Public Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary on B21-0683 “Comprehensive Youth Justice Amendment Act of 2016”

Testimony of R. Daniel Okonkwo
Executive Director, DC Lawyers for Youth
Public Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary on
B21-0683 “Comprehensive Youth Justice Amendment Act of 2016”
Thursday June 2, 2016
John A. Wilson Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC

Good afternoon Chairman McDuffie and members of the Committee on the Judiciary. My name is Daniel Okonkwo, and I am the Executive Director of DC Lawyers for Youth (DCLY) – a non-profit action tank focused on using data, research, evidence, and our experience to improve DC’s juvenile justice system.  Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

For far too long, the District of Columbia has relied primarily on a reactive approach to punishing crime rather than a proactive approach to preventing crime from happening in the first place.  Starting with the NEAR Act and continuing with this proposed legislation, the District of Columbia is beginning to shift its focus from responding to acting, from doing what feels good to doing what works.  We commend you, Councilmember McDuffie, for leading this effort to create an evidence-based, public health approach to crime prevention in the District.  We support your efforts; we support the passage of the Comprehensive Youth Justice Amendment Act of 2016; and we would like to provide a few additional suggestions as to how the proposed legislation can be improved. 

 I.          Youth Tried As Adults

 Housing

Research has consistently found that trying and housing youth in the adult system neither deters youth from committing serious crimes nor prevents them from reoffending in the future; indeed, there is compelling evidence that it actually increases recidivism among those who are processed through it.[1] In contrast, the research demonstrates that youth are less likely to re-offend and more likely to succeed in school and the workplace if they receive comprehensive services that support positive youth development.[2]

However, adult facilities are generally ill-equipped to provide the comprehensive services that youth need for positive development, such as education, exercise, and pro-social interactions with positive role models.[3] From their physical plant to their staff training, adult facilities are not designed for children. Compared to their peers in juvenile facilities, youth in adult facilities report that the staff members are less supportive in helping them achieve their goals, learn new skills, and improve their personal relationships.[4]  Adult facilities also generally provide weaker education services than do juvenile facilities, a critical weakness given the importance of education for adolescents’ future prospects.[5] 

The Correctional Treatment Facility (CTF) in DC is no exception and has a long history of similar deficiencies.  An independent evaluation of the Juvenile Unit at CTF that was completed in 2013 found that 1) the facility space is too limited to provide adequate programming or sufficient physical activity, 2) most youth are not able to have in-person visitation with their family members, 3) some staff working the unit are inadequately trained to address the needs of youth, and 4) the amount of structured programming offered to youth is inadequate.[6]  Even though Director Faust, Fred Rogers, and the Department of Corrections should get be commended for their efforts to substantially improve the Juvenile Unit at CTF since the completion of this evaluation, no amount of improvement will make the Juvenile Unit at CTF an appropriate place to house youth because of the physical plant and logistical issues associated with the federal requirement of “sight and sound separation” that accompany housing youth in an adult facility.

Housing pretrial Title 16 youth at YSC would allow them to receive the age-appropriate treatment they cannot receive in the adult jail.  They would interact with staff trained in youth development. They would have more frequent access to medical care, mental health treatment, family visits, and recreation. They would live in a space built for kids rather than one built for adults. Additionally, not all youth who are charged as adults are ultimately convicted or incarcerated post-conviction, which means they will soon return to our communities; therefore, the District has an interest in ensuring that these young people are housed in an environment that supports their development rather than at CTF, which has been found to be inadequate for that purpose.  For these reasons, we support the prohibition on the detention of youth under the age of 18 in a penal institution or other facility for the detention of adults and urge the DC Council to adopt this provision and urge the Executive branch to implement the provision by housing pre-sentencing youth at the Youth Services Center and post-sentencing youth at New Beginnings.

There are some who may push back against this proposal and argue 1) that the youth at CTF are fundamentally different from the youth at YSC or 2) that YSC cannot accommodate the increased numbers associated with the influx of youth from CTF.  I will address each in turn.

First, the youth currently at CTF are the same kids as those currently at YSC.  They have the same developmental attributes, the same needs, and the same potential to change.  Indeed, the Supreme Court, after examining neurological and psychological research concerning adolescent development, concluded multiple times that adolescents as a class share developmental characteristics like impulsivity, short-term orientation, immature emotional regulation, and a heightened capacity for change that categorically distinguish them from adults, make them less culpable, and make them less deserving of the most severe punishments.[7] These attributes do not change solely because a sixteen-year-old youth committed an armed robbery instead of a robbery or because a youth committed an armed robbery at sixteen years old and one week instead of at fifteen years old and three hundred and sixty days.  The fact of the matter is that the youth at both facilities are the same youth.

Second, both YSC and New Beginnings should be able to accommodate the pre-sentencing and post-sentencing populations from CTF.  New Beginnings was at 37 youth as of May 18, 2016, and has been undersubscribed since the beginning of 2014.  New Beginnings currently has the space to accommodate the post-sentencing population from CTF. 

At the Youth Services Center, the current population appears to be near capacity because of a recent increase in the use of detention rather than a recent increase in the number of youth coming into the formal juvenile justice system.  Publicly available DYRS data shows that the average daily population at the Youth Services Center was an average of 73 youth per day – 11 of which were committed, not detained, youth – for calendar year 2015 and had no months where the average daily population was above its capacity of 88 youth.  (See Table 1).  For all of 2015, there would have been more than enough room at the Youth Services Center to accommodate the presentencing youth population from CTF.

 

Table 1. Average Daily Population – Youth Services Center[8]

Period

Average Daily Population (Detained Youth)

Average Daily Population (Overnight Youth)

Average Daily Population (Committed Youth)

Average Daily Population (All Youth)

January 2015

68.5

5.0

8.5

82.0

February 2015

66.9

4.6

9.8

81.3

March 2015

59.1

4.4

10.3

73.7

April 2015

59.7

4.1

11.2

75.0

May 2015

55.2

5.4

10.7

71.4

June 2015

52.2

4.5

17.6

74.4

July 2015

51.5

4.3

12.7

68.5

August 2015

52.1

3.7

8.7

64.4

September 2015

54.6

4.3

11.2

70.1

October 2015

59.3

4.3

12.0

75.6

November 2015

61.1

4.5

12.2

77.7

December 2015

51.3

4.8

6.2

62.3

January 2016

69.9

6.0

12.0

87.9

February 2016

70.2

5.5

10.6

86.3

March 2016

76.1

4.3

4.6

85.0

April 2016

74.4

5.4

6.7

86.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, in 2016, the average daily population at the Youth Services Center has increased to near capacity, likely for two reasons. (See Table 2 below).  First, through the first four months of 2016, the average daily overnight population has nearly doubled, from 4.2 in 2015 to 7.9 in 2016.  Let me be clear, for the most part, overnight youth are low-risk.  These are primarily youth who are arrested and released the next day to their family after either having their case no papered or diverted, or being released home by a judge.  These are youth that, for the most part, should not be detained in the first place.  Second, it appears that, through the first four months of 2016, nearly 1.5 times as many youth are being detained on a daily basis than in 2015 (i.e., an increase from an average of 2.3 daily enrollments in 2015 to 3.5 daily enrollments in 2016).  More research needs to be done to ascertain the reason for this increase in detention as well as whether there has been any increase in length of stay.  However, reducing needless overnight admissions, the detention of low and medium risk youth, and minimizing unnecessarily long length of stays will free up more than enough room at YSC to accommodate the pre-sentencing population from CTF.  The accompanying pretrial detention reform provisions in this bill should help accomplish these goals.

 

Table 2. Average Daily Enrollment – Youth Services Center[9]

Period

Average Daily Enrollments (Detained Youth)

Average Daily Enrollments (Overnight Youth)

Average Daily Enrollments (Committed Youth)

Average Daily Enrollments (All Youth)

January 2015

2.6

4.8

0.8

8.2

February 2015

1.8

4.2

0.9

6.9

March 2015

2.0

4.0

0.9

6.9

April 2015

2.0

3.8

1.2

6.9

May 2015

1.5

5.2

1.1

7.7

June 2015

2.1

4.2

1.3

7.6

July 2015

2.4

4.1

1.1

7.6

August 2015

2.0

3.4

0.7

6.1

September 2015

3.4

4.1

0.7

8.2

October 2015

3.2

4.0

0.7

7.9

November 2015

2.6

4.1

0.8

7.5

December 2015

2.2

4.4

0.5

7.0

January 2016

3.8

5.5

0.9

10.3

February 2016

3.7

6.0

0.7

10.4

March 2016

2.7

9.0

0.4

12.1

April 2016

3.6

11.1

0.8

15.5

Due Process

Consistent with the findings and recommendations in our Capital City Correction report,[10] we support the inclusion of a mechanism for the reverse waiver of youth direct filed in adult court and the elimination of the “once an adult, always an adult” provisions for all youth with a case in adult court. 

Instituting reverse waiver in DC is a sound policy decision. First, given the life-long consequences of being prosecuted in adult court, young people should be afforded the opportunity for an impartial judge to review the decision of the U.S. Attorney’s Office to direct file a young person. There are tremendous long-term collateral consequences that result from prosecution in the adult system. Young people who have adult criminal records face life-long discrimination in employment, housing, and educational opportunities as well as having to live with the stigma of having been in the criminal justice system. These serious consequences should not rest solely on a prosecutor’s decision. 

Second, instituting a reverse waiver mechanism would empower an impartial judge to take into consideration a number of factors that the U.S. Attorney does not have access to or consider at the time they are making their charging decision. This bill would require judges to consider many different factors related to that particular youth, not merely the criminal allegations against him or her. Judicial review of the charging decision would insure that only those young people who are appropriate for the adult criminal justice system are prosecuted in it.

While the DC Council may be concerned with possible Home Rule issues resulting from the addition of a reverse waiver mechanism in DC Code §16-2301, we strongly believe the law is on our side.  First, Congress never invested the U.S. Attorney’s Office with the power or authority to define who is a “child” under DC law. Instead, Congress used the U.S. Attorney’s charging decision as a proxy for making that determination for itself. The definition of “child” is the type of quintessential legislative policy judgment that the Home Rule Act authorizes the DC Council to make. Second, the Home Rule Act only prohibits amendments to Title 11, while our reverse mechanism proposal would only amend Title 16. Indeed, a reverse waiver mechanism neither enlarges nor reduces the U.S. Attorney’s power to file charges in adult court against the same categories of offenders identified by Congress.  It merely empowers a judge to review that decision as required by due process.  As a result, any collateral effects on Title 11 would be too indirect and inconsequential to violate the Home Rule Act.

Moreover, even if it hypothetically might violate Home Rule Act, this is a battle we should pick with Congress.  The District went forward with its pursuit of budget autonomy even though it had possible Home Rule implications.  What does it say about our District that we are willing to challenge Congress on our ability to manage our money, but not willing to challenge Congress on our ability to define childhood in the District of Columbia?  This is the perfect issue to demonstrate the need to be free from Congressional oversight. 

Reforming Sentencing of Youth Tried As Adults

We support both the end of mandatory minimums for youth who committed an offense while under the age of 18 and a prohibition on juvenile life without parole in the District of Columbia.  In Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court extended its prohibition of the imposition of life without parole to apply to youth in homicide cases, concluding the following:

[A] sentencer misses too much if he treats every child as an adult. To recap: Mandatory life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological age and its hallmark features—among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences. It prevents taking into account the family and home environment that surrounds him—and from which he cannot usually extricate himself—no matter how brutal or dysfunctional. . . . And finally, this mandatory punishment disregards the possibility of rehabilitation even when the circumstances most suggest it.[11]

While the Supreme Court has not yet extended its logic to the use of mandatory minimums in cases involving youth, the same rationale holds.  Courts should not treat youth as adults when it comes to sentencing.  Instead, properly sentencing a youth requires a detailed, individualized examination of the age and maturity of the youth, the context in which the youth offended, and the youth’s ability for rehabilitation.  This cannot be accomplished in a meaningful way when the judge’s hands are tied by mandatory minimums.

Moreover, while these Supreme Court cases are more recent, the differences between children and adults have always existed.  As a result, we would propose that the Committee considered amending the proposed legislation to add a review process whereby youth who have already been sentenced to extreme sentences for an offense that occurred prior to their 18 birthday can have their sentences reviewed and reduced. 

II.        Pretrial Detention Reform

 Eliminating the Detention and Incarceration of Status Offenders

Nationally, there has been a movement to finally end the secure confinement of status offenders for any reason.  In 1974, Congress passed the initial iteration of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA).  One of the key provisions of JJDPA – the Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO) – prohibited the pretrial placement of youth charged as status offenders in secure facilities for states who received federal funds under the Act.[12]  In 1980, JJDPA was amended to include a Valid Court Order (VCO) exception, which provided that adjudicated status offenders could be securely confined if they violated a valid court order.[13]  The current iteration of the JJDPA that is before the Congress now would eliminate the VCO exception and prohibit the use of secure confinement for any status offender.[14]  The elimination of the VCO exception is supported by the Coalition for Juvenile Justice[15] and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.[16]

Currently, the District’s statutory scheme neither prohibits the pre-disposition secure confinement of status offenders nor recognizes a valid court order exception for post-disposition youth.  According to data from the Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Delinquency Prevention, the District of Columbia used the VCO exception 24 times over the course of 72 petitioned PINS matters in 2010 and 73 times over the course of 316 petitioned PINS matters in 2011.[17]  This is far too often.  As a result, DC’s statutory scheme and practice is out of step with both the letter of the law and spirit of JJDPA. For these reasons, DC should now amend its status offender statutory scheme to prohibit entirely the secure confinement of status offenders.  As a result, the proposed legislation should be amended to also include provisions that would eliminate the secure detention of status offenders after they have been adjudicated and gone to disposition.

Reducing the Detention of Low-Risk Youth

We support the proposed amendments to DC Code § 16-2310. As stated supra, recent data appears to demonstrate that the number of low risk youth being detained at the Youth Services Center has increased over the last few months. Such a practice runs contrary to public safety as research demonstrates that the incarceration of low risk youth actually makes it more likely that the youth will recidivate.[18]  Moreover, for most youth, the most effective manner of rehabilitating the youth is through evidenced-based, therapeutic, community-based services.[19] As a result, secure detention should be the last resort and only used when the youth poses a significant danger to the community or is a flight risk. 

Please note that, while we support the amendments to DC Code § 16-2310, the language of DC Code § 16-2310(b) may have to change slightly to accommodate the use of shelter care in the neglect system.

 III.       Modernizing Confidentiality & Improving Record Sealing

 Confidentiality

We support the proposed changes to DC Code §§ 16-2331, 2332, and 2333.  First, we support providing authorized personnel at the Office of the Attorney General access to juvenile case records and law enforcement records for the purpose of monitoring recidivism and efficacy of not only diversion programs, but also other programs providing services to youth in the delinquency system (i.e., Core Services Agencies, mentoring programs, etc.).  Such authorization will provide much needed transparency as well as the opportunity to better manage the performance of those organizations responsible for providing services to youth diverted from or involved in the delinquency system.

Second, while we support expanding the access to juvenile case records and law enforcement records for the purposes of evaluating programs serving youth in the juvenile justice system, we also support narrowing the parties with access to this information and the narrowing the records that can be accessed.  Specifically, there is no need for the District of Columbia Public Schools to have access to these records for either the purposes of providing services or evaluating diversion programs.  Moreover, to the extent some information may need to be disclosed to a teacher or school official in furtherance of the protection or rehabilitation of the child, such information already can be disclosed, subject to certain protections, under DC law.  See DC Code § 16-2333.01.  Additionally, to the extent that a probation officer or social worker needs information about the youth from the school itself, the youth can grant access to such information through the use of a release.

Records Sealing

Any discussion of comprehensive youth justice reform must ensure that youth have a real opportunity to move past the mistakes they made during their adolescent years by enabling them to seal their juvenile records.  While DC Code § 16-2335 provides a mechanism for sealing records, there are number of gaps in the statute that should be address in the current legislation.

First, DC Code § 16-2335 should empower youth who were arrested but not charged with a delinquent act to seal their juvenile records. We understand that the Attorney General will propose statutory language to resolve this issue.  We have seen the language and support their recommendation.

Second, DC Code § 16-2335 should be amended to require the automatic sealing of juvenile records automatic once certain requirements are met instead of requiring an affirmative act by the youth or the Court.   

Third, DC Code § 16-2335 should allow a person who has met all the conditions to have their record sealed to seal their entire juvenile record, not just the last offense. The entire record could still be re-opened if the person is subsequently adjudicated delinquent, in need of supervision, or convicted of a felony as an adult, but it is important that a youth who stays out of trouble have the opportunity to wipe the slate clean.         

 IV.       Humane Treatment 

Solitary Confinement

In January 2016, the United States Department of Justice issued a report and recommendations concerning the use of restrictive housing.   With regard to juveniles, the report concluded that “[j]uveniles should not be placed in restrictive housing.”[20] The report continued, finding that “[i]n very rare situations, a juvenile may be separated from others as a temporary response to behavior that poses a serious and immediate risk of physical harm to any person.  Even in such cases, the placement should be brief, designed as a ‘cool down’ period, and done only in consultation with a mental health professional.”[21]  Following the issuance of the report, President Obama announced that he was adopting the recommendation of the report pertaining to juveniles and issued an executive action banning the use of solitary confinement for juveniles in Bureau of Prisons facilities.[22]  The District of Columbia should follow the President’s lead and outright ban the use of solitary confinement for juveniles in all District facilities.  As a result, we support the proposals in the legislation that would bring the District’s policy in line with the President’s executive action and best practices in the field.[23]  While we believe that this needs to be legislated, we are open to some changes to these provisions of the bill to ensure it is not unduly burdensome so long the use of room confinement is used rarely, safely, and in a transparent manner.

Shackling

We support the amendments to DC Code 2-1515.52 that would expand the protections against unnecessary shackling to youth.

 V.        System Improvements

 Restorative Justice

We support the creation of a voluntary victim-offender mediation program administered by the Office of the Attorney General as an alternative to prosecution for youth.

Data Collection & Analysis

We support the requirement that an analysis of the root causes of delinquency be conducted on a regular basis.  We are open to changes to this provision of the statute to ensure that such an analysis is done correctly and with all the information necessary for its completion.

 VI.       Special Immigrant Juvenile Status

We support the amendment of DC Code 16-2301 to expand the definition of a child to include an unmarried person under the age of twenty-one on behalf of whom a motion is filed for Special Immigrant Juvenile factual findings, requesting a determination that the person was abused, neglected, or abandoned for purposes of section 101(a)(27)(J) of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act.

 VII.      Constructive Notice

We support the amendment of DC Code 13-336(a) to allow for publication as a substitute for personal service of process upon a defendant who cannot be found after diligent efforts or who by concealment seeks to avoid the service of process, or against the unknown heirs or devisees of deceased persons. 

 VIII.    Common Sense Disposition Reform

We also suggest that this bill include an amendment that changes the current community service requirement for young people sentenced to probation. While completing community service may be a legitimate rehabilitative mechanism in some or even most cases, the current statutory scheme, which requires the court to order 90 hours of community service in all probation cases of youth 14 to 18 year old regardless of the offense, circumstances of the case, or needs of the child, must be better aligned with the overall statutory goals of the juvenile justice system and the mandate that these goals be pursued in the least restrictive manner. 

First, requiring that 90 hours of community service be ordered in every probation case regardless of its nexus to the circumstances of the individual case or the likelihood that community service will further rehabilitation actually runs counter to rehabilitation. Often, requiring 90 hours of community service takes up time that would otherwise be spent on therapy, tutoring, mentoring, or other services that are more likely to contribute to rehabilitation.  Our proposal below recognizes this reality, granting judges the authority to order up to 25 hours of community service but giving judges the discretion to balance the amount of community service required with the other conditions of release.

Second, the current statutory scheme is unrealistic.  The statutory scheme specified 90 hours as the threshold requirement for community service as it was the number of hours that students were required to complete over the course of four years in order to graduate from high school.  While high school students had four years to complete these hours, youth on probation are expected to complete these hours in a year or less in addition to complying with all the other services put in place by the court.  This unrealistic goal, coupled with the difficulty in finding meaningful community service opportunities for youth in the District, means that youth are often scrambling or unable to fulfill this requirement, exposing them to a possible revocation of their probation.                 

Third, the current statute is inconsistent in its applicability.  Under the current statutory scheme, judges must order community services for children placed on probation but cannot order it for children who are committed.

Fourth, the current statute also goes against the least restrictive mandate of the juvenile justice system.  Essentially, 90 hours of community service can act as a gating factor in terms of the length of probation ordered.  For instance, if a probation officer is recommending three months probation as the least restrictive disposition in a case, the judge is often reluctant to order such a period of probation because it is unlikely that 90 hours of community service can be completed in such a short time.  As a result, the statutory community service requirement impedes the imposition of the least restrictive disposition.  

We recommend that DC Code § 16-2320 be amended in the following manner:

 (c-1) The Division shall may order any child between the ages of 14 and 18 years who is found to be delinquent or in need of supervision to perform a minimum of up to 90 25 hours of community service with an agency of the District government or a non-profit or community service organization in accordance with section 24‑904(a).

IX. Conclusion

Councilmember McDuffie, the Comprehensive Youth Justice Amendment Act provides critical reforms to the District’s juvenile justice system. These reforms will not only align the District with nationwide trends and research on youth development, but it will also make us a national leader in youth justice. This bill also has broad-based community support, which is illustrated by the more than 50 local and national organizations who signed onto a letter of support for this Act. We urge the Council to consider and add our suggested amendments and pass this legislation. Thank you and I look forward to answering any questions the Committee may have.

 

 



[1] Robert Hahn et al., “Effects on Violence of Laws and Policies Facilitating the Transfer of Youth from the Juvenile to the Adult Justice System,” at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5609a1.htm; Elizabeth Drake, The Effectiveness of Declining Juvenile Court Jurisdiction of Youth, 6, at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1551/Wsipp_The-Effectiveness-of-Declining-Juvenile-Court-Jurisdiction-of-Youth_PowerPoint-presentation-to-the-Early-Learning-Human-Services-Committee-January-15-2014.pdf.

[2] Jeffrey A. Butts, Gordon Bazemore, and Aundra Saa Meroe, Positive Youth Justice: Framing Justice Interventions Using the Concepts of Positive Youth Development (Washington, DC: Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2010), http://johnjayresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/pyj2010.pdf; Ashley Nellis and Richard Hooks Wayman, Back on Track: Supporting Youth Reentry from Out-of-Home Placement to the Community (Washington, DC: The Youth Reentry Task Force of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Coalition, 2009), http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/CC_youthreentryfall09report.pdf.

[3] Jailing Juveniles: The Dangers of Incarcerating Youth in Adult Jails in America (Campaign for Youth Justice, November 2007), http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/CFYJNR_JailingJuveniles.pdf.

[4] Jennifer L. Woolard et al., “Juveniles Within Adult Correctional Settings: Legal Pathways and Developmental Considerations,” International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 4, no. 1 (2005): 15.

[5] Jailing Juveniles: The Dangers of Incarcerating Youth in Adult Jails in America, 7.

[6] Walter B. Ridley, Francis Mendez, and Ghia Ridley Pearson, The District of Columbia Department of Corrections Correctional Treatment Facility Juvenile Unit Assessment.

[7] See Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2468 (2012); Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 68 (2010); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 578 (2005).

[8] Data downloaded from http://dyrs.dc.gov/page/youth-snapshot on June 1, 2016.

[9] Data downloaded from http://dyrs.dc.gov/page/youth-snapshot on June 1, 2016.

[10] See A. Peerman & C. Daugherty, Capital City Correction: Reforming DC’s Use of Adult Incarceration Against Children (2014), available at http://www.dcly.org/capital_city_correction.

[11] Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2468 (2012).

[12] Use of the Valid Court Order Exception: A State by State Analysis, Coalition for Juvenile Justice, available at http://www.juvjustice.org/sites/default/files/resource-files/State%20VCO%20usage%202.18.15.pdf.

[13] See id. 

[14] Meyer & Rubenstein, Reducing Youth Confinement Key to Proposed JJDPA Reauthorization, Vera Institute, Jan. 8, 2015, available at http://www.vera.org/blog/reducing-youth-confinement-key-proposed-jjdpa-reauthorization.

[15] See National Standards for the Care of Youth Charged with Status Offenses, Coalition for Juvenile Justice, Standard 3.8 (2015), available at http://juvjustice.org/sites/default/files/resource-files/National%20Standards%202015%20WEB.pdf.

[16] National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Resolution Supporting Reauthorization of JJDP Act and Elimination of VCO Exception, Mar. 14, 2010, available at http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/vcoresolution3-10.pdf.

[17] See http://www.ojjdp.gov/compliance/FY2013-FY%202014VCO-state.pdf. This is the most recently reported data. Compare with Family Court, Annual Report to Congress for 2010 & 2011, available at http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/about/orgperf/annualreports.jsf.

[18] Edward P. Mulvey et al., Trajectories of Desistance and Continuity in Antisocial Behavior Following Court Adjudication Among Serious Adolescent Offenders, 22 Dev. & Psychopathology 453 (2010), available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908904/pdf/nihms207059.pdf.

[19] Lipsey, Mark W., “The Primary Factors that Characterize Effective Interventions with Juvenile Offenders: A Meta-Analytic Overview,” Victims & Offenders, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2009, available at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15564880802612573.

[20]  United States Department of Justice Report and Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing: Final Report, January 2016, at 101, available at https://www.justice.gov/dag/file/815551/download.

[21] See id. 

[22] President Barack Obama, Why We Must Rethink Solitary Confinement, Washington Post, Jan. 25, 2016, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/barack-obama-why-we-must-rethink-solitary-confinement/2016/01/25/29a361f2-c384-11e5-8965-0607e0e265ce_story.html; Juliet Eilperin, Obama Bans Solitary Confinement for Juveniles in Federal Prison, Washington Post, Jan. 26, 2016, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-bans-solitary-confinement-for-juveniles-in-federal-prisons/2016/01/25/056e14b2-c3a2-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html

[23] Summary of National Standards Restricting the Solitary Confinement of Youth, American Civil Liberties Union, https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/5%202%20National%20Standards%20Restricting%20the%20Solitary%20Confinement%20of%20Youth.pdf


Showing 1 reaction

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • published this page in Publications 2016-06-02 13:29:16 -0400