**Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention**

**Quarterly Meeting**

**May 11, 2012**

**U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs**

**810 Seventh Street NW, Washington, DC 20531**

**Abstract**

At the May 11, 2012, quarterly meeting of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Council), Council members heard presentations and participated in discussions about family and youth engagement. They heard a panel presentation on changing practices from the family and field perspectives. Panelists included Sue Badeau, Director, Knowledge Management, Casey Family Programs (moderator); Grace Bauer, Codirector, Justice for Families; Grace Warren, Codirector, National Parent Caucus; and Shay Bilchik, Director, Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown University. 

Then Council members heard from several Federal agencies about activities to increase meaningful involvement of families and youth. Agency representatives included Melodee Hanes, Acting Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice and Council Vice Chair; David Esquith, U.S. Department of Education; Martha Moorehouse, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); Joe Bock, Children’s Bureau, HHS; and Larke Huang, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.  These four agencies will continue to work together to advance youth- and family-driven approaches, and welcomed other Council members to join them.

Trina Thompson, Immediate Past Presiding Judge, Juvenile Court, Alameda County, and Council practitioner member, moderated the discussion of family engagement with panel members and meeting attendees. 

Council members also heard updates on several agency initiatives. 

Mary Lou Leary, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs, summarized the meeting and charged the Council members with the responsibility to make sure that their agencies’ policies and practices place the families and youth they serve first.  

**Meeting Summary**

**Welcome and Opening Remarks**

***Mary Lou Leary, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs (OJP), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)***

Mary Lou Leary convened the quarterly meeting of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Council) and welcomed attendees. She announced that Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., was unable to attend the meeting, and she conveyed his appreciation for the Council’s work. She reviewed the meeting agenda, which focuses on youth and family engagement, and remarked that this issue is very important to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) because youth and their families are the audience served by the office. 

Ms. Leary introduced Reginald Dwayne Betts, recently appointed by President Barack Obama to serve as a practitioner member of the Council. Mr. Betts was prosecuted in adult court at the age of 16 and spent more than 8 years in prison. Today he is a husband, father, published author and poet, lecturer on the impact of mass incarceration, and graduate student at Harvard University.

**Update on Changing Practice: Family and Field Perspectives**

***Sue Badeau, Director, Knowledge Management, Casey Family Programs (Moderator); Grace Bauer, Codirector, Justice for Families; Grace Warren, Codirector, National Parent Caucus; Shay Bilchik, Director, Center for Juvenile Justice Reform (CJJR), Georgetown University***

Sue Badeau thanked the Council for revisiting the issue of family and youth engagement. She observed that, when the Council heard about the importance of this issue at its July 2011 meeting, she had challenged Council members to (1) assess their agencies’ practices and policies to engage youth and family across a broad continuum and identify steps they could take to enhance agency efforts to work with families and youth, (2) continually ask “Who is missing from the table and how can we change that?” and (3) consider ways to leverage the role of the Federal government to ensure meaningful opportunities to engage and partner with families and youth at every level. She suggested that Council members reflect on these questions, examining how far their agencies have come and how far they still need to go.

Grace Bauer introduced several families in the audience whose lives have been affected by the juvenile justice system and observed that families with direct experience are experts who can advise policymakers on how to improve the system. She opened her remarks by reading a quote from the Annie E. Casey Foundation: “Across the nation, juvenile courts and corrections systems are littered with poorly conceived strategies that increase crime, endanger young people and damage their future prospects, waste billions of taxpayer dollars, and violate our deepest held principles about equal justice under the law.” She went on to say that today’s juvenile justice system is fragmented and broken, operates under a set of archaic values, and does more damage than good. Too many youth are funneled into the system—especially children of color and those from poor communities. She called for a juvenile justice reform strategy to reduce the number of our Nation’s children who are incarcerated and called for leadership across agencies to reallocate Federal moneys away from corrections facilities and toward community-based services for children.

Grace Warren thanked OJJDP for partnering with the Campaign for Youth Justice to sponsor a series of four listening sessions with families involved with the juvenile justice system. She summarized major concerns identified by families during these sessions:

· Lack of access to youth programs at critical intervention points.

· Lack of access to information when a child is involved in the system.

· Unsafe facilities.

· Lack of family engagement at every step of the process.

· Lack of community-based alternatives to incarceration.

Ms. Warren concluded by saying that family engagement should be a top priority for policymakers, stakeholders, and systems. She reported that the Alliance for Youth Justice (formerly the National Parent Caucus) will release its report *Family Comes First* later this year.

Shay Bilchik said that policymakers need to disabuse themselves of the notion that troubled youth should be separated from their families, and instead should focus on how to keep youth healthily connected with their families, identifying and building on family strengths and working with families to overcome weaknesses. He observed that the most effective programs place families at the center and suggested that Coordinating Council agencies develop strong policies that place families at the center. 

Mr. Bilchik provided an overview of the 2011 report commissioned by CJJR, *Safety, Fairness, Stability: Repositioning Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare to Engage Families and Communities.*The paper received a very positive response, and following its release CJJR facilitated a meeting with Federal partners (OJJDP, the Children’s Bureau, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], and the U.S. Department of Education [ED]), child welfare and juvenile justice practitioners, and parents and alumni of the systems to create recommendations for improving collaboration in how Federal agencies support family engagement policies and practices at the Federal, State, tribal, and local levels *(Safety, Fairness, and Stability for Youth and Families: Recommendations to Strengthen Federal Agency Support of Family Engagement Efforts).* The recommendations revolve around three areas of focus:

1. Creating and embedding family-focused and strength-based policies and practices within each agency to institutionalize meaningful involvement of family members in their youth’s care.

2. Building a systemic infrastructure that formally includes families in the development and implementation of agency/system policies and practices.

3. Supporting families to become more effective external advocates.

He concluded by observing that a coordinated effort by all these agencies is needed to improve how they support family engagement.

Sue Badeau stated that Federal agencies need to move beyond the idea of family and youth *engagement* toward *partnership.*She observed that families and young people bring passion, knowledge, insights into the problems, and ideas for solutions. She urged Council agencies to redouble their efforts to keep the momentum going.

**One Year Later: Family Engagement and Partnering**

***Melodee Hanes, Acting Administrator, OJJDP, DOJ, and Council Vice Chair; David Esquith, ED; Martha Moorehouse, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE),**U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); Joe Bock, Children’s Bureau, HHS;**Larke Huang, SAMHSA, HHS***

Melodee Hanes reported that, since the Council’s July 2011 discussion of youth and family engagement, several Council agencies have been working with CJJR to elevate family and youth partnerships within their agencies. A representative of each agency 

reported on how their agencies have moved forward to incorporate youth and families in their work.

**OJJDP**

Ms. Hanes reported that OJJDP’s authorizing legislation, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, emphasizes youth engagement. The Act requires the governor of each State and territory that receives OJJDP formula funds to appoint a State Advisory Group (SAG) on youth justice issues; at least 20 percent of each State’s SAG membership must be less than age 25, and at least three members must be or have been under the authority of the juvenile justice system.

Ms. Hanes reported that OJJDP employs a number of strategies to engage families and youth including the following:

· Grants to peer-to-peer organizations and parent-support organizations.

· Requirement that grantees include families/youth on advisory boards.

· Listening sessions with youth and family members. 

· Inclusion of youth and family representatives in training and conferences, including OJJDP’s 2011 National Conference for Children’s Justice and Safety.

· Yearly Tribal Youth Summit.

· National Center for Youth in Custody, which embraces youth, family, and community engagement.

· Incorporation of youth and family in key justice initiatives such as Defending Childhood, Supportive School Discipline, and National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention.

· Internal working group to assess and promote family and youth engagement across OJJDP.

· Internal staff training on family and youth engagement.

**ED**

# David Esquith highlighted several of ED’s recent efforts. The Department:

# · Is developing a family engagement strategy to identify how ED’s policies and programs support the roles that teachers, school staff, administrators, and parents can play individually and collectively to support student academic achievement. Focused on capacity building, this strategy will highlight the importance of preparing partners at all levels to be involved in helping parents support the academic work of their children. 

# · Hosted the 2011 National Policy Forum for Family, School, and Community Engagement, which provided feedback to guide creation of ED’s new strategy. To facilitate discussion at the forum, ED published Beyond Random Acts: Family, School, and Community Engagement as an Integral Part of Education Reform. 

# · Cosponsored the Achieving Excellence and Innovation in Family, School, and Community Engagement Webinar Series (2010–2011) to inform stakeholders about research and best practices.

# · Issued a 2011 newsletter entitled Engaging Families: Supporting Students from Cradle to Career. The newsletter reported that ED has identified five regional family engagement specialists to work with State and local education agencies to empower parents to be full partners in the academic progress of their children.

# · Will release a “family-friendly” guide to family, youth, and community engagement in juvenile justice educational settings later in 2012.

# HHS

# ASPE. Martha Moorehouse reported that ASPE is a member of the Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs, which has conducted a survey of youth engagement in Federal activities. Through its Web site (findyouthinfo.gov), the working group profiles Federal efforts and shares strategies to engage youth, and the site will soon feature a youth engagement page. In addition, the working group has a subgroup on positive youth development, which is developing a guide for ongoing engagement of youth.

# Children’s Bureau. Joe Bock reported that the Children’s Bureau employs a three-pronged strategy to engage families in the child welfare system: (1) providing training and technical assistance to States, tribes, and communities, (2) supporting research and program innovation through discretionary grants, and (3) monitoring. He referred participants to a handout in their meeting materials for examples of activities in which the Bureau is engaged in each of these three domains.

# Mr. Bock highlighted the Bureau’s comprehensive monitoring strategy. Through its Child and Family Services Review, the Bureau assesses State child welfare systems’ compliance with Federal requirements, including appropriate family involvement in case planning and caseworker contact with family members. States that do not meet certain thresholds are faced with financial penalties. This strategy encourages States to engage families as part of their routine practice.

# SAMHSA. Larke Huang reported that for more than 20 years SAMHSA has engaged families and youth. Families are engaged in all aspects of SAMHSA’s work including participation on advisory committees, in the planning process, and in grant reviews. She highlighted several key activities: 

# · The Systems of Care initiative—which builds a system of services and supports for children with mental, emotional, behavioral, and substance abuse issues—is family driven. In these grant programs, families participate in developing the grants, families are required to be hired as staff, and youth have a critical voice in the planning process.

# · Family and peer specialists are reimbursed. 

# · The Statewide Family Network Program funds grants to help build capacity to advocate around children’s mental health and substance abuse issues.

# · SAMHSA seeded the development of Youth M.O.V.E., a youth-led national organization devoted to improving services and systems that support positive development by uniting the voices of individuals who have been involved in the mental health, juvenile justice, education, and child welfare systems. Dare to Dream America is Youth M.O.V.E.’s program that awards grants to individual youth who conduct mental health/substance abuse/health awareness activities in their local communities. 

# · SAMHSA funds the Building Bridges Initiative to forge partnerships among residential service providers, community agencies, families, and youth to support positive outcomes for youth in residential programs. The initiative funded the publication of Engage Us: A Guide Written by Families for Residential Providers.

# Conclusion

# Ms. Hanes reported that, as a team, these agencies have agreed to:  

# · Disseminate and discuss the recommendations contained in the CJJR report (Safety, Fairness, and Stability for Youth and Families).

# · Develop a proposal for a parent/youth engagement subcommittee of the Coordinating Council.

# · Create a shared framework on meaningful engagement of youth and families. 

# · Improve coordination among agencies regarding family/youth engagement activities and resources.

# · Target initial work toward youth in residential facilities and their families.

# · Share successful strategies with other agencies so they can further the goal of family and youth involvement. 

# Ms. Hanes invited all the other Council agencies to join in this work.

**Panelist Comments and Discussion of Family Engagement**

***Trina Thompson, Immediate Past Presiding Judge, Juvenile Court, Alameda County, and Council Practitioner Member (Moderator)***

Judge Trina Thompson asked if it is possible to invert the pyramid and place children at the top, followed by family, then followed by local, State, and Federal agencies. She observed that she had left the July 2011 Council meeting thinking about Ms. Badeau’s question, “Who is missing at the table?” and realized that judges are not there. She observed that juvenile justice has a long way to go to engage families and youth and asked Ms. Badeau for suggestions about how to do this. Ms. Badeau responded that, currently, families of children experiencing difficulties reach out for help, they don’t receive needed help, the children get into deeper trouble, and it is not until children are removed from home that they receive services. She observed that this situation should be reversed; child- and family-serving systems should invest in services at the front end rather than waiting until the child is locked away in expensive residential facilities.

Judge Thompson remarked that, as a judge, she hears families of children in the justice system report they are not informed and are not part of the plan for their child. She asked Ms. Bauer how agencies can become more sensitive to families who want to be engaged. Ms. Bauer responded that a recent Justice for Families survey found that more than 90 percent of the families who participated said they wanted to be more involved in the care and treatment of their child. She observed that families need the support of other families to help them navigate the system and to engage other families in systemic reform.

Judge Thompson observed that many people do not know how to advocate for themselves and asked Ms. Warren to identify areas where family voices have not been heard. Ms. Warren replied that often families are not allowed to speak in the courtroom. She said that many parents do not speak out because they are afraid they will make matters worse and observed that parents need to be educated about their rights. 

Judge Thompson asked Ms. Badeau how she would suggest inverting the pyramid so that the process begins with setting goals for each individual child. Ms. Badeau suggested using evidence-based programs and tailoring them for the specific needs, strengths, goals, and circumstances of the child and family. She observed that the peer-to-peer model is a common element in the evidence-based programs.

Judge Thompson asked Mr. Bilchik how to engage families in a safe, respectful, and meaningful way when their child becomes involved in the juvenile justice system. He observed that the juvenile justice system is lagging behind other systems in engaging families. A growing body of evidence shows that family involvement improves outcomes, and practitioners and policymakers need to understand that families are experts on their child. The good news is that some judges, probation and corrections officers, and other practitioners are beginning to turn to strategies such as family conferences, motivational interviewing, and strength-based strategies. He said that we need to take these policy and practice changes that are happening at the local level and adopt them systemwide, and at the local level we need to adopt family-friendly policies across systems. The Coordinating Council is in a unique position to encourage Federal agencies to come together and create a template. He observed that, with support from the MacArthur Foundation, Pennsylvania reformed the policies and practices of its juvenile justice system and said he hopes the Council can provide the same kind of support for reform of local, State, and tribal systems.

Judge Thompson asked Mr. Bilchik for suggestions about how to train States to include more youth and families on their State Advisory Groups. He responded that Federal agencies have tremendous capacity to provide training. 

Richard Morris (U.S. Department of Labor [DOL]) observed that DOL can review the language in its solicitations regarding the expectation that grantees engage families and youth. He cited sociologist Roger Hart’s ladder of youth participation and observed that Federal agencies need to beware of tokenism and to genuinely share decision making with youth and families.

Robert Gordon (U.S. Department of Defense) asked about engaging youth and families in facilities. Mr. Bilchik observed that if a child has to be removed from the home, the facility needs to be close to home to allow for family engagement. In addition, facility staff needs to receive training to work with and support families. Additional ways to engage the family include using technology to conduct family due diligence searches and asking the child to identify meaningful adults who can provide support when the child returns to the community.

Judge Gordon Martin (practitioner member) observed that Mr. Bilchik’s suggestions are basic to any kind of reentry. Individuals need support upon reentering, and returning a prisoner from a far-away incarceration does not provide this support.

Laurie Garduque (practitioner member) asked if there is evidence about which programs work, whether best practices exist, and whether additional research is needed to evaluate and identify model programs. Mr. Bilchik replied that a common denominator in many of the most successful juvenile justice programs is family involvement. A growing number of studies show that family involvement (e.g., functional family therapy, multisystemic therapy, family group conferencing, and increased visitation from prosocial family members) reduces recidivism. We know the family domain is critical around risk and protective factors related to juvenile delinquency. 

Pam Rodriguez (practitioner member) commented that, as a parent, the term *family engagement* seems patronizing. It is important that this concept does not mean *permitting* families to have a say but rather *ensuring* that they do. She asked Ms. Huang to discuss ways that SAMHSA has changed its approach as a result of engaging families. Ms. Huang said that SAMHSA has moved beyond the term *family engagement* to *family-driven,*meaning families should drive care plans and system policies**and practices. Families play an important role in SAMHSA’s planning, and the agency is putting these roles into its policy mechanisms and providing funding to support these roles. In addition, SAMHSA tries to meaningfully involve youth. Rather than *youth engagement,*SAMHSA uses the term*youth-guided*. 

### Benjamin Tucker (Office of National Drug Control Policy [ONDCP]) reminded Council members to include the topic of substance abuse in the conversation around family engagement. He said ONDCP involves parents and youth in its prevention efforts including the Drug Free Communities Support Program and the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. He referred participants to their meeting materials for additional information about ONDCP’s efforts.

Judge Thompson concluded by observing that Council members need to work collectively across agencies to engage families.

**Agency Announcements and Updates**

**Information Sharing Committee**

***Mark Sakaley, Senior Policy Advisor, OJJDP, and Committee Cochair***

Mark Sakaley reported on the progress of the Information Sharing Committee. At the Council’s July 2011 meeting, it recommended establishing a committee to examine and address information-sharing barriers across juvenile justice, child welfare, and education at the Federal level; reduce ambiguity about real and perceived confidentiality barriers; and help tribal, State, and local systems exchange appropriate information about at-risk youth while ensuring privacy protections. Since then, the committee has moved forward on a number of fronts:

· The two lead agencies (DOJ and ED) each appointed a cochair (Mark Sakaley and Dale King).

· Committee leadership has forged strong ties with the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative Advisory Committee and the National Information Exchange Model.

· Committee leadership has reached out to various DOJ and ED offices, juvenile justice working groups, and practitioner groups.

· DOJ and ED are developing new Family Rights and Privacy Act guidelines for schools as part of the jointly established Supportive School Discipline Initiative.

· The committee is spearheading the revision of OJJDP’s *Sharing Information: A Guide to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and Participation in Juvenile Justice Programs.*

· The committee has solicited feedback from various Federal and practitioner groups.

· In the coming weeks, the committee will ask Council representatives to identify individuals from their agencies who can contribute to the committee’s efforts.

Mr. Sakaley reported that OJJDP recently published several documents on information sharing, held several sessions on information sharing at its 2011 national conference, and will sponsor two Webinar events on privacy and information sharing in June.****

**U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)**

***Kathie Soroka and Ron Ashford***

Ms. Soroka reported that, during the past year, HUD has worked to expand opportunities for families and to facilitate family engagement. Ron Ashford observed that engaging fathers is an important element of family engagement, and he announced HUD’s plans for Fathers Day 2012 in Public Housing Authorities across the United States. The event will support the bonding of fathers and their children while connecting fathers to economic development resources, community services, and local businesses.

**SAMHSA**

***Larke Huang***

Ms. Huang reported that, in June, SAMHSA and the MacArthur Foundation are sponsoring a Juvenile Justice Policy Academy focusing on diversion and disproportionality for youth in the juvenile justice system with behavioral health issues. In addition, on June 5 SAMHSA and the Office of Adolescent Health will hold a symposium focusing on prevention of mental health and substance abuse issues among youth. Ms. Huang expressed SAMHSA’s appreciation to all the Federal agencies that participated in National Children’s Mental Health Awareness Day. 

**Summary and Meeting Adjournment**

***Mary Lou Leary***

Ms. Leary thanked the presenters and panelists for their thought-provoking discussion. She charged the Council with the responsibility to make sure that their agencies’ policies and practices place the families and youth they serve first.

She said that Council members will be notified about the date of the next quarterly meeting and adjourned the meeting at 12:15 p.m.

PAGE  

2