I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3170 

To amend the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 

to provide incentive grants to promote alternatives to incarcerating delinquent juveniles. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 12, 2011 

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut (for himself and Mr. PLATTS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Act of 1974 to provide incentive grants to promote alternatives to incarcerating delinquent juveniles. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Promoting Alternatives 

5 to Truancy and Incarceration by Encouraging New and 

6 Comprehensive Efforts (PATIENCE) Act of 2011’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3170 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROMOTING ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION. 

2 Section 222 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

3 Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5632) is amended by 

4 adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(e) INCENTIVE GRANTS.— 

6 ‘‘(1) INCENTIVE GRANTS FUNDS.—The Admin7 istrator shall make grants totaling at least 5 percent 

8 of the funds appropriated for this part in each fiscal 

9 year as incentive grants to States. The Adminis10 trator shall make such incentive grants consistent 

11 with the provisions of subsection (a) and shall condi12 tion such grants upon— 

13 ‘‘(A) the State’s support for evidence-based 

14 or promising programs, prioritizing programs 

15 that address the mental health treatment needs 

16 of juveniles; 

17 ‘‘(B) the State’s support of reforms that 

18 reduce or eliminate the State-supported use of 

19 dangerous practices; 

20 ‘‘(C) the State’s support for reforms that 

21 ensure that seclusion in secure detention or cor22 rectional facilities is limited to situations in 

23 which seclusion is the least restrictive measure 

24 sufficient to address a youth’s danger to self or 

25 others, used only for the amount of time nec26 essary and is terminated when there is no 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3170 IH

1 longer an immediate danger to the youth or 

2 others, or imposed only after applicable due 

3 process; and 

4 ‘‘(D) the demonstration by the State of an 

5 improvement of public safety and rehabilitation 

6 of delinquent and at-risk youths. 

7 ‘‘(2) DEMONSTRATION REQUIRED.—The State 

8 shall make the demonstration required by paragraph 

9 (1)(D) by using accurate and reliable data reported 

10 annually showing both— 

11 ‘‘(A) a reduction in either recidivism or of12 fenses by youths under age 18, using arrest 

13 data; and 

14 ‘‘(B)(i) an increase in the use of least re15 strictive placement for juveniles as appropriate 

16 for community safety; 

17 ‘‘(ii) an increase in the safety of youths in 

18 the delinquency or criminal justice system; or 

19 ‘‘(iii) a decrease in racial and ethnic dis20 parities in the delinquency system. 

21 ‘‘(3) EXPENDITURE OF GRANT.—Of the amount 

22 of a grant received under this subsection by a 

23 State— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 3170 IH

1 ‘‘(A) not less than 30 percent shall be used 

2 to fund implementation efforts described in sub3 paragraph (1)(A); and 

4 ‘‘(B) not more than 20 percent shall be 

5 used to conduct research to evaluate reforms 

6 described in paragraph (1) that are evidenced7 based programs. 

8 ‘‘(4) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this sub9 section— 

10 ‘‘(A) the term ‘evidence-based’ means with 

11 respect to a program that the program is dem12 onstrated with relevant evidence, normed and 

13 validated for a diverse population, to be ei14 ther— 

15 ‘‘(i) exemplary, such that it is imple16 mented with a high degree of fidelity and 

17 demonstrates robust empirical findings 

18 using a conceptual framework and an ex19 perimental evaluation design of the highest 

20 quality (a random assignment control 

21 trial); or 

22 ‘‘(ii) effective, such that it is imple23 mented with sufficient fidelity that it dem24 onstrates adequate empirical findings using 

25 a sound conceptual framework and a 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
5 

•HR 3170 IH

1 quasi-experimental evaluation design of 

2 high quality (comparison group and quasi3 experimental group); and 

4 ‘‘(B) the term ‘promising’ means with re5 spect to a program that the program dem6 onstrates effectiveness using reasonable, limited 

7 findings, and that has underway a more appro8 priate evaluation that meets the criteria for de9 termining evidence-based programs.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS