[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PROVIDING VULNERABLE YOUTH THE HOPE
OF A BRIGHTER FUTURE THROUGH JUVENILE
JUSTICE REFORM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 15, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-5
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web:
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
24-499 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Duncan Hunter, California Virginia
David P. Roe, Tennessee Ranking Member
Glenn ``GT'' Thompson, Pennsylvania Susan A. Davis, California
Tim Walberg, Michigan Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Todd Rokita, Indiana Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Jared Polis, Colorado
Luke Messer, Indiana Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Bradley Byrne, Alabama Northern Mariana Islands
David Brat, Virginia Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Mark Takano, California
Elise Stefanik, New York Alma S. Adams, North Carolina
Rick W. Allen, Georgia Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jason Lewis, Minnesota Donald Norcross, New Jersey
Francis Rooney, Florida Lisa Blunt Rochester, Delaware
Paul Mitchell, Michigan Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Tom Garrett, Jr., Virginia Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Lloyd K. Smucker, Pennsylvania Adriano Espaillat, New York
A. Drew Ferguson, IV, Georgia
Brandon Renz, Staff Director
Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, ELEMENTARY, AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
TODD ROKITA, Indiana, Chairman
Duncan Hunter, California Jared Polis, Colorado
David P. Roe, Tennessee Ranking Member
Glenn ``GT'' Thompson, Pennsylvania Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Luke Messer, Indiana Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
David Brat, Virginia Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
Tom Garrett, Jr., Virginia Susan A. Davis, California
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 15, 2017................................ 1
Statement of Members:
Polis, Hon. Jared, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education............. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Rokita, Hon. Todd, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education........................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Cubbon, Hon. Denise N., Administrative Judge, Lucas County
Juvenile Division.......................................... 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Flannelly, Mr. Patrick J., Chief of Police, Lafayette Police
Department................................................. 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Reed, Mr. Stephen M., Executive Director, Safe Place
Services, YMCA of Greater Louisville....................... 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 39
Williams, Ms. Meg, Manager, Office of Adult and Juvenile
Justice Assistance, Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado
Department of Public Safety................................ 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Additional Submissions:
Judge Cubbon, response to questions submitted for the record. 62
Mr. Polis, letter dated November 22, 2016 from The Secretary
of Education............................................... 7
Chairman Rokita:
Slide: Fast Facts on Juvenile Justice.................... 58
Questions submitted for the record....................... 61
PROVIDING VULNERABLE YOUTH THE HOPE
OF A BRIGHTER FUTURE THROUGH
JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM
----------
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
House of Representatives
Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and
Secondary Education
Washington, D.C.
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Todd Rokita
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Rokita, Roe, Messer, Brat,
Garrett, Polis, Fudge, and Bonamici.
Also Present: Representatives Foxx, and Scott.
Staff Present: Courtney Butcher, Director of Members
Services and Coalitions; Tyler Hernandez, Deputy Communications
Director; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education and Human
Resources Policy; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Dominique McKay,
Deputy Press Secretary; James Mullen, Director of Information
Technology; Brian Newell, Communications Director; Krisann
Pearce, General Counsel; James Redstone, Professional Staff
Member; Mandy Schaumburg, Education Deputy Director and Senior
Counsel; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Leslie Tatum,
Professional Staff Member; Sheariah Yousefi, Legislative
Assistant; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow
Coordinator; Jacque Chevalier, Minority Deputy Education Policy
Director; Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director; Mishawn
Freeman, Minority Staff Assistant; and Christian Haines,
Minority Education Policy Counsel.
Chairman Rokita. Thank you for reminding me that I am not
loud, you are the first one in a long time that has said that
to me.
A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education will come to
order. Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing.
Like much of the work we do as members of the Education and
the Workforce Committee, we are here to discuss an effort that
is all about opportunity and putting individuals on a path that
will actually help them earn success in life. In this case,
that effort is reforming the juvenile justice system.
Of course, juvenile justice reform is not just a concern
for those of us here today. It is something that has long been
a national priority.
Through their juvenile justice systems, State and local
leaders are working to promote communities that are safe.
Communities that help children learn and grow into productive
members of society. Communities that provide opportunities for
all of our children, regardless of their background or past
mistakes, to pursue their dreams and achieve their goals.
For decades, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act has coordinated Federal resources to help
improve those State juvenile justice systems.
The law primarily focuses on education and rehabilitation
to support efforts keeping at-risk youth out of the system, as
well as efforts providing juvenile offenders already in the
system the second chance they need to move forward with their
lives in more positive ways.
Today, more than 1 million young men and women across the
country are involved in the juvenile justice system. That
includes children as young as 10, all the way to the cusp of
adulthood, a wide swath.
One million. That is a noteworthy number on its own, but it
does not even include the countless others who are at risk of
becoming involved in the system because of circumstances such
as poverty, homelessness, or other difficulties at home.
That statistic provides an idea of the size and scope of
the system, but it is even more important to understand what
being a part of the juvenile justice system actually means for
each of those 2 million kids.
In many cases, it means being at a disadvantage, not fully
understanding what the potential of a future holds, and not
even realizing that opportunities exist to turn things around.
In fact, youth who have been incarcerated are 26 percent
less likely to graduate from high school than their peers, and
26 percent more likely to engage in other unlawful activity and
return to the system as adults.
We, as a society, have to help children avoid becoming one
of those statistics, and we can accomplish that by helping some
stay out of the system altogether and by helping others come
out of the system with the opportunities and the motivation
they need to chart a better course for themselves.
Given the social and economic challenges facing our
country, that is no small feat. However, through a
collaborative effort among parents, teachers, and local
community members, it can be done.
That is why we are here today, to discuss our role in that
collaborative effort and to begin considering what steps
Congress can take to help State and local leaders better serve
vulnerable youth.
Last year, we advanced a number of bipartisan reforms that
I am particularly proud of, to provide State and local leaders
the flexibility they need to meet the needs of youth in their
cities and towns, focus on proven strategies, and improve
accountability and oversight, both to help kids succeed and
protect taxpayers, which is also important.
Ultimately, these reforms would set kids up for long-term
success, helping them gain the skills they need to become
productive adults and promoting opportunities for them to
achieve success. I am certain those common-sense reforms will
help guide the work ahead as we renew our effort to improve the
juvenile justice system.
As a father, I want my children to have every opportunity
they need to succeed in life, and I work very hard to ensure
they do. I also work hard to ensure they understand it is their
responsibility to seize those opportunities. Unfortunately, not
all children are in the same position, and those are the kids
we are here to help today. I look forward to continuing our
work to provide them with the hope for a brighter future.
With that, I would like to recognize my friend, the ranking
member, Congressman Polis, for his opening statement.
[The statement of Mr. Rokita follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Rokita, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education
Good morning and welcome to today's hearing. Like much of the work
we do as members of the Education and the Workforce Committee, we're
here to discuss an effort that is all about opportunity and putting
individuals on a path that will help them earn success in life. In this
case, that effort is reforming the juvenile justice system.
Of course, juvenile justice reform isn't just a concern for those
of us here today. It's something that has long been a national
priority. Through their juvenile justice systems, state and local
leaders are working to promote communities that are safe. Communities
that help children learn and grow into productive members of society.
Communities that provide opportunities for all children--regardless of
their background or past mistakes--to pursue their dreams and achieve
their goals.
For decades, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
has coordinated federal resources to help improve those state juvenile
justice systems. The law primarily focuses on education and
rehabilitation to support efforts keeping at-risk youth out of the
system, as well as efforts providing juvenile offenders already in the
system the second chance they need to move forward with their lives in
positive ways.
Today, more than one million young men and women across the country
are involved in the juvenile justice system. That includes children as
young as ten all the way to those on the cusp of adulthood. That's a
noteworthy number on its own, but it doesn't even include the countless
others who are at risk of becoming involved in the system because of
circumstances such as poverty, homelessness, or difficulties at home.
That statistic provides an idea of the size and scope of the
juvenile justice system, but it's even more important to understand
what being a part of the juvenile justice system actually means for
each of those two million kids. In many cases, it means being at a
disadvantage, not fully understanding what potential the future holds,
and not realizing that opportunities exist to turn things around.
In fact, youth who have been incarcerated are 26 percent less
likely to graduate from high school than their peers and 26 percent
more likely to engage in other unlawful activity and return to jail as
adults.
We, as a society, have to help children avoid becoming one of those
statistics, and we can accomplish that by helping some stay out of the
system all together and by helping others come out of the system with
the opportunities and the motivation they need to chart a better course
for themselves. Given the social and economic challenges facing our
country, that's no small feat. However--through a collaborative effort
among parents, teachers, and local community members--it can be done.
That's why we are here today--to discuss our role in that
collaborative effort and to begin considering what steps Congress can
take to help state and local leaders better serve vulnerable youth in
their communities.
Last year, we advanced a number of bipartisan reforms to provide
state and local leaders the flexibility they need to meet the needs of
youth in their cities and towns, focus on proven strategies, and
improve accountability and oversight both to help kids succeed and
protect taxpayers. Ultimately, these reforms would set kids up for
long-term success, helping them gain the skills they need to become
productive adults and promoting opportunities for them to achieve
success throughout their lives. I'm certain those commonsense reforms
will help guide the work ahead as we renew our effort to improve the
juvenile justice system.
As a father, I want my children to have every opportunity they need
to succeed in life, and I work very hard to ensure they do. I also work
hard to ensure they understand it's their responsibility to seize those
opportunities. Unfortunately, not all children are in the same
position, and those are the kids we are here for today. I look forward
to continuing our work to provide them the hope of a brighter future.
With that, I will now recognize the ranking member, Congressman
Polis, for his opening remarks.
______
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Chairman Rokita, for organizing this
bipartisan hearing today. I want to thank our terrific
witnesses. I am especially honored to have Ms. Williams from
Colorado to talk about my home State's efforts to engage in
meaningful prevention and intervention services.
While Congress is often portrayed as hyperpartisan, where
many issues divide along party lines, juvenile justice is among
the many issues where both parties have traditionally been able
to work together and develop policies with broad stakeholder
support.
Just last Congress, our committee reported out a bill to
reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Act, or JJDPA, and that bill went on to pass the whole House
382 to 29. That was the first time in the last 15 years either
chamber of Congress got a bill to authorize the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act on the floor.
Unfortunately, it was not able to make it across the finish
line in the Senate. This session I hope we can come together
again, get a vehicle to authorize the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act out of the committee, out of the
House, out of the Senate, to the President's desk for
signature, to make a difference for children.
It has been over 100 years since we established a juvenile
court system in our country. The juvenile system was designed
based on the idea that children were not merely smaller
versions of adults, and our response to their misconduct should
be aimed at intervention and rehabilitation as opposed to a
more typical criminal justice response.
Over the 20th century, State juvenile justice systems
evolved separately and in different ways without significant
Federal oversight. In time, many actually came to resemble
adult systems with little focus on children or rehabilitation.
In response, Congress passed the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act in 1974. It created important
guardrails that protect children in the juvenile justice
system.
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act has
three main components. First, to establish core requirements
that States must adhere to regarding the treatment of children
in the juvenile justice system. It authorized formula and
competitive grants to help States run their juvenile justice
systems in line with the requirements and provide delinquency
prevention programs. Finally, it created a Federal office, the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, to
oversee juvenile justice programs.
Since its adoption in 1974, the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act has truly helped improve treatment
for juveniles in the justice system, and helped reduce
disparities in treatments across the States.
A reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act would create an opportunity to codify best
practices that have been engaged in by various States over the
last 15 years, including important elements of the bill, like
using evidence-based practices, unique needs of girls in the
juvenile justice system, implementation of trauma-informed
care, cost-effective alternatives to incarceration that don't
harm public safety, and efforts to end the school-to-prison
pipeline by allowing school discipline policies with the
juvenile justice system.
In my own State of Colorado, we have made progress by
reforming the procedures that prosecutors use to charge
juveniles in court, and just this year, we were able to
authorize retroactive elimination of juvenile life without
parole for many young offenders.
While I think there are some things to celebrate, there are
also serious issues we need to address in both the juvenile
justice system and discipline procedures used within our public
education system.
One of those is the continued use of corporal punishment,
seclusion, and restraints in both our education and juvenile
justice systems. There is no logical reason that in 2017
children can go to school in this country and still be subject
to physical punishments, but in 19 States, that is still the
case. Research shows us that corporal punishment is used
disproportionately against minority students and students with
disabilities.
Former Education Secretary John King, in November 2016,
sent a letter to State governors and chief school officers
calling for the elimination of corporal punishment, suggesting
that in some States the punishment could legally be classified
as assault or battery.
At this time, I would like to introduce the letter from
Secretary King into the record.
Chairman Rokita. Without objection.
Mr. Polis. Again, this Congress, my good friend, Alcee
Hastings of Florida, introduced bipartisan legislation to
outlaw corporal punishment in U.S. schools. Just like the core
protections of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Act, we need to enact a Federal protection for students in
schools and in juvenile facilities from physical abuse.
In closing, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
and determining how we can support our work here in Congress to
get to the point where we can reauthorize the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act and get it across the finish
line.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The statement Mr. Polis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jared Polis, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education
Thank you Chairman Rokita, for organizing this hearing this
morning, and I'd like to thank the witnesses for agreeing to testify
today. I'm especially honored to have Ms. Williams on the panel to
speak about the work being done in our home state of Colorado to
provide meaningful prevention and intervention services to Colorado's
juveniles.
While Congress is often seen as a hyper-partisan setting where many
issues are divided along party lines, juvenile justice is an issue
where both parties have traditionally worked together and developed
policies with broad support. Just last Congress, our Committee reported
out a bill to reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act or JJDPA, and that bill went on to pass the whole House
by a vote of 38229. That was the first time in the last 15 years that
either chamber of Congress got a bill to reauthorize JJDPA passed on
their floor. In the spirit with which we came together to accomplish
that last year, I hope that we can come together again this year and
get a vehicle to reauthorize JJDPA out of our committee, passed out of
both chambers, and onto the President's desk for signature.
It has been over 100 years since we established a juvenile court
system in America. The juvenile system was designed based on the idea
that children were not merely small adults, and our response to their
misconduct should be aimed at intervention and rehabilitation as
opposed to a criminal justice response. Over the 20th century, state
juvenile justice systems evolved separately and without federal
oversight. In time, many came to resemble adult systems, with little
focus on children and their rehabilitation.
In response, Congress passed the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and
Prevention Act in 1974. It creates the federal guardrails that protect
our children in the juvenile justice systems in each state. JJDPA has 3
main components. The act first established core requirements and other
mandates states must adhere to regarding the treatment of children in
the juvenile justice system. It authorized formula and competitive
grants to help states run their juvenile justice systems in line with
the federal requirements and provide delinquency prevention programs.
Finally, it created the Federal Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP) to oversee juvenile justice programs.
Since its adoption in 1974, JJDPA has improved treatment overall
for juveniles in the justice system and helped reduce disparities in
treatment across states. A reauthorization of JJDPA creates an
opportunity to codify best practices that have emerged in various
states over the past 15 years including, the use of evidence-based
practices, the unique needs of girls in the juvenile justice system,
the implementation of trauma-informed care, cost-effective alternatives
to incarceration that do not harm public safety, and efforts to end the
``School to Prison'' pipeline by aligning school discipline policies
and juvenile justice systems.
In my home state of Colorado we have made progress by reforming the
procedures prosecutors use to charge juveniles in adult court. And just
this year we were able to authorize retroactive elimination of juvenile
life without parole for many young offenders.
And while I think that there are many things to celebrate, there
are still some serious issues that we need to address in both the
juvenile justice system and discipline procedures in our education
system. One of those is the continued use of corporal punishment,
seclusion and restraints in both our educational and juvenile justice
systems.
There is no logical reason that in 2017, children can go to school
in this country and be subject to physical punishments. But in 19
states that is still the case. Research shows us that corporal
punishment is used disproportionately against minority students and
students with disabilities. Former Education Secretary John King, in a
November 2016 letter to state governors and chief school officers,
called for the elimination of the practice, suggesting that in some
states, the punishment could be legally classified as assault or
battery.
[Committee staff have a copy of the letter to introduce into the
record.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
And again this Congress, my good friend Alcee Hastings of Florida,
has introduced bipartisan legislation to outlaw the practice in US
schools. Just like the core protections of JJDPA, we need to enact a
federal floor of protection for students in schools and in juvenile
facilities.
So in closing, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and
determining how we can support their work here in Congress and get to
the point where children in every juvenile justice system have strong
protections and the resources they need to turn their life around.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
______
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Mr. Polis. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 7(c), all members will be permitted to submit
written statements to be included in the permanent hearing
record, and without objection, the hearing record will remain
open for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous
material referenced during the hearing to be submitted for the
record.
I will now turn to the introduction of our distinguished
witnesses, and I recognize Mr. Polis for the first
introduction.
Mr. Polis. Thank you. I am very honored to have Ms. Meg
Williams from Colorado. She serves as the manager of the Office
of Adult and Juvenile Justice Assistance within our Division of
Criminal Justice at the Colorado Department of Public Safety.
Ms. Williams is responsible for the management of Federal
and State programs that assist with and improve the criminal
and juvenile justice systems. Ms. Williams has over 25 years of
experience in social services, both in adult and juvenile
justice arenas, in both Ohio and Colorado, and we are thrilled
to welcome her to the committee today.
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Mr. Polis. Let me introduce a
dear friend of mine who is a good man from a community that I
am very fond of, and that is Chief Patrick J. Flannelly.
He serves as the chief of police of Lafayette, Indiana, and
is the at-large director for the Indiana Association of Chiefs
of Police. Previous to his role as chief of police, Chief
Flannelly served on the Gang Response Investigative Team with
the Lafayette Police Department.
We also have joining us today Judge Denise Navarre Cubbon,
who serves as the Lucas County administrative judge in Lucas
County, Ohio.
In addition to this position, Judge Cubbon also serves on a
number of committees and boards, including the National Council
of Juvenile and Family Court Judges' Board of Trustees, and the
Supreme Court of Ohio Advisory Committee on Children, Families,
and the Courts.
Previous to this, Judge Cubbon served as the Lucas County
assistant prosecuting attorney where she was assigned to the
Juvenile Division, Criminal Division, and Senior Protection
Unit.
Finally, Mr. Matt Reed serves as the executive director of
Safe Place Services for the YMCA in Louisville, Kentucky. In
this position, Mr. Reed oversees the only place in the region
where teens and their families can obtain immediate and free
shelter and counseling to support individual circumstances that
arise from being homeless, running away from home, and being in
danger, such as in situations dealing with abuse or neglect.
Welcome, Mr. Reed.
I will now ask our witnesses to raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Rokita. Let the record reflect that all witnesses
answered in the affirmative. Thank you.
Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me
briefly explain our lighting system. I do this for us up here
as much as for you. You each have 5 minutes to present your
testimony.
When you begin, the light in front of you will be green.
With 1 minute left, it will be yellow, and when it is red, you
will be expected to have your comments wrapped up or you will
have to wrap them up. At that point, members will each have 5
minutes to ask their questions.
With that, Ms. Williams, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MEG WILLIAMS, MANAGER, OFFICE OF ADULT AND
JUVENILE JUSTICE ASSISTANCE, DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
Ms. Williams. Thank you very much, Chairman Rokita and
Ranking Member Polis. I am very honored to be asked to be here
today, and I want to provide you information regarding juvenile
justice, and to describe partnerships in place with States in
addressing critical concerns.
Again, my name is Meg Williams. I am here on behalf of the
Department of Public Safety in Colorado where I serve as the
designated juvenile justice specialist, and just so that you
know, all of you within States have someone similar to me in my
position in your State. Get to know them if you want to learn
more about what your State is doing.
In Colorado, not unlike other States, we continue to
grapple with juvenile crime and the needs of the youth that
find themselves caught in the justice system. Research has
found that these juveniles come to us with profound needs due
to histories of abuse or neglect, trauma, and poverty, some of
the things you said this morning in your introduction. They
have educational disabilities and mental health and substance
abuse issues.
In Colorado, the population of youth that have penetrated
to the highest level of services, which is commitment, and that
is akin to adult prison, are predominately male, and an average
of almost 17 years old. They have an extensive history of prior
out-of-home placement, often due to prior social service
involvement, and they are assessed as needing treatment level
substance abuse and mental health services.
How does the Federal Government factor into our work at the
State? The leadership of the Federal Government through the
JJDPA--thank you so much for trying to once again pass it--
provides a roadmap for States to not only serve and protect
juveniles who come into contact with our justice system, but
also in preventing future victimization and upholding community
and public safety. All are equally important.
The act also established the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, and they serve as a partner to the
States. They provide leadership through research evaluation.
They set rules and regulations regarding the care and custody
of juveniles, and they provide training and technical
assistance, as well as necessary funding.
When States agree to participate in the act, we agree to
adhere to those four core requirements that you spoke about,
about the appropriate holding of juveniles, and also to address
disproportionate minority contact.
We are also required to establish a State advisory group,
which is comprised of government, nongovernment experts,
reflected by the needs of the kids who come into our justice
system, so that can include the courts, education, social
services, and mental health.
Also, we have a requirement of a minimum of one-fifth
youth. Let me tell you, our youth are amazing in guiding us at
the State level. We are also required to develop a plan every 3
years, and through that, we develop it through looking at data.
What do the kids look like? What are their needs? What is the
availability of the services that we have identified that they
need to address their issues and what funding is available, and
how can we best use our Federal dollars to fill the gaps?
Although we have seen many improvements in our field, our
work is not done. Our Nation still needs to have a concerted
focus on juvenile justice, as the needs of youth appear to be
more difficult to address.
We need continued laser vision on addressing juvenile
justice through the lens of what truly works, grounded in what
we know about adolescent brain development, and just the period
of adolescence in which we know kids have a much less developed
capacity to self-regulate themselves. Anyone who is a parent
remembers this.
They are more easily influenced developmentally to external
influences, peer pressure, and other perceived incentives,
which are actually sometimes bad incentives for kids, and have
less ability to make judgments and decisions that are really
future-oriented. All of this contributes to them potentially
engaging in risky behavior, and it leads to a higher
probability of negative and harmful consequences.
We also know that economically disadvantaged minorities are
disproportionately represented in our justice system. We are
now more fully recognizing the prevalence of mental health,
substance use and abuse, history of child abuse and neglect,
and trauma to those youths.
Knowing these facts and transforming our systems in concert
with these continues to be a challenge. We need your support,
your assistance, and your partnership in continuing to hold our
youth accountable for their behaviors, but by also then working
towards reduced future victimization and increased public
safety, but we need to do it in ways that recognize and respond
to the needs of these youth.
We need you to understand there are other Federal agencies
that should be involved in juvenile justice and delinquency
prevention. It is not just a justice issue. It truly isn't. We
need others from Health and Mental Services, Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services, SAMHSA, Workforce Development--
these kids are going to age into becoming adults--just to name
a few.
Those partnerships remain vital to our collective success
as a Nation and to us as States, but, more importantly, to the
youth as individuals.
Thank you very much.
[The testimony of Ms. Williams follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Ms. Williams. Chief, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF PATRICK J. FLANNELLY, CHIEF OF POLICE, LAFAYETTE
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Chief Flannelly. Chairman Rokita, Ranking Member Polis, and
all the members of the House Education and Workforce
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary
Education, I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here.
It is my pleasure. I am honored to be here.
I serve as the chief of police for the Lafayette, Indiana
Police Department, and also at-large director for our State
Chiefs Association.
Additionally, I am a member of Fight Crime: Invest in Kids,
a national organization of chiefs of police, sheriffs,
prosecutors, and violence survivors. We have over 5,000 members
nationwide and have at least one member represented in 97
percent of the congressional districts.
I bring this experience to speak about juvenile justice
reforms my State has adopted, the positive impact those reforms
have had on public safety, and how Congress can support the
efforts by reauthorizing the JJDPA.
Nationwide, juvenile recidivism remains a serious problem.
For far too many young people, their first arrest is only the
beginning of their run-ins with the law. Our studies have shown
that if a youth 14 years old or younger becomes a second-time
offender, their likelihood of future brushes with law
enforcement spikes to 77 percent. Nationwide, 40 percent of
young people who come in contact with the juvenile court will
come before the court at least one more time.
This cycle damages public safety, drains law enforcement
resources, and does not put at-risk youth back on the right
track. More needs to be done to ensure that if a youth offends
and has their first contact with the juvenile justice system,
it will be their last.
Recognizing this challenge, Indiana has undergone reforms
at the State level and at the county level to better address
juvenile delinquency.
In 2006, Marion County joined the Juvenile Detention
Alternatives Initiative, or JDAI. The strategy reprioritizes
existing funding away from detention facilities and into
community-based alternative programs. In 2009, my county of
Tippecanoe joined the initiative. In 2013, these reforms went
statewide.
Research has shown that effective community-based
alternatives to detention for low to moderate risk youth can
significantly reduce the likelihood that youth will get into
trouble again.
These intervention programs engage family, coaching parents
and youth in the skills they will need to change a young
person's behavior.
This is an important part of fixing the problem, since many
youths we see are following in the footsteps of family members
or peers who have previously gone down the wrong road.
Two of the anti-recidivism programs at work in my State are
functional family therapy and multisystemic therapy. Randomized
control trials have found that these programs can cut youth
recidivism by 50 to 62 percent.
It is important to note that confinement may be necessary
for some juveniles with a very high risk assessment or due to
the severity of the offense. However, confinement should be
reserved for only that small segment of juveniles who pose a
threat to public safety.
For the majority of juvenile offenders, the more effective
approach, and cost-effective, involves community-based
initiatives that we have described.
I have seen the positive effects of these juvenile justice
reforms firsthand. After starting the JDAI in Tippecanoe
County, we were able to cut juvenile arrests from just over
1,600 in 2008 to 755 last year. That is a reduction of 891
arrests in just over 7 years.
Not only does that save us the costs associated with each
arrest, we also canceled plans to build a 32-bed security
detention facility at an anticipated cost of $22 million. Using
methods such as MST, FFT, and ART programs, beginning in 2008
and through the end of 2016, 427 youth have successfully
completed the program, and to date, 51 percent have yet to
recidivate.
In early 2014, we implemented two programs, Policing the
Teen Brain and Juvenile Justice Jeopardy, as strategies to
enhance how youth approach officers and vice versa. This work
is paying significant dividends.
In the 2 subsequent years, we were able to reduce the
number of arrests involving juveniles that involved battery on
law enforcement, resisting law enforcement, and disorderly
conduct by 31 percent. By teaching our officers and youth more
productive and meaningful ways to interact, we are reducing
conflict and improving relationships. It is our goal that every
police officer in the county and eventually the State completes
this course.
While States have led the way in juvenile justice reform,
we cannot do it alone. JJDPA provides critical grants to States
that help support our juvenile justice systems, including these
alternatives to detention.
Reauthorization to update this law is long overdue, to
ensure the best outcomes for the communities we serve. I was
excited to see the committee introduce the bill last year to
reauthorize the JJDPA and the Supporting Youth Opportunity and
Preventing Delinquency Act. That bipartisan bill made important
updates to Federal law that would support the advancements made
in Indiana and many other States.
The bill also emphasizes continuing programs that help kids
from involvement in crime in the first place, including
evidence-based monitoring or mentoring and voluntary home
visiting. Many States have expanded the use of those programs
in recent years as well, and support through a Federal
reauthorization would help continue this work.
I appreciate this committee's work on behalf of this
important issue and was encouraged to see such a strong
bipartisan vote to pass it in the House of Representatives. I
hope a similar reauthorization will make it into law this
Congress. I am glad to support you in this effort, and happy to
answer any questions you may have.
[The testimony of Chief Flannelly follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Chief. Judge, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE DENISE NAVARRE CUBBON,
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE, LUCAS COUNTY JUVENILE DIVISION
Judge Cubbon. Good morning. Thank you. Chairwoman Foxx and
Ranking Member Scott, Subcommittee Chair Rokita, and
Subcommittee Ranking Member Polis, and members of the
committee, thank you so much for inviting me to come to talk to
you about the children that I see every day and other judges
see in their courtrooms and their families, addressing issues
very personal to their families, and very important for us to
assist them in making important changes in their lives.
I am not going to introduce myself because thank you, you
have done that for me. I can tell you that in my years of
experience in juvenile justice it became very apparent,
especially when I took the bench 12 years ago, that our efforts
in the 1990s to keep communities safe, although it was well-
intentioned, maybe had a lot of unintended outcomes.
Walking into my courtroom and other courtrooms across the
country, looking at the children appearing before me, it was
very clear we had a disproportionate minority contact. Lots of
unnecessary use of incarceration to control behavior without
services accompanying that.
Programs intended to keep children out of the community
became programs that were the stepping stone with non-
compliance, putting them into the juvenile justice system.
So I say all of that to say that we are an enlightened body
now. We are a community that understands the value of research.
We are the community that understands the value of brain
science, looking at adolescents, where they come from, looking
at best practices, looking for technical assistance to assist
each and every one of us as judges in our respective
communities to help families and children make changes.
Ironically enough, I took a train down here today. I spent
a few days in New York City at a meeting with over 400 judges
and professionals in the area of juvenile justice, a meeting
where we had an opportunity to engage in judicial and
professional education looking at juvenile justice, as a matter
of fact.
I can tell you there were probably judges and professionals
from just about every one of your States that were there. I
know States sitting next to me right now were there for sure.
It is so exciting to think that you are continuing to carry
the torch for reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act, because we spent so much time while
we were there talking about programs, research, development in
the area of juvenile justice to address those issues that are
evidence-based, best practices, innovative, to address the
needs of the particular children that we serve every day, and
to be able to develop programming to address the special needs
of some of those particular subgroups that you talk about, like
girls, mentally ill children, substance abuse issues impacting
development, looking for great programming to assist them.
Judges, we have a unique perspective. We sit in the
courtroom and we see the families, we hear the stories, and we
know how important it is to have all these programs and
opportunities that my colleagues in this room are all obviously
agreeing with.
Juvenile justice reform is on its way. The children that we
see in our courtrooms, many of which should not be in courts,
they have the opportunity through diversion programs to correct
those issues that brought them to the court's attention. We
have children on the other end, those children that have some
serious behavior issues that are compromising public safety,
and a secure facility for them is important, but is meaningless
unless they have specific programming to address their needs.
All those kids in between that we see regularly, with lots
of other issues than just their presenting behavior, they may
have trauma. Many children have trauma today; we know that from
the work of OJJDP: mental health issues, developmental delays,
special educational needs, children who are running away from
their homes because of abuse and neglect, homelessness. We can
go on and on and on. Those are the issues that we the judges
want to address with programming so we can help these kids make
important changes in their lives so they can be productive.
I hope you ask me some questions about things that are
going on in my community, and any other questions that can help
you in doing your important work. Thank you.
[The testimony of Judge Cubbon follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Judge. You know, I have to say
for the record that I am disappointed. I was hoping that you
would help me meet a milestone today. As a former practicing
trial attorney, I was waiting for the time in my life where I
could tell a judge that she was out of time and she needed to
be quiet. I am going to have to wait.
Thank you, seriously, for your testimony. It was
enlightening. I appreciate it, everyone so far.
Mr. Reed, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN MATTHEW REED, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAFE
PLACE SERVICES, YMCA OF GREATER LOUISVILLE
Mr. Reed. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Rokita, Ranking
Member Polis, and all members of the Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education for the
opportunity to testify at today's hearing.
My name is Matt Reed. I currently serve as the executive
director of YMCA's Safe Place Services in Louisville, Kentucky.
I have had the privilege to work with at-risk youth for over 20
years. Our programs at Safe Place provide judicial and law
enforcement partners with effective and evidence-based
alternatives and have tangible and measurable results in
keeping kids out of the justice system.
Since 2005, Safe Place has operated a Juvenile Field
Release Program. The Field Release Program is a partnership
with law enforcement, juvenile court, and our youth detention
center. The goal of this program is to provide law enforcement
a safe release option as an alternative to detention when they
encounter a juvenile who has committed a misdemeanor or
nondetainable criminal offense.
Since full inception, approximately 1,900 juveniles have
been served by Field Release, helping decrease overall youth
detention numbers by 60 percent. However, the most significant
impact of the Field Release Program has been the number of
youth who gain immediate access to in-house or community
partner referrals. Fifteen percent of our Field Release youth
are placed directly in YMCA's Shelter House Program, which is
our 24-hour residential program for 12- to 17-year-olds. They
find immediate safety and support.
Over 76 percent overall of our Field Release youth leave
our care with either an in-house or community partner service
referral in place, such as drug treatment, mental health
therapy, or a mental health evaluation.
During 2010 and the 2011 school year, Safe Place also
successfully operated a truancy diversion pilot project in
response to the increasing number of youth missing more than 10
days of school per year. The model program served approximately
40 youth per year. Most entered the program having missed 75 or
more days of school and were experiencing other challenges such
as low academic achievement, substance abuse in the home,
poverty, and unstable housing.
Before funding was cut at the State level in 2012, this
program cut truancy rates by 73 percent, and successfully
diverted 67 youths from commitment to State's custody.
In 2016, most recently, we have received a Title II grant
through the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet. Funding
for this grant was provided by the U.S. Department of Justice's
Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention.
We are very excited about this opportunity, and it is
actually called the Opportunity Program. The Opportunity
Program is designed to engage at-risk youth and first-time
nonserious offenders, ages 10 to 14, in programs that reduce
their rate of entry into the juvenile justice system.
Our program has three service components. First, it has a
mock truancy court for our middle school youth. We have an
early elementary school intervention component for children who
have at least one parent incarcerated. Throughout the program
we provide intensive case management services through our pods
of 10 weeks, as we work with the kids and families.
The results are very positive so far. Forty-eight kids have
been served since launching in October. Of those, 46 have no
new involvement with juvenile court, and 65 percent have no
additional unexcused absences from school.
With permission, I would like to conclude my remarks by
sharing a success story that best captures the value of our
community-based programs.
This is Cassidy's story. At age 12, Cassidy was living a
life that no child should ever have to endure. First introduced
to drugs at the age of 12, Cassidy lived in what is often known
as a trap house, a haven for drug dealers and buyers,
constantly streaming in and out at all hours.
On days Cassidy actually attended school, her experience
was very difficult when she came home. She would find one drug
dealer in the living room, one in the kitchen, and another
propped up in the dining room. There were guns, pot, powders of
all kinds lining the tables. Smoke was everywhere and noise was
everywhere, but her mother was nowhere to be found.
Sometimes transactions even occurred in her bedroom. Those
were some of the scariest for a 12-year-old girl.
Cassidy routinely missed 40 to 70 days of school during
middle school and 92 days of school her freshman year. In the
summer of 2012, Cassidy's life would change forever. After
being arrested for possession of a handgun and drug
paraphernalia, her mom refused to give up the dealers and chose
to pin it on Cassidy, but this turned out to be the best part
of this story because it turned things around for Cassidy.
Those charges were straightened out, and Cassidy came to
our shelter program. After receiving counseling and being
placed with her grandparents, Cassidy went on to do wonderful
in school.
Because of the support of our case manager, Linda, her word
was never broken to Cassidy, and after completing tutoring and
counseling classes, Cassidy graduated high school on time, and
eventually sat for the ACT. Thinking that she would not score
well, Cassidy actually scored a 24 on her ACT, still a
sophomore in high school. Today, Cassidy is at the University
of Louisville, maintains steady employment, and recently became
a mom.
We are very proud of her success and the success of this
program.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. This
important and critical reform work is needed, and your
diligence and dedication is greatly appreciated by all of us
across the country.
[The testimony of Mr. Reed follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Rokita. Thank you, Mr. Reed. I am going to hold on
my questions as chair and recognize the chairwoman of the full
committee, Dr. Foxx, for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Chairman Rokita, and thanks to all
the witnesses who are here today. Thank you very much for being
here.
Chief Flannelly, you have referenced alternatives to
incarceration your department is involved in to help at-risk
and committed youth. Can you discuss the importance of service
options to ensure a child is placed in the best program to
prevent him or her from being a repeat offender?
Chief Flannelly. Thank you, ma'am. Yes. One of the
processes we have in place in Tippecanoe County, and this was
the pilot that started in 2009, when a young person would be
arrested, whether it be for a status offense or any offense,
they were brought into an intake facility.
We had specially trained personnel in that intake facility
that would run them through some questionaires. We can provide
copies of what those questionnaires look like.
You get an understanding of what is the core issue with the
individual that you are dealing with right now. A lot of times
what we see out on the street in law enforcement are really
just the symptoms of much larger problems.
By being able to identify what some of those core issues
are, we can direct them into the appropriate services at a much
faster rate. The sooner we get them into the right services,
the better outcomes we get. The numbers have really just been
astounding over the last few years.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much. Ms. Williams, in order to
ensure that taxpayer funds are well spent, it is important to
measure accurately the effectiveness of programs. Are there
particular challenges associated with measuring the
effectiveness of juvenile justice programs?
Ms. Williams. Thank you, Representative Foxx. There are
always challenges in being able to evaluate the effectiveness
of programs. To do a true evaluation is actually a very
expensive process, because you need to have control groups to
actually do the comparison, to be able to attribute change to a
particular intervention.
What we do in Colorado is we are very strict about making
sure that they are collecting data, short of being able to do a
true scientifically based evaluation. Then we are able to
collect data. We really take a look at it on a quarterly basis
to make sure that they are serving the numbers of kids and we
are beginning to see the outcomes.
The other thing we do is when there are particular programs
that show promise, we will use our Federal funds that Congress
allocates to us in Title II to conduct more in-depth
evaluations, that we would otherwise not be able to do.
I think it is incredibly valuable to be able to fund
programs, and we will only fund programs where there is some
evidence to suggest that they work, and they can show us
studies that say this is based on sound science. Then we can
determine whether or not we are beginning to see such results
and then determine if we want to invest in an even further more
scientifically based evaluation.
Mrs. Foxx. I am very happy to hear that. Several of you
have talked about evidence-based and best practices. That is
encouraging to know you are using the evaluations that you have
to do that.
Mr. Reed, you talked about the services you provide in your
community. Is it possible that a young person can learn about
these services on their own, or is it always when they come
into the system in some way before they are connected with a
service?
Mr. Reed. Actually, we have found that being proactive and
very active in the community is critical to ensure that the
kids know about our programs prior to any involvement with the
justice system.
I believe a community partnership strategy is very
important so that the word spreads and we can get to our kids
and young people much sooner before they begin to commit their
criminal offense.
I think it is possible, but it is really incumbent upon the
organizations and community providers to have a continuum and a
strategy to get the word out. That is sometimes looked at as
maybe an indirect resource, but I think it is very critical to
put resources into the education of young people. We spend a
lot of time in schools, talking with young people in schools
about our services. Thank you.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Polis, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Chairman Rokita. Ms. Williams, in
both the House and Senate bills that were passed to authorize
the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, the term
``dangerous practice'' was defined as, ``An act, procedure, or
program that creates an unreasonable risk of physical injury,
pain, or psychological harm to juveniles subjected to the act,
procedure, or program.''
Both bills required States in their State plans to,
``Describe the policies, procedures, and training in effect for
the staff of juvenile State correctional facilities to
eliminate the use of dangerous practices, unreasonable
restraints, such as the shackling of pregnant juveniles during
labor and delivery, and unreasonable isolation, including by
developing effective behavior management techniques.''
My question for you is would Colorado have any trouble
conforming to this requirement?
Ms. Williams. Thank you, Representative Polis. I do not
believe we would have any problems in Colorado. In fact, this
is something that our State legislature has been addressing,
and to be quite honest, our Division of Youth Corrections,
which is responsible for both the detention and commitment of
juveniles under juvenile justice, has responded quite well to
the suggestions. We have a representative of Youth Corrections
on our State advisory group. They are an amazing partner with
us and are well aware of the JJDP Act.
Mr. Polis. Given your multi-state experience, do you think
any State would have trouble conforming to those requirements?
Ms. Williams. I believe some States--I honestly do not know
enough about each State. I think there may be some States who
struggle with it. What I would suggest is that there are enough
of us other States who have been able to address it.
That is the beautiful part of the JJDP Act, it really
provides a learning community among all the States and
territories and we can help each other. So if there are other
States who are struggling with this particular issue or any of
them, I am often called upon to help, and I have called other
States to help on particular issues, so I would suggest we have
solutions available.
Mr. Polis. I ask because we have all seen the horror
stories about the use of restraints on children in juvenile
facilities. It was just a year ago this January that Gynna
McMillen, a 16-year-old girl, died of cardiac arrhythmia in a
Kentucky juvenile detention center after she was placed in the
Aikido-styled restraint by center staff for refusing to remove
her sweatshirt during booking.
The restraint she was placed in is now one that is outlawed
in Kentucky public schools, but it is still allowed by the
Department of Juvenile Justice. While there is a suggestion
that if the center staff had checked on Gynna through the
night, every 15 minutes, as required by regulations, she might
not have died, there is the question of whether the restraint
played a role in her death, and evidence to that effect has
been presented in the courts.
I wanted to raise that story to highlight the need to train
juvenile justice facilities and faculty to deescalate
situations, resort to dangerous practices only when necessary,
and to point out that Gynna was at the secured facility after
police were called while she was getting into a fight with her
mother.
Judge Cubbon, I wanted to ask you about the indiscriminate
use of shackles in juvenile courts. As you know, in most States
juveniles are shackled often for court appearances without any
proof of a flight or safety risk, and that is in contrast to
adults, where courts have found there usually has to be a
compelling security interest to necessitate shackling.
In my home State of Colorado, the individual judicial
districts have each recently developed their own procedures on
shackling, and in many other districts there is now the
rebuttable assumption that a juvenile offender does not need to
be shackled or the practice has been prohibited except for a
few violent offenders. I understand that is also the case in
Ohio where you preside.
Judge Cubbon. That is correct.
Mr. Polis. Can you tell me what your experience has been
with this? Have you felt any less safe in your courtroom when
juvenile offenders came before you unshackled?
Judge Cubbon. I can tell you this is another example of how
education can enlighten parties when you are talking about a
topic, just like solitary confinement issues, along the same
lines.
In the State of Ohio, we had a directive and request from
the Ohio Supreme Court for the judges to look at the shackling
procedures. As you can imagine, 88 counties in the State of
Ohio and 88 different opinions.
I really believe that once we circulated the research and
the information, conversations with law enforcement, and
amongst the judges, core personnel, and the people that we as
judges have control over in the courthouses, we decided the
research would indicate that even having a presumption against
shackling would be beneficial.
Do I feel frightened in my courtroom? No, I do not. I
don't. I think as we continue to educate the judges across the
country on that issue, creating presumptions against shackling,
I think that will be an example of a procedure that will be
eliminated across the country. I really do.
Mr. Polis. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentleman. Dr. Roe, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Roe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, thanks to
all the panel members. I think you do some of the most
important work done in this country. You have young people
whose entire lives are ahead of them that can go in two
directions. One is not a very good direction.
Just a personal story. I had an opportunity when my son--
remember, stupid is on the Y chromosome. He rolled the
principal's yard at age 12 or 13 and was caught. We had to go
to juvenile court. God bless Judge Underwood, who sentenced him
to writing out ``I will never roll a house again'' 1,000 times.
His father was not real happy about that trip.
The story ends with he is a successful futures trader/owner
in Chicago, Illinois. I thank Judge Underwood to this day, and
had no more problems after that.
I am a little distressed. We have a system, you are at the
end of a problem that started to none of your doing. In our
area now, we have an entire neonatal intensive care unit with
drug-addicted babies. Twenty-five percent of those babies end
up in foster care in the State of Tennessee in 1 year.
It is the saddest thing in the world to see, and it is an
enormous social cost, and an enormous cost to those children in
the way they end up in their lives and where they end up.
Chief, I am just going to ask, and any of you, what do you
think the main reason for children entering the juvenile
justice system is? If there is a thing you could put your
finger on, what would it be?
Chief Flannelly. I think you just touched on it, sir. It is
incredibly sad. I think a lot of times for young police
officers, it is one of the biggest adjustments they have, when
you enter into the profession, you have a certain amount of
idealism and you feel really good about the opportunity to go
out and help, and you quickly realize that for some of the
issues that you are facing, there is no law enforcement
solution.
I think over the years through evidence-based practices and
other means, and just raising the level of professionalism
across the board, we have made tremendous advances in our
profession and others.
I like to talk about in Indiana or in Lafayette in our PD,
we like to consider ourselves one spoke on a much larger wheel.
We try to focus on the problem and then look to see what kind
of community resources we have in place that can help address
the specific problem.
I think that is the ultimate question, how do we address
these issues at the earliest possible time so we can create the
best outcomes down the road.
Mr. Roe. Chief, there has obviously been a lot of negative
aspects of police officers. You have seen this in the last
couple or 3 years. How do you interact with young people who
already have a very negative view?
We have a very active community policing in my hometown. It
is a small town of 65,000 people. My hat is off to those folks
who every day go out. There is a resource officer at the
school. I think children can get trust in by getting to know
that police officer. How do you cross that bridge?
Chief Flannelly. Community outreach is a key component to
that. We have expanded in our agency. We are a midsized agency,
142 officers. We have dedicated four officers just for that
purpose alone. We have a school resource officer. We have DARE
officers. All those things where we can create relationships
that we know will help.
Quite frankly, for law enforcement, we are fighting a
battle on multiple fronts, and it is a perception battle as
much as anything else. It can be very difficult when you are
trying to do the best work you can for those best outcomes. A
lot of times, there is just a lack of understanding of what the
core issues are.
I think you mentioned it, we are downstream from those
issues. By the time the problems come to the attention of law
enforcement, there were a lot of opportunities where we could
have probably intervened, a lot of it really starting at the
family level. What are the conditions in the home? What are the
conditions in that child's environment that might be affecting
which path they go?
Unfortunately, when children are exposed, such as the story
we heard about with Cassidy, that is an everyday, all-day-long
thing for police officers in this country.
Like the YWCA, we have very similar programs in Lafayette
where we can intervene early. I think that is our best chance
for success: outreach, trust. Just like the programs I
mentioned earlier, those are also important parts where we can
conduct this training. Juvenile Jeopardy is a perfect example
where we have learned to interact with juveniles.
Mr. Roe. Chief, thank you. My time has expired. But, Mr.
Reed, I think you have had a successful career because you
impacted one person's life. Thank you for that.
Mr. Reed. Thank you.
Chairman Rokita. The gentleman's time has expired. Ms.
Fudge, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
all so much for your testimony and for your work trying to
protect our children. I know it is trying but very rewarding
kind of work.
I just want to say some years back in another life I was
the mayor of a small city. Our police chief put in place
midnight basketball, something very, very simple, for the
police and for juveniles to interact together. During that hour
and a half, it received not one call to the police department.
So, interventions do help.
Your Honor, thank you for being here. I, too, obviously am
from Ohio. Pleasure to see you. Certainly, you are aware that
since the last reauthorization of this act, funding has
decreased by more than half. Tell me how it has affected your
work, and what the real cost is if we do not invest in our
future, in our children.
Judge Cubbon. Well, first, I would like to respond for a
second to Mr. Roe to say that being a juvenile court judge is
probably one of the best jobs around the country, because we
have an opportunity to participate and walk the walk with the
family, making important changes in their lives, and the
successes are enormous. One success at a time keeps us going.
We are from Ohio. I am from Northwest Ohio. We have had our
financial times in our community where we had to do a lot of
cutting of our funding. It was an opportune time for us because
this is the time when juvenile and adolescent brain science
research was coming about. People were beginning to look at the
way they handled children differently, are there better ways
and practices, best practices, using data to make decisions.
It was a great opportunity for us to look at resources and
talk about maybe we should be reallocating them into programs
that work, and into processes that work.
There is great value for police officers and departments
that want to begin diversion programs. They keep those kids out
of court that probably do not need to be there in the first
place.
On the other end of the spectrum, we had an opportunity to
develop our reentry programming for the kids who were, in fact,
incarcerated, creating roadmaps for them to come home, using
our resources wisely, so when they came home they were prepared
to put into practice the work they had done in the institution,
like cognitive behavioral therapy, family therapy, and such,
but all the kids in between.
We had an opportunity to focus on the children who had
high-risk needs, investing our money wisely for efforts for
them to make changes in their lives. And then the lower level
kids, keeping them out of the system as best we can, supporting
the families with community-based programming, respecting the
families, having the community join us as partners so they can
help us in assisting kids in making those changes in their
lives, like schools and other organizations, mental health,
becoming active partners.
Ms. Fudge. Did the decrease in funding affect these
programs? That is really my question.
Judge Cubbon. I would say the decrease in funding has kind
of limited the opportunities for other communities across the
country to take advantage of them.
When you become enlightened and you understand the work and
you understand what is important in developing your
programming, like letting the data show your results and such,
you can kind of lie, but so many jurisdictions across our
country really need that assistance. Talking about things like
shackling, educating their communities.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much. Mr. Reed, same question.
Mr. Reed. Yes, I believe the first part of your question
was the cost without the program, and it can be answered in
terms of the State of Kentucky, if I might share, for a young
person who let's say goes on to prison, for example. Let's say
that is where they continue to head, that and the loss of
potential income, that is about $100,000 per youth right now in
the State of Kentucky.
There is a significant financial cost. There is obviously a
social cost when these programs are not available. Folks like
Cassidy, we will not see those young people in school.
In terms of how this decrease in funding has affected us,
from our perspective, it has been a barrier in the sense of not
being able to establish long-term planning for the programs
that we have developed that seem successful and have shown
results. Those are the programs we want to double. Those are
programs we want to have additional funding for so that when we
have to reassess and look for different funding sources, I
think that delays our ability to serve more youth.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you.
Chairman Rokita. The gentlelady's time has expired. I thank
the gentlelady. Mr. Garrett, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want
to thank each one of the members of the panel for the
impressive work you do.
Judge, my hat tipped to you. I served for about 10 years as
a prosecutor, including time as an elected prosecutor. The
worse thing that ever happened to me was when the person who
handled our juvenile court system would be out sick and I would
have to go in there and navigate that second set of rules and
understand the purpose of the system is different at that
level.
I wanted to ask you about your observations as it relates
to prosecutors and their training in dealing with juveniles. I
know we have had some problems with funding for prosecutorial
training here in the past few years and in continuing to fund
that.
Do you see a marked difference based on the attitude,
education, and experience level of prosecutors as it relates to
the juveniles with the goal of getting them out of the system,
and what would your observations and thoughts be about how we
can help?
Again, if the goal is diversion and a failure, for lack of
a better word, or prevention, a much better word, from people
entering the adult criminal justice system, what sort of things
do you think we can do to train the people on that end of the
criminal justice system to get better outcomes for young
people?
Judge Cubbon. I can say this first, in my 23 years,
spending most of my time in the juvenile division, you are
absolutely correct, there is a difference between being a
prosecutor in the juvenile division and being a prosecutor in
the adult division. I am here to tell you that I am one of
those people who went to the adult division and said no, thank
you, I am going to go back to juvenile court because this is
the court of hope, right?
Mr. Garrett. Right.
Judge Cubbon. Right? I always say sometimes you have to
take advantage of opportunities. I seriously believe that
prosecutors, probation officers, the court, service providers,
entering into interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary training
or education is a win-win for the families that we serve, in
whatever your role or capacity is.
If you are a prosecutor, you are representing the victim. I
learned this early on as a prosecutor, victims of juvenile
cases, juvenile offenses, always want to give the child a
chance to make changes in their lives. We know so much more now
that I believe the prosecutors can assist us with that message
to the victims and to the community, talking about we have to
keep the public safe. That is their responsibility, the court's
responsibility, and everybody else's.
At the same time, having conversations about having
effective screening tools, assessment tools, to make
determinations about these risky behaviors a result of a trauma
trigger, are they a result of maybe some social determinants
that are getting in the way of them going to school, such as
hunger, homelessness, is there abuse going on in their homes.
Prosecutors having conversations and being trained and
attuned to those kinds of situations can fashion their
recommendations to the court to make important changes in these
kids' lives because, let's be honest, if we have high-risk and
moderate-risk behaving children and we can give them
appropriate services to change their behaviors, then we have
the likelihood for a safer community.
Coming together as a team. I can tell you the National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges has offered
training for prosecutors, as they do with public defenders and
others, looking at it as a joint effort to make recommendations
that are in the best interest of the child and their family
and, likewise, in the best interest of the community.
Mr. Garrett. Thank you, Judge. I do not have a lot of time
remaining. Ms. Williams, you are from Colorado. Colorado has
been a leader as it relates to legalization of cannabinoids,
and it is something where I see a failure on our part here at
the Federal Government level because essentially if you enforce
federal law one way in one State and differently in another,
then you fail to have equal justice by virtue of the fact that
justice that is not blind is not justice.
To me, I want to watch and see what happens in Colorado,
and I'd like to have the states have a stronger purview over
their own policy vis-a-vis this Tenth Amendment thing. Do you
have any experience or insight as to the juvenile justice
experience in Colorado?
I have been looking at a lot of the data, which some of it
is actually quite encouraging, actions taken in Colorado with
relation to cannabinoids.
Ms. Williams. Thank you very much, Representative Garrett.
Actually, the division that I work in is responsible for
collecting data regarding marijuana in our State. To be quite
honest, it is still very early. We do have conflicting data.
Some Federal data suggests it is getting worse for young people
and others that say actually use is going down.
I think we need more time to decide.
I do think regardless of whether it is being driven by the
increased exposure to marijuana, we still have a drug issue in
our country. Certainly in Colorado, opioids are actually a
bigger problem than any, and the need for treatment and
treatment that will work is probably even more important for us
and for other States in the Nation.
Chairman Rokita. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Garrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Rokita. The prosecutor did a good job of dropping
a question with 2 seconds to go. The gentlewoman from Oregon is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
ranking member, and thank you to all our witnesses. This is a
great discussion.
I wanted to just point out this interconnectedness,
following up on some of the questions that have been asked.
Just yesterday I had in my office a group of healthcare
providers from Oregon.
With our Medicaid expansion, we have coordinated care
organizations. These happen to all be from rural areas.
They talked about the work they are doing really based on
the CDC-Kaiser adverse childhood experience (ACE) study, which
is now several years old, but they talked about the recognition
that childhood abuse and neglect affects later in life, and
working with early learning hubs and having that coordinated
care is making such a difference. They call it ``self-healing
communities.''
Based on the same model, our neighbor to the north, in one
county in Washington, they saw teen births down 62 percent,
youth suicide and attempts down 98 percent, youth arrests for
violent crimes down 53 percent, and dropout rates down 47
percent.
My point is this is something that our healthcare providers
are working on in rural communities with our Medicaid expansion
dollars, and I urge all my colleagues to keep things like this
in mind as we talk about things like health care reform, and
also as we talk about how we engage students in school.
For example, our career and technical education bill that
passed the House, but not the Senate. If we are engaging
students in school, they are much more likely to stay engaged
and out of the criminal justice system.
I wanted to also ask, one of my priorities is for those
youths who are in the system, I am really concerned about
preserving the continuity of their education. Making sure they
have access to quality education while they are in the juvenile
justice system is really critically important to their reentry.
We have a great partner in Oregon, our Oregon Youth
Authority. They are responsible for more than 1,300 young
adults in the juvenile justice system. They had 150 youth who
earned their high school diplomas and GEDs last year.
I wanted to ask the panel, but I will start with Judge
Cubbon, how can an update to the JJDPA promote the continuity
of education for youth who are incarcerated? How can we best
support the youth who are returning to traditional schools
after they have been incarcerated? I'll start with the Judge.
Judge Cubbon. Thank you. I would say that we have
frustrating conversations about education amongst this
population of kids regularly. We in the State of Ohio are lucky
that our Department of Youth Services has made a concerted
effort to help kids get credit recovery, maybe pursue a GED for
the older children that are incarcerated, and to start to look
at their special educational needs while they are in the
institution, so when they can come home, they are better
prepared for whatever their educational setting is going to be.
Ms. Bonamici. What are the barriers? Why are not more
students able to continue their education while they are
incarcerated?
Judge Cubbon. I do not want to say it is mandated in Ohio,
but it is pretty much mandated in Ohio until they are 18 in the
institutions. To me, the more frustrating part is we have these
kids that are ready, willing, and able to come back home and
ready to go into a GED program, continuing ed program, and
their success is limited in the beginning. They are coming home
after a period of time, so they have to re-indoctrinate
themselves in their homes and in the community, and that bad
kid memory, oh, there is that kid again.
I think it is really vitally important that we begin
partnering in a more deliberate way with the education system
leading the way to help us help those kids and answer those
questions.
I know that is really vague, but it is really an area that
is really very frustrating.
Ms. Bonamici. Does anyone else have a response in my
remaining 36 seconds?
Mr. Reed. I will be very quick. I think one challenge is
being confined in detention, in secure confinement, would mean
you are posing a risk to the community. It is for safety. I
think there is a philosophical difference. You are going into
the justice system because you are a risk to the community.
I really feel it is hard to fold education into that
because the intent of the justice system is to keep the
communities safe. I think it needs to expand or we need to deal
with the fact that the intent of justice is safety and,
therefore, I am a huge believer in let's keep as many out as
possible.
Ms. Bonamici. One of the intents, but my time has expired,
and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Rokita. The gentlelady is correct, her time has
expired. I am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes at this
time.
Starting with you, Chief, you talked about a couple of
programs, Policing the Teen Brain and Juvenile Justice
Jeopardy, and you have answered questions around that, I
believe, already.
Mine is specific. How do these programs impact your
officers' daily shifts? Is this complementary to it? Is this
another task? Enlighten us.
Chief Flannelly. The training that we conduct with the
officers, we do it in an environment outside of their work day.
The programs, they typically run 2 to 3 days. We actually have
peers that will train; we have peer-to-peer trainers.
Chairman Rokita. Is that good or bad? Do they do that
willingly?
Chief Flannelly. Absolutely.
Chairman Rokita. Is it on their own time?
Chief Flannelly. No, we do it on department time. At first,
we were a little concerned as to how it was going to be
accepted, but once the officers get in there, they realize the
science behind what they are learning, and this is going to be
a very effective tool for them when they are having these
interactions out on the street and in moments of crisis.
We do not deal with people in the calm moments. We are
called because something significant has happened, whether it
is a crime, a fight, whatever that might be.
It is a great opportunity for officers to understand they
might not be talking to the prefrontal cortex of a 16-year-old.
They are talking to the midbrain. For them to understand, okay,
he may be saying some things right now and he does not really
mean it. They have just a better understanding.
Chairman Rokita. Ultimately, this helps them in their daily
work?
Chief Flannelly. It helps significantly. We have had
tremendous feedback, and now we have officers that look forward
to going through the program.
Chairman Rokita. Thank you. Mr. Reed, Ms. Williams, and
perhaps you have talked about various agencies that engage one
another as they serve the same youth. Talk to me more
specifically about how that is coordinated, if there is waste
involved, how you manage that coordination when youths are
being serviced by more than one program or agency.
Mr. Reed. I think it is very important to have a central
agency that is coordinating and staying in communication with
the other providers. I also think it is important to have--one
of the things I have with my staff, my staff sit on key
community advisory boards and coalitions to stay in tune with
what programming is going on. And on a specific level, I think
it is important that we as organizations recognize what our
role is, what we are good at, and bring that to the table.
I think it is important in partnerships that you have the
decision makers at the table. There is nothing more frustrating
when partners come together and folks are not able to follow
through or make that commitment.
Chairman Rokita. Is this something, Mr. Reed, where we
should rely on local leadership and leaders being leaders, or
is this something that we can legislate here in terms of more
impactful overlap or no overlap, however it would work?
Mr. Reed. I think anything that could provide incentive on
the back end of services from a funding perspective would be a
wonderful step.
One of the challenges, I think, for example, if there was
some sort of incentive-based opportunity to acquire funding,
that would help galvanize and line people up to this work in a
way that is not sort of spinning our wheels, that is how it
feels, to have something to reach for.
Chairman Rokita. What does ``spinning your wheels'' mean?
Can you give me an example?
Mr. Reed. Sure. I will give you an example. When decision
makers are not at the table, let's say the funding source is
something that you receive as a result of a grant, for example.
I think organizations need to be held accountable to the
commitments they make within those funding proposals.
I feel like when that accountability is not there, that is
what I am referring to, it feels like we are spinning our
wheels. We are not maximizing the opportunity we have with the
gifts and contributions and the grants that we receive. I have
been a big proponent of that in our organization.
Chairman Rokita. Thank you. I have questions for the other
two witnesses, but there is no way it is going to happen in 15
seconds. I am going to try to get with you afterwards via email
or something, and maybe you can respond back. I appreciate it.
I yield back. Mr. Scott, the ranking member of the
committee, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. I think it is important to note that all
of the discussion about how we can effectively reduce crime has
been focused on prevention, early intervention, and
rehabilitation, and not in the after-the-fact, simpleminded
slogans in sound bites of how much punishment we can inflict
and waste the taxpayers' money.
Ms. Williams, can you explain why it is cost effective to
invest in prevention rather than wait until children drop out
of school, join a gang, get caught, and then impose draconian
sentences after they get caught? Can you say how expensive it
is to pay for that strategy when effective prevention and early
intervention services can be provided?
Ms. Williams. Thank you, Representative Scott. Thank you
for your leadership over the years. I truly appreciate it.
Yes, you have all heard an ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of care, correct? When we look at the cost of serving
youth--I call it ``earning your way deeper into the system,''
because the kids have obviously done things that they have
earned their way deeper into the system.
In Colorado, and I think it is going to be similar
elsewhere, when youth will earn their way into what is our
version of youth commitment, which is adult prison, it can run
upwards of $350 per day per youth, and that includes treatment.
It can cost $2,300 to $4,800 per case on probation.
When you add up those numbers against the numbers of youth
who find their way into our system, it is pretty extreme. And
yet, if you are working with a young person, if you are working
with a child that you have identified, for example, in school
who is starting to struggle, they are starting to not show up,
even at a young age, and the schools are able to pull in their
multidisciplinary partners, let me tell you, you get people
around the table like in a multidisciplinary process, you start
talking, and you realize you are overlapping and there are ways
that one system can pull out of doing this and fill this other
gap, and then you are not wasting funds.
So, working in a multidisciplinary way where you identify
these young people as early as possible allows you to get in
there and provide services to them, but, more importantly at
that point, you are providing services to the families.
When a youth goes into our youth justice system, sometimes
people forget they are going to go home, and if we have not
addressed those issues that were happening in the home before
they came to us, they are not going to be real successful when
they go back.
I am very proud in our State because they really focus on
family engagement all the way through, but the earlier we do
that, the more success we are going to have, because you are
not going to have behaviors entrenched. The kids are not going
to be starting to think of themselves as a criminal. They are
going to see success in developing relationships in their
communities that are positive rather than negative. I hope that
helps.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. You mentioned the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention and Research. Have you been
getting research from them?
Ms. Williams. To be quite honest, in the past couple
months, I have not been looking for it. I am not sure how much
they have been able to do. Just as States have suffered
reductions in funding, so have they. Like I said, research
costs money. I would hope we could all start being able to do
more of that.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Judge Cubbon, can you tell me what
you can do as a juvenile court judge that a juvenile referred
to adult court would not get?
Judge Cubbon. In our State, in order to be tried as an
adult, the prosecutor or the State has to show that there is no
opportunity for rehabilitation in the juvenile justice system
within a finite period of time.
Mr. Scott. You have to do that before the transfer?
Judge Cubbon. Yes.
Mr. Scott. If they are not transferred, are there services
you can provide that the adult court judge cannot do?
Judge Cubbon. Yes.
Mr. Scott. There is a thing called a ``valid court order''
which allows some judges in some States to lock up children who
are found in violation of status offenses, offenses that would
not even be a crime but for their age.
Does Ohio allow judges to lock up children because of
status offenses? And is that process important, to be able to
lock up people for status offenses?
Judge Cubbon. As you know, the valid court order exception
is a court order that can be used to hold juveniles who are
maybe under the jurisdiction of the court for those status
offenses that you are talking about.
I am in a jurisdiction where we have actively looked for
community responses to assist those children who are unruly
children, are status offenders, and do not need to be
incarcerated, they do not need to be before the court.
If you can develop a system of well-intentioned, meaningful
responses based on their needs, using screening tools and
assessment tools to address their issues, then incarcerating
them no longer becomes an option, right?
The reality is for a lot of these children, incarcerating
these children hurts them. Many of these children are victims
of trauma, abuse, neglect, and all sorts of other issues. We
are not a mental health institution. We are not a disability
institution. We are not respite care for foster parents.
When the community understands that, maybe we can develop
some ways to approach--
Chairman Rokita. The gentleman's time has expired. The
ranking member is recognized for closing.
Mr. Polis. I want to thank the chairman and I want to thank
our witnesses for being here today, and for each of your
commitments to our Nation's youth.
I think it is clear from today's hearing that progress is
being made in many States across the country that is data-
driven and science-based.
For example, Ms. Williams, thanks for sharing some of the
work you are helping lead in Colorado; Mr. Flannelly,
describing some of the innovative approaches in Indiana.
In addition to this progress, we need to do more work to
reform and improve our juvenile justice system at the Federal
level.
As we heard today, youth that are in the juvenile justice
system are predominately male and people of color. I also want
to point out that more must be done to protect LGBTQ youth,
particularly transgender youth, in a gender-appropriate manner.
Studies have also shown that LGBTQ youth are overrepresented in
the juvenile justice system and are more vulnerable to
discrimination and abuse within the system.
There is also the continued use of dangerous practices,
including some that have resulted in death, like restraints and
corporal punishment that occur within the juvenile justice
system.
The best way to address these issues is at the Federal
level through reauthorizing the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act, which has not been reauthorized
since 2002. As we heard today, it needs to be updated to keep
up with the latest research and best practices for protecting
vulnerable youth. It needs to be updated so that funding can be
restored to its full authorization levels.
I do want to take this opportunity to point out that
funding for the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
has dropped over the past several years, and without a new law,
we are not only expecting States to comply with outdated
policy, but we are expecting them to do it with less and less
funding. That really underscores the need to pass a new law.
In the last Congress, the committee worked in a bipartisan
way to mark up and pass the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act reauthorization. We successfully passed the bill
on the floor with overwhelming bipartisan support.
I am optimistic we can do that again this Congress. I look
forward to working with my Republican and Democratic colleagues
to achieve that goal, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Rokita. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate the
witnesses' testimony as well. I continue to learn a lot. I am
grateful for your leadership and the leadership of those you
represent across the country that do the work that you do, as
Dr. Roe mentioned during his questioning. You are on the front
lines and you see this every day, and your leadership is needed
and appreciated, first and foremost by me.
To cut through the bureaucracy a little bit, I am going to
use my closing remarks to get a couple of questions on the
record. You cannot respond, but we will provide you with a
transcript if you would like, free of charge, Judge.
Ms. Williams, actually Mr. Scott asked my question or
similar to it, and you covered it. I am satisfied there.
To the judge, you mentioned you are the ``court of hope,''
and as a former practitioner sometimes in the juvenile system,
I completely agree. My data point is small, it is one court
system, and it was probably 13 to 15 years ago now.
Almost every time when I would bring a client through, my
goal was to keep them out of the system because, in fact, there
was no hope, I felt, when they got in there with other
juveniles, and they came out more hardened criminals, in my
opinion.
That does not mean we did not want personal responsibility
to be upheld. There were lessons to be learned, and I tried to
craft pleas that reflected that. Sometimes it worked, and
sometimes I was met with--I do not know how to describe it--
almost automaton, no. And present company excepted, of course,
but no, this is the rule, this is how we do it here in this
county, whether it was law enforcement or the prosecutor, and
that was sometimes disappointing. Again, 15 years ago. I would
have hoped that we have learned and got beyond that.
My question would be--Dr. Roe's example is perhaps a good
one. His son was made to write 1,000 times as part of his
punishment. Do you feel that the judges have that kind of
latitude, to craft creative personal responsibility measures as
they see fit? Is the discretion there, or do you feel you are
actually worried about the ACLU or someone like that jumping in
and saying, no, they cannot shovel that person's driveway as
part of their punishment, or whatever the creative solution
might be? They have to go through this or the county is going
to get charged with more money in a lawsuit that has to be
defended. So, better to just put them in the system because we
know the county cannot get sued that way.
I think you see where I am going with my question. I would
appreciate your professional opinion in that regard. Thank you
very much.
I appreciate the ranking member's comments about the
bipartisan nature of this. I expect the same this Congress. I
will say the funding to a large extent was there in the
solution we had and it was paid for, the other part of this,
because if you come to my personal office and anywhere you go
on the Internet, you see that we are $20 trillion in debt.
And that does not mean our subject today is not a priority.
It means that if it is a priority, as it should be, we should
be asked to ask ourselves and the country what is less of a
priority to pay for this, so we do not give these youth an
additional problem, which is going to be 30- to $50 trillion in
debt by the time they are of age. I think that is a reasonable
balancing act that we should be performing.
I would like to close my comments by referencing Mr. Reed
and his accountability comments, his testimony. I think that is
key to all of us. I think if we are truly leaders, as you are,
and people you represent, you can find those ways to make that
happen.
In fact, we had some accountability reform measures put in
as a bipartisan act from last time, and I expect we will see it
again.
With that, thank you again, I appreciate the witnesses, and
I appreciate the members who stayed and were able to
participate today, and I am grateful for the work of this
committee from last Congress and what is to be done this
Congress.
With that, seeing no further business before the committee
today, we stand adjourned.
[Additional submission for the record by Mr. Rokita
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Questions submitted for the record and their responses
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]