Compliance with the JJDP Act Core ProtectionsFACJJ

Washington, DCDecember 2, 2010

Elissa Rumsey

Compliance Monitoring Coordinator

OJJDP

3 Topics of Discussion• OJJDP’s Compliance Program

• State Compliance Programs

• Anticipating Reauthorization of JJDPA

OJJDPs Compliance Program

• Implementing Core Protections @ State/local level – provision of Training/Technical Assistance

• Assessing 10 Elements of an “Adequate” CM System at State level

• Assessing State Compliance Monitoring Reports• Conducting Compliance Monitoring Audits

Written Guidance • www.ojjdp.gov/compliance

– JJDP Act of 2002– JJDP Act Regulations (1996)– Federal Registers (1981,1982, 1988(2), 1994)– OJJDP Audit Manual (2000)– OJJDP Guidance Manual (2010)

JJDP Act• History

– Landmark legislation– Provides standards (core requirements) – Creates funding mechanism for participating States to

comply with core requirements– First passed in 1974, updated in 2002– Reauthorization is pending

JJDP Act

• Funding mechanism: annual grant to participating States - amount determined based on annual compliance with four core requirements– Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO)– Sight and Sound Separation (Separation)– Jail Removal– Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)

OJJDPs Compliance Program

• 55 States/territories participate in Act– Governor assigns a DSA– Governor appoints a SAG

• OJJDP is the federal oversight agency charged with providing implementing regulations for the JJDP Act and ensuring compliance with the JJDP Act core requirements.

• OJJDP administers the Formula Grants program

Annual State Compliance Report

• States annually submit a compliance monitoring report detailing the number of violations under D.S.O., Separation and Jail Removal

• OJJDP’s assesses each State report annually & makes determination of compliance with core protections

Definition of Terms

• In order to understand how to monitor the following terms are critical– Secure versus non-secure

– Jail and lockup

– Juvenile Detention Center

– Juvenile Correctional Facility

– Prison

Definition of Terms• Status offender• Non-offender• Civil type offender• “Alien” • Delinquent• Accused• Adjudicated

Definition of Terms• Collocated facility• Court holding facility• Direct file/waiver/transfer• Valid Court Order• Public authority• Residential

Core Requirements

Facility Type D.S.O. Separation Jail Removal

Jail/Lockup Yes Yes Yes

JDC/JCF Yes Yes* No

Court Holding No Yes No

Group Home No No No

Collocated -Juvenile side -Adult side

YesYes

YesYes

NoYes

Prison Yes Yes No

Topical Issue - Jail RemovalRural Exception

• If all statutory and regulatory conditions are met a juvenile awaiting an initial court appearance may be detained in an adult jail:– Up to 48 hours (excluding weekends and holidays)– Allows longer holds if distance or weather is a factor. – Only if sight and sound separated from adult inmates

Topical Issue - DSOVCO

The VCO Exception (Statutory) to the DSO Core Protection

• State must have law allowing secure detention of status offenders who violate (federal) VCOs.

• The State must train court and facility staff to ensure that all VCO standards are met (e.g., due process is afforded, interviews occur within 24 hours, hearing within 48 hours).

Topical Issue - Separation• Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) new policy eliminating

“Scared Straight” programs• “Scared Straight” type programs violate Separation core

requirement• Research evaluating these programs demonstrates negative

effect on youth, lack of positive evidence supporting rehabilitation

• Resurgence of adult inmate trustees utilized in juvenile detention and corrections facilities.

Topical Issue -Court Holding

• See 1988 Federal Register noting Court Holding Facilities

• Must first qualify as a court holding facility:

– Used only for court – not as overflow;

– Can’t be used for overnight stays;

– Can’t be used for punitive purposes or purposes unrelated to a court appearance.

• Must only comply with Sight and Sound Separation.

Topical Issue -Collocated Facilities

• To be monitored as a “Collocated” facility, must meet the following requirements:– Facility must ensure separation;

– Facility must have separate juvenile and adult programs;

– If using same staff must have a State policy on training staff to work with juveniles; and

– If applicable, facility must be licensed by the State.

10 Monitoring ElementsAn Adequate CM System includes:

1.Policies and Procedures

2. Monitoring Authority

3. Monitoring Timetable

4. Violation Procedures

5. Barriers and Strategies

10 Monitoring Elements

6. Definitions

7. Identification of the Universe

8. Classification of the Universe

9. Inspection of Facilities

10. Data Collection and Data Verification

Why Monitor Facilities?

Section 223(a)(14) of the JJDP Act:

Participating States must, “provide for an adequate system of monitoring jails, detention facilities, correctional facilities, and nonsecure facilities to ensure that the requirements of paragraph (11), paragraph (12), and paragraph (13) are met, and for the annual reporting of the results of such monitoring to the [OJJDP] Administrator….”

Data Collection/Verification

• Data collection is critical.• If OJJDP determines that a State is out of compliance

with Section 223(a)(14), then Formula Grants funds can be frozen.

• If you have a reluctant facility, stress AccountabilityFact that the requirements are now standards of

professional conduct

• Build relationships - Work as a team toward compliance.

Compliance Monitors are your Eyes and Ears

• Ensure that children and youth are treated in accordance with the Act.

• Serve as the authority and resource for local law enforcement on federal, State and local custody rules.

• Monitor facilities that no other state or federal entity may ever monitor on behalf of youth.

Compliance Audits

• What is a compliance audit, and why do we do them?

• The audit process: planning, execution, and follow-up.

• Common audit findings follow.

Compliance Audits

Section 223 (a)(14)

• “Provide for an adequate system of monitoring jails, detention facilities, correctional facilities, and nonsecure facilities to ensure that the requirements of paragraph (11), paragraph (12), and paragraph (13) are met, and for annual reporting of the results of such monitoring to the [OJJDP] Administrator….”

Compliance Audits

• Section 204 (b)(6)

(OJJDP shall) “Provide for the auditing of monitoring systems required under… this title to review the adequacy of such systems….”

Compliance Audits

• The State is not performing onsite data verification prior to submission of Compliance Monitoring Reports to OJJDP.

Compliance Audits

• The State has classified a facility (e.g., a lockup) as non-secure, yet during the OJJDP audit the onsite inspection reveals a cuffing bench or cuffing rail.

• The State is not inspecting facilities believed to be nonsecure (e.g., lockups, group homes) to verify their nonsecure classification.

Compliance Audits• The State is not monitoring its juvenile correctional

facilities/training schools to ensure compliance with DSO and sight and sound separation requirements.

• Facilities are self-reporting violations and the DSA is not adequately verifying such self-reports for accuracy (e.g., comparing self-reported violations against admissions/booking logs).

Compliance Audits

• The State does not provide adequate documentation that VCO process requirements have been met.

• The State has not included public law enforcement facilities that exist in airports, shopping malls, and sports stadiums in its monitoring universe.

State Compliance Programs• See www.ojjdp.gov/compliance for listing of state

compliance monitors• See www.ojjdp.gov. for States out of compliance• Innovations in State compliance efforts: Analysis of

DMC in the first 3 core protections

DMC in the 1st Three Core Requirements: An analysis of state compliance data to assess whether minority youth are

overrepresented in law enforcement facilities

Susan Davis (CO), Compliance Monitor

Shari Morris (MD), Compliance Monitor

Mike Pennington (PA), Director, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

Commission on Crime and Delinquency

Melissa Sickmund, Chief of Systems Research and Charles Puzzanchera, Senior Research Associate,

National Center for Juvenile Justice

Why do this sort of analysis?• The intention of the JJDP Act is to protect youth

in custody and encourage fairness in justice systems

• Compliance violations in the first 3 core requirements have never been assessed from a DMC perspective

• This sort of analysis demonstrates what can be learned by applying the RRI strategy beyond what is currently undertaken

Is there evidence of DMC in violations of DSO, Jail Removal, and Separation?

• Study of 3 States’ monitoring data• Voluntary study: States with effective compliance

monitoring systems + able report race information for violations invited to participate

• Analysis examined State RRI for core requirement violations — relative to populations and relative to arrests

State Compliance Programs• Pennsylvania

• Maryland

• Colorado

Pennsylvania’s monitoring universe

• 69    Jails• 1,269Lockups• 32    Court holding facilities• 19    Juvenile detention facilities• 18     Juvenile correctional facilities

Maryland’s monitoring universe

• 29    Jails• 215    Lockups• 49    Court holding facilities• 7    Juvenile detention facilities• 4    Juvenile correctional facilities

Colorado’s monitoring universe

• 61    Jails• 272    Lockups• 17    Court holding facilities• 11    Juvenile detention facilities• 13    Juvenile correctional facilities

Preliminary Findings

Pennsylvania

Maryland

Maryland

Colorado

Colorado

Before we infer racial bias what other information would we like?

– Why was the child contacted by police? • Why child X and not child Y?

– Are there certain offenses that lead to violations?• Is there an interaction between offense and race?

– Where do these kids come from? • From certain communities? From certain schools?

Before we infer racial bias what other information would we like?

– Are there certain facilities that have more violations?• Are minorities a higher proportion of the youth population?• Are there admission criteria? Who approves admission?

– Are violations more likely to occur at certain times of day?• Are there issues with parents’ availability to collect youth that impact

minorities more than whites?

– Are there gender or age interactions?

What questions are raised?

• Should state DMC efforts include analyses of compliance violation data?

• Should state compliance monitoring data include other variables that would enable DMC analysis?

• Do the benefits of having more data outweigh the burden of collecting and using those data?

What have we learned?• Police are key to both DMC and core

requirement violations• Much can be gained from collaborations between

DMC Coordinators and Compliance Monitors • More study is needed to determine the

relationship among DSO, Jail Removal, Separation & DMC core protections

Reauthorization

• S. 678

• VCO Phaseout

• TCW population

– “Adult inmate” definition

– Youth charged with felonies in adult jails

Other Issues• JDAI

• PREA

• National Center for Youth in Custody

• Others?

Thank you

• Elissa Rumsey, Compliance Monitoring Coordinator

• Elissa.Rumsey@usdoj.gov

• 202.616.9279