Volume II • Number 2 Fall/Winter 1995 JUVENILE · R T M E N T OF J U S T I C E O F F I C E O...

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Volume II • Number 2

A Journal of theOffice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Fall/Winter 1995

Deinstitutionalizing StatusOffenders: A Record of

Progress

DEP

ARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OF

FI C

E

OF JUST I CE PRO

GR

AM

S

BJA

N

I JOJJ DP BJS

OV

C

The JJDP Act: A Second Look

Birth of a Partnership

Beyond the Mandates

Also

JUSTICEJUVENILE

From the Administrator

T his issue of Juvenile Justice looks back at one of America’s most significantlandmarks: the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. Fortu-nately, our contributors are well qualified to review this historic legislation and itsaftermath and to help us look toward the future.

“Over the past two decades,” Gwen Holden and Robert Kapler remind us inDeinstitutionalizing Status Offenders: A Record of Progress, “the JJDP Act has funda-mentally changed the way our Nation deals with troubled youth.”

As noted, the JJDP Act is a touchstone in the development of our juvenile justicesystem. Gordon Raley’s overview, The JJDP Act: A Second Look, details the changesin the Act approved by Congress over the past two decades. The author offers histhought-provoking recommendations as we approach the dawn of the 21st century.

Additional insights into the history of the JJDP Act and the ensuing Birth of a Part-nership are provided by Michael Saucier, while James Brown describes some of thesignificant accomplishments attained under the aegis of the Act—accomplishmentsthat go well Beyond the Mandates it established.

As with our predecessors who established the juvenile justice system at the turn ofthe century, we are striving to better serve the Nation’s children. Much has been ac-complished, yet much remains to be done. We can be encouraged by our past, and,with your participation, we can look forward to the future.

Shay BilchikAdministratorOffice of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention

Volume II • Number 2 Fall/Winter 1995

Office ofJuvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention

633 Indiana Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20531

(202) 307–0751

AdministratorShay Bilchik

Executive EditorEarl E. Appleby, Jr.

Assistant EditorCatherine M. Doyle

Managing EditorBob Jefferson

Juvenile Justice StaffChadwick Bash

David L. SchmidtMarilyn SilverGreg Varhola

Juvenile Justice is published bythe Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention(OJJDP) to advance its man-date to disseminate informa-tion regarding juveniledelinquency and preventionprograms (42 U.S.C. 5652).

Points of view or opinions ex-pressed in this publication arethose of the authors and do notnecessarily represent the offi-cial positions or policies ofOJJDP or of the U.S. Depart-ment of Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Preventionis a component of the Office ofJustice Programs, which alsoincludes the Bureau of JusticeAssistance, the Bureau of Jus-tice Statistics, the NationalInstitute of Justice, and theOffice for Victims of Crime.

FEATURES

Deinstitutionalizing Status Offenders: A Record of Progressby Gwen A. Holden and Robert A. Kapler .................................................... 3

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act’s central mandate hasdramatically changed the way our Nation deals with troubled youth.

The JJDP Act: A Second Look by Gordon A. Raley ................................ 11

The 20th anniversary of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Actis the best rebuttal to its critics. It is also an opportune time to review its progress.

Birth of a Partnership by Michael E. Saucier ........................................... 19

In 1974 Congress created a unique partnership among Federal, State, and localgovernments by enacting the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act.

Beyond the Mandates by James W. Brown .............................................. 22

The effects of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act go well beyondits primary mandates.

IN BRIEFJustice Matters

Meeting the Mandates ................................................................... 25

Online ServicesNCJRS Online ............................................................................ 29JUVJUST Listserv ........................................................................ 30

ORDER FORM ............................................................................. 31

JUSTICEJUVENILE

Deinstitutionalizing Status Offenders: A Record of Progress

Fall/Winter 1995 3

DeinstitutionalizingStatus Offenders:A Record of Progressby Gwen A. Holden and Robert A. Kapler

ver the past two decades, the Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention (JJDP) Act has fundamentally changed the way our Nationdeals with troubled youth. State juvenile justice systems that were previ-ously regarded as intransigent, bureaucratic, and punitive now empha-size treatment and rehabilitation through community-based programsand services.

especially those who commit serious orviolent felonies. Implementing such mea-sures, however, will most likely lead to asignificant influx of new offenders intothe juvenile justice system, creating pres-sure to expand and build more youth cor-rectional facilities. With increasedcompetition for limited funds, DSO pro-grams may become underfunded or losefunding altogether.

Origins of DSOA local precedent for the DSO mandatewas established in 1972, when the Com-monwealth of Massachusetts closed thelast of its juvenile institutions after yearsof failed reforms had proven inadequateto Jerome Miller, commissioner of Massa-chusetts’ Department of Youth Services(DYS). 1

The key to this transformation can befound in the JJDP Act’s central mandate:the deinstitutionalization of status of-fenders (DSO), which requires States toremove all status offenders from juveniledetention and correctional facilities.Status offenders are youth, such as run-aways and truants, who have committedoffenses that would not be crimes hadthey been committed by adults.

Today, a majority of States comply withthe DSO mandate and are committed toits purposes. Yet DSO faces new chal-lenges as public concern over increases injuvenile violence spurs elected officials toact to reduce juvenile crime.

In this highly charged atmosphere, theprinciples of rehabilitation established bythe JJDP Act may be at risk. Citizens andlawmakers are calling for more punitivemeasures against juvenile offenders,

O

Gwen A. Holden is executive vicepresident of the National CriminalJustice Association, with whichshe has been associated since1975. Ms. Holden received abachelor of arts degree in politicalscience and history from TuftsUniversity.

Robert A. Kapler is a senior staffassociate at the National CriminalJustice Association. A formernewspaper editor, he received hisbachelor of arts degree in journal-ism from Temple University.

4

Juvenile Justice

Miller knew that the success of Massa-chusetts’ experiment with DSO woulddepend on his ability to transform aninstitution-centered juvenile justice pro-

Gerald Ford signed the Act into law onSeptember 7, 1974.

The JJDP Act emphasized preventionmuch more than earlier Federal juvenilejustice grant-in-aid initiatives had. Itsfocus on keeping juveniles out of the ju-venile justice system contrasted sharplywith the law enforcement orientation ofthe Omnibus Crime Control and SafeStreets Act of 1968,3 which establishedthe Law Enforcement Assistance Admin-istration (LEAA) grant program to helpStates enhance their crime controlcapacities.

Unlike previous Federal juvenile justicelegislative initiatives, the JJDP Act pro-moted a strategy that would divert mostjuveniles from the justice system andplace those youths requiring interventionin intensive, community-based programs.

The DSO provision was one of the Act’soriginal mandates. As enacted in 1974, itrequired States to “provide within twoyears . . . that juveniles who are chargedwith or who have committed offensesthat would not be criminal if committedby an adult shall not be placed in juve-nile detention or correctional facilities,but must be placed in shelter facilities.”4

The JJDP Act also mandated that juve-niles be separated by sight and soundfrom adult offenders in detention andcorrectional facilities.5

In 1976, the DSO mandate was clarifiedthrough the formulation of a “substantialcompliance standard,” which requiredStates to reduce the number of statusoffenders and nonoffenders confined intheir detention and correctional institu-tions by 75 percent over a 2-year period.6

Congress amended the JJDP Act in 1977to bring “nonoffenders” such as depen-dent and neglected youths under theDSO provision and to provide Stateswith broader alternative placement

The JJDP Act promoted a strategy thatwould divert juveniles from the justicesystem.

gram into a community-based network ofprograms and services for troubled youth.Before closing the institutions, Miller de-centralized DYS by creating seven re-gional offices and a program throughwhich it could purchase beds, equipment,and services from private companies.2

Miller had hoped that dismantling thedepartment’s institutional structure wouldprompt growth in the services sector. Withfew private programs and services for youthavailable in the community, many juve-niles affected by the DSO initiative werereleased without services or supervision.

The closing of Massachusetts’ juvenileinstitutions stunned public policymakersand juvenile justice professionals acrossthe country. While many of these offi-cials shared Miller’s frustration with ajuvenile justice system that was resistantto reform, they had serious reservationsabout making such a sudden and momen-tous shift in the system.

In the same year that the last trainingschool was closed in Massachusetts, U.S.Senator Birch Bayh, chairman of theSenate Judiciary Committee’s Subcom-mittee on Juvenile Delinquency, intro-duced a bill—the JJDP Act—calling forDSO nationwide. The 92nd Congressconcluded the following year with no fi-nal action on the measure. Bayh reintro-duced the bill in the first session of the93rd Congress. It passed, and President


Fall/Winter 1995 5

the aggregate proportion of minoritygroups in the general population.

Financial IncentiveTo receive JJDP Act formula grant funds,States are required to comply with theAct’s mandates. States are also requiredto monitor their progress toward achiev-ing these mandates and to provideannual progress reports to the Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre-vention (OJJDP), which administers theJJDP Act.

Should a State fail to make sufficientprogress toward achieving the Act’sgoals, it could become ineligible for con-tinued formula grant funding.10

options for status offenders and non-offenders, including nonplacement. Theamendment accomplished this goal byremoving the requirement thatdeinstitutionalized youths be placed inshelter facilities. The 1977 amendmentsalso gave States an additional 3 years—up to a total of 5 years—in which tocomply with the DSO mandate.

In 1980, Congress specified that statusoffenders and nonoffenders must be re-moved from “secure” juvenile detentionand correctional facilities and added athird mandate that prohibited Statesfrom detaining juveniles in jails and locallockups.7

Congress made another major substan-tive change to the DSO mandate thatyear by approving an exception to themandate for status offenders andnonoffenders who are found to have vio-lated a valid court order (VCO).8 TheVCO exception was enacted at the urg-ing of juvenile court judges who believedthat the DSO mandate unduly hamperedjuvenile courts’ ability to deal with cer-tain juveniles, particularly chronic run-aways. Under the exception, statusoffenders or nonoffenders can be institu-tionalized upon a finding that they vio-lated a VCO. The VCO procedureprovides juveniles with a number of pro-cedural due process rights such as courthearings, confrontation rights, and theright to notification of the chargesagainst them.

In 1992, Congress added a fourth man-date requiring that States receiving JJDPAct formula grants provide assurancesthat they will develop and implementplans to reduce overrepresentation of mi-norities in the juvenile justice system.9 AState is subject to the JJDP Act’s dispro-portionate minority confinement (DMC)mandate if the proportion of minorityjuveniles confined in that State’s deten-tion and correctional facilities exceeds

In 1992, Congress acted to accelerateStates’ progress toward full compliancewith the mandates by requiring that 25percent of a State’s formula grant allot-ment be withheld annually for each man-date the State is not complying with.11

Congress further required that a noncom-plying State direct the remainder of itsformula grant funds to achieving fullcompliance.12

DSO's ImpactThe majority of the States and territoriesparticipating under the JJDP Act are incompliance with the DSO mandate.OJJDP’s preliminary analysis of Decem-ber 1992 monitoring reports indicatedthat 5 States and 3 territories hadachieved full compliance and 29 Stateswere in full compliance with de minimis,or minimal, exceptions.13

The majority of States are in compliancewith the DSO mandate.

6

Juvenile Justice

Of the remaining States, the monitoringreports of 10 were under review by OJJDPand another 10 had not submitted a 1992monitoring report as of OJJDP’s releaseof its preliminary report. One State,South Dakota, was not due to make a1992 compliance report, having begun itsparticipation in the JJDP Act that year.

While the DSO mandate has been re-garded as an inappropriate infringementon State prerogatives in some States, inmany others it has served as a catalyst forreform.

In New York, the DSO mandate ad-vanced efforts already under way to re-form the State’s juvenile justice system.The State used the mandate to focus itsreform efforts and marshal criminal jus-tice officials’ support, and participationin the Act provided critical seed moneyfor developing innovative DSO programs.

In Delaware, legislative change and JJDPAct funding were key factors leading toDSO compliance. The result was a DSOpolicy that impacted not only statusoffenders and nonoffenders, but theState’s entire juvenile justice system. In1988, Delaware closed its correctionalfacility for female juveniles after steadilyreducing its population over the previousdecade. Moreover, from 1978 to 1979,the State’s incarcerated male juvenilepopulation declined from 240 to 160. Anaverage of 90 juvenile males currently areconfined in Delaware facilities each year.16

In Louisiana, the DSO mandate was theimpetus to undertake a major juvenilecode reform initiative. A prohibition oninstitutionalizing status offenders becamethe foundation for the State’s DSO ac-complishments, and a decade after theJJDP Act’s enactment, Louisiana was infull compliance.17

DSO and the CourtsBefore States adopted legislation or tookexecutive action to comply with theJJDP Act, a number of State courts tookthe matter into their own hands.

In 1977, the West Virginia SupremeCourt of Appeals ruled that the securedetention of status offenders violated theState constitution. In Harris v. Caledine,18

Gilbert Harris, a juvenile, was deter-mined to be a truant and placed in securedetention. At the time, State statutestreated status offenders in the same man-ner as they treated delinquents. The

The DSO mandate has served as a

catalyst for reform.

The Alabama Department of Economicand Community Affairs’ Law Enforce-ment Planning Section reports that DSOrequirements were met in that State bycreating alternatives to institutionaliza-tion for status offenders and nonoffendersand by enacting legislation that gave theState’s DYS exclusive authority to li-cense juvenile detention and correc-tional facilities. DYS will withholdlicensing from any facility that housesstatus offenders or nonoffenders.14

In some States, the DSO mandate en-hanced ongoing reform initiatives. TheNew Mexico legislature’s 1972 children’scode revisions included a DSO require-ment that prohibited placement of statusoffenders in State juvenile institutions.The code gave counties until July 1,1976, to achieve compliance with therequirement and provided an exceptionto the DSO requirement for a 60-day di-agnostic period. Juvenile justice officialsin New Mexico welcomed the JJDP Actas a source of funding to implement theState’s own DSO strategy.15


Fall/Winter 1995 7

Court ruled that secure detention of sta-tus offenders violated the due process andequal protection clauses of the State con-stitution as well as its prohibition of crueland unusual punishment.

In 1988, the Tennessee Supreme Courtruled in Doe v. Norris19 that secure deten-tion of status offenders violated the dueprocess and equal protection clauses ofthe State and U.S. Constitutions. As of1988, Tennessee law allowed the commin-gling of status offenders (encompassed un-der the State’s definition of “unruly child”)and delinquents. Doe brought a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all unruly chil-dren in the State who had been placed insecure detention with delinquents, arguingthat secure detention of status offenderswas unconstitutional.

The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled thatthe due process clauses of the State andU.S. Constitutions were violated becausesecure detention amounts to punishmentof the plaintiffs without an adjudicationof guilt. The court relied on the U.S.Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in Schallv. Martin20 that held that punishmentimposed without a prior adjudication ofguilt is per se illegitimate. Because statusoffenders are not found “guilty” of anycrime, secure detention is an illegitimatepunishment.

The Tennessee Supreme Court also ruledthat State practice violated the State andFederal equal protection clauses. Securedetention of status offenders infringedupon the fundamental right to personalliberty. While the court ruled that theState had compelling interests in com-mingling delinquents with status offend-ers, it ruled that there were other waysto achieve those interests short ofcommingling.

Subsequently, both West Virginia andTennessee adopted legislation requiringthe deinstitutionalization of statusoffenders.

The Valid Court OrderExceptionIn its 1980 amendments to the JJDPAct, Congress enacted a provision in-tended to address concerns that theDSO mandate deprived juvenile courtjudges of a significant option in handlingcertain status offenders. The provisionpermits judges to confine status offendersin secure detention facilities for limitedperiods of time if they are found to haveviolated a VCO.

The provision allowed a State to autho-rize secure confinement for a statusoffender who violated a VCO, to adjudi-cate a status offender as a delinquent ifthe status offender acted in violation of aVCO, or to use the court’s contemptpower.

While the majority of States do not usethe VCO exception in any form, someStates’ common laws or statutes allowthe courts to use traditional contemptpower to “bootstrap” or upgrade a statusoffender to a delinquent.

OJJDP has indicated that bootstrappingis not consistent with its policies.21 Al-though an adult can commit a criminalcontempt of court, OJJDP considers the

juvenile a status offender under the JJDPAct and, therefore, the procedural safe-guards for a VCO violator continue toapply.22

This position appears to follow the intentof Congress. In 1977, LEAA’s Office ofGeneral Counsel issued Legal Opinion 77–25, which stated that a status offender whoviolates a court order remains a status of-fender unless the violation would itself

The majority of States do not use the validcourt order exception.

8

Juvenile Justice

be criminal if committed by an adult anduntil the juvenile was charged with (oradjudicated for) committing the particu-lar offense. This is the case even when aState code classifies the violation as a de-linquent act.

When OJJDP published proposed guide-lines regulating the new VCO amendmentin 1982, it stated “[o]ne rationale for theamendment was to obviate the need forcourts to use their criminal contemptpower as a means of obtaining compliancewith court orders. Further, OJJDP’s legalcounsel has ruled that a violation of a courtorder by a status offender is an insufficientlegal basis to categorize the juvenile as acriminal-type or delinquent offender, thusremoving the juvenile from the deinstitu-tionalization requirement.” 23

The chronic status offender is one of themost difficult juvenile offenders to placeand the least amenable to community-based intervention strategies. A 1992 re-port by the National Coalition for theMentally Ill in the Criminal JusticeSystem asserts that “status offenders anddelinquents with emotional and behaviorproblems place great stress on the juve-nile justice system” and that their needshave been largely ignored.

In 1980, the Illinois Law EnforcementCommission’s (ILEC’s) Juvenile JusticeDivision reviewed the State’s DSO stat-ute. ILEC found that the chronic statusoffender’s environment is characterizedby failure and rejection beginning with atotal breakdown in the child’s relation-ship with his family and carrying forwardinto out-of-home placements and school.The ILEC report concluded that “with-out altering the history of rejection andstabilizing the lives of these youth, theoutcome will be a return home followedby subsequent runaway episodes or a re-turn to the streets.”24

The ILEC report suggested that chronicrunaways, more than any other status of-fenders, require “a continuum of servicesif their needs are to be adequately ad-dressed.”25

For some judges and juvenile justice offi-cials, losing the option to hold theseyouth means losing an opportunity tohelp them. Placing them in inappropriatetreatment settings or releasing them withthe possibility that they will cause seriousharm to themselves or others creates therisk that another major DSO exceptionwill be created that may be unnecessarilyapplied to large numbers of statusoffenders.

As it stands, the problem of the chronicstatus offender, like issues concerning theVCO provision, raises the possibility that

This guideline indicates OJJDP’s intentthat courts follow VCO procedures evenwhen using their traditional contemptpowers or a State’s delinquency classifica-tion as the authority to employ the VCOexception.

Many appellate courts have used a ration-ale similar to OJJDP’s in addressing thebootstrapping of status offenders by lowercourts.

Chronic StatusOffendersOne of the principal issues affecting States’compliance with the DSO mandate con-cerns the handling of youth, such as run-aways or juveniles with emotional andbehavioral problems, on the periphery ofthe status offender classification.

The chronic status offender is one of themost difficult juvenile offenders to place.


Fall/Winter 1995 9

however, will likely reinforce the devel-opment of noninstitutional approachesto dealing with the least violent and seri-ous offenders.

these youth may be handled in ways thateffectively undermine State DSO efforts.

Future ProspectsThe JJDP Act has survived majorchanges in the structure and focus of Fed-eral crime control grant-in-aid programs;the war on drugs of the 1980’s, whichfeatured Congress’ creation of a FederalOffice of National Drug Control Policyand enactment of two major anti-drugmeasures; dramatic increases in correc-tions spending in the States and by theFederal Government; and a host ofchanges in Federal and State laws to pun-ish perpetrators of serious and violentcrimes, including serious and violent ju-venile offenders.

While the majority of States haveachieved compliance with the DSO man-date and remain committed to its purposes,they face future challenges. Juvenile crimeis a high priority. Virtually every Governorin the Nation has made reducing juvenilecrime and improving the quality of preven-tive and correctional services for juvenilesa top priority. The challenge to States willbe to retain their focus on prevention de-spite the escalating pressures for more pu-nitive approaches to resolving the violenceproblem.

The survival of a State’s DSO policylikely will depend in large part on howfirmly installed it has become in laws,policies, and practices. Practical and eco-nomic considerations associated with theNation’s correctional crowding problem,

Deinstitutionalization of status offendersremains a central theme in juvenile justice.

Moreover, DSO remains a central themein the juvenile justice and related socialservices fields. For example, an $800,000grant from the Robert Wood JohnsonFoundation has established a DSOproject at the Robert F. Kennedy Memo-rial in Massachusetts.26 This National Ju-venile Justice Reform Project was createdto help States reduce the use of juveniledetention and correctional facilities inhandling juvenile offenders.27 Theproject’s goal is to provide incentives toStates and local jurisdictions to expandcommunity-based programs and servicesfor juveniles as alternatives to institu-tional placements.28

The JJDP Act has had a tremendous im-pact on this country’s juvenile justicepractices. Its mandates have spurred pub-lic policymakers and juvenile justice offi-cials to reform for over two decades,weathering extraordinary shifts in thedemographics of juvenile crime, publicexpectations, and social policy. Withoutthis legislative bedrock, the Nation risksa wholesale return to policies that placeyouth who are not criminal offenders injeopardy.

10

Juvenile Justice

Notes1. From 1970 to 1972, Miller closed the Institutefor Juvenile Guidance in Bridgewater, Massachu-setts, and then the Commonwealth’s remainingtraining schools in Lyman, Shirely, Oakdale, andLancaster. Background DYS, Massachusetts Depart-ment of Youth Services, October 15, 1993.

2. Ibid.

3. Pub. L. 90–351, codified as amended at 42U.S.C. §§3711 et. seq. (1977 and Supp. 1994).

4. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency PreventionAct of 1974, Pub. L. 93–415, §223(a)(12).

5. The sight and sound separation mandate iscodified at 42 U.S.C. §5633(a)(13)(Supp. 1994).

6. Report to the National SPA Conference on theStatus of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-tion Act of 1974, National Conference of StateCriminal Justice Planning Administrators, July 31,1976.

7. The jail removal mandate is codified at 42U.S.C. §5633(a)(14)(Supp. 1994).

8. Pub. L. 96–509, codified as amended at 46U.S.C. §5603(16)(Supp. 1994).

9. The overrepresentation of minorities mandate iscodified at 42 U.S.C. §5633(a)(23)(Supp. 1994).

10. 42 U.S.C. §5633(c)(Supp. 1994).

11. 42 U.S.C. §5633(c)(3)(A)(Supp. 1994).

12. 42 U.S.C. §5633(c)(3)(B)(Supp. 1994).

13. The eight jurisdictions that have achieved fullcompliance are American Samoa, Minnesota, Or-egon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island,the Virgin Islands, and West Virginia. Kentuckyand Wyoming currently are not participating inthe JJDP Act. 1992 Compliance Monitoring Data,Summary of State Compliance with the Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, asamended (Preliminary Report). Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juve-nile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1994.

14. Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders in Ala-bama, Alabama Department of Economic andCommunity Affairs, Law Enforcement PlanningSection, 1994.

15. Response of John C. Patterson, former juvenilejustice specialist for the State of New Mexico, tothe NCJA DSO Implementation Survey, May 12,1994.

16. Telephone conversation with James Kane,deputy director, Delaware Criminal JusticeCouncil.

17. Response of Dolores Kozloski, former juvenilejustice specialist for the State of Louisiana, to theNCJA DSO Implementation Survey, June 28,1994.

18. 160 W. Va. 172 (1977).

19. 751 S.W.2d 834 (1988).

20. 467 U.S. 253 (1984).

21. 47 Federal Register 21226 (1982).

22. John J. Wilson, “The Valid Court Order Ex-ception—Meeting the Need for the Enforcementof Court Orders,” Children’s Legal Rights Journal 10,1982.

23. 47 Federal Register 21226 (1982).

24. Criminal Justice Newsletter, “Project Aims toReplicate Massachusetts Experiment,” June 15,1994.

25. Ibid.

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid.


Fall/Winter 1995 11

The JJDP Act:A Second Lookby Gordon A. Raley

In 1985, I collaborated with John Dean, Republican counsel andmy staff counterpart on the U.S. House Education and Labor Commit-tee, on an article reviewing the progress of the Juvenile Justice and De-linquency Prevention (JJDP) Act. At the time, there was oppositionthat challenged the Act’s relevance. While John and I attempted to re-fute the critics,1 observing the Act’s 20th anniversary is the best rebut-tal. It is also a good time to take stock of the progress that has occurredas a result of the JJDP Act and the challenges still ahead for the juvenilejustice system.

BackgroundThe JJDP Act was the first Federal law toaddress juvenile delinquency in a com-prehensive manner, combining Federalleadership, State planning, and commu-nity-based services to promote systemicimprovement. The Act has enjoyed twodecades of bipartisan support. Demo-cratic Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana andRepublican Senator Roman Hruska ofNebraska were the primary sponsors ofthe law in the Senate. In the House ofRepresentatives, bipartisan support camefrom Representatives Augustus Hawkins,a California Democrat, and TomRailsback, a Republican from Illinois.They relied, in part, upon the findingsand recommendations of the PresidentialCommission on Law Enforcement andthe Administration of Justice, which pro-

duced its report The Challenge of Crime ina Free Society in 1967. In so doing, theysuccessfully merged three Federal strate-gies into one comprehensive approach:formula funds to States to promote na-tional objectives; categorical funds tosponsor innovation; and research fundsto provide evaluation and accountabilityand to fuel further innovation.

Retrospect(1912–1974)The JJDP Act was not the first Federaljuvenile delinquency law. In 1912, Con-gress charged the Children’s Bureau withinvestigating the operations and prac-tices of juvenile courts. However, be-tween 1912 and the end of World WarII, little happened at the Federal level.

Gordon A. Raley is executivedirector of the National Assemblyof National Voluntary Health andSocial Welfare Organizations andits affinity group, the NationalCollaboration for Youth. From1978 to 1985, Mr. Raley servedas staff director for the U.S.House Committee on Educationand Labor’s Subcommittee onHuman Resources.

12

Juvenile Justice

In 1948, President Truman convened theMid-Century Conference on Childrenand Youth to determine methods forstrengthening juvenile courts, improvingpolice services affecting juveniles, andexamining the prevention and treatmentcapabilities of social service providers.Although the Conference recommendedan increased Federal role in juvenile jus-tice matters, Congress enacted no newlegislation. Voters viewed juvenile de-linquency as a State and local problem.

By 1960, however, the “Sharks” and the“Jets” of the play West Side Story hit thestreets of Broadway, while real gangs hitthe streets of our large cities. Public per-ceptions began to change, and juveniledelinquency became a national issue. In1961, at President John F. Kennedy’s urg-ing, Congress enacted the Juvenile De-linquency and Youth Offenses ControlAct. Under this Act, the Department ofHealth, Education and Welfare (HEW)provided funds to State, local, and pri-vate nonprofit agencies to conduct dem-onstration projects on improved methodsof preventing and controlling juvenilecrime. This marked the first time thatthe Federal Government encouragedState and local innovation with targetedfinancial assistance.

Start evolved from early projects sup-ported by Federal delinquency funding.

In 1966, public concern about crime es-calated. President Johnson establishedthe Commission on Law Enforcementand the Administration of Justice. TheCommission’s Task Force on JuvenileDelinquency proposed six major strate-gies to reduce juvenile crime:2

◆ Decriminalization of status offenses(acts that would not be offenses if com-mitted by an adult, such as running awayfrom home, truancy, or being in need ofsupervision).

◆ Diversion of youth from the court sys-tem into alternate public and privatetreatment programs.

◆ Extension of due-process rights tojuveniles.

◆ Deinstitutionalization (the use ofcommunity group homes or nonresiden-tial treatment facilities rather than large,secure training schools).

◆ Diversification of services.

◆ Decentralization of control.

The Juvenile Delinquency Preventionand Control Act of 1968 provided assis-tance to State and local governmentsand provided training to juvenile justicepersonnel. HEW Secretary JohnGardner testified before Congress thatyouth “teetering on the brink of delin-quency” were too often placed in the cor-rectional system, and he contended thatyouth, once exposed to the juvenile jus-tice system, were likely to return.3 In1968, Congress passed the OmnibusCrime Control and Safe Streets Act,which involved the U.S. Department ofJustice in juvenile justice for the firsttime through its Law Enforcement Assis-tance Administration (LEAA).

The JJDP Act was not the first juveniledelinquency law.

These projects were concentrated in theNation’s inner cities, which had thehighest juvenile delinquency rates. Theymobilized community resources to attackconditions thought to cause delinquency.Many of the projects served as models forlater programs under President LyndonB. Johnson’s War on Poverty. TheNeighborhood Youth Corps, the LegalServices Corporation, and even Head


Fall/Winter 1995 13

Besides Justice and HEW, the U.S. De-partments of Labor and Housing and Ur-ban Development became involved inmatters concerning juvenile delinquency.By 1971, a consensus had emerged thatFederal juvenile justice programs wereunfocused, underfunded, and, as a result,ineffective. Senator Bayh began workalmost immediately on new legislation tocoordinate Federal programs.4

There were two main themes in the 1972amendments that set the stage for theJJDP Act in 1974. First, financial aidand technical assistance alone were inad-equate to combat delinquency effec-tively––comprehensive planning andcoordination were needed. Second, somepractices such as incarcerating status of-fenders and confining delinquents withconvicted adults were counterproduc-tive––thus, systemic reform was required.

Reform (1974)By 1974, juvenile crime was widelyviewed as a national problem. A presi-dential commission had suggested strate-gies to improve the juvenile justicesystem, and Congress was dissatisfiedwith Federal laws designed to facilitateState and local action on juvenile justice.As a result of such considerations, theJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre-vention (JJDP) Act of 1974 was con-ceived.

In 1974, the seriousness of juvenile crimewas reflected in the ominous statistics.The arrests of juveniles under the age of18 for violent crimes such as murder,rape, and robbery increased 216 percentfrom 1960 to 1974. During this same pe-riod, juvenile arrests for property crime,such as burglary and auto theft, increased91 percent. Juveniles under age 18 wereresponsible for 51 percent of the total ar-rests for property crimes, 23 percent ofviolent crimes, and 45 percent of all seri-

ous crimes. Nearly 40 percent of juve-niles incarcerated committed no criminalact. According to Senator Hruska “Thefigure is staggering in recognition of thedetrimental effects that incarceration hasbeen shown to produce with first offend-ers and juveniles.”5

From such reflections, three goals forFederal involvement emerged:

◆ Reducing juvenile crime.

◆ Decreasing the proportion of crimecommitted by juveniles.

◆ Improving methods for handlingjuveniles.

Senator Bayh forged a partnership withSenator Hruska, the father of LEAA,agreeing to assign responsibility for theAct to LEAA. The Senate and Houseapproved the bill by overwhelming ma-jorities. President Gerald A. Ford signedit into law on September 7, 1974.

The goals of the new legislation wereeven more moderate than the strategiesrecommended by the Commission onLaw Enforcement 7 years earlier. Thenew law did not decriminalize status of-fenses, as the Commission had recom-mended, but encouraged the use ofnonsecure treatment alternatives forstatus offenders.

The Act provided Federal funds to divertjuveniles from correctional settings intorestitution projects, neighborhood courts,and other community programs. It au-thorized spending to encourage the juve-nile justice system “to conform tostandards of due process.”

The JJDP Act was most innovative re-quiring the removal of status offenders

Financial support alone was inadequate.Systemic reform was required.

14

Juvenile Justice

from secure incarceration. While manyother Federal programs provided formulaor discretionary funds to support projects,the JJDP Act required that States changespecific practices to meet national normsas a condition for participation. In par-ticular, Section 223(a)(12) and (13) ofthe Act required States to remove statusoffenders from secure confinement and toseparate adult and juvenile offenders as acondition of receiving Federal juvenilejustice funds.

To encourage diversification of services,the Act required that States dedicate 75percent of the Federal funds they re-ceived to community-based programs,including nonprofit programs. To decen-tralize services the Act suggested thatwhen juveniles had to be placed in resi-dential facilities, they be the “least re-strictive alternative” appropriate to theneeds of the child and that they be in“reasonable proximity” to families andhome communities. The Act promotedsmall, community-based facilities insteadof large, warehouse institutions.

confinement but, noting difficulties re-ported by some States, extended compli-ance dates by a year. By 1978, theOJJDP budget had increased to morethan $100 million.

Revision (1980)The 1980 amendments to the JJDP Actinvolved modest fine-tuning, reflectingoverall congressional satisfaction withthe legislation and its implementation.Testifying before the House Educationand Labor Committee, OJJDP Adminis-trator, Ira M. Schwartz, cited the Act’saccomplishments:6

◆ In the first 3 years following passageof the JJDP Act (1975–1977), the totalnumber of cases referred to juvenilecourts decreased by 3.6 percent.

◆ The number of status offenders re-ferred to juvenile courts decreased by21.3 percent during the same period.

◆ The rate of detention of status offend-ers decreased by nearly 50 percent.

However, the National Council of Juve-nile and Family Court Judges, while sup-porting continuation of the Act, askedCongress to repeal the provision requir-ing the removal of status offenders fromsecure incarceration. Congress approveda compromise that allowed incarcerationof juveniles who violated valid court or-ders. Many national organizationsviewed adoption of the valid court orderamendment as a retreat from the goals ofthe Act.

The 1980 amendments included a majorinitiative that required the removal of alljuveniles from adult jails and lockupswithin 5 years. The Carter Administra-tion supported the initiative, noting thatthe most recent census of jails found thatmore than 12,000 juveniles were in jailson any given day. RepresentativeRailsback noted that the suicide rate of

The legislation reaffirmed congressionalsupport for removing status offendersfrom institutions.

Reauthorization (1977)With strong bipartisan support, appro-priations rose from $25 million in 1975to $75 million in 1977, when the Actwas reauthorized. President Jimmy Carterrequested additional funding, named anew OJJDP administrator, and proposedlegislation to extend the program for anadditional 3 years.

The 1977 reauthorization reaffirmed con-gressional support for removing statusoffenders from secure settings and sepa-rating juveniles from convicted adults in


Fall/Winter 1995 15

Review (1988)In 1988, the JJDP Act was extended aspart of the Omnibus Crime Control Act.All titles were reauthorized for an addi-tional 4 years with renewed focus on im-proving State practices and securefacilities. The overrepresentation of mi-norities in secure correctional settingswas a particular concern. The newamendments required the OJJDP Admin-istrator to submit to Congress an annualreport detailing the number of juvenilesin custody, the types of offenses forwhich they were charged, their race andgender, and the number who died whilein custody and their cause of death.

juveniles held in adult jails was approxi-mately seven times that of juveniles heldin juvenile detention facilities.7

Reductions (1981)Each year from 1981 to 1989, the totalallocation to OJJDP decreased. By 1989,the OJJDP budget was approximately $66million.

Reaffirmation (1984)During the 1980’s, the Federal focusshifted from delinquency prevention tocriminal justice, emphasizing:

◆ Prosecution of serious juvenileoffenders.

◆ The plight of missing children.

◆ Mandatory and tougher sentencinglaws.

◆ Programs to prevent school violence.

◆ National efforts against drugs andpornography.

A number of criminologists questionedthis approach.8

The 1984 amendments to the JJDP Actcreated Title IV, the Missing Children’sAssistance Act, intended to locate andtreat abducted youngsters. The initiativehad considerable support and was heavilypromoted by the media.

The 1984 amendments were significantfor many reasons. By rejecting requests toabolish the State Formula Grant Programand to repeal the status offender man-dates, Congress enacted several amend-ments designed to prevent potentialabuses of grant-making authority by re-quiring a competitive grant process.

Congress reestablished the importanceof prevention.

Renovation (1992)The 1992 amendments to the JJDP Actwere more extensive because Congressadded constructive initiatives addressingjuvenile gangs, youth development,mentoring, and prevention.

The definition of valid court order wasrevised to ensure due process and to pre-vent possible abuses by those seekingto skirt the congressional mandate toremove status offenders from secureincarceration.

Following the completion of reports re-quired by the 1988 amendments, a newmandate required State assurance thatyouth in their juvenile justice systemswould be treated equitably on the basis ofgender, race, family income, and mental,emotional, or physical disabilities.

Congress reestablished the importance ofprevention. It added positive youth de-velopment activities as a purpose of the

16

Juvenile Justice

Act and made them eligible for State for-mula grants. It created national initia-tives as well: Part D—Gang-free Schoolsand Communities and Part E—StateChallenge Activities. Part E providedfunding opportunities for States willingto embark on innovative activities suchas improving health services in correc-tional settings; improving secure, com-munity-based correctional alternativesfor violent juveniles; removing genderbias from system services; creating Stateombudsman offices; and developing alter-natives to suspensions and expulsions tokeep more youth in school. Congress au-thorized new spending for mentoring andthe treatment of offenders victimized bychild abuse or neglect.

Title V established incentive grants forlocal delinquency prevention programs.These grants covered a broad range ofactivities, including recreation, tutoring,remedial education, work skills enhance-ment, substance abuse prevention, andleadership development. The 1992amendments authorized the President toconvene a White House Conference onJuvenile Justice.

money could easily obscure the signifi-cance of the JJDP Act and its mandatesfor juvenile justice reform.

Yet the JJDP Act still endures. After 20years of legislation and amendments,through changing political climates andleadership, it has continued to balanceefforts between justice system reform andprevention.

RecordCurrently, 49 States are in full compli-ance with requirements for removing sta-tus offenders and nonoffenders fromsecure incarceration, while 40 States arein full compliance with the mandates toseparate juveniles from convicted adultsand to remove youth from adult jails.From 1980 to 1992, the average dailypopulation of youth in adult jails fellfrom 12,000 to slightly more than 2,000.9

While juveniles are responsible for onein three arrests for property crime, 17percent of violent crime, and 29 percentof serious crime, the situation is betterthan before the enactment of the JJDPAct.10

RecommendationsThe question that remains to be an-swered is what should happen to theJJDP Act in the future. First, the U.S.Department of Justice should extend themandates to cover appropriate fundingunder the Violent Crime Control andLaw Enforcement Act. In its conferencereport, Congress provided the followingguidance:

It is the intent of the Confereesthat, with the exception of SubtitileB of Title II (which provides forcorrectional programming for of-fenders up to the age of 22), all pro-grams and activities for juvenileoffenders funded under this legisla-

After 20 years of amendments, the JJDPAct endures.

Recommitment (1995)The Administration has made crime oneof its national priorities, and OJJDP hasseen its appropriation nearly doubled to$144 million for 1995. However, this in-crease has been dwarfed by the $5 billionappropriated for crime prevention overthe next 5 years under the Violent CrimeControl and Law Enforcement Act of1994. For prevention professionals,starved for resources to serve more youthwith dwindling State, local, and privatedollars, the prospect of such Federal


Fall/Winter 1995 17

tion shall be carried out in a man-ner consistent with the mandates ofthe Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention Act (42 U.S.C.5600 et seq.).11

Thus, States receiving assistance underany section of the Violent Crime Con-trol and Law Enforcement Act of 1994(except subtitle B of Title II) should, be-fore receiving that assistance, agree tothe following:

◆ Remove status offenders andnonoffenders from secure incarceration.

◆ Separate juveniles from convictedadults in correctional settings.

◆ Remove juveniles from adult jails.

◆ Carefully examine biases in correc-tional placement based on race andincome.

This will encourage State reform andshould pay real dividends in juvenilecrime reduction.

Second, President Bill Clinton shouldconvene a White House Conference onJuvenile Justice. It has been nearly aquarter century since professionals andexperts have been called together to re-view the Nation’s juvenile justice system.A White House Conference is needed toexamine which programs sponsored bythe JJDP Act have worked and whichhave not.

The conference should examine recenttrends of binding juveniles over to adultcourt at younger and younger ages.Should such trends continue, maybe it istime to reexamine decriminalization ofstatus offenses. If we bind youngsters asyoung as age 12 to adult courts (someStates are considering bind-over provi-sions for youth age 7), perhaps the needfor a separate juvenile court is past. Per-

haps it is time to give all youth who com-mit criminal offenses the full due-processprotections of adult court, with age ap-propriate treatment and correctional al-ternatives, and place those who have notcommitted criminal offenses under thejurisdiction of social service agencies,

where their needs will be more reliablymet.

The Act should continue its strong em-phasis on prevention. It remains themost cost-effective way to control crime.Among preventive approaches, it shouldstress those with a specific focus on posi-tive youth development, which seeks toproduce positive outcomes for youngpeople, beyond the simple cessation of“bad” behaviors.

Lastly, the JJDP Act should be reautho-rized in 1996. It has proven itself andhas more to offer in encouraging Stateand local innovations. New reformsshould focus on secure juvenile correc-tional facilities. We need to find alterna-tive treatments for young people who donot belong in secure settings, but afterdoing so, we need to invest heavily tomake correctional settings places wherecorrection can truly occur. If we do notinvest in serious delinquents before theage of adulthood, we will surely invest inour own victimization and their long-term incarceration afterwards. Juvenilecorrectional facilities are not their lastchance but ours, as a Nation.

The President should convene a WhiteHouse Conference on Juvenile Justice.

18

Juvenile Justice

Notes1. G.A. Raley and J. Dean. “The Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention Act: Federal Leader-ship in State Reform,” Law & Policy 8(4)(October1986):397.

2. L.E. Ohlin. “The Future of Juvenile JusticePolicy and Research,” Crime and Delinquency29(1983):465.

3. U.S. Congress. House Committee on Educationand Labor, General Subcommittee on Education.Hearings on the Juvenile Delinquency Act. 90thCongress, First Session. 1967, p. 16.

4. U.S. Congress. Senate Committee on Judiciary.Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delin-quency. Hearings on Juvenile Delinquency Pre-vention and Control Act. 92d Congress, FirstSession, 1971.

5. R. Hruska. Congressional Record. Washington,D.C., 1974:S23937.

6. U.S. Congress. House Committee on Educationand Labor. Subcommittee on Human Resources.Hearings on the Juvenile Justice Amendments of1980. 96th Congress, Second Session, 1980:43.

7. Congressional Record, Washington, D.C.,1980:H10922.

8. Adolescent Health––Volume II: Background andEffectiveness of Selected Prevention and TreatmentServices. U.S. Congress. Office of Technology As-sessment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, 1991:OTA–H–466.

9. Annual Juvenile Justice Report: 1992. U.S. De-partment of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Government Printing Office, 1994:42–44.

10. Uniform Crime Reports for the United States.Federal Bureau of Investigation. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974 and1992.

11. U.S. Congress. House Conference Report toAccompany H.R. 3355, Violent Crime Controland Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Report 103–711. 103d Congress, Second Session, 1994.

Supplemental ReadingCongressional Record, Washington, D.C.:1972.

Raley, G. A. “Removing Children from AdultJails: The Dance of Legislation,” Children’s LegalRights Journal 3 (June): 4–9.

Oversight Hearing on the Administration of theOffice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre-vention. 98th Congress, First Session, 1983.

Hearings on Juvenile Justice, Runaway Youth, andMissing Children’s Act Amendments of 1984.98th Congress, Second Session, 1984a.

Oversight Hearing on the Office of Juvenile Jus-tice and Delinquency Prevention. 98th Congress,Second Session, 1984b.

Hearings on Ford Administration Stifles JuvenileJustice Program. 94th Congress, First Session,1975.

Summary of Substantive Provisions of the JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention Amendmentsof 1992 (H.R. 5194, 106 Stat. 4982, Pub. L. 102–586, November 4, 1992 (Unpublished).

The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. U.S.President’s Commission on Law Enforcement andthe Administration of Justice. Washington, D.C.:Government Printing Office. 1967.


Fall/Winter 1995 19

Birth of a Partnershipby Michael E. Saucier

James Reston called 1974 “a time of testing for the American system of constitutional government.” During that year of testing,Congress created a unique and effective partnership among Federal,State, and local governments. Yet, the birth of this partnership went vir-tually unnoticed in the shadow of Watergate and ensuing events. EvenThe New York Times failed to mention the proposed law—the JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974—during con-gressional debate and voting or when it was signed by President Ford onSeptember 7, 1974.

Two decades later, in September 1994,the Coalition for Juvenile Justice cel-ebrated the 20th anniversary of the JJDPAct and reflected on the circumstancessurrounding its entry into the Nation’slegal heritage. The legislative history ofwhat was to become the JJDP Act of1974 actually began 2 years earlier onFebruary 8, 1972, when DemocraticSenator Birch Bayh of Indiana intro-duced the Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention Act of 1972 (S.3148). During 4 days of hearings, 43 wit-nesses testified; however, the 92d Con-gress adjourned without taking finalaction.

Senator Bayh and Republican SenatorMarlow W. Cook of Kentucky jointlyreintroduced the legislation with modifi-cations (S. 821) on February 8, 1973.Five days of congressional hearings fol-lowed, during which 36 witnesses pre-sented testimony on the bill and theadequacy of Federal response in the pre-

vention and control of juveniledelinquency.

Establishment of a fully coordinated Fed-eral effort was a critical component ofthe JJDP Act. The lack of coordinationhad been a key point raised during thehearings. Milton Rector, president of theNational Council on Crime and Delin-quency, advised the Senate Subcommit-tee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquencythat:

A major weakness [in the Federaleffort] is the lack of a structurepresent where Federal juvenile andcriminal justice planning can becoordinated with other human re-source agencies. Such a structurallinkage is recommended as essentialif the Federal Government is tohelp prevent as well as to help con-trol crime and delinquency.

When Rector testified, there were 116separate Federal juvenile justice and de-

Michael E. Saucier is a formerchair of the Coalition for JuvenileJustice. To advance the mandatesand goals the Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention Act, theCoalition supports research, educa-tion, communication, and commu-nity programs.

20

Juvenile Justice

linquency prevention programs con-ducted by six Cabinet-level departmentsresponsible for administering some120,000 different grants. The JJDP Actwas a badly needed effort to develop acoherent national planning process, es-tablish priorities, and focus Federal lead-ership efforts.

could avoid duplication of Federal andState efforts without delaying develop-ment of needed programs. The commit-tee noted LEAA’s exemplary efforts inprevention and diversion through finan-cial support of the Youth Service Bureausin local law enforcement agencies.LEAA Associate Administrator RichardW. Velde reported to the Senate Com-mittee on the Judiciary that in FY 1972the agency awarded nearly $140 millionfor a wide range of juvenile services, in-cluding prevention ($21 million), diver-sion ($16 million), and rehabilitation($41 million). Citing comments by Dr.Jerome Miller, then Commissioner ofYouth Services for Massachusetts, thecommittee concluded that LEAA wouldbe highly effective in dealing with seriousoffenders through its efforts with police,courts, and corrections agencies.

In separate remarks accompanying thebill, Senator Bayh expressed “mixed feel-ings” about giving LEAA primary respon-sibility for Federal leadership in juvenilejustice and delinquency prevention. Hesaid that one of the major inadequaciesof the juvenile justice system was that itwas “geared primarily to react to youthfuloffenders rather than prevent the youth-ful offense.” He worried about the conse-quences “to the youth of this countrywho may have to be identified in a lawenforcement context in order to receiveservices.” Over the years, youth workersand police officers have echoed SenatorBayh’s concern about youth having tocommit crimes before they can get help.Senator Bayh urged his colleagues to pro-vide a one-word description of the JJDPAct—“prevention.” The need, SenatorBayh wrote, “is to prevent young peoplefrom coming into contact with the juve-nile justice system.”

The debate over which Federal agencywould lead the “concerted, effective, na-tional attack on the prevention andtreatment of juvenile delinquency” wassignificant. Although Senator Bayh hadproposed the creation of an Office ofJuvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention (OJJDP) within the execu-tive branch, the subcommittee placedthe new agency in the Department ofHealth, Education and Welfare (HEW).

On May 8, 1974, the Senate Committeeon the Judiciary amended the subcom-mittee bill to locate the new program inthe Justice Department’s Law Enforce-ment Assistance Administration(LEAA). Committee members con-cluded that HEW had not fulfilled ex-pectations in its national leadership rolein developing new approaches to addressjuvenile delinquency through the Juve-nile Delinquency Prevention and Con-trol Act of 1968. A number of reasonswere cited for this failure, including theLEAA’s dominance in criminal justiceplanning, weak administration, and inad-equate funding.

LEAA had already established a networkof 50 State planning agencies, and thecommittee believed that the LEAA

The JJDP Act was a badly needed effortto develop a national planning process.


Fall/Winter 1995 21

Unquestionably, the political events ofWatergate overshadowed the remainderof congressional activity on the JJDPAct. The overwhelming, bipartisan votefor the bill in the Senate (88 to 1) can becredited to the efforts of Senator Bayhand his Republican colleague on theJudiciary Committee, Senator RomanHruska of Nebraska, who received littlepublic acknowledgment at the time. Thebill also received strong bipartisan sup-port in the House of Representatives,where it was approved 329 to 20 on July31. Final approval of the JJDP Act oc-curred on August 19 in the Senate andon August 21 in the House following

President Nixon’s resignation in thewake of the Watergate affair. In signingthe bill, President Ford called the Act “a

national commitment of partnershipwith State and local governments” thatrepresented a consolidation of policy anda restructuring and coordination of Fed-eral programs to better assist “State andlocal governments to carry out the re-sponsibilities [in juvenile justice] whichshould remain with them.”

Senator Bayh urged a one-worddescription of the Act: “prevention.”

Juvenile Justice

22

Beyond the Mandatesby James W. Brown

The effects of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention(JJDP) Act have been enormous and far-reaching. Today, 55 States andterritories, hundreds of juvenile justice planners and practitioners, andmore than 1,000 State Advisory Group members pursue the Act’s goalsand objectives.

The impact of the JJDP Act goes far be-yond its primary mandates: deinsti-tutionalization of juvenile statusoffenders, separation of juveniles andadults in confinement, removal of juve-niles from jails and lockups, and address-ing the problems of disproportionateminority confinement. Indeed the Act’sgreatest contribution has been to estab-lish the foundation for a wide array ofimprovements in the juvenile justice sys-tem that have come about during the1980’s and 1990’s. Among its accom-plishments, the JJDP Act has led to:

◆ Increased public awareness of juvenilejustice and delinquency preventionissues.

◆ Creation of forums for discussing ju-venile justice issues.

◆ Establishment of a clear, accuratedata base on which to base policydecisions.

◆ Initiation of a cooperative planningprocess.

◆ Adoption of legislation and policiesenhancing the quality of juvenile justice.

◆ Development of flexible networks ofcommunity services to address the chang-ing needs of youth.

Public AwarenessOpinion surveys demonstrate public sup-port for delinquency prevention and re-habilitation. Increased public awarenessof juvenile justice and delinquency pre-vention issues have moved concernshigher on State and local agendas. Notlong ago, the only way to assure the en-actment of juvenile justice legislationwas to include its provisions as a rider ona “must pass” bill. Today, State legisla-tures regularly pass such bills on theirown merits.

States are willing to review and reassessprogram goals and objectives and to con-sider new ways of doing things. After a1-day judicial training program, the num-ber of juveniles placed in adult jails de-creased by 40 percent in one State.Incarceration of juveniles was virtuallyeliminated in another State after publicofficials became aware of the State’s po-tential legal liability for youth in custody.

James W. Brown is president ofCommunity Research Associates(CRA), a position he has held forover 11 years. CRA assists Statesin their compliance with the Juve-nile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention Act mandates.

Fall/Winter 1995 23

Beyond the Mandates

New ForumsDuring the past two decades, forums havebeen created for discussing juvenile jus-tice issues that were unavailable prior toenactment of the JJDP Act. State Advi-sory Groups address such issues as dispro-portionate minority confinement.Regional youth councils hold publichearings, help establish local priorities,and seek long-term commitments frompublic officials to pursue specific im-provements in juvenile justice and delin-quency prevention. A number of Stateshold annual youth conferences to allowfor exchange of ideas among practitionersand interested individuals. Several Stateshave replicated the State AdvisoryGroup model at the local level.

Accurate DataToday’s policymakers have access toclear, accurate data regarding youth inthe justice system; effective programs,practices, and policies; and resources.The availability of sound data has led tosound solutions for such difficult andcomplex issues as disproportionate mi-nority confinement, removal of juvenilesfrom adult facilities, and waiver of juve-nile cases to adult criminal court.

States use community and statewideneeds assessments and other measure-ment tools to amass vital information onjuvenile justice issues. Many States haveestablished commissions to obtain andprovide this information and to conductregular and unannounced inspections ofyouth facilities. The commissions exam-ine records and budgets, subpoena wit-nesses, hold public hearings, and issuereports on their findings. Many Stateshave gone beyond initial Federal or Statemonitoring requirements to developcomprehensive, ongoing data collectionprograms to provide information for

policymakers in determining program ef-fectiveness and cost-benefit analysis.

Cooperative PlanningEffective juvenile justice and delin-quency prevention programs are devel-oped through a statewide planningprocess that promotes cooperation andcollaboration between State and localgovernments and among different agen-cies and organizations. State and localofficials work with public and privateagencies, including the police, courts,and corrections, to prevent and combatjuvenile crime and to improve the juve-nile justice system.

Cooperative planning helps to focusState and Federal funds at the commu-nity level, where juvenile justice pro-grams have the greatest chance ofsuccess. Such planning facilitates effi-cient statewide training and promotesdevelopment of consistent standards.The Juvenile Services Commissions inOregon, the Local Crisis Units in Illi-nois, and the Community and FamilyCrisis Programs in New Jersey are ex-amples of successful State-local effortsderived from implementation of the JJDPAct.

Juvenile JusticeLegislationVirtually every State has enacted lawsimplementing such JJDP Act mandatesas deinstitutionalization of status offend-ers and removal of juveniles from adultfacilities. State juvenile justice legislationand policies, however, have gone wellbeyond the mandates in many States to

The availability of sound data has led tosound solutions.

Juvenile Justice

24

address such important issues as condi-tions of confinement, quality of care, andprogram effectiveness. Today, Stateslook not only at programming, but atclassification, health, access, and stafftraining, and the myriad issues involvedin the development of an effective juve-nile justice system. While there has beenoccasional backsliding, States have madeconsiderable progress in meeting andtranscending beyond the JJDP Actmandates.

role, other youth services agencies pro-vide a wide array of effective services.For example, service networks now pro-vide immediate, round-the-clock screen-ing, referral, and crisis intervention foryouth taken into custody by police.

The expanding range of residential andnonresidential services addresses theproblems of youth in rural communitiesas well as those in urban neighborhoods.

Successful ProgramsA number of key characteristics arefound in practically all successful juvenilejustice programs. Effective programs:

◆ Facilitate mutual respect and affec-tion between youth and their parents.

◆ Provide frequent and accurate feed-back to positive and negative behavior.

◆ Require youth to recognize whenthey are making excuses for negativebehavior.

◆ Create opportunities for juveniles todiscuss important issues in an openatmosphere.

◆ Offer a wide range of effective after-care programs.

Many miles remain to be traveled to re-duce youth crime and improve the juve-nile justice system. But if a journey of athousand miles begins with a single step,the thousands of steps taken since enact-ment of the JJDP Act 20 years ago are agood beginning to our journey beyondthe mandates.

The steps taken since enactment of theJJDP Act are a good beginning.

A review of State plans for the FormulaGrants Programs in 1991 found that 51percent of these funds were used to gaincompliance with the JJDP Act mandates.However, funds were also earmarked for avariety of other programs and services,including prevention (16 percent), ad-dressing the problem of serious and vio-lent youth crime (7 percent), combatingthe use and sale of illegal drugs (4 per-cent), and a range of other programs(22 percent).

Service NetworksThe past two decades have seen great ad-vances in the development of networksof effective community services. In 1974the juvenile courts were virtually theonly agencies that delivered effective ser-vices to youth in trouble. While juvenilecourts continue to play an important

Fall/Winter 1995 25

IN BRIEF

JUSTICE MATTERSMeeting the MandatesPresident’s Commission on Law En-forcement and the Administrationof Justice, the National Council onCrime and Delinquency (NCCD),and the National Advisory Com-mission on Criminal Justice Stan-dards and Goals. In 1967, thePresident’s Commission recom-mended that “serious consid-eration . . . should be given tocomplete elimination of the court’spower over children for noncriminalconduct.” In 1966, at the request ofthe President’s Commission, NCCDsurveyed State and local correc-tional agencies and institutionsacross the United States. The sur-vey documented extensive use ofdetention facilities to house juve-niles accused of noncriminal con-duct. In 1974, the NationalAdvisory Commission on CriminalJustice Standards and Goals ob-served that at least 50 percent ofdetention populations were statusoffenders who had committed nocrime and who were often held un-der deplorable conditions.

In 1980, Congress found thatamong the adverse effects of detain-ing juveniles in adult jails and lock-ups were a high suicide rate amongthe juveniles (more than five timesthe rate of suicides in juvenile de-tention facilities); physical, mental,and sexual assault; inadequate careand programming; negative label-ing; and exposure to serious offend-ers and mental patients. As a resultof a jail or lockup experience, juve-niles often learned antisocial behav-ior from habitual criminals and hadto fight for survival in an inmateculture characterized by rigid rules

and psychological and physical ter-ror. Congress responded by amend-ing the JJDP Act in 1980 to requireremoval of juveniles from adult jailsand lockups.

In 1988 and 1992, Congress focusedattention on the disproportionatelyhigh number of minority juvenilesarrested and confined in secure de-tention and correctional facilities.Data demonstrated that incarcera-tion rates for minorities in manyStates were two to four times that ofwhites. The 1988 and 1992 reautho-rizations of the JJDP Act includeprovisions requiring States to gatheradditional data, analyze the issue,and provide appropriate program-matic responses where minorityoverrepresentation was found toexist.

The MandatesThe following summarizes the foursystem mandates of the JJDP Act.These mandates, which primarilyaddress custody issues, are essentialto creating a fair and consistent ju-venile justice infrastructure that ad-vances a key goal of the JJDP Act:to increase the effectiveness of juve-nile delinquency prevention andcontrol.

Deinstitutionalization ofStatus Offenders

The Deinstitutionalization of StatusOffenders (DSO) mandate, Section223(a)(12)(A), provides, as a gen-eral rule, that no status offender ornonoffender may be held in securedetention or confinement.

Need for the MandatesBobby Nestor was sent to CampHill correctional facility, an adultprison, to “learn a lesson.” Aftermore than 4 months of incarcera-tion, he hung himself after beingsexually assaulted by adultinmates.

Bobby Nestor was sent to CampHill for incorrigibility. He was notunlike most juveniles confined withadults at the time. In 1980, only 12percent of juveniles in confinementwith adults were charged with seri-ous offenses against persons. A re-view of family and social back-grounds of confined juveniles re-vealed that most had experiencedextensive family problems. Themost likely candidate for confine-ment was a juvenile like Bobby,who had been in trouble at school,with parents, or with police for mi-nor delinquent or status offenses,acts that would not be a crime ifcommitted by an adult.

Tragic stories, such as that of BobbyNestor, combined with compellingstatistics on confinement of statusoffenders, provided the impetus forCongress to enact the Juvenile Jus-tice and Delinquency Prevention(JJDP) Act of 1974, as amended,Public Law 93–415, 42 U.S.C. 5601et seq., requiring the deinstitution-alization of status offenders andseparation of juvenile and adult of-fenders in institutional settings.

Passage of the JJDP Act was aidedby the strong consensus of threegroups assembled, in part, to exam-ine the juvenile justice system—the

26

IN BRIEF

JUSTICE MATTERSThe Formula Grants Program regu-lation issued by the Office of Juve-nile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention (OJJDP), 28 CFR Part31, creates an exception for accusedstatus offenders and nonoffenders injuvenile detention centers. Statusoffenders or nonoffenders may beheld for 24 hours, excluding week-ends and holidays, for purposes ofidentification, investigation, releaseto parents, or transfer to a nonse-cure facility or to court.

The 24-hour exception only appliesto accused status offenders, and be-gins when the juvenile enters a se-cure custody status in a detentionfacility. A second 24-hour grace pe-riod may follow an initial courtcontact.

Another statutory exception pro-vides that a status offender accusedof violating a valid court order maybe held in a juvenile detention fa-cility for longer than 24 hours. Inorder for a State to invoke this ex-ception, the juvenile must have re-ceived all constitutional due processprotections at the initial hearingand must be afforded a detentionhearing within 24 hours. In addi-tion, prior to a dispositional com-mitment to secure placement, apublic agency, other than a court orlaw enforcement agency, must havereviewed the juvenile’s behaviorand possible alternatives to secureplacement, and submitted a writtenreport to the court.

Finally, the 1994 Crime Act pro-vides an exception for juveniles whoviolate the Federal Youth HandgunSafety Act or a similar State law

prohibiting juvenile handgunpossession.

Separation of Juvenile andAdult Offenders

The separation mandate, Section223(a)(13), provides that juvenilesshall not be detained in a secure in-stitution in which they have con-tact with incarcerated adults,including inmate trustees. This re-quires complete separation so thatthere is no sight or sound contactwith adult offenders in the facility.Separation must be provided in allsecure areas of the facility, includingsallyports; entry/booking areas; hall-ways; and sleeping, dining, recre-ation, educational, vocational, andhealth care areas.

Jail and Lockup Removal

The jail and lockup removal man-date, Section 223(a)(14), estab-lishes as a general rule that alljuveniles who may be subject to theoriginal jurisdiction of the juvenilecourt based on age and offense crite-ria cannot be held in jails and lawenforcement lockups in whichadults may be detained or confined.

The OJJDP Formula Grants Pro-gram regulations provide a 6-hourhold exception for accused delin-quent offenders, for the limited pur-poses of identification, processing,interrogation, transfer to a juvenilefacility or court, or detention pend-ing release to parents. The 6-hourhold exception does not apply tostatus offenders, nonoffenders, oradjudicated delinquents. Sight and

sound separation from adults duringthe 6 hours is required.

The statute and regulations providea rural exception for jails and lock-ups outside a Standard MetropolitanStatistical Area (SMSA). Facilitiesoutside an SMSA may hold an ac-cused delinquent for up to 24 hours,excluding weekends and holidays,while awaiting an initial court ap-pearance, if State law requires sucha detention hearing within 24hours, and provided no existing al-ternative facility is available. Ifweather or road conditions do notallow for reasonably safe travel, thefacility may detain the juvenile un-til conditions allow for safe travel,up to an additional 24-hour period.If conditions of distance or lack ofhighway, road, or other groundtransportation do not allow forcourt appearances within 24 hours,a brief delay (not to exceed 48hours) is authorized. Again, separa-tion from adult offenders must bemaintained at all times.

A final regulatory exception con-cerns juveniles under the jurisdic-tion of a criminal court for a felonyoffense. It applies only after suchjurisdiction has been invokedthrough the official, direct filing ofcriminal felony charges or after ajuvenile has been officially waivedto adult court through a judicialwaiver process.

The International Association ofChiefs of Police (IACP) has en-dorsed jail removal and developed amodel policy and training key thataddresses the custody of juveniles.

Fall/Winter 1995 27

IN BRIEF

JUSTICE MATTERSNonsecure custody criteria. To ac-commodate the needs of law en-forcement, OJJDP policy guidanceallows juveniles, including criminal-type offenders, status offenders, andnonoffenders to be held nonsecurelyin an adult jail or lockup facility, 53Federal Register 44366 (1988).OJJDP has established criteria toguide law enforcement officers inproviding nonsecure custody for ju-veniles in their custody. These cri-teria include:

◆ The juvenile is held in an un-locked multipurpose area not nor-mally used as a secure area or, if it isa secure area, used only for process-ing purposes (fingerprinting andphotographing).

◆ The juvenile is not physicallysecured to a stationary object.

◆ The use of the area is limited toproviding nonsecure custody onlylong enough for the purposes ofidentification, processing, release toparents, or transfer to an appropri-ate juvenile facility or court.

◆ The area is not designed or in-tended to be used for residentialpurposes.

◆ Continuous visual supervision isprovided by a law enforcement of-ficer or facility staff during the pe-riod of nonsecure custody.

Disproportionate MinorityConfinement

The disproportionate minority con-finement (DMC) mandate, Section223(a)(23), requires States to ad-dress efforts to reduce the number ofminority youth in secure facilities

where the proportion of minorityyouth in confinement exceeds theproportion those groups represent inthe general population. To meet theDMC mandate, States must gothrough stages of data gathering,analysis and problem identification,assessment, program development,and systems improvementinitiatives.

ComplianceA State’s participation in the JJDPAct Formula Grants Program is vol-untary. To be eligible for the pro-gram, a State must submit acomprehensive 3-year plan settingforth the State’s proposal for meet-ing the mandates and goals outlinedin the JJDP Act. Each State deter-

mines its strategy and program pri-orities based on the characteristicsof its particular juvenile justice sys-tem. The State’s plan is amendedannually to reflect new program-ming and initiatives to be under-taken by the State and local units ofgovernment.

Of the 57 eligible States and territo-ries, 55 are currently participatingin the JJDP Act Formula GrantsProgram. Each State submits an an-nual compliance monitoring report,which details its progress towardimplementing its plan and achiev-ing or maintaining compliance withthe mandates of the JJDP Act. Thelevel of compliance determines theState’s eligibility for continuing par-ticipation in the program. Data for

Violations of JJDP Act Mandates

200

150

100

50

0DSO Separation Jail Removal

Vio

latio

ns(T

hous

ands

)

JJDP Act Mandates

Baseline 1993

28

IN BRIEF

JUSTICE MATTERSthe annual monitoring report arecollected by the State from securejuvenile and adult facilities. AllState agencies administering theFormula Grants Program are re-quired to verify data reported by fa-cilities and data provided from otherState agencies.

Eligibility for Fiscal Year 1995 For-mula Grant funds was determinedby each State’s 1993 monitoring re-port. Data gleaned from the reportsshow an overwhelming majority ofthe States and territories in fullcompliance with the first three ma-jor mandates. As the figure on page27 illustrates, a substantial reduc-tion in the number of violations wasachieved. It should be noted thatthe States’ baseline years range from1975 to 1992 for DSO and separa-tion, and from 1980 to 1992 for jailand lockup removal. DSO viola-tions were reduced from a baselinetotal of 171,872 to a level of 3,214,a reduction of approximately 98 per-cent. The number of separation vio-lations were reduced from 85,002 to

879 (99 percent), and jail removalviolations decreased 96 percent,from a baseline total of 159,516 to6,878 violations.

The trend toward fewer violationsin all areas is expected to continueas more States and territoriesachieve higher levels of compliancewith the mandates of the JJDP Act.In coming months, OJJDP will con-tinue to closely monitor the progressof the States, especially as they di-rect their attention to the dispro-portionate minority confinementmandate. Pilot programs to addressthe causes of disproportionate mi-nority confinement have been es-tablished in five States. As theseprograms are evaluated, informationand strategies will emerge thatwill enable other States to benefitfrom the experience of the pilotprograms.

The States and territories are to becongratulated on their continuedcommitment to youth as evidenced

by their compliance with the JJDPAct mandates.

ResourcesA list of sources cited in this articleis available from OJJDP’s JuvenileJustice Clearinghouse. Telephone:(800) 638–8736.

The IACP policy model is availablefrom the International Associationof Chiefs of Police. Telephone:(703) 836–6767.

For further information on the dis-proportionate minority confinementmandate, see OJJDP Fact Sheet #11,Disproportionate Minority Confine-ment; and “Disproportionate Minor-ity Representation: First Steps to aSolution,” and “DisproportionateMinority Representation,” EugeneRhoden, both in OJJDP’s JuvenileJustice, Spring/Summer 1994edition.

Fall/Winter 1995 29

IN BRIEF

ONLINE

Explore a Galaxyof Juvenile Justice

Information viaNCJRS Online Services

The National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) Online providesjuvenile justice information via the Internet––the world's largest computernetwork. Now you can have immediate access to information from theJuvenile Justice Clearinghouse and other criminal justice clearinghouses.NCJRS Online also offers access to the NCJRS Bulletin Board System.Access options include:

◆ NCJRS Bulletin Board SystemGopher: [email protected]: ncjrsbbs.aspensys.com

◆ NCJRS World Wide Webhttp://ncjrs.aspensys.com:81/ncjrshome.html

◆ NCJRS Anonymous FTPftp://ncjrs.aspensys.com

◆ JUSTINFO Electronic NewsletterE-mail: [email protected]

For additional information, call the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouseat 800–638–8736 or e-mail: [email protected]

30

IN BRIEF

ONLINE

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

HOW TO SUBSCRIBE TO

JUVJUSTThe Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the National CriminalJustice Reference Service are pleased to announce JUVJUST, our newest servicefor the juvenile justice professional. JUVJUST is an electronic mailing list that will al-low you to receive timely and informative juvenile justice information directly fromOJJDP.

Although there is no cost to participate in JUVJUST, users must have access toInternet e-mail. Please take a moment and subscribe to this service by followingthese steps:

◆ Send an e-mail message to [email protected]

◆ Leave the subject line blank

◆ In the body of the message, type:

subscribe juvjust [your name]

If you need technical assistance, please e-mail: [email protected]

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Juvenile Justice Order Form

Volume II• Number 2Fall/Winter 1995

International SubscribersAirmail Postage ScheduleAll documents ordered by Canadian and other international usersare sent airmail. Postage is included in the cost of fee items butmust be paid separately for free items. Use the schedule below tocompute the postage cost for your free items.

No. of free items Canada Other countries1–2 $ 6.30 $ 5.753–4 6.85 11.505–6 7.40 17.257–8 7.95 23.00

9–10 8.50 28.7511–12 9.05 34.5013–14 9.60 40.2515–16 10.20 46.0017–18 10.80 51.7519–20 11.30 57.50

For more than 20 items, write JJC, Box 6000, Rockville, MD20849–6000, or call 301–251–5500.

Deduct the total from my NCJRS Deposit Account.

Acct. No. _____________________________________

Charge my MasterCard VISA

Card No. _____________________________________

Exp. Date ____________________________________

Signature ____________________________________

Total $__________

Enclose payment or provide account number.

All payments must be in U.S. dollars and drawn on aU.S. bank.

Check or money order enclosed, payable toJuvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

Please print your name and mailing address or affix your mailinglabel here.

Name

Address

City State ZIP

Phone ( )

Check this box if the information onyour address label is incorrect and makecorrections on your mailing label.

To order other publications listed on the inside backcover, please complete the following:

Qty. NCJ No. Title Price

PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FREE. Up to fivepublications are free. For bulk orders, contact the Clear-inghouse for postage and handling rates.

■■ Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report(Full Report). NCJ 153569.

■■ Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy forSerious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (FullReport). NCJ 153681.

■■ Bridging the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems(Full Report). NCJ 152155.

■■ Balanced and Restorative Justice (OJJDP ProgramSummary). NCJ 149727.

■■ Family Life, Delinquency, and Crime: A Policymaker'sGuide (Research Summary). NCJ 140517.

■■ Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse (ResearchSummary). NCJ 143454.

■■ Combating Violence and Delinquency: The NationalJuvenile Justice Action Plan (Summary).NCJ 157105.

■■ Delinquency Prevention Works (Program Summary).NCJ 155006.

PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FOR A FEE.

■■ Gang Suppression and Intervention: An Assessment(Full Report). NCJ 146494. $15.00 (U.S.), $17.50(Canada), $20.00 (other countries).

■■ Family Strengthening in Preventing Delinquency: A Lit-erature Review. NCJ 150222. $13.00 (U.S.), $17.50(Canada and other countries).

■■ Effective Practices in Juvenile Correctional Education:A Study of the Literature and Research 1980–1992.NCJ 150066. $15.00 (U.S.), $19.50 (Canada andother countries).

JUSTICEJUVENILE

PLACEFIRST CLASS

STAMPHERE

FOLD, TAPE, BUT DO NOT STAPLE

Juvenile JusticeJuvenile Justice Clearinghouse/NCJRSP.O. Box 6000Rockville, MD 20849–6000

Please provide a daytime telephone number in case we need to contact you regarding your order.(_____) ______________________

Allow 6 to 9 weeks for delivery. You will be notified by mail within 30 days if your paid ordercannot be filled.

Fee orders are shipped UPS. Because UPS cannot deliver to post office boxes, please provide astreet address for shipment of orders requiring payment.

JUSTICEJUVENILE

Publications From OJJDP

OJJDP publications are available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. Call or write: Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 6000,Rockville, MD 20849, 800–638–8736.Documents can be obtained electronically. Select documents are available free via the Clearinghouse Fax-on-Demand system. Call 800–638–8736 and follow the menu item directions. If you know the title or NCJ number, send an e-mail request to [email protected]. Forfull text OJJDP publications, information on OJJDP, and other criminal justice information, go to the NCJRS World Wide Web page (http://ncjrs.aspensys.com:81/ncjrshome.html) and the NCJRS electronic Bulletin Board System (NCJRS*BBS). Access NCJRS*BBS by dialingdirect, 301–738–8895, modem set to 9600 baud and 8–N–1; by Telnet to: ncjrsbbs.aspensys.com; or by Gopher to ncjrs.aspensys.com:71.Most OJJDP publications are free; requests for more than five documents or those from individuals outside the United States require pay-ment for postage and handling. To obtain information on payment procedures or to speak to a juvenile justice information specialist aboutadditional services offered, contact the Clearinghouse Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. ET.

Delinquency PreventionDelinquency Prevention Works (ProgramSummary). 1995, NCJ 155006 (74 pp.).Family Life, Delinquency, and Crime: APolicymaker’s Guide. 1994, NCJ 140517(65 pp.).Family Strengthening in Preventing Delin-quency—A Literature Review. 1994,NCJ 150222 (76 pp.), $13.00.Matrix of Community-Based Initiatives(Program Summary). 1995, NCJ 154816(51 pp.).OJJDP and Boys and Girls Clubs ofAmerica: Public Housing and High-RiskYouth. 1991, NCJ 128412 (5 pp.).Strengthening America’s Families: PromisingParenting Strategies for Delinquency Pre-vention. 1993, NCJ 140781 (105 pp.), $9.15.

Missing and Exploited ChildrenThe Compendium of the North AmericanSymposium on International Child Abduction:How To Handle International Child AbductionCases. 1993, NCJ 148137 (928 pp.), $17.50.Missing, Abducted, Runaway, andThrownaway Children in America, First Re-port: Numbers and Characteristics, NationalIncidence Studies (Full Report). 1990,NCJ 123668 (251 pp.), $14.40.Obstacles to the Recovery and Return ofParentally Abducted Children. 1994,NCJ 143458 (21 pp.).Obstacles to the Recovery and Return ofParentally Abducted Children (Full Report).1993, NCJ 144535 (877 pp.), $22.80.Parental Abductors: Four Interviews (Video).1993, NCJ 147866 (43 min.), $12.50.

Law EnforcementDrug Recognition Techniques: A TrainingProgram for Juvenile Justice Professionals.1990, NCJ 128795 (4 pp.).Innovative Law Enforcement Training Pro-grams: Meeting State and Local Needs.1991, NCJ 131735 (4 pp.).Law Enforcement Custody of Juveniles(Video). 1992, NCJ 137387 (31 min.),$13.50.Law Enforcement Policies and PracticesRegarding Missing Children and HomelessYouth. 1993, NCJ 145644 (25 pp.).Law Enforcement Policies and PracticesRegarding Missing Children and HomelessYouth (Full Report). 1993, NCJ 143397(217 pp.), $13.00.

CourtsThe Child Victim as a Witness, ResearchReport. 1994, NCJ 149172 (143 pp.).

Helping Victims and Witnesses in the Juve-nile Justice System: A Program Handbook.1991, NCJ 139731 (282 pp.), $15.00.How Juveniles Get to Criminal Court. 1994,NCJ 150309 (5 pp.).Juvenile Court Statistics, 1992. 1994,NCJ 147487 (240 pp.).Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1992. 1994, NCJ150039 (11 pp.).

GangsGang Suppression and Intervention:An Assessment (Full Report). 1994,NCJ 146494 (197 pp.), $15.00.Gang Suppression and Intervention: Commu-nity Models. 1994, NCJ 148202 (26 pp.).Gang Suppression and Intervention: Problemand Response. 1994, NCJ 149629(21 pp.).Rising Above Gangs and Drugs: How ToStart a Community Reclamation Project(Training Manual). 1995, NCJ 133522(264 pp.).

RestitutionGuide to Juvenile Restitution. 1985,NCJ 098466 (162 pp.), $12.50.Liability and Legal Issues in Juvenile Restitu-tion. 1990, NCJ 115405 (24 pp.).Victim-Offender Mediation in the JuvenileJustice System. 1990, NCJ 120976 (16 pp.).

CorrectionsAmerican Probation and Parole Association’sDrug Testing Guidelines and Practices forJuvenile Probation and Parole Agencies.1992, NCJ 136450 (163 pp.).Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Deten-tion and Corrections Facilities. 1994,NCJ 141873 (16 pp.).Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile ProbationPractice. 1991, NCJ 128218 (141 pp.).A Resource Manual for Juvenile Detentionand Corrections: Effective and InnovativePrograms. 1995, NCJ 155285 (164 pp.),$15.00.Effective Practices in Juvenile CorrectionalEducation: A Study of the Literature and Re-search 1980–1992. 1994, NCJ 150066 (194pp.), $15.00.Improving Literacy Skills of Juvenile Detain-ees. 1994, NCJ 150707 (5 pp.).Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles:An Assessment (Full Report). 1994,NCJ 144018 (195 pp.), $15.00.Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: ACommunity Care Model. 1994,NCJ 147575 (20 pp.).Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles:Policies and Procedures. 1994, NCJ 147712(28 pp.).

Juvenile Correctional Education: A Time forChange. 1994, NCJ 150309 (3 pp.).Juvenile Court Statistics 1992 (Statistics Re-port). 1995, NCJ 154168 (93 pp.).Juvenile Intensive Supervision: An Assess-ment (Full Report). 1994, NCJ 150064(89 pp.), $13.00.Juvenile Intensive Supervision: PlanningGuide. 1994, NCJ 150065 (80 pp.).Juveniles Taken Into Custody: Fiscal Year1993 Report. 1995, NCJ 154022 (195 pp.).National Survey of Reading Programs forIncarcerated Juvenile Offenders. 1993,NCJ 144017 (51 pp.). $6.75.OJJDP: Conditions of Confinement Tele-conference (Video). 1993, NCJ 147531(90 min.), $14.00.Public Juvenile Facilities: Children in Custody1989. 1991, NCJ 127189 (10 pp.).

General Juvenile JusticeBalanced and Restorative Justice. 1994, NCJ149727 (16 pp.).Breaking the Code (Video). 1993,NCJ 146604 (83 min.), $20.65.Bridging the Child Welfare and JuvenileJustice Systems (JJ Bulletin). 1995,NCJ 152155 (4 pp.).Gould-Wysinger Awards (1993): A Traditionof Excellence. 1994, NCJ 146840 (6 pp.).Guide for Implementing the ComprehensiveStrategy for Serious, Violent, and ChronicJuvenile Offenders (Update on Programs).1995, NCJ 153681 (255 pp.).Gun Acquisition and Possession in SelectedJuvenile Samples. 1993, NCJ 145326 (11 pp.).Innovative Community Partnerships: WorkingTogether for Change. 1994, NCJ 146483 (32pp.).Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A NationalReport (Full Report). 1995, NCJ 153569 (188pp.).Law-Related Education for Juvenile JusticeSettings. 1993, NCJ 147063 (173 pp.),$13.20.Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System.1993, NCJ 145849 (18 pp.).Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System(Full Report). 1993, NCJ 139556 (176 pp.),$11.50.Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention Brochure. 1993, NCJ 144527(24 pp.).Study of Tribal and Alaska Native JuvenileJustice Systems. 1992, NCJ 148217(208 pp.), $17.20.Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse:Initial Findings. 1994, NCJ 143454 (27 pp.).Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse:Technical Report and Appendices. 1993,NCJ 146416 (400 pp.), $25.60.

NCJ 152979

Washington, D.C. 20531

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

BULK RATEPOSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDPPermit No. G–91

Volume II • Number 2 Fall/Winter 1995 JUVENILE · R T M E N T OF J U S T I C E O F F I C E O...

Documents

Transcript of Volume II • Number 2 Fall/Winter 1995 JUVENILE · R T M E N T OF J U S T I C E O F F I C E O...