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 delin-
quent juveniles. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
OCTOBER 12, 2011 
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut (for himself and Mr. PLATTS) introduced the fol-
lowing 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 alter-
natives to incarcerating delinquent juveniles. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Promoting Alternatives 
to Truancy and Incarceration by Encouraging New and 
Comprehensive Efforts (PATIENCE) Act of 2011’’. 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:07 Oct 13, 2011
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3170.IH
H3170
smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
SEC. 2. PROMOTING ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION. 
Section 222 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5632) is amended by 
adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(e) INCENTIVE GRANTS.— 
‘‘(1) INCENTIVE GRANTS FUNDS.—The Admin-
istrator shall make grants totaling at least 5 percent 
of the funds appropriated for this part in each fiscal 
year as incentive grants to States. The Adminis-
trator shall make such incentive grants consistent 
with the provisions of subsection (a) and shall condi-
tion such grants upon— 
‘‘(A) the State’s support for evidence-based 
or promising programs, prioritizing programs 
that address the mental health treatment needs 
of juveniles; 
‘‘(B) the State’s support of reforms that 
reduce or eliminate the State-supported use of 
dangerous practices; 
‘‘(C) the State’s support for reforms that 
ensure that seclusion in secure detention or cor-
rectional facilities is limited to situations in 
which seclusion is the least restrictive measure 
sufficient to address a youth’s danger to self or 
others, used only for the amount of time nec-
essary and is terminated when there is no 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:07 Oct 13, 2011
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3170.IH
H3170
smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
longer an immediate danger to the youth or 
others, or imposed only after applicable due 
process; and 
‘‘(D) the demonstration by the State of an 
improvement of public safety and rehabilitation 
of delinquent and at-risk youths. 
‘‘(2) DEMONSTRATION REQUIRED.—The State 
shall make the demonstration required by paragraph 
(1)(D) by using accurate and reliable data reported 
annually showing both— 
‘‘(A) a reduction in either recidivism or of-
fenses by youths under age 18, using arrest 
data; and 
‘‘(B)(i) an increase in the use of least re-
strictive placement for juveniles as appropriate 
for community safety; 
‘‘(ii) an increase in the safety of youths in 
the delinquency or criminal justice system; or 
‘‘(iii) a decrease in racial and ethnic dis-
parities in the delinquency system. 
‘‘(3) EXPENDITURE OF GRANT.—Of the amount 
of a grant received under this subsection by a 
State— 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:07 Oct 13, 2011
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3170.IH
H3170
smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
‘‘(A) not less than 30 percent shall be used 
to fund implementation efforts described in sub-
paragraph (1)(A); and 
‘‘(B) not more than 20 percent shall be 
used to conduct research to evaluate reforms 
described in paragraph (1) that are evidenced- 
based programs. 
‘‘(4) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this sub-
section— 
‘‘(A) the term ‘evidence-based’ means with 
respect to a program that the program is dem-
onstrated with relevant evidence, normed and 
validated for a diverse population, to be ei-
ther— 
‘‘(i) exemplary, such that it is imple-
mented with a high degree of fidelity and 
demonstrates robust empirical findings 
using a conceptual framework and an ex-
perimental evaluation design of the highest 
quality (a random assignment control 
trial); or 
‘‘(ii) effective, such that it is imple-
mented with sufficient fidelity that it dem-
onstrates adequate empirical findings using 
a sound conceptual framework and a 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:07 Oct 13, 2011
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H3170.IH
H3170
smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
quasi-experimental evaluation design of 
high quality (comparison group and quasi- 
experimental group); and 
‘‘(B) the term ‘promising’ means with re-
spect to a program that the program dem-
onstrates effectiveness using reasonable, limited 
findings, and that has underway a more appro-
priate evaluation that meets the criteria for de-
termining evidence-based programs.’’. 
Æ 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:07 Oct 13, 2011
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\H3170.IH
H3170
smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS