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

**Quarterly Meeting**

**February 10, 2012**

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

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

**Abstract**

At the February 10, 2012, quarterly meeting of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Council), Council members heard a panel presentation on the Pathways to Desistance Study, a longitudinal study of serious adolescent offenders. Edward Mulvey, Professor of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh Medical School, and Carol Schubert, Research Program Administrator, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, presented key findings from the study and discussed policy implications. Randy Muck, Senior Clinical Consultant, and Terry Zobeck, Associate Director for Research/Data Analysis, Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), commented on the findings and discussed their implications for policies and practices at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and ONDCP.

In addition, Council members heard a panel presentation on the innovative partnership between the U.S. Department of Housing (HUD) and GreatSchools to provide HUD-assisted families greater access to information on local schools. Panelists included Luke Tate, Senior Policy Advisor to the Secretary, HUD; Maria-Lana Queen, Office of Public and Indian Housing, HUD; Natanya Levioff, GreatSchools; and Iris McLaurin-Southall, District of Columbia Housing Authority.

In addition, Council members heard updates on several agency initiatives. 

No action items emanated from the meeting: 

**Meeting Summary**

**Welcome and Opening Remarks**

***Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General and Coordinating Council Chair***

Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., convened the quarterly meeting of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Council), welcomed attendees, and thanked them for the important work they do on behalf of the nation’s youth. He announced a recent change in leadership at the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Jeff Slowikowski has stepped down from his position as Acting Administrator and now serves as OJJDP’s Acting Deputy Administrator for Policy. Melodee Hanes, who previously served as Counselor to the Acting Administrator and Acting Deputy Administrator for Policy, is the new Acting Administrator. Attorney General Holder highlighted important OJJDP initiatives launched during Slowikowski’s tenure including initiatives to address school discipline, children’s exposure to violence, mentoring, and tribal youth, and he thanked Mr. Slowikowski for his three years of extraordinary leadership. 

Ms. Hanes said she looks forward to working with the Council. She remarked that OJJDP’s number-one goal is to ensure children’s justice and safety and said the Council plays an important role in ensuring that this goal remains a national priority. She said that it is imperative for OJJDP to find new, creative ways to do its work in these times of tightening budgets, and remarked that the office has entered a number of exciting new partnerships with other federal agencies and with organizations in the private sector. She announced that Geroma Void is filling in for Robin Delany-Shabazz (OJJDP’s Director of Concentration of Federal Efforts), who is on medical leave.

Attorney General Holder introduced Ajay Chaudry, Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), HHS’s new designee to the Council.

**The Pathways to Desistance Study: Implications for Intervention and Policy**

***Edward Mulvey, Professor of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh Medical School; Carol Schubert, Research Program Administrator, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center***

Edward Mulvey reported that the Pathways to Desistance Study is a large, collaborative, multidisciplinary project funded by a number of federal agencies and private foundations including OJJDP and the National Institute of Justice. The study’s goals are to learn more about serious adolescent offenders, identify factors that lead youth who have committed serious offenses to continue or desist from offending, and propose ways to improve practice and policy in juvenile justice. The longitudinal study followed 1,354 serious adolescent offenders in two metropolitan areas (Phoenix, AZ, and Philadelphia, PA) for seven years after their conviction. The study involved extensive interviews with these young offenders at enrollment, periodic followup interviews, interviews following release from residential facilities, collateral interviews with family members and peers, and review of official records. Youth in the study were ethnically diverse and included females and adult transfer cases.

Dr. Mulvey summarized key findings from the study:

· Most youth who commit felonies greatly reduce their offending over time, regardless of the intervention.

· Substance use is a major factor in continued criminal activity by serious adolescent offenders, yet only 14 percent of these youth received community-based substance abuse treatment. 

· Substance abuse treatment (with sufficient duration/intensity and family involvement) reduces both substance use and criminal offending, at least in the short term.

· Overall, there is no effect of institutional placement on rate of rearrest, and longer stays in juvenile institutions do not reduce recidivism.

· Policies about placement or program eligibility based on criteria related to the presenting offense are a poor predictor of future recidivism or positive development.

· Community-based supervision as a component of aftercare is effective for youth who have committed serious offenses.

Carol Schubert presented findings about needs and services for institutionalized serious adolescent offenders: 

· *Mental health services:* Youth diagnosed with a mood/anxiety disorder who were held in juvenile detention centers or state-run youth development centers were three to four times more likely than their counterparts in the same settings without a mood/anxiety disorder to receive mental health treatment; however, youth diagnosed with a mood/anxiety problem who were held in jails/prisons or contracted residential settings were no more likely than their counterparts without a diagnosed disorder to receive mental health services. 

· *Substance abuse services:* Youth diagnosed with a substance abuse problem who were in juvenile detention settings, jails/prisons, or state-run youth development centers were two to five times more likely than their counterparts without a diagnosed substance abuse problem to receive substance abuse treatment; however, youth diagnosed with a substance abuse disorder who were placed in contracted residential settings were no more likely than their counterparts without a diagnosis to receive treatment.

· *Institutional environments:*Individualized services and reentry planning provided by the institution significantly reduce the chances of later systems involvement. In addition, an institutional experience that includes low harshness, fewer antisocial peers, and high institutional order decreases the probability of later self-reported antisocial activity. 

Based on these findings, Dr. Mulvey and Ms. Schubert made the following policy recommendations:

1. To increase the impact of investments in justice interventions, promote decision frameworks or statutes that (a) consider cumulative risk and addressable needs, and (b) target services to the highest-risk offenders.

2. Increase the provision of substance abuse services to serious adolescent offenders in institutions and in the community, making sure they are of adequate intensity and involve family members.

3. Reduce the rate of placement of serious adolescent offenders in institutions and the duration of these placements. Increase the level of community-based services to these adolescents.

4. Promote procedures, policies, and assessment tools that review whether adolescent offenders in institutional care are receiving services matched to their needs,**and promote periodic assessments of institutional environments from the perspective of the adolescent in care.

**Pathways to Desistance: Commentary and Discussion**

***Randy Muck, Senior Clinical Consultant; Terry Zobeck, Associate Director for Research/Data Analysis, Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)***

Randy Muck, who recently retired from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), observed that the findings about serious adolescent offenders parallel what is known about adolescents in treatment settings. For example, appropriate assessment (i.e., valid, reliable, and specifically for youth) and placement are critical, community involvement prior to release improves outcomes, most youth need supportive services (e.g., mental health, child welfare, or substance abuse services) when they transition back to the community, and gaps exist in connecting transitioning youth to the services they need. He observed that the National Reentry Resource Center (nationalreentryresourcecenter.org) has excellent tools and resources for communities and organizations working with individuals transitioning back to the community. 

Mr. Muck commented that the Pathways findings have some implications for SAMHSA. For example, even though research shows that targeting high-risk offenders is the most cost-effective use of limited resources, many juvenile drug courts and community interventions target lower-risk offenders. SAMHSA could consider making it a policy to target high-risk offenders when awarding grants. 

Terry Zobeck observed that the Pathways to Desistance Study is an important longitudinal study with rich data that will help inform ONDCP’s work. The population of serious adolescent offenders is central to ONDCP’s National Drug Control Strategy. There is a very strong relationship between crime and substance abuse, and the Pathways Study finds that substance abuse magnifies the likelihood of crime. Among the study’s important findings are that offenders who receive treatment are less likely to reoffend; too many juvenile offenders are not receiving appropriate treatment, particularly in the community setting; family and community involvement is essential for good outcomes; and institutionalization in and of itself does not improve outcomes. He said that ONDCP is aware of the need to provide more substance abuse treatment services for juveniles, in both institutional and community settings.

**Questions and Discussion**

Steven Jones (practitioner member) said that as a judge in Tennessee he helped developed Project Reach, a community-based program for juveniles. When state legislators changed the age of majority from 21 to 18, this undermined efforts to treat juveniles before they went into the adult system. Dr. Mulvey said that Arizona’s cutoff is age 18, and in Pennsylvania juvenile courts can retain jurisdiction until an individual turns 21. He said that policies to transition youth to adult court at younger ages are problematic, because services drop off dramatically, and these young people are still changing. Mr. Muck added that many states have collapsed adult and juvenile probation, so young people leaving a facility no longer receive intensive supervision when they transition back to the community.

Attorney General Holder asked Dr. Mulvey what kinds of reentry services are effective. Dr. Mulvey responded that even the most basic services can be effective, such as efforts to link youth with the services they will need before they return to their community. 

Pamela Rodriguez (practitioner member) asked the panelists if any of their findings were surprising. Dr. Mulvey responded that he was surprised by the dramatic variability among the youth. Ms. Schubert said that she was struck by the frequent moves and changes these youth have experienced.

Larke Huang (SAMHSA) observed that OJJDP and SAMHSA need to work together to address some of the policy recommendations, particularly the need to provide community-based services. She suggested that they think about how to take advantage of the Affordable Care Act to provide community-based substance abuse and mental health treatment to juvenile offenders. 

Ms. Huang asked the panelists if they had data about the history of trauma in the lives of these serious juvenile offenders. Dr. Mulvey said they found high levels of trauma/victimization, particularly among female offenders. He said that they did not find trauma to be a factor in predicting desistance. Ms. Schubert added that the study team has received new data from the Pennsylvania and Arizona child welfare agencies, which is being coded and analyzed. 

Attorney General Holder thanked the panelists for their presentation. He remarked that these important findings will influence policy decisions

**Coordinating Housing Assistance with Educational Opportunities: The HUD-GreatSchools Partnership**

***Luke Tate, Senior Policy Advisor to the Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); Maria-Lana Queen, Office of Public and Indian Housing, HUD; Natanya Levioff, GreatSchools; Iris McLaurin-Southall, District of Columbia Housing Authority***

Luke Tate provided background information on HUD’s commitment to improving educational outcomes for children living in high-poverty neighborhoods. Recent studies have found that only 1 in 10 students from low-income communities graduate from college, children living in low-income communities are far more likely to fall behind grade level and perform poorly on standardized tests, and lack of information is a key reason HUD-assisted families do not send their children to higher-performing schools. HUD has recently launched or partnered in several major initiatives to improve educational outcomes including HUD’s Choice Neighborhoods Program, the White House Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative, HUD’s Capital Fund Education and Training Community Facilities Program, and the HUD-GreatSchools partnership. 

Maria-Lana Queen reported on HUD’s innovative new partnership with GreatSchools, a national nonprofit educational resource for parents. The goal of the partnership, which has been launched at no cost to the federal government, is to provide HUD-assisted families greater access to local school information to (1) enable parents to make informed educational choices for their children, (2) empower parents to become involved in their children’s education, and (3) increase the number of HUD-assisted households with school-age children who have access to high-quality schools. This nationwide effort targets families living in public housing units managed by the nation’s 3,200 public housing authorities (PHAs) as well as households with school-aged children who receive HUD Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) rental assistance. Using tools developed by GreatSchools including the GreatSchools website (www.GreatSchools.org), HUD is working closely with PHAs to develop a local information-sharing process for residents with school-aged children. PHAs will provide printouts of school listings found on the GreatSchools website and other customized resources to HCV households and reach out to families through a variety of other doors. HUD will track the outcomes of this partnership.

Natanya Levioff provided an overview of GreatSchools, a national nonprofit organization based in San Francisco, whose mission is to help parents become more effective champions of education in their homes and communities. GreatSchools provides user-friendly tools to help parents, including: 

· Online profiles of more than 200,000 traditional public, public charter, and private/independent schools across the nation to help parents find the best school for their child.

· An online parent-education program that helps parents build skills to help in their child’s education success. 

· On-the-ground programs in three communities—Washington, DC; Milwaukee, WI, and Indianapolis, IN—to help low-income, low-literacy parents make good school choices. 

Ms. Levioff demonstrated the GreatSchools website, focusing on communities in Washington, DC. The site allows parents to search for schools in their area, review school profiles and ratings, and compare one school against other schools in the area.

Iris McLaurin-Southall provided an overview of the partnership between the District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA) and GreatSchools. In October 2010, GreatSchools invited DCHA parents to a screening and roundtable discussion of *Waiting for Superman.*This discussion about the role and impact of parental engagement in their children’s education led to DCHA’s 2011 summer workshop Ayodelle, which focused on improving achievement of children in public housing. DCHA is now piloting a project with Great Schools called “Define, Commit, Succeed.” GreatSchools is sponsoring workshops to help parents realize they have a choice in the selection of their child’s school, distributing written resources about District of Columbia schools, and providing individualized counseling to parents to help them select appropriate schools for their child and support their child’s education. In addition, Capitol Hill Day School, a highly-rated private school, is offering three scholarships. GreatSchools has publicized the availability of these scholarships to DHCA-assisted families, counseled parents to help them decide if the school is appropriate for their child, helped parents complete enrollment and financial aid applications, and worked with parents to identify suitable alternative schools if their child does not receive a scholarship. DHCA is also reaching out to HCV families to distribute GreatSchools information and to ensure that parents know they have a choice in their child’s school.

Mr. Tate concluded by saying that HUD is very excited about this partnership and optimistic about its prospects for success. 

**Questions and Discussion**

Richard Morris (U.S. Department of Labor [DOL]) asked if there are enough high-performing schools in communities that accept housing vouchers, observing that Section-8 housing is often clustered in low-income communities. Mr. Tate responded that many school districts have adopted school-choice policies that allow access and provide transportation to schools in other communities. In addition, HUD and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) are working to enforce Fair Housing legislation to expand housing options for low-income families. Ms. Queen added that one of the goals of the HUD-GreatSchools partnership is to empower parents to become involved in their child’s education and to ensure that their child has a better educational experience, even if the child is in a low-performing school.

Robert Gordon (U.S. Department of Defense) asked how GreatSchools and HUD plan to measure success. Ms. Levioff responded that GreatSchools does not yet have a mechanism to measure students’ academic performance (due to privacy considerations). GreatSchools collects information through parent surveys, and 92 percent of respondents report the GreatSchools website influenced their decision about where their child should attend school. Mr. Tate added that HUD’s goal is for as many PHAs as possible to adopt the GreatSchools approach, and as many HUD-assisted families as possible to access high-quality schools.

Laurie Garduque (practitioner member) observed that youth in the juvenile justice system face challenges getting into public housing and also reenrolling in their community school upon reentry. Mr. Tate responded that HUD has been working with the reentry issue. Recently HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan sent letters to all PHAs reminding them that the *only* statutory barriers to reentering offenders are criminal records related to sexual offense or methamphetamine production. 

Larke Huang (SAMHSA) asked if schools are part of the HUD-GreatSchools partnership. Mr. Tate responded that, although HUD cannot mandate local partnerships, it is actively working to facilitate them by (1) identifying barriers at the federal level that prevent local partnerships and (2) documenting/publicizing successful partnerships throughout the country. Ms. Levioff responded that in the three cities where GreatSchools has its on-the-ground programs, local schools are an important part of the partnership.

**Agency Announcements and Updates**

**DOJ**

Attorney General Holder reported on the Supportive School Discipline Initiative, a partnership between DOJ and the U.S. Department of Education to address the “school-to-prison pipeline” and the disciplinary policies and practices that can push students out of school and into the justice system. He announced that a series of consensus-building sessions are being held across the country. On February 24, the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) will host a Listening Session with stakeholders including practitioners from the educational and justice systems, families, and advocates to identify resources to help build skills and fill knowledge gaps. On March 11–13, the National Leadership Summit on School-Justice Partnerships will be held in New York City to promote practices and policies that can help children succeed in school and reduce their involvement in the justice system. 

**HHS**

Martha Moorehouse referred meeting participants to their meeting packets for information about the *Preventing Child Maltreatment and Promoting Well-Being: Network for Action 2012 Resource Guide.*

**DOL**

Richard Morris announced several upcoming funding opportunities from DOL’s Employment and Training Administration:

· Serving Juvenile Ex-Offenders through Training and Service-Learning.

· Serving Juvenile Ex-Offenders in High-Poverty, High-Crime Areas.

· Reintegration of Ex-Offenders Adult Generation 5.

· Serving Adult and Youth Ex-Offenders through Strategies Targeted to Characteristics Common to Female Ex-Offenders.

**Summary of Next Steps, Closing Remarks**

***Eric H. Holder, Jr.***

Attorney General Holder thanked the panelists for their thought-provoking presentations and thanked Council members for their commitment to the nation’s children. He announced that the next quarterly meeting of the Council will be Friday, May 11, at 10 a.m. at OJP. He adjourned the meeting at 12:30 p.m.

PAGE  

8