1. Compliance with the JJDP Act Core Protections FACJJ Washington, DC December 2, 2010 Elissa Rumsey Compliance Monitoring Coordinator OJJDP

2. 3 Topics of Discussion OJJDP’s Compliance Program State Compliance Programs Anticipating Reauthorization of JJDPA

3. OJJDPs Compliance Program Implementing Core Protections @ State/local level – provision of Training/Technical Assistance Assessing 10 Elements of an “Adequate” CM System at State level Assessing State Compliance Monitoring Reports Conducting Compliance Monitoring Audits

4. Written Guidance www.ojjdp.gov/compliance –JJDP Act of 2002 –JJDP Act Regulations (1996) –Federal Registers (1981,1982, 1988(2), 1994) –OJJDP Audit Manual (2000) –OJJDP Guidance Manual (2010)

5. JJDP Act History –Landmark legislation –Provides standards (core requirements) –Creates funding mechanism for participating States to comply with core requirements –First passed in 1974, updated in 2002 –Reauthorization is pending

6. JJDP Act Funding mechanism: annual grant to participating States - amount determined based on annual compliance with four core requirements –Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO) –Sight and Sound Separation (Separation) –Jail Removal –Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)

7. OJJDPs Compliance Program 55 States/territories participate in Act –Governor assigns a DSA –Governor appoints a SAG OJJDP is the federal oversight agency charged with providing implementing regulations for the JJDP Act and ensuring compliance with the JJDP Act core requirements. OJJDP administers the Formula Grants program

8. Annual State Compliance Report States annually submit a compliance monitoring report detailing the number of violations under D.S.O., Separation and Jail Removal OJJDP’s assesses each State report annually & makes determination of compliance with core protections

9. Definition of Terms In order to understand how to monitor the following terms are critical –Secure versus non-secure –Jail and lockup –Juvenile Detention Center –Juvenile Correctional Facility –Prison

10. Definition of Terms Status offender Non-offender Civil type offender “Alien” Delinquent Accused Adjudicated

11. Definition of Terms Collocated facility Court holding facility Direct file/waiver/transfer Valid Court Order Public authority Residential

12. Core Requirements Facility TypeD.S.O.SeparationJail Removal Jail/LockupYes JDC/JCFYesYes*No Court HoldingNoYesNo Group HomeNo Collocated -Juvenile side -Adult side Yes No Yes PrisonYes No

13. Topical Issue - Jail Removal Rural Exception If all statutory and regulatory conditions are met a juvenile awaiting an initial court appearance may be detained in an adult jail: –Up to 48 hours (excluding weekends and holidays) –Allows longer holds if distance or weather is a factor. –Only if sight and sound separated from adult inmates

14. Topical Issue - DSO VCO The VCO Exception (Statutory) to the DSO Core Protection State must have law allowing secure detention of status offenders who violate (federal) VCOs. The State must train court and facility staff to ensure that all VCO standards are met (e.g., due process is afforded, interviews occur within 24 hours, hearing within 48 hours).

15. Topical Issue - Separation Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) new policy eliminating “Scared Straight” programs “Scared Straight” type programs violate Separation core requirement Research evaluating these programs demonstrates negative effect on youth, lack of positive evidence supporting rehabilitation Resurgence of adult inmate trustees utilized in juvenile detention and corrections facilities.

16. Topical Issue - Court Holding See 1988 Federal Register noting Court Holding Facilities Must first qualify as a court holding facility: –Used only for court – not as overflow; –Can’t be used for overnight stays; –Can’t be used for punitive purposes or purposes unrelated to a court appearance. Must only comply with Sight and Sound Separation.

17. Topical Issue - Collocated Facilitie s To be monitored as a “Collocated” facility, must meet the following requirements: –Facility must ensure separation; –Facility must have separate juvenile and adult programs; –If using same staff must have a State policy on training staff to work with juveniles; and –If applicable, facility must be licensed by the State.

18. 10 Monitoring Elements An Adequate CM System includes: 1.Policies and Procedures 2. Monitoring Authority 3. Monitoring Timetable 4. Violation Procedures 5. Barriers and Strategies

19. 10 Monitoring Elements 6. Definitions 7. Identification of the Universe 8. Classification of the Universe 9. Inspection of Facilities 10. Data Collection and Data Verification

20. Why Monitor Facilities? Section 223(a)(14) of the JJDP Act: Participating States must, “provide for an adequate system of monitoring jails, detention facilities, correctional facilities, and nonsecure facilities to ensure that the requirements of paragraph (11), paragraph (12), and paragraph (13) are met, and for the annual reporting of the results of such monitoring to the [OJJDP] Administrator….”

21. Data Collection/Verification Data collection is critical. If OJJDP determines that a State is out of compliance with Section 223(a)(14), then Formula Grants funds can be frozen. If you have a reluctant facility, stress  Accountability  Fact that the requirements are now standards of professional conduct Build relationships - Work as a team toward compliance.

22. Compliance Monitors are your Eyes and Ears Ensure that children and youth are treated in accordance with the Act. Serve as the authority and resource for local law enforcement on federal, State and local custody rules. Monitor facilities that no other state or federal entity may ever monitor on behalf of youth.

23. Compliance Audits What is a compliance audit, and why do we do them? The audit process: planning, execution, and follow- up. Common audit findings follow.

24. Compliance Audits Section 223 (a)(14) “Provide for an adequate system of monitoring jails, detention facilities, correctional facilities, and nonsecure facilities to ensure that the requirements of paragraph (11), paragraph (12), and paragraph (13) are met, and for annual reporting of the results of such monitoring to the [OJJDP] Administrator….”

25. Compliance Audits Section 204 (b)(6) (OJJDP shall) “Provide for the auditing of monitoring systems required under… this title to review the adequacy of such systems….”

26. Compliance Audits The State is not performing onsite data verification prior to submission of Compliance Monitoring Reports to OJJDP.

27. Compliance Audits The State has classified a facility (e.g., a lockup) as non-secure, yet during the OJJDP audit the onsite inspection reveals a cuffing bench or cuffing rail. The State is not inspecting facilities believed to be nonsecure (e.g., lockups, group homes) to verify their nonsecure classification.

28. Compliance Audits The State is not monitoring its juvenile correctional facilities/training schools to ensure compliance with DSO and sight and sound separation requirements. Facilities are self-reporting violations and the DSA is not adequately verifying such self-reports for accuracy (e.g., comparing self-reported violations against admissions/booking logs).

29. Compliance Audits The State does not provide adequate documentation that VCO process requirements have been met. The State has not included public law enforcement facilities that exist in airports, shopping malls, and sports stadiums in its monitoring universe.

30. State Compliance Programs See www.ojjdp.gov/compliance for listing of state compliance monitorswww.ojjdp.gov/compliance See www.ojjdp.gov. for States out of compliance Innovations in State compliance efforts: Analysis of DMC in the first 3 core protections

31. DMC in the 1 st Three Core Requirements: An analysis of state compliance data to assess whether minority youth are overrepresented in law enforcement facilities Susan Davis (CO), Compliance Monitor Shari Morris (MD), Compliance Monitor Mike Pennington (PA), Director, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Commission on Crime and Delinquency Melissa Sickmund, Chief of Systems Research and Charles Puzzanchera, Senior Research Associate, National Center for Juvenile Justice

32. Why do this sort of analysis? The intention of the JJDP Act is to protect youth in custody and encourage fairness in justice systems Compliance violations in the first 3 core requirements have never been assessed from a DMC perspective This sort of analysis demonstrates what can be learned by applying the RRI strategy beyond what is currently undertaken

33. Is there evidence of DMC in violations of DSO, Jail Removal, and Separation? Study of 3 States’ monitoring data Voluntary study: States with effective compliance monitoring systems + able report race information for violations invited to participate Analysis examined State RRI for core requirement violations — relative to populations and relative to arrests

34. State Compliance Programs Pennsylvania Maryland Colorado

35. Pennsylvania’s monitoring universe 69 Jails 1,269Lockups 32 Court holding facilities 19 Juvenile detention facilities 18 Juvenile correctional facilities

36. Maryland’s monitoring universe 29 Jails 215 Lockups 49 Court holding facilities 7 Juvenile detention facilities 4 Juvenile correctional facilities

37. Colorado’s monitoring universe 61 Jails 272 Lockups 17 Court holding facilities 11 Juvenile detention facilities 13 Juvenile correctional facilities

38. Preliminary Findings

39. Pennsylvania

40. Maryland

41. Maryland

42. Colorado

43. Colorado

44. Before we infer racial bias what other information would we like? –Why was the child contacted by police? Why child X and not child Y? –Are there certain offenses that lead to violations? Is there an interaction between offense and race? –Where do these kids come from? From certain communities? From certain schools?

45. Before we infer racial bias what other information would we like? –Are there certain facilities that have more violations? Are minorities a higher proportion of the youth population? Are there admission criteria? Who approves admission? –Are violations more likely to occur at certain times of day? Are there issues with parents’ availability to collect youth that impact minorities more than whites? –Are there gender or age interactions?

46. What questions are raised? Should state DMC efforts include analyses of compliance violation data? Should state compliance monitoring data include other variables that would enable DMC analysis? Do the benefits of having more data outweigh the burden of collecting and using those data?

47. What have we learned? Police are key to both DMC and core requirement violations Much can be gained from collaborations between DMC Coordinators and Compliance Monitors More study is needed to determine the relationship among DSO, Jail Removal, Separation & DMC core protections

48. Reauthorization S. 678 VCO Phaseout TCW population –“Adult inmate” definition –Youth charged with felonies in adult jails

49. Other Issues JDAI PREA National Center for Youth in Custody Others?

50. Thank you Elissa Rumsey, Compliance Monitoring Coordinator Elissa.Rumsey@usdoj.gov 202.616.9279