1 / 14

Compliance with the Separation Core Requirement: The Oregon & Missouri Experiences

Compliance with the Separation Core Requirement: The Oregon & Missouri Experiences. JJDPA Today: CJJ Summit on Reauthorization of the JJDP Act Washington, DC June 11, 2007. Presenters Include: Elissa Rumsey, OJJDP Brent Buerick, Missouri Tim Decker, Missouri Lana Holman, Oregon.

ushar
Download Presentation

Compliance with the Separation Core Requirement: The Oregon & Missouri Experiences

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Compliance with the Separation Core Requirement: The Oregon & Missouri Experiences JJDPA Today: CJJ Summit on Reauthorization of the JJDP Act Washington, DC June 11, 2007

  2. Presenters Include:Elissa Rumsey, OJJDPBrent Buerick, MissouriTim Decker, MissouriLana Holman, Oregon

  3. JJDP Act Core Requirements • Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders—1974 • Separation—1974 • Jail Removal—1980 • Disproportionate Minority Confinement—1988

  4. What Does the JJDP Act of 2002 say about Separation?

  5. SEPARATIONSection 223(a)(12) of the JJDP Act of 2002 “Juveniles alleged to be or found to be delinquent [and status offenders and non-offenders] will not be detained or confined in any institution in which they have contact with adult inmates.”

  6. SEPARATIONSection 103(26) of the JJDP Act of 2002 “The term “adult inmate” means an individual who – (A) has reached the age of full criminal responsibility under applicable state law; and (B) has been arrested and is in custody for or awaiting trial on a criminal charge, or is convicted of a criminal charge offense.”

  7. SEPARATION Sec. 223 (a)(12) • All secure institutions must be monitored for separation • Adult jails • Adult lockups • Juvenile detention centers • Juvenile training schools • Court holding Facilities • Adult prisons

  8. Transferred, Certified, Waived, and Direct File Youth A juvenile who has been transferred to the jurisdiction of a criminal court, may be detained or confined in a juvenile facility with other juveniles who are under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. This is not a violation of separation since the youth is not a juvenile “alleged to be or found to be delinquent” and the youth is not an “adult inmate.” Once the youth reaches the State’s age of full criminal responsibility, he/she must be separated from the juvenile population within six months.

  9. What does this mean in plain English? Many States are at risk of noncompliance with the Separation core requirement because they place Transferred kids back in juvenile facilities beyond the State’s age of full criminal responsibility (i.e. they do not separate and/or transfer these kids out 6 months after reaching age of full criminal responsibility).

  10. How to Determine if this is an issue in your State? • Determine if State law allows kids to be sent back to juvenile facilities to serve time post adult conviction • Determine the age of “full criminal responsibility” in your State. • Determine the extended age of juvenile jurisdiction in your State. • Determine if kids convicted in adult court are staying in juvenile facilities beyond the age of full criminal responsibility.

  11. De Minimis Standards— Compliance with the Separation Core Requirement How many Separation Violations is a State allowed? • 0

  12. What is the Current Reality with regards to Separation Compliance in Missouri and Oregon?

  13. What programming changes would have to occur for Missouri and Oregon to be compliant with Separation?

  14. Implications for Reauthorization?

More Related