3. Background Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) authorizes federal funds to go to the states for juvenile justice. Expectation that states comply with core requirements and write plans for delinquency prevention and intervention. OJJDP has reporting, oversight and technical assistance responsibilities. Each state has an advisory group to guide plans and decide how to allocate funds.

4. History of Juvenile Justice in US  First juvenile court in Chicago in 1899 – focus on individualized treatment and rehabilitation  1960’s – Due Process Protections  1968 – First Federal Legislation: Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act

5. History, cont’d  1974 – Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Act first passed  Overwhelming bi-partisan from both Houses of Congress  Included support from organizations ranging from the ACLU to the American Legion, and included organizations like the ABA and the Boys Clubs of America

6. History, cont’d  1974: Established Separation and Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders(DSO) Requirements  1980: Established Jail Removal Requirement, and added “valid court order” (VCO) exception to DSO  1988: Added Disproportionate Minority Confinement  1992: Elevated DMC to a Core Requirement and added Title V Local Delinquency Prevention Grants

7. JJDPA 4 Core Protections Jail Removal Juveniles should not be placed in adult jails Applies pre and post-trial “Sight and Sound” Separation Applies to juveniles who are temporarily placed in adult jails Must be separated from adult inmates by “sight and sound”

8. Core Protections, cont. De-institutionalization of status offenders (DSO) Status offenders cannot be locked up unless they violate a valid court order Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) States must “address” problem of over-representation

9. 1990s: AKA Decade of the ‘Superpredator’ “Today, no population poses a larger threat to public safety than young adult criminals….Brace yourself for the coming generation of “superpredators” – Rep Bill McCollum (JJDPA hearing, 1996) Rise of ‘get tough’ juvenile justice legislation in states across country House: Violent Youth Predator Act of 1996 Senate: Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Act of 1997 National Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Coalition emerges JJDPA last reauthorized 2002, without major substantive changes, but changed “Disproportionate Minority Confinement” to “Disproportionate Minority Contact”.

11. 2002: Last Reauthorization Negotiated as part of the DOJ Authorization bill Expansion of DMC – “confinement” becomes “contact” Juvenile Block Grant consolidates targeted programs into Title II, but appropriators largely ignore the new structure JABG finally gets authorized

12. ACT4JJ Campaign Formed in 2005; co-chaired by CJJ & CFYJ Surveyed field on key priorities Created platform for reform “Statement of Principles” Reached out to stakeholders to endorse Created recommendations, fact sheets, reports Launched public campaign and website in 2007

13. 2007-2008: Time to Reauthorize JJDPA expired in FY2007 Act4JJ campaign leads push reauthorization in 110 th Congress 2007 hearings in the Senate Judiciary and House Education & Labor Committee 2008 S. 3155 reported out of Senate Judiciary by voice vote GOP cosponsors Collins, Snowe, Specter, Smith

14. 2009: New Administration Bipartisan S. 678 introduced in 2009 S. 678 reported out of Senate Judiciary Committee in 2010 Sen. Grassley only R to vote ‘yes’ Sen. Feinstein only D to vote ‘no’ No House companion bill Administration fails to appoint permanent OJJDP Administrator; proposes deep cuts Funding cuts continue

15. 2000s: Decade of Cuts Coalition for Juvenile Justice - Juvenile Justice Historical Federal Funding Chart

16. FY14-FY15 Appropriations

17. JJDPA Today Sept 7 th - 40th Anniversary of the JJDPA Continue to fight funding cuts in a post- recession world of discretionary budget caps and sequestration Effort to get bipartisan bill reintroduced this year Separate bills on DSO protection JJDPA Matters Action Center

19. State Advisory Group Compositions and Role Membership: Appointed by governor 15 to 33 members One fifth under age 24 (when appointed) Three members who have been, or currently are, under the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system A majority of members shall not be full-time government employees (including the Chair) At least one locally elected offical.

20. Specified SAG Roles & Responsibilities Participate in the development of the State Plan. Advise the Chief Executive and Legislature on compliance with the Core Requirements of the JJDP Act. Obtain input from youth currently under the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system. Review and comment on grant proposals. Monitor programs.

21. Inherent Responsibilities of SAG Members Advocate, Impact, and Influence: Policy Procedures System Change Reform

22. Role of Youth on State Advisory Groups CRITICAL!

23. Core Requirement Limitations

24. JJDPA Core Protections Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO) Definition: Requires that youth with status offenses not be placed in secure detention or confinement. Limitations: Valid Court Order (VCO) exception Recommendations: 1. Eliminate the VCO exception to ensure that youth who commit status offenses are kept out of facilities. 2. Update the JJDPA to decrease overreliance on youth incarceration and out-of-home-placement by promoting family-focused and school-based interventions for truant youth.

25. JJDPA Core Protections Removal of Juveniles from Adult Jails and Lockups (“Jail Removal”) Definition: Prohibits, under most circumstances, the detention of juveniles in adult jails or lockups. Limitations: Does not protect juveniles that are waived to adult court Juveniles can be held for up to six hours for processing and for 24 hours (plus weekends and holidays) in rural areas

26. JJDPA Core Protections Juvenile Sight and Sound Separation Definition: Requires that accused and adjudicated delinquents, status offenders, and non-offending juveniles be kept out of the “sight and sound” of adult inmates. Limitations: Does not apply to youth prosecuted in the adult criminal justice system.

27. JJDPA Core Protections Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) Definition: Requires states to take measures to reduce racial/ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system. Recommendations for DMC Improvement: Strengthen the DMC core protection by requiring states to take concrete steps to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system

28. For more information … www.act4jj.org Marc Schindler Executive Director Justice Policy Institute mschindler@justicepolicy.org 202.558.7974 ext. 311 www.justicepolicy.org Twitter: @marc4justice Jill Ward Federal Policy Consultant Campaign for Youth Justice jmward23@hotmail.com (207) 317-6310 Carmen E. Daugherty DC Juvenile Justice Advisory Group Chair Policy Director, Campaign for Youth Justice cdaugherty@cfyj.org (202) 558-3580