|
Quarterly Meeting Summary
December 3, 2004
Francis Perkins Department of
Labor Building, Room N-4437
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Washington, DC
Abstract
The December 2004 Quarterly Meeting of the Coordinating Council
on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention provided Council
members and the public with information on the federal custody
of juvenile offenders, nonoffenders, and undocumented juveniles.
Maureen Dunn, Director of the Division of Unaccompanied Children's
Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement in the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, and John Pogash with Immigrations
and Customs Enforcement in the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security gave presentations on the federal custody of unaccompanied
alien children. The Council also heard presentations on the
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign from Tad Davis, Acting
Deputy Director for Demand Reduction, and Robert W. Denniston,
Director of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, both
in the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Representatives
from the U.S. Department of Labor informed the Council about
the Employment and Training Administration's activities
related to juvenile offenders: Lorenzo Harrison spoke about
the Workforce Investment Act, Mason Bishop discussed the Prisoner
Reentry Initiative, and Richard Morris presented information
about the Youth Offender Portfolio. Council members offered
feedback regarding these presentations and reviewed the status
of action items from the September 2004 Quarterly Meeting.
The Council also continued a discussion on the Final Report
of the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth. Council
members will continue to work on two action items: (1) gathering
recommendations to decrease disproportionate minority
contact and supporting an effort to increase data gathering
and compliance by the states on this issue and (2) pursuing
interagency cooperation to depict service areas on maps as
an aid to coordination of program resources.
Members Present
U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ)
J. Robert Flores, Vice Chair, Coordinating Council
on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)
For
John P. Walters, Director, Office of National Drug Control
Policy
Tad Davis, Assistant Deputy Director, Demand Reduction
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)
For Elaine
L. Chao, Secretary of Labor
Mason M. Bishop, Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Employment and Training Administration, Office
of Youth Services
U.S. Department of Education (ED)
For Roderick
Paige, Secretary of Education
Deborah A. Price, Deputy
Under Secretary, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
For
Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary of Health and Human Services
Harry
Wilson, Associate Commissioner, Family and Youth Services
Bureau
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD)
For Alphonso Jackson, Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development
Matthew P. Braud, Special Assistant,
Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
For
Michael J. Garcia, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement
John Pogash, National Juvenile
Coordinator, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS)
For
David Eisner, Chief Executive Officer, Corporation for National
and Community Service
John Foster-Bey, Senior Advisor,
Research and Policy Development
Practitioner Members
Bray Barnes, Attorney/Consultant,
Toms River, NJ
William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General, Memphis and
Shelby County District Attorney General's Office, Memphis,
TN
Adele L. Grubbs, Judge, Superior Court of Cobb County, GA
Steven H. Jones, Judge, Sullivan County, Tennessee, Justice
Center, Kingsport, TN
Victor Rodriquez, Chief of Police, McAllen Police Department,
McAllen, TX
Welcome and Introductions
J. Robert Flores, Vice
Chair, Coordinating Council; Administrator, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), U.S. Department
of Justice (DOJ)
Mr. Flores welcomed Council members and members of the public
to the Quarterly Meeting of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention and thanked them for attending.
Mr. Flores noted that over the past year the Council has taken
some major steps forward; agencies have worked together on
projects in the areas of truancy, mental health, and reentry
and job training. He anticipates that the Council will become
more involved in important issues such as disproportionate
minority contact and will take a closer look at how the state
juvenile justice agencies are functioning, how the Council
can serve them, and how to develop partnerships with the states.
Mr. Flores expressed his appreciation to the representatives
of the Department of Labor for hosting and providing a venue
for the meeting. The rotation of meeting hosts and locations
reflects and reinforces the notion that the Council belongs
to all its member federal agencies, although it is housed in
the Department of Justice.
Mr. Flores welcomed the two new practitioner members of the
Council who were appointed for 2 years by President Bush and
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist: William L. Gibbons and Steven
H. Jones. Mr. Gibbons is a prosecutor and district attorney
in Memphis and has experience with urban programs, including
those addressing gangs. Mr. Gibbons visits annually every middle
school in his county to talk about gangs and the problems they
bring to their members. Judge Jones has been involved with
innovative programs that serve rural youth in Eastern Tennessee
while also dealing with civil, domestic, and criminal issues.
These two new members will be sworn in at a later date. In
addition, Senator Frist reappointed Larry Brendtro of Reclaiming
Youth International to the Council.
Opening Remarks
Mason Bishop, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Labor
Mr. Bishop welcomed Council members and members of the public
to DOL on behalf of Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao. Mr. Bishop
assured the Council that DOL is committed to working together
with the agencies of the Council to bring programs to people
in a collaborative way. The Department of Labor is "about
jobs" and believes, in many respects, that the best social
program is helping someone find and keep a job. DOL's
many relevant partnerships include the Serious and Violent
Offender Initiative, the Ready for Work Initiative, and DOJ's
Gang Reduction Pilot Program.
Welcome From the Office of Justice Programs
Cheri
Nolan, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office
of Justice Programs
Ms. Nolan, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office
of Justice Programs, welcomed participants to the quarterly
meeting and commended them regarding their commitment to the
work of the Council and the high level of support from partner
agencies.
Review of Status of Action Items From September
10, 2004, Quarterly Meeting of the Coordinating Council
Timothy
S. Wight, Director, Concentration of Federal Efforts, OJJDP
Mr. Wight led a discussion regarding the status of the action
items from the September 10, 2004, Council meeting. The Council
Planning Team, established to help the Council plan meetings,
implement decisions, and coordinate activities,met by
telephone conference call on October 7 and November 4. Participating
in the conference calls were Matthew Braud (HUD), Stan Chappell
(HHS), Javier Cordova (ONDCP), John Foster-Bey (CNCS), Bill
Modzeleski (ED), Richard Morris (DOL), John Pogash (DHS), and
Timothy Wight (DOJ). Members reviewed and updated outstanding
action items from past Council meetings and provided information
on their agency's activities in regard to the Final
Report of the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth. Members
also reviewed and discussed the agenda for the December 3,
2004, and March 4, 2005, meetings.
Reviewed and updated outstanding action items from past
Council meetings. Council agencies agreed to address
a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on child
welfare and juvenile justice. The GAO report Federal Agencies
Could Play a Stronger Role in Helping Reduce the Number of
Children Placed Solely To Obtain Mental Health Services looked
at situations in which children appear to have been placed
in child welfare or juvenile justice programs solely as a
way to obtain mental health treatment. On October 18, 2004,
HHS convened a meeting to coordinate efforts related to the
report. In addition to many HHS components, several Council
agencies participated in the meeting, including DOJ, ED,
and DOL. The report stated that federal agencies could play
a stronger role in helping states reduce the number of children
placed solely to obtain mental health services. Presentations
included the following:
- An analysis of mental health issues in states' Child
and Family Service Reviews and Program Improvement Plans.
- Findings from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent
Well-Being regarding mental health conditions of and services
delivered to children investigated for child maltreatment.
- Medicaid funds to support mental health treatment: the
Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Service.
Council agencies agreed that additional work is needed to
increase the amount of mental health services for children
to prevent their inappropriate entry into the juvenile justice
or child welfare systems, or if already in the system, to ensure
that they receive treatment and exit the system as soon as
possible.
Final Report of the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged
Youth.Council agencies agreed to report on their
agencies' activities related to recommendations from
the Final Report of the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged
Youth. Council Planning Team members provided summary information
on their agencies' activities related to the recommendations
from the final report. This summary was provided to Council
members for the December 3, 2004 meeting in a large chart
format.
Practitioner members address disproportionate minority
contact. Council practitioner members met on October
7, 2004, to discuss recommendations to strengthen legislation
related to disproportionate minority contact in the juvenile
justice system. The next meeting for practitioner members
to discuss this issue is scheduled for January 6, 2005.
Future Council meetings. Mr. Wight announced the next
Council meeting will be held at the Department of Education
at 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, D.C., on March 4, 2005.
The summer 2005 meeting will be held at HUD in Washington,
D.C., on June 3, 2005. Hosts have not been identified for the
September 9 and December 2, 2005, meetings.
Decisions needed from the December 3, 2004,
Council meeting. Mr. Wight noted the following agenda
items and their related required decisions for the December
3, 2004, meeting:
- Final Report of the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged
Youth.What coordination efforts should be undertaken
to address 13 recommendations from the report?
- Federal custody of juvenile offenders, nonoffenders,
and undocumented juveniles. What coordination needs
to occur among the Federal agencies that detain juvenile
offenders, nonoffenders, and undocumented juveniles to
comply with the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Act?
- ONDCP's National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. What
coordination activities need to occur by Council agencies
that would further the goals of the media campaign?
- Youth employment and training programs in the Department
of Labor. What coordination activities should occur
to assist the Department of Labor in its efforts to provide
services to delinquent youth and those at risk of delinquency?
Review and discussion of written public comments submitted
to the Council. No written comments were submitted by
the public in response to the Federal Register notice
for the December 3, 2004, meeting of the Coordinating Council
on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Prior to
the September 2004 meeting, the director of the Miami-Dade
County Juvenile Assessment Center submitted a written comment
highlighting assessment-related improvements made to the
local juvenile justice system in Miami-Dade County and how
those improvements can be replicated nationally. As requested
by Council members at the September 2004 meeting, the director
of the assessment center provided additional information
regarding the center's assessment improvements for
Council member review (see handout in meeting packet).
Council Discussion on Actions Taken
From the Final Report of the White House Task Force
for Disadvantaged Youth
J. Robert Flores
Mr. Flores asked Council members for their comments regarding
the handout of the oversized chart that lists the activities
of member federal agencies related to the recommendations of
the Final Report of the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged
Youth.
Interagency coordination. Harry Wilson (HHS) stated
that an interagency coordination meeting is to be held during
the week following the December 2004 Council meeting. Mr. Wilson,
Cheri Nolan (DOJ), Mason Bishop (DOL), and Emily S. DeRocco
(DOL), among other federal agency administrators, will attend,
along with representatives of several foundations that have
expressed an interest in partnering with the Council and advancing
the goals of the task force.
"What Works" clearinghouse. Cheri Nolan
(DOJ) expects that the unified protocol for a federal "What
Works" clearinghouse will be completed in January 2005.
Federal partnering agencies (ED, HHS, and DOJ) will then agree
to monetarily support and establish the clearinghouse within
the next few months with some deobligated funds in the Office
of Justice Programs. The clearinghouse will gather information
from all Federal agencies on programs and interventions that
have demonstrated evidence-based success. In the past, each
agency has had its own criteria for measuring success; whereas
the clearinghouse will standardize the criteria for success
and apply a unified protocol to each program considered for
its database. Grant applicants and other local and state organizations
will find the clearinghouse helpful in determining programs
to replicate in their own communities.
Discussion and Council Recommendations on the Federal Custody
of Juvenile Offenders, Nonoffenders, and Undocumented Juveniles
Two speakers gave presentations on the federal custody of
juvenile offenders, nonoffenders, and undocumented juveniles:
Maureen Dunn of the Office of Refugee Settlement (HHS) and
John Pogash of the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (DHS).
HHS Services for Unaccompanied Alien Children
Maureen
Dunn, Director, Division of Unaccompanied Children's Services
(DUCS), Office of Refugee Settlement (HHS)
As mandated by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the mission
and functions of DUCS were transferred to HHS's Office
of Refugee Resettlement within the Administration for Children
and Families in March 2003. Children under 18 who do not have
legal status in the United States and are not accompanied by
an adult when apprehended (often by Border Patrol agents),
known as unaccompanied alien children, are often referred by
detention and removal officers in DHS's Immigrations
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to DUCS. ICE is responsible for
transporting these children to shelters and other housing options.
Most are boys, 15 to 17, from Central America (predominantly
Honduras), China, and India. Mexican children are also apprehended,
but immigration law requires that they be returned to Mexico.
The numbers of girls, including pregnant girls, and very young
children ages 3 and 4 are increasing. The youngest children
are most likely smuggled into the country to join undocumented
parents. Approximately 6,000 unaccompanied alien children are
apprehended each year; less than 800 are currently under the
care of DUCS. About 40 percent of the 6,000 are voluntarily
returned or deported to their countries of origin. In fiscal
year 2003, a child's average length of stay under DUCS
care was 45 days.
The Flores Settlement Agreement (Reno v. Flores, 507
U.S. 292 (1993)), the result of 15 years of litigation with
the INS, outlines guidelines regarding treatment of the unaccompanied
alien children for DUCS to follow until regulations are published.
The underlying principles of the Flores Agreement are to place
children in the least restrictive settings and promptly release
them to families or other sponsors. DUCS care options provide
920 beds and include shelter care (825 beds), short- and long-term
foster care (50 beds), group homes, staff secure facilities/secure
facilities (46 beds), and residential mental health treatment
centers. Virtually all children within DUCS care are involved
in immigration proceedings to request some form of relief or
to be voluntarily returned to their country of origin. All
facilities must offer the following services: educational,
medical, counseling, vocational training, outdoor recreation,
and transportation to court hearings and consulates.
Staff secure facilities, which have a high staff-to-child
ratio, were initiated in the past year and are licensed as
shelters as an alternative to traditional secure detention
centers. Placement criteria for staff secure facilities include
children with an offender history (adjudicated delinquents
or those with an arrest history, a chargeable offense, or a
conviction for a crime, or those who are a subject of delinquency
proceedings) or children with behavior issues or other special
needs. Ms. Dunn listed infractions, such as shoplifting and
joy riding, that might determine that a child be placed in
a staff secure facility and described the standards of care
staff give to a child in such facilities. Placement criteria
for secure detention facilities also were detailed, along with
procedures to respond to an emergency influx of children.
Ms. Dunn recounted the following achievements by DUCS since
March 2003:
- The program dramatically reduced its reliance on secure
detention by more than 78 percent.
- Capacity in shelters, group homes, and transitional foster
care increased 61 percent.
- Staff secure facilities were developed as an alternative
to secure facilities (county juvenile detention facilities).
- Foster care expanded by 50 beds; in fiscal year 2004, placement
in foster care increased by 75 percent over the previous
year.
- DUCS contracted with residential therapeutic care facilities
for children with mental health needs, a first in the history
of the program.
- A 24/7 on-call hotline and electronic e-mail system were
established to handle placement and release referrals.
- Home assessment and followup services were significantly
increased.
Although it is not yet 2 years old, DUCS has learned valuable
lessons and generated ideas and plans for the coming years.
DUCS will continue to place every child in the least restrictive
setting available by adding more staff secure facilities, adding "full
service" secure facilities, and monitoring and reviewing
the unaccompanied alien children in secure facilities.
DHS Services for Unaccompanied Alien Children
John Pogash, U.S. Immigrations
and Customs Enforcement (DHS)
Until March 2003, DHS housed the program for unaccompanied
alien children in INS, as described above by Ms. Dunn. DHS
officials are now attempting to determine how Council agencies
and DHS can work together to help fulfill their own and each
others' goals.
When INS was charged with caring for unaccompanied alien children
2 years ago, 400 to 650 children were in custody at any given
time; the HHS program, DUCS, now has about 800 children. Prior
to 2003, the program had regional and district field staff,
in addition to national staff, to monitor local services and
activities. The Flores Agreement was signed in March 1997 and
INS met the terms of the agreement every year thereafter. (The
Flores Agreement will be in effect until the regulations are
signed, which is not anticipated in the near future.) The program
had direct authority from the INS commissioner's office
and administered grants and oversaw contracts starting in 1997.
The program also developed and reviewed policies, wrote regulations,
trained personnel, produced a database to track everyone in
custody, and created a protocol manual.
ICE continues to apprehend unaccompanied alien children as
it did prior to 2003, but now refers them to the HHS DUCS program
if they are to be held in the United States instead of being
sent back to their country of origin. Mr. Pogash stated that
one of the issues that has plagued both DHS and HHS is the
placement of nondelinquent children in secure (lockdown) facilities.
This practice has been common in sparsely populated and remote
areas that have only secure facilities for children, such as
juvenile detention facilities. In these areas, it has been
acceptable to house nondelinquent children for 1 or 2 days
until transportation can be arranged to move them to a less
restrictive, more suitable facility. All beds used by ICE are
inspected and licensed, meet state and federal standards, and
have programs and services for children in place. Types of
facilities are similar to the types used by HHS's DUCS
program—nonsecure, secure, and medium secure—and
services and programs required are also similar. Over the years,
more officers have led to more operations, which have led to
more apprehensions, which have led to more arrests, which have
led to more children in custody. Forty-three days was the average
length of stay for a child in custody.
Mr. Pogash outlined the program's accomplishments from
1997 to the transfer in 2003, including the following:
- Increasing the number of beds from 150 to 600 (500 were
nonsecure beds).
- Trained more than 15,000 employees on how to work with
children, using the train-the-trainer approach.
- Developed a tracking system.
- Developed a protocol manual.
- Developed 160 standards and trained field employees regarding
the annual inspection.
- Convened a 5-day national conference.
HHS and DHS continue to collaborate to make the program work
by meeting regularly regarding policies and procedures and
exchanging information about benefits and case investigations.
In addition, DHS border patrol and inspectors continue to make
arrests and upfront release decisions. However, when children
must be taken into custody within a day or so, the HHS DUCS
program takes over to identify a place for the child to be
housed. If a child returns to his or her country of origin,
DHS reenters the case and accompanies the child back.
Mr. Pogash listed several outstanding transitional issues,
including:
- More nearby facilities and an adequate number of beds,
especially for initial transportation and placement, are
needed so that secure facilities are not used.
- Information exchange regarding issues of officer security
and national security between HHS and DHS ought to be agreed
upon and automatic.
- The memorandum of understanding between HHS and DHS regarding
the holding and processing of unaccompanied alien children
must be finalized.
- Operational procedures that link the work of the two agencies
must continue to be developed.
- Joint training with field and administrative staff from
both agencies would increase communications and facilitate
the flow of responsibilities between the agencies.
- DHS must review its field guidance content and procedures.
Mr. Pogash cited several critical issues that have not been
resolved. The U.S. juvenile justice system coordinates services
for juveniles who are charged with violating the law; Mr. Pogash
suggested that the U.S. system that deals with nondelinquent
juveniles be as coordinated, understanding the difficulties
in coordinating with foreign governments as opposed to local
governments in the United States. He proposed that three actions
should occur when a child is apprehended: (1) the child is
returned to his home, (2) the child is granted a benefit immediately
and is taken care of, and (3) only a small percentage of children
are taken into custody, pending further research. Every child
must also be adjudicated quickly and not allowed to languish
up to 10 months, in some cases, without a determination on
his or her case. Current law does not say who speaks for the
unaccompanied alien child and when; the Elian Gonzales case
demonstrated this vividly. Parental rights and responsibilities
are not spelled out. Children may be granted a benefit to stay,
but the parents often do not appear at the facility or hearing
or claim the child for fear of deportation. Mr. Pogash believes
that because the problems related to unaccompanied alien children
range from smuggling to abandonment to witness protection,
many agencies, such as HHS, DHS, the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
the State Department, and the U.S. Marshals Service need to
be involved. Mr. Flores invited Council members to make recommendations
on these matters.
Presentation on the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign:
Teens, Drugs, and the Media
Robert W. Denniston,
Director, National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign (ONDCP)
Tad Davis, Acting Deputy Director for Demand Reduction at
the Office of National Drug Control Policy, introduced Robert
W. Denniston, Director of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign, to describe ONDCP's Early Intervention Initiative—Teens,
Drugs, and the Media—and present recent drug use trends
among youth.
Mr. Denniston stated ONDCP's national drug strategy
goals for children ages 12–17 and adults 18 and older:
(1) reduce illicit drug use by 10 percent in 2 years, (2) reduce
illicit drug use by 25 percent in 5 years.
Mr. Denniston made the following points:
- The Early Intervention Initiative media campaign, which
has benefited from broad bipartisan support in Congress,
aims to prevent and reduce teen drug use, predominantly marijuana
use because it is the first choice of illicit drugs among
teens.
- Unlike in years past when public service ads were aired
by local media outlets at their discretion during free time,
this media campaign can choose high quality air time and
channels because ONDCP pays for it. Congress also mandated
a 100-percent match, a "buy one, get one free" arrangement
that doubles the value of the media effort. Most ads were
prepared by the Partnership for Drug-Free America and include
strong multicultural themes, including messages in seven
languages. Messages were tested with target audiences to
make the ads and other products credible, the products were
tracked to determine the quality of their exposure, and children
and parents were surveyed to measure the impact of the campaign.
- The campaign stresses early intervention and targets children
ages 14–16 and their parents, who often feel powerless
in the face of peer pressure and popular culture. Research,
however, shows that parents remain the strongest single force
in the lives of their children regarding drug use. The campaign
expects to change behavior; raising awareness and changing
attitudes are worthy goals, but they are only preliminary
to the ultimate goal of changing behavior—specifically,
decreasing the 30-day prevalence of drug use among youth.
- The campaign relies on advertising; 80–85 percent
of the budget is used for the purchase of media time and
space. Because American teens now spend more time on the
Internet than with television, an interactive media outreach
program and Web sites designed for teens and parents have
been added (visit, for example, www.freevibe.com and www.TheAntiDrug.com).
Other activities include entertainment industry outreach,
news media outreach, and partnerships with such groups as
the YMCA and Girl Scouts.
- One of ONDCP's national drug strategy goals has been
met: The 30-day prevalence of all illicit drug use, including
marijuana use, has decreased by 11 percent in the in the
past 2 years. In addition, the Monitoring the Future Study
shows that the perceived risk of marijuana use increased
significantly among 8th and 10th graders in 2003. Researchers
know from historical data that when perceived risk rises,
drug use falls.
- Research for the Early Intervention Initiative began in
2003: meeting with prevention and treatment experts, reaching
out to partner organizations that work with youth and parents,
talking with more than 400 youth and adults in 11 cities,
and testing concepts and messages. In addition to media advertising,
brochures, posters, postcards, and online support were developed.
The initiative was launched in January 2004 and included
exposure at the Superbowl on February 2. The campaign intends
to urge parents to monitor their children's' behavior,
empower parents to act and address barriers to acting, and
give parents the tools and skills they need to intervene.
The campaign intends to motivate children to intervene on
behalf of a friend "in trouble," convince them
of their efficacy in taking action, and give teens the tools
and skills they need to intervene. Council members and members
of the public in attendance at the meeting were next shown
several "media spots."
- Research has shown that the campaign ads are effective
with both youth and parents. Teens exposed to the ads were
more likely than those who did not see the ads to say, "If
a friend was having a problem with marijuana or drinking,
I should get involved," and "I would feel good
about stepping in to do something if a friend was having
a problem with drugs or drinking." The ads were rated
as strong, believable, convincing, and honest by the majority
of youth. The differences between the youth test and control
groups represent some of the strongest results seen for media
campaigns. Parents also found the ads to be convincing and
realistic and felt more confident that they could try and
stop their child's drug use. An in-market tracking
study found that both the youth and parent campaigns had
achieved a 70-percent level of awareness and had significantly
increased the number of youth and parents who believed the
massages and intended to act on them and get involved.
- New ads addressing African American parents are scheduled
for launch in Detroit, MI, and Oakland, CA, in December 2004
and will be shown to all audiences due to their powerful
message.
Dr. Flores opened the floor to comments and questions.
Judge Steven Jones, a practitioner member of the Council,
noted that most of the youth that come before him in his juvenile
and drug courts believe that marijuana is not addictive. They
are also unaware that local (Sullivan County, TN) dealers have
been lacing marijuana with cocaine. Judge Jones also reported
that youth are now abusing over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, such
as Coricidin (called triple Cs). He urged the national media
campaign to address these issues.
Mr. Denniston (ONDCP) responded that the national campaigns
have been working with the news media to build the message
that marijuana is a serious drug with serious consequences.
A recent content analysis of 9 months of news revealed that
only 6 percent of the stories about marijuana included information
about its harmful effects. As a result, the campaign began
reaching out via 40 media roundtables, working with local media,
local experts, and local statistics to promote the message
that marijuana can be addictive and its use has negative consequences.
New print ads with these same messages will appear in national
newspapers in January 2005. ONDCP research with parents shows
that the addiction argument is not powerful with parents. Instead,
compromising a teen's short-term future by missing school,
loosing a scholarship because of a drug test, and crashing
the car because of impaired driving are relevant messages to
parents.
ONDCP is aware that although marijuana and other illicit drug
use is declining, prescription drugs, such as vicodin, percoset,
and triple Cs, are increasingly being abused. ONDCP-sponsored
roundtables with Hollywood writers and producers are attempting
to help them build messages into their storylines about the
consequences of drug abuse, including the abuse of OTC and
prescription drugs.
Victor Rodriguez, a practitioner member of the Council, inquired
about the availability of the campaign materials for use by
law enforcement agencies across the country. Mr. Denniston
indicated that large quantities of print materials (poster,
pamphlets, and booklets) are available at no cost and print
ads are downloadable from the Web site, www.TheAntiDrug.com.
Reels of ads can be obtained for private showings (but cannot
be broadcast due to prior legal arrangements).
Discussion and Council Recommendations Regarding DOL's
Youth Training Programs
Three speakers from DOL gave presentations on youth training
programs: Lorenzo Harrison of the Office of Youth Services;
Mason Bishop, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor; and Richard
Morris, Workforce Development Specialist.
Presentation on DOL's New Strategic Vision for the
Delivery of Youth Services Under the Workforce Investment
Act
Lorenzo Harrison, Administrator, Office of
Youth Services (DOL)
Mr. Harrison's presentation can be viewed as a followup
to the recommendations contained in the Final Report of
the White House Task Force for Disadvantaged Youth issued
in October 2003. The report focused on four goals: better management,
accountability, and connections and giving priority to the
neediest youth. The goals also include developing a unified
research agenda that identifies the best practices using random-assignment
evaluations.
Mr. Harrison described a collaborative, results-oriented approach
by HHS, DOJ, and ED to youth development and employment training
that aims to prepare youth for success in a global economy—and
addresses the recommendations of the White House Report. The
amount of funding directly or indirectly related to youth in
these three agencies totals almost $7.3 billion and includes
the following target programs: the Job Corps, formula-funded
activities under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), programs
under the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, Carl Perkins
Vocational and Technical Education program, and an array of
programs within OJJDP.
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) has developed
a new strategic vision for the delivery of youth services under
WIA: Out-of-school youth are an important part of the new workforce "supply
pipeline" needed by businesses to fill job vacancies
in the knowledge economy. Youth programs funded by WIA will
provide leadership by serving as a catalyst to connect the
youth with quality secondary and postsecondary educational
and employment opportunities. Included as well are other units
of government such as those at the state and local level, private
philanthropic organizations, and foundations. The four pillars
of the new youth vision focus on (1) alternative and innovative
education, (2) meeting the demands of business, especially
in high-growth industries and occupations, (3) the neediest
youth, and (4) improved performance as determined by common
measures. Some of the industries of the new economy include
advanced manufacturing, biotech, health care, financial services,
and construction.
Three regional youth forums are the ETA's mechanism
for disseminating the four pillars of its new youth vision
across the country. The forums have resulted in meaningful
interagency commitment and strategic planning among federal,
state, and local administrators and programs funded by OJJDP,
HHS, ED, and DOL.
Feedback from the forums highlights state challenges and federal
opportunities: the need for information on resources and services
across programs and agencies, engagement of state leadership,
models for collaboration, common messages and common languages,
and continued support of state teams. Additional feedback from
the forums revealed these needs as well: integrated policies
and planning guidance across agencies at the federal level,
framework and policies that support data sharing, a performance
measurement system that supports the vision, and funding strategies
that support collaboration and new models (without new funding).
Mr. Harrison shared an example of data sharing among local
agencies in Hartford, Connecticut. With the leadership of the
mayor, the local school district found a way to share information
with community-based youth programs that does not compromise
the Family Privacy Act.
Followup to the forums will engage governors, provide resource
mapping, align federal teams to support states on an ongoing
basis, clarify and resolve policy issues, and provide models
for collaboration.
Mr. Bishop stated that although approximately $232 billion
federal dollars are funding youth programs across the country,
people at the state and local level believe there is not enough
money. He proposed that they believe this because the money
is distributed by the many federal agencies to programs that
specifically target various populations and are administered
by people in diverse state and local agencies who do not communicate
with each other. For example, state correctional departments
do not talk to state workforce departments, state education
departments, state health departments, or state human services
departments. As the Council provides a model for collaboration
at the national level, the importance of involvement by state
governors and resource mapping at the local level will help
state and local programs collaborate as well.
Presentation on DOL's Prisoner Reentry Initiative
Mason
Bishop, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor (DOL)
President Bush announced a request for funding of a new prisoner
reentry initiative in the 2004 State of the Union Address.
Congress recently approved funding for such an initiative,
to be led by DOL, which will coordinate with DOJ. A principal
component of the initiative is improved engagement with community-
and faith-based organizations, which will be reflected in the
solicitation from DOL in the spring of 2005. Grant awards will
probably be announced in July 2005.
Presentation on DOL's Youth Offender Portfolio
Richard
Morris, Workforce Development Specialist (DOL)
Mr. Morris described the Young Offender Portfolio, an offshoot
of an earlier investment that DOL began in 1999, which is located
within ETA's Office of Youth Services. ETA's vision
for young offenders targets the neediest of them, prioritizes
the investments that serve them, and makes funds available
to help them reintegrate into and become productive members
of their communities. The goals of the portfolio include providing
offenders and those at risk of offending with information,
support, and training needed to obtain jobs and schooling;
providing employers with skilled workers; ensuring that young
offenders remain crimefree; and creating safer communities.
Mr. Morris stated that obtaining accurate recidivism rates
among juveniles is very difficult and suggested that the Council
try to promote the standardization of the collection and dissemination
of such data.
Mr. Morris presented maps of the United States and, as an
example with further detail, California, which illustrate the
numerous and varying federally-funded youth investments, including
the following programs: Youth Opportunity Grants, Youth Offender
Demonstration Projects (YODPs), Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker
programs, Youth Build, Latino Coalition, Foster Care Initiative,
Job Corps, and the Urban League.
Representatives of ETA's Office of Youth Services have
met with William L. Woodruff, OJJDP Deputy Administrator for
Policy, to discuss using their geographic information system
(GIS) to combine the data from both agencies and obtain more
detailed resource mapping. The goal is to link staff in neighboring
resources so that they can work together and avoid duplication.
ETA's strategies include expanding partnerships between
state and local workforce investment systems and the criminal
justice, education, and foster care systems. ETA programs for
young offenders also will utilize community- and faith-based
organizations to train and mentor ex-offenders. Finally, the
programs will use intermediary organizations to connect employers
with offenders, particularly in such high-growth industries
as health care.
Programs within the Youth Offender Portfolio provide services
to incarcerated youth, youth at time of sentencing, and youth
at risk of involvement with the juvenile/criminal justice system.
The services provided include reentry and aftercare, alternative
sentencing, and gang prevention; key components of these services
are education, job readiness, and job placement.
ETA's strategy to guide and assist local projects via
technical assistance is reflected in its new Young Offender
Grants Program, which involves such national organizations
as the Latino Coalition, Nueva Esperanza, Ready for Work, STRIVE
(Support and Training Results in Valuable Employees), the Urban
League, and YouthBuild USA. Public entities awarded grant funds
total more than 95 around the country and are located in, for
example, Avon Park, FL; Cincinnati, OH; Oakland, CA; Pueblo
of Laguna, NM; Sisseton, SD; and YOPD Impact Sites. The Avon
Park project is an example of a 6-year partnership between
DOL and DOJ to study the local impact of ETA funding.
Local grant administrators are encouraged to keep in mind
the following overarching process and impact performance measures
and use them also as "management measures" while
guiding the planning and implementation of the project: enrollment,
participation, placement, diploma/GED attainment, job retention,
and recidivism.
Mr. Morris reported selected results from the YODP impact
evaluation within the Young Offender Portfolio. In its third
and final stage, 29 sites received funding. Six of the 29 sites
were identified to participate in a random-assignment impact
evaluation, which follows the recommendation of the White House
Report that promotes the increased use of scientific methods,
such as random assignment, in the evaluation of projects.
Closing Remarks
J. Robert Flores
Mr. Flores noted that HHS, DOL, ED, HUD, and other agencies
with significant budgets related to youth activities are preparing
to make portions of them available in a practical way to other
departments and other practitioners. These funds are, in reality, "new
monies" to the receiving agencies. They represent a broader
look at the concepts of funding and budgeting that include
partnering with other agencies and working hand-in-hand with
other agencies on nonpartnered activities.
Mr. Flores reminded participants that the truancy conference
in December, Partnering To Prevent Truancy, A National Priority,
is an example of the Council's work in bringing ED and
DOJ together on an issue central to President Bush's
commitment to leave no child behind. Young people who are not
attending school may not be able to meet future employers' demands
for employees that can read, write, perform advanced mathematics,
and make a contribution in the labor pool when they turn 18.
Mr. Flores asked the judges on the Council whether they use
job training opportunities as a carrot to reinforce and promote
alternative sentences. Do district attorneys wonder whether
they should commit to an alternative sentencing plan in certain
cases? Will young offenders stay in those programs, go back
to school, get job training, and become a success? Will alternative
sentencing programs work in their local communities?
Judge Adele Grubbs stated that the Department of Defense,
with its National Guard Challenge Program, was part of the
Council. Although youth who had been adjudicated were not allowed
in the Challenge Program, this limitation often could be negotiated,
making this voluntary program a very successful tool. Judge
Grubbs greatest problem, however, is followup. She does not
have the ability to follow up, which is the probation department's
task. She uses the Youth Build Program but admits that she
does not always know what resources are available and finds
that the state probation department rarely does either.
Judge Steven Jones stated that when he cochaired the prevention
component of the Juvenile Justice Reform Commission in Tennessee,
it was clear to see that lack of school attendance was highly
correlated with delinquency and, ultimately, criminal behavior.
If a youth was about to "age out of the system," Judge
Jones sought alternative sentencing that would address two
main needs: GED programs and life skills through vocational
education. Many available jobs are summer jobs, which will
not sustain anyone. To address the needs of education and training
for youth, Judge Jones works with a not-for-profit organization
that helps to prepare grant applications for the local churches
and other community-based organizations, which would otherwise
not know how to access the federal grants system. He reiterated
Judge Grubbs' opinion that followup and aftercare services
are needed. Judges Grubbs and Jones agreed that a judge can
develop a suitable plan for the juvenile offender but cannot
help to piece together a broken plan if no one brings it back
to him or her in the form of a hearing.
William Gibbons, District Attorney General in Memphis, has
witnessed the difference in the success of alternative sentencing
with and without continued judicial supervision. In his drug
court, which includes continued supervision of offenders by
the judge, offenders are required to enroll in drug treatment,
obtain their GED, and be employed. He also concurs with Judge
Jones regarding the link between truancy and delinquency. In
Memphis, a study showed that 25 percent of all delinquent acts
on school days occurred during school hours, indicating they
were committed by truants or suspended students.
Mr. Flores asked Mr. Bishop (DOL) whether the Council should
consider promoting ways to help young offenders who participate
in reentry job training programs but are not meeting their
responsibilities to be brought back before a judge. Judicial
oversight will help sell and maintain the program with employers
who might otherwise be reluctant to hire offenders. Could such
oversight be required? What are the barriers and challenges
to implementing it?
Mr. Bishop indicated that the White House Task Force Report
recommended moving the Youth Challenge Program from DOD to
DOL because, at its heart, it is an employment program. Youth
Challenge has several shortcomings; however, it contains a
behavioral modification component but not a vocational training
component and it is a relatively short-term experience. To
overcome these problems, an experiment in Louisiana is giving
Youth Challenge participants a priority status to enter the
Job Corps, which is residential, has job training, and helps
members get jobs. DOL staff working with workforce systems
are interested in collaborating with judges and the justice
system so that youth who are being adjudicated have opportunities
for obtaining a high school education, GED diplomas, community
college, apprenticeships, and certification programs.
Randomly assigned high-performing YODP sites initially funded
in 1999 and 2000 will be involved in a study to determine if
they should include an alternative sentencing/workforce system
component. DOL is committed to working with state and local
systems to serve young offenders in more intensive ways and
meeting Council goals as well. A frequent barrier, however,
is the performance measurement piece, about which people say, "It's
a harder-to-serve population and we won't be as successful
in getting many of them employed." Mr. Bishop believes
that these issues can be overcome and resolved.
Mr. Flores stated that the March 2005 Council meeting will
devote less time to presentations and will focus on discussing
presentations from the December 2004 and previous meetings
and determining priorities for the Council.
Mr. Flores thanked Council members for a banner year in terms
of accomplishment toward additional coordination, real cooperation,
and a better understanding of federal agencies' missions
and perspectives. On behalf of the chair, Attorney General
John Ashcroft, Mr. Flores thanked his staff for their efforts,
especially Timothy Wight, who is leaving the position of Director
of Concentration of Federal Efforts and will become Deputy
Assistant Director in the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Mr.
Wight's position will be filled by Robert Samuels, who
will be in contact with Council members in the near future.
Mr. Flores also thanked Richard Morris (DOL) for supporting
Council staff between meetings, assisting with the mapping
project, and educating the Council on DOL's mission,
Javier Cordova (ONDCP) for identifying points of contact in
the White House and helping the Council understand drug abuse
issues, Lorenzo Harrison (DOL) for being a valued colleague
ever since Mr. Flores's arrival, Sonia Chessen (HHS)
for staffing the White House Task Force and explaining the
complexities of HHS, Deborah Price (ED) for helping to sponsor
the Partnering To Prevent Truancy Conference, Phyllis Richardson
(DOL) for helping to set up the December meeting at DOL, and
Daryel Dunston (Juvenile Justice Resource Center) for staffing
Council meetings, ensuring that members receive their materials,
and improving the meeting environment over time.
Mr. Flores thanked the Council members and other participants
for attending, wished everyone happy holidays, and adjourned
the meeting.
Attendees
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Office
of Refugee Resettlement
Maureen Dunn, Director, Division
of Unaccompanied Children's Services
James Schenkenberg,
Division of Unaccompanied Children's Services
Division of Children
and Youth Policy
Justin Milner, Research and Policy Analyst
and Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Andrew
Hoffman, Lead Inspector, Office of Inspector General
U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
National Institute of Justice
Betty
M. Chemers, Chief, Evaluation Division
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
Chryl
Andrews, Deputy Associate Administrator, State Relations and
Assistance Division
Robert M. Samuels, Strategic Community
Development Officer, Office of Policy Development
Timothy S. Wight,
Director, Concentration of Federal Efforts Program
Office of Justice Programs
Mary Louise Embrey, Congressional Affairs Specialist
Sheila
Jerusalem, Public Affairs Specialist
Cheri Nolan, Deputy Assistant
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)
Office of
Youth Services
Lorenzo Harrison, Administrator
Richard Morris, Division of
Field Services and Technical Assistance
White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)
Javier
Cordova, Senior Policy Analyst
Robert W. Denniston, Director,
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign
Other Participants
Lucy Hudson, Project Manager, Juvenile Justice Resource Center
David Kittross, Editor, CD Publications
Kimberly LaGree-Ross, Public Sector Grants Manager, World
Vision, Inc.
Joyce Lowery, Public Sector Grants Specialist, World Vision,
Inc.
Marion Mattingly, Washington Editor, Juvenile Justice Update
Christy Sharp, Director, Child Welfare League of America
Dennis L. White, Research Analyst, Hamilton Fish Institute,
The George Washington University
Back
to Meetings
|
