and general counsel of 

the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute. Our third witness is Mr. 

Jim SaintGermain, who is the co-founder of the organization Preparing Leaders of Tomorrow. And our fourth and final witness will 

be Ms. Liz Ryan, who is the President and CEO of Youth First. 

And each of the witnesses written statements will be entered 

into the record in its entirety. I would ask that each witness summarize his or her testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay 

within that time, there is a timing light in front of you. The green 

light will be on for 4 minutes. The yellow light will come on and 

let you know you got about a minute to wrap up, and then the red 

light will come on to let you know that your time is up. And we 

would appreciate it if you would stay within that as much as possible. We now would like to recognize our first witness, Mr. 

Vignati, you are recognized for 5 minutes. And if you could all remember, everybody forgets this, but if you could hit the button to 

turn on the mic there. Everybody forgets, as I say, so it is no big 

deal. 

Mr. VIGNATI. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

STATEMENTS OF JOE VIGNATI, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 

AND CHIEF OF STAFF, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE 

JUSTICE; DEVON McDONALD, CHIEF OF STAFF AND GENERAL COUNSEL, INDIANA CRIMINAL JUSTICE INSTITUTE; 

JIM SAINTGERMAIN, CO-FOUNDER, PREPARING LEADERS OF 

TOMORROW; AND LIZ RYAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, YOUTH 

FIRST 

STATEMENT OF JOE VIGNATI 

Mr. VIGNATI. Good morning, Mr. Chair, and esteemed members 

of the judiciary subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify 

today about juvenile justice. My name is Joe Vignati, and this past 

February marked my 30th year working in juvenile justice in Georgia. I am not going to be able to condense all of my experience over 

the last 30 years in 5 minutes, so I will give you the brief highVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:18 Oct 12, 2018 Jkt 032309 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A309.XXX A309

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
8 

lights. And I will kind of gloss over some of the mistakes I have 

made. 

During the past three decades, I have had the good fortune to be 

able to grow and adopt a commonsense approach in the care for our 

youth, all the while protecting public safety and decreasing crime. 

In much the same way, over that same time period, research has 

caught up and we now better understand what works in juvenile 

justice. In my testimony today, I would like to provide a picture of 

what we now know and where the field of juvenile justice is headed 

and what Georgia has learned during its juvenile reform over the 

past 4 years. 

Number one. An overwhelming majority of youth in the U.S. do 

not commit delinquent offenses. In 2013, only 3 percent of all youth 

at risk in the United States were referred to juvenile court for delinquent offense. This means that over 96 percent of our youth are 

not involved in the juvenile justice system. For community, school, 

and law enforcement, it is important to recognize that most of our 

youth are better served outside the court system and focus on alternative methods to address adolescent behavior. Number two. The 

number of youth brought to juvenile court for violent offenses is 

very, very small. 

In 2013, only 4 percent of all delinquency cases in the U.S. were 

petitioned to court for a violent offense. This means that 96 percent 

of the youth involved in juvenile court are there for less serious offenses. Appropriate interventions are no doubt required. However, 

how we approach and serve these youth should be based in response to their risk and need and not misperceptions about juvenile crime. 

Principles of effective intervention and for delinquency: risk, 

need, responsivity. When I began my work in the field in 1987, 

there was not much understanding of what worked in juvenile justice. As a result, most of our business was modeled on adult corrections. As you can imagine, youth are dramatically different than 

adults both developmentally and in their level of responsibility. So, 

this approach had wildly different success rates. Fortunately, the 

research in the field has improved over the years and we now have 

a more targeted approach to youth based on those principles. The 

most effective interventions have been shown to be behavioral and 

the good ones are based on research. These are known as cognitive 

behavioral interventions. Research has shown the programs that I 

am about to list are to be most effective to engage families and 

their youth: multisystemic therapy, functional family therapy, 

Thinking for a Change, aggression replacement training, Seven 

Challenges. We now know that these interventions are typically 

more successful for youth and reduce recidivism at rates far better 

than similarly situated youth who do not receive these services and 

are securely confined. 

So, how do we refocus our efforts to intervene appropriately with 

the youth before us? I will try now to share how we address some 

of these issues in Georgia in the hopes that the lessons we have 

learned are instructive. Under the leadership of our Governor, Nathan Deal, our general assembly, and commissioner, Avery Niles, 

we have been reforming our juvenile system over the past 4 years. 

Starting in 2012 with the formation of the Governor’s Special 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
9 

Council on Criminal Reform, we looked at our juvenile justice system. We discovered that nearly 2/3 of our $300 million budget was 

being used to operate out of home placements. The cost of those 

placements were approximately $90,000 per year per bed. Twenty 

percent of those youth in those placements were placed for lowlevel misdemeanor status offenses. Forty percent of those youth 

were assessed low risk to re-offend. In summation, our State’s overreliance on secure detention for juveniles was a poor use of resources and a poor return on State tax dollars. 

So, what did we do? We reformed our juvenile system. We reformed our juvenile code. And we focused on population. We only 

are now securely confining youth that are medium- or high-risk. 

We are putting our dollars behind evidence based programs and 

practices. We have shifted from institutional funding to community 

services. Prior to reform, our system was using only one gear, the 

detention gear. Just like a bicycle needs different gears to work effectively and efficiently, Georgia is now rolling forward with all its 

gear. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Mr. 

McDonald, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DEVON McDONALD 

Mr. MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chair, the members of the committee, thank you very much for having us here today. I am delighted to take this opportunity to highlight some of the great 

things that Indiana is doing to help reform the juvenile justice system. Like many other States—— 

Mr. CHABOT. Could you pull the mic just a little closer there, 

please? 

Mr. MCDONALD. Sure. Thanks. Like most States across the Nation, Indiana, over the past decade, has taken a lot of steps to help 

reform and define our juvenile justice system. So, I would like to 

just take a minute to highlight a few or our multigovernmental 

branch approaches to our juvenile justice issues in the State of Indiana. 

In 2015, our general assembly, which is our State legislature, 

passed, and then Governor Pence signed into law what we consider 

called dual status children. Dual status children in Indiana are 

children who are identified as a CHINS case, or a Child In Need 

of Services, as well as a juvenile that has come in contact with the 

juvenile justice system. Part of the process or part of establishing 

this law was recognizing that a delinquent act, though may have 

been committed, but what are the other social or societal factors 

that helped or were contributory factor in that potential act to the 

alleged act that took place? And so, these children are receiving 

this status. It is a collaborative approach between our Department 

of Child Services case workers, probation, courts, and corrections 

on how to more closely assess the child through risk assessments, 

mental health assessments, and make sure this child is either potentially diverted from the system in entirety, or receives the types 

of services that are greatly needed to help treat the individual 

themselves. 

So, that is proving to be, although it is still in its infancy, somewhat successful. Another great thing that Indiana is doing right 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
10 

now is the implementation of what we call the IYAS, which is the 

Indiana Youth Assessment System. And the MYSI 2 screen. The 

MYSI 2 screening is the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument, and it is the second version that we are using, as implemented in about 20 counties, which incorporates a large majority 

of our juveniles in a juvenile facility. All of these individuals receive the MYSI 2 or the IYAS depending on the situation and then 

are treated accordingly either through sentencing, adjudication, 

probation, or they receive mental health or substance abuse treatment if substance abuse is identified as a key indicator or a key 

problem for that particular child. 

Within our Department of Corrections, we have what is called 

our Division of Youth Services. Our Division of Youth Services also 

has a multitude of programs. These are quite spelled out in my testimony. But a couple of the programs I would like to highlight that 

our DYS is operating are both what is considered evidence based 

programs or programs that have been peer reviewed and proven to 

be effective through evidence. 

The first one is moral recognition therapy. It is a recidivism reduction therapy. Again, it is cognitive-based. It deals with increasing moral reasoning with a child. We also have what is called dialectical behavioral therapy, which again, is a behavioral-based therapy that focuses on chronic issues of frustration, tolerance, anger 

management, can help a young person deal with emotions that 

they may be feeling. As been alluded to, brain science has proven 

or shown that juveniles sometimes are more impulsive or reactionary in their responses based on their inability to kind of process through a certain situation. 

One of the greatest things that Indiana has done over the last 

10 years is we have adopted what we call the Juvenile Detention 

Alternatives Initiative, or JDAI for short. JDAI is implemented in 

92 counties, which is about 1/3 of our counties, but encompasses 

approximately 70 percent of our juvenile population. So, it is a 

huge footprint. JDAI has been adopted by the courts, the prosecutors. It is very much a local collaborative effort. It has led to about 

a 53 percent reduction in admissions to secured detention, a 41 

percent reduction in average daily population in secured detention. 

Again, a 47 percent reduction felony petitions filed, which has a 

huge public safety impact, and a 42 percent in reduction to our 

commitments to our DOC. 

Programs that my particular agency has funded that have been 

great and we are very excited are, one, we have helped expand the 

dialectical behavioral therapy and some of our DYS facilities. We 

have also implemented a training called Policing the Team Brain 

that is implemented in one of our largest law enforcement agencies. 

And then, as well as one of our statewide law enforcement categories. So, new recruits going through these academies receive 

this training. The training is related to how law enforcement can 

respond to juveniles on the street. So, we are hoping that has great 

impacts on the future. We are also developing several family and 

mental health. Teen drug courts or family therapy courts help surround the child or child that is alleged to be delinquent or a in a 

situation. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
11 

So, some of those are some of the very high-level view of some 

of those are some of the very high-level view of some of the great 

things that Indiana is doing. Again, thank you for this opportunity 

and we really appreciate it. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. Mr. SaintGermain, you are 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JIM SAINTGERMAIN 

Mr. SAINTGERMAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the 

esteemed members of this subcommittee for having me. It is an 

honor to be here. 

My presence in this room is one that I have cherished very much 

because of the struggles and the stories that I have experienced as 

a young man growing up. I was born in Haiti. It is a beautiful 

small island. It is about 3 hours away from here. But growing up 

in Haiti, my father and my family struggled a lot. My father was 

addicted to drugs and alcohol, and he was unemployed for most of 

his life. So, as a child in Haiti, I had to fend for myself and roam 

the streets and find a way to survive. Luckily for us, by the age 

of 10, I was granted an opportunity to move to the United States 

where I moved to Brooklyn, New York. And prior to moving to the 

United States, my vision of what this country would look like was 

solely from the movie Home Alone with Kevin. 

I thought that I would move here and my family would have a 

beautiful house and green grass and neighbors would be at our 

doors waiting and welcoming us to this country. And our life would 

be extremely better for us than it was in Haiti. But, unfortunately, 

my reality when I moved to this country was the total opposite. I 

moved into a neighborhood, at the time, who was drug infested. A 

lot of crime, a lot of violence, a lot of broken homes and dysfunctional schools. And as a young man, which some of the panelists 

have talked about earlier, my brain was not developed enough to 

adapt to such circumstances the right way. So, as a way of trying 

to assimilate into that culture, I fell into a life of crime at a very 

young age. And it started out by just me skipping school, smoking, 

and drinking with friends and just trying to be down. And, unfortunately, it led down to bigger issues including me hustling and dealing drugs at a very young age. 

Approximately when I was about 15, I had multiple encounters 

with law enforcement officials. And by the time I was going back 

and forth to court, my judge at the time, Mary Donahue, she realized that I needed some intervention. So, she sentenced me to a 

year in the juvenile justice system. I was very fortunate, though, 

while in the juvenile justice system I was placed in a facility on the 

program where some of those services some of the panelists have 

acknowledged earlier were available to me. So, I received mental 

health services. I received a pretty decent education. I had staff 

members and role models who cared about my wellbeing who invested in me. I have had other folks, mentors throughout this community and where I am from in the juvenile justice system, who 

realize that I had potentials and who fought for me to be in the 

position that I am in today. 

But the reality is for most young people, that is not the case. So, 

I want to make it very clear that I was the exception, not the norm. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
12 

Fortunately for me, going through the system, I was able to move 

forward and I graduated high school. I got my GED, and I moved 

on to college where I majored in human services at the Borough of 

Manhattan Community College. Then I went on to John Jay College where I majored in political science, and I received a BA from 

John Jay College. Thereafter, I moved on to grad school at NYU 

where I majored in public administration. 

Unfortunately, I had to stop my grad school experiences due to 

financial reasons. But then, I went back to the juvenile justice system and work in the same facility that I was in as a young man. 

And what I encountered while working as a practitioner and as a 

youth care worker was the total opposite again of what I experienced. 

So, the young people were coming in younger. They were coming 

in with more traumas and more issues and things that the system 

was not ready to deal with. And a lot of these young people, unfortunately, fell through the crack and they continued down the wrong 

path. Experiences such as experiences that Mr. Kalief Browder 

had, who I have had great opportunity to work with his brother, 

Akeem Browder, to change some of the policies, some of the draconian policies in New York City that were incarcerating young people and pushing them through a system where they were being 

abused physically, abused mentally. They were not receiving the 

help and the services, which I received in Rikers Island. And Kalief 

Browder, unfortunately, ended up taking his life. His story was a 

stark contrast to mine, but the only difference between Kalief and 

I is I was 4 months younger than him. 

But our brain development, the experiences we have had, the 

neighborhoods we grew up in were exactly the same. But I received 

the services, which Kalief did not get a chance to get. So, I believe 

that as a Nation, to steal a quote from Nelson Mandela, ‘‘You can 

only measure a Nation’s greatness by how well it treats its most 

vulnerable children.’’ So, as a Nation, I am asking this committee 

and Congress to invest in our young people and provide the same 

services and the help, which they have had. Again, since my time 

in the system, I have co-founded a nonprofit organization that provides services and help to young people. I have been appointed to 

the Juvenile Justice Council by the former President. I have had 

opportunities to work with numerous elected officials from all over 

the country, and most importantly, I am a father of a 4-year-old 

son who means the world to me. 

So, my passion for public service and the work I do now comes 

directly from my experiences, but simply from the fact that I also 

want to provide an opportunity for my son and all children who are 

growing up in certain neighborhoods and circumstances in which 

they did not have an option in terms of what to choose, what economic status which they grew up in and some of the troubling 

things that were presented to them. And, in addition to my experiences, I have had an amazing opportunity to actually write a book, 

which will be published soon on July 4th. Unfortunately, I do not 

have too many copies, but I brought a few copies for some of you 

guys on the panel today. 

So, thank you guys for hearing me and I really appreciate it. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
13 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. For the record, what is the name of the 

book? 

Mr. SAINTGERMAIN. It is A Stone of Hope, and the title came 

from me reflecting at the Dr. King monument, which is not too far 

from here. That is where the title of the book came from. It is an 

amazing story and I hope you guys get a chance. 

Mr. CHABOT. Could you repeat it one more time? 

Mr. SAINTGERMAIN. A Stone of Hope. ‘‘Out of a mountain of despair, a stone of hope.’’ 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SAINTGERMAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. Your testimony is, I think, particularly important 

for us to hear today. So, thank you. 

Mr. SAINTGERMAIN. Thank you. 

Mr. CHABOT. Ms. Ryan, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LIZ RYAN 

Ms. RYAN. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to testify 

today. My name is Liz Ryan, and I am the President and CEO of 

the Youth First initiative. We are a national effort to end the use 

of incarceration for young people and redirect resources to community-based alternatives. 

Mr. CHABOT. Yeah, if I could ask you if you could pull that close. 

It is a little hard to hear in the back and so we appreciate it. 

Ms. RYAN. Is that better? 

Mr. CHABOT. That is much better. 

Ms. RYAN. Should I start over? 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes. And we will start the clock over. 

Ms. RYAN. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing me the 

opportunity to talk today before this committee. My name is Liz 

Ryan, and I am the President and CEO of the Youth First initiative. It is a national effort to end the use of incarceration for young 

people and to redirect resources to community based alternatives 

to incarceration. In my testimony, I will talk about the problems 

of youth incarceration, State trends that move away from incarcerating youth, and the opportunity to advance reforms in more 

States. 

Incarcerating youth is not safe, is not fair, and does not work. 

On any given day there are 50,000 young people confined in the 

United States in the juvenile justice system and not a week goes 

by without a newspaper citing abuse of incarcerated youth. In the 

past month alone, we have heard about a young person who died 

in a correctional facility in Texas. We have learned about allegations of abuse in an Arkansas juvenile correctional facility, litigation was filed this month against the New Jersey Juvenile Justice 

Commission over the sexual abuse of a formerly incarcerated 

youth, and today, as we hold this hearing here, there is a hearing 

in Wisconsin about the abuses at Lincoln Hills, the Nation’s largest 

youth prison. 

Incarcerating youth also is not fair as it disproportionately impacts young people of color even though white youth and young 

people of color commit roughly the same levels of delinquent behavior. And those facts are undermined by a false impression that 

youth of color commit more crime than white youth. That simply 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
14 

is not true. Youth of color and white youth engage in the same 

level of delinquency. And incarcerating youth simply does not work. 

Research shows that incarcerating youth greatly increases the likelihood that youth will reoffend and it is a significant predictor of 

entrance into the adult criminal justice system. 

It is also very costly. States spend the largest chunk of their juvenile justice resources on incarceration in youth prisons and other 

confinement settings at an estimated amount of about $5 billion a 

year. By contrast, community based alternatives to incarceration, 

some of which you hear about this morning, could more effectively 

serve youth at substantially less cost. The bottom line here is that 

States have been spending the largest chunk of their juvenile justice resources on the strategy that consistently produces the worst 

outcomes for youth, their families, and communities. The good 

news is that States are moving away from this approach. In the 

last decade, a number of States have enacted reforms to reduce 

their reliance on incarceration. These efforts have been bipartisan, 

they have been enacted in all regions of the country, and States 

have produced very impressive results. Youth incarceration has 

been cut in half in the last decade and is now at a 40-year low. 

We recently released a report called Breaking Down the Walls 

showcasing reforms in Texas, California, New York, Mississippi, 

Louisiana, and the District of Columbia. In all these States, they 

substantially reduced their reliance on incarceration without compromising public safety. For example, in Texas, youth incarcerated 

in State facilities were shown to be 21 percent more likely to be 

re-arrested and three times more likely to commit a felony than 

youth under community supervision. Texas enacted reforms to address this by reducing the number of incarcerated youth by more 

than 60 percent. And they expanded community-based alternatives 

to incarceration. More recently, States such as Kansas, Connecticut, Virginia, and Georgia to name a few, and Utah, have 

taken the lead on this. For example, Kansas enacted comprehensive reform legislation SB 367 last year and as a result, the youth 

incarceration population dropped 40 percent. And Kansas has now 

closed the Larned youth prison. 

In Virginia, the Governor and the Department of Juvenile Justice created a plan to transform the juvenile justice system and the 

General Assembly approved budget language in 2016 that directs 

resources from youth prison closures to community-based alternatives to incarceration. The Department of Juvenile Justice there 

is creating an array of services for youth in the community, and 

they are closing the Beaumont Juvenile Correction facility by the 

end of this month. And Beaumont has been there since 1890. 

So, right now we have a unique opportunity to accelerate these 

kinds of reforms throughout the rest of the country. The research 

underscores this as does the public opinion polling. Public opinion 

polling that we conducted earlier this year shows that the public 

strongly supports rehabilitation over incarceration across the country, across face, ethnicity, gender, and geography. And also there 

is strong support for reform whether or not you have been impacted by an incarceration, you have been a crime survivor. So, it 

is across the board there is strong support. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
15 

So, I would like to close with a couple of recommendations. One 

is Congress can accelerate these reforms in the States by providing 

incentives for States to reduce the use of incarceration by helping 

them downsize, close, and repurpose youth prisons. Congress can 

provide incentives for States to shift their focus away from incarceration to evidence informed community based non-residential alternatives to incarceration. And finally, you can pass the Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency and Prevention Act and make sure it is 

fully funded. And I understand you already passed the reauthorization this year in the House. So, these recommendations would help 

States reduce their over reliance on incarceration while, at the 

same time, increasing public safety. Ultimately, they would contribute to reduce State spending on ineffective solutions and reduced Federal prison spending. Thank you for your interest. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. And I will recognize myself 

for 5 minutes. We each get 5 minutes to ask questions. 

I will start with you, Mr. SaintGermain, if I can. What would you 

recommend that we do to reach young people who are at risk in 

falling into that crime and drugs and things that you said happened early on, but then ultimately it worked for you? You know, 

thank goodness it did and, you know, now you are obviously a very 

productive member of society and helping others to avoid the trap 

that you fell into. What would you recommend we do to have more 

people move in your direction and not go the wrong way? 

Mr. SAINTGERMAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your question. 

What I would say is that I have, in my young 28 years on this 

Earth, I have never met a young person who wanted to do bad. I 

have met young people who have adapted to the circumstances. So, 

most young people I know, and I believe, is they are given opportunities, right? Because a lot of the things we are referring to here, 

some of the issues young people face, the bedrock is poverty. And 

a lot of them are growing up in neighborhoods where there are not 

too many opportunities available to them. So, jobs are scarce, the 

educational system is dysfunctional and certainly in some of these 

communities. Some of these young people have folks in their lives 

themselves who are going through the system, who are not currently involved in their lives due to mass incarceration. Some of 

them are just basically trying to survive on a regular basis. 

So, I believe that any young person, regardless of which region 

of the country they come from, the ethnicity or background or gender, if they are put in certain circumstances where they have to 

survive, young people will survive by means necessary. So, some of 

the things I believe Congress can do and this committee can do is 

to fund and incentivize some of the programs that we know work 

for young people, which we have talked about here on this panel 

already. 

So, providing better educational opportunities for young people, 

investing in mental health, providing vocational training, giving 

them opportunities prior to entering the system allowing them to 

grow and make mistakes. And if they do enter the system, then 

still provide the rehabilitative measures which they need to propel 

and move forward and succeed out of some of the circumstances 

they are dealing with. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
16 

So I think, again, some of those things are common things that 

you want for your family, and every member of this committee 

wanted for their family, is a safe home, a job where you can provide for your kids, schools that will educate these young people 

rather than pushing them through the school to prison pipeline. 

And I believe that it we provide some of these services, which we 

know to work, as an intervention, we will stop a lot of young people 

from entering the system. Young people will make mistakes. 

Mr. CHABOT. I am going to have to cut you off because I am 

going to run out of time. But thank you very much. Mr. McDonald, 

let me turn to your next. Indiana appears to be one of the only 

States that has local school districts teaching in the residential facilities. How is that working and could you comment whether it has 

had any effect on recidivism rates for example? 

Mr. MCDONALD. It works pretty well. Mr. Chair, thank you for 

the question. And I would have to agree that education is a huge, 

huge impact on the lives of young people who have come in with 

the system. It is, actually, a basis of Indiana that we do educate 

our young people who are in DYS facilities or DOC facilities. It 

works very well for those children that are acceptable to the education as well. As far as recidivism reduction numbers, I cannot 

speak to those right off hand. Generally speaking, though, education is one of the factors that does help reduce recidivism. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. I have got about a minute left. Mr. 

Vignati, what would you recommend that Congress doe to help juveniles who are at risk of falling into the criminal justice system. 

What has worked on Georgia? What do you think would be good 

for us or nationally to others who may be listening? 

Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir, and thank you for the question, Mr. 

Chair. I would, respectfully, say that you take a page out of Georgia’s book and look at some of the things that we have done by 

shifting some of our funding from an institutional focus to community focus. And focus on things that have been proven to work that 

the panel has talked about. And incentivize those types of programming. 

We have been able to protect public safety and still reduce our 

detention population. We have taken 259 beds off line. We have 

provided capacity for these evidence-based services and every judicial circuit in our State. And now, we are properly assessing risk 

of youth. So, we are being very thoughtful and targeted in which 

youth we securely detain and confine. And I think that is what we 

have to focus on here. We, as a State, were locking up the wrong 

youth. We have to be thoughtful and we are still able to protect 

public safety by doing that and providing the front-end services 

that the panel has talked about. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. My time has expired. The 

ranking member, the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. And to the witnesses, 

your testimony will be so helpful, and I hope that this committee 

can begin immediately passing out a number of legislative initiatives crafted around what you have offered. And I will be offering 

those legislative initiatives that have been introduced so that we 

can look to specifically trying to move forward. I am going to ask 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
17 

sort of a rapid series of questions. And if you can be brief in your 

answers I would be very appreciative. Because what you are doing 

is you are building the record. So, thank you so very much. Mr. Vignati, you spoke about $90,000, I think, per year, per bed. 

And so, tell us the State value in resources not being expended in 

that way and being expended constructively to repair lives. 

Mr. VIGNATI. Yes, ma’am. Thank you for the question. Because 

we—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. $90,000 for incarceration. 

Mr. VIGNATI. Pardon? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You said that was what we would be spending 

if you—— 

Mr. VIGNATI. Yes, ma’am. At that point in time it was $90,000 

per year per bed. It is now more than $100,000 per year, per bed. 

So, what we have done is by front ending those services that we 

have talked about, we have been able to take offline the detention 

beds that we talked about. We have also been able to not build two 

new facilities that we projected, thus saving our State $85 million 

through 2018. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So, the lesson is put in more, give them the 

services, and you are saving, steering lives? 

Mr. VIGNATI. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. Mr. McDonald, you mentioned, 

and I think our ranking member mentioned, this formation of the 

brain. But you also in your testimony talked about recidivism therapy, but mental health facilities. Could you comment on how that 

has been effective? 

Mr. MCDONALD. Yes. Thank you, again, for the question. So, we 

do have, through course of our risk assessments and our mental 

health assessments, we have found small populations and, actually, 

the number appear to be at the beginning somewhat correlated 

with what they do in adult facilities. They are helping to identify 

the numbers of children in facilities or that are currently in the 

system that have some sort of substance abuse or mental health 

issues. So, what those are helping us do is identify those children, 

get them the treatment that they need, or possibly whether it is 

in the facility or outside of the facility through the stool status 

process. And it is actually becoming more and more effective. We 

are still very early in some of these programs and stages, but we 

do have them and they do appear to be working. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do you adhere to the theory that the brains 

of juvenile children are not fully developed as they make decisions 

that may find them in the juvenile justice system? 

Mr. MCDONALD. Me, personally, yes, I do. And I do know, as a 

State, we do often consider those when we do talk about juvenile 

justice initiatives. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Something that we in the Federal Government should consider. 

Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. SaintGermain, how old are you now? 

Mr. SAINTGERMAIN. Just turned 28. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. My goodness. 

Mr. SAINTGERMAIN. So, I am just getting over the phase where 

I do not make those decisions any more. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
18 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yeah, but also you will be able to pass for 

quite a young man for a very long time. And I think that is good. 

I look forward to you continuing your education. Congratulations to 

you. 

Mr. SAINTGERMAIN. Thank you, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But I need you to express to us the pain. Because while you were in, or while you were on the street, you saw 

your peers. And two points that I want to make: we have recognition through Kalief and I am delighted; please give his brother and 

family my regards. But, the horror of being 16 in solitary confinement. So, as you talk about your pain, would you speak about the 

horrors of being in solitary confinement and whether that would be 

good legislation to eliminate? And number two: alternative sentencing. You seem to have gotten it. And how do we do that and 

set the Federal standard so that States, and I am going to ask Ms. 

Ryan, because she has got all these examples of dastardly acts, 

would be more effective in treating juveniles? 

Mr. SAINTGERMAIN. Thank you. Thank you again, Ms. Jackson 

Lee. I, personally, was very fortunate that I have never experienced solitary confinement myself, but I work with a lot of young 

people currently on Rikers Island that are dealing with solitary 

confinement who have dealt with it. Flying, at times, I have to sit, 

you know, in this chair for a long time and that really drives me 

crazy after a certain amount of time. So, you imagine a young person being locked in a box, extremely small, for 23 hours of the day. 

Right? A young person who is 16, 17, and 18 years old have no 

human contact, which are things we know are important to young 

people’s growth. And you can imagine what that does to the adolescent brain. How it destroys it. A lot of young people I work with 

who have had such experiences, when they come home they are not 

the same. And Kalief Browder, again, sorry to keep bringing up his 

story. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Go right ahead for Ms. Ryan. 

Mr. SAINTGERMAIN. He was a perfect example of what solitary 

confinement can do to adolescent’s brains and young people overall. 

So, I think banning the box and getting rid of solitary confinement 

for young people is extremely important and something that is very 

much needed in order for young people to move forward after the 

system. 

As it relates to an alternative to incarceration, it is what basically saved my life and helped me. And again, if we can provide 

young people with the services prior to entering the system keeping 

them with their family in the neighborhoods, which we know studies have shown work better for young people when they are around 

families and neighborhoods and community based programs that 

work for them. I think it is the way Congress should move forward, 

and that is the best way to help young people, again, overcome 

some of the challenges by going through the system and experiencing it in their regular lives. 

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection, the gentlelady has an additional 

minute. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank you. Thank you, Mr. SaintGermain. 

I hope that we will be able to question you again. Ms. Ryan, I think 

what is important about the work that you have done is that you 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
19 

have seen the landscape of the United States. We are sitting here 

in a pristine room, and we are hearing good things. Let us know 

how important it is that we deal with banning the box, solitary 

confinement, the recognition of the brain, and making the Federal 

statement through legislation. Because what is happening in other 

States that are not like these States here. What you have seen. 

You gave a whole litany. Tell us what you are seeing across the 

Nation. 

Ms. RYAN. What we have seen, really, is a shift away from harsh 

punishment and towards effective programs that work. And so, you 

have seen a number of States take proactive action to do this and 

those States have reduced the use of incarceration and redirected 

those resources to community-based, non-residential, evidence-informed programs and services for young people. So, what Congress 

can do, really, is to help accelerate those kinds of efforts throughout the country. The kinds of things that Mr. SaintGermain. has 

talked about, that he has needed in his life would be the kinds of 

things that you could incentivize through resources from this committee. 

And I think also because so much of the funding is literally 

locked up in institutions you have to close them in order to generate savings. Anything that you can do to repurpose and downsize 

would be helpful. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentlelady’s time is expired. The 

gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all the 

witnesses being here today. Obviously, this is a very important 

subject, but I do want to make sure that we are not conflating the 

issues at the Federal level and the State level and that we are talking about the same things. And I went to the Bureau of Prisons 

website, and it appears to me that there is only a handful, I think 

less than 20, juveniles that are currently in Federal custody. Mr. 

Vignati, do you know if that is correct? 

Mr. VIGNATI. Yes that is correct. I think what we are speaking 

about are the juveniles that come before our States and that number is a lot higher. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Yeah. Again, I just want to make sure that we 

are clear and, you know, it appears that those that are in Federal 

custody are juveniles that have committed violent offenses and 

have, frankly, a history of not responding to interventions and preventative measures in the community. Is that your understanding? 

Mr. VIGNATI. I think right now in Georgia we have one youth 

that I am aware of that has a Federal charge and that we are actually housing in one of our secure facilities. So, it is a very rare occurrence that we have a Federal youth that comes before us. I will 

not speak for the other States, but in my 30-year career, it has only 

happened a handful of times. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. McDonald, do you agree with that? 

Mr. MCDONALD. To my knowledge yes. I do not know off hand 

of any juveniles in Federal custody in Indiana. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay, very good. So, given that nearly all of the 

population we are talking about here, with respect to juveniles, are 

in State institutions, I want to drill down a little bit on what the 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
20 

role of the Federal Government should be. So, beyond the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Delinquent Prevention Act, I want to 

talk about what the Federal Government should be doing to assist 

States to take action and to innovate in this area. I will start with 

you, Mr. Vignati. 

Mr. VIGNATI. Well, what I will say is that the JJDP Act was the 

seed for a lot of our reforms in Georgia. While the Federal funds 

have gone down over the years and we have much more significant 

numbers of State dollars, we were able to move quickly and effectively because of the support from JJDP and those Federal dollars. 

Years of planning took place so we were ready to roll when we 

wanted to reform. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay. So, it sounds like it may have been the 

seed for that. But are there challenges that you, at the State level, 

are facing in complying with the core requirements? 

Mr. VIGNATI. Georgia has been in compliance with the core protections for years. There were some concerns when they rolled out 

some possible changes, but we are in compliance at this point. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. So, were there challenges or any issues that you 

had in complying with the disproportionate minority contact requirement? 

Mr. VIGNATI. For the proposed changes? 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Yeah. 

Mr. VIGNATI. I think that was almost every State, yes, sir. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Would you agree with that, Mr. McDonald? 

Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay. Mr. McDonald, it appears that Indiana is 

one of the few States that has local school districts teaching in residential facilities. What kind of curriculum are these juveniles receiving and can their credits be transferred to schools when they 

leave the facility? 

Mr. MCDONALD. Yes. Yes, we are. First of all, thank you, again, 

for the question. So, the students in the facilities receive predominately essentially the same education that a child would receive in 

a public school system: math, reading, writing, science, that kind 

of stuff. One thing that I was not able to address in my previous 

testimony is that our DYS also is partnered with our Department 

of Workforce Development to help get some juveniles some actual 

vocational training, so those students that are eligible to receive 

that kind of training. So, they can build a job skill while they are 

potentially in a facility to help further themselves when they get 

out. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Well, I will let you follow up on that, Mr. 

Vignati, because I am curious from Georgia’s perspective as well, 

but I always wonder about whether there is any useful data that 

comes up from these types of initiatives with respect to recidivism 

rates. So, can you shed some light on that? Have you been able to 

collect any data with respect to that? 

Mr. VIGNATI. So Georgia, our Department of Juvenile Justice is 

the 184th school district in the State. So, our youth earn school 

credits when they are with us and can graduate and get a diploma. 

The diploma is from the Georgia Preparatory Academy. Youth are 

able to earn not only high school graduation certificates, they are 

able to earn GED. They are also able to earn technical college cerVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:18 Oct 12, 2018 Jkt 032309 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A309.XXX A309

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
21 

tifications, and, if they qualify, they can also earn college credit. So, 

last month we were able to graduate over 50 youth from our Georgia Precatory Academy. The vast majority of youth are going to 

come back to the communities, and if they are on target with their 

school, they are able to get a job; they are able to enter either back 

into their education seamlessly or into the workforce. So, we view 

that as a positive. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman 

from Michigan, the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. 

Conyers is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Excuse my absence 

here. But I wanted to ask Ms. Ryan this question. What is the importance of the four core requirements for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act funding? 

Ms. RYAN. The importance of the four core requirements cannot 

be understated enough. The act has been in place since 1974, and 

it has helped States shift away from putting kids who should not 

be in the system at all away from the system. So, kids who are status offenders, runaways, cannot be detained. It has also ensured 

that kids are not placed in adult facilities. Over the years, there 

were two core requirements at the beginning, now there are four 

and I think those have helped the States really move away from 

this sort of punitive system. They have supported a minimum floor 

of requirements that, in fact, I think almost all States are in compliance with. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Mr. Vignati, in your statement, you referred to the success of using a variety of cognitive behavioral 

intervention programs with young offenders. Could you explain to 

us how these were developed if you know, and how you determined 

which programs to use for each juvenile? 

Mr. VIGNATI. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. I do not know 

exactly how all the different programs were developed, but I do 

know that over time there have been a multitude of research studies to show that they have been effective with this population of 

risk. And I think that is the thing to think about. When we talk 

about youth, it is important to look at what their risk level is and 

what their need level is. In Georgia, we have a validated risk assessment and a validated needs assessment that helps us determine which youths should go into those programs and what is the 

right fit for those programs. 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay, Mr. Vignati, in your statement, you refer to 

the success of using a variety of cognitive behavioral intervention 

programs. Oh, okay. Excuse me, sir. I am going to switch to Mr. 

Devon McDonald. 

Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. In your statement, you state that as of December 

2016, the Indiana Department of Corrections, Division of Youth 

Services began referring all of its high school and students in DYS 

facilities to Indiana’s Department of Workforce Development. Could 

you explain to us how this works? The programming that is then 

applied to these young people and the goals of the program? 

Mr. MCDONALD. Yes. So, it is essentially just that. Our DYS is 

our Department of Youth Services within our Indiana Department 

of Corrections. And so, they have partnered with what is called 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
22 

DWD in Indiana, or the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, to sponsor the Job for America’s Graduates Program in our 

facility. 

So, it is just that. Students that are in our facility that earn their 

degrees or looking to move into the workforce. They go into these 

programs, or DWD sponsored programs that are somewhat, like, 

vocational programs to learn job skills, job-training skills, so they 

can, again, be productive members of society. So they are actually 

using their time in incarceration to build some sort of skill that 

they can then use outside of an institution. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back 

my time if there is any left. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. 

Thank you. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Bass, is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And let me take a 

moment to thank our ranking member on this subcommittee and 

all of the witnesses for your testimony. And more important than 

your testimony, it is your work and the commitment to changing 

this system. I really appreciate all that you have done, and I look 

forward to reading more about it. 

But I did want to take some of my time to raise a question that 

I think at some point needs to be raised in this country. Which is 

at some point, in the 21st century, we need to ask the question as 

to why we even have a juvenile justice system? All that science has 

learned about brain and child development, all we have learned 

about behavior, intellectual and learning disabilities, all that we 

have learned about disproportionality. Now, I do not know about 

your States, and I am very proud about California. We have made 

a lot of significant advances in California. But even in California, 

as in the rest of the country, and tell me if I am wrong, we need 

to acknowledge that the juvenile justice system exists for one part 

of our population. It exists for poor people. 

When rich kids get into trouble, and I have seen it personally numerous times, there is a whole other system for them. We care 

about them. They are troubled teens. We send them to therapy. We 

understand they have problems at home. We do not criminalize 

wealthy people. We do not. And the bottom line is that if you are 

able to afford an attorney, then, you know, that is when you get, 

you know diverted into services. We need to examine our system 

and acknowledge the fact that there is a disproportionate number 

of foster youth that are in the system and that foster youth are not 

allowed to be normal teenagers. Normal teenagers can be obnoxious. When our normal teenagers are obnoxious, we deal with it. 

When foster youth are obnoxious, they get incarcerated. 

So, for example, if you were in a group home and you get into 

a fight in that group home, they call the police and you go to jail. 

If two siblings at home fight, you do not put your kids in jail for 

that. Oh, and by the way, when foster youth are criminalized when 

they are teenagers and that is when we criminalize them, we call 

them crossover youth. We have a special term for them. We like 

them when they are in the dependency system. 

When they go to the juvenile delinquency system, we do not like 

them because in our country, we do not like other people’s teenVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:18 Oct 12, 2018 Jkt 032309 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A309.XXX A309

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
23 

agers. That is one of the fundamental problems. And once you are 

caught up in the system it is extremely difficult to get out. Now, 

in California, until recent time, if you committed a felony as a juvenile, that counted as a strike. So, you could essentially have two 

strikes as a juvenile and then do something wrong when you are 

21, 22, and you are sent away for life. 

I have been with young people who are waiting to go on trial and 

one of the problems in our country is that they do not have legal 

representation. So, I have been with young people who meet their 

attorney 5 minutes before they go into the courtroom. And that attorney has a stack of cases and walks in, pleads them out, and 

then they go on to be incarcerated. So, to me, I find it so ironic, 

because just the other day we passed 5 bills to improve the child 

welfare system. 

And I view the system, frankly, as State-sponsored child abuse, 

because I do not see how we can all come together around dependency and then do what we do around delinquency, especially when 

we need to acknowledge that the majority of these children actually 

started in the child welfare system, so State-sponsored child abuse, 

life without possibility of parole, solitary confinement, juveniles in 

adult prisons, and what we did in California, when we sentence a 

juvenile to an adult prison we kept them in solitary so they did not 

intermingle with the adult population. 

So, how does that work? I think we need to look at the costs. The 

thing about child welfare and this system is it does not necessarily 

need a whole lot of money. I know that you guys need more money 

for programs, but you just said, Mr. Vignati, that $100,000? 

$100,000 a year for a bed? We have the money to provide the services that are needed to keep children out of the system. 

But I think what is needed in our country is political will and 

political courage. Because the bottom line is that elected officials 

vote for bad legislation like this because we do not want to be seen 

as soft on crime because we do not want it used against us when 

we run for reelection. That is the real bottom line. So, political will 

and political courage is what is needed. 

So, my question to you in the remainder of my time, and if the 

chair would not mind allowing you to answer, I wanted to know 

what policies you think might be needed to move our country in the 

direction of eliminating the system? And let me just note, not everybody in the world locks up children. This is a feature of the 

United States. Now, there is other countries that do it, but there 

are some countries that do not believe in a juvenile justice system. 

So, what kind of policies do we need to move our country away 

from this? Do you mind, Mr. Chair? 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentlelady’s time has expired, however if she 

would direct the question at one of the witnesses so they could answer, and we will give them the time to answer. 

Ms. BASS. Okay. 

Mr. CHABOT. But not all of them. 

Ms. BASS. Ms. Ryan? I do not know who to direct it to. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Ms. RYAN. We need to do a number of things as you suggested. 

We need to make sure kids are never put in the adult criminal justice system, never placed in adult jails or prisons, we need to end 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
24 

the worst kinds of abuses that occur in the juvenile system, like 

solitary confinement. But frankly, we need to get rid of the signature feature of the juvenile justice system, which is incarceration. 

That is where we spend most of the money. That is where most of 

the effort goes and as you have heard today, when we shift away 

from that we can actually serve youth in their community. And what we hope is that of the $5 billion that gets spent annually on placing kids in incarceration settings, that that money can 

be shifted to serve not only kids as alternatives to incarceration in 

the juvenile system, but can serve kids in the community so they 

never have to touch the system in the first place. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. The gentlelady’s time has 

expired. The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Richmond, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank the 

witnesses for coming. And let me thank Ms. Ryan for noting the 

juvenile justice reform that we did in Louisiana when I was in the 

Louisiana legislature, and we were able to pass the Missouri 

Model, shut down Tallulah and a number of other institutions 

where we housed youth. 

Let me just start with the basic goal, and I think it was Mr. 

Vignati mentioned it first, that, you know, we want to reduce the 

risk to public safety. But, at the same time, we want to reduce the 

detention population, and the good thing is they both can be done 

at the same time if done in a very small way. So, the first question 

I will ask is just a straight yes-or-no and you all can answer it. Do 

you agree that we have reached the point of diminishing returns? 

That every dollar that we spend on incarcerating a youth actually 

makes our communities less safe? Mr. Vignati? 

Mr. VIGNATI. Can I do a yes-and? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Sure. 

Mr. VIGNATI. Yes, and we have to continue to be more thoughtful 

and more targeted. I have given 30 years of my life to this and we 

are way better than we were in ’87, and I hope, for my children, 

we will be way better next year and 30 years from now. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. McDonald. 

Mr. MCDONALD. Again, I would have to agree with Mr. Vignati. 

I do not think it is quite just that clear; I think, sometimes and 

in some situations, these lend themselves to some treatments that 

may not otherwise be afforded to a juvenile. So, I think, you know, 

heavy on risk and needs and mental health assessments, I think, 

are kind of, really, the way to combat some of these issues. 

Mr. SAINTGERMAIN. I say yes. Again, I am a perfect example of 

that. I think if you invest on the front end, you provide opportunities as Ms. Bass just talked about, to young people, you stop criminalizing poverty, then you are going to have successful young people who turn out to be taxpayers instead of tax burdens. So, my 

answer is yes. 

Mr. RICHMOND. And Ms. Ryan? 

Ms. RYAN. Yes. There is overwhelming evidence that incarceration does not work. 

Mr. RICHMOND. And I am not sure if you all are familiar with 

the Youth Promise Act, which has been traditionally introduced by 

Bobby Scott. But it shows that similar prevention programs in 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
25 

Pennsylvania, for example, for every dollar that they spend on prevention they saved $5. And what we need to start to do in this Congress is just stop looking at things as simply about spending. Because if you look at just addition and subtraction, that is a very 

elementary way of running a government. We really should look at 

return on investment and the cost benefit analysis. So, if we get 

$5 for every $1 we spend on prevention then maybe we should 

spend a lot on prevention so that we can reduce the incarceration 

spending tremendously. 

Mr. SaintGermain, let me ask you a question. This goes back to 

my days in the Louisiana Legislature when I was chair of judiciary. 

And solitary confinement we found is just bad. Old, young, it does 

not matter. It is just bad. But I had a hearing where I only invited 

in formerly incarcerated people. And I asked them what were their 

biggest barriers to re-entry. And we found out a bunch of interesting things because we were actually talking to people who reentered. 

Mr. SAINTGERMAIN. Right. 

Mr. RICHMOND. And one of the things we learned is that we released them from our State penitentiary with a bus ticket and $10. 

And then, when they get home they are required to have a State 

ID, which costs $12. So, they come out upside down and violating 

the law. So, what we did, was we created a program where we give 

them their ID before they go home. 

Mr. SAINTGERMAIN. Yeah. 

Mr. RICHMOND. And we release all and waive all their traffic 

fines and fees and all of that. What would be those things for our 

100,000 or so youth that are re-entering every year? What are 

those things that to you are common sense, but to us at 10,000 feet 

in the air we may not see? What are those simple things we can 

do for our youth? 

Mr. SAINTGERMAIN. Mr. Richmond, thank you. And I think you 

have answered that question you asked. Young people who are 

leaving the system, a lot of times we send them home and say, 

‘‘Good luck.’’ Right? We have not prepared them for life in the 

streets. This very same things that caused them to enter the system, which we have talked about, economic reasons and other 

issues, things that historically has been part of this Nation, we 

pushed them out and said, ‘‘Go ahead and make it on your own, 

right?’’ So, they do not have the opportunities and when they come 

back home they are marked from society. They have to fill out the 

box saying that they were incarcerated, which denies them the 

services. 

So, if you take a person, right, and you incarcerate then, and 

then you put them back in the streets, and then you tell them, 

‘‘Good luck,’’ knowing that they have records and there is a society 

that is not so welcoming to them, then, obviously, naturally people 

have to survive. We are all animals in a way, right? We will find 

a way to survive. Any member of this body right now, if I put them 

in certain circumstances, they will find a way to adapt and survive. 

So, young people, when we push them through the system and not 

give them the proper resources for re-entry, mental health, vocational training; the ID is a very small thing. Things they can use 

to travel and look for jobs and giving them the career opportuniVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:18 Oct 12, 2018 Jkt 032309 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A309.XXX A309

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
26 

ties, which we fight for ourselves, then they are more likely to fail. 

And those things are obvious things. 

So, I think investing, again, in re-entry and giving these young 

people concrete services is what is going to help them not to reenter the system, reduce the recidivism rate. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you. And I see that my time is expired. 

I would just encourage Mr. Chairman, if you would, to think about 

having a hearing on all the barriers people face once they get back. 

Because it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. In Louisiana alone, 

there are 300 jobs, or professions you cannot enter if you have formerly been incarcerated. And if you cannot get a job then you go 

back to the life of crime. So, if we could think about that, I would 

be very grateful if you would entertain that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. Since I am the acting chairman today I will direct the staff to talk to Mr. Sensenbrenner 

about that. So, the gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman 

from New York, Mr. Jeffries, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you and I thank the distinguished acting 

chair for your leadership and the ranking member for her tremendous involvement in this important issue and her vision and foresight in helping to push this forward. I also want to thank the distinguished panelists for your presence here today, and particularly 

Jim SaintGermain, who I have the privilege of knowing from back 

home in Brooklyn. We are all extraordinarily proud of your story, 

your effort, and the transformation that really is a beacon of light 

for so many different folks. 

I want to ask the chairman unanimous consent to enter into the 

record a series of writings from some of our Nation’s top conservative organizations in support of criminal justice reform as it relates to expunging the records of young people who have engaged, 

perhaps, in a minor infraction. And—— 

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you. We, of course, want to make sure that 

these are young people who do not get marked with a scarlet letter 

and adversely impacted throughout the balance of their life. So, 

thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me start with Mr. SaintGermain. In terms of your own personal story, you indicated in your written testimony and you amplified that to some degree in your testimony here today that you 

were put in a very tough circumstance upon your arrival here from 

Haiti and a challenging environment, and you were heading in one 

direction. And as a result of, you know, perhaps the fortunate accident of history, were not put into the adult criminal justice system 

because the infraction that you engaged in occurred slightly before 

your 16th birthday. But then, that set in motion a series of things 

that led to what was a phenomenal transformation and you being 

able to bring to life, obviously, your natural talent and ability. 

I would be interested in knowing what, you know, what was the 

single most important thing in helping you to shift direction and 

to become the person that you have become today? 

Mr. SAINTGERMAIN. Thank you, Mr. Jeffries. And it is a pleasure 

of knowing you over the years, actually. I met Mr. Jeffries when 

I was just 18 years old working in a supermarket literally a few 

months after exiting the juvenile justice system at Key Food right 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
27 

on 7th Avenue and Carroll. And thank you for all the work you 

have done over the years. 

It is really hard to pick one thing. Since I have to, I would say 

that caring people who were in the position to show me that there 

was a different side of life. Basically, opportunities and exposing 

me to a side of life, which I was not accustomed to. As you know, 

10 minutes away from Crown Heights where I grew up, to Park 

Slope, Brooklyn, it was a totally different lifestyle, right? Things 

are different, the neighborhood looks different, opportunities are 

available. So, having those opportunities available to me realizing 

that it was more to me being just an athlete or a musician, made 

a huge contribution to my life to where I am today. So, I would say 

that just exposure to opportunities and caring hearts. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Well, thank you. Frederick Douglas once said, ‘‘It 

is easier to build strong children than it is to repair broken men.’’ 

And, certainly, I think we would all take care to invest in opportunity and prevention as opposed to incarceration. 

I want to move to Mr. McDonald. In terms of your own experience, could you speak for a moment about the importance of making sure that if there is a minor infraction that a young person engages in that there is an opportunity to be able to overcome that 

with a rehabilitative re-entry focused approach as opposed to a punitive approach that may result in someone spiraling down a path 

that it will be difficult to recover from? 

Mr. MCDONALD. Yes. You know, from a State perspective, there 

is a couple things that, you know, you mentioned expungement in 

your early remarks. As a State, we are actually in the process here 

in a couple of weeks, July 1, our expungement process is being revamped a little bit for juveniles. Expungement, I think, would be 

a great thing for some young people who have committed fairly 

minor acts to kind of wipe the slate clean. It gets rid of the stigma, 

so to speak, of I have a juvenile record and they carry that with 

them whether anyone else may know about it or not. But it personally impacts that child. 

As far as re-entry goes, you know, into society, that is actually 

one of my recommendations that I submitted in my testimony, is 

that reentry services is something that is of great need. I do not 

want to speak for everybody else, but probably across the Nation. 

Some of the programs that we provide in allowing, you know, 

through our JDAI and providing those types of services or rehabilitative types of services that you are talking about, substance abuse 

is a big issue. In Indiana, it is everywhere and we have identified 

in some of our juvenile populations that our substance abuse problems with our juveniles rival those that we have of adults. And so 

those types of services are great. Education, providing the basic necessities: food, water, shelter, things like that are huge impacts on 

recidivism. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you. My time is expired and I appreciate 

your testimony. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. The gentleman’s time has 

expired. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chair, thank you very much. I also wanted to 

salute you and the ranking member for your leadership in bringing 

us together on this very important subject. Mr. SaintGermain, let 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
28 

me start with you. A quick question about education in addition to 

the other failings of incarceration as a strategy for crime reduction 

and harm reduction. It does interfere with people’s education, does 

it not? And is that not a huge problem, the opportunity lost that 

we have when we are putting people behind bars? 

Mr. SAINTGERMAIN. Mr. Raskin, I will give you another personal 

example. When I graduated from my GED and wanted to go to college, one of the things I had to fill in the box was whether you have 

been convicted of a crime. And, basically, answering yes means 

that I would have no opportunity to get financial aid. Now as a 

young man, 18-years-old, trying to change my path, trying to get 

an education in which we know is the greatest equalizer; if I was 

charged as a 16-year-old where I had to answer yes in that box 

alone that would have exterminated my opportunities right there 

and then to move forward in life, and I would not be the person 

I am today. So yes, it is very much important to give young people 

opportunities to seek the education which they need, which we 

know as adults will help them lead a life of success. So, that is indeed true. 

Mr. RASKIN. And thank you for what you are doing now to promote education among so many young people where you live. 

Ms. Ryan, I am drawn to the points that you are making about 

the failures of incarceration and alternatives. The problem, politically, is one of violence in society generally. We live in a very violent society. We were hit by it here in Congress last week when one 

of our colleagues was shot and many of them were attacked in an 

episode of gun violence. But people think, well, if we do not have 

incarceration, we are not going to be able to engage in the reduction of violence. And I just wonder if you have any thoughts about 

that. How we should think about the problem of violence without 

resorting immediately to incarceration? 

Ms. RYAN. Well, I think that the data shows that when you incarcerate a child in the juvenile justice system, you are going to 

greatly increase their likelihood of reoffending, and you are also 

going to be increasing the likelihood that they will end up being 

in the adult criminal justice system. So, you are actually increasing 

violence by placing kids in incarceration. So, the alternatives, I 

think some of the ones that have been discussed here today are 

ones that have been shown to reduce recidivism and also to help 

young people to grow and thrive. 

So, if you look at a lot of the alternatives that could be placed 

in the community that are evidence-informed and that are an array 

of alternatives, so it is not a cookie cutter approach; it is not each 

kid gets this exact thing. It is really individualized to that young 

person. So, for example, a program like the Youth Advocate programs, it is very high-intensive wrap-around services for young 

people. It is individualized. It has been proven to be very, very successful. And they are in a number of States around the country. So, 

if you lift up programs like that, ones that really help young people 

to turn their life around, you are going to be increasing public safety and helping that young person at the same time. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you. And then, finally, for Mr. McDonald and 

Mr. Vignati, what is the role that unaddressed or under-addressed 

mental health problems are playing in problems of juvenile delinVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:18 Oct 12, 2018 Jkt 032309 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A309.XXX A309

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
29 

quency and crime? And what role do mental health programs and 

treatment play in dealing with the issue? 

Mr. VIGNATI. Sure. Thank you for the question. Approximately 

50, 55 percent of all youth that come to our juvenile justice system 

in Georgia have a diagnosed mental health issue. So, that is something that we have seen grow over the years. If those youth are 

able to access the appropriate treatment before they come to us, 

then, obviously, that helps benefit us all. 

Mr. RASKIN. But right now, sorry, just to be clear, that is not 

happening. The kids arrive without having had any formal mental 

health intervention. 

Mr. VIGNATI. That is prior to them coming to us. So, when they 

come to us, they have that issue. So, I think in a community, mental health is an issue, at least in our State, that needs to be addressed. 

Mr. MCDONALD. Mental health, I think, can be under-addressed, 

especially in juveniles who maybe have not actually approached the 

system. But that is where, you know, like I said, the risk assessments that we use help identify those issues. And, to echo what 

Mr. Vignati said, is we have a large segment of our population in 

our juvenile populations in our facilities that do have some sort of 

learning disability, or mental health issue, substance abuse issue 

that needs to be addressed. And if those are successfully addressed 

at that time, can have greet impacts on recidivism and public safety. 

Mr. RASKIN. I yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time is expired. Thank you very 

much. The gentlelady from Alabama. We want to apologize for 

missing her the last time around, but is recognized because we 

know she has a particular interest in this area, children and helping them. So, we apologize and she is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. ROBY. That is okay. That is okay. Thank you so much. 

Thank you all for being here today. 

Ms. Ryan, your Youth First initiative literature, you define youth 

incarceration as any place where youth’s liberty is deprived. And 

you include in that not only residential centers or juvenile correctional centers, but also places like wilderness camps and youth 

academies, and foster homes. And so, in an effort for me to try to 

understand your perspective, what do we do with juvenile offenders 

who come from homes where they have no supervision or where 

their parents encourage criminal behavior, like dealing drugs or 

carrying weapons? What would be the appropriate place for these 

juveniles that do not count as your definition of incarceration? 

Ms. RYAN. It really depends on the individual situation, but there 

are alternatives like independent living. You know, a young person 

should not be locked up or taken out of their home if they have 

high need, but not high risk, right? So, if they have high needs, but 

they cannot go home, there is an independent living type program 

which is a program in the community where a young person can 

live in an apartment and gets workforce supports and educational 

supports. So, there is options like that that would not be considered 

incarceration, but that would help that young person to—— 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
30 

Mrs. ROBY. So, I mean, what age are we talking here where a 

youth would live on their own? I am just trying to understand. And 

where do these programs exist? 

Ms. RYAN. So, a number of States have independent living programs as part of their juvenile justice programming. It is usually 

youth between 16- and 19-, 20-years-old because youth can be in 

the juvenile system in most States up until their 21st birthday. 

Mrs. ROBY. How does the supervision work in an independent 

living situation? I mean, who is—— 

Ms. RYAN. Usually, the youth have a caseworker and, oftentimes, 

that they have programming supports that they go to. They are 

helped to find a job. They are often in school at the same time as 

well. So, it is very sort of wrap-around intensive types of supports 

for young people because those young people are going to be living 

on their own after that at some point anyway. So, this is really 

kind of graduated step. 

Mrs. ROBY. Would you agree that there are some circumstances 

where a juvenile should be detained where there have been violent 

crimes committed? 

Ms. RYAN. You know, there may be some youth who pose a very 

serious risk to public safety. It is a very, very, very small number 

when you look at their crime data. And they may need secure care 

for a period of time. And if that is the case, that kind of care needs 

to be therapeutic, it needs to be very small; it needs to be close to 

that youth’s home and community so that they can access those 

kinds of supports. 

Mrs. ROBY. And so, this question might be for any of you to answer: no child should ever be abused. It is absolutely appalling that 

there is physical and sexual abuse occurring in locked juvenile facilities. So, I guess for any of you, are you seeing States take measures and protections to ensure that this type of abuse does not 

occur? And, what are they doing? And what do you propose is done 

to prevent this appalling abuse? 

Mr. SAINTGERMAIN. Thank you, Mrs. Roby. I think States are 

taking measures, but I believe, as Mr. Ratcliffe was referring earlier, in terms the Federal Government not really having such a role 

in the lives of young people in the juvenile justice system. I think 

the Federal Government can incentivize certain reforms, right? 

So, for example, at Rikers Island, we are putting cameras in certain places that did not have them before. We are putting accountability measures in place where guards and other folks violate 

young people’s rights to hold them accountable. So, I think States 

are moving towards that direction, but the Federal Government, 

who has the power of the purse, I think, can certainly help States 

to get there faster. 

Mrs. ROBY. Anybody else want to weigh in? 

Mr. VIGNATI. What I have noticed over the past several years is 

that PREA, the Prison Rape Elimination Act, has had a huge impact on making juvenile facilities safer both in Georgia and in 

other States. So, I think there is an impact that you have seen 

there not only in the juvenile system, but in the adult correctional 

system. Are we where we need to be? Maybe not yet, but I think 

we are headed in the right direction because of that legislation and 

the compliance of the States. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
31 

Ms. RYAN. I am glad you mentioned PREA, because that is a 

really good point. I would also say that when you have a custodytype situation where a child is in a facility, an institution, there is 

often abuse. And so, one of the things that you could do would be 

to incentivize States moving away from institutional settings, particularly the large kinds of settings. And almost every State has 

one of these kinds of institutions. We actually have a list on our 

website if you are interested. 

Mrs. ROBY. Okay. Thank you all again for being here. We appreciate it. I yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentlelady’s time is expired. I will 

now go to a second round for those that have additional questions 

or are so inclined. We will recognize the ranking member, 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think 

I am going to take this opportunity to thank my members who 

asked such important, provocative questions and provided great insight to Congresswoman Bass. I want to join the aspirational goal. 

I would like to say it is one that we could have for tomorrow, which 

is to question and maybe remove this structure of a juvenile justice 

system. I do not know if we advance if we say juvenile restoration 

and rehabilitation, but something that is uplifting and does not 

craft them as participants of the criminal justice system. We recognize that young people and their undeveloped brains have been engaged in violent acts. And we recognize that you all are smart 

enough to deal with that. The question is how do we do it? 

So, Ms. Ryan, I want to, and then I want to submit a number 

of things into the record. I want to pointedly, I think when you answered my question you were upbeat. What I am trying to ask, because I do believe as Mr. SaintGermain has said, there is a vital 

role for the Federal Government. And one of those roles is to address and pull back the sore that the larger percentage of those incarcerated are Hispanic and African-American youth. Plain and 

simple. So, the question is what is the percentage of the States that 

have not moved to that point? We know that there are those who 

are reckoning, but there are those that are not. So, we have got 50 

States; where are we in that scheme? 

Ms. RYAN. That is a great question. I mean, when you look at 

the reforms that have happened around the country with youth incarceration going down, what we have actually seen is racial and 

ethnic disparities going up. And so, that the reforms are not benefitting all youth equally. And so, States need to redouble their efforts to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice 

system. And, really, to remove the aspects of the juvenile justice 

system that mirror the adult system, because the juvenile system 

was created as an alternative to the adult system, but there are aspects of it that mirror the adult system. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So, if you had to look at 50 States and say 

we have got 30 of them, 20 of them going full steam ahead, but we 

have got others. So, can you sort of give us where we are with the 

States moving toward that more positive thinking? 

Ms. RYAN. I mean, I would say that, my colleagues might disagree with me, but I think that States still have a long way to go. 

I cannot hold up one specific State and say, ‘‘This is the model.’’ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
32 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. They are not at a 50-State level where all of 

them are doing juvenile justice reform. 

Ms. RYAN. Right. A lot of States are engaged in juvenile justice 

reform, but, only, I would say roughly a quarter of them are really 

dramatically pushing the envelope here. And I think that all of 

them still have a long way to go. Because no State has rejected the 

youth prison model and approach and every State has documented 

information racial and ethnic disparities. So, and that is something 

that the Department of Justice actually certifies. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yeah, let me make sure. You mention on federal initiative, and PREA is absolutely outstanding; I am glad it 

was mentioned. But you mentioned the Juvenile Justice Bill that 

has gotten through, but we are also working, because we are in the 

judiciary committee, to deal with the Juvenile Accountability Block 

Grant Program, which is H.R. 68, which is passed bipartisan last 

session here. And that goes to the Justice Department, which can 

have a real impact on States that have not moved yet. We need to 

move our Justice Department with this legislation for best practices and giving money to States and incentivized groups to do best 

practices. Would that be a great addition as well? 

Ms. RYAN. Yeah, that would be a fantastic addition, because I 

think that the Federal Government can play a role as incentivizing 

States to take the right path. And what you have seen here today 

are there are a number of States moving in that direction, but we 

need to accelerate that pace of reform. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. SaintGermain, very quickly, you are living it every day. You are in New York, but do you see the disparate 

treatment of Hispanics, African-Americans, Haitians, I know there 

is a variety of individuals. And how do we cure that, because we 

want them to be contributing? And what is your thought about, you 

know, sort of eliminating this thing called the juvenile justice crime 

system. 

Mr. SAINTGERMAIN. Mr. Vignati and I, earlier, were talking 

about States wanting to do the right things and move towards the 

right direction. But, the number one question that always comes up 

is, ‘‘Who is paying for it?’’ Right? Because we understand that some 

of these prisons and mass incarceration overall provides an economic opportunity in certain communities that do not necessarily 

look like the communities in which the young people are coming 

from which are majority African-American and Hispanic youth. So, 

that is certainly one of the things we have to deal with. 

It is not just within the juvenile justice system, but throughout 

this Nation in general. Because the politics of fear contribute to the 

lack of reforms and progress which we need to see in the system. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentlelady’s time is expired. Did you have documents that you want to put in the record? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I will wait until after. Are you? 

Mr. CHABOT. I am going to go next and then. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yeah. I will wait at the end. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. That is fine. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. CHABOT. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. Ms. Ryan, I 

did not get to you in my first round, so I will go to you first if I 

can. Tell me if you agree or disagree with the statement that I am 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
33 

going to make now: there are some juvenile offenders, because of 

the nature of their crime, or what they have done, do need to be 

incarcerated to protect other youth or to protect the public in general. Would you agree with that or you disagree with that? 

Ms. RYAN. What I would say is that it is not necessarily dependent on the offense that they committed; it is really their risk to 

public safety. And so, there are very few youth who pose a serious 

risk to public safety, and for those youth, they may need secure 

care for a period of time. What we are saying is it should not look 

like incarceration the way that, you know, these youth prisons look 

like. 

Mr. CHABOT. When you say, ‘‘very few youth,’’ what are we talking about percent-wise of those that are in the system now? 

Ms. RYAN. It is probably less than 1 percent of the youth who 

are in the juvenile justice system. If you look at the FBI crime 

data, you will see the kinds of offenses that youth have committed. 

But again, I think that is just a proxy for potential risk that youth 

might engage in. So, you want to actually not incarcerate or detain 

a young person just because of the offense. You want to look at the 

risk to public safety and there is a variety of factors. 

Mr. CHABOT. Let me follow up. Let me ask you about one of the 

problems we have had. I happen to represent the city of Cincinnati, 

but there is urban areas all over the United States that have similar problems. What about gang problems you have in New York 

City or you have in Chicago or Detroit or a whole range of places? 

What about gangs? People that literally, I mean, will kill if they 

are told to do so by other members of the gang. We have huge 

numbers of people, oftentimes, young people that, you know, are 

dying on the streets. In Chicago, unfortunately, it is incredible how 

high the numbers are there. What would you say about people like 

that? Let me ask you. I will go over to you. Go ahead, 

Ms. RYAN. I mean, I think that there are a variety of gang reduction initiatives that you could look at to try to reduce gang violence 

in this country. But I think what you will find when you look at 

these cases individually is that young people can turn their lives 

around with supports. Because they join a gang because there is 

not anything else going on for them, right? They are brought into 

that because their life circumstances, and if there are alternatives 

to that, you know, like, you look at all the groups that are out 

there. The Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts. Those could be considered 

a gang, right? Groups that provide not—— 

Mr. CHABOT. Well, I would not consider the Boy Scouts a gang. 

Ms. RYAN. Let me just say. 

Mr. CHABOT. Just for the record. Let me go to Mr. SaintGermain. 

I have only got a limited amount of time. 

Mr. SAINTGERMAIN. Mr. Chairman that was a great question. I 

think what we have been talking about here is that we are actually 

competing with gangs, right? And what we are asking this committee is to invest in programs that young people will gravitate towards instead of gravitating towards gang members, right? 

Because gangs provide a false sense of protection for young people, right? They tell them, ‘‘Look, we can protect you and we can 

provide incomes to you.’’ And again, the adolescent’s brain, if there 

is no alternative available to that child, then obviously the gang 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
34 

members look very appealing to that young person. So, again, 

gangs will exist unfortunately. So, our job as a society is to provide 

an alternative where if a gang member said, ‘‘Hey, here is what 

you should do and here is what I think works for you,’’ where we 

can be on the other side saying, ‘‘Hey, here is the right alternative. 

And here are opportunities that will help you move forward in life.’’ 

So, I mean we are competing with them and we have to invest in 

these young people. 

Mr. CHABOT. I have only got about a minute left; so let me bring 

in Georgia and Indiana here. I mean, we are trying to help the 

youth and trying to turn their lives around and make them productive citizens, but do we not also have a responsibility to protect the 

public here? And especially with respect to gangs, is that not a 

problem? And I got like a minute left. If you could both take about 

30 seconds I would appreciate it. 

Mr. VIGNATI. Sure. Thank you for the question. Yeah, it is a 

growing issue. I think that we have to be very deliberate about 

which youth that we place in secure confinement. And yes, there 

is a need for secure confinement from where we sit. Now, is it at 

the levels and numbers that we have in the past? No. We have 

been able to show that. But there is a public safety issue that we 

have to address. We have to be very thoughtful, and it has to be 

based on a risk assessment that has been validated. And I think 

that is the message to take away. So, it is not just the offense. It 

is the offense and a risk assessment that shows that those youth 

are a risk to public safety. And then we have to intervene. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. And I will conclude with Indiana here. 

Mr. MCDONALD. I would just have to echo Mr. Vignati’s remarks. 

Again, it is not necessarily the offense; it is what is this child or 

what is this child missing? What do these assessments tell us that 

we can do? What are the services that we can provide to that child 

with a problem necessarily? What can we do to cure that issue, to 

prevent it? 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. My time is expired. The 

ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Conyers, of Michigan is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. This subject matter that we 

are dealing with here today is so important. We have got to come 

back to it. We have just opened the can a little bit. 

And I wanted to get all of your feelings, starting with Jim 

SaintGermain, about, suppose you were up here and you were sitting as a member hearing about this. What would you come away 

thinking, like I am now, what do I do about it? We have just got 

a new bill that just came out that we think is going to be better. 

But it is a deep, complex problem that has a lot of interconnecting 

issues tied up with it. It is not simple. So, do you go away feeling 

better about what we might be able to do or what we are learning? 

Or do you think that maybe we process this and say, ‘‘Yeah, it was 

a good hearing and the witnesses were great, and then we go on 

to something else?’’ What kind of direction can you give me? 

Mr. SAINTGERMAIN. Thank you for your question, and thank you 

for envisioning me in your position one day. I think that I believe 

in this committee. I believe in Congress. I think we will put children over politics and over fear. These are our kids, our young peoVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:18 Oct 12, 2018 Jkt 032309 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A309.XXX A309

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
35 

ple. If we do not help them now, we will have to deal with them 

later. So, I think, in this hearing, you guys will take away from 

this that these are our kids, our young people. Whether they look 

like us, live in the same zip code as us, we have to invest in them. 

So, this committee, I believe, should push forward some of the legislation Ms. Jackson are proposing right now that would help 

young people to get on the right path. So, that is my personal opinion on what you guys should take from this, and I am sure the 

chairman will agree with me. 

Mr. CONYERS. This is a very complex subject. Anybody else want 

to give us some advice in terms of directions? 

Mr. VIGNATI. Well, what I would say is that, over the years, 

things have gotten better. I think you can feel good that you as a 

body have done your job with the Juvenile Justice Delinquency 

Prevention Act, you know? So, that is a positive. Looking at it from 

10 years ago, Georgia used to get roughly $8 million in Federal 

funds for juvenile justice with both the Formula Title II and the 

Juvenile Accountability Block Grant. Now, we get just a little over 

a million dollars. But what we have done is we have invested our 

State dollars because we view this as an important area. And we 

value the partnership with the Federal Government. 

So we are not coming asking for more Federal dollars, but what 

we are saying is those Federal dollars are important in planning. 

They are great seed money, and they are great to help us with, 

‘‘Hey, what works?’’ And what works is what we now know. We did 

not know 30 years ago what works. Now we do, so let’s use what 

works. Let’s push the field forward. Let’s assess with validated risk 

assessments what is going on with our kids and make better decisions. So, I think you can feel better about where you are at. So, 

that would be my take, sir. 

Mr. MCDONALD. Representative, if I may. It is, you know, encouraging to hear that JABG funding is maybe coming back up to 

be refunded. I may be mistaken, but I believe it has been almost—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Move your mic a little closer. 

Mr. MCDONALD. It has been almost 5 years since the JABG program, the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant, has been funded at 

the Federal level. Which, I can attest Indiana is much like Georgia. 

We used to receive a substantial amount of juvenile justice money 

and we no longer do. We do receive Title II funds, but again, those 

have been reduced. So, I mean, I know funding is not necessarily 

in front of this particular committee, however, when you have the 

chance and you look at some of the regulations necessarily involved 

with these particular pots of money, like JABG for instance, I know 

Indiana, I do not know how Georgia feels. But sometimes we are 

a little confined in what we can use those dollars for. So maybe 

look at some of those approaches. 

In JABG, for instance, you have programmatic areas that you 

have to apply for when you apply for that funding, which limits us 

because then that limits us at the State level than on the types of 

programs we can then fund with those dollars. So that might be 

something that you may want to think about moving forward as 

creating or eliminating that. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
36 

Mr. CONYERS. Thanks so much. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you and the gentleman’s time is expired. 

The gentlelady from California, Ms. Bass, is recognized, once again, 

and probably our last interrogator this morning. 

Ms. BASS. Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I do want to go 

back to the aspirational theme that I was referring to which is I 

think we should move in our country toward the direction of eliminating the juvenile justice system. I want to reiterate that I think 

the work you guys do is great. And I want us to make sure that 

we continue to fund the programs. But I am trying to make the 

point that 10, 15 years down the line, since you, Mr. Vignati said, 

that we know what needs to be done now. So, fund what needs to 

be done. Take that $100,000 a year and use it toward prevention. 

So, in a minute I am going to ask you guys about prevention programs. Yes, we have problems in our country now. Crime and violence and I specifically want to talk about gangs, because I want 

to invite our acting chair to come to Los Angeles since I come from 

the home of the Crips and the Bloods. Very serious gang problems 

in Los Angeles, but we do know about gangs. We do know how to 

prevent them. But we also have to address the class differences. 

So, maybe we should have a hearing where we invite programs 

that are used with the fluent kids. You know, kids that go to private schools. And when they get into trouble the programs that 

they go to instead of being incarcerated. That might be really interesting to have a panel like that to talk about boarding schools 

where wealthy people send their troubled teens to. To talk about 

the mental health programs that wealthy kids have access to. Do 

you remember the youngster that was said to have affluenza? He 

had a DUI, he killed a bunch of people, and the judge felt sorry 

for him and said, ‘‘Oh my goodness, he suffers from affluenza.’’ 

So gangs. I want to get to the point that Ms. Ryan was trying 

to make when she was referring the Boy Scouts, and I want to direct this to our acting chair. You know, the difference in poor communities is that you do not have the money to belong to the Boy 

Scouts or Girl Scouts or participate in after school athletics. Those 

cost money to buy the uniforms, to participate in the activities. 

Kids join gangs because gangs are surrogate families. Gangs are 

responding to a need. If we build up our prevention programs, and 

we have those programs in Los Angeles, by the way. We need to 

have many more of them, which is why you guys need the funding 

so that you can deal with programs like that in your communities. 

But, we do know how to address gang violence, we know how to 

solve these problems, but we need to have the political commitment 

to do so. And violence is one of the reasons why it is difficult to 

have. Because what happens is that you start moving in the direction of prevention and then some young person commits some horrific crime, and then everybody moves the needle, you know, back. 

So, the question that I would like to ask each of you to respond 

to is if you had the money to invest in prevention programs could 

you name a couple that you might invest in or talk about programs 

that you already have? And in my minute and a half left, if each 

of you could respond to that with Mr. Vignati first. 

Mr. SAINTGERMAIN. Ms. Bass, I will give you one quick thing. 

For example, in New York City, we have the Summer Youth EmVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:18 Oct 12, 2018 Jkt 032309 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A309.XXX A309

SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
37 

ployment Program, right? During the summer times. So, right now, 

currently, we have 100,000 young people seeking summer youth 

jobs, which lasts, I think 6 weeks over the summer. But the city 

only have money to fund for 60,000 young people. So, in other 

words, we have 40,000 young people left in the streets. And we 

know that an idle mind is the devil’s playground. 

Ms. BASS. Right. 

Mr. SAINTGERMAIN. So, those 40,000 young people are more likely to be involved in the streets and trying to get money the other 

way. So, I think one of those things is that we can fund, right, as 

a crime prevention measure, is summer youth job programs similar 

to the one I have just described. 

Ms. BASS. That is why middle-class parents have their kids involved in 50 different activities. 

Mr. SAINTGERMAIN. That is exactly right. 

Ms. BASS. That they pay for. 

Mr. VIGNATI. So, in Georgia, we have a voluntary juvenile justice 

incentive grant program that is just about to complete its fourth 

year of operation as part of our juvenile reform in Georgia. And it 

has served over 4,500 youth since 2013. Participating counties have 

realized a 53 percent decrease in commitments to the Department 

of Juvenile Justice over their pre-reform rates. Through the provision of these community-based services, we have been able to divert youth who would have ended up in those $90,000, now 

$100,0000, beds, and we are still able to protect public safety. So, 

those are the types of programming that we have to look at. So, 

let’s shift our thinking and assess, I hate to keep saying it, risk appropriately and divert the medium- and high-risk youth that would 

end up in our system into that programming. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, thank you, representative, for the question. 

I think that prevention can be addressed in a couple of different 

ways. 

One, prevention can be identified predominately as let’s just keep 

crime from happening or keep a juvenile from committing an offense. I think programs that help address that, we do have some 

in Indiana, particularly in Indianapolis, which is our capital city, 

that are running with our public school systems. For instance, 

where they have in school and after school programs. Kids are receiving one, two, three meals a day. They are getting food. They 

are getting that kind of stuff. You know, they do not have to go to 

the convenience store and steal a candy bar to have dinner for instance. I am not saying that they do that, but as an example. So, 

programs like that are really good. 

I think prevention based programs can also come from a recidivism reduction. So, if you have a juvenile that has committed an 

act, again, what do the assessments tell us? What types of programs can we provide for young kids? Like, we have got one in Indiana that we fund. It is a reading-based program where they use 

literature to teach certain fundamentals, certain characteristics 

and how to teach a juvenile how to address certain motives and responses throughout life through reading and education. So, I think 

those are other ways to address prevention or ways to define prevention to help kids that are already in the system. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
38 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentlelady’s time is expired. The chair would 

now recognize the gentlelady from Texas for the purpose of introducing some documents into the record. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you and if I might, just 

thank you and all the members who came and the witnesses. And 

I want to acknowledge, as I put this in the record, Senator John 

Whitmire and former Senator Rodney Ellis from Texas who helped 

move Texas forward in juvenile justice reform and say to Ms. Bass 

that we are in tandem on the aspiration becoming a reality. 

I want to introduce into the record the Pew Charitable Trust 

‘‘Bending the Curve: Juvenile Justice Corrections Reform in Texas.’’ 

I ask unanimous consent. 

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The early Trump budget details for youth and 

family services, the impact that the budget would have on the very 

dollars that these fine witnesses have asked, buy John Kelly. I ask 

unanimous consent. 

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Then, two articles in the New Yorker on the 

life of Kalief Browder and that is from Jennifer Gonnerman, June 

2, 2016 and June 7, 2015. Excuse me, I am sorry, 2015. I ask unanimous consent. 

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I ask unanimous consent for my full statement to be placed in the record. 

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And then, ask to be placed in the record 

Kalief’s Law, H.R. 47. Ask unanimous consent for that to be in the 

record. 

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Banning solitary confinement. I ask that the 

Tiffany Joslyn Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program, which 

is a Justice Department program to give money to the States and 

cities. Unanimous consent. 

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I ask unanimous consent for H.R. 61, Fair 

Chance for Youth. That would be an expungement, but Mr. 

SaintGermain has said, and look at him now. I ask unanimous consent. 

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And then, ask unanimous consent for the H.R. 

65 that provides the biggest leap is that we have different places 

for these young people to stay rather than being incarcerated. And 

I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and others on 

this. And I thank the chairman of the full committee, and the ranking member for their leadership in allowing these hearings to go 

forward. I wonder if the witnesses will stay and come up here so 

we can shake your hands and all of that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. Without objection, so ordered. 

And the chair would ask unanimous consent that all members 

have 5 legislative days to extend their remarks or submit comments or questions. Without objection, so ordered. And if there is 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING
39 

no further business to come before the committee, we are adjourned. Thank you. 

Mr. SAINTGERMAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with HEARING