Section 4

Recommendations for Policy and Legislative Implementation

Key Principles

State and Local Policymakers and Advocates
State policymakers should develop and implement the following recommended law and policy changes to help divert youth who engage in behaviors labeled status offenses and their families away from the courts.  These change can also help avoid deeper justice system involvement, which research shows is detrimental not only to the young person, and increases the likelihood of recidivism. State policymakers can also incentivize and monitor uniform application of these principles and policies across that state’s various agencies and jurisdictions to ensure fair and equal treatment and opportunities for all youth and families.

Local and municipal policymakers also play a critical role in addressing the below policy priority areas, as they can actively work with their respective state governments to develop and uniformly implement the below recommendations.  In addition, where state-wide action may be slow to take hold, local authorities can take steps in advance of state action to ensure the best outcomes for youth and their families in their communities. 

State and local policymakers and advocates should:

• Eliminate juvenile court penalties and sanctions for behaviors labeled status offenses and ensure that systems are accurately responding to behaviors as either episodes of normal adolescent behavior, or critical unmet youth and family needs that are best resolved through non-judicial interventions and supports (Section 4.1)
• Support an infrastructure of community-based and child and family serving programs and systems to ensure direct youth and family access to a seamless, comprehensive and non-judicial continuum of care that is empowered and resourced to respond to behaviors that might otherwise be labeled as status offenses (Section 4.2)
• In those limited circumstances where court involvement is necessary, ensure court mechanisms are in place that allow the appropriate court division to effectively serve the needs of the youth and family without inappropriate use or risk of more punitive outcomes for the child and family (Section 4.3)
• Prohibit schools from referring youth who engage in status offense behaviors to court unless and until the school has made all reasonable efforts to avoid court involvement (Section 4.4)
• Prohibit parents/caregivers from referring youth who engage in status offense behaviors to the juvenile court until the family has first sought and meaningfully engaged non-judicial interventions (Section 4.5)
• Promote coordinated, blended or braided public funding streams that create a seamless, comprehensive community-based continuum of care for youth and families (Section 4.6)
• Enact laws that ensure the right to counsel for youth who come into contact with the juvenile court for a status offense by not allowing youth to waive their right to counsel or only allowing waiver if: (1) it is on the record, (2) the court has fully inquired into the child’s understanding and capacity, and (3) the waiver occurs in the presence of and in consultation with an attorney (Section 4.7)
• Prohibit the use of locked confinement for youth petitioned to court for a status offense (Section 4.8)
• Mandate meaningful efforts to engage youth and families in all aspects of case planning, service delivery, court proceedings and disposition strategies (Section 4.9)

Federal Policymakers and Advocates
Federal policymakers should support federal programs that promote and incentivize state and local reforms that increase services to families and youth in need, reduce recidivism and prevent at-risk young people from crossing over into the delinquency system.  Appropriate funding and the provision of training and technical assistance will help states adopt best practices.  Federal legislative and administrative policies that align with the principles and policies proposed by the National Status Offense Standards will help achieve these goals. 

Federal policymakers and advocates should:

• Amend the JJDPA to prohibit the use of the valid court order (VCO) exception to securely confine youth adjudicated for status offenses (Section 4.10)
• Strengthen relevant federal agencies to provide research, training and technical assistance to state and local authorities to better assist state status offense system reform efforts (Section 4.11)
• Create coordinated approaches between federal government agencies and programs that serve youth and families that will help states coordinate, blend or braid federal funding streams to create a seamless, comprehensive and, to the greatest extent possible, non-judicial continuum of care for youth and families (Section 4.12)

---

Policy and Adolescent Brain Development

Section 4.1

State and Local Policymakers and Advocates Should Eliminate Juvenile Court Penalties and Sanctions for Behaviors Labeled Status Offenses and Ensure that Systems are Accurately Responding to Behaviors as Either Episodes of Normal Adolescent Behavior, or Critical Unmet Youth and Family Needs that are Best Resolved through Non-judicial Interventions and Supports

In the last decade, adolescent brain science has confirmed that adolescence is a period of gradual maturation, where youth toggle between the immaturity of childhood and the accountability of adulthood.¹  During this time, young people are not fully developed in their judgment, problem-solving and decision-making capabilities.²  As a result, they are prone to make poor decisions that can negatively impact themselves and others. Adolescence is also a time of exploration when young people figure out who they are and how they want to contribute to society.³  As they become more engaged with their surroundings, they are prone to test boundaries, take risks and try new things.⁴  Skipping school, experimenting with alcohol, challenging parental and adult authority and staying out past curfew are behaviors that fall well within the realm of normal adolescent behavior.  Accordingly, these behaviors do not automatically or necessarily warrant court intervention.

As is also discussed in the companion standard to this policy recommendation (Section 2.6), at times a child’s behavior is not a byproduct of adolescence, but a manifestation of a critical unmet need personal to the child or within the family.  Youth who are chronically absent from school may struggle with homelessness, neglect and abuse, poor relationships with teachers and peers, and inappropriate academic placements or support.⁵ Youth who run away from home or who stay out past curfew may be avoiding turmoil at home that includes domestic violence, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and/or neglect.⁶  Youth who have defiant relationships with their parents and family members often struggle with mental, developmental, emotional, social and interpersonal issues that are compounded when a parent does not possess the ability to deal with the misbehavior in a healthy fashion.⁷  While all of these behaviors warrant a response, the response should not include sanctions and penalties that do nothing to address the underlying source of the behavior.

Rather, state and local authorities should take the position that juvenile court intervention should be avoided or limited in those instances where the young person is alleged to have committed a status offense. Policies in support of this position will eliminate the ability of a family member, school or other stakeholder to petition status behaviors to the juvenile court.  Alternatively, state and local policymakers should establish a continuum of care, akin to the system described in Section 4.2, that is separate and apart from the courts and the juvenile justice system and that relies on non-judicial interventions to respond to status behaviors.

---

¹ Applying Research to Practice: What Are the Implications of Adolescent Brain Development on Juvenile Justice? (2006). Coalition for Juvenile Justice: Washington, D.C.

² Id.

³ Id.

⁴ Id.

⁵ Heilbrunn, J. (2007). Puzzanchera, C., et al. (2011) Juvenile Court Statistics 2008. Pittsburgh: National Center for Juvenile Justice and Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. p. 77. Pieces of the Truancy Jigsaw: A Literature Review. Denver, CO: National Center for School Engagement. 3‐6; Parents’ Guide to Truancy. (2008). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, p. 3. Available at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/226229.pdf; Kendall, J. (2007) Juvenile Status Offenses: Treatment and Early Intervention. Chicago: American Bar Association. Available at: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/publiced/tab29.authcheckdam.pdf.

⁶ Kendall, J. (2007) Juvenile Status Offenses: Treatment and Early Intervention. Chicago: American Bar Association. Available at:  http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/publiced/tab29.authcheckdam.pdf;
Molino, A. (2007). Characteristics of Help‐Seeking Street Youth and Non‐Street Youth. Available at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/homelessness/symposium07/molino/.

⁷ Developmental Services Group. (2009). Ungovernable/Incorrigible Youth Literature Review.  Bethesda, MD., p. 3.

---

Infrastructure of Community-based Programs

Section 4.2

State and Local Policymakers and Advocates Should Support an Infrastructure of Community-based and Child and Family Serving Programs and Systems to Ensure Direct Youth and Family Access to a Seamless, Comprehensive and Non-judicial Continuum of Care that is Empowered and Resourced to Respond to Behaviors that Might Otherwise be Labeled as Status Offenses

When youth present with behaviors currently labeled status offenses, state authorities should not mandate, empower or expect the courts to step into the parent’s place, reign in the child and/or meet the needs of the family.  Judicial intervention in these instances can disempower the parent, confuse roles and responsibilities and delay access to needed services.  Moreover, judicial intervention subjects both child and family to court orders and interventions that can trigger fines, detention orders and other inappropriate and potentially progressive punitive sanctions.

State policymakers should develop and implement laws and policies that provide direct links between youth and families and experts in the child and family welfare, mental health and educational systems – without judicial intervention.  These laws and policies should support community-based services and programs that have proven successful and empower families to safely self-identify themselves to child- and family-serving systems and access needed services without fear of judgment or reprisal.  These laws and policies should also empower child- and family-serving systems to quickly identify families in need, respectfully assess areas of strength and need, and connect families to appropriate services, including services that affirm and strengthen the parents’ capabilities and expand the parents’ access to supports that help them effectively fulfill their parental roles.

---

Appropriate Court Diversion

Section 4.3

State and Local Policymakers and Advocates In those Limited Circumstances where Court Involvement is Necessary, Ensure Court Mechanisms are in place that Allow the Appropriate Court Division to Effectively Serve the Needs of the Youth and Family without Inappropriate Use or Risk of More Punitive Outcomes for the Child and Family

In addition, state and local policymakers should promote laws and policies that do not treat status offense cases as if they were delinquency matters; instead they should avoid using the same dispositional and sanction options, and co-mingling status offense and delinquency dockets and hearing schedules. Adjudicating status offense cases at the same time as delinquency cases sends the wrong signal to youth and families with status offense cases and may result in the court viewing the status offense case through a punitive lens.  Thus, the delineation between delinquency cases and status offense cases should focus on ensuring that youth who are the subjects of status offense petitions are not subject to the punitive sanctions triggered by a delinquency petition. These distinctions should not prohibit the appropriate sharing of confidential and relevant information when a child has a case in both courts or on both dockets.

---

School Referrals

Section 4.4

State and Local Policymakers and Advocates Should Prohibit Schools from Referring Youth who Engage in Status Offense Behaviors to Court unless and until the School has made all Reasonable Efforts to Avoid Court Involvement

Of the 142,300 status offense cases formally adjudicated in U.S. juvenile courts in 2009, 37 percent were for truancy.¹ Limiting schools’ ability to refer status offense behaviors to the court, especially truancy, will dramatically reduce juvenile court case loads and the likelihood that non-offenders become subject to juvenile court sanctions.

Increasingly, states are requiring schools to demonstrate that they have tried various interventions prior to filing a truancy petition, but what is required varies by state. In Section 2.5 there is a discussion of policies and processes schools can implement to help identify child and family needs and better address truancy problems within the school system rather than referring children and families to court.  Such school approaches may include:

• Assessing the child to identify the underlying causes of the behavior.
• Meeting with the child and family to identify challenges and make appropriate service or community-based referrals.
• Creating an individualized plan with the child and family, which includes non-punitive measures and meaningful family engagement.
• Monitoring and following up with the child and family to assure needed services are being implemented.

---

¹ Puzzanchera, C., Adams, B., & Sarah Hockenberry (2012). Juvenile Court Statistics 2009. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

---

Parent Referrals

Section 4.5

State and Local Policymakers and Advocates Should Prohibit Parents/Caregivers from Referring Youth who Engage in Status Offense Behaviors to the Juvenile Court until the Family has First Sought and Meaningfully Engaged Non-judicial Interventions

Parents/caregivers are a significant referral source for status offense cases.  In 2009, family members initiated 42% of cases petitioned to the court for ungovernability/incorrigibility/beyond the control of one’s parents.¹  Juvenile and family court judges often cite parental demands and expectations as reasons why the court feels pressured to quickly intervene when youth engage in status offenses. The solution to troubled youth behavior, however, does not lie in the courts taking the place of the parent to control the child’s behavior.  As a rule, courts tend to have more sanctions that punish the behavior than they have services designed to resolve it.  The solution lies in empowering parents and family members with the skills and supports they need to effectively communicate with their children, set and enforce boundaries, access economic, education and health-related resources and resolve intra-family conflict without judicial intervention. This may include, but is not limited to, ensuring youth and families can access community-based counseling services, parenting skills development and other family strengthening and alternative dispute resolution processes (See Section 1.5, Section 1.6, and Section 1.7).

---

¹ Puzzanchera, C., Adams, B., and Sarah Hockenberry. 2012. Juvenile Court Statistics 2009. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

---

Funding

Section 4.6

State and Local Policymakers and Advocates Should Promote Coordinated, Blended or Braided Public Funding Streams that Create a Seamless, Comprehensive Community-based Continuum of Care for Youth and Families

Financing a comprehensive continuum of care requires that states and local policymakers make effective use of all available resources.  No single child or family-serving system or agency can pay for and provide the array of services needed to effectively meet the often complex needs of youth and families who struggle with behaviors labeled status offenses, and this may be particularly true in rural or under-resourced areas. Further, youth and families in crisis need immediate responses, and are put at greater risk when they are forced to navigate multiple intake points, multiple eligibility requirements and multiple case plans and managers. When, however, systems and agencies pool their financial and human capital, they can facilitate measurable outcomes for youth and families well beyond the scope of what any single system or agency can hope to achieve on its own.¹

It is imperative that state and local policymakers work diligently to break down silos between systems, agencies and funding streams to ensure that youth and families have unfettered access to needed programs and services without falling through the cracks and without having to become court-involved.  The breaking down of silos is facilitated by mapping all current and available funding sources and then coordinating, blending or braiding distinct federal, state and local funding streams that are designed to meet one or more needs of any given youth and family.²  Once the mapping is complete, the chosen collaborative funding strategy can be implemented through an intermediary organization³ that receives and directs use of the funding, or via a memorandum of agreement between systems and agencies that spells out clearly implementation, reporting, accountability and success measures.

---

¹ National Governor’s Association, Center for Best Practices. (May 2004). Early Lessons from States to Promote Youth Development. Washington, DC: National Governor’s Association Social, Economic and Workforce Programs.

² For more information, see Flynn-Khan, M., Ferber, T., Gaines, E., & Pittman, K. (2006). Adding it up: A Guide for Mapping Public Resources for Children, Youth and Families. Washington, DC: The Forum for Youth Investment & The Finance Project.

³ For more information on the potential roles of intermediary organizations, see “Blending and Braiding Funds and Resources: The Intermediary as Facilitator.” (January 2006). Washington, D.C.: National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability. Available at: http://www.ncwd-youth.info/sites/default/files/infobrief_issue18.pdf.

---

Laws about Waiver of Counsel

Section 4.7

State and Local Policymakers and Advocates Should Enact Laws that Ensure the Right to Counsel for Youth who Come into Contact with the Juvenile Court for a Status Offense by not Allowing Youth to Waive their Right to Counsel or only Allowing Waiver if: (1) It is on the Record, (2) The Court has Fully Inquired into the Child’s Understanding and Capacity, and (3) The Waiver Occurs in the Presence of and in Consultation with an Attorney

Each year, thousands of youth who come into contact with the courts waive their constitutional right to counsel without understanding the immediate and long-term ramifications.  In some jurisdictions, more than half of court-involved youth appear without any legal representation.¹  Without the protection of counsel, court-involved youth are more likely to be placed in a locked facility pre- and post-adjudication, where they are more vulnerable to assault, suicide and sexual abuse, and are more likely to commit additional offenses after their release.²  Also, as noted by the Report of the Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children Exposes to Violence, defense attorneys are the only parties in the proceedings required by law to represent the expressed interest of the child:³

Defense attorneys also have a vital role in protecting youth from abuse and other forms of violence that are often found within the justice system.  In the earliest stages of the process, it is the role of the defense attorney to ensure that the underlying facts are investigated and that children who are wrongly accused are able to challenge the case against them.  Defense attorneys also ensure that children with legal defenses and mitigating circumstances are not coerced into admissions without advice about their legal options.  Protecting the due process rights of youth at trial is integral to ensuring that children are not further traumatized.⁴

For more information about waiver, see Section 3.4.

---

¹ U.S. Department of Justice. (2012). Report of the Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children Exposes to Violence. Washington, D.C.; see also Office of the Ohio Public Defender. Protecting a Juvenile’s Right to be Represented by Counsel (website).  Available at: http://www.opd.ohio.gov/Juvenile/Jv_Right_to_Counsel.htm.

² Juvenile Waiver of Counsel. (2005). Policy Summary. Center for Policy Alternatives. Available at: http://www.njdc.info/pdf/CPAWaiver.pdf.

³ U.S. Department of Justice. (2012). Report of the Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children Exposes to Violence. Washington, D.C.

⁴ Id.

---

Prohibit Locked Confinement

Section 4.8

State and Local Policymakers and Advocates Should Prohibit the Use of Locked Confinement for Youth Petitioned to Court for a Status Offense

Since 1974, the Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO) core requirement of the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) has provided that youth adjudicated for a status offense may not be placed in locked confinement.¹  In 1984, the JJDPA was amended to provide an exception to the DSO core requirement that allows judges to securely confine youth adjudicated for a status offense if the child violated a “valid” order of the court.  (known as the VCO exception)²

As discussed in Section 3.8, research reveals that locked confinement is not an evidence‐based best practice for court-involved youth, especially status offenders. Institutionalization’s many harms begin with removing youth from their families and communities, which prohibits youth from developing the strong social network and support system necessary to transition successfully from adolescence to adulthood.³  Further, for youth who have committed status offenses, detention is ill‐equipped to address the underlying causes of the initial status offense, and fails to act as a deterrent to subsequent status‐offending behavior.⁴  In addition, placing youth who commit status offenses in locked detention facilities jeopardizes their safety and well‐being, and may actually increase their likelihood of committing unlawful acts.⁵  Often, detained youth are held in overcrowded, understaffed facilities—environments that can breed violence and exacerbate unmet needs.⁶

In light of recent research and findings about the detrimental effects confinement can have on youth, a critical mass of states have already prohibited the secure confinement of status offenders under any circumstances and have bolstered their pre- and early court infrastructures to offer families better and more community-based and early intervention services.  In many other jurisdictions, even though the law allows for confinement under the VCO exception, these states have chosen to defund detention beds for status offenders or have instituted policies that restrict the use of those beds for status offense cases.⁷

---

¹ Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (Fall/Winter 1995). “Deinstitutionalizing Status Offenders: A Record of Progress.” Juvenile Justice, II (2). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

² Id.

³ Nelson, D. W. (2008). A Road Map for Juvenile Justice Reform. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation, p. 9.

⁴ Id. at 5.

⁵ Id.; Holman, B., and Jason Ziedenberg. (2006). The Dangers of Detention.  Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, p. 4.

⁶ Holman, B. and Jason Ziedenberg,  (2006). The Dangers of Detention. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, p. 5.

⁷ See Szymanski, L. (2011). What is the Valid Court Order Exception to Secure Detention for Status Offenders?  NCJJ Snapshot, 16(5). Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

---

Youth and Family Engagement

Section 4.9

State and Local Policymakers and Advocates Should Mandate Meaningful Efforts to Engage Youth and Families in all Aspects of Case Planning, Service Delivery, Court Proceedings and Disposition Strategies

When child and family-serving systems step into the place of parents and exert control over youth who present with status offense behaviors, youth may receive needed attention and parents and caregivers may get a reprieve, but only in the short term.  Often a categorical array of services are offered or mandated that do not meet the youth and family’s individualized needs.¹  Treatment plans for youth and families can become prescriptive and coercive, with no real buy-in from the child or family.² As a result, many youth and families initially resist the intervention and ultimately comply in appearance only.³  The imposition of services without real child and family buy-in disempowers families and can create situations where they cycle in and out of systems for years, with poor outcomes.⁴  As discussed in Section 1.7, using a family teaming approach, system players can more fully engage youth and families by allowing them to show and use their expertise regarding their own needs and resources.

Family teaming approaches go by several different names: Family Group Decision-Making, Family Team Conferencing, Family Group Conferencing and Family Unity Meetings.  While approaches may differ in terms of form, they share several common and critical elements:

• Intervention begins with the belief that all families have strengths.
• Families are encouraged and supported to make decisions and plans.
• Outcomes improve when families are involved in the decision-making process.
• The “family team” is defined as broadly and inclusively as possible and the selection of the team includes input by family members.
• Coordination and facilitation of meetings by competent and trained individuals is vital.⁵

Given the nature of behaviors labeled status offenses, and the underlying reasons for the behaviors, the family team approach is a perfect fit for status offense interventions and cases. Furthermore, 45 states currently use some type of family teaming approach for families involved in or at risk of entering the child welfare system, so most state and local jurisdictions already have the infrastructure needed to apply this approach to status offense interventions and cases.⁶

---

¹ Handbook for Family Team Conferencing: Promoting Safe and Stable Families in Community Partnerships for Child Protection. 2001. The Child Welfare Policy and Practice Group. Available at: http://www.cssp.org/publications/child-welfare/community-partnerships-for-the-protection-of-children/family_team_conferencing_handbook-promoting-safe-and-stable-families.pdf.

² Id.

³ Id.

⁴ Id.

⁵ Bringing Families to the Table: A Comparative Guide to Family Meetings in Child Welfare (March 2002). Center for the Study of Social Policy. Available at: http://www.cssp.org/publications/child-welfare/child-welfare-misc/bringing-families-to-the-table-a-comparative-guide-to-family-meetings-in-child-welfare.pdf.

⁶ Family Teaming: Comparing Approaches. (2009). The Annie E. Casey Foundation/Casey Family Services. Available at: http://www.caseyfamilyservices.org/userfiles/pdf/teaming-comparing-approaches-2009.pdf.

---

Valid Court Order (VCO) Exception

Section 4.10

Federal and Local Policymakers and Advocates Should Amend the JJDPA to Prohibit the Use of the Valid Court Order (VCO) Exception to Securely Confine Youth Adjudicated for Status Offenses

As discussed in Section 4.8, in 1984, the JJDPA was amended to allow judges to issue detention orders in status offense cases if youth violated a valid court order. Since that time, a critical minority of states have outlawed use of the VCO in statute, and many more use it infrequently.¹ More than half the U.S. states and territories, however, use the VCO exception to securely confine youth petitioned for status offenses, with a handful of states using the exception more than a thousand times a year.²

Since its enactment in 1974, the wisdom underlying the original DSO core requirement has been confirmed. Studies show that locked confinement does not address the underlying causes of status-offending behavior and may even exacerbate those causes.³ Given these findings, and the increasing capacity of states to address status behaviors without locked confinement or even court intervention, the time has come to amend the JJDPA to eliminate use of the VCO exception and return to the JJDPA DSO core requirement to its original intent.

In 2015, S. 1169, legislation to reauthorize the JJDPA, was voted out of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Among other things, S. 1169 would eliminate use of the VCO exception and provide states with the supports needed to come into compliance with the new law within three years of its enactment date. Elimination of the VCO is supported by several leading youth and juvenile justice organizations, among them the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges – the same organization which initially advocated for inclusion of the VCO almost 30 years ago.⁴

---

¹ Szymanski, L. (2011). What is the Valid Court Order Exception to Secure Detention for Status Offenders? NCJJ Snapshot, 16(5). Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice; Gannon Hornberger, N. (2010). “Improving Outcomes for Status Offenders in the JJDPA Reauthorization.” Juvenile and Family Justice Today. p. 16.

² Gannon Hornberger, N. (2010). “Improving Outcomes for Status Offenders in the JJDPA Reauthorization.” Juvenile and Family Justice Today. p. 16.

³ Holman, B., and Jason Ziedenberg. (2006). The Dangers of Detention. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute. P. 4.

4 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Resolution Supporting Reauthorization of JJDP Act and Elimination of the VCO (March 2010) (on file with the Coalition for Juvenile Justice).

---

Training and Technical Assistance

Section 4.11

Federal and Local Policymakers and Advocates Should Strengthen Relevant Federal Agencies to Provide Research, Training and Technical Assistance to State and Local Authorities to Better Assist State Status Offense System Reform Efforts

Since 1974, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) within the Office of Justice Programs at the U.S. Department of Justice has provided federal leadership to states on juvenile justice reforms.  Under the JJDPA, OJJDP is mandated to provide training and technical assistance to JJDPA-participating states to help them achieve a sustainable level of compliance with the core requirements of the JJDPA, including the DSO core requirement.¹  OJJDP is also authorized to engage in research and evaluation of prevention, intervention and juvenile justice administration policies and practices in order to identify best practices and policies, disseminate those findings and work with states to replicate those practices and policies across the nation.²

Over the last decade, appropriations to OJJDP to carry out these and other functions has declined precipitously, hindering the agency’s ability to identify, uplift and promote replication of status offense systems reforms that are proving effective and cost-efficient.  With increased funding and strong federal support and leadership, OJJDP is poised to meaningfully engage states in significant efforts to help create better systems for families and youth at risk.

In addition to OJJDP, the federal government should also ensure financial and legislative support for the other agencies whose missions and programs intersect with youth who engage in behaviors labeled status offenses, including but not limited to the U.S. Department of Education, as well as the Administration for Children and Families and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

---

¹ Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act § 221(b).

² Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act § 204(b)(3).

---

Federal and State Cooperation

Section 4.12

Federal and Local Policymakers and Advocates Should Create Coordinated Approaches between Federal Government Agencies and Programs that Serve Youth and Families that will Help States Coordinate, Blend or Braid Federal Funding Streams to Create a Seamless, Comprehensive and, to the Greatest Extent Possible, Non-judicial Continuum of Care for Youth and Families

As state and local authorities break down silos between systems, agencies and funding streams to ensure unfettered access to needed programs and services, it is critical that federal authorities facilitate and support these efforts by providing the flexibility states and local authorities need – especially as federal supports become more limited.  In some cases the federal government has already amended certain statutes and regulations to permit states to coordinate, blend or braid certain federal funding streams.  For example, the last three reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) have encouraged states to blend funding from four distinct ESEA programs.¹

Federal policymakers should expand on ESEA and examine other ways state and local authorities should be permitted to blend and braid funding streams, not only within agencies but across programs and agencies.  This examination should look closely at where and how arcane silos, restrictions and prohibitions are hindering youth and families from accessing the full array of services critical to their individual needs and desired outcomes.

---

¹ Braiding and Blending of Federal Funding. Fact Sheet produced by the West Virginia Department of Education. Available at http://wvde.state.wv.us/titlei/documents/Blendingandbraidingoffunds-3-07.doc.