The Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2018: Updating the Federal Approach to Youth Involved, and At‐Risk of Becoming Involved, in the Juvenile Justice System

• Date: 01 September 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jfcj.12145
• Published date: 01 September 2019

The Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2018:

Updating the Federal Approach to Youth

Involved, and At-Risk of Becoming Involved,

in the Juvenile Justice System

By Naomi Smoot

ABSTRACT

On December 21, 2018, the Juvenile Justice Reform Act was signed into law,

marking the first update in 16 years to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-

tion Act of 1974, as amended. The reforms reflect much of the knowledge that has

been gained through research and science over the past decade and strengthen the

Act’s core protections for youth in the juvenile justice system. The changes also

expand the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s role in research,

and technical assistance, and provide for additional oversight for related programs.

Key words: Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, JJDPA, core protections, jail

removal, status offenses, sight and sound separation, valid court order exception, state advi sory

groups, racial and ethnic disparities, girls, trauma, evidence-base practices, youth homelessness ,

reentry, cross over youth, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

JJDPA: A BRIEF HISTORY

In December 2018, Congress passed and the President signed H. 6964, the Juvenile

Justice Reform Act

1

(JJRA). This. The legislation was the first comprehensive update in

16 years to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (Act), federal legislation

that sets out core protections for young people across the country who are involved in the

juvenile justice system or are at risk of becoming involved with the system, receive similar

Naomi Smoot is the Executive Director of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice (CJJ) where she oversees

the organization’s federal policy work and helps with training and technical assistance focused on building

capacity of Juvenile Justice State Advisory Groups across the country. She is co-chair of the Act4JJ Coalition,

a network of more than 100 national organizations that supported efforts to reauthorize the JJDPA.

1

Juvenile Justice Reform Act. H 6964 (2018) Available at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-

congress/house-bill/6964/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%226964%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=1.

Juvenile and Family Court Journal 70, No. 3

©2019 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

45

protections, regardless of geography.

2

In exchange for participating in the Act, states

receive federal grant funds that can be used on an array of youth-serving programs.

The Act was first passed in 1974 with broad sweeping bi-partisan support. It was

amended, and expanded, six times between 1974 and 2002

3

, resulting in the four core

protections that exist today:

•Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO)

4

:One of the Act’s original

core protections ensured that young people cannot be detained in a secure deten-

tion facility for status offenses such as running away from home or skipping

school, or when there is no offense at all. An exception was created by a statutory

amendment in the 1980s whereby youth charged with a status offense could be

detained for the offense if the behavior was determined to violate bea valid court

order (the Valid Court Order or VCO exception).

5

•Sight and Sound Separation

6

:The second original core protections ensures that

young people who are held in secure confinement are held out of sight or sound

contact with adult inmates.

•Adult Jail and Lockup Removal

7

:The third core protection, added in 1980,

ensures that young people cannot be held in adult jails or lockups, except for rare

exceptions.

8

•Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)/Racial and Ethnic Disparities

9

:

Added in the 1980s, this core protection ensures that states to collect data on, and

address the overrepresentation of youth of color that exists at nearly every point of

contact with the juvenile justice system in communities across the country.

Between 2002 and 2018, the Act remained unchanged, despite a dramatic shift in

the culture and an abandonment of the “super predator mindset” that was so pervasive at

2

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. 34 U.S.C. 11101 et seq.

3

Legislation/JJDP Act. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available at: https://

www.ojjdp.gov/about/legislation.html.

4

34 U.S.C. 11133.

5

In addition to young people charged with status offenses, H.R. 6964 also prohibits the detention of

a young person who “is not charged with any offense; and ‘‘(II)(aa) is an alien; or ‘‘(bb) is alleged to be depen-

dent, neglected, or abused. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. 34 U.S.C. 11133 (a)(11)

(A).The DSO provision does not apply to youth who have crossed state lines and are being held under the

Interstate Compact on Juveniles. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. 34 U.S.C. 11133 (a)(11)

(A)

6

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. 34 U.S.C. 11133.

7

Id.

8

See Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended through P.L. 115-385 42

U.S.C. §5601. Paragraph 13. No juvenile will be detained in an adult jail or lockup except under certain

conditions. First, youth accused of nonstatus offenses and who are detained not to exceed 6 hours and are

detained for processing or release, are awaiting transfer to a juvenile facility, or awaiting a court appearance.

Second, youth accused of nonstatus offenses who are awaiting their initial court appearance that will occur

within 48 hours after being taken into custody. In both cases there must be sight and sound separation and

staff members that are trained to work with juveniles. In the latter case, the facility must be located outside

a metropolitan statistical area, is located in road conditions where transportation do not allow for court

appearances within 48 hours, and finally must have conditions of safety (such as no severe weather condi-

tions). In many rural areas juveniles accused of nonstatus offenses fit these criteria.

9

Id.

46 | JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JOURNAL