1

Written Testimonies 

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Office of Justice Programs

810 7th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20531

Wednesday, December 6, 2023

1:00 – 4:00 PM

Secretary Vincent Shiraldi

Maryland Department of Juvenile Services 

Thank you to the Coordinating Council for this opportunity to speak about juvenile justice at a 

national level, and the role that the federal government can play in this particular moment. Today, 

we are at a crossroads in juvenile justice - faced with critical decisions to make about whether we 

can push forward with what we know is both effective and just, or if we allow political momentum 

to reverse decades of progress. 

In 1995, Princeton Professor John Dilulio famously coined the term “superpredator,” asserting that 

there was a growing number of children and adolescents who were “super crime-prone” for whom 

committing violent crime was “what comes naturally”. This theory did not simply predict that the 

number of young people committing crimes would increase, but rather that there was a new breed 

of youth for whom violence was inherent to their nature - suggesting that these youth are not worth 

saving, and in fact it’s not possible to save them. 

Not long after Dilulio made these claims, however, juvenile crime began falling precipitously, 

clearly contradicting his predictions. The concept of the “superpredator” was entirely false, and 

Diulio acknowledged as much himself just a handful of years after creating the term.1

But the damage had been done. Nearly every state in the country passed new legislation pushing 

more kids into adult courts and exposing them to extreme sentences such as life without parole. 

Nationally, the impact of those law changes resulted in 109,000 youth in juvenile facilities and 

10,000 youth in adult prisons by 1999, numbers that were unheard of by our own and international 

standards. Juvenile jails and prisons were bursting at the seams, and rife with violence and abuse. 

Between 1990 and 2011, “systemic or recurrent maltreatment” was documented in 32 states, plus 

Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico.2 

The damage that all of this caused for a generation of children is incalculable, but this punitive 

turn wasn’t felt equally by all groups of young people – youth of color, particularly Black youth, 

were locked up highly disproportionately - even for similar crimes and with similar prior records. 

After the “superpredator” idea was debunked, localities and states did try to right the ship. Between 

1995 and 2019, youth incarceration declined by 70% nationwide.3 There have been intentional 

efforts to shift the system away from punishment and towards rehabilitation, to reduce the number 

of kids coming into the system, especially via the school to prison pipeline, and to address the 

significant problem of racial disparities in how youth are treated. 
2

Additionally, research on the adolescent brain emerged, showing how much ongoing development 

occurs during adolescence and into the mid-twenties. Effectively using science to prove just how 

wrong the superpredator theory really was, researchers were able to show that adolescent brains 

are highly malleable. It turns out that young people’s personalities are hardly fixed, as the 

“superpredator” theory claimed, and youth are in fact capable of incredible change. This evidence 

informed a number of landmark Supreme Court decisions from 2005 to 2016, which banned the 

death penalty for minors, life without parole sentences for children convicted of non-homicide 

offenses, and automatic sentences of juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) for youth convicted of 

homicide. 

During this reform era, while the number of youth incarcerated nationwide was falling, the country 

was also experiencing an enormous reduction in juvenile crime. Ironically, one year after the idea 

of the “superpredator” was thrust into the public consciousness, juvenile arrests began to plummet: 

dropping by 80% between 1996 and 2020.4 This substantial decline in juvenile crime alongside a 

substantial decline in juvenile incarceration gave the lie to the notions upon which mass 

incarceration of juveniles was built. 

But now, almost 30 years later, I fear the “superpredator” concept is starting to rear its ugly head 

again. Although kids account for a miniscule percentage of crime everywhere in the country, over 

the last two years juvenile crime has become a major focus in the media. A new, yet familiar, 

narrative has taken hold that kids are running wild, that they are primarily to blame for violent 

crime, and that the juvenile legal system is too lenient. 

While some categories of serious juvenile crime have increased since 2020, these increases are 

coming from a period of historic lows. That is not to minimize the concerns. Any increase in 

violent crime, whether perpetrated by young people or adults, should be taken seriously. But if we 

are not careful in terms of how we respond to what’s happening, we will make the same mistakes 

of the past - mistakes that were not only harmful to young people and communities but were also 

bad for public safety. 

And we are already seeing this happening. According to the Annie E. Casey Foundation (AECF), 

by August 2023, detention populations were 65% higher than they were in March 2020. This is 

despite research that shows that secure detention can actually increase the likelihood that young 

people will reoffend in the future.5 

Unsurprisingly, youth of color are disproportionately affected by rising detention rates. While 

racial disparities have always been a problem in the juvenile justice system, the data show that 

during and after the Covid-19 pandemic, disparities got even worse. According to the AECF data, 

the number of Black youth held in detention on a given day increased by 20% from March 2020 

to August 2023, while the number of white youth in detention decreased by 14% during the same 

time period. Before the pandemic, about twice as many Black youth were in detention on a given 

day as white youth. By August 2023, that had increased to almost three times as many Black youth 

as white youth. 

These increases in the use of detention are concerning, given everything we’ve learned over the 

past 30 years about the harmful impact of incarceration on young people, and because of the 

dangers that come along with crowded facilities. But it’s especially concerning when we see that, 
3

as detention populations rise, racial disparities are not only persisting - they’re getting worse. It’s 

critical at this point in time that the federal government intervene to prevent a worsening crisis and 

further erosion of the progress made over the past 30 years. 

While the role of the federal government in the administration of juvenile justice is limited, the 

problems we are facing are happening at a national level, and the federal government does have 

an important role to play in leading the conversation about how the country as a whole should 

respond to what is happening in juvenile justice right now. 

In many states and localities across the country, concerns about juvenile crime are causing elected 

officials to point the finger at specific local or state level decision-makers and reforms. In my state 

of Maryland, law enforcement and politicians are asserting that increases in violent crime are the 

result of recent legislation that, among other things, raised the minimum age of prosecution for 

nonviolent offenses, and protects young people from being coerced into waiving their Fifth 

Amendment rights. Setting aside the obvious logical flaws in these claims, including the fact that 

kids account for a tiny percentage of violent crime, it’s hard to understand how laws specific to 

the Maryland juvenile justice system could be responsible for an increase in violent crime here, 

while states all over the country that have not passed similar laws are seeing very similar trends. 

The bottom line is that there is simply no evidence to support theories that recent increases in 

violent crime are the result of juvenile justice reform, “progressive prosecutors” or lenient judges, 

or any specific piece of legislation, as opposed to something like the Covid-19 pandemic, which 

affected the entire country in significant and lasting ways. 

The federal government has an opportunity now to use its immense resources and bully pulpit to 

send a message across the country that we must move forward, not backwards, and avoid making 

the same mistakes we made decades ago. The federal government has the power to convene 

stakeholders and hold hearings to start a national level conversation about what’s really happening 

with regards to youth crime, what we can do about it, and why we must stay on the course of 

progress in juvenile justice. 

The federal government can put forth a national road map for the country to achieve better 

outcomes in juvenile justice - defending good policy from roll backs and advancing additional 

reforms that can actually make a positive impact on youth crime rates, such as increasing 

investments in restorative justice and credible messenger programming. 

And each of your agencies individually can ensure that your own policies and practices don’t create 

unnecessary barriers for system-involved youth that make it harder for them to get the resources 

they need to develop into healthy, productive adults who do not end up in the criminal justice 

system. 

Specifically, there are a number of ways in which the Department of Education can ensure youth 

in the juvenile justice system have access to a quality education in and outside of juvenile facilities, 

and that schools are not pushing youth out of classrooms and into detention cells. To that end, the 

DOE should ensure that schools inside of juvenile facilities (both pre and post-adjudication) are 

adequately funded and held accountable to providing the educational services that youth are 

entitled to. This means that the Department would support and hold state education agencies 
4

accountable for ensuring that local school districts and/or juvenile justice agencies fund, staff, and 

resource schools on par with community-based schools. But it also means holding school districts 

and juvenile justice agencies accountable for important educational benchmarks such as 

attendance, credit accumulation, and state level testing results, and youth are provided with real, 

substantive classes and coursework that are aligned with local school district standards. 

The DOE can also ensure that students returning from confinement have access to appropriate, 

high quality schools by prohibiting schools and school districts from refusing students from 

returning to their previous school, funneling them to alternative schools, or requiring them to 

attend 'virtual' schools - absent clear, fair reasons like a valid imminent threat to safety of the 

school or staff. 

And on the front end, we need more investment in youth who are disconnected from school. 

Students who fail or stop attending 8th or 9th grade are at high risk of never graduating and 

becoming system-involved. The DOE can support innovative schools and support programs that 

offer these students meaningful opportunities to re-engage with and find success at school, which 

will help to keep them out of the jj system, and get them on track to graduate. 

We also need help from the Department of Labor to ensure workforce development opportunities 

are available to more youth in the juvenile justice system. The Department can clarify more 

explicitly in the Reintegration of ExOffenders Program that grants for justice system-involved 

youth are intended to reach all system-involved youth, not just the reentry population. The frequent 

use of the terms "reentry" or "reintegration" suggests programs are only for youth who have spent 

time in correctional facilities. This often prevents youth who are or have been on probation, or 

who were diverted from deeper system involvement from accessing these designated "reentry 

programs." In addition to not emphasizing "reentry" and "reintegration", I would suggest changing 

the name of the program, as the term "ex-offender', is both narrowing and dated. These programs 

could be a more powerful tool to prevent deeper system penetration and incarceration for all 

justice-involved youth, not only to foster reintegration for the small number of youth who are 

released from confinement. 

The DOL can also encourage and approve state Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

(WOIA) waiver requests that incentivize local Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) to serve 

justice system-involved youth in their youth programs. Such waivers are needed to counter the 

many disincentivizes to serving this population built into the WIOA system, including 

performance measures, eligibility determination, documentation requirements, and cost-per 

participants standards. 

Finally, the Department can provide more explicit guidance to state and local WIBs on how to 

overcome the barriers to enrolling and serving justice-involved youth under the WIOA youth 

program, as well as identify and promote best practices on how to collaborate with justice system 

partners and serve this population more effectively. 

There are a number of things this collection of agencies can do to create more opportunities for 

justice system-involved youth so that we can help them find their way out of the juvenile justice 

system and towards a healthy, productive, independent future. But we can’t do it if we are fighting 

against a backwards, dangerous narrative that threatens all the progress that has been made over 
5

the past 30 years. It’s time to take a stand and work together to promote an effective youth justice 

system, rooted in research and best practices, that avoids reactionary decision-making, and can 

withstand the winds of change over time.

1 See: https://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/09/us/as-ex-theorist-on-young-superpredators-bush-aide-has- regrets.html 

2 The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2011). No Place For Kids. Baltimore, MD: Author. Retrieved from 

https://www.aecf.org/resources/no-place-for-kids-full-report

3 The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2021). Youth Incarceration in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Author. 

Retrieved from https://www.aecf.org/resources/youth-incarceration-in-the-united-states. 

4 The Sentencing Project. (2023) Youth Justice By The Numbers. Washington, D.C., Retrieved from 

https://www.sentencingproject.org/policy-brief/youth-justice-by-the-numbers/ 

5 Walker, S. C., & Herting, J. R. (2020). The Impact of Pretrial Juvenile Detention on 12-Month Recidivism: A 

Matched Comparison Study. Crime & Delinquency, 66(13-14), 1865-1887. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128720926115
6

Susan H Badeau

Family Engagement and Trauma Expert, Author, Parent

Improving Outcomes by Listening to Families

Good afternoon. Administrator Ryan, Esteemed Council Members, Fellow Panelists, and guests, 

I am honored to be here today to talk to you about “Improving Access to Supports, Services, and 

Opportunities for Justice-Involved Youth and Youth at Risk of Justice Involvement” from the 

specific perspective of parents and other family members. In other words, I am here to represent 

the voices, strengths and needs of the parents and family members of the half a million children 

who cycle through the youth, or juvenile, justice system each year. While this number is down 

significantly since I started my journey as both a parent and advocate in the early 1980’s, it is 

still far too many children and families whose lives are torn apart and traumatized by their 

encounters with a deeply fragmented approach to ensuring both child and community safety. 

My name is Sue Badeau and although I currently live in an RV traveling the country, I raised my 

children primarily in New England and Pennsylvania. In addition, I been part of several local, 

state, and national family organizations for the past 45 years and have traveled the country 

listening to the voices and life experiences of parents and other family members of justiceinvolved young people for decades, up to and including within the past 6 months when I 

interviewed family members as part of my consulting role with OJJDP’s Youth and Family 

Partnerships Workgroup. I will do my best to bring their varied and diverse experiences, 

concerns, and recommendations to life, together with my own experiences, in the few moments I 

have with you today. I should also note that I have worked professionally in youth justice, child 

welfare, mental health, and education over the course of my 40-year career, so naturally my 

professional experiences – always seen through a family lens – will be interwoven with my 

remarks today. 

I first became a parent-figure to teens in the justice system when I was barely out of my own 

teenage years. At the age of 23, I was hired, along with my husband, to be the group home 

parents to 6 youth in Vermont who were labeled, at the time, as “Level D” kids which meant that 

they were dually adjudicated dependent and delinquent. Over the next 4 years we cared for more 

than 23 youth at that group home and then we continued parenting children who had both child 

welfare and youth justice system involvement as foster parents for the next 25 years, and we 

generally had always at least 6 teens in our home and care during that period. We went on to 

permanently adopted 20 of these youth, who, together with our two birth children, became our 

permanent family. Today we have over 40 grandchildren, many of whom are teens, so we stay 

closely connected to what is happening in the lives of young people today and how challenging it 

is for parents to find help or support when one of their children is struggling.

Every one of the young people we ever called son, or daughter, whether for a few months or for a 

lifetime has taught us something, has enriched our lives and has had a different story. Every 

parent I have met whether in Seattle or Albuquerque, New York City or rural Missouri or my 

home states of Vermont and Pennsylvania, whether in the 1980’s, 90’s, 2020s or last month has a 

different story. And yet from this tapestry of diverse and unique stories some common themes 
7

emerge, and in these themes, I find the answers I would propose to the two questions you asked 

of me today:

• How might Council member agencies enhance coordinated service to prevent youth from 

entering the justice system?

• How might Council member agencies coordinate to increase access/remove barriers to 

opportunities and services that support the success of justice-involved youth in their 

communities?

As a way of framing these themes and recommendations, I would like to begin by sharing the 

story of one of the first youth who was placed in our care back in 1983. This young man who I 

will call “Paul” was presented as “a delinquent, a runaway, and a thief” who had a “history” of 

shoplifting and theft. When his “case” was presented to us, no one mentioned his talent playing 

guitar. No one mentioned the recent loss of his beloved grandfather. No one mentioned that he 

had “run-away” to escape an uncle who was sexually assaulting him on a regular basis. No one 

mentioned that the items he had “shoplifted” were always food-items and there was no 

discussion of the possibility that he and his family may have been suffering from hunger and 

chronic food insecurity. No one mentioned his brilliant sense of humor. 

Even as young 20-something newbies in this work we could see that Paul had unmet health care 

needs and clear mental health challenges. He was on an IEP which had last been updated three 

years and four schools earlier and had no relevance to his current circumstances. He wanted to 

return home to his family after completing the program but that was complicated by the fact that 

his family had no home for him to go to – after years of struggling with housing insecurity, 

shuttling from the home of one relative to another (including the abusive uncle) his mother and 

younger sister were living in a homeless shelter. In the documents we were given about Paul, his 

mother was described at turns as “disinterested,” “hostile,” “resistant to treatment” and 

“uncooperative.” It also stated that she did not care about her son and had no ability to focus on 

his best interests. Yet, when we got to know her, we saw none of these characteristics. Rather we 

saw an exhausted, depressed, beaten-down woman who desperately loved her children and felt 

defeated by every system she had turned to over the years for help. We were at first skeptical, 

and then appalled and then angry as we learned her story and saw the evidence of years of doors 

being closed in her face – if ever opened at all - as she sought to provide safe housing, 

appropriate health and educational opportunities and mental health care for her family. 

At this point you may be thinking, “Sue, that’s a nice trip down memory lane, but why are you 

telling us a story from 1983? This is 2023. Surely things are different now.”

I wish that were the case. So let me tell you about Gigi, who lives in Philadelphia. I last spoke to 

her in October of this year. She had just been evicted from her apartment and her phone was soon 

to be turned off. She had a plan to seek refuge in one of Philadelphia’s many homeless shelters. 

Gigi grew up in foster care herself, experiencing at least 12 different placements before she 

turned 18. She has a profound trauma history and severe mental health needs and cognitive 

disabilities as well as a significant speech impediment. She was raped in the stairwell of her 

middle school when she was twelve years old. At the age of 18 she had her first child, and she 

was fiercely protective of this adorable little baby. But love was not enough and as hard as she 
8

tried, she was not able to provide safety and stability, education, and mental health care over the 

years, so her daughter also ended up in foster care for a time before “graduating” to the juvenile 

justice system. Like Paul and his mother 40 years earlier, Gigi and her daughter had been 

connected to multiple systems, and yet somehow had fallen through the cracks of all of them. 

Debbie, one of the moms in Pennsylvania that I interviewed this fall - a parent herself, but also 

the leader of a support group for parents and grandparents raising their grandchildren – told me 

that in her experience, “by the time it gets to juvenile justice, a family has probably touched 12 

other systems along the route to get there.” 

So, what could have helped keep Paul out of the juvenile justice system 40 years ago, and 

prevented Gigi’s daughter from entering it in 2023? And what would it take, even if they entered 

the system, to have helped them heal, grow, and thrive rather than sustain loss upon loss and go 

deeper and deeper into the justice system? The answers are startlingly simple to describe and yet 

astonishingly difficult to implement and sustain. I am going to offer three concrete 

recommendations that revolve around the following five themes:

1. Families love their children and want them to be safe and thriving in all life domains.

2. Problems that start in one domain (for example, trauma, health concerns, loss of housing, 

or special educational needs) often are connected to problems in other life domains.

3. Families who seek help often get misdirected or fall through the cracks because they have 

“come to the wrong place” for the kind of help they need – focusing on housing rather 

than mental health, or transportation rather than education. They may not know where to 

turn when their needs are multiple and varied and system providers look at them only 

through a narrow, tunnel-vision lens. If they are not eligible or in need of the specific 

support a particular agency can provide, they are turned away with no support at all. 

When families can get the right supports at the right time, justice involvement will 

significantly decrease.

4. Children thrive best when they are securely attached, economically secure, safely housed, 

well-fed, receive the right kinds of health and education, experience a sense of 

connection and belonging in their family and community and have crisis supports to cope 

with grief, loss, and trauma. 

5. Children and families thrive best when all these services and supports are provided by 

people they can relate to and connect with – people representative of their community, 

culture, and values. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Establish a National Family Information and Peer Navigation Clearinghouse, with State 

Affiliates Families need easily accessible, comprehensive, reliable information developed by 

families, for families about accessible, developmentally, and culturally appropriate, traumainformed wholistic services when they need help. Information provided by real people, with their 

own lived experience, who can walk them through the process. 

In the early years of our own parenting experiences, we found it incredibly frustrating to find out 

how and where to get services when our children had medical, educational, or mental health 
9

needs. As the years have gone by, I have gained vast education and experience and even a 

national reputation. Yet to this day when I try to help one of my now-adult children navigate the 

confusing eligibility requirements, funding obstacles and other barriers to getting the needs of 

themselves or their children met, I want to pull my hair out. I frequently turn to one of my fellow 

momma-warrior advocates and say, “If it is this hard for me, how in the world can a new young 

parent with less education and support possibly navigate this mess?” 

Communities and states have initiated many efforts to create information clearinghouses and 

peer-navigator systems for families. Justice-system focused peer navigator programs in New 

York, Washington State, Ohio Louisiana, and New Mexico among others are excellent examples, 

but there is still a need for an over-arching, federally funded umbrella that drives consistency, 

excellence, and sustainability for these programs. Two of my favorite examples are the federally 

funded and family-led Family-to-Family Health Information Centers and the state Parent 

Information Centers for families of children with special educational needs. A similar system of 

fully funded and family-led centers for families of youth who are involved in or at risk for justice 

system involvement would go a long way to fill this gap OR concrete directives to and funding 

for the existing centers named above to ensure that they include information and peer navigation 

for justice-involved families. My friend Debbie in PA reminds me of work she did for justice 

involved families as part of System of Care grants in her Pennsylvania county 10 years ago. And

yet, the same robust, personal, comprehensive supports no longer exist today – the system exists 

in name or on paper only. She laments, “It's amazing how much we seem to keep working in 

circles. Everything we did 20 years ago, then 10 years later, we do it again. 10 years later, we do 

it again. It's frustrating.” The Coordinating Council through its member agencies could really 

make this happen. Such a clearinghouse/peer navigation system needs to include information and 

access to supports across multiple life domains ranging from safe affordable housing, to 

transportation, to jobs for youth as well as their parents, to education and particularly special 

education supports, community and culturally based mental health & trauma services as well as 

legal system information and supports. This effort would answer BOTH questions on the table 

today, helping prevent entry as well as supporting successful outcomes and reducing re-entry for 

system-involved youth and their families.

Institutionalize Leadership Roles for Families– I am pleased to see that there are a couple of 

the citizen/practitioner members of this Council who have lived experience within the youth 

justice system. I trust that your voices, experience, and expertise are of tremendous value to the 

Council as a whole. A dozen years ago when I worked as a fellow here at OJJDP we asked for 2 

of the 9 practitioner slots to be designated for persons with lived expertise, specifically one for a 

young adult and one for a parent or family member. Unfortunately, this recommendation has not 

been implemented so while the current Council does have some lived-expertise present –

although I am not sure a parent or family voice is included - there is no guarantee that future 

Councils will. It is critical that the voices and expertise of both youth and family members can 

guide, shape, and respond to the policy issues and other matters that come before the Council in 

a consistent and valued manner. This would also set an important example of providing 

meaningful leadership roles for families on governing and policy-setting bodies which would 

hopefully lead to more leadership, power-sharing opportunities for families across the country. 
10

Work Together to Address Individual and Collective/Historic Trauma 

In addition to our role as group-home and foster parents to youth who had justice system 

involvement, 3 of our “forever” sons also have experienced time in both the youth and adult 

criminal justice systems, as well as two of our grandsons. In each and every case, some 

combination of individual and collective (historic/multigenerational) trauma was at the root of 

the behaviors that led to their encounters with the justice system. This experience is not unique to 

my family. Again and again families share with me stories of how their son or daughter was 

devastated by the effects of deep trauma wounds and grief – the sudden loss of a grandparent or 

best friend, surviving a violent assault, a school shooting or ongoing bullying, being terrorized 

by experiences in a homeless shelter – before becoming involved with the justice system. This 

Council and its members are uniquely situated to promote and ensure funding for communitybased, culturally and developmentally-informed, effective, affordable, and accessible trauma 

responsive services for all youth and families. Embracing recommendations by both Georgetown 

and NCTSN in their recent publication “A Trauma-Informed Guide for Working with Youth 

Involved with Multiple Systems” is a good place to start. Yet even this publication falls short of 

recognizing the need to engage and partner with the parents and family members of the young 

people in ongoing and meaningful ways. A more robust and family-focused approach is critical 

and would be an appropriate role for this Council to support with your unique opportunity to 

influence policy, funding, and practice guidelines. 

SUMMARY

Families love their children and want them to grow up strong, healthy, happy, and thriving. 

Sometimes achieving this goal is complicated by a wide variety of factors including special 

health, mental health or educational needs, trauma, socio-economic factors, parental stress or the 

normal ups and downs of adolescent behavior. When families need help, they often don’t know 

where to turn and often their calls for help for their children are unheard until the challenges 

escalate and rise to the level of justice system involvement. By this time, families have so many 

systems and case managers in their lives, they are often confused and frustrated. The 

Coordinating Council has a unique vantage point to use your “bully pulpit” and available 

leverage to enact significant steps that would ameliorate these challenges and in so doing help 

prevent many children from entering the justice system and prevent others from going deeper 

into the system. The three top recommendations I am putting forward today include:

• Establish a National Family Information and Peer Navigation Clearinghouse, 

• Institutionalize Leadership Roles for Families,

• Work Together to Address Individual and Collective/Historic Trauma 

I hope that these suggestions are helpful to the Council. Thank you for your time and attention 

today. 
11

Angela Chang

Hamilton County Public Defender

Re-imagining Safety

I recently had to prepare a young person to spend time in youth prison. I had been representing 

him for nearly a year. His mother worked a good job but the hours were third shift, so she was 

often gone at night and caught up on sleep during the day. He had a number of younger siblings 

that also needed her attention. My client had an individualized education plan and a history of 

mental health struggles, but by the time we met, he had not been in any services for a number of 

years. He wasn’t sure about his school enrollment status and had fallen through the cracks months 

before he was arrested. He was held in detention for about a month, where he could not access 

mental health services because due to insurance issues, none of the available mental health 

providers could start therapy while he was in detention. With the support of some court intervention 

and our holistic defense team, we were able to get him released on electronic monitoring. However, 

the path to success was riddled with challenges. First, he needed to get a diagnostic assessment, 

which was difficult to schedule due to his mother’s work schedule. Then the first few therapy 

referrals fell through because of waitlists. His mentoring program was delayed due to his mom’s 

schedule and the intake process. It took weeks to get him enrolled in school. His mother forgot the 

therapy intake appointment. By the time he was enrolled in school, we had lost all momentum and 

he had spent weeks cooped up in his house on electronic monitoring. Just a week or so before his 

scheduled trial, he had new charges and ended up being adjudicated of charges that that included 

mandatory prison time. At his disposition, his mother expressed heartbreak and disbelief at how 

quickly we got to this point- her oldest child was going to be sent away to youth prison for two 

years. “I failed,” she wept. 

The truth is, the entire system failed. When my client needed therapy and intensive attention in 

school, he did not get it. He was pushed out of school for disciplinary issues instead of getting 

counseling. When his mother had to keep her job and there was no other way for my client to get 

transported to treatment, he just did not get treatment. Even once he became involved with court, 

there were waitlists, appointments that required his mom to take off work, confinement at home, 

and a lack of places near his home to get a job. They lived in a neighborhood in Cincinnati that 

was not within walking distance to any of the services he was expected to engage in. And nothing 

was available to address the fact that my client was one of many young people who felt the only 

way to be safe and in control was to possess a firearm. When I left court the morning he was 

sentenced, all I could think was, “We failed.” Again. The system of reactive measures we take in 

the juvenile legal system do not work to prevent contact with the system, and too often fail to 

support the success of the youth who do enter the system. 

As a youth defender who has been representing young people and working toward youth justice 

for more than a decade, I have had the honor of getting to know the stories of hundreds of youth 

in my community. While each of these children are unique, the barriers to safety and thus, success, 

are virtually universal. The majority of the youth that I represent are black and brown even though 

people of color make up about a third of the county’s population. Their neighborhoods are the most 

policed and do not have safe, affordable, and stable housing. Their neighborhoods that either have 

no safe places for children to go outside of school, or the safe spaces lack the funding to support 
12

all the children in need in that community. Existing after school programs do not have enough 

funding to accept all the youth who wish to attend. Existing community organizations focus on a 

few issues but there is no collaboration among providers and county services to address needs 

holistically. Most of the youth I work with have special education needs, and nearly all of them 

have experienced school pushout. Instead of wrapping kids in need with more intensive support 

services and individualized attention, our under-resourced schools use school discipline and school 

police to manage behavioral concerns. Put in another way, current resources focus on responding 

to unwanted behaviors, rather than in supports to prevent that unwanted behavior in the first place. 

Of course, this is how kids end up meeting youth defenders like me. 

Once youth are court-involved, they are required to engage with treatment services that typically 

require commuting outside of their neighborhood, that are often not culturally competent, and are 

often not individualized. Youth who have court-ordered treatment often struggle with 

transportation to and from services, as most of them rely on the local bus system. Their parents 

and guardians are often overwhelmed by a number of other concerns: jobs, evictions, needs of 

other siblings, and their own mental health needs. When supporting compliance with court orders 

becomes difficult, parents and guardians often rely on the court system to impose further 

consequences and sanctions. Significantly, due to long case-processing times, often caused by the 

proliferation of bodyworn camera, many months pass between the incident bringing a child to 

court and the services provided at disposition. The needs that resulted in the court contact to begin 

with often go on unaddressed for too long. Again, the reactive system is ineffective.

To better understand how member agencies can enhance prevention and support system-involved 

youth and move away from a reactive system, looking at the experiences of youth in two vastly 

different local communities might be illustrative. In Hamilton County, a child that lives in the Blue 

Ash community will experience contact with the juvenile court system very differently than a child 

that lives in the Avondale community. In Blue Ash, the schools are located close to where the 

students live. There are a variety of housing options. There is a large park with a lot of recreation 

space, restaurants, and an adjoining apartment complex. There is community recreation center. 

There are many businesses that support employment. There are multiple grocery stores within a 

short driving distance at all price points: Aldi, Kroger, Trader Joe’s, and Whole Foods, to name 

some. There are multiple smaller organizations offering behavioral health services. The schools 

have a partnership with the Cincinnati Children's Hospital and a non-profit that specializes in 

mental health solutions between schools and local organizations. There are ample intervention 

specialists and access to therapists at school. There are very few children referred to juvenile court 

from Blue Ash, and when they are, it’s easier to advocate for release and community-based 

dispositions when support is so accessible.

By contrast, the Avondale neighborhood is served by the Cincinnati Public School district. 

Avondale has two elementary schools in the neighborhood and a community recreation center, but 

there is no high school in Avondale. Because of the school lottery system, students from Avondale 

may be bussed all over the city for school and spend hours each morning and afternoon commuting 

on the Metro Bus system. Avondale has historically been subject to redlining: many of the local 

businesses left years ago and did not return. One of the major affordable housing complexes was 

the subject of a lawsuit due to horrific conditions (including mold and sewage backups) as recently 

as 2019. There is no local grocery store: after many years in the making, one is just now about to 
13

open in a newly developed town center. There are very few restaurants. Getting mental health 

services through the nearby Cincinnati Children’s Hospital is not easy- there is typically a long 

waitlist. While mental health services theoretically available in schools, students are often charged 

with crimes for behaviors within the school and also subject to suspension and expulsion, making 

consistent access to these services difficult. Avondale is a neighborhood that is heavily policed. It 

should be no surprise that many youth in Avondale are subjected to frequent police contact and 

wind up in the juvenile court system. Because it’s difficult to coordinate needs for a child, securing 

pre-trial release and community-based disposition is more difficult for a child facing serious 

charges. Even with a holistic defense approach, there are many barriers to support- many stemming 

from the lack of support services located where a child lives. There are a number of local, youth 

supporting organizations in Avondale that just need the resources to expand the amount of support 

they can provide to youth in their community. 

Ultimately, the barriers I’ve discussed center around what makes a child feel safe. Children must 

be safe in their communities to thrive and be successful. Their parents and guardians must also be 

adequately supported to ensure safety. True safety is achieved when communities have the 

necessary resources for children to thrive. Counsel member agencies must direct resources to 

strengthen the most impacted communities to transform them into places where children can 

thrive. System players resort to the tools that are available. For decades, our country has channeled 

the majority of our resources into the tools of policing, surveillance, family separation, and 

incarceration to create an idea of safety. None of these tools have actually created safety for the 

children in our most impacted communities. It’s time to create new tools that are informed by the 

lived experiences of those most impacted by the juvenile legal system.

Since 2018, my office has worked to create, with the support of OJJDP, a holistic defense practice 

that helps address the needs of youth that we represent. We have two social workers and a 

mitigation specialist, and partner with the Children’s Law Center to address civil legal needs. We 

have been successful in reducing detention time and keeping more youth in the community. This 

holistic approach has also revealed just how significant the gaps are in all the youth-serving 

systems: delays and barriers in obtaining treatment, school disruptions caused by detention, 

transportation challenges, just to name a few. 

We have seen how just putting resources in to support a holistic youth defense model has improved 

the outcomes of many youth, and I invite Council member agencies to imagine how shifting 

resources from the traditional service delivery models to support more neighborhood-based, 

culturally appropriate, and rapid service delivery models. Bringing resources directly to the youth 

who need them will ultimately create safer communities and reduce the number of youth who end 

up involved in the legal system.

 

I respectfully submit the following recommendations to the following member agencies. While the 

below recommendations are made for individual member agencies, the member agencies should 

consider collaborating to create community centers at the neighborhood level in the most systemimpacted communities to provide one-stop services to youth and families, and also providing 

support and incentive to prioritize training and employing local individuals with similar lived 

experiences as the youth in the community. Additionally, member agencies should prioritize 

funding programs that support interagency collaboration to reduce the stress of children and 
14

families who must navigate multiple systems and services. Finally, the communities being served 

should be consulted on how services and resources are delivered to their neighborhoods.

Department of Justice & OJJDP: 

• Shift a portion of the funding and resources that are currently funneled to law enforcement, 

incarceration, and other reactive programming models towards programming models that 

are community based, hyper-localized, and provide streamlined and rapid response 

behavioral health services.

• Enforcing existing standards set for carceral systems and policing to reduce overuse and 

misuse of these system, thus freeing up resources for more preventative services.

• Provide more funding to youth defense, the only part of the reactive system that is dedicated 

to protecting youth and advocating for their rights, to support holistic defense models and 

strong advocacy.

Department of Education

• Support schools provide more counselors, social workers, intervention specialists, free 

meals, extra-curriculars, and after-school activities.

• Support schools in providing quality education to youth in detention centers and enforce 

educational standards in facilities where youth are incarcerated.

• Incentivize creation of more of the above support services in schools over the use of school 

policing.

• Incentivize the equal distribution of resources to neighborhood schools in large urban 

school districts so children can access quality education and needed services where they 

live, thus reducing transportation barriers to treatment, sports, and recreation.

• Encourage individuals that wish to pursue careers in the above education-related roles 

through financial support and training.

Department of Health and Human Services: 

• Support free and accessible community-based healthcare and behavioral healthcare.

• Support service delivery models that utilize technology or have neighborhood based 

operations to provide expedited intake processes and quick access to health care and mental 

health services.

• Incentivize connecting families involved with social services to local support services over 

sending children away from families to treatment facilities.

• Provide training to enhance social services workers’ understanding of how to support youth 

who are involved in both the social services and juvenile court systems. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

• Ensure housing is environmentally safe.

• Invite in other governmental agencies to create communities with easy access to food, 

transportation, education, medical services, workforce development, etc.;

• Eliminate bans on housing for youth with delinquency charges/adjudications.

• Support civil legal service agencies that can advocate for families in housing crises.
15

Department of Agriculture: 

• Support free school meals.

• Eliminate food deserts by partnering with council member agencies to bring healthy food 

choices to neighborhoods

Department of Labor: 

• Incentivize employers to pay livable wages, provide insurance, and paid time off.

• Support employing people who have lived experiences in the carceral system

• Collaborate with member agencies to increase meaningful workforce development 

opportunities in for youth in their neighborhoods.

Department of the Interior: 

• Provide funding for communities to create safe and accessible play and recreation spaces 

for children.

AmeriCorps: 

• Send Americorps members into neighborhoods most impacted by the criminal and juvenile 

legal systems to talk to families and identify community specific needs, identify any 

existing community organizations already trusted within the community, and act as liaisons 

to bring additional services and resources to the community.

• Send Americorp members to establish the neighborhood level community centers to 

coordinate services in a one-stop service model, and to train community members for 

employment at the community centers.

Drug Control Policy & SAMHSA: 

• Support community-based addiction services that can be accessed for free and without 

court involvement.

Thank you for your consideration of the youth defender perspective and these recommendations.
16

Robert Rodemeyer

Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office

Supervisor, Juvenile Justice Bureau, Child Protection Division

Empowering Youth Alongside Their Families and Communities

Juvenile justice prevention requires coordinated services implemented well before a youth’s 

initial contact with law enforcement. Youth should be built up and placed in a position to stand 

up against a myriad of negative influences. Our youth require positive stable support. Families 

and communities should be vested with the resources necessary to guide their young people. 

Through community-based services aimed at promoting positive social and emotional 

development, secure attachments, as well as a sense of identity and belonging in our young 

people, we empower our youth and place them in a position to succeed. 

Promoting positive social and emotional development begins at birth. The first 3 years of a 

child’s life are the most crucial for brain development. Studies on Adverse Childhood 

Experiences (ACEs) and Child Development have established that early childhood trauma in the 

form of either abuse or neglect during the first 3 years of a child’s life directly impacts brain 

development. A child’s brain develops 1 million neuropathway connections between birth and 

age three. Infants and toddlers are ready to absorb new information, environments, and love from 

their caregivers. An individual’s understanding of the world, relationships, safety, security, and 

more is all forged during this period. 

We are born with billions of neurons, but they are not for the most part connected. Connections 

between synapses are strengthened through repeated positive experiences. These connections are 

vital in helping babies learn the essentials they need to survive and thrive within their family, 

community, and culture. 

Our understanding of safety and security is forged during this developmental period. During the 

first three years of life, emotionally nourishing relationships lay the foundation for lifelong 

health and well-being. A baby’s earliest relationships and experiences with their parents and 

other caregivers dramatically influences brain development, social-emotional functioning, and 

cognitive skills, impacting future health and success in school and life. 

Promoting positive social attachments with primary caregivers and reducing ACEs improves 

one’s social and emotional functioning throughout life. The extent to which our youth see 

themselves as part of the community and their sense of empathy for their neighbors are all 

impacted during this crucial phase of brain development. 

Parents must be equipped to both provide healthy attachments while minimizing environmental 

ACEs. Incorporating this information into expecting and new parent education administered by 

health systems and community service agencies will increase parental awareness of these 

important concepts. 

Early childhood education has been shown to reduce ACEs as well as promote and provide 

secure attachments to infants. Beyond providing a positive influence, early childhood education 
17

centers can work with families to improve the caregiver-child relationship. When needs are 

identified within a family, on-site clinical personnel can work with caregivers to increase their 

understanding of the child’s social and emotional development. 

Nurturing Parenting Programs (NPP) have been successful at developing a caregiver’s 

understanding of 0-3 social and emotional development. Child Parent Psychotherapy (CPP) is 

effective in helping a caregiver understand their child’s cues as well as the impact their actions 

have on their child’s sense of safety and security. Partnering with established and trusted 

community services providers to expand access to these therapeutic interventions can assist in 

cases where family risk factors have been identified.

The second key phase of social and emotional development occurs during adolescence. Neural 

pruning occurs during this time. Frequently used adaptive neuropathways are reinforced and 

infrequent pathways are lost. Maladaptive and anti-social behaviors are fortified during this 

period. It is therefore imperative that community services and activities promoting positive 

adaptive behaviors and social activities are provided to youth pre-adolescence and carry through 

into young adulthood. 

An individual’s sense of identity is also developed during adolescence. Negative peer influences 

capitalize on this need. Youth therefore benefit from being deeply rooted in a positive social peer 

group well before entering adolescence. Expanding resources for schools and localized 

community groups with attractive programming for youth before adolescence can foster a strong 

positive sense of identity and belonging capable of remaining viable into adulthood. 

Effective programming should foster strong positive attachments and promote mentorship. To 

ensure community buy-in, programs must be authentic and cognizant of historical trauma and 

distrust. Organizations should be locally run by community members whose leadership and staff 

are reflective of the community. The activities should be attractive and of interest to young 

people while also providing them with lifelong pursuits and a sense of identity. Youth leadership, 

arts and agricultural programming which enable youth to effectuate positive change in their 

community should be invested in as they promote an attachment to the community and its 

wellbeing. As youth enter adolescence, programming would benefit from providing vocational 

opportunities and financial incentives to minimize the financial alure of the street economy 

promoted by negative peer groups.

Negative peer influence is omnipresent. Positive peer groups and pro-social programming should 

be provided with the resources to be as available. Fostering a sense of community and identity 

requires wrap-around services. Programming should work to incorporate families and integrate 

themselves into households engaging caregivers and sibling groups. A youth’s ability to forge a 

strong healthy attachment with positive mentors is critical to the success of these programs. 

Frequent staff turnover and the utilization of short-term interns undermines the development of 

these relationships. Resources should be utilized to attract high quality staff and encourage longterm commitments. 

Following initial contact with law enforcement, diversion programs implemented by law 

enforcement and prosecutorial agencies are effective at reducing the probability of youth 
18

entering the justice system. By partnering with the same established community groups, positive 

mentor connections and engaged caregiver support outlined above, diversion programs can 

provide wholistic wrap around services better suited to deter further negative peer influence. 

A positive in-home response which engages the caregiver following contact with law 

enforcement can work to ensure an in-home wraparound response. Short-term home-based 

therapeutic interventions including Placement Stabilization Services utilized by child welfare 

agencies to promote placement stability; and Screening Assessment and Support Service (SASS) 

relied upon following discharge of youth from inpatient psychiatric care have been effective at 

stabilizing youth in the home setting and connecting caregivers to community resources. 

Providing similar programming following a youth’s initial arrest can assist caregivers in 

fashioning an in-home response to the youth’s criminal activity and connect the family to the 

positive supports outlined above.

Fostering a youth’s understanding of the impact of their actions on their family, peers, neighbors, 

and community at large is also an effective deterrent. Victim impact panels and statements, peer 

meetings, and informal community justice proceedings aid in developing a young person’s 

awareness of the real consequences of their actions. Building these types of proceedings and 

programs into the community agencies outlined above fosters a continuum of care and ensures 

the engagement of established positive supports.

When charges are filed and a youth formally enters the juvenile justice system, court 

interventions should capitalize on the community supports and relationships outlined above. By 

coupling probation and formal therapeutic interventions with wraparound community-based 

interventions that provide youth with a healthy self-identity, pro social activities, and positive 

peer groups, the influence and alure of negative peer groups is reduced and the impact of a 

youth’s understanding of the impact of their actions on their community is further developed.

The juvenile justice system should conduct itself in a manner that is trauma responsive. While 

the system needs to pursue justice on behalf of victims of crime and the community, it must 

remain cognizant of its responsibility to the youth before it. 

To promote a response that is empathetic to the juvenile and their needs, juvenile justice judges, 

attorneys, probation officers, clinicians and service providers should receive training around 

ACEs and the impact of trauma on a young person’s decision-making. In its efforts to promote a 

youth’s sense of accountability, the juvenile justice system would benefit from a developed 

understanding of the impact the youth’s upbringing had on their decision making. 

Where clinical interventions are necessary, delays and disruptions to the provision of these 

services undermines their success rate. Youth benefit from consistency and an understanding that 

the juvenile justice system is invested in their progress. Long waiting lists and the utilization of 

interns with high rates of turnover, as well as clinicians who either do not reflect the community 

they are service or fail to possess awareness as to how cultural differences may impact the 

therapeutic process, limit the therapeutic connection as well as the potential for progress.
19

Understanding the youth and their community’s perception of mental health services is also 

important. Where there is stigma attached to treatment, therapeutic interventions should be 

packaged in an attractive manner capitalizing on existing positive outlets embraced by the 

community such as visual art, athletic, music and drama programs. 

In exploring barriers to success and opportunities for improvement, struggles of child welfare 

youth in the juvenile justice system should be examined. Investing in these dual system youth 

provides assistance to our most vulnerable. Dual System or Dually Involved Youth programs and 

cross agency collaboration between the juvenile justice and child welfare systems eliminates 

communication gaps, reduces redundancy, and allows both agencies to capitalize each other’s 

experience. 

33% of child welfare system-involved youth have had contact with the juvenile justice system; 

overall. Maltreated youth are estimated to be at a 47% greater risk for becoming involved in 

juvenile justice proceedings than general population youth. A history of neglect or abuse is 

shown to increase the risk of youth arrest by 55% and increase the risk of committing violent 

crimes by 96%. As involvement in the juvenile justice system deepens (significant, violent 

offenses, resulting in periods of incarceration) youth with a history of child welfare system 

involvement comprise a larger share of the population than general population youth.

Youth involved in the child welfare system generally receive harsher treatment within the 

juvenile justice system. For example, they are less likely than delinquent youth without 

maltreatment histories to receive probation and more likely to be placed in group homes or 

correctional facilities. 

Studies highlight the importance of screening for trauma across each touchpoint of the juvenile 

justice system (e.g., detention, court, probation, corrections). When a youth enters the juvenile 

justice system, parties must identify trauma experiences especially those associated with child 

protection actions. In addition to identifying trauma, there is a need to ensure that pertinent 

information about youth is available to parties as youth move across placements, programs, and 

agencies. Investment in cross agency collaboration and dual youth programs can facilitate these 

trauma check-ins as well as cross-system collaboration and information sharing.

In Cook County, our Juvenile Justice Division and Child Protection Divisions work side-by-side 

in the Juvenile Justice Bureau. We take the Child Protection Division’s experience with these 

young people and their families into account when we initially encounter a young person in the 

Juvenile Justice Division and in our pursuit of public safety and restorative justice for the youth, 

the victim, and the community. 

We have recently developed several initiatives to better serve Juvenile Justice youth with a 

history of trauma. These initiatives are a primary focus of both our office as well as the entire 

court system. Through new screening procedures, external partner notification, and internal 

information sharing and collaboration, our Juvenile Justice system, is making better informed 

charging decisions, ensuring the participation of all stakeholders in Juvenile Justice proceedings, 

and providing therapeutic services informed by a youth’s past treatment history.
20

Kyla Woods

CEO, Klover Strategies

Resource-Rich...Coordination-Poor

Dear Coordination Council Members,

It is a pleasure to be here with you all. I often advocate for a multifaceted approach to respond to

the needs of youth and young adults and am encouraged by the commitment Council Member

agencies have made to system-wide collaboration. My name is Kyla Woods. I am a youth justice 

advocate with lived experience, direct service provider, policy expert, member of the District of

Columbia’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Group (JJAG), and the CEO of Klover Strategies. For the

past five years, I have partnered with youth-serving agencies to ensure the integration of youth 

expertise to improve policy and program implementation. Since 2019, I have witnessed the value 

of creating space for young people to be directly involved in driving systems that heavily influence 

their lives. I have had the privilege of mobilizing youth-centered initiatives within the Interagency 

Council on Homelessness, the Department of Behavioral Health, and the Juvenile Justice Advisory 

Group in the District of Columbia.

In 2016, I sought out multiple youth service agencies after an anti-trafficking sting operation that 

resulted in my trafficker being arrested, while I was charged with prostitution to ensure my 

testimony. I was left with a record, homeless, and suffering from depression at eighteen. It was 

advocates and social service coordination that allowed me to foster the confidence to apply to the

University of Columbia in 2017 and graduate magna cum laude with a bachelors in political 

science. Housing, legal, and healthcare resources provided a path toward higher education and 

economic stability. I am confident that without receiving support to meet my basic needs, I would 

not have been prepared to advocate for myself or imagine life beyond crisis.

While it is often said that many metropolitan areas are resource-rich, it is also true that many are 

also, coordination-poor. Unfortunately, this often leads to bureaucratic and often duplicative 

procedures that can often be discouraging and confusing. In 2019, I had the privilege of 

participating in a two-year HUD-funded fellowship designed to improve youth homeless services 

in the District of Columbia. During my tenure, my colleagues and I conducted countless listening 

sessions and participated in biweekly youth advisory board meetings. Our peers often responded 

that a combination of mental health housing and employment support would lead to the prevention 

of housing insecurity and legal system involvement.

In my experience, social service and justice agencies that partner strategically with youth and

families benefit from consistent quality improvement by identifying pain points in need of greater 

coordination. However, most youth justice sectors remain siloed, and I have found myself 

advocating for similar interventions to prevent exploitation, housing instability, and incarceration 

in sectors that are not incentivized to collaborate on the ground. As an advocate, I commend the 

investments made in recent years toward system collaboration, but I have yet to see this reality 

fully realized in my direct service experience.
21

When advocating for service coordination for my clients, I have noticed collaboration efforts can 

often be stunted or slowed due to bureaucracy and limited incentive to partner. Service providers 

that are overwhelmed and under resourced struggle to extend themselves not from apathy but from 

a lack of organizing capacity. In my organizing experience, transparency among youth-serving 

agencies also remains a barrier, yet it is imperative for system improvement. Multidisciplinary 

prevention initiatives must prioritize implementation oversight to match the policy and research 

advancements made. By partnering and investing in the expertise of youth, families, and front-line 

staff, youth justice agencies can obtain a more accurate picture of the achievements and lessons 

learned.

When considering the long-term success of justice-involved youth, we must not only respond to

the vulnerabilities they face. We must identify and build the capacity-protective factors that exist 

in their communities. Ultimately, we cannot rely on systems to provide the care, love, and 

consistent connection youth and young adults deserve. Investment in community-based 

organizations that build resilience and social connection for youth and families is key to achieving 

a proactive posture.

In many areas there are mutual aid, wellness, mentoring, and violence disruption organizers that 

meet the needs of their communities but lack the funding or coordination support to make an 

impact at scale. I believe Council Member agencies can greatly benefit from calling on nonpunitive community-based organizations, justice-impacted youth, and families to reimagine 

prevention. Interventions will vary; however, collaboration with youth, families, and communities 

have a long-lasting impact on both the youth-serving agencies and individuals who have leveraged 

their systems knowledge to build resilience.
22

Steve Anjewierden

Chief of Police Services (retired)

Training Director

iCHAMPS Crime Prevention Center

Policy & Practice Recommendations for Law Enforcement in Preventing Youth Entering

the Juvenile Justice System or Supporting Justice-Involved Youth in Communities

The importance of the role of Law Enforcement in preventing youth from entering the juvenile

justice system is critical. Police officers encounter youth every day and can have a significant

impact in the young person’s life. These encounters can be positive or negative and the outcomes

can be highly influenced by the officer’s actions. Officers often encounter youth in non-criminal

situations and these opportunities should be maximized to create positive law enforcement and

youth relationships. Officers also come across youth in situations where there are violations of

the law. In many cases, the nature of an offense does not allow for discretionary decision

making. However, in other cases there are a wide range of options, and in all cases, the officer

should be thoughtful of their actions and understand that the outcomes we are after is behavior

change and not punitive action.

Three areas of focus:

1. Law Enforcement Training

2. Law Enforcement Partnerships

3. Law Enforcement Internal Policies

Some concepts will fall into all three categories. For example: School Based Law Enforcement.

Officers should highly trained in understanding their role, the role of school officials, and

adolescent development including trauma informed practices. Officers should be aware of

community and governmental programming to support the pro-social development of students

and access to diversions and other alternatives to the juvenile justice system. Finally, policy and

law can be developed and implemented to provide direction, mission and to clarify actions that

can be taken by an officer and those that cannot.

1. Law Enforcement Training

Training for law enforcement officers can significantly reduce arrest of youth and thereby

prevent youth from entering the juvenile justice system (JJS). Training officers on the teen brain

will make it less likely for them to criminalize regular adolescent behavior. Additionally,

training on restorative and trauma-informed practices can provide law enforcement officers a

better understanding on why diversion programs can produce better longterm outcomes for

youth, the community and for law enforcement. Community service providers should be

included in the trainings so that law enforcement officers become familiar with the services

provided, build relationships with community members, and can better navigate the referral

process when using discretion and diverting youth to diversions programs.

• EXAMPLE: Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) Juvenile Detectives Unit
23

This training was developed in partnership with the Center for Coordinated Assistance to

States (CCAS/ OJJDP), MPD department leadership, community service providers and the

Minnesota State Racial and Ethnic Disparities coordinator. It was delivered to the Juvenile

Detective Unit and included many of the topics below. It was the first time that juvenile

detectives and community providers of restorative practices had met and discussed each

other’s work.

• Procedural Justice & Legitimacy of Police

• Role of law enforcement officers when working with youth

• Adolescent development & the teen brain

• Principles of Effective Programming

• Diversions & alternatives to juvenile justice system 

• Restorative justice & trauma-informed care.

• Screening & assessment of youth receiving services

• Collaborative decision-making on diversion criteria

• Provide training in police academy, field training, and throughout career

2. Law Enforcement Partnerships

Law enforcement should partner with several institutions and community-based organizations to

increase the amount of options to address areas of youth need while also increasing protective

factors. These partnerships can be used to prevent youth from entering the juvenile justice

system, but can also be used with justice-involved youth. These programs can be developed with

input from a variety of sources, including community members, with the understanding that they

all must meet the legal requirements and ethical standards of each discipline.

EXAMPLE: Center for Restorative Youth Justice (CRJA):

CRYJ is the diversion program based on restorative justice that is used in the School Justice

Partnership in Kalispell, Montana. It is a key element in the goal to identify appropriate

alternatives to the juvenile justice system. The team includes the school district, local SRO’s and

a chief probation officer embedded within the school itself. It is an example of creative

partnerships to reduce school based arrests and keep students in the school setting while

supporting and addressing potential needs of youth and creating a safe, healthy learning

environment in the schools.

• School Justice Partnerships (law enforcement, juvenile probation, education, community

service providers) 

• Co-Response Models (law enforcement, mental health providers, emergency services) 

• Social Correlates of Crime (law enforcement, district attorney diversion program)

• School-Based Law Enforcement Programs (aka School Resource Officer Programs)

• Behavioral Threat Assessment & Management Teams (school and community-based)
24

3. Law Enforcement Internal Policies 

Law enforcement agencies can implement internal policies that would improve the quality of

professionalism among officers, improve the relationship with the community, uphold the safety

and well-being of both community and law enforcement officers.

EXAMPLE 1: Social Correlates of Crime (SCC)

SCC is a law enforcement partnership in Denver Colorado that changed the Denver Police

Department policy from responding to runaway youth to allowing county employed social

workers to respond to runaway calls and develop a case management plan for those youth.

EXAMPLE 2: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

School-Based Law Enforcement Programs (SBLEP, aka School Resource Officer Programs)

place law enforcement officers in schools. MOUs between law enforcement and the school

districts should be developed to create clear guidelines for law enforcement officers and school

administrators when engaging in problematic behaviors among youth, as well as create a

positive, healthy and safe learning environment in schools. MOUs maximize the social and

community value of an officer while also regulating the use of arrest and diversions. These

documents can contain critical information establishing the purpose of the SBLEP and governing

the actions of officers and their school partners. Specific language in the document can set

standards for training, positive student engagement, record sharing, assignment and separation of

job duties, financial agreements, etc.

• Create recruitment, retention & promotion that increase different backgrounds, such as

education and social work

• Generate a clear understanding for the use of law enforcement discretion to divert youth from

arrest

• Implement community policing practices, emphasizing problem-solving strategies and deemphasizing the focus on arrests, especially among youth 

• Hire civilian caseworkers & mental health therapists as resource for community

• Hire mental health professionals and promote thee use of Employee Assistance Programs for

use of law enforcement personnel 

• Establish minimum specialty training requirement for officers working with youth, as

mentioned above in section 1.

___________________________________________________________________________

1

https://www.google.com/search?q=TRAINING+AND+EMPLOYMENT+GUIDANCE+LETTER+WIOA+NO.+23-

14&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS974US974&oq=TRAINING+AND+EMPLOYMENT+GUIDANCE+LETTER+WIOA+N

O.+23-

14&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRigAdIB

CTUwMjNqMGoxNagCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
25

Laura Broyles

Director of the Office of Standards for Prevention and System Improvement, Oklahoma 

Office of Juvenile Affairs

Removing Barriers and Creating Pathways to Success for Youth, Families, and 

Communities

Good afternoon, Administrator Ryan, and members of this council. I am honored by this invitation 

to speak to you today. As a state administrator and Title II program manager for the Oklahoma 

Office of Juvenile Affairs, a hope-centered and trauma informed juvenile justice agency. Over the 

past two decades, I have discovered the work we do to implement the Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) must transcend partisan politics as we continuously assess, 

evaluate, monitor, and navigate the evolution of political will by key justice system gatekeepers. 

We do this so that we will improve policy, practice, and programming for youth, families, and 

communities at the local, state, and national level. What we do, each one of us, matters and either 

fortifies a barrier or opens and supports a pathway to a future of success. Through our collaborative 

efforts, we have made great progress at local, state, and national levels, however, much work 

remains. 

The following recommendations to improve coordination of services and supports were developed 

from personal experience and conversations with partners, colleagues, staff, and the youth and 

families we serve. Improving the coordination of services and support for delinquency prevention 

and justice involved youth and families requires us to continually step back and assess our personal 

and public strengths and weaknesses, working together to build pathways for youth success, 

stronger families, and thriving communities.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Early in my career, as I learned about the value of the JJDPA and the effectiveness of the initiatives 

and funding, I quickly realized the need to work to embed it into every part of the juvenile justice 

system. Twenty plus years into the work, I witness this awareness among system stakeholders 

every day. The JJDPA has improved outcomes for youth and reduced the number of youth entering 

the juvenile justice system. It is recommended that pathways for collaboration across systems at 

the local, state, and national levels be created and supported, with guidance provided specifically 

to state administrators, teaching them how to embed the JJDPA in every aspect of the juvenile 

justice system. Education on the core mandates of the JJDPA should be provided across all systems 

and among every system gatekeeper, including attorneys at the local, state, and federal levels. State 

administrators of the Title II funding need guidance on how this can be done and what the benefits 

are (e.g., long term sustainability of effective programming and the leveraging of resources). 

Additionally, and to further ensure the long-term impact of the act and the spirt behind the act, 

retention issues and longevity of Title II state administrators must be examined, and solutions 

explored. Turnover across the states and territories for Title II administrators has improved with 

OJJDP’s certificate training programs as they have placed more value in the work and have 

strengthened the credibility of the work under the JJDPA. Improving the retention of state 
26

administrators will improve the coordination of services for delinquency prevention programming 

and outcomes for justice involved youth. 

CUT RED TAPE AND REMOVE BARRIERS

Through our own efforts to remove barriers and provide pathways for youth, Oklahoma has 

discovered barriers can often be created unintentionally from policies, rules, and legislation. 

Several years ago, we began working closely with our workforce development providers to create 

a statewide plan to make employment resources available to all youth who have contact with the 

juvenile justice system. This resource provides employment training, education, and opportunities 

to youth who are at least 16 years of age. Unfortunately, we quickly discovered a barrier because 

of a Department of Labor policy that requires seventy-five (75) percent of Workforce Innovation 

and Opportunity Act funds be spent on out of school youth. The language clearly articulates a value 

in providing employment resources to juvenile justice involved youth, however in practice the 

policy limits access for most justice involved youth because, if involved at any level of the juvenile 

justice system (deferred decisions, probation, and state custody), these youth are no longer defined 

as “out-of-school” youth. 

Education and school attendance is often a key priority of deferred agreements, court supervision, 

and out of home placements. Limiting these funds with this definition as is limits access by justice 

involved youth to this vital resource. This definition creates a barrier and limitation for a large 

portion of those youth at risk of penetrating deeper into the system or of reentering the system 

without access to these employment supports. By the time agreements are made and the referrals 

are submitted, the youth we work with are frequently back in school or have been in school while 

under supervision. All youth referred to this resource from the juvenile justice system should have 

access to these resources. Changes to this policy needs to come from a federal level as local boards 

must go through a time-consuming process to obtain waivers to pilot a modification . 

It is therefore recommended cross agency collaboration and listening sessions be conducted to 

review policies and rescind or amend those that prevent access to resources, beginning with review 

of the Department of Labor Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 23-14i. 

VITAL DOCUMENTS

As youth transition to adulthood, obtaining vital documents is critical. Youth must obtain 

employment and a driver’s license, sometimes their first apartment. To do this, they need an 

original birth certificate and social security card. Some youth have moved so many times across 

systems that they do not know their address(es) and incorrect answers to the question, “which 

addresses have you lived at” result in security holds in the online process to obtain documents. 

Additionally, if there have been multiple requests for a social security card, the youth may be 

unable to obtain the card because of a limitation on the number of requests that may be made. This 

is not uncommon due to requests from multiple caregivers. Youth impacted by multiple systems 

should be exempt from this rule. These are just two of the examples given when discussing barriers 

for accessing resources, like vital documents, with staff. 
27

A closer examination of the barriers to obtaining interstate and state vital documents would be 

beneficial to assist with the development of solutions. In addition, providing a pathway for states 

to obtain vital documents through interstate collaboration and supporting states to develop the 

infrastructure needed to implement statewide and interstate data systems that are designed to 

streamline resources for youth and families will remove barriers and increase opportunities while 

simultaneously assisting with resource management. 

We all understand our youth are on a continuum of care, but we seldom consider them as having 

one single life continuum with multiple agency resources investing in that continuum. Across all 

agencies we often serve the same families, but it is challenging to know what agencies they are 

involved with and coordinate services in a thoughtful and meaningful way. Many agencies have 

system databases with resources, but these systems rarely talk to each other. In fact, there are times 

the lack of collaboration creates hardship for the families or results in a duplication of services or 

worse a gap in services for those who need it most. Existing databases for vital documents are 

designed to prevent fraud but have unintended consequences for youth who have complex histories 

with unstable housing or cross system involvement. The delay or barrier in accessing these 

documents prevents youth from successfully transitioning into adulthood and engaging in their 

communities. The unintended consequences adversely impact the youth, the systems serving the 

youth and families, and the communities in need of their economic contributions. These barriers 

cost taxpayers’ money at every level because the youth are held longer in government 

programming and not moving as quickly as they could to independence and ultimately economic 

contribution. 

YOUTH ENGAGEMENT COORDINATORS

During the last half-decade, we have strengthened youth and family voice, but have struggled to 

maintain the ongoing staff support needed for successful youth engagement. It is recommended 

that assistance to juvenile justice systems be provided to assist them with Identifying a pathway 

to hire a permanent youth engagement coordinator to support, engage, and strengthen youth voice 

in the review, development, and implementation of policy, practice, and programs within the 

juvenile justice systems. A youth voice with lived experience in the development and 

implementation of policies, practices, and programming is critical to the overall pathway of 

success for all youth and families served by the juvenile justice system. Building internal controls 

so these positions are protected from partisan politics and budgetary constraints will create a 

sustained pathway for youth with lived experience to have a voice in the long-term operations and 

success of the juvenile justice system.

In closing, there are so many more needs as evidenced by data and voiced by service providers, 

partner agencies, colleagues, staff, and the youth and families we serve. The annual three-year state 

planning and updates required by the Title II Formula grant, as specified in the JJDPA, is an 

excellent tool to address the needs and resources within local and state jurisdictions. Oklahoma 

will continue to use this process to identify and address those gaps, remove barriers, and create 

pathways for success so Oklahoma families are strengthened, youth succeed, and communities 

thrive. It is my hope that in my lifetime youth will no longer be held in adult jails, isolated from 

peers, without proper treatment, education, or support. It is my hope that status offenses, youth 

behavior, and mental health symptoms will not be treated as criminal behavior and that all youth 
28

will be afforded equitable opportunities and treatment that lead them on a pathway of hope and 

success. 

Thank you.

1

https://www.google.com/search?q=TRAINING+AND+EMPLOYMENT+GUIDANCE+LETTER+WIOA+NO.+23-

14&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS974US974&oq=TRAINING+AND+EMPLOYMENT+GUIDANCE+LETTER+WIOA+N

O.+23-

14&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRigAdIB

CTUwMjNqMGoxNagCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
29

Ernestine Steward Gray

Retired Juvenile Court Judge

Orleans Parish Juvenile Court

Collaborating for Positive Messages and Better Outcomes

In 1982 in the “Disappearance of Childhood,” Neil Postman wrote, “Children are the living 

messages that we send to a time we will not see.”

We must remember as Dorothy Law Nolte wrote:

 Children Learn What They Live

If a child lives with criticism, he learns to condemn.

If a child lives with hostility, he learns to fight.

If a child lives with ridicule, he learns to be shy.

If a child lives with shame, he learns to feel quilt.

If a child lives with tolerance, he learns to be patient.

If a child lives with encouragement, he learns confidence.

If a child lives with praise, he learns to appreciate.

If a child lives with fairness, he learns justice.

If a child lives with security, he learns to have faith.

If a child lives with approval, he learns to like himself.

If a child lives acceptance and friendship, he learns to find love in the world.

Juvenile Judges across the nation are making important decisions every day that change – even 

transform the lives of children, youth and families and determine the messages they are sending 

to “a time that they will not see.”

It is therefore our obligation and responsibility to ensure that the messages we send are messages 

of hope and promise. If we give children negative messages we give them of a lack of belief in 

their abilities, that they are not important, that they cannot accomplish great things, that they 

don’t belong and that they are not important. Our generation must give children the tools to 

shape the future based on the impact and influence of our examples upon their minds and future.

Hebert Hoover, the 31st President of the United States, in a message endorsing the Children’s 

Charter said, “Children are our most precious possession.” The Charter recognizing the Rights 

of the Child sets forth 19 provisions for “making every child healthier, safer, wiser, better and 

happier” and states that “Fathers and mothers, doctors and teachers, the churches and the lay 

organizations, the officers of government in the states and counties and towns, all have one 

common obligation — to advance these plans to better life for children.”

While there are provisions that address every aspect of a child’s life both in the cities and in rural 

areas including education, disabilities, etc. I call your attention, as relevant to this discussion:

...XIV. For every child who is in conflict with society the right 
30

to be dealt with intelligently as society’s charge, not as society’s

 outcast; with the home, the school, the church, the court and the 

institution when needed, shaped to return him whenever possible

to the normal stream of life.

 XV. For every child the right to grow up in a family with an

 adequate standard of living and the security of a stable income as

the surest safeguard against social handicaps.

 ...For EVERY child these rights, regardless of race or color, or

situation, wherever he may live under the protection of the 

American flag.

Unlike the Child Welfare field, there are few federal laws, guidelines, recommendations or best 

practices for juvenile judges hearing delinquency cases. This leaves many judges with the 

responsibility for improving their individual courts and court practices without sufficient 

resources and support. This work is further complicated by the fact that when the child or youth 

and family appear at the court, they have entered many doors seeking help and have been 

interviewed, assessed, evaluated and diagnosed by several agencies who are responsible for 

ensuring the availability of services to meet the needs of children, youth and families.

In order for the nation’s juvenile judges to be the most effective, they need:

-Practices that promote racial equity: Judges should receive training in cultural competency to 

understand and respect the diverse backgrounds of the youth they encounter. This includes 

awareness of how biases, explicit, implicit and systemic, can influence decision making. 

Implementing data collection and analysis can help identify and address racial disparities in the 

juvenile justice process. Involving community members, especially from marginalized 

communities, in the decision-making process can help ensure that the system is mor responsive 

to the needs of those it serves. 

-Access to Research Findings: Judges need access to the latest research on what interventions 

are effective fro reducing recidivism and promoting positive outcomes for youth. This includes 

understanding the impacts of different sentencing options. Regular workshops, seminars, and 

webinars on the latest juvenile justice research can help judges stay informed about best 

practices.

-Building Consensus Around Probation Reform: Creating forums where judges, probation 

administrators and officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, community stakeholders and families 

can discuss and develop consensus on probation reform. Implementing and evaluating pilot 

programs can help in understanding the impacts of probation reform before they are widely 

implemented.

-Redirection of expenditures towards effective solutions at the front end of the system: 

Investing in prevention and early intervention by redirecting funds towards community-based 

programs and services that address the root causes of delinquency, such as poverty, lack of 

education, mental health and substance use issues. Investing in the training of judicial and law 

enforcement personnel in areas such as de-escalation techniques, mental health awareness and 
31

alternative dispute resolution. Developing and funding diversion programs that allow for noncriminal handling of certain offenses, particularly first-time and minor offenders. Strengthening 

support for services like family counseling, educational support, mental health and substance use 

support as alternatives to detention.

-Understanding adolescent development: Research suggests that the human brain, particularly 

the prefrontal cortex responsible for decision-making and impulse control, does not develop until 

the mid-twenties. This is the reason some states are increasing the age of juvenile court 

jurisdiction, several states are looking at 18, 19 or 20 (Massachusetts and Vermont).

Judges, as conveners in their local communities, can play a pivotal role in transforming the 

juvenile justice system in America into one that is more just, effective and equitable. To do so 

requires a multifaceted approach involving training, research, collaborative reform efforts, and a 

re-evaluation of resource allocation, all aimed at preventing youth from entering the justice 

system unnecessarily and providing those who do with the support they need to succeed.

This is where the efforts of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention and its member agencies become critically important.

After accepting the invitation to participate on this panel this afternoon, I had the occasion to 

discuss my appearance here with a few of my colleagues. To a person, they each identified as the 

first major problem siloed budget funding. They all indicated that there should be greater 

flexibility in funding and that incentives should be provided to among member agencies for 

shared problem solving and collaboration which will allow the agencies to obtain better 

outcomes for the children, youth and families. Agencies must stop worrying about their 

individual budgets and work together to use funds to provide the attention and services that are 

needed to send the messages we want delivered to “a time that we will not see.

Second, I would suggest that it is time to get rid of the “At Risk” label. Addressing the needs of 

children who require assistance involves a thoughtful approach, starting with how we 

conceptualize and label them. The label "at-risk" carries an inherently negative connotation that 

can inadvertently hinder efforts to support these children effectively. It suggests a focus on risks 

and deficits rather than strengths and potential, which can impact both the approach of the 

caregivers and the self-perception of the children. To foster a positive environment for these 

children, it is essential to shift our mindset:

• Focus on Strengths and Potential: Rather than emphasizing what they lack or their 

risks, highlight their strengths, talents, and potential. This positive framing can encourage 

a growth mindset in the children and inspire more constructive support strategies.

• Use Empowering Language: Replace terms like "at-risk" with more empowering 

language that reflects their potential for growth and success. Terms like "children with 

potential" or "youth in need of support" can foster a more positive approach.

• Involve the Children in the Process: Engaging the children in discussions about their 

needs and aspirations can be empowering. It helps them feel valued and understood, 

which is crucial for building self-esteem and a positive self-image.
32

• Educate and Train Caregivers and Educators: Those who work with these children 

should be trained to approach them with a mindset that focuses on empowerment, 

respect, and positivity. This includes understanding the impact of language and attitudes 

on children's self-perception.

• Create Supportive and Inclusive Environments: Ensure that the environments in 

which these children learn and grow are inclusive, supportive, and tailored to their unique 

needs and strengths.

• Collaborate with Communities and Families: Working closely with families and 

communities helps in understanding the unique challenges and strengths of each child. It 

also fosters a support network that extends beyond formal care or educational settings.

By rethinking how we label and think about children who need help, we can create a more 

positive and effective framework for supporting their growth and development. This approach 

not only aids in their immediate well-being but also sets a foundation for their future success and 

self-image.

Third, each agency should be estopped from relying on detention when their interventions, 

methods and treatments seem to fail. A prime example is the school to prison pipeline. Research 

has shown how overuse of juvenile detention (Waller, S.C., & Herting, J.R. (2020) The Impact of 

Pretrial Juvenile Detention on 12-Month Recidivism: A Matched Companion Study. Crime & 

Delinquency, 66 (13-14, 1865-1887) and Commitment (Aizer, A. and Doyle, J.J., “Juvenile 

Incarceration, Human Capital and Future Crime: Evidence From Randomly-Assigned Judges,” 

National Bureau of Economic Research, June 2023) alike can increase crime. Youth 

incarceration is costly, ineffective and harmful to adolescents while not improving public safety. 

Recidivism rates are higher, and detention exposes youth to negative influences and fails to 

address the underlying issues that led to their delinquent behavior. Detention facilities often lack 

properly trained staff and effective rehabilitation programs with more emphasis on punishment 

rather than rehabilitation failing to address educational needs, mental health or substance use 

issues or social skills development. Detention can disrupt the adolescent development process 

thereby leading to negative outcomes like educational disruption, social isolation and exposure to 

additional trauma. Additionally, black and brown youth are more likely to be arrested, charged, 

and detained than their white counterparts despite little difference in severity of offense and are 

more likely to face harsher treatment at every state of the process, from arrest to sentencing. The 

collateral consequences of involvement in the juvenile system extend beyond detention and 

affect future prospects of black and brown children and youth including higher dropout rates, 

dismissed employment opportunities and increased likelihood of future encounters with the 

criminal justice system. Because of these disproportionate impacts, there is support for 

alternatives to detention like community-based programs that focus on rehabilitation, education 

and community service which have shown promise in reducing recidivism and supporting 

positive youth development. Also important are restorative justice programs, mental health and 

substance use treatment and family engagement. The goal of the system should be to support the 

healthy development of all youth, regardless of race, while ensuring public safety and 

accountability.

Finally, agencies must create opportunities for meaningful involvement and participation in the 

reform efforts of those with lived experience in service delivery, policy development and 
33

leadership. Persons with lived experience are agents of change who contribute their unique 

expertise and in-depth knowledge of navigating systems — they are experts by experience. 

Engagement with persons with lived experience is critical to identify the flaws in the system.

Perhaps the solution is creating a grant program which provide financial incentives to 

communities which successfully keep children and youth out of detention, with their families in 

local communities that have resources to address the root causes of delinquency. The program 

would be similar to incentives that were provided to states when youth in the child welfare 

system were adopted.

In conclusion, Council member agencies might enhance coordinated services to prevent youth

from entering the juvenile justice system by collaborating to ensure a true “no wrong door”

policy — no matter where (what agency) children, youth and families enter they will receive

services appropriate for their needs without the need to be shuffled from one agency to another

and those services will be provided the very first time the family seeks services and supports. 

Each agency will be mindful of the messages they are “sending to a time they will not see.”
34

Kari Rumbaugh

Deputy Administrator, Juvenile Probation Services Division 

Nebraska Administrative Office of the Courts and Probation

Testimony for the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Good afternoon members of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention. My name is Kari Rumbaugh, and I am an employee with the Nebraska Administrative

Office of the Courts and Probation, serving as the Deputy Administrator overseeing the Juvenile

Probation Services Division. I am honored to receive this distinguished invitation to speak to you

as an expert panelist as Nebraska Probation hasstrived over the last ten years to implement juvenile

justice reform resulting in significant accomplishments. I come before you today with over twenty

years of probation experience and a drive to positively impact youth and families in the justice

system.

In 2013, Nebraska launched juvenile justice reform with the passing of significant legislation

which focused on two essential elements, reducing the number of youths in out-of-home placement

and reducing the number of youth made wards of the state for the sole purpose of receiving funding

for services. This essential responsibility was placed with the Administrative Office of the Courts

and Probation, specifically Juvenile Probation due to marked leadership and an extremely

successful pilot. Additionally, similar to other states, in 2006 Nebraska Probation had previously

prioritized implementation of Evidence-based Practices, with a core focus on research and a belief

that the principles directly impact recidivism reduction. 

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to share with you our successes and lessons learned as we

continue to implement juvenile justice reform in Nebraska and am hopeful that these experiences

will assist the Council members in enhancing coordination ultimately impacting the lives of youth

and families in the justice system. 

How can Council member agencies enhance coordination to prevent youth from entering the 

justice system?

Nebraska juvenile justice reform prioritized both prevention and diverting of low-risk youth from 

the juvenile justice system. This was done by creating a statutory process and funding for local 

communities to target their own specific needs. The process included the creation of community 

plans and submission of state grants that allow local communities to receive funding for services 

and programs specifically focused on prevention of juvenile justice involvement. Additionally, 

the statute required services and programs to focus on Evidence-based Practices and support from 

a local university to assist in fidelity, data gathering and reporting of progress within the 

communities. Juvenile Probation has been a consistent partner in these efforts through reviewing 

local grants, participating on statewide committees, and engaging in local community planning.

Through these efforts we have learned that it is essential to empower local communities to identify 

services and programs to meet their individual needs. Additionally, there has been state level 

support providing education and technical assistance, which has proven to be an essential element 

to success. This has included on-site support, as well as statewide focused conferences. 
35

Additionally, as Nebraska is a rural state with ninety-three counties assisting them with identifying 

needs and clarifying best-practices has been an ongoing priority. 

We have learned that the coordinated focus of this prevention work in Nebraska has moved local 

communities toward building services and programs that are available to youth and families to 

prevent system involvement. By providing resources which support this approach communities 

continue to be strengthened, and reporting has started to create a picture of prevention 

accomplishments. 

How can Council member agencies coordinate to increase access/remove barriers to 

opportunities and services that support the success of justice-involved youth in their 

communities?

As juvenile justice reform continues in Nebraska, we believe that focusing effective programs and 

services on youth and families impacts long-term behavior change and risk reduction. As juvenile 

justice professionals we share the goal that by prioritizing Evidence-based Practices and youth 

specific research we will be able to improve opportunities and remove barriers. During this time, 

we have recognized success, although have also learned many essential lessons which we continue 

to build on to improve implementation, coordination among professionals and ensure we keep our 

focus on those we serve. I appreciate the opportunity to share our experiences with you and believe 

they truly enhance our work with youth and families and strengthening communities. 

Validated Assessment Instruments and Targeted Recommendations: During our initial 

implementation of Evidence-based Practices in 2006, like other jurisdictions, we implemented 

validated risk/need/responsivity assessment instruments. Following the launch of reform, we 

found it was essential to create a tool that would assist probation officers in making 

recommendations to the court that were focused on the assessment instrument findings, 

individualized probation supports/services and detailed exhausted efforts. Therefore, in 2017 the 

Juvenile Probation Services Division created the “Service Recommendation Matrix” which was 

modeled after a similar tool from another jurisdiction. Upon initial implementation, feedback 

regarding confidence in the recommendations of the matrix was brought forward by multiple 

stakeholders due to scoring fidelity questions regarding the current assessment instrument which 

was embedded into the matrix. 

Additionally, during that time probation was also contracted with a local university to study the 

validity of the risk/need/responsivity assessment instrument specifically focusing on Nebraska 

youth. The study was completed in 2017 and the results supported the validity of the tool. As a 

result of the findings and current feedback regarding the matrix, juvenile probation leadership 

traveled with the researcher across the state and presented the findings to judiciary and multiple 

stakeholders. During these sessions many verbalized an increased confidence in both the 

assessment instrument and matrix. Currently, the matrix has been identified as a strength specific 

to Nebraska in probation reviews and next steps will include studying the matrix to ensure fidelity. 

Overall, Nebraska has recognized a benefit in the creation of the matrix and the coordination with 

stakeholders to provide information to build confidence as we move into our next step of studying 

the instrument. 
36

Skill Trained Staff: Probation officers are core to impacting youth and families as they are an 

essential support, intervention, and service. Ensuring highly skilled and trained probation officers 

continues as a key focus for Nebraska, as well as many jurisdictions, as it directly impacts 

relationships, youth skill-building and risk reduction. Probation staff have an extremely difficult 

job and equipping them for success is essential. For those working with youth and families, 

specific curriculum targeted on adolescent development, brain development and family skill 

building is essential. Nebraska Probation has prioritized training as an essential tool for building 

officer skills and currently provides a comprehensive eight-week curriculum for new staff, as well 

as advanced curriculum. Nebraska probation has found significant success in training on validated 

assessment instruments, three levels of Motivational Interviewing, Cognitive Restructuring Group 

training specific for high-risk juveniles, Behavioral Health, and Advanced Coach for Excellence 

(AC4) with four core advanced training priorities. Nebraska continues to build our training 

curriculum and our focus for specific juvenile justice related topics. 

Sustainable Community-based Services: As a key factor impacting juvenile justice reform in 

Nebraska and our focus of reducing the number of youths in out-of-home placement, the Homebased Initiative launched in 2017. This allowed for the implementation of Evidence-based inhome services across the state. The Home-based Initiative would not have been possible without 

significant coordination including partnerships and funding opportunities. Evidence-based 

programs can be costly to implement including licensure fees, specialized training, travel 

expectations, national coaching, and regular data entry. Currently, Nebraska has access to 

Evidence-based in-home services in 80% of our 93 counties, those without access have extremely 

low population rates. To ensure the success of these services Nebraska dedicated an administrative 

position specifically for the Home-based Initiative. Additionally, with funding to support 

sustainability, payment for licensure, training and expert assistance has been funded by local grants 

since 2017. The program has also undergone evaluations with initial results showing an increase 

in home-based services utilized for youth in the Nebraska juvenile justice system and a decrease 

in out-of-home services. As juvenile justice professionals we believe that removing youth from 

their homes could significantly impact long-term outcomes, I believe that in Nebraska the Homebased Initiative has removed barriers and enhanced community-based options for youth and 

families. 

Individualized Incentives: Nebraska juvenile probation received grant funds to start a tangible 

incentives program in 2019. This program provided incentives for all juvenile probation officers 

to utilize when reinforcing positive behaviors of youth on probation. Not only has the 

implementation of tangible incentives allowed statewide juvenile probation to get closer to our 

goal of 4 incentives to 1 sanction, it has also provided probation officers a key resource for 

motivation and skill development. Additionally, in 2022 a special exceptions program was 

initiated resulting from probation officer feedback and supporting research which allows for a 

probation officer to work with a youth and identify an individualized tangible incentive, at times 

a higher cost than a traditional incentive. As a result of the impact of tangible incentives, Nebraska 

recognized a 36% increase in the number of tangible incentives utilized from FY 2021 to FY 2022. 

Reentry Unit: Nebraska juvenile probation is responsible for reentry of youth from our highestlevel facility in the state. Due to this essential role, in 2020 within the administrative office a field 

unit including a supervisor and specialized probation officers was created. The focus for this unit 
37

is to support youth while they are at the facility, ensure comprehensive plans are in place prior to 

reentry and support the youth for a period after reentry. Additionally, the unit staff are leaders 

within the state and work to ensure exhausted efforts are made before a youth is recommended for 

this level of placement. They work diligently with the facilities, as well as with local probation 

officers, but most importantly youth. We believe that the structure of this team is essential to the 

reentry process, specifically for youth, families, and probation officers in Nebraska. Every youth 

has a comprehensive plan before they reenter into their communities and services and supports 

begin immediately. This dedicated team structure for the highest risk youth in Nebraska is essential 

for a successful transition home. The development of the team is still new within Nebraska, but 

having a team focused on reentry has proven an invaluable resource for high-risk youth and an 

essential practice.

Standardized Data and Reporting: Nebraska probation has published a juvenile justice specific 

annual data report since 2016. The report is provided to juvenile justice stakeholders to ensure 

essential data elements are reported regularly. In the FY22 report the Fundamental Measures for 

Juvenile Justice developed by the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) started to be 

incorporated. These juvenile specific data measures are a great resource, and more will be added 

into the report in the future. Additionally, the Nebraska Supreme Court created a standard 

definition for recidivism which was evaluated by a local researcher from 2010 to 2015 and then 

incorporated in the annual report. Nebraska has found a great benefit in regular data reporting as 

a priority to communicate progress regarding reform efforts. 

Artwork Contest/Positive Representation of Juvenile Justice Youth: In an effort to promote 

positive youth development Nebraska Juvenile Probation Services Division created an artwork 

contest in 2016 for youth on probation. The artwork is submitted in multiple formats including 

drawing, painting, sculpture, or writing. The youth are asked to focus their artwork on their own 

personal journey in the juvenile justice system. Each year the artwork contest promotes the 

winners by providing them with a tangible incentive. The artwork and winners are included in the 

annual report, as well as additional resources, plus presented at local conferences. This is one way 

that Nebraska has found to represent youth in the juvenile justice system for their strengths. It 

helps them share their progress and illustrates how they have overcome challenges. 

Expert Technical Assistance: Nebraska has had the opportunity to receive technical assistance in 

the form of training/coaching, evaluations, and implementation assistance from local and national 

experts throughout the reform efforts. This support has informed our work and assisted in the 

identification of successes, next steps, and priorities. Through this support we have enhanced our 

practices in local probation districts, as well as statewide. We have learned how important 

coordination of our efforts is and how to engage others to make sure they are ready for change, 

slow down to get it right and creating a way to ensure we include all perspectives. In 2017, one 

of the Nebraska probation districts received a county specific review, after receiving multiple 

recommendations they were not sure where to start, but with targeted implementation support from 

multiple national experts they have now made significant progress. This includes a new early 

release practice resulting in significant reduction in recidivism. Due to the significant progress 

within this county the same approach of implementation was launched with a probation review 

and technical assistance for the entire state. The initiative has been titled the Juvenile Justice 
38

System Enhancement ~ Nebraska. This review is in the initial stages of implementation and will 

be the focus for the juvenile justice system work over the next several years. 

In summary, based on my extensive experience and because of lessons learned I would encourage 

the Council members to consider the following:

• Support local communities in identifying their own individual needs, as well as provide 

them training and technical assistance to create services and programs that can prevent 

youth from entering the juvenile justice system.

• Cultivate highly skilled probation officers who receive specialized training, especially 

youth and family focused.

• Prioritize Evidence-based and best practice resources such as a Service Recommendation 

Matrix, Home-based services, tangible incentives, or a Reentry Unit to enhance supervision 

and service access. 

• Create opportunities for positive youth development by promoting a youth’s individual 

strengths. 

• Promote local and national evaluations and technical assistance focused on best practices, 

as well as implementation.

• Provide clear measures for how to represent data and reporting which demonstrates 

evidence of fidelity. 

Thank you for your time and prioritizing juvenile justice as an essential focus area. I am truly 

honored to represent the collective work of Nebraska at today’s meeting.