Juvenile Justice: Overview of Legislative History and Funding Trends

Juvenile Justice: Overview of Legislative
History and Funding Trends
Blas Nuñez-Neto
Analyst in Domestic Intelligence and Criminal Justice
Domestic Social Policy Division
Summary
Although juvenile justice has always been administered by the states, Congress has
had significant influence in the area through grant funding and programs provided by
the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974,
P.L. 93-415, was the first comprehensive juvenile justice legislation passed by Congress.
The act has four mandates for fund recipients: status offenders, such as truants, cannot
be institutionalized; juveniles cannot be detained in local jails or lockups with adults;
juveniles must be separated from adult offenders and adult offender staff in jail; and
states must address disproportionate minority confinement. Since 1974, the act has
undergone several key amendments, including a significant reorganization enacted by
P.L. 107-273 in 2002. Funding for juvenile justice programs within DOJ has been
reduced by 37% from FY2002 to FY2006. In FY2007, the President’s request would
reduce juvenile justice funding within DOJ by 43% to $198 million.
Background
Juvenile justice in the United States has always been the province of the states and
their localities. The first juvenile court in America was founded in 1899 in Cook County,
Illinois. Twenty-five years later, all but two states had enacted legislation establishing a
separate juvenile court system for young offenders. The mission of these juvenile courts
was to attempt to turn young delinquents into productive adults rather than merely
punishing them for their crimes. This led to marked procedural and substantive
differences between the adult and juvenile court systems in the states, including a focus
on the offenders and not the offenses, and rehabilitation instead of punishment.¹
Congress began to get involved in the states’ juvenile justice systems in the 1960s
and 1970s. As the baby boom generation began to reach adolescence, in 1961, Congress

¹ U.S. Department of Justice, National Criminal Justice Reference Service, “Juvenile Justice: A
Century of Change,” available at [http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/9912_2/contents.html].

first addressed juvenile justice in the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control
Act (P.L. 87-27). The act provided funds for state and local governments, through the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, to conduct demonstration projects to
research improved methods for preventing and controlling crime among juveniles. In
1968, Congress passed the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968
(P.L. 90-445) to provide assistance to state and local governments and train juvenile
justice personnel. In order to receive funding, states were required to designate a single
agency to take the lead in improving delinquency prevention and control programs. P.L.

90-445 also placed juvenile justice within the purview of the DOJ for the first time.

Despite these congressional efforts to rein in juvenile crime, juvenile arrests for violent
crimes increased by 216% between 1960 and 1974.² This increase outstripped the growth
in the juvenile population engendered by the baby boom; the under-18 population grew
from 47 million in 1950 to 70 million in 1970, an increase of 49%.³ It seemed apparent
that the technical assistance and financial aid that Congress had provided the states was
not enough to address the growing problem of juvenile crime. In 1974, Congress
addressed the issue by passing the first comprehensive piece of juvenile justice legislation,
the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (P.L. 93-415).
In the 1980s, many states responded to the public perception that juvenile crime was
increasing by passing more punitive laws for juvenile offenders. Some of these laws
removed certain types of juvenile crimes from the juvenile court system altogether,
mandating that they be handled by the adult criminal system instead. Other laws instituted
mandatory sentences for juvenile offenders convicted of certain crimes. This movement
towards punishment of juveniles and away from rehabilitation accelerated in the 1990s,
with all but three states⁴ passing laws that modified or removed traditional juvenile court
confidentiality agreements, all but five states⁵ passing laws easing the transfer of juveniles
into the adult criminal justice system, and a majority of states passing laws expanding
sentencing options for juveniles.⁶ Congress has also incorporated more punitive measures
into the accepted federal funding streams for juvenile justice programs.
Juvenile Crime Trends
Figure 1 shows that the juvenile violent crime index, which combines arrests for
murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, increased steadily from the late-
1980s to the mid-1990s, reaching an all time high in 1994. Some have attributed this
increase in violent crime to an increase in youth-gangs during this period, whereas others
maintain that it is connected with the crack-cocaine epidemic that swept the nation during

² U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, “The JJDP
Act: A Second Look,” Juvenile Justice, vol. II, no. 2, Fall/Winter 1995.
³ Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics 1998, America’s Children: Key
National Indicators of Well-Being, available at
[ ht t p: / / www.chi l dst at s.gov/ amer icaschi l dr e n/ pdf / a c1998/ ai f r .pdf ] .
⁴ New Mexico, Ohio, Vermont.
⁵ Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York.
⁶ U.S. Department of Justice, National Criminal Justice Reference Service, “Juvenile Justice: A
Century of Change,” available at [http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/9912_2/contents.html].

that period.⁷ From 1994 to 2002, the most recent year for which data are available, the
index decreased for eight consecutive years. Overall, juvenile violent crime has decreased
by 47% over that span. This downward trend parallels that of the national violent crime
rate, which has also declined each year since 1994 and reached a record low in 2003.⁸
Figure 1. Juvenile Violent Crime Index, 1980-2002
One gauge often used to evaluate the effectiveness of the juvenile justice system is
the number of cases referred to juvenile courts nationwide.⁹ Although the actual process
by which juvenile cases are handled can vary widely nationwide, the number of cases
referred is nevertheless the best available data concerning the day to day functioning of
the juvenile justice system. The number of referrals to juvenile court for violent crime
index offenses fell by 37% from 1995 to 1999, mirroring the overall reduction in arrests
during that period seen in Figure 1. However, the overall number of delinquency cases
processed by juvenile courts around the country increased by 27% from 1990 to 1999.
The bulk of this increase came from drug violations, which increased by 169% during the
decade, and public order offenses (such as disrupting the peace), which increased by
74%.¹⁰ Lastly, although the number of arrests for violent crimes is clearly an important
gauge of the scope of the juvenile crime problem in the United States, it does not capture
all of the nuances involved in the issue. Many incidences of youth violence do not result
in arrests or formal charges and are thus not captured by this index. According to a
Surgeon General report in 2001, for every youth who was arrested for a violent crime
during the late 1990s, there were at least 10 others who engaged in violent behavior that
could have seriously injured or killed another person. This led the Surgeon General to

⁷ U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, “Preventing
Adolescent Gang Involvement,” Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Sept. 2000.
⁸ U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Violent crime rates have declined
since 1994, reaching the lowest level ever recorded in 2003,” available at
[http://www.oj p.usdoj .gov/bj s /glance/vi ort.htm] .
⁹ A case represents one juvenile processed by a juvenile court, regardless of the number of actual
violations of law in the referral. A juvenile charged with six counts of burglary in one referral
would account for one case; however one juvenile charged with burglary on two separate
occasions would be counted as two cases.
¹⁰ U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, “Juvenile
Crime Statistics 1999: Celebrating 100 Years of the Juvenile Court, 1899-1999,” NCJ 201241,
July 2003, p. 7.

conclude that “despite reductions in the lethality of violence and consequent arrests, the
number of adolescents involved in violent behavior remains disconcertingly high.”¹¹
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) was first passed by
Congress in 1974 and was most recently reauthorized in 2002 by the 21^st Century
Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (P.L. 107-273). Although
Congress first began to address juvenile justice in the 1960s, the JJDPA was, and
continues to be, the landmark piece of legislation in the field. When it was first enacted,
JJDPA transformed the way states handled their juvenile offenders by mandating the
deinstitutionalization of status offenders (DSO) by states.¹² As such, the act mandated
that status offenders were to be diverted from instutional placement to shelters and that
juveniles be separated by sight and sound from adult offenders when placed in shared
detention facilities. In order to receive formula grant funding authorized by the act, states
were required to comply with the act’s mandates. In the three decades that followed,
Congress made several important revisions to the JJDPA. In 1980, Congress modified
the JJDPA to prohibit states from detaining juveniles in local lockups and adult jails, and
approved an exception to the DSO mandate for status offenders who were found to be in
violation of a valid court order.¹³ In 1988, Congress added a disproportionate minority
confinement mandate to the act that required states that received grants through the
JJDPA to assure that they would formulate a strategy to reduce the over-representation
of minorities in their juvenile justice systems. In 1992, Congress created two national
initiatives under Title II of the JJDPA: the Gang Free Schools and Communities program
and the State Challenge Activities grant program. Congress also created Title V,
Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs.¹⁴ Authorization for the
JJDPA, as amended, expired in 1996, but Congress continued to appropriate funding for
juvenile justice programs under the act.
The 21^st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act of 2002
made significant changes to the JJDPA and reauthorized the act through FY2007. The
main change made to the JJDPA was the establishment of a new Juvenile Delinquency
Prevention Block Grant (JDPBG) program which replaced the various grant programs
under Title II. JDPBG grants are awarded to the states and Indian tribes under a formula
which is based on the proportion of the population that is under 18 years of age. The
states then apportion the grants to eligible localities, but must give special consideration
to grant applications from areas with high levels of juvenile crime. Currently, the JJDPA
continues to have the following four core mandates:
^!Status offenders cannot be held in secure facilities.

¹¹ U.S. Surgeon General, Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General, 2001, available at
[http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence/toc.html ].
¹² Status offenders were juveniles who had been placed in detention due to offenses that would
not have been crimes had they been committed by adults, such as runaways or truants.
¹³ P.L. 96-509.
¹⁴ P.L. 102-586.

^!States cannot detain juveniles arrested for nonstatus offenses in adult
lockups or jails.¹⁵
^!States must separate juvenile offenders from adults in jail, and from part-
time or full-time security adult prisoner staff or direct-care staff. OJJDP
has interpreted this as requiring sight and sound separation.
^!States are to “address juvenile delinquency prevention efforts and system
improvement efforts designed to reduce, without establishing or requiring
numerical standards or quotas, the disproportionate number of juvenile
members of minority groups, who come into contact with the juvenile
justice system.”¹⁶
Juvenile Accountability Block Grants
In 1998, Congress created the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants
(JAIBG) program through the DOJ appropriations bill (P.L. 105-119). The JAIBG
program marked a shift in the federal government’s juvenile justice policy, away from
rehabilitation and towards the strengthening of state and local juvenile justice systems
through the implementation of reforms that stressed accountability. The JAIBG program
established 12 purpose areas for grant funding, including, among other things: expanding
juvenile corrections facilities; developing and administering accountability-based
sanctions; hiring and training more juvenile court staff, including judges, probation
officers, and public defenders; funding for hiring more prosecutors, increasing their
effectiveness, and improving the technology at their disposal; and establishing juvenile
drug and gun courts. The 21^st Century Department of Justice Appropriations
Authorization Act of 2002 replaced the JAIBG program with the Juvenile Accountability
Block Grants (JABG) program. The new JABG program further emphasized enforcement
and accountability by increasing the number of purpose areas for funding from 12 to 16.
The additional areas included developing and implementing systems of graduated
sanctions; establishing and maintaining juvenile records systems; creating programs that
utilize risk and needs assessments; establishing and maintaining restorative justice
programs; and hiring corrections personnel. Additionally, the maximum authorized
annual funding level was reduced from $500 million to $350 million.
Juvenile Justice Appropriations
Figure 2 shows the overall appropriations for juvenile justice programs within DOJ.
Juvenile Justice Programs appropriations refer to the programs that are included by
Congress within the juvenile justice programs part of the DOJ appropriation bill, such as
the previously mentioned JDPBG and Incentive Grants programs. Overall juvenile justice
appropriations include the JAIBG program and other programs that are tailored to
juveniles such as Project Childsafe and Victims of Child Abuse, which have sometimes
been included in different parts of the DOJ appropriation but nevertheless are tailored to

¹⁵ Rural areas are exempted from this provision in that such detention is permissible for 24 hours
if no acceptable alternative placement is available, with certain exceptions.
¹⁶ 42 U.S.C. §5633 (a)(22).

juveniles.¹⁷ From FY1999 to FY2002, overall funding for juvenile justice within the DOJ
appropriation remained relatively stable, averaging about $540 million annually. From
FY2002 to FY2006, however, overall juvenile justice funding fell by 37% to $349
million. The majority of this reduction came from the JABG program. Until FY2004,
the first year in which the changes to the JJDPA enacted by the 21^st Century Department
of Justice Authorization Act went into effect, Congress included the JAIBG program
authorizations in the State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance account within the
DOJ appropriation. This means that prior to FY2004, the overall appropriation for
juvenile justice was significantly higher than the funding outlined in the Juvenile Justice
program part of the DOJ appropriation. Starting in FY2004 most juvenile justice funding
was consolidated within the Juvenile Justice Programs account.¹⁸ Appropriations for
JABG fell from a high of $250 million in FY2002 to $50 million in FY2006. The
FY2007 request zeroed out the JABG program, reduced the Part E Demonstration
Projects account by almost $100 million, and reduced overall juvenile justice funding by
43% from FY2006, to $198 million.¹⁹ Congress has enacted a series of continuing
resolutions extending funding for DOJ through February 15, 2007.
Figure 2. Juvenile Justice
Appropriations, FY1995-FY2005
⁶⁰⁰
⁵⁰⁰
⁴⁰⁰
³⁰⁰
²⁰⁰
¹⁰⁰
⁰
¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶
^Fⁱ^scal^Y^e^a^r
^Ju^v^eⁿ^ile^J^u^s^t^ice^P^r^o^g^ra^ms
^O^v^e^r^a^ll^J^u^v^eⁿ^ile^Ju^s^t^ic^e^A^p^p^r^o^p^ria^tⁱ^oⁿ
^Sources^{and Notes}^:^A^m^ouⁿ^t^f^o^{r F}^Y^{1998 t}^a^k^eⁿ^f^r^om^P.L^.^105-^{119, as}^s^t^at^edⁱⁿ^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 105-}^{405. A}^m^ouⁿ^t
^f^o^{r F}^Y¹⁹⁹⁹^t^a^k^eⁿ^f^r^om^P.L^.^105-^{277, as}^s^t^at^{ed i}ⁿ^H^.^R^e^pt^.105-^{825. A}^m^ouⁿ^t^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2000 en}^act^{ed t}^a^k^eⁿ^f^r^om
^H^.^R^e^pt^{. 106-}^{680. A}^m^ouⁿ^t^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2001 en}^act^{ed t}^a^k^eⁿ^f^r^om^H^.^R^e^pt^.^107-^{139. A}^m^ouⁿ^t^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2002 en}^act^ed
^t^a^ke^{n fr}^o^m^t^h^e^C^ongr^es^sⁱ^onal^Recor^d^{, F}^e^{b. 13, 2003, p. H}^{575. A}^m^ouⁿ^t^f^o^r^F^Y²⁰⁰³^en^act^{ed t}^a^k^eⁿ^f^r^om
^t^h^{e C}^ongr^es^sⁱ^onal^Recor^d^{, D}^{ec. 8, 2003, 12776. A}^m^ouⁿ^t^s^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2004 en}^act^{ed an}^{d F}^Y^{2005 en}^act^{ed t}^a^k^eⁿ
^fr^o^m^t^h^{e C}^ongr^es^sⁱ^onal^Recor^d^,^N^o^v^.^{20, 2004, p. H}^{10110. F}^Y^{2006 en}^act^ed^t^a^k^eⁿ^f^r^om^H^.^R^e^pt^.^109-^272.
^N^u^m^b^ers^{are rou}ⁿ^d^{ed. A}^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^f^o^{r F}^Y^{1998 t}^h^ro^{ugh FY}^{2001 an}^{d F}^Y^{2005 m}^a^yⁿ^o^tⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{e rel}^e^v^aⁿ^t
^res^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^s^.^A^m^ouⁿ^t^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2004 i}ⁿ^cl^u^d^es^0.59%^g^o^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t^-^wⁱ^d^{e res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^an^d^a⁰^.^465%^D^O^J^-^wⁱ^d^e
^res^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^;^F^Y^{2006 i}ⁿ^cl^u^d^es^{a 1%}^acros^s^t^h^{e board res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^pu^rs^u^aⁿ^t^t^o^P.L^.^109-^148.

¹⁷ Project Childsafe seeks to educate children on firearm safety and fund the purchase of safety
locks for firearms. The Victims of Child Abuse program provides training and technical
assistance to child abuse investigators, prosecutors, and treatment personnel.
¹⁸ Project Childsafe and the Victims of Child Abuse programs remain under different accounts.
¹⁹ U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Congressional Budget Justifications,
Fiscal Year 2007, pp. 20-22 (includes Victims of Child Abuse, Project Childsafe, Safe Start, and
Secure our Schools requests).