CHILDREN in FEDERAL CUSTODY Assessment of Federal Policy Anp Practices '

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ,..,p" .. ~ . " r. ' . ':' ~ , . " !.' , " CHILDREN IN FEDERAL CUSTODY Assessment of Federal Policy anp Practices '- , ~ ~ -""" ._. " ... ,,~ ?_,_ .. ~ .... __ 0- ,. ~H __ ~._~ ~ _._ ~ __ _._ ••_ ~._ ~._ ~ _ •••• ~_ ._._----- _ _ • _ .~_.,~ _ • _ __ .' ..... _" __ •• ...,.,._ ....... _ .. ,. .. For additional copies of this document contact: Community Research Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 505 East Green Street, Suite 204, Champaign, IL 61820, 217/333-0443. ,!L. •• Copyright(S)1984 Community Research Center, Board of Trustees, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention reserves the right to reproduce, publish, translate, or otherwise use and. to authorize others to publish and use, all or any part of the copyrighted materials contained in this publication. 115222 U.S. Department of Justice lIS 22. 2... National Institute of Justice This document .ha~ been ~eproduced exactly as received from the pe~~?n or organization orlgmatfng it. Points of view or opinions siated m IS document ~re th~~e of the authors and do not necessaril repr~sent the offiCial position or pOlicies of the Natfonal Institute J J ustlce. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by J2.ubJ j c l)ornaj n/O,J(JDP --ll...S. Department or ,Justi.c..e to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). ~urther reproduc.tion outside of the NCJRS system requires permis sion of the COPYright owner. CHILDREN IN FEDERAL CUSTODY Assessment of Federal Policy and Practices Prepared for The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention U.S. Department of Justice JAN ~7 Rec'd ACQUIS'IT!ONS This document was prepared by the Community Research Center of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign under Grant No. J-LEAA-78-JS-AX-0046 awarded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Un~ted States Department of Justice. Points of view or oplnlons stated in this document do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. September, 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: Introd.uction .. 0 •••••••••••••••••••• 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1 CHAPTER 2: Federal Juvenile Offenders 3 CH..t\.PTER 3: Undocumented Alien Youths ." ••••••••••••• 1:' ••••••• 0' •••••• ".& ••• 15 CHAPTER 4: Native American Youths 27 CHAPTER 5: Recommendations ••••• 11 ••••• 0 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 47 APPENDIX AOQUlSHT10NS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended in 1977, charges the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention with the implementation of overall policy and development of objectives and priori ties for all federal juvenile delinquency programs and activities. Pursuant to this mandate for a concentrated federal commitment to the improvement of the juvenile justice system, the Act provides for the establishment of the Federal Coordinating Council} chaired by tIle Attorney General and composed of key decisionmakers from cabinet level departments and agencies which have impact on the components of the juvenile justice system, or engage in delin quency prevention-related activities. This report was prepared at the request of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, with the endorsement of the Federal Coordinating Council, and in response to the legislatively mandated coordination effort. The objective of this study has been to assess the degree to which federal policies and practices result in the detention of youths in circumstances which are inconsistent with the deinstitutionalization and separation provi sions of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended in 1977. In recognition of the monitoring requirements of the JJDP Act, attention has been directed to the recordkeeping and data collection systems of the agencies surveyed. Though federal funding and sponsorship activities affect large groups of youths, this survey and analysis will focus on three groups--federal juvenile offenders, undocumented aliens, and N~tj.ve Americans. Further, the procedures and terms by which they are placed in custody will be viewed primarily in terms of the legislation, regulations, policies and practices of five agencies, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Marshals Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the National Park Service. These agencies have been targeted because they operate or contract with correctional facilities and, therefore, have a direct and immediate impact on the incarceration of youths. The information presented here was collected in three phases during the period from September, 1979 to April, 1980. The first phase was an analysis of the legislation and case law. This was followed by interviews with key central office agency officials. During these interviews, all available policy guidelines, operating procedures, and statistical information were obtained. In addition, input was derived to form the basis for the selection of facilities and regional offices to be visited during the third phase of the project. On-site visits generally were scheduled to facilities and regional offices handling 1 - -------- ----------------------- the largest relative volume of children in federal custody. With respect to tribal correctional facilities, nine reservations were chosen which, though not representative of all tribal practices, indicated the varying levels of sophistication of tribal juvenile justice systems, and were illustrative of the dynamics of the relationships with the involved federal agencies. A preliminary report was presented for review to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in July, 1980. The chief officials of the five targeted agencies received a copy of the executive summary of the report, and were requested to attend a meeting on November 7, 1980 to review and comment on the findings. Representatives of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service were present at the meeting. The full text of the report was distributed to agency representatives, and was subsequently mailed to all agency heads with a request that comments or corrections be submitted by December 1, 1980. Written comments were received from the National Park Service, the u.S. Marshals Service, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. These comments have been addressed in the report, and the full texts of the responses are reprinted in the appendix. The findings presented in the following pages support two conclusions which are applicable to all five agencies. First, children are not a major priority; the amount of resources and energy directed towards the development of programs for the treatment or handling of youths in custody is minimal, often inadequate. The FBOP, INS, and USMS disputed this finding based on their contention that current efforts and resources directed towards the handling of juveniles are already disproportionate to the relatively small number of juveniles processed. Regional officials, however, repeatedly indicated that central office support was insufficient. Second, possibly because youths were not a priority, the monitoring systems of these agencies neither attempted nor succeeded in accounting for the identification, detention, or disposition of children in the federal system. The coordination of federal effort must begin with the authority to instill in officials of these agencies the sense of urgency communicated by Congress when it enacted and amended the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. 2 CHAPTER 2 FEDERAL JUVENILE OFFENDERS THE LAW Under 18 U.S.C. §5031, commonly referred to as the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act, "juvenile delinquency" is defined as the violation of a law of the United States, committed by a person prior to his 18th birthday, which would have been a crime if committed by an adult~ Section 5032 states in relevant part that the Attorney General may commence a criminal prosecution after he has certified to an appropriate district court of the United States that the juvenile court or other appropriate district court of a state (1) does not have jurisdiction or refuses to assume jurisdiction over said juvenile with respect to such alleged act of juvenile d.elinquency, or (2) does not have available programs and services for the needs of juveniles. Generally, these cases of federal jurisdiction arise when an offense occurs on a government or military reservation, or when a Native American is involved in a crime on an Indian reservation.* A memorandum was issued hy then Assistant Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti to all U.s. Attorneys on June 17, 1977 calling attention to Section 5032 and reemphasizing: • • • the fact that the major thrust of the new Act is to l.nsure the greatest participation by the states in handling juvenile criminal matters. If the Attorney General does proceed in federal court, a criminal information is filed through the local United States Attorney_ The Act mandates a number of procedural requirements including notification of parents, assignment of counsel, and a speedy trial (§§5033, 5034, 5036). Section 5035 entitled "Detention Prior to Disposition" reads as follows: A juvenile alleged to be delinquent may be detained only in a juvenile facility or such other suitable place

Load more