The anti-legal action language is new and unprecedented in federal law. This is even more restrictive than the results of the Legal Services Corporation debate in 1996. The two restrictions would apply to funds under Title II of the 1974 JJDP Act, including a wide variety of juvenile crime control and prevention programs, such as curfews, youth organizations, antidrug programs, antigang programs, and after school activities. Because much of the funding first goes to grants to states, then is redistributed by state government, many community-level organizations do not even know that they are receiving funds under this bill. Violation of either of the two provisions could result in immediate discontinuance of federal funds and reimbursement to the government for unallowed expenses.
Local communities support the program and find it to be effective.
It is a way for a community to say, 'You are accountable for your actions. Your parents can't buy you out of it. However, this effective program could be threatened by the restrictions on lobbying at the local level contained in the S. 254 provision. Teen court programs are currently operated by juvenile courts, juvenile probation departments, law enforcement agencies, private nonprofit organizations, and schools. Nonprofits operating teen court programs could be put in a very difficult position.