Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

69-010

Calendar No. 1033

110TH CONGRESS

REPORT

SENATE

2d Session

110-472

--JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION REAUTHORIZTION ACT OF 2008

SEPTEMBER 18 (legislative day, September 17), 2008- Ordered to be printed

Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

R E P O R T

together with

ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

[To accompany S. 3155]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (S. 3155), to reauthorize and improve the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, with an amendment, and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.

	CONTENTS	Page
I.	Background and Purpose of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act	2
II.	History of the Bill and Committee Consideration	6
III.	Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill	8
IV.	Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate	13
V.	Regulatory Impact Evaluation	15
VI.	Conclusion	15
VII.	Additional and Minority Views	16
VIII.	Changes to Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported	24

I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008

A. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act (JJDPA or `the Act') sets out Federal policy and standards and authorizes key Federal resources for States to improve their juvenile justice systems and for communities to develop programs to prevent juveniles from entering the juvenile justice system in the first place. For this reauthorization, the Committee has reexamined Federal juvenile justice policy in light of new studies and evidence that have emerged since the last 2002 reauthorization. In setting new Federal standards and refining existing ones, the Committee has also been guided by changes that States have been making to their own juvenile justice systems. As one commentator noted on the critical issue of whether to place juveniles in adult jails:

States are rethinking and, in some cases, retooling juvenile sentencing laws. They're responding to new research on the adolescent brain, and studies that indicate teens sent to adult court end up worse off than those who are not: They get in trouble more often, they do it faster and the offenses are more serious. 1

[Footnote]

[Footnote 1: Sharon Cohen, `Prosecuting Kids as Adults: Some States Ponder Changes,' Associated Press, Dec. 1, 2007.]

Building on the States' juvenile justice experiences, this bill makes several changes to the Act that reinforce what has been working in State juvenile justice systems, and changes what has not been working. It seeks to ensure that communities and State juvenile justice systems have the resources they need to prevent juvenile crime and to deal effectively with juvenile offenders in the system to ensure their successful reintegration into their communities. One principal goal of this reauthorization is to foster a return to the strong support for State and local law enforcement that Congress showed in the 1990s, as demonstrated by the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program and other key grant programs that contributed to historic declines in violent crime. Declining funding for these programs in recent years has contributed to a reversal of that trend and to recent increases in crime rates. Though rates of juvenile crime have continued to decrease, effective prevention programs have faced significant cuts in Federal support, creating a dangerous vacuum. This bill aims to reverse this trend and to help our communities implement programs proven to help juveniles turn their lives around.

A careful examination of how to keep juveniles from entering or reentering the criminal justice system not only makes our communities safer by reducing the number of juveniles who go on to lives of crime as adults, but it also ensures that juveniles will lead safer and more fulfilling lives. For example, the Washington Post reported recently on a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, led by an independent Taskforce on Community Preventative Services, that determined that children who are prosecuted as adults commit more crimes, and more serious crimes, when they are released than children with similar histories who are kept in the juvenile justice system. 2

[Footnote] Further, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) released a bulletin in August 2008 coming to similar conclusions. 3

[Footnote]

[Footnote 2: Robert E. Pierre, `Adult System Worsens Juvenile Recidivism, Report Says,' the Washington Post, Nov. 30, 2007; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, `Effects on Violence of Laws and Policies Facilitating the Transfer of Youth from the Juvenile to the Adult Justice System: A Report on Recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services,' Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Nov. 30, 2007.]

[Footnote 3: Richard E. Redding, `Juvenile Transfer Laws: An Effective Deterrent to Delinquency?', Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Aug. 2008.]

After years of pressure to try more and more children as adults and to send them to adult jails and lock ups, the Committee has considered carefully with this reauthorization whether that policy is working in the face of strong evidence to the contrary. This reauthorization takes steps to ensure that juveniles in States participating in JJDPA programs are held pretrial in adult jails and lock ups only after careful consideration and weighing of all relevant factors. It makes these and other changes with appropriate respect for, and deference to, the varied policy choices, needs, and fiscal realities of the States.

The Committee understands the importance of holding criminals accountable for their crimes. It also recognizes the importance of boosting support for State and local law enforcement and of balancing strong law enforcement with prevention programs aimed at keeping juveniles out of the criminal justice system. This reauthorization recognizes that some problems persist throughout the Nation's juvenile justice systems, including disturbing episodes of mistreatment of children and the continuing disproportionate representation of youth of color in the juvenile justice system. It takes strong steps to address these concerns, and to encourage both the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs (OJJDP) at the Department of Justice and the States that receive Federal funds under the Act to search for ways to solve these troubling patterns and disparities and continue to build upon past successes.

B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THIS REAUTHORIZATION

This bipartisan bill will strengthen the JJDPA by increasing Federal support to States for juvenile crime reduction and for improvement of State juvenile justice systems, and by encouraging important reforms. Among its most significant changes from the last reauthorization are increases in Federal funding for prevention, intervention and treatment programs designed to reduce the incidence of juvenile crime. These include increased funding for critical title V prevention programs to discourage juvenile contact with the justice system, such as after-school care and mentoring; increased funding to assist States in achieving and maintaining compliance with the JJDPA's goals and particularly its core requirements; and the promotion of evidence-based and promising practices to ensure that Federal dollars have maximum impact.

This bill also encourages States to make critical new improvements to their juvenile justice systems. For example, the bill places significant new emphasis on the crucial issues of mental health and substance abuse, including expanding the allowable use of grant funds for mental health and substance abuse training and treatment, encouraging States to focus more on juveniles with those needs, and providing new incentive grants for these purposes. A recent letter to the editor of the New York Times aptly summed up the dangers of leaving children in need of mental health care untreated: `children with psychiatric disorders were twice as likely to be involved in the criminal justice system as young adults than children with no disorder . . . [y]et less than half of children with multiple psychiatric disorders receive any mental health services.' 4

[Footnote] This bill seeks to fill this gap by providing new directives to States, together with new authorizations to implement these directives. 5

[Footnote]

[Footnote 4: Stephen Bates Billick, (Past) Chairman of the American Psychiatric Association Corresponding Committee on Juvenile Justice Issues, Letter to the Editor, New York Times, Dec. 4, 2007.]

[Footnote 5: The bill also encourages States to provide more services to juvenile inmates with disabilities--a problem recently highlighted in a New York Times editorial. See `Writing Off Disabled Children,' Editorial, the New York Times, Aug. 9, 2008 (noting that Texas public education deficiencies in treating students with disabilities leads to higher numbers of disabled children in the State juvenile justice system.).]

The reauthorization compels States to continue working toward reducing racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice systems. Marian Wright Edelman, President of the Children's Defense Fund, noted in a recent editorial, `Black and Latino teens end up in adult facilities in numbers disproportionately higher than their representation in the general population. Nationally, according to [a] Campaign for Youth Justice report, three out of four young people admitted to adult prison in 2002 were either Black or Latino.' 6

[Footnote] In their landmark report, And Justice for Some, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency recognized that youth of color face a `cumulative disadvantage' in the justice system (where the disparities grow deeper as youth continue through the justice system). 7

[Footnote] Since many data systems fail to disaggregate ethnicity from race, data on the extent to which young people of color are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system are generally underreported. The bill seeks to address this troubling trend by asking States to take concrete steps to reduce these disparities.

[Footnote 6: Marion Wright Edelman, `Juveniles Don't Belong in Adult Prisons,' The Huffington Post, Aug. 4, 2008.]

[Footnote 7: The National Council on Crime and Delinquency. (2007, January). And Justice for Some: Differential Treatment of Youth of Color in the Justice System Retrieved from: http://www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/pubs/2007janXjusticeXforXsome.pdf; and Poe-Yamagata, E., & Jones, M. And Justice for Some. The National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Retrieved from http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/justiceforsome/jfs.pdf.]

The bill further requires States to devise strategies to eliminate the incidence of dangerous practices, unreasonable restraints, and isolation of juveniles through the increased use of training and best practices. 8

[Footnote]

[Footnote 8: In this reauthorization, the Committee defines `restraints' and `dangerous practices.' The term `unreasonable restraints' means the excessive use of restraints or the use of restraints that are not reasonably calculated to meet legitimate correctional needs in managing juvenile detention facilities. Examples of `dangerous practices' would include, but would not be limited to, hogtying, the use of four- or five-point restraints, choking, the use of belly belts or belly chains on pregnant females, the use of psychotropic medication without adherence to appropriate medical standards regarding dosage or for purposes unrelated to medical treatment such as coercion, punishment or convenience, and the use of restraints on a female who is in labor, is delivering a baby, or is in post-delivery recuperation, when such female does not reasonably present a risk of danger or escape. The Committee does not intend to prevent correctional officers from using reasonable physical force, or, in exceptional circumstances, chemical agents, as a matter of last resort in order to meet legitimate correctional needs in managing juvenile detention facilities, nor does the Committee intend to prevent correctional officers from using other reasonable techniques that are necessary to protect the safety of inmates, officers or staff.]

This legislation also places common sense limits on the pretrial detention of juveniles in adult jails and lock ups and the detention of juveniles for status offenses. Youth held in adult jails and lock-ups are at great risk of physical and sexual abuse and 19 times more likely to commit suicide than youth held in juvenile facilities. 9

[Footnote] Adult facilities are also generally less well-equipped to meet the educational and other specialized needs of youth. Under this bill, juveniles charged as adults may not be placed in a jail or lock-up or have any contact with adult inmates without a hearing. A judge must consider meaningful factors and make detailed written findings to ensure that such placement is `in the interest of justice.' This process is intended to ensure that the particular needs of juveniles are taken into account and that youth are not unduly exposed to the risks of being housed with adults.

[Footnote 9: The National Council on Crime and Delinquency. (January, 2007). And Justice for Some: Differential Treatment of Youth of Color in the Justice System Retrieved from: http://www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/pubs/2007janXjusticeXforXsome.pdf; and Poe-Yamagata, E., & Jones, M. And Justice for Some. The National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Retrieved from http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/justiceforsome/jfs.pdf.]

Similarly, the bill ensures that `status offenders'--juveniles arrested for offenses that would not be criminal if committed by adults (e.g., runaways, truants)--not be placed in secure detention unless absolutely necessary, establishes strict time limits on the length of detention, and contains a provision that will repeal the valid court order provision entirely within three years unless, with due diligence, a State is unable to comply with the Act's core requirement relating to the deinstitutionalization of status offenders.

Recent research also demonstrates that a large number of youth involved in the juvenile justice system are in need of mental health services. The American Journal of Psychiatry has published a report finding that children with psychiatric disorders were twice as likely to be involved with the criminal justice system as those without a disorder. 10

[Footnote] According to the most recent statistics from the National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice which indicate that nearly 70 percent of youth placed in juvenile justice can be diagnosed with a mental health disorder--one in five of these youths have serious mental health problems, and in the most recent report from the Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice, 30 States identified mental health treatment for youth in the juvenile justice system to be a major concern. 11

[Footnote]

[Footnote 10: William E. Copeland, Ph.D., et al., Childhood Psychiatric Disorders and Young Adult Crime: A Prospective, Population-Based Study, 164 American Journal of Psychiatry, 1668-75, November 2007.]

[Footnote 11: Kathleen R. Skowyra et al., Mental Health Screening within Juvenile Justice: The Next Frontier, National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice (2008); Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice, `Annual Report 2007', Aug. 2007, at 9.]

The facts about the number of children with mental health issues detained in juvenile facilities are truly disturbing and a meaningful response is long overdue. The bill as amended authorizes important grants to support State efforts to conduct a mental health screening for detained juveniles within 24 hours of detention, the period when juveniles are at the highest risk of suicide. These provisions receive the strong support of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Human Rights Watch and the Mental Health Liaison Group, representing over 50 national, professional, research, voluntary, health, consumer, family and citizen advocacy organizations concerned about mental health and addiction disorders.

Finally, the bill reaffirms and strengthens the Federal-State partnership. It supports States' efforts to comply with JJDPA core requirements by making funds withheld due to non-compliance available to States as improvement grants meant to enable States to become compliant. It also strengthens research and technical assistance by the OJJDP to encourage States to adopt best practices, encourages agencies to look for community-based alternatives, expands training and technical assistance to ensure that the most effective programs and practices are implemented around the country, and increases transparency by making State plans and OJJDP decision-making publicly available.

This bipartisan bill enjoys the support of numerous law enforcement and children's advocacy groups, including the Children's Defense Fund, the National Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Coalition, the National Juvenile Justice Network, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, the National Association of Counties, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, and the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators.

II. HISTORY OF THE BILL AND COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

A. INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL

Senators Leahy, Specter, and Kohl introduced S. 3155, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2008, on June 18, 2008. The bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Since the bill's introduction, Senators Collins, Feinstein, Snowe, Durbin, Coleman, and Smith have joined as cosponsors.

B. COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On December 5, 2007, Senator Leahy chaired a Committee hearing on `Reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act: Protecting Our Children and Our Communities.' The witnesses were Anne Marie Ambrose, Director of Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Services, Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare; Shay Bilchik, Founder and Director, Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown University Public Policy Institute; J. Robert Flores, Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice; Richard Miranda, Chief of Police for the City of Tucson, Arizona; and Deirdre Wilson Garton, Chair of the State Advisory Group for the State of Wisconsin.

Anne Marie Ambrose emphasized in her testimony that `devastating cuts in Federal funding over the past few years have forced the [State Advisory Committee for Pennsylvania] to reevaluate our work and focus even more on prevention as well as on sustainability of programs.' 12

[Footnote] Shay Bilchik, the former head of OJJDP, viewed `the recent uptick in juvenile arrests as a possible warning that we cannot safely continue to reduce our commitment to effective programming for at-risk and system involved juveniles if we are to sustain our progress and provide services at a level needed to give every youth the chance to succeed and become a productive and law-aiding citizen.' 13

[Footnote] Tucson Chief of Police Richard Miranda emphasized the need to clarify the disproportionate minority representation provisions of the JJDPA because the current standards are `vague.' 14

[Footnote] He added, `I just can't arrest away our problems. There have to be other alternatives, there have to be other processes to get these kids on the right track.' 15

[Footnote]

[Footnote 12: Testimony of Anne Marie Ambrose, Reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act: Protecting Our Children and Our Communities, Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. (2007), available at http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3043&witXid=6804.]

[Footnote 13: Testimony of Shay Bilchik, Reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act: Protecting Our Children and Our Communities, Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. (2007), available at http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3043&witXid=6802.]

[Footnote 14: Testimony of Richard Miranda, Reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act: Protecting Our Children and Our Communities, Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. (2007), available at http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3043&witXid=6805.]

[Footnote 15: Transcript of Hearing at 41, Reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act: Protecting Our Children and Our Communities, Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. (2007).]

Deirdre Wilson Garton urged the Committee to `substantially increase the training and technical assistance provided to States and communities that will help them embrace evidence-based delinquency prevention programs and intervention programs that work.' 16

[Footnote] And J. Robert Flores, the current head of OJJDP, acknowledged that `much remains to be done to prevent, intervene in, and treat delinquent behavior.' 17

[Footnote]

[Footnote 16: Testimony of Deirdre Wilson Garton, Reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act: Protecting Our Children and Our Communities, Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. (2007), available at http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3043&witXid=6803.]

[Footnote 17: Testimony of J. Robert Flores, Reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act: Protecting Our Children and Our Communities, Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. (2007), available at http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3043&witXid=6801.]

On July 31, 2008, the Committee on the Judiciary considered S. 3155. Senators Leahy, Specter and Kohl offered an amendment, in the nature of a substitute, which was adopted by unanimous consent. This amendment made a number of changes to clarify and strengthen the bill.

Senator Grassley offered an amendment to require a comprehensive audit of OJJDP as well as grantees that receive funding from OJJDP. This amendment was rejected on a rollcall vote, with opposing Senators expressing concerns that the proposed audit appeared to duplicate oversight requirements already in the bill, to unnecessarily tax scarce State resources, and to inappropriately question the existence of key juvenile justice programs. The vote record is as follows:

TALLY: 9 YEAS, 10 NAYS

Yeas (9): Brownback (R-KS), Coburn (R-OK), Cornyn (R-TX), Graham (R-SC), Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT), Kyl (R-AZ), Sessions (R-AL), Specter (R-PA).

Nays (10): Biden (D-DE), Cardin (D-MD), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Kennedy (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), Leahy (D-VT), Schumer (D-NY), Whitehouse (D-RI).

Senator Feinstein offered an amendment to add additional requirements for facilities in the screening and treatment of juveniles with mental health and/or substance abuse issues. The amendment was accepted on a rollcall vote. The vote record is as follows:

TALLY: 18 YEAS, 1 NAY

Yeas (18): Biden (D-DE), Brownback (R-KS), Cardin (D-MD), Coburn (R-OK), Cornyn (R-TX), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Hatch (R-UT), Kennedy (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), Kyl (R-AZ), Leahy (D-VT), Graham (R-SC), Grassley (R-IA), Schumer (D-NY), Specter (R-PA), Whitehouse (D-RI).

Nays (1): Sessions (R-AL).

Senator Cardin offered an amendment to phase out the valid court order exception to the deinstitutionalization of status offenders, a core requirement of the Act. The amendment was accepted on a rollcall vote. The vote record is as follows:

TALLY: 11 YEAS, 7 NAYS, 1 PASS

Yeas (11): Brownback (R-KS), Biden (D-DE), Cardin (D-MD), Coburn (R-OK), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Hatch (R-UT), Kennedy (D-MA), Specter (R-PA), Whitehouse (D-RI).

Nays (7): Cornyn (R-TX), Graham (R-SC), Grassley (R-IA), Kohl (D-WI), Kyl (R-AZ), Schumer (D-NY), Sessions (R-AL).

Pass (1): Leahy (D-VT).

Senator Grassley offered three additional amendments to provide for increased accountability for the expenditure of Federal funds on the part of the OJJDP and grantees of Federal funds that were accepted by unanimous consent.

The Committee then voted to report the bill, as amended, favorably to the Senate. The Committee proceeded by voice vote.

III. SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF THE BILL 18

[Footnote]

[Footnote 18: Committee amendments are described separately in Section II.B, supra.]

Section 1. Short title

This section cites the short title of the Act as the `Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2008.'

Section 2. Table of contents

This section provides the table of contents for the Act.

Section 101. Findings

This section contains congressional findings supporting the need for reauthorization.

Section 102. Purposes

This section contains the Act's purposes, including a new purpose to support a continuum of programs including delinquency prevention, intervention, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and aftercare, to address the needs of at-risk youth and youth who come into contact with the justice system.

Section 103. Definitions

This section amends certain existing definitions, and adds several new definitions. The term `adult inmate' is amended to give States the authority to retain youth who are placed in juvenile facilities after they reach the age of maximum age of extended jurisdiction. The section also defines for the first time: `core requirements,' `chemical agent,' `isolation,' `restraint,' `evidence based,' `promising,' and `dangerous practice.'

Section 201. Concentration of Federal efforts

This section clarifies the date on which the Administrator must issue the annual plan for coordinating Federal juvenile justice efforts.

Section 202. Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

This section provides for the addition of several members to the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, including individuals from the mental health fields.

Section 203. Annual report

This section modifies several existing reporting requirements in the OJJDP Administrator's annual report, including requiring data on conditions of confinement (isolation and restraints), release from custody, and status offenders.

This section also requires that the Administrator include a description of the criteria used to determine what programs qualify as evidence-based and promising programs under JJDPA titles II and V, and a comprehensive list of those programs that have been determined to meet the criteria, as well as a description of funding provided to Indian tribes under this Act.

Section 204. Allocation of funds

This section clarifies that funds should be allocated to States under Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) based on the most recent census data available.

This section authorizes the reinvestment of funds withheld due to noncompliance with one or more of the core requirements as an `incentive grant' aimed at helping States to regain compliance. It also requires that the Administrator provide support and technical assistance to the States in achieving and maintaining compliance with the Act.

Section 205. State plan

This section makes a number of changes to the information that participating States must include in their State plans.

Specifically, this section requires States to publicly disclose their State plan on-line within 30 days of its approval by the Administrator.

This section changes the composition of the State advisory group to include volunteers who work with delinquent youth or youth at risk of delinquency, including volunteers who work with youth of color, the State's Runaway and Homeless Youth Act executive director, persons with expertise and competence in preventing and addressing mental health or substance abuse problems in juvenile delinquents and those at risk of delinquency, and representatives of victim or witness advocacy groups.

This section requires States to inform stakeholders about the State's plan and compliance with the core requirements. In addition, the plan must also provide alternatives to detention, including diversion to home-based detention or community-based services or treatment for those youth in need of mental health, substance abuse, or co-occurring disorder services at the time the juvenile first came into contact with the juvenile justice system. And it must include a plan to reduce the number of children housed in secure detention and corrections facilities who are awaiting placement in residential treatment programs, a plan to encourage inclusion of family members in the design and delivery of juvenile delinquency prevention and treatment services, particularly post-placement, and a plan to use community-based services to address the needs of at-risk youth or youth who have come into contact with the juvenile justice system.

This section ensures that States advisory groups use JJDPA funds for the provision of training, technical assistance and consultation with State and local juvenile justice and child welfare agencies to develop coordinated dependence and delinquency system plans for early intervention and treatment of youth who have a history of abuse, as well as those juveniles who have prior involvement with the juvenile justice system. JJDPA funds must also be used for programs to improve the recruitment, selection, training, and retention of professional personnel in the fields of medicine, law enforcement, judiciary juvenile justice, social work and child protection, education, and other relevant fields who are engaged in, or intend to work in, the field of prevention, identification, and treatment of delinquency. The funds must also go toward expanding access to publicly supported, court-appointed legal counsel and enhancing capacity for the competent representation of every child.

This section encourages the use of community-based alternatives to secure detention.

This section expands the jail removal requirement to keep youth awaiting trial in adult criminal court out of adult lock-ups under certain circumstances. The section requires that a youth be placed in a juvenile facility unless a judge determines it is in the `interest of justice' for the youth to be held in an adult facility. The interest of justice shall be determined by looking at a variety of factors, including the age, physical and mental maturity of the juvenile, the nature and circumstances of the alleged offense, the relative ability of the available adult jails and lock ups and juvenile detention facilities to meet the specific needs of the juvenile, and the protection of the public among other relevant considerations. The procedural protections for juveniles charged as adults are strengthened by, among other new protections, requiring the court to hold a review hearing at least every 30 days, if it determines that it is in the interest of justice to permit a juvenile to be held in any jail or lockup for adults or have contact with adult inmates. The juvenile may not be held for more than 180 days unless the court, in writing, determines that there is a good cause exception.

This section updates the Disproportionate Minority Contact core requirement by providing additional direction to States and localities on how to identify and reduce racial and ethnic disparities among youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice system and by mandating that community-based services are both culturally and linguistically competent.

This section updates the Valid Court Order exception by ensuring that `status offenders'--juveniles arrested for offenses that would not be criminal if committed by adults--are not placed in secure detention unless it is in the best interest of that juvenile. If a juvenile is taken into custody for violating a valid court order issued for committing a status offense, this section requires the court to identify the court order violation, specify the factual basis for the violation, and provide findings of fact that support a determination that there is no appropriate less restrictive alternative available. Juveniles may not be ordered to be detained for a period exceeding seven days.

This section encourages States to ensure that records are shared between the juvenile justice system and the child welfare system for youth who have been abused or neglected.

This section requires that the plan address mental health and substance abuse screening, assessment, referral, and treatment for juveniles in the juvenile justice system. The plan must also include policies and procedures, as well as training for staff, on evidence-based and promising techniques that are designed to eliminate the use of dangerous practices and unreasonable restraints and isolation.

This section creates new procedural safeguards to improve juvenile reentry services. The safeguards include, but are not limited to, a written case plan for each juvenile that describes pre-release and post-release programs; living arrangements after discharge, and post-release support such as behavioral health care, and, as appropriate, a hearing that details the discharge plan for the juvenile that shall take place no earlier than 30 days before the scheduled release.

This section requires States who are out of compliance with the Act to submit a report to the Administrator detailing the reasons for non-compliance and a plan to regain compliance. The report must be posted on a publicly available website. The Administrator must issue a public report detailing the determination of compliance and post it on a publicly available website.

Under current law, OJJDP is empowered to take action against States that fail to comply with a core requirement `in the subsequent fiscal year.' This section strikes that limitation, and allows OJJDP to take action in the current fiscal year, if appropriate.

Section 206. Authority to make grants

This section amends the Administrator's grant-making authority to add truancy prevention and reduction activities to the list of after-school programs that provide at-risk juveniles and juveniles in the system with a range of age-appropriate activities. Also added to the list are projects that support the establishment of partnerships between a State and a university, institution of higher education, or research center designed to improve the recruitment, selection, training and retention of professional personnel.

Section 207. Research and evaluation; statistical analyses; information dissemination

This section requires the Administrator to provide an annual written and publicly available plan to identify the purposes and goals of all programs carried out with funds. It also requires the Administrator to conduct research or evaluation relating to the prevalence and duration of behavioral needs, including mental health, substance abuse, and co-occurring disorders, among juveniles pre-placement and post-placement when held in the custody of secure detention and corrections facilities, including an examination of the effects of confinement. The research shall also include training efforts and reforms that have produced reductions in, or elimination of, the use of dangerous practices. Finally, the report shall include a description of the best practices in discharge planning and an assessment of living arrangements for juveniles who cannot return to the homes of the juveniles.

This section requires the development of a National Recidivism Measure. It requires the Administrator to establish a uniform method of data collection and technology used to evaluate data on juvenile recidivism, establish a common national juvenile recidivism measure, and make cumulative juvenile recidivism data that is collected from States available to the public.

This section also requires the Administrator to assess the effectiveness of the practice of treating juveniles as adults for purposes in criminal court and submit the findings and conclusions of the assessment to Congress and the President as well as to the public and to conduct a study of adjudicated juveniles and publish a report on the outcomes for juveniles who have reintegrated into the community.

Section 208. Training and technical assistance

This section compels the Administrator to, among other requirements, make publicly available his or her decision-making with respect to grants to States and provide for the development and promulgation of standards of practice for attorneys representing children and ensure the adoption of these standards.

The Administrator must also coordinate training and technical assistance programs with juvenile detention and corrections personnel of States and units of local government to promote evidence based and promising methods for improving conditions of juvenile confinement, including those that are designed to minimize the use of dangerous practices, unreasonable restraints, and isolation, and to promote positive behavioral management techniques.

Section 209. Incentive grants for state and local programs

This section creates a new incentive grant program and sets forth activities that may receive incentive grant funding and the means by which States may apply for the grants. Permissible uses of incentive grant funds include increasing the use of evidence-based or promising prevention programs; improving the recruitment, selection, training and retention of professional personnel; and the establishment of a partnership between juvenile justice agencies of a State or unit of local government and mental health authorities of a State or unit of local government to enhance mental health and substance abuse services for juveniles. At least one-half of the funds allocated under this program must be authorized for evidence-based or promising programs, as those terms are now defined.

Section 210. Authorization of appropriations

This section sets authorization levels for the JJDPA title II programs as follows: (A) $196,700,000 for fiscal year 2009, (B) $245,900,000 for 2010, (C) $295,100,000 for 2011, (D) $344,300,000 for 2012, and (E) $393,500,000 for 2013.

This section also sets authorization levels for the new incentive grants program at $80,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Of the sums appropriated for a fiscal year to carry out the incentive grants program, at least 40% of the funds shall be used for programs that are carrying out an activity described in subparagraph (C), (D), or (E) of section 271(b)(1).

Section 211. Administrative authority

This section strikes the word `requirements' as described in paragraphs (11), (12), and (13) of section 223(a), and replaces it with `core requirements.'

Section 212. Technical and conforming amendments

This section makes several technical and conforming amendments.

Section 301. Definitions

This section adds a definition for the term `mentoring.'

Section 302. Grants for delinquency prevention programs

This section adds mentoring as an allowable use of JJDPA title V delinquency prevention programs.

Section 303. Authorization of appropriations

This section sets authorization levels for the JJDPA title V programs as follows: (1) $272,200,000 for fiscal year 2009; (2) $322,800,000 for fiscal year 2010; (3) $373,400,000 for fiscal year 2011; (4) $424,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and (5) $474,600,000 for fiscal year 2013.

Section 304. Technical and conforming amendment

This section makes several technical and conforming amendments.

IV. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee sets forth, with respect to the bill, S. 3155, the following estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

August 18, 2008.

Hon. PATRICK J. LEAHY,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has completed the enclosed cost estimate for S. 3155, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2008.

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz.

Sincerely,

PETER R. ORSZAG.

Enclosure.

S. 3155--Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act

Summary: S. 3155 would authorize the appropriation of $3.7 billion over the 2009-2013 period for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to make grants to state and local governments for programs to reduce juvenile delinquency and improve the juvenile justice system. In addition, the bill would authorize the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary for juvenile delinquency block grants and state challenge grants.

Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing S. 3155 would cost about $2.3 billion over the 2009-2013 period and another $2 billion in subsequent years. Enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues.

S. 3155 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 3155 is shown in the following table. The cost of this legislation falls within budget function 750 (administration of justice).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                             By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--

                                                                                 2009 2010 2011 2012  2013 2009-2013

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Programs with Specified Funding Levels:

Authorization Level                                                               549  649  749  848   948     3,743

Estimated Outlays                                                                  66  232  409  583   750     2,040

Other Programs:

Estimated Authorization Level                                                      97  100  103  106   109       515

Estimated Outlays                                                                  12   39   64   86   103       304

Total Changes:

Estimated Authorization Level                                                     646  749  852  954 1,057     4,258

Estimated Outlays                                                                  78  271  473  669   853     2,344

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basis of estimate: CBO estimates that S. 3155 would authorize a total of nearly $4.3 billion over the 2009-2013 period for the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs covered by the bill. That total includes the $3.7 billion specified in the bill for various programs and an estimated $515 million for juvenile justice block grants and state challenge grants. CBO estimated the cost of the block grants and challenge grants by adjusting the amounts appropriated for those programs for 2008 for anticipated inflation.

Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing S. 3155 would cost about $2.3 billion over the 2009-2013 period, with the remaining amounts spent in subsequent years. For this estimate, CBO assumes that the authorized and estimated amounts will be appropriated near the start of each fiscal year and that spending will follow the historical spending patterns for these activities.

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 3155 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. The bill would add new requirements for governments that participate in certain federal programs related to juvenile justice. Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, state, local, and tribal governments would receive about $2.3 billion over the 2009-2013 period.

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz, Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell; Impact on the Private Sector: MarDestinee C. Perez.

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

V. REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

In compliance with rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee finds that no significant regulatory impact will result from the enactment of S. 3155.

VI. CONCLUSION

This legislation seeks to move the country in new directions to protect our communities and give our children the chance they need to grow up to be productive members of society. But the Committee was careful to do so with full respect for the discretion due to law enforcement and judges, with deference to States, and with a regard for difficult fiscal realities. We urge its prompt passage in the full Senate.

VII. ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

ADDITIONAL VIEWS FROM SENATOR KYL

I submit these additional views simply to note my intent to offer an amendment to this bill on the Senate floor that I had filed but did not have time to offer in the Judiciary Committee. The amendment, a copy of which is attached to this statement, would allow federal prosecutors, without having to seek a judge's permission, to prosecute a 16- or 17-year-old as an adult if that individual is charged with committing murder, forcible rape, or kidnapping, or an attempt to commit such an offense. Under current law, before any juvenile can be prosecuted as an adult in federal court for any offense, the prosecutor must seek the judge's permission, and the judge must decide that such prosecution is `in the interest of justice.' Current application of this standard varies widely depending on the ideological predisposition of the presiding judge, and far too many district judges fail to take the interest in public safety into account when applying this test. My amendment would ensure that, for the most serious violent crimes--rape, murder, and kidnapping--prosecutors will have the discretion to seek a sentence that is appropriate to the crime and that will protect the public.

Many states currently allow or even require juveniles as young as 14 years old to be prosecuted as adults for a broad range of offenses. Some critics of the amendment that I circulated in the Judiciary Committee have argued that prosecuting and incarcerating a 16- or 17-year-old as an adult could undermine his rehabilitation; they cite studies indicating that juveniles who were prosecuted as adults are more likely to commit new crimes in the future.

I agree that for many crimes, such as theft or even drug crimes, society ought rightly be concerned with a juvenile offender's rehabilitation. In the case of crimes such as murder or rape, however, the balance of interests tips decisively in favor of protecting society from the offender. The maximum penalty for these crimes is life in prison, and all sentences for these offenses tend to be very long and to cover all of an offender's crime-prone years. When an offender commits a rape or a murder, the interest in his rehabilitation is greatly reduced; society must place greater emphasis on the offender's incapacitation and the prevention of additional crimes. And as for the `studies' cited above, I think that it is obvious that the reason that juveniles who were prosecuted as adults are more likely to commit new crimes in the future is that juveniles who commit the kinds of crimes that typically result in adult prosecution are more criminally inclined to begin with. Under current state law, a juvenile who commits a rape is much more likely to be prosecuted as an adult than one who commits shoplifting or vandalism. Is it any surprise that a 17-year-old who commits a rape is also more likely to commit serious crimes in the future than is a juvenile who has only committed shoplifting or vandalism? The very best indicator of whether an individual is likely to commit a crime in the future is whether he has been convicted of committing a criminal offense in the past.

Does anyone seriously believe that, in the case of a 16-year-old who murders another person, or a 17-year-old who rapes a woman or a child, society should be focused on counseling the offender and releasing him into the public when he is 21 years old? This amendment is necessary for the public safety. Its rejection would inevitably result in the commission of more rapes and murders that easily could have been prevented through appropriate incarceration of the offender.

Some critics have also opposed my amendment on the basis that it applies to inchoate offenses. The version of the amendment that I will offer on the Senate floor will also apply to attempted murder, rape, and kidnapping. I think that this makes sense. The law generally recognizes that an attempt to commit rape or murder, for example, is just as serious as a completed offense, and the fortuity that the victim of an attempted murder survived is a good thing, but not one that should not inure to the benefit of the perpetrator of the offense.

JON KYL.

Insert offset folio 20 here SR472.001

Insert offset folio 21 here SR472.002

Insert offset folio 22 here SR472.003

MINORITY VIEWS FROM SENATORS GRASSLEY, COBURN AND KYL

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2008 (S. 3155) does not include any major reforms that address problems with grant management by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Together with the increased spending authorizations contained in S. 3155, this reauthorization misses the mark when it comes to reforming grant management and ensuring that taxpayer dollars that are provided to juvenile justice grantees are free from fraud, waste, or abuse.

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (DOJ Inspector General) has labeled grant management as one of the top management and performance challenges at the Justice Department. For example, the DOJ Inspector General found that `Department components that award grants still lack adequate financial and programmatic oversight of their varied grant programs . . . raising questions about how effectively these grant funds are being spent.' 19

[Footnote] The DOJ Inspector General also stated, `OIG audits continue to identify a variety of management concerns regarding the Department's oversight of its grant programs, including problems in the grant closeout process, improper use of grant funds, difficulties in meeting grant objectives, and poor performance measurement of grant effectiveness.' 20

[Footnote]

[Footnote 19: Office of the Inspector General, United States Department Of Justice, Top Management And Performance Challenges in the Department Of Justice (2007), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/challenges/2007/ (last visited Sept. 5, 2008).]

[Footnote 20: Id.]

In addition to the Department-wide problems associated with grant management, the DOJ Inspector General has conducted audits of individual grantees that receive funding from OJJDP under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA). These audits reveal a series of problems associated with grant management and performance and are evidence of the need for a comprehensive evaluation of OJJDP grant recipients. For example, a series of audit reports entered into the Committee hearing record at the July 31, 2008, mark-up show that grantees across the country from California to Florida had serious errors and failures in complying with program requirements. These audits found problems such as unauthorized expenditures by grantees, undocumented expenditures, unallowable costs, inadequate supporting documentation, untimely submission of documentations, subgrantees failure to comply with audit requirements, failure to follow competitive bidding requirements, programs failing to accomplish goals, and failure to provide support for staff salaries and fringe benefits. These are serious program failures that need to be corrected so that taxpayer dollars are not lost to fraud, waste, and abuse.

To address the concerns raised with grant management and individual grantee compliance by the DOJ Inspector General, Senator Grassley offered four amendments designed to strengthen accountability and oversight of OJJDP and grantees who are awarded federal funding under the JJDPA. The first amendment offered would have required a top-to-bottom review of OJJDP and an audit and evaluation of a statistically significant sample of grantees who received funds under the JJDPA. Specifically, the amendment would have required the Director of the Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management (OAAM)--the internal auditing arm of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP)--to conduct an audit and evaluation of OJJDP to evaluate whether it has successfully carried out the mission and goals of the original JJDPA.

The amendment provided guidance to the Director of OAAM by setting forth twelve considerations to examine when conducting the audit and evaluation of OJJDP. These twelve considerations were designed to help the Director critically examine OJJDP to determine: (a) whether the goals of the JJDPA were being met, (b) whether OJJDP programs and efforts were duplicative with other DOJ programs, (c) if cost savings could be achieved through program consolidation, (d) how successful grants have been, (e) whether greater oversight of grants was needed. The purpose of adding these specific considerations was to help OAAM structure the audit and evaluation in a manner that would provide Congress with as much information as possible assess whether the concerns regarding grant management and performance raised by the DOJ Inspector General continue to exist in grants managed by OJJDP.

The amendment would have also required OAAM to conduct an audit and evaluation of a statistically significant sample of OJJDP grantees. This audit and evaluation was included in the amendment in an effort to collect a larger sample of information from OJJDP grantees and to verify the results of the individual audits conducted by the DOJ Inspector General. The previous audits conducted by the DOJ Inspector General pointed to significant problems on the part of OJJDP grantees in meeting the requirements of the grant program and in appropriately spending grant monies. If the problems outlined by the individual audits extend to a larger portion of OJDDP grantees, it is possible that hundreds of millions of dollars could be at risk of waste, fraud, or abuse. The amendment required OAAM to complete both audits and evaluations and issue reports to Congress no later than December 2009.

Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated by a roll call vote of 10 nays, 9 yeas. Those who opposed the amendment cited concerns that the amendment would duplicate oversight requirements already in the bill and unduly burden scarce resources. These concerns are without merit; the current bill only requires annual reporting to Congress by OJJDP and not by an independent auditor such as OAAM. While the annual report submitted to Congress by OJJDP is necessary, it does not provide the type of critical analysis that an independent auditor can bring, given the inherent conflict of interest of OJJDP in painting the best picture of their agency and their performance to Congress. Further, the annual report required by the reauthorization does not include considerations that will help Congress obtain the necessary information to determine if the agency is in fact meeting its mission and stated goals of the JJDPA. It is our view that a critical, objective analysis of the program by an independent auditor such as OAAM or the Comptroller General is necessary given the documented problems with grant management and grantee performance, as well as the significant increase to program authorizations included in this bill.

Senator Grassley offered three additional amendments that were accepted by unanimous consent. These three amendments require OJJDP to include new information in their annual report to Congress. Specifically, OJJDP must: (1) report on internal controls that exist to ensure that grantees follow grant program requirements, (2) report a detailed accounting to Congress regarding activities of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice including a cost accounting of expenses for meetings held, (3) provide an analysis of payments made to grantees who violated grant program rules and determine if OJJDP ever recovered the funds that were inappropriately spent. These amendments help to enhance the annual report submitted by OJJDP to Congress; however, they are not a substitute for a comprehensive evaluation to be conducted by a disinterested auditor.

The original JJDPA has been around for over 30 years with the last reauthorization occurring in 2002. While the JJDPA has laudable goals and has helped to create a national policy for the way juvenile offenders are treated, this does not mean that Congress should not require a comprehensive evaluation of the program prior to or as part of any significant reauthorization. The selected audits conducted by the DOJ Inspector General raise serious questions that need to be addressed by Congress. S. 3155 authorizes billions of dollars in new spending that is not offset by any reduction in spending authorized by the Committee in other areas. As such, the Committee continues to authorize new spending without critically reviewing programs or making the tough decisions about where to reduce authorized funding for an offset. The end result of continued authorizations is a loss of control by the authorizing Committee, placing the Appropriations Committee in a position to set policy by choosing which programs to fund and which to ignore. It is our opinion that any significant reauthorization should address the problems highlighted by the DOJ Inspector General before authorizing billions of dollars in new spending of taxpayer dollars.
Chuck Grassley.
Tom Coburn.
Jon Kyl.

VIII. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by S. 3155, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman).

UNITED STATES CODE

TITLE 42--PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 72--JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

* * * * * * *

[Struck out->]`[ SEC. 101 FINDINGS. ]`[<-Struck out]

[Struck out->][ (a) The Congress finds the following: ][<-Struck out]

[ (1) Although the juvenile violent crime arrest rate in 1999 was the lowest in the decade, there remains a consensus that the number of crimes and the rate of offending by juveniles nationwide is still too high. ]

[ (2) According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, allowing 1 youth to leave school for a life of crime and of drug abuse costs society $1,700,000 to $2,300,000 annually. ]

[ (3) One in every 6 individuals (16.2 percent) arrested for committing violent crime in 1999 was less than 18 years of age. In 1999, juveniles accounted for 9 percent of murder arrests, 17 percent of forcible rape arrests, 25 percent of robbery arrest, 14 percent of aggravated assault arrests, and 24 percent of weapons arrests. ]

[ (4) More than  1/2  of juvenile murder victims are killed with firearms. Of the nearly 1,800 murder victims less than 18 years of age, 17 percent of the victims less than 13 years of age were murdered with a firearm, and 81 percent of the victims 13 years of age or older were killed with a firearm. ]

[ (5) Juveniles accounted for 13 percent of all drug abuse violation arrests in 1999. Between 1990 and 1999, juvenile arrests for drug abuse violations rose 132 percent. ]

[ (6) Over the last 3 decades, youth gang problems have increased nationwide. In the 1970's, 19 States reported youth gang problems. By the late 1990's, all 50 States and the District of Columbia reported gang problems. For the same period, the number of cities reporting youth gang problems grew 843 percent, and the number of counties reporting gang problems increased more than 1,000 percent. ]

[ (7) According to a national crime survey of individuals 12 years of age or older during 1999, those 12 to 19 years old are victims of violent crime at higher rates than individuals in all other age groups. Only 30.8 percent of these violent victimizations were reported by youth to police in 1999. ]

[ (8) One-fifth of juveniles 16 years of age who had been arrested were first arrested before attaining 12 years of age. Juveniles who are known to the juvenile justice system before attaining 13 years of age are responsible for a disproportionate share of serious crimes and violence. ]

[ (9) The increase in the arrest rates for girls and young juvenile offenders has changed the composition of violent offenders entering the juvenile justice system. ]

[ (10) These problems should be addressed through a 2-track common sense approach that addresses the needs of individual juveniles and society at large by promoting-- ]

[ (A) quality prevention programs that-- ]

[ (i) work with juveniles, their families, local public agencies, and community-based organizations, and take into consideration such factors as whether or not juveniles have been the victims of family violence (including child abuse and neglect); and ]

[ (ii) are designed to reduce risks and develop competencies in at-risk juveniles that will prevent, and reduce the rate of, violent delinquent behavior; and ]

[ (B) programs that assist in holding juveniles accountable for their actions and in developing the competencies necessary to become responsible and productive members of their communities, including a system of graduated sanctions to respond to each delinquent act, requiring juveniles to make restitution, or perform community service, for the damage caused by their delinquent acts, and methods for increasing victim satisfaction with respect to the penalties imposed on juveniles for their acts. ]

[ (11) Coordinated juvenile justice and delinquency prevention projects that meet the needs of juveniles through the collaboration of the many local service systems juveniles encounter can help prevent juveniles from becoming delinquent and help delinquent youth return to a productive life. ]

[Struck out->][ (b) Congress must act now to reform this program by focusing on juvenile delinquency prevention programs, as well as programs that hold juveniles accountable for their acts and which provide opportunities for competency development. Without true reform, the juvenile justice system will not be able to overcome the challenges it will face in the coming years when the number of juveniles is expected to increase by 18 percent between 2000 and 2030. ][<-Struck out]

SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) A growing body of adolescent development research supports the use of developmentally appropriate services and sanctions for youth in the juvenile justice system and those at risk for delinquent behavior to help prevent youth crime and to successfully intervene with youth who have already entered the system.

(2) Research has shown that targeted investments to redirect offending juveniles onto a different path are cost effective and can help reduce juvenile recidivism and adult crime.

(3) Minorities are disproportionately represented in the juvenile justice system.

(4) Between 1990 and 2004, the number of youth in adult jails increased by 208 percent.

(5) Every day in the United States, an average of 7,500 youth are incarcerated in adult jails.

(6) Youth who have been previously tried as adults are, on average, 34 percent more likely to commit crimes than youth retained in the juvenile justice system.

(7) Research has shown that every dollar spent on evidence based programs can yield up to $13 in cost savings.

(8) Each child prevented from engaging in repeat criminal offenses can save the community $1,700,000 to $3,400,000.

(9) Youth are 19 times more likely to commit suicide in jail than youth in the general population and 36 times more likely to commit suicide in an adult jail than in a juvenile detention facility.

(10) Seventy percent of youth in detention are held for nonviolent charges, and more than 2/3 are charged with property offenses, public order offenses, technical probation violations, or status offenses, such as truancy, running away, or breaking curfew.

(11) The prevalence of mental disorders among youth in juvenile justice systems is 2 to 3 times higher than among youth in the general population.

(12) Eighty percent of juveniles in juvenile justice systems have a nexus to substance abuse.

(13) The proportion of girls entering the justice system has increased steadily over the past several decades, rising from 20 percent in 1980 to 29 percent in 2003.

SEC 102. PURPOSE.

The purposes of this subchapter and subchapter II of this chapter are--

(1) to support State and local programs that prevent juvenile involvement in delinquent behavior;

[ and ]

[ . ]

; and

(4) to support a continuum of programs (including delinquency prevention, intervention, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and aftercare) to address the needs of at-risk youth and youth who come into contact with the justice system.

SEC. 103. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this chapter--

(1) the term `community based' facility, program, or service means a small, open group home or other suitable place located near the juvenile's home or family and programs of community supervision and service which maintain community and consumer participation in the planning, operation, and evaluation of their programs which may include, but are not limited to, medical, educational, vocational, social, and psychological guidance, training, special education, counseling, alcoholism treatment, drug treatment, and other rehabilitative services;

(2) the term `Federal juvenile delinquency program' means any juvenile delinquency program which is conducted, directly, or indirectly, or is assisted by any Federal department or agency, including any program funded under this chapter;

(3) the term `juvenile delinquency program' means any program or activity related to juvenile delinquency prevention, control, diversion, treatment, rehabilitation, planning, education, training, and research, including drug and alcohol abuse programs; the improvement of the juvenile justice system; and any program or activity designed to reduce known risk factors for juvenile delinquent behavior, provides [FN1] activities that build on protective factors for, and develop competencies in, juveniles to prevent, and reduce the rate of, delinquent juvenile behavior;

(4)(A) the term `Bureau of Justice Assistance' means the bureau established by section 3741 of this title;

(B) the term `Office of Justice Programs' means the office established by section 3711 of this title;

(D) the term `Bureau of Justice Statistics' means the bureau established by section 3732(a) of this title;

(5) the term `Administrator' means the agency head designated by section 5611(b) of this title;

(6) the term `law enforcement and criminal justice' means any activity pertaining to crime prevention, control, or reduction or the enforcement of the criminal law, including, but not limited to police efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime or to apprehend criminals, activities of courts having criminal jurisdiction and related agencies (including prosecutorial and defender services), activities of corrections, probation, or parole authorities, and programs relating to the prevention, control, or reduction of juvenile delinquency or narcotic addiction;

(7) the term `State' means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands;

(8) the term `unit of local government' means--

(A) any city, county, township, town, borough, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State;

(B) any law enforcement district or judicial enforcement district that--

(i) is established under applicable State law; and

(ii) has the authority to, in a manner independent of other State entities, establish a budget and raise revenues;

[ (C) an Indian Tribe that performs law enforcement functions, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior; or ]

(C) an Indian tribe; or

(D) for the purposes of assistance eligibility, any agency of the government of the District of Columbia or the Federal Government that performs law enforcement functions in and for--

(i) the District of Columbia; or

(ii) any Trust Territory of the United States;

(9) the term `combination' as applied to States or units of local government means any grouping or joining together of such States or units for the purpose of preparing, developing, or implementing a juvenile justice and delinquency prevention plan;

(10) the term `construction' means acquisition, expansion, remodeling, and alteration of existing buildings, and initial equipment of any such buildings, or any combination of such activities (including architects' fees but not the cost of acquisition of land for buildings);

(11) the term `public agency' means any State, unit of local government, combination of such States or units, or any department, agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing;

(12) the term `secure detention facility' means any public or private residential facility which--

(A) includes construction fixtures designed to physically restrict the movements and activities of juveniles or other individuals held in lawful custody in such facility; and

(B) is used for the temporary placement of any juvenile who is accused of having committed an offense, or of any other individual accused of having committed a criminal offense;

(13) the term `secure correctional facility' means any public or private residential facility which--

(A) includes construction fixtures designed to physically restrict the movements and activities of juveniles or other individuals held in lawful custody in such facility; and

(B) is used for the placement, after adjudication and disposition, of any juvenile who has been adjudicated as having committed an offense or any other individual convicted of a criminal offense;

(14) the term `serious crime' means criminal homicide, forcible rape or other sex offenses punishable as a felony, mayhem, kidnapping, aggravated assault, drug trafficking, robbery, larceny or theft punishable as a felony, motor vehicle theft, burglary or breaking and entering, extortion accompanied by threats of violence, and arson punishable as a felony;

(15) the term `treatment' includes but is not limited to medical, educational, special education, social, psychological, and vocational services, corrective and preventive guidance and training, and other rehabilitative services designed to protect the public, including services designed to benefit addicts and other users by eliminating their dependence on alcohol or other addictive or nonaddictive drugs or by controlling their dependence and susceptibility to addiction or use;

(16) the term `valid court order' means a court order given by a juvenile court judge to a juvenile--

(A) who was brought before the court and made subject to such order;

(B) who received, before the issuance of such order, the full due process rights guaranteed to such juvenile by the Constitution of the United States; and

(17) the term `Council' means the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention established in section 5616(a)(1) of this title;

[ (18) the term `Indian Tribe' means-- ]

[ (A) a federally recognized Indian tribe; or ]

[ (B) an Alaskan Native organization; ]

(18) the term `Indian tribe' has the meaning given that term in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b);

(19) the term `comprehensive and coordinated system of services' means a system that--

(A) ensures that services and funding for the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency are consistent with policy goals of preserving families and providing appropriate services in the least restrictive environment so as to simultaneously protect juveniles and maintain public safety;

(B) identifies, and intervenes early for the benefit of, young children who are at risk of developing emotional or behavioral problems because of physical or mental stress or abuse, and for the benefit of their families;

(C) increases interagency collaboration and family involvement in the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency; and

(D) encourages private and public partnerships in the delivery of services for the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency;

(20) the term `gender-specific services' means services designed to address needs unique to the gender of the individual to whom such services are provided;

(21) the term `home-based alternative services' means services provided to a juvenile in the home of the juvenile as an alternative to incarcerating the juvenile, and includes home detention;

[ or confine adults-- ]

[ (A) pending the filing of a charge of violating a criminal law; ]

[ (B) awaiting trial on a criminal charge; or ]

[ (C) convicted of violating a criminal law; ]

or confine adult inmates;

(23) the term `nonprofit organization' means an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 that is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of Title 26;

(24) the term `graduated sanctions' means an accountability-based, graduated series of sanctions (including incentives, treatment, and services) applicable to juveniles within the juvenile justice system to hold such juveniles accountable for their actions and to protect communities from the effects of juvenile delinquency by providing appropriate sanctions for every act for which a juvenile is adjudicated delinquent, by inducing their law-abiding behavior, and by preventing their subsequent involvement with the juvenile justice system;

(25) the term `contact' means the degree of interaction allowed between juvenile offenders in a secure custody status and incarcerated adults under section 31.303(d)(1)(i) of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on December 10, 1996;

[ (26) the term `adult inmate' means an individual who-- ]

[ (A) has reached the age of full criminal responsibility under applicable State law; and ]

[ (B) has been arrested and is in custody for or awaiting trial on a criminal charge, or is convicted of a criminal offense; ]

(26) the term `adult inmate'--

(A) means an individual who--

(i) has reached the age of full criminal responsibility under applicable State law; and

(ii) has been arrested and is in custody for or awaiting trial on a criminal charge, or is convicted of a criminal charge offense; and

(B) does not include an individual who--

(i) at the time of the offense, was younger than the maximum age at which a youth can be held in a juvenile facility under applicable State law; and

(ii) was committed to the care and custody of a juvenile correctional agency by a court of competent jurisdiction or by operation of applicable State law;

(27) the term `violent crime' means--

(A) murder or nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, or robbery, or

(B) aggravated assault committed with the use of a firearm;

[ and ]

(29) the term `related complex of buildings' means 2 or more buildings that share--

(A) physical features, such as walls and fences, or services beyond mechanical services (heating, air conditioning, water and sewer); or

[ . ]

;

(30) the term `core requirements' means the requirements described in paragraphs (11), (12), (13), and (15) of section 223(a);

(31) the term `chemical agent' means a spray used to temporarily incapacitate a person, including oleoresin capsicum spray, tear gas, and 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile gas;

(32) the term `isolation'--

(A) means any instance in which a youth is confined alone for more than 15 minutes in a room or cell; and

(B) does not include confinement during regularly scheduled sleeping hours, or for not more than 1 hour during any 24-hour period, in the room or cell in which the youth usually sleeps, protective confinement (for injured youths or youths whose safety is threatened), separation based on an approved treatment program, confinement that is requested by the youth, or the separation of the youth from a group in a non-locked setting for the purpose of calming;

(33) the term `restraint' has the meaning given that term in section 591 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290ii);

(34) the term `evidence based' means a program or practice that is demonstrated to be effective and that--

(A) is based on a clearly articulated and empirically supported theory;

(B) has measurable outcomes, including a detailed description of what outcomes were produced in a particular population; and

(C) has been scientifically tested, optimally through randomized control studies or comparison group studies;

(35) the term `promising' means a program or practice that is demonstrated to be effective based on positive outcomes from 1 or more objective evaluations, as documented in writing to the Administrator; and

(36) the term `dangerous practice' means an act, procedure, or program that creates an unreasonable risk of physical injury, pain, or psychological harm to a juvenile subjected to the act, procedure, or program.

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II--PROGRAMS AND OFFICES

PART A--JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION OFFICE

SEC. 204. CONCENTRATION OF FEDERAL EFFORTS.

(a) IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY BY ADMINISTRATOR; CONSULTATION WITH COUNCIL AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE-

(1) The Administrator shall develop objectives, priorities, and a long-term plan, and implement overall policy and a strategy to carry out such plan, for all Federal juvenile delinquency programs and activities relating to prevention, diversion, training, treatment, rehabilitation, evaluation, research, and improvement of the juvenile justice system in the United States. In carrying out the functions of the Administrator, the Administrator shall consult with the Council.

(2)(A) The plan described in paragraph (1) shall--

(i) contain specific goals and criteria for making grants and contracts, for conducting research, and for carrying out other activities under this subchapter; and

(ii) provide for coordinating the administration programs and activities under this subchapter with the administration of all other Federal juvenile delinquency programs and activities, including proposals for joint funding to be coordinated by the Administrator.

(B) The Administrator shall review the plan described in paragraph (1) annually, revise the plan as the Administrator considers appropriate, and publish the plan in the Federal Register--

[ 240 days after November 4, 1992 ]

July 2, 2009

(ii) except as provided in clause (i), in the 30-day period ending on October 1 of each year.

SEC. 206. COORDINATING COUNCIL ON JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT; MEMBERSHIP-

the Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health services Administration, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Agriculture

[ Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization ]

Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement

(including at least 1 representative from the mental health fields)

(B)(i) Three members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, after consultation with the minority leader of the House of Representatives.

(ii) Three members shall be appointed by the majority leader of the Senate, after consultation with the minority leader of the Senate.

(iii) Three members shall be appointed by the President.

(C)(i) Of the members appointed under each of clauses (i), (ii), and (iii)--

(I) 1 shall be appointed for a term of 1 year;

(II) 1 shall be appointed for a term of 2 years; and

(III) 1 shall be appointed for a term of 3 years; as designated at the time of appointment.

(ii) Except as provided in clause (iii), a vacancy arising during the term for which an appointment is made may be filled only for the remainder of such term.

(iii) After the expiration of the term for which a member is appointed, such member may continue to serve until a successor is appointed.

(b) CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN- The Attorney General shall serve as Chairman of the Council. The Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention shall serve as Vice Chairman of the Council. The Vice Chairman shall act as Chairman in the absence of the Chairman.

[ paragraphs (12)(A), (13), and (14) of section 5633(a) of this title ]

the core requirements

, on an annual basis

[ and ]

[ 180 days after November 4, 1992 ]

May 3, 2009

[ Committee on Education and the Workforce ]

Committee on Education and Labor

[ . ]

; and

(C) not later than 120 days after the completion of the last meeting in any fiscal year, submit to Congress a report regarding the recommendations described in subparagraph (A), which shall--

(i) include a detailed account of the activities conducted by the Council during the fiscal year, including a complete detailed accounting of expenses incurred by the Coordinating Council to conduct operations in accordance with this section;

(ii) be published on the websites of the Department of Justice and the Coordinating Council; and

(iii) be in addition to the annual report required by section 207.

(d) MEETINGS- The Council shall meet at least quarterly.

(e) APPOINTMENT OF PERSONNEL OR STAFF SUPPORT BY ADMINISTRATOR- The Administrator shall, with the approval of the Council, appoint such personnel or staff support as the Administrator considers necessary to carry out the purposes of this subchapter.

(f) EXPENSES OF COUNCIL MEMBERS; REIMBURSEMENT- Members appointed under subsection (a)(2) of this section shall serve without compensation. Members of the Council shall be reimbursed for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred by them in carrying out the duties of the Council.

(g) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- Of sums available to carry out this part, not more than $200,000 shall be available to carry out this section.

SEC. 207. ANNUAL REPORT.

Not later than 180 days after the end of [Struck out->][ a fiscal year ][<-Struck out] each fiscal year, the Administrator shall submit to the President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the President pro tempore of the Senate a report that contains the following with respect to such fiscal year:

(1) A detailed summary and analysis of the most recent data available regarding the number of juveniles taken into custody, the rate at which juveniles are taken into custody, and the trends demonstrated by the data required by subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C). Such summary and analysis shall set out the information required by subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) separately for juvenile nonoffenders, juvenile status offenders, and other juvenile offenders. Such summary and analysis shall separately address with respect to each category of juveniles specified in the preceding sentence--

(A) the types of offenses with which the juveniles are charged;

ethnicity

(D) the types of facilities used to hold the juveniles (including juveniles treated as adults for purposes of prosecution) in custody, including secure detention facilities, secure correctional facilities, jails, and lockups;

[ and ]

and other

[ . ]

;

(G) a summary of data from 1 month of the applicable fiscal year of the use of restraints and isolation upon juveniles held in the custody of secure detention and correctional facilities operated by a State or unit of local government;

(H) the number of juveniles released from custody and the type of living arrangement to which each such juvenile was released; and

(I) the number of status offense cases petitioned to court, number of status offenders held in secure detention, and the average period of time a status offender was held in secure detention.

(2) A description of the activities for which funds are expended under this part, including the objectives, priorities, accomplishments, and recommendations of the Council.

(3) A description, based on the most recent data available, of the extent to which each State complies with section 5633 of this title and with the plan submitted under such section by the State for such fiscal year.

(4) An evaluation of the programs funded under this subchapter and their effectiveness in reducing the incidence of juvenile delinquency, particularly violent crime, committed by juveniles.

(5) A description of the criteria used to determine what programs qualify as evidence based and promising programs under this title and title V and a comprehensive list of those programs the Administrator has determined meet such criteria.

(6) A description of funding provided to Indian tribes under this Act, including direct Federal grants and funding provided to Indian tribes through a State or unit of local government.

(7) An analysis and evaluation of the internal controls at Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to determine if grantees are following the requirements of Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention grant programs and what remedial action Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has taken to recover any grant funds that are expended in violation of the grant programs, including instances where supporting documentation was not provided for cost reports, where unauthorized expenditures occurred, and where subrecipients of grant funds were not compliant with program requirements.

(8) An analysis and evaluation of the total amount of payments made to grantees that were recouped by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention from grantees that were found to be in violation of policies and procedures of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention grant programs. This analysis shall include the full name and location of the grantee, the violation of the program found, the amount of funds sought to be recouped by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the actual amount recouped by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

SEC. 221. AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS AND CONTRACTS.

(a) IN GENERAL- The Administrator is authorized to make grants to States and units of local government or combinations thereof to assist them in planning, establishing, operating, coordinating, and evaluating projects directly or through grants and contracts with public and private agencies for the development of more effective education, training, research, prevention, diversion, treatment, and rehabilitation programs in the area of juvenile delinquency and programs to improve the juvenile justice system.

(b) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE-

[ 2 percent ]

5 percent

[FN1]

section 5633 of

section 5633(c) of

(2) Grants and contracts may be made under paragraph (1) only to public and private agencies, organizations, and individuals that have experience in providing such technical assistance.

SEC. 222. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.

(a) TIME; BASIS; AMOUNTS-

[ age eighteen. ]

18 years of age, based on the most recent census data to monitor any significant changes in the relative population of people under 18 years of age occurring in the States.

(2)(A) Subject to paragraph (3), if the aggregate amount appropriated for a fiscal year to carry out this subchapter is less than $75,000,000, then the amount allocated to each State for such fiscal year shall be not less than $325,000, or such greater amount up to $400,000 as is available to be allocated without reducing the amount of any State or territory's allocation below the amount allocated for fiscal year 2000 except that the amount allocated to the Virgin Islands of the United States, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands shall be not less than $75,000, or such greater amount up to $100,000 as is available to be allocated without reducing the amount of any State or territory's allocation below the amount allocated for fiscal year 2000, each.

(B) Subject to paragraph (3), if the aggregate amount appropriated for a fiscal year to carry out this subchapter equals or exceeds $75,000,000, then the amount allocated to each State for such fiscal year shall be not less than $600,000, except that the amount allocated to the Virgin Islands of the United States, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands shall be not less than $100,000, or such greater amount up to $100,000 as is available to be allocated without reducing the amount of any State or territory's allocation below the amount allocated for fiscal year 2000 each.

(3) If, as a result of paragraph (2), the amount allocated to a State for a fiscal year would be less than the amount allocated to such State for fiscal year 2000, then the amounts allocated to satisfy the requirements of such paragraph shall be reduced pro rata to the extent necessary to allocate to such State for the fiscal year the amount allocated to such State for fiscal year 2000.

(b) REALLOCATION OF UNOBLIGATED FUNDS- If any amount so allocated remains unobligated at the end of the fiscal year, such funds shall be reallocated in a manner equitable and consistent with the purpose of this part. Any amount so reallocated shall be in addition to the amounts already allocated and available to the State, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands for the same period.

(c)(1) If any amount allocated under subsection (a) is withheld from a State due to noncompliance with the core requirements, the funds shall be reallocated for an improvement grant designed to assist the State in achieving compliance with the core requirements.

(2) The Administrator shall condition a grant described in paragraph (1) on--

(A) the State, with the approval of the Administrator, developing specific action steps designed to restore compliance with the core requirements; and

(B) submitting to the Administrator semiannually a report on progress toward implementing the specific action steps developed under subparagraph (A).

(3) The Administrator shall provide appropriate and effective technical assistance directly or through an agreement with a contractor to assist a State receiving a grant described in paragraph (1) in achieving compliance with the core requirements.

[Struck out->][ (c) ][<-Struck out] (d) USE OF ALLOCATED FUNDS FOR DEVELOPMENT, ETC., OF STATE PLANS; LIMITATIONS; MATCHING REQUIREMENTS- In accordance with regulations promulgated under this part, a portion of any allocation to any State under this part shall be available to develop a State plan or for other pre-award activities associated with such State plan, and to pay that portion of the expenditures which are necessary for [Struck out->][ efficient administration, including monitoring, evaluation, and one full-time staff position ][<-Struck out] effective and efficient administration, including the designation of at least 1 person to coordinate efforts to achieve and sustain compliance with the core requirements. Not more than 10 percent of the total annual allocation of such State shall be available for such purposes except that any amount expended or obligated by such State, or by units of local government or any combination thereof, from amounts made available under this subsection shall be matched (in an amount equal to any such amount so expended or obligated) by such State, or by such units or combinations, from State or local funds, as the case may be. The State shall make available needed funds for planning and administration to units of local government or combinations thereof within the State on an equitable basis.

[Struck out->][ (d) ][<-Struck out] (e) MINIMUM ANNUAL ALLOCATION FOR ASSISTANCE OF ADVISORY GROUP- In accordance with regulations promulgated under this part, [Struck out->][ 5 per centum of the minimum ][<-Struck out] not more than 5 percent of the annual allocation to any State under this part shall be available to assist the advisory group established under section 5633(a)(3) of this title.

SEC. 223. STATE PLANS.

(a) REQUIREMENTS- In order to receive formula grants under this part, a State shall submit a plan for carrying out its purposes applicable to a 3-year period. Such plan shall be amended annually to include new programs, projects, and activities. The State shall submit annual performance reports to the Administrator which shall describe progress in implementing programs contained in the original plan, and shall describe the status of compliance with State plan requirements. Not later than 30 days after the date on which a plan or amended plan submitted under this subsection is finalized, a State shall make the plan or amended plan publicly available by posting the plan or amended plan on a publicly available website. In accordance with regulations which the Administrator shall prescribe, such plan shall--

(1) designate the State agency described in section 5671(c)(1) of this title as the sole agency for supervising the preparation and administration of the plan;

(2) contain satisfactory evidence that the State agency designated in accordance with paragraph (1) has or will have authority, by legislation if necessary, to implement such plan in conformity with this part;

(3) provide for an advisory group, that--

(A) shall consist of not less than 15 and not more than 33 members appointed by the chief executive officer of the State--

(i) which members have training, experience, or special knowledge concerning the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency, the administration of juvenile justice, or the reduction of juvenile delinquency;

(ii) which members include--

(I) at least 1 locally elected official representing general purpose local government;

[ counsel for children and youth ]

publicly supported court-appointed legal counsel for children and youth charged in delinquency matters

[ mental health, education, special education ]

children's mental health, education, child and adolescent substance abuse, special education, services for youth with disabilities

(IV) representatives of private nonprofit organizations, including persons with a special focus on preserving and strengthening families, parent groups and parent self-help groups, youth development, delinquency prevention and treatment, neglected or dependent children, the quality of juvenile justice, education, and social services for children;

[ delinquents or potential delinquents ]

delinquent youth or youth at risk of delinquency, including volunteers who work with youth of color

(VI) youth workers involved with programs that are alternatives to incarceration, including programs providing organized recreation activities;

[ and ]

(VIII) the executive director or the designee of the executive director of a public or nonprofit entity that is located in the State and receiving a grant under part A of title III;

(IX) persons with expertise and competence in preventing and addressing mental health or substance abuse problems in juvenile delinquents and those at-risk of delinquency;

(X) representatives of victim or witness advocacy groups; and

[ (VIII) ]

(XI)

[ disabilities ]

and other disabilities, truancy reduction or school failure

(iii) a majority of which members (including the chairperson) shall not be full-time employees of the Federal, State, or local government;

(iv) at least one-fifth of which members shall be under the age of 24 at the time of appointment; and

(v) at least 3 members who have been or are currently under the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system;

(B) shall participate in the development and review of the State's juvenile justice plan prior to submission to the supervisory board for final action;

(C) shall be afforded the opportunity to review and comment, not later than 30 days after their submission to the advisory group, on all juvenile justice and delinquency prevention grant applications submitted to the State agency designated under paragraph (1);

(D) shall, consistent with this subchapter--

(i) advise the State agency designated under paragraph (1) and its supervisory board; and

[ requirements of paragraphs (11), (12), and (13) ]

core requirements

(iii) contact and seek regular input from juveniles currently under the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system; and

(E) may, consistent with this subchapter--

and

(ii) review progress and accomplishments of projects funded under the State plan;

(4) provide for the active consultation with and participation of units of local government or combinations thereof in the development of a State plan which adequately takes into account the needs and requests of units of local government, except that nothing in the plan requirements, or any regulations promulgated to carry out such requirements, shall be construed to prohibit or impede the State from making grants to, or entering into contracts with, local private agencies or the advisory group;

[ section 5632(d) ]

section 5632(e)

(A) through programs of units of local government or combinations thereof, to the extent such programs are consistent with the State plan;

(B) through programs of local private agencies, to the extent such programs are consistent with the State plan, except that direct funding of any local private agency by a State shall be permitted only if such agency requests such funding after it has applied for and been denied funding by any unit of local government or combination thereof; and

[ Indian tribes that perform law enforcement functions (as determined by the Secretary of the Interior) and that agree to attempt to comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (11), (12), and (13), applicable to the detention and confinement of juveniles ]

Indian tribes that agree to attempt to comply with the core requirements applicable to the detention and confinement of juveniles

(6) provide for an equitable distribution of the assistance received under section 5632 of this title within the State, including in rural areas;

[ (including any geographical area in which an Indian tribe performs law enforcement functions) ]

(including any geographical area of which an Indian tribe has jurisdiction)

(B) contain--

[ (i) an analysis of gender-specific services for the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency, including the types of such services available and the need for such services; ]

(i) a plan for ensuring that the chief executive officer of the State, State legislature, and all appropriate public agencies in the State with responsibility for provision of services to children, youth and families are informed of the requirements of the State plan and the compliance with the core requirements

(ii) a plan for providing needed gender-specific services for the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency;

[ and ]

[ (iv) a plan for providing needed mental health services to juveniles in the juvenile justice system, including information on how such plan is being implemented and how such services will be targeted to those juveniles in such system who are in greatest need of such services; ]

(iv) a plan to provide alternatives to detention, including diversion to home-based or community-based services that are culturally and linguistically competent or treatment for those youth in need of mental health, substance abuse, or co-occurring disorder services at the time such juveniles first come into contact with the juvenile justice system;

(v) a plan to reduce the number of children housed in secure detention and corrections facilities who are awaiting placement in residential treatment programs;

(vi) a plan to engage family members in the design and delivery of juvenile delinquency prevention and treatment services, particularly post-placement; and

(vii) a plan to use community-based services to address the needs of at-risk youth or youth who have come into contact with the juvenile justice system;

[ existing ]

evidence based and promising

[ section 5632(d) ]

section 5632(e)

(A) community-based alternatives (including home-based alternatives) to incarceration and institutionalization, including--

status offenders and other

(ii) for youth who need residential placement: a continuum of foster care or group home alternatives that provide access to a comprehensive array of services;

(B) community-based programs and services to work with--

[ parents and other family members ]

status offenders, other youth, and the parents and other family members of such offenders and youth

[ be retained ]

remain

(ii) juveniles during their incarceration, and with their families, to ensure the safe return of such juveniles to their homes and to strengthen the families; and

(iii) parents with limited English-speaking ability, particularly in areas where there is a large population of families with limited-English speaking ability;

(C) comprehensive juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs that meet the needs of youth through the collaboration of the many local systems before which a youth may appear, including schools, courts, law enforcement agencies, child protection agencies, mental health agencies, welfare services, health care agencies, and private nonprofit agencies offering youth services;

(D) programs that provide treatment to juvenile offenders who are victims of child abuse or neglect, and to their families, in order to reduce the likelihood that such juvenile offenders will commit subsequent violations of law;

(E) providing training and technical assistance to, and consultation with, juvenile justice and child welfare agencies of states and units of local government to develop coordinated plans for early intervention and treatment of youth who have a history of abuse and juveniles who have prior involvement with the juvenile justice system;

[ (E) ]

(F)

(i) to encourage juveniles to remain in elementary and secondary schools or in alternative learning situations;

(ii) to provide services to assist juveniles in making the transition to the world of work and self-sufficiency; and

(iii) enhance [FN3] coordination with the local schools that such juveniles would otherwise attend, to ensure that--

(I) the instruction that juveniles receive outside school is closely aligned with the instruction provided in school; and

(II) information regarding any learning problems identified in such alternative learning situations are communicated to the schools;

[ (F) ]

(G)

[ expanding ]

programs to expand

(i) particularly for the purpose of permitting nonviolent juvenile offenders (including status offenders) to remain at home with their families as an alternative to incarceration or institutionalization; and

(ii) to ensure that juveniles follow the terms of their probation;

(H) programs to improve the recruitment, selection, training, and retention of professional personnel in the fields of medicine, law enforcement, judiciary, juvenile justice, social work and child protection, education, and other relevant fields who are engaged in, or intend to work in, the field of prevention, identification, and treatment of delinquency;

(I) expanding access to publicly supported, court-appointed legal counsel and enhancing capacity for the competent representation of every child;

I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008

A. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THIS REAUTHORIZATION

II. HISTORY OF THE BILL AND COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

A. INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL

B. COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

TALLY: 9 YEAS, 10 NAYS

TALLY: 18 YEAS, 1 NAY

TALLY: 11 YEAS, 7 NAYS, 1 PASS

III. SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF THE BILL 18

IV. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

V. REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

VI. CONCLUSION

VII. ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

ADDITIONAL VIEWS FROM SENATOR KYL

MINORITY VIEWS FROM SENATORS GRASSLEY, COBURN AND KYL

VIII. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

UNITED STATES CODE

TITLE 42--PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

CHAPTER 72--JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

[Struck out->][ SEC. 101 FINDINGS. ][<-Struck out]

SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

SEC 102. PURPOSE.

SEC. 103. DEFINITIONS.

SUBCHAPTER II--PROGRAMS AND OFFICES

PART A--JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION OFFICE

SEC. 204. CONCENTRATION OF FEDERAL EFFORTS.

SEC. 206. COORDINATING COUNCIL ON JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION.

SEC. 207. ANNUAL REPORT.

SEC. 221. AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS AND CONTRACTS.

SEC. 222. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.

SEC. 223. STATE PLANS.

[Struck out->]`[ SEC. 101 FINDINGS. ]`[<-Struck out]