Summary of the Problem:  Misguided policies that purport to be "tough on crime" increase incarceration rates, disproportionately impact poor youth and youth of color, exacerbate the problem of gang-related crime, funnel a disproportionate number of youth who have a cognizable mental health and/or substance abuse disorder into the justice system, and can in fact make our communities less safe.

             Research from top scholars in a variety of fields including economics, educational psychology, and public health reveals that public dollars spent on effective prevention and education programs are far more effective in stemming violence, curtailing crime and delinquency, and discouraging gang affiliation than broadening prosecutorial powers or stiffening criminal penalties for young people accused of crimes.[i] Public opinion polling studies reveal that taxpayers overwhelmingly favor paying for prevention, education, and rehabilitation programs than prosecution and incarceration of youthful offenders.[ii] 

Proposed Solutions:

    Executive:

The President should:

• Create a Federal Taskforce including the DOJ,the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Defense, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration, and the private sector[iii] to prioritize juvenile justice prevention, intervention, and aftercare programs for youth at the cabinet and sub-cabinet levels.
• Establish a coordinated interagency approach to ensure the provision of community-based mental health and addiction services and treatment; screening, assessment and data collection regarding mental health and substance abuse conditions for youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice system.[iv]
• Express public opposition to legislation that will widen the net of youth in the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems, over-criminalize and increase federal penalties for minor and nonviolent adolescent misbehavior, exacerbate racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile and criminal justice systems, and increase incarceration rates in the United States.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention should:  

• Work with Congress, states and localities to coordinate gang prevention and intervention programs, and ensure effective use of federal funds for evidence-based and promising programs to prevent and intervene in gang involvement.
• Work in conjunction with the Federal Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice to improve reporting on the prevalence of mental health and substance abuse disorders in the juvenile justice system.
• Issue regulations governing mental health assessments and data collection for youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice system.
• Assist states in coordinating with mental health systems to ensure that youth in the custody of the juvenile justice system receive timely mental health care when needed.
• Provide research and data on effective practices regarding juveniles with disabilities, and provide technical assistance to states to addresses the needs and rights of juveniles with disabilities.
• Promote research and data on the growing prevalence of girls in and at-risk of involvement with the juvenile justice system, and promote support for state programming to address gender-specific needs.
• Promote collaboration between juvenile justice and other child-serving systems including education and mental health to reduce racial and ethnic disparities that affect all these systems.

 The Department of Education should:

• Establish and strengthen programs to encourage and support school behavior management and mental health programs, and to reduce criminalization of school misconduct.
• Work with OJJDP to extend school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports into the juvenile justice system to improve treatment and outcomes for incarcerated youth.

             Legislative Changes:

Congress Should:

• Support and pass the Youth Prison Reduction through Opportunities, Mentoring, Intervention, Support, and Education Act (Youth PROMISE Act), H.R. 3846,[v] and reject the Gang Abatement and Suppression Act, S. 456, and its companion legislation, H.R. 3547, when introduced in the 111^th Congress.[vi]
• Require local educational agency (LEA) grantees to minimize the referral of students from schools to the juvenile and criminal justice systems, eliminate the use of zero tolerance policies, and eliminate the use of corporal punishment.[vii]

           Approach mental health and substance abuse through the lens of a public health model, including the availability of broad-based mental health screening, and pass legislation to provide greater availability of mental health and addiction services to students and youth at-risk for contact with the juvenile and criminal justice systems.[viii]  

 Jurisdiction:

       Executive Branch:  Department of Justice (OJJDP) and Department of Education

       Legislative Branch:  House Education and Labor Committee, House and Senate Judiciary Committees, House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee

Background:  The Youth PROMISE Act, H.R. 3846, has 87 bipartisan co-sponsors in the House, and is likely to be introduced in the Senate in early 2009. 

            The Gang Abatement and Prevention Act, S. 456, passed the Senate by unanimous consent, but faces increasing opposition from national organizations and within the House of Representatives.  The House companion legislation to S. 456 is H.R. 3547, which has 25 cosponsors.  After expressing concern about the negative impact this legislation will have on youth and communities of color, eight members of the House of Representatives formally withdrew support for H.R. 3547.[ix] 

Potential Allies, Potential Opposition, and Public Opinion:

            Potential Allies:  The Youth PROMISE Act has strong bipartisan support in Congress, and from national education, health, mental health, juvenile justice, civil rights, human rights, law enforcement, government and non-governmental organizations and coalitions. The Los Angeles City Council is considering a resolution in support of the Youth PROMISE Act, and several Mayors are considering resolutions in support of the legislation. National organizations and individuals throughout the criminal justice field have expressed support for community and school-based prevention and intervention programs,[x] and have expressed opposition to duplicative and costly penalties and approaches in S. 456, including the Heritage Foundation http://www.heritage.org/Research/Crime/wm1619.cfm the National Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Coalition, the National Alliance of Faith and Justice, Human Rights Watch, http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/04/07/usdom18461.htm, Center for Community Alternatives, Citizen Schools, Justice Policy Institute, National Association of School Psychologists, National Juvenile Justice Network, Office of Restorative Justice, International CURE, Virginia CURE, and the Council for Juvenile Correctional Administrators.  ATF has also raised concerns about the concept of a duplicative gang database proposed in S. 456.  The Government Accountability Office has requested a study regarding the use of existing federal statutes (primarily RICO) in prosecuting gang-related offenses, lending support to the argument that federal gang penalties are duplicative and unnecessary.

            The Chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), held a crime summit on June 2007, which addressed the benefits of prevention and early intervention methods as effective crime prevention and reduction strategy. http://www.house.gov/scott/pdf/crimesummit.pdf   

             The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on September 10, 2008, on "New Strategies for Combating Violent Crime: Drawing Lessons from Recent Experience" which also emphasized the importance of prevention and intervention. http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3541

Experts:

 Federal Gang Legislation

• Dr. Charles Ogletree, Harvard Law School
• Carol Chodroff, Human Rights Watch
• Tara Andrews, Coalition for Juvenile Justice

Comparative Policy Approaches and Juvenile Justice Reform

• Professor Kristin Henning, Georgetown Law School
• Dr. Barry Krisberg, National Council of Crime and Delinquency
• Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Harvard School of Public Health
• Bobby Vassar, Chief Counsel to Congressman Bobby Scott (D-VA)

Mental Health and Substance Abuse

• Julio C. Abreu, Mental Health America (formerly NMHA)
• Micah Haskell-Hoehl, American Psychological Association
• Christine Leonard, Senior Counsel to Senator Edward Kennedy
• Alexa Eggleston, National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare

Economic Analysis of Prevention as Cost-Effective Crime Policy

• Steve Aos, Washington State Institute for Public Policy
• John Roman, Urban Institute

For Further Information:

http://chhi.podconsulting.com/assets/documents/publications/NO MORE CHILDREN LEFT BEHIND.pdf

http://www.house.gov/scott/hotissues_youthpromiseact.shtml

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/04/07/usdom18461_txt.htm

[i] In recent years, a wide range of reputable organizations have commissioned or conducted related research and reached similar conclusions. These include the American Psychological Association, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, the Social Development Research Group of Seattle, Washington, and the U.S. Government's own Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. For more information, see http://chhi.podconsulting.com/assets/documents/publications/NO MORE CHILDREN LEFT BEHIND.pdf

[ii] Models for Change, Systems Reform In Juvenile Justice, Rehabilitation Versus Incarceration of Juvenile Offenders: Public Preferences in Four Models for Change States

www.modelsforchange.net/pdfs/WillingnesstoPayFINAL.pdf

[iii] See e.g., the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Models for Change, http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.943477/k.9538/Domestic_Grantmaking Juvenile_Justice.htm  and the Youth Transition Funders Group - a network of grantmakers whose mission is to help all youth make a successful transition to adulthood by age 25.  http://www.ytfg.org/

[iv] For information and an example of interagency collaboration in the provision of mental health services in one state (California), see http://www.calendow.org/chc/centerscene/pdfs/CHC_CenterSceneFA07_final.pdf  and NCCD, A Survey of Mental Health Care Delivery to Youth in the California Juvenile Justice System: Summary of Findings  http://www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/pubs/calif_jj_survey_2003.pdf 

For further analysis, see Thomas Grisso's Adolescent Offenders with Mental Disorders, The Future of Children, Vol. 18, No. 2, Fall 2008.  http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/Justice_08_02.pdf

[v] For more information about the Youth PROMISE Act, see http://www.house.gov/scott/hotissues_youthpromiseact.shtml

[vi] For more information contrasting these federal approaches to gang crime and violence, please see: http://www.house.gov/scott/pdf/HRW_supportypa_opphr3547.pdf

and http://chhi.podconsulting.com/assets/documents/publications/NO MORE CHILDREN LEFT BEHIND.pdf

[vii] For more information about school referrals and zero tolerance policies, see the Children's Defense Fund Cradle to Prison Pipeline Campaign http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=c2pp.  For more information about the use of corporal punishment in schools, see Human Rights Watch, A Violent Education: Corporal Punishment of Children in US Public Schools http://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/us0808/us0808web.pdf

[viii] One study cited in the Congressional findings of the All Healthy Children Act, HR 1688, revealed that when juvenile offenders arrested for minor offenses had access to intensive and coordinated mental health services, more than a third fewer were re-arrested the following year, compared to those who only had access to basic mental health services. Congressional findings for H.R. 1688, the All Healthy Children Act of 2007, finding # 15. <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1688> GovTrack.us. H.R. 1688--110th Congress (2007): All Healthy Children Act of 2007, GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation) (accessed Oct 30, 2008).

[ix] For a copy of the bill, please see: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-3547. GovTrack.us. H.R. 3547--110th Congress (2007): Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Act, GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation) <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-3547> (accessed Oct 30, 2008)

[x] For letters of support, please see: http://www.house.gov/scott/hotissues_youthpromiseact.shtml http://www.house.gov/scott/pdf/Promise_Act_support.pdf and http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Child_and_Adolescent_Action_Center&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=23448