Shay Bilchik, Administrator        FACT SHEET # 22 January 1995 .
         THE JJDP ACT MANDATES:  RATIONALE AND SUMMARY
                Kathleen Kositzky Crank, J.D.

Bobby  Nestor was sent to Camp Hill Correctional facility, an 
adult prison, to "learn a lesson". Following  four and one half
months of incarceration, he hung himself after being sexually
assaulted by adult inmates.  

Bobby Nestor was sent to Camp Hill for incorrigibility. He was
not unlike most juveniles confined with adults at the time. In
1980, only 12% of juveniles in confinement with adults were
charged with serious offenses against persons. A review of
family and social backgrounds of confined  juveniles revealed
that most had experienced extensive family problems. The most
likely candidate for confinement was a juvenile like Bobby, who
had been in trouble at school, with parents, or  with police for
minor delinquent or status offenses. 

Tragic stories, such as that of Bobby Nestor, combined with
compelling statistics on confinement of status offenders,
provided the impetus for Congress to enact the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, as amended, 
Public Law 93-415, 42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq., requiring the
deinstitutionalization of status offenders and separation of
juvenile and adult offenders in institutional settings.   

Passage of the JJDP Act was aided by the strong consensus of
three groups assembled, in part, to examine the juvenile justice
system: (1) the President's Commission on Law Enforcement
and the Administration of Justice; (2) the National Council on
Crime and Delinquency (NCCD); and (3) the National Advisory
Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. The
President's Commission  was the first to recommend that
"serious consideration ... should be given to complete
elimination of the (juvenile) court's power over children for
noncriminal conduct."  In 1966,  at  the request of the
President's Commission, NCCD surveyed state and local
correctional agencies and institutions across the United States.
The survey documented extensive use of detention facilities to
confine juveniles accused of noncriminal  conduct. In 1974, the
National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards
and Goals observed that at least 50 percent of detention
populations were "status offenders" who had committed no crime
and who were often held under deplorable conditions. 

Status offenders were not the only youths affected by ill-suited
detention practices. In 1980, Congress found that among the
adverse impacts of detaining juveniles in lockups and adult jails
were a high suicide rate (the juvenile suicide rate in adult jails
and lockups was more than five times that  in juvenile detention
facilities), physical, mental, and sexual assault, inadequate care
and programming, negative labeling, and exposure to serious
offenders and mental patients. As a result of a jail or lockup
experience, juveniles often learned antisocial behavior from
habitual criminals and had to fight for survival in an inmate
culture characterized by rigid rules and psychological and
physical terror. Congress responded by amending the JJDP Act
in 1980 to require the removal of juveniles from adult jails and
lockups.

In 1988 and 1992, Congress focused attention on the
disproportionately high number of minority juveniles arrested
and confined in secure detention and correctional facilities. Data
demonstrated that incarceration rates for minorities in many
states were two to four times that of whites. The 1988 and 1992
reauthorizations of the JJDP Act included provisions requiring
States to gather additional data, analyze this issue, and provide
an appropriate programmatic response where minority
overrepresentation was found to exist. 

SUMMARY

The following  summarizes  the four system reform mandates of
the JJDP Act. For further information regarding State
compliance with the JJDP Act mandates, please see OJJDP Fact
Sheet # 7, Meeting the Mandates. 

DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION OF
STATUS OFFENDERS

The deinstitutionalization of status offenders (DSO) mandate,
Section 223(a)(12)(A),  provides, as a general rule, that no status 
offender  (a juvenile who has committed an act that would not be
a crime if committed by an adult) or nonoffender may be held 
in secure detention or confinement.     

The Formula Grants Program regulation issued by the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), 28 CFR
Part 31, creates a temporary-hold exception for accused status
offenders and nonoffenders in juvenile detention centers. Status
offenders  or nonoffenders may be held for up to 24 hours,
excluding weekends and holidays, for purposes of identification,
investigation, release to parents, or transfer to a nonsecure
program or to court. 

The 24-hour exception only applies to accused status offenders
and nonoffenders. It begins when the juvenile enters a secure
custody status in a detention facility. A second 24-hour "grace
period" may follow an initial court appearance.  

Another statutory exception, for "valid court orders," provides
that a status offender accused of violating  such an order may be
held in a juvenile detention facility longer than 24 hours. In
order for a State to invoke this exception, the juvenile must have
received all constitutional due-process protections at the initial
adjudication and must be afforded a detention hearing within 24
hours. In addition, prior to a dispositional commitment to secure
placement, a public agency, other than a court or law
enforcement agency, must have reviewed the juvenile's behavior
and possible alternatives to secure placement, and submitted a
written report to the court.

Finally, the 1994 Crime Act provides an exception for juveniles
who violate the Federal Youth Handgun Safety Act or a similar
State law prohibiting juvenile handgun possession.

SEPARATION

The separation mandate, Section 223(a)(13), provides that
juveniles shall not be detained or confined in a secure institution
in which they have contact with incarcerated adults, including
inmate trustees. This requires complete separation such that there
is no sight or sound contact with adult offenders in the facility.
Separation  must be provided in all secure areas of the facility,
including sallyports, entry/booking areas, hallways, sleeping,
dining, recreation, educational, vocational, and health care
areas. 

JAIL AND LOCKUP REMOVAL

The jail and lockup removal mandate,
Section 223(a)(14), establishes as a
general rule that all juveniles who
may be subject to the original
jurisdiction of the juvenile court
based on age and offense limitations
established by State law cannot be
held in jails and law enforcement
lockups in which adults may be
detained or confined. 

The OJJDP Formula Grants Program  regulation provides a six-
hour hold exception for accused delinquent offenders, for the
limited purposes of identification, processing, interrogation,
transfer to a juvenile facility or court,  or to detain pending
release to parents. The exception does not apply to status
offenders, nonoffenders, or adjudicated delinquents. Sight and
sound separation from adults during the six hours is required. 

The statute and regulation provide a "rural exception" for jails
and lockups located outside a Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area (SMSA). Facilities outside an SMSA may hold an accused
delinquent for up to 24 hours, excluding weekends and holidays, 
while awaiting an initial court appearance, if State law requires
such a detention hearing within 24 hours, and provided no
existing alternative facility is available. If weather or road
conditions do not allow for reasonably safe travel, the facility
may detain the juvenile until conditions allow for safe travel, up
to an additional 24-hour period. If conditions of distance or lack
of highway, road, or other ground transportation do not allow
for a court appearance within 24 hours, a brief (not to exceed
48-hour) delay is authorized. Again, separation from adult
offenders must be maintained at all times. 

A final regulatory exception concerns juveniles under the
jurisdiction of a criminal court for a felony offense. It applies
only after such jurisdiction has been invoked through the official
filing of criminal felony charges in a direct file situation, or after
a juvenile has been officially waived  to criminal court through
a judicial waiver process. 

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has
endorsed jail and lockup removal, and has developed a model
policy and training key which addresses law enforcement custody
of juveniles.

NONSECURE CUSTODY CRITERIA

To accommodate the needs of law enforcement, OJJDP policy
guidance allows juveniles, including criminal-type offenders,
status offenders, and nonoffenders to  be held nonsecurely in an
adult  jail or lockup facility, 53 Fed. Reg. 44366 (1988). The
OJJDP policy establishes "nonsecure custody criteria" to guide
law enforcement officers in providing nonsecure custody for
juveniles in their custody. These include: holding the juvenile in
an unlocked multipurpose area not normally used as a secure
area, or if it is a secure area, used only for processing purposes
(fingerprinting and photographing); the juvenile is not physically
secured to a stationary object;  the use of the area is limited to
providing  nonsecure custody only long enough and for the 
purposes of identification, processing, release to parents, or
arranging transfer to an appropriate juvenile facility or court; 
the area is not designed or intended to be used for residential
purposes; and continuous visual supervision is provided by a law
enforcement officer or facility staff during the period of
nonsecure custody. 

DISPROPORTIONATE MINORITY CONFINEMENT 

The disproportionate minority confinement (DMC) mandate,
Section 223(a)(23), requires States to address efforts to reduce
the number of minority youth in secure facilities where the
proportion of minority youth in confinement exceeds the
proportion such groups represent in the general population.  In
order to meet the DMC mandate, States go through stages of
data gathering, analysis and problem identification, assessment,
program development, and  systems improvement initiatives. For
further information, see OJJDP Fact Sheet #11, Disproportionate
Minority Confinement.

_______________________________________
A list of the sources cited in this fact sheet is available from OJJDP's
Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.  Telephone: (800) 638-8736. The IACP
model policy is available from the IACP. Telephone: (703)   836-6767. 
                                                          FS-9522