Thoughts on the De-Incarceration Trend

So it’s picking up steam – the de-incarceration dialogue. Key political figures, bipartisan coalitions, conservatives and liberals, foundations and advocacy groups are coalescing around the fact that the United States has built a massive system of prisons and jails but failed to achieve its overarching public safety goals. Recidivism rates are unacceptable (adult and juvenile); youths are pervasively harmed in various jails, lockups, institutions and prisons across the country; many juvenile justice “systems” have less-than-acceptable outcomes relative to individual and community functioning after youths interact with the juvenile justice system – yet prison spending alone is now estimated at $74 billion annually (about $7.4 billion to private prisons according to Vera Institute and Council of State Governments). What!?

Imagine what your state or community could do with a fraction of that spending if you had a cohesive, science-driven and health-focused (e.g., nurturing communities, prevention-focused) system of care for all families, not just vulnerable ones. We know from prevention research that with wise investments in health care, school-community and youth/family interventions, we can save billions of dollars over the lifetime of children and youth that receive such interventions. Yet we seem to be pushing hard to de-incarcerate without the broader dialogue as to how to properly invest and scale effective programs in these three critical areas.

I love that we’re talking about closing prisons and focusing our work at the community level. I’m very happy that we acknowledge our disappointments over “get tough” criminal justice policies such as mandatory minimums, structured sentencing that disallows flexibility and common sense in dealing with lower risk offenders — I also love that the discussion is an intelligent one that includes budget, policy, and multiple impact layers and is not just a one-dimensional conversation (e.g., budgetary savings alone). Yet what I’m not hearing loudly enough are conversations to help shape the national vision for what healthy communities can and should look like. Why aren’t we having concomitant discussions as to how to invest our intervention dollars in prevention strategies with proven records of success and in developmentally appropriate ways? Why aren’t we expanding Nurse-Home Visiting Partnerships all over the map? Investing in anti-bullying programs and the Good Behavior Game in elementary schools? Funding universal high-quality pre-kindergarten? Offering affordable, community-based programs such as Strengthening Families and ecologically scaled efforts like Communities That Care? Broadening healthy nutrition programs? There are many other great interventions and approaches – these are listed as examples.

The list goes on and on. And one answer is that while we’ve been investing in prevention science, we’ve invested much less in learning HOW to bring successful evidence-supported practices to widespread scale, in culturally and contextually relevant ways so that many more could benefit from these successful interventions.

So I strongly encourage everyone in the de-incarceration dialogue to invest in the future of prevention (before we start shutting down prisons without appropriate community-based solutions). Let’s work hard to shift dollars away from ineffective and in fact overly punitive public safety responses toward technologies and solutions that, when combined with effective public health strategies (e.g., surveillance, community mapping, and population-based prevention / early interventions) contribute to more nurturing, positive communities. Let’s create a measured plan where we build healthy communities by investing in these approaches and at the same time reduce our unsuccessful dependence on incarceration strategies. By engaging populations at early and appropriate points on the developmental continuum – we can really have the communities that we all deserve and feel much more positive about our investments in our families and institutions.

JJDPA Reauthorization – Accountability and Transparency at Many Levels

On April 21^st, Senators Grassley and Whitehouse hosted an important Congressional oversight meeting involving compliance performance management, OJJDP, DOJ and ultimately – the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (not formally reauthorized since 2002). Experts provided valuable testimony; many important take home points were noted including the Senate’s strong support for reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act.

What seemed apparent in the hearing was the recognition of multiple layers of responsibility for the problems – from budgeting and appropriations policy (Congress), to DOJ/OJJDP (regulatory, administrative, compliance) to states (implementation, compliance, integrity).

It is important to fix things and be accountable. Also important are transparency, authenticity and commitment to the policy goals of the JJDPA for everyone involved at every level. We are kidding ourselves if anyone believes that states can realistically reduce Disproportionate Minority Contact on a couple of hundred thousand dollars (such as being asked of the minimum allocation states and territories). Hard to imagine how folks can effectively monitor and comply with the expectations of the Act with current federal appropriations levels. We delude ourselves when advocating for an Act that reinforces this expectation if appropriations and implementation supports are not in place to fulfill policy goals. And we shouldn’t settle. By settling I mean advocating for a policy (in this case the JJDPA) and claiming victory if/when the Act is reauthorized but sufficient funding does not follow.  Sure the JJDPA saves thousands of lives and is a terrific federal policy for protecting vulnerable children and youth. Yet we are likely to be complicit in misleading our states and ultimately our kids if Congress, DOJ/OJJDP and the states don’t put into place the proper tools to get the job done.

Colleagues at the National Prevention Science Coalition to Improve Lives, National Implementation Research Network, SAMHSA, Administration for Children & Families (HHS), Children’s Bureau, Corporation for National & Community Service – Social Innovation Fund among others have a growing set of tools, research and ideas for how to truly get the most effective outcomes when investing public and private dollars. It is past time to build the sorts of collaborative and accountable partnerships in government (all levels) to achieve better results. Such partnerships offer the expertise and training that would significantly help in supplementing the existing wisdom found among career government employees. We owe it to our children and families, our taxpayers and all others to ensure that we properly resource and carry out effective policies. Let’s get the JJDPA reauthorized with updated prevention science embedded in the Act, improved regulatory guidelines and management, stronger administration but most of all  — proper resources to get the job(s) done.

It’s Time, North Carolina To Raise the Age

Often mentioned in the same sentence, North Carolina and New York are the last two states in the country sending 16 and 17-year-old youth accused of crimes to the adult criminal justice system. Now that may change. In their recently released report (1/19/15), the New York Governor’s Commission on Youth, Public Safety, & Justice definitively called for legislation to phase in raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction to age 18 over the next three years (the full report is available at this link ——- –https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/atoms/files/ReportofCommissiononYouthPublicSafetyandJustice_0.pdf).

Governor Cuomo supported raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction in his January 2014 State of the State address, stating “Our juvenile justice laws are outdated….It’s not right; it’s not fair.” With the latest Commission report inclusive of the most contemporary adolescent developmental science, public safety research, evidence-based practices, and the results of various reforms enacted in New York over the past few decades, not raising the age would counter almost every intuitive and rational way of thinking about what’s best for youth and New York generally. The Commission’s report includes cost-benefit studies showing budgetary and crime victimization savings that will occur by shifting juveniles from the adult to the juvenile justice system, in addition to broadening non-institutional and evidence supported practices as well as community-based interventions. The use of graduated responses at local levels is also encouraged. The projected taxpayer and crime victim savings are substantial. And most of all, the recommendations in the report mirror what the rest of the country has known for some time now — adolescents are developmentally different than adults, and approaches to changing their lives must be different too. Placing 16 and 17-year-old youths in adult criminal justice systems dramatically heightens prospects of their committing future crimes; it also increases the chances of serious mental health/substance abuse disorders among participants including worsening suicidal tendencies; and, the results of such practices are particularly detrimental to persons of color. The lifelong impacts of overly harsh and sometimes inconsistent treatment along with the collateral consequences of having an adult criminal record can be mitigated with thoughtful policies.

North Carolina’s Legislators and Governor can look at Governor Cuomo’s Commission report as a bit of a hand off – work done for them by an informed and thoughtful, diverse set of stakeholders that thoroughly performed their due diligence but also got it right in another state. It’s time, North Carolina, to join the rest of the country in modernizing the juvenile justice system by adopting a developmentally appropriate, evidence-supported and community focused juvenile justice system. Legislators can design the fiscal incentives and policies to make it happen — and then like other states, citizens will watch as budgetary savings occur to society as well as improvements in the lives of crime victims over the long run, while communities become safer.

The Future of Juvenile Justice Reform May Rest in its Past

It has become more apparent to me that the future of juvenile justice reform may rest in some of the lessons learned in the past combined with substantial evolving research that has positively influenced the field over the past 25 years (or so). Recent economic, social-demographic and political trends portend significant changes in the roles of federal investments and leadership as well as state public financing of juvenile justice systems.

What we know ——–

• The economics of our country are dramatically shifting the middle class, downsizing it and rearranging capacities to generate tax revenues through various approaches
• The fastest growing business entities in the country are nonprofit organizations – this dynamic portends a different corporatization of America around tax laws and the ways in which income can be managed (or sheltered). A predictable impact could be a reshaping of the national tax code so that fewer charitable deductions would be allowable and the missions of nonprofits can shift toward more business-related outcomes as opposed to charitable ones
• Younger workers are entering the work force with increasing levels of debt; one consequence of this has to do with “strain” on family structure, dynamics, and family capability to provide for children without over-committing to additional debt
• Conservative political and fiscal management philosophies now substantially impact state and federal spending so that appreciable future growth in juvenile justice research and programming via public financing is an unrealistic expectation. The future lies in public-private partnerships
• The major innovation investments in juvenile justice have come via the private sector over the past decade or more
• Our communities are more culturally, ethnically/racially and gender diverse than ever in the history of our country. This diversity creates both strengths and challenges. Finding common ground to help develop resilient, pro-social and educated youth while dealing with issues like retribution, accountability and public safety is complicated, and requires a new mainstreaming of values such that diverse groups can and would agree on core public safety and welfare values (e.g., “norms”) without marginalizing or diluting their diversities
• Given the devolution of juvenile justice as seen in many states (through the reductions in federal and state appropriations over the past 12 years), creating systematic approaches toward positive youth development and youth accountability naturally falls into the hands of more local decision makers and investors/stakeholders

So what do I mean by the future resting in the past? It seems overly simplistic, but thinking back to some of the historically safest communities in our country, when crime rates were lower and when communities tended to hold broader agreement as to how to deal with risk-taking youth — there are nuggets that can be resurfaced and polished again.  Safe communities (research says, not just me) tend to have characteristics such as:

• Strong and positive communications between parents, schools, social, recreational and criminal justice agencies whereby behaviors are consistently observed and reinforced or punished with shared values across organizations. This is the old “if it happened somewhere else, you have permission to correct my child and then let me know about it”.
• Another way of saying this is the presence of known and appreciated networks, both formal and informal, for “telling the news” and helping parents and other authority figures channel information so that folks agree (in the main) on how to deal with children both positively and negatively at various points along a child’s path (home, school, community, etc.)
• Clear values and a vision for what healthy, resilient, protected, just and equitable child rearing looks like across settings
• Intolerance for behaviors that lead to crime: weapons, inappropriate substance use/abuse, bullying, etc.
• Capability to respond immediately and effectively in “doses” commensurate with misbehavior when things go wrong – and not assigning the responsibility for solving problems to another organization or system
• Extended support networks where the primary responsibilities for children remain within those networks and not delegated to other agencies or institutions
• Stable and sufficient employment and workforce dynamics that allow for a primary focus on raising healthy families

So how do these observations frame juvenile justice reform for the future?

By sewing together lessons from the past with the scientifically generated prevention and evidence based literatures, we can begin to see patterns that predict reform system improvements. We need to redesign our youth-serving systems around parents, primary caregivers, extended family members and natural supports in their local ecologies – in contrast with the systems that we have today, where our primary formal interventions are often housed in schools, courts, and law enforcement agencies. We need to wrap developmental theory and brain development into community-based interventions and family supports in addition to the more traditional juvenile justice type settings (and fund them accordingly). We should help employers and employment systems develop flexible schedules and processes so that parents and extended family can be the primary interventionists for their children (including the creation of workforce programs and internships for youth that compliment family and community goals).  And we should invest in grassroots coalition and collaboration infrastructures instead of building more formal programming in the traditional agencies.  This isn’t to say that folks have what they need; indeed they do not and our schools, community agencies and state government systems continue to lose important budget resources. Yet, to turn this tide we must return to what works – helping to nurture effective families and family supports, empowering local informal and formal networks that agree on child rearing values and philosophies in the main, and engaging communities that “own” their human resource outcomes by virtue of their willingness to get involved and stay involved over the long-term.

Federal leadership can play a significant role in these ideas. Substantially reframing research and policy investments toward family and community engagement, community based accountability systems and evidence-based outcomes at these levels can help. Investing in new partnerships that leverage public, private and volunteer resources targeting local ecologies that require very specific outcomes, accountability within these local family and community-based networks would be very exciting. Sure the work is complicated and we know a lot about this already – both good and bad. But our kids are our kids, not the schools’ or the courts’ kids. We owe them all the innovation, flexibility, creativity and persistence that loving families and communities can generate.

My 2014 Wish List for a Reauthorized but Improved JJDP Act

2014 – wow. The time is a-aflyin’, isn’t it? So let’s get down to real business this year and reauthorize the JJDP Act. Not the baseline, compliance-focused, core requirements sort of formula that the JJDPA is known for. No, let’s re-imagine the JJDPA as perhaps JJDPA 5.0.

My ‘New Year’ wishes include many things related to vulnerable children and social justice. Somehow I hope that a dialogue catches fire as to the need to put many more resources toward supporting families, early childhood initiatives, more effective education strategies, medical and health efforts, and community engagement to help us proactively support children and families before major problems occur. But near the top of my list is a wish for federal leadership and innovation that truly engages the broad field known as juvenile justice and leverages federal, state and local resources in ways not previously imagined.

So without further adieu and in hopes that this post somehow gets part of the dialogue started, the following elements are additions/modifications to the currently proposed JJDPA reauthorization effort that I would love to see included in any future legislation. By no means is the list comprehensive.  (remember this is a blog and not a thesis):

• More attention to creating a field-growing and cutting edge OJJDP, one that has the authority and reasonably sufficient resources to truly innovate, conduct research (or fund research), translate research into realistic program strategies, evaluate, and provide appropriate levels of training and technical assistance where needed – in addition to being “state-friendly” when dealing with compliance related concerns
• A capability within the JJDPA that incentivizes states (e.g., affords them more dollars) to help create and maintain “practice excellence” standards for their State Advisory Groups (i.e., offer additional resources/tools/opportunities to those states that develop and sustain SAGs that actually achieve basic requirements, but also moves them toward excellence in the field). This new federal capability might include options to:
  • Include incentives to grow and leverage SAG federal dollars with other state, local and philanthropic resources to enhance their juvenile justice system networks
  • Develop and maintain a sustainable training and competency (skill-based) system for SAG members to ensure that they not only understand their basic requirements under the Act, but find ways in their states to become the effective policy and practice “voice” for vulnerable at-risk and juvenile justice involved youth as appropriate with other partners/entities
  • Include incentives from OJJDP for states (SAGs) to adopt, sustain, measure and report on the evolution of their strategies toward evidenced-supported practices. True evidence-supported practices when delivered well save money and achieve better results. Why not do this? This is better government
  • Include incentives or even hold-harmless rules/practices that allow SAGs that are in JJDPA compliance to try new ideas or programming with some portion of their federal dollars, in response to unique needs or cultural issues within their jurisdictions (in other words, keep a focus on evidence-supported practices but incentivize culturally, racially and community-relevant approaches not-yet created or delivered to the EBP literature)
  • Foster more effective partnerships with grass-roots advocacy and other agencies as they often have strong local knowledge into the dynamics driving community conditions and can really lend a hand in fostering improvements in legislative, program, and budget thinking. This needs to be a concrete expectation, in my view, moving forward as SAGs can become insular and a bit removed from various activities within the states
  • Create and maintain more integrated state-level (and local) data systems that truly help understand the unique vs. duplicated counts of youths in various juvenile justice, mental health, substance abuse, child welfare, education, and related systems –until we can accurately describe and plan for childrens’ needs in holistic ways, we often re-create bureaucratically driven efforts to help that are duplicative, expensive and cause major problems with accountability
  • A significant national and state-by-state process  for understanding how to phase out the Valid Court Order exception so that judges and law enforcement have effective alternatives that can truly be effective in lieu of juvenile detention
  • A national dialogue with concrete, measurable and actionable strategies on how to improve the conditions confronting children of color in this country. Inextricably linked to the income gap, poverty, and opportunity, this dialogue must coincide with the Concentration of Federal Efforts piece of the existing Act. It is also part and parcel to thinking of juvenile justice as youth development, not youth detainment/incarceration. We must re-label and repackage our work based on research emerging over the last few decades

So we’ll hold here and dream of these elements for now —- but if we could move our federal and congressional leadership toward thinking of the JJDPA not as more or bigger government, but as a set of tools that actually reduce government’s responsibilities to react to youth problems by engaging in science-supported ways and avoiding a reliance on interventions too late in the equation. A focus on evidence supported prevention, proven practices, true system wide quality improvement, properly funded evaluation, sustainability, effective community/family engagement, and locally efficacious systems of care guided by strong federal policy and leadership — now that would be a 2014 worth waiting for.

I Saw Stars and Heroes Last Night

The stars aligned last night in Raleigh, NC — Bold, wonderful shining lights bright enough to illuminate a pathway to stronger children and families came out to celebrate and be celebrated during Action for Children’s 30th Anniversary Celebration. AfC, an advocacy group with a vision for improving the quality of life for NC’s children regardless of income, background, geography or circumstances, hosted the event at the NC Museum of History. Child advocacy legends and heroes filled the crowd — some better known than others. They were there to highlight AfC’s 30 years of bringing to NC’s collective consciousness the issues confronting children. One could not help but feel extremely warm and appreciative of the bold leadership brought by the folks attending. AfC honored former Senator Linda Garrou, Ms. Doris Mack, Senator (Dr.) William Purcell, and John and Clare Tate with special awards for their tremendous leadership and accomplishments in the field. These are exemplary people who do what is needed — look after children and families, most often vulnerable, with way too few resources and far too few people to care about the glaring resource challenges and gaps in their lives. These folks make the world safer for children, more protective, and yes sometimes even more regulated. Congratulations to the Board of Directors (past and present) of Action for Children for continuing to make children and families a priority. Too often their voices are like the proverbial tree falling in the political forest — making a noise, but wonder who’s hearing it. And thanks to the sponsors and donors that helped the event come to life.

North Carolina and in my view, this entire country, lacks a crystallized vision for raising healthy children and supporting families. Indeed, the recent past has been a startling wake up call to the erosion of political and economic supports in these areas. Our communities are literally crying out in pain for effective leadership to ensure that fewer children and their families are impacted by the growing disparities in resources  — there are cries of poverty and hunger, gun violence, health care shortages and disparate opportunities for treatment, human and sexual trafficking, youths sent to criminal/juvenile justice systems instead of more effective community solutions, educational system erosion among other concerns. It is very easy to become demoralized, to walk away with the lingering feeling that as long as the political situation remains as it is now, nothing will change.

Well folks, tough times call for innovation, transformative leadership, and greater energy than ever before. Our kids and communities need us now more than ever. Just like our daddies used to tell us, “if you quit now, you’ll be a quitter for life”. The circumstances confronting us should make us angry; where is the compassion and leadership we saw in the 60’s when persons of color and their allies so boldly stood up? Where is the outrage at the grossly disproportional conditions affecting families? What will it take for citizens to coalesce around children who desperately need us?

We need to bring our resources together, sharpen our vision and better define our mission, and then go after it with every ounce of our beings — our children and their families need us and depend on the hopes that someone, somewhere, will move the levers of power and find a way to make life better for kids and families. I’m not talking about socialism here — this is about recognizing that in a republic driven by market economies like in the United States, the winners take more and “losers” take little or none. That is fine as long as the “losers” don’t need health care, don’t attend public schools or get their health care at the Public Health Centers, don’t require jail or prison cells, or don’t need assistance in their golden years. But when these larger social questions confront us, we must find rational, affordable and more compassionate ways to meet the needs of our communities and families.

So let’s keep talking, celebrating our shining stars and heroes, and never walk away from those depending on us. Our religious doctrines (no matter the faith) teach us to “suffer the children” and to help those that cannot help themselves — groups like Action for Children, NC’s Covenant for Children, and others can be key catalysts for the conversations needed today. Let’s support them in deeds and words.

Thoughts On Consensus-Developed Practice Guidelines for Juvenile Justice

Was  recently reading the Des Moines Register (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20131102/NEWS/311020018/Experts-offer-solutions-juvenile-justice-system?nclick_check=1) to review what the experts said toward reforming and/or improving juvenile justice. Each expert, accomplished in their own fields and organizations, indicated strong support for various ways to improve juvenile justice either within their state, or the field in general if one thinks from a national perspective.

What struck me about the article was the variety of– and strategically different approaches–offered for improving “the system”. Clearly in the article experts noted significant support for interventions at the earliest possible point, an overarching focus on restorative approaches, matching the right program to the right level of risk, as well as ensuring that those truly requiring court supervision get that while ensuring high quality and accountability. Most everyone in the field would concur that these are state-of-the-art directions to go in.

So articles like the one in the Des Moines Register often take me to a thought I’ve been mulling over for some time — what if we really did have consensus developed practice guides/guidelines, or basic sets of evidence-supported recommendations that are developmentally appropriate for youth to guide decision-making at each key decision point in the system? What if there were very clear, science based guidelines for law enforcement officers, district attorneys, public defenders, court staff, and allied agencies working with young people so that discretion was less influential and evidence/science/best practices more directly related to the issues brought before them? And, what if these guidelines were developed and approved across systems and agencies, not just within professional groups or bodies? I’m not talking about things like bench books or general guidebooks for practitioners — more like, practice guides similar to what the American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry uses for clinical conditions. The National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers (their practice standards), the American Psychological Association (see their youth violence prevention materials) and several other organizations use similar tools or guides in their roles. Is this even a good idea?

Work has been done in several of these areas — for example the National Juvenile Defender Center worked hard with colleagues to develop the National Juvenile Defense Standards (see MacArthur’s Models for Change). And the not-so-long-ago released National Research Council’s Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach does a great job of pointing the field as a whole down the proper road to integrate developmental science into the various elements of thought required for at-risk and offending youths across the spectrum.  Excellent efforts toward these ends are found in Janet K. Wiig and John A. Tuell’s Guidebook for Juvenile Justice & Child Welfare System Coordination and Integration: A Framework for Improved Outcomes (Child Welfare League of America, Inc., 2004, rev. 2008.

But I fear that one of the criticisms of juvenile justice has to do with the lack of clear consensus on “what to do with ________(fill in the name of the youth)”. Depending on with whom you speak, in what location, for what problem or crime, and for how the problem behavior impacts which victim(s), you can get widely different recommendations on what may be the best course of action to pursue (including the centuries old dosage arguments about treatment versus punishment). While this can be construed as a strength of the juvenile justice system – that is, individualized sanctions and plans of care based on local jurisdictions and resources; variably recommended or offered “solutions” can also be thought about as a sense of disagreement as to what works, what might be the best practice approach(es) to pursue — and worst of all, where is the data supporting each recommendation made on behalf of youth and their families or caretakers?

I believe we need to work much more aggressively to advocate for and obtain federal leadership, state support as well as philanthropic investments to move toward consensus-driven, evidence supported practice guidelines for key decision points across the juvenile justice system. It is a herculean task. But without better data linked to specific recommendations and services for youths (including cost benefit, cost effectiveness data) at the points in time where critical judicial and/or case management decisions are needed, it is sometimes hard from public policy and advocacy standpoints to specify why certain things should happen to reform or improve our system. We should try to agree with each other (across law enforcement, courts, judicial and other branches of supervision and services) as to the proper courses of action to pursue in order to convince policy makers and appropriators — and these agreements should be based more on science, field-driven data and best practice guidelines and less on opinion, historical practices or preferences.

State Advisory Groups – Transcended, or Transformative? (Part 2)

SAGs remain vibrant and vital in many respects but could potentially hold more transformative value based on the inclusion of the following basic impact components in their strategic thinking:

• Use funds in evidence supported ways only, and accountably managed through rigorous evaluation
• Find ways to make federal and state policy practical and implementable at the very basic levels within communities, and engaging the very families most vulnerable for problems as part of solution-finding
• focusing on the school-to-prison pipeline in practical, resource-driven ways (generating resources for schools, not just criticisms and data)
• dig deep into social and cultural discussions to examine policies, procedures and programs for systemic influences that generate inequities among children of color
• insisting that the developmental differences within and among children become the critical basis for building juvenile justice systems of assessment, intervention and accountability (differently than traditional retributive justice systems)
• preventing youth violence in all forms and at every level — with a very clear commitment to evidence supported prevention as part of each state plan

Getting There Through an Evolving SAG Leadership Model:

While each state is unique relative to its politics, structure, personnel and legislation, research based findings from other social sciences can inform SAG leadership. John Grove, Barry Kibel and Taylor Haas (2005) noted in their EVALULEAD publication (EVALULEAD: A Guide for Shaping and Evaluating Leadership Development Programs; from the Sustainable Leadership Initiative) that “Transformative changes represent fundamental shifts in individual, organizational, or community values and perspectives that seed the emergence of fundamental shifts in behavior or performance” (p.7). Such changes are not episodic, transient or even developmental – they forge new, often unanticipated roads and strategies. Transformative changes include paradigm shifts, organizational redirection, career changes, and even fundamental policy and/or social change elements.

SAGs have an opportunity to develop this new way of leading. OJJDP as well could truly transform the juvenile justice field through adoption of tranformational leadership fundamentals for State Advisory Groups. By establishing results maps that outline transformative values, goals, strategies and inputs capturing transformative elements such as the key bullet points noted above and reflective of individual, organizational and social domains, SAGs and OJJDP can move beyond the fundamentals of the JJDP Act toward vertical and horizontal leadership – that is, designing and delivering both policy and programs based on strong evidence as garnered through translational research (vertical) and then delivering services horizontally across individual communities. In other words, SAGs must think in multiple results-oriented dimensions and use transformative strategies to drive their results.

Where to Begin?

This shift in SAG “behavior” and functioning might start with OJJDP’s developing a core training package designed to lead SAGs toward transformational leadership. Investing in this work would not only up the ante for OJJDP in terms of its scientific support for field practices, but would operationalize the individual SAG results maps and therefore assist in creating an evaluable plan for the entire country (e.g, standardizing SAG results map templates, training on how to complete and manage the entire process, helping to develop online tools for evaluation/tracking, and then aggregating core results outcomes across domains for all participant states and territories).Training SAGs in transformational leadership (with its sub-elements of individual, organizational, and societal/community domains for impact) and streamlining results maps across SAGs could cause the inculcation of transformative values based on research, evidence-based practices and would strengthen the adoption of the focus areas identified by the Attorney General as well as OJJDP’s Administrator.

Through the adoption of transformational leadership principles, SAGs would clarify/refine/rebuild their visions; and specific targets for actual impacts would be adopted. This process would theoretically drive states to begin with fundamental compliance (JJDPA) and move toward a model that would be built upon broader social change (e.g., juvenile justice system reform). Investments made by private sector partners (MacArthur, Casey, Tow, Public Welfare among others) could then be systematically leveraged through this transformational leadership set of processes.

JJ State Advisory Groups – Transcended, or Transformative? (Part 1)

State Advisory Groups, or SAGs as they are often referred to, are the governor-appointed groups in each state or territory that work to ensure that the core protections of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act  (1974) are met. SAGs have been the historical “oil in the machine” in terms of translating federal regulations within the states and territories into actual policies and funding strategies to ensure that the four (originally three) core protections are met. According to the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s latest (2012) compliance report the vast majority of states have met or exceeded requirements in the four areas. This has been the case for many years according to OJJDP.

The JJDP Act has not been reauthorized since 2002 although efforts have not been lacking toward reauthorization and even improving the Act. While there are many factors likely affecting reauthorization, there are several challenges facing proponents of the JJDP Act and the role of the SAGs. This posting is not meant to be a thorough analysis of the Act or of the SAGs — rather, it is an introspective peek at issues designed to generate some discussion within the advocacy community and the SAGs.

Debates in Washington continue as to the federal government’s role(s) in various public safety and human service environments. Consensus is an unlikely outcome of these debates and juvenile justice policy doesn’t appear to be on anyone’s near-term radar; meanwhile, federal officials charged with implementing existing policy are challenged by evolving research versus what politics and appropriation levels dictate. Recent speeches by Robert Listenbee, OJJDP’s Administrator, highlight several key themes and help to paint a picture of what the future may look like under the current OJJDP and DOJ approach:

• With declining appropriations, dollars must be used in evidence supported ways only, and must be accountably managed through rigorous evaluation
• Administrator Listenbee has said more than once that in nearly every state, {paraphrasing} “….juvenile justice happens in the community (as opposed to state or federal levels)”
• A critical focus is the school-to-prison pipeline; that is, to really effect system reform we need to be much better at helping schools and communities keep vulnerable or reactive and aggressive children in schools, avoid unnecessary referrals to the courts, and find more effective solutions
• Despite federal compliance in many areas, children of color are still disproportionately referred to the courts, expelled from schools and denied lifelong opportunities because of current policies/practices throughout the country and territories
• The developmental differences within and among children are the critical basis for building our systems of assessment, intervention and accountability (differently than traditional retributive justice systems)
• Youth violence must be prevented; such prevention requires multi-system integration and innovation, and interventions must be linked to developmental research

So what might this mean in relationship to SAGs? As agents for strategically planning services within their jurisdictions, SAGs have traditionally been focused on many areas: compliance, innovation, some advocacy, transferring best practice to states/territories and customizing them to meet their unique needs. Yet there are voices out there that question the effectiveness of SAGs relative to overall juvenile justice system reform. The feedback includes some disquietude between SAGs and the grassroots advocates as well as the lack of success between SAGs and other state and local agencies relative to better leveraging of their dollars. SAGs may not have the political clout some anticipate, and in these times of shrinking budgets, may not have strong influence over priorities recommended to their governors, state legislators, or representatives in Congress. Subsequently, the collective impact of SAGs has come under more and more scrutiny and as federal dollars become less available their capacities for innovation, reform, program development and evaluation as well as effective program dissemination are more at issue.

So have SAGs been transcended? Have they outlived and outworked their functions? Is it time to rethink SAGs and the mechanisms between the federal government and local juvenile justice systems?

I would say that rather than having been left behind, SAGs can be an influential part of system reform if they evolve their working models. They can be transformative in the ways that states plan and deliver juvenile justice services. What should that change look like? Some suggestions:

• While compliance (under the current Act) is the primary goal, it is not the ultimate goal – SAGs need to articulate a strategic vision that not only achieves compliance with the core requirements, but drives states towards excellence with clear objectives and metrics that sustain compliance while institutionalizing practices that maintain compliance. SAGs must hold themselves accountable for the vision as well as the metrics required to achieve steps toward excellence
• The SAG vision should include realistic “connectors” or translational strategies that link research, evidence-supported programs/practices and planning so that SAGs stay current in the reform and evidence-based literatures. If SAGs lack the personnel or expertise in this area strategic relationships with universities and community colleges can offer real and affordable opportunities for effective collaborations in these areas
• SAGs must become more community-focused. Their committee structures should nurture and grow consumer and customer feedback at community and regional levels. One excellent place to look for ideas is the Recovery movement in substance abuse – Recovery systems of care plan for lifelong supports and periodic interventions, and do not focus solely on problem intervention/remediation
• SAGs ought to think more holistically in terms of integrating juvenile justice with other systems of care. Behavioral health, substance abuse recovery, public health — all are merging toward integrative systems of care. SAGs would be critical in the conversation of how to leverage federal funds with other public (e.g., Medicaid, Title IV-E) and private dollars. The collective impact literature is an emerging area to illustrate how important SAGs can be in this conversation in partnership with other state and local entities (OJJDP can also show real leadership in this area)
• In partnership with OJJDP, SAGs may wish to think about adjusting their membership structures (in future reauthorizations as well as through the use of advisory subcommittees) to better align with the priorities as voiced by Administrator Listenbee. That is, a clearer focus on translational/transformative strategies that strengthen communities and their support systems, assist school districts in finding reasonable/effective alternatives to suspension and expulsion, and bring to bear measurable programming strategies to impact Disproportionate Minority Contact, youth violence and the risk conditions leading to future problems.

More on these topics in the next posting — Thank you for your thoughts.