Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
135839554
label
JGR/Testimony Approval (03/06/1984-03/15/1984)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135839554
contentType
document
title
JGR/Testimony Approval (03/06/1984-03/15/1984)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
485
collections
Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)
John Roberts' Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
135839554
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1986-12-31
year
1986
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1982-01-01
year
1982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
4fc51cd4bc32b16b
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Roberts, John G.: Files
Folder Title: JGR/Testimony Approval
(03/06/1984-03/15/1984)
Box: 54
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 6, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS)
SUBJECT:
Statement of Al Regnery Concerning
DOJ's Proposals to Reauthorize the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act, on March 7, 1984
We have been provided with a copy of testimony that Al
Regnery, Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), proposes to deliver on
March 7 before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the
House Committee on Education and Labor. The first part of
the testimony reviews the activities and projects funded by
OJJDP in FY 1983. The remainder of the testimony is
identical to that Regnery proposes to deliver before Senator
Specter's Subcommittee on March 8. As I noted in my
memorandum for you on that testimony, Regnery announces the
Administration's opposition to reauthorization of the JJDP
Act. Regnery argues that the Act has not reduced
delinquency and has in fact had unintended deleterious
consequences. The testimony will be very controversial, but
I see no reason to second-guess the policy judgments behind
the decision not to reauthorize the Act or OJJDP.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 6, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR BRAD CATES
SPECIAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING Orig. signed by FFF
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Statement of Al Regnery Concerning
DOJ's Proposals to Reauthorize the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act, on March 7, 1984
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced testimony,
and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective. Note,
however, that I believe this policy decision and proposal not
to reauthorize the Act will be very controversial.
CC: Richard G. Darman
FFF: JGR:kcf 3/6/84v
I
CC: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
ID #.
CU
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o . OUTGOING
H . INTERNAL
I . INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent: Brad Cates
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Statement of Affred Begnery concerning
DOJ's proposals to veauthorize the Juvenili
Justice and Delingnency Prevention Act on
March 7, 1984
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
CUHOLL
ORIGINATOR 54,03,05
/
/
Referral Note:
WAT 18
E-PRIDE
584,03106
Referral Note:
noon
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A . Appropriate Action
I . Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C Comment/Recommendation
R - Direct Reply w/Copy
B . Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S . For Signature
F - Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments:
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
Assistant Attorney General
Legislative Affairs
March 5, 1984
To: Greg Jones
Legislative Reference Div.
OMB
From: Brad Cates
Special Counsel, Office of
Intergovernmental Affairs
Enclosed you will find the state-
ment of Alfred S. Regnery, Administr
tor, OJJDP, before the House Sub-
committee on Human Resources con-
cerning the activities of the OJJDP
and DOJ's proposals to reauthorize
OFFICE the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act on March 7, 1984.
Please review and notify me regardir
REVENTION
clearance as soon as possible.
cc:
Fred Fielding
Counsel to the President
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
MARCH 7, 1984
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present on behalf of the
Department of Justice information regarding the activities of the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and
to present the Department's views concerning proposals to
reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(JJDP) Act.
As you know, OJJDP provides assistance to states and
localities for juvenile justice activities in three ways:
Formula Grants to the states; Special Emphasis funds to public
and private agencies; and the dissemination of information and
training resources of the National Institute for Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention.
Formula Grants
During Fiscal Year (FY) 1983, 46 states and five territories
(Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Trust Territories, the Virgin
Islands, and Northern Marianas) received Formula Grant awards
totalling $42,095,000. State and territorial allocations were
based on the population of juveniles (under 18 years of age).
The minimum allocation to each state was $225,000; Puerto Rico
received $921,000 and the other territories each received
$56,250.
The deinstitutionalization of status offenders and the
separation of juveniles from adult offenders in jails and
correctional facilities has been a major emphasis of the state
programs with a goal of the complete removal of juveniles from
adult jails and lock-ups by December, 1985. Participating states
and territories also were encouraged to invest up to 30% of the
Formula Grant funds in special efforts to deal with serious,
violent juvenile offenders. Fifty-one states and territories
have met special requirements of the enabling Act by
demonstrating substantial or full compliance with the
deinstitutionalization of status offenders; 34 states have
complied with the requirements for the separation of adults and
juveniles in adult jails and lock-ups. Most of the remainder are
making progress. The appendix hereto describes that progress in
detail.
Technical Assistance
More than 250 instances of technical assistance and more
than 1,200 workhours were provided to state and local agencies
during FY 1983 by the office. Assistance was in a number of
areas, but emphasis was upon alternatives to the juvenile justice
system, removing juveniles from adult jails, serious and violent
juvenile crime, the Foster Grandparent Program, restitution and
delinquency prevention.
The Office continued a previous agreement with the Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center located in Georgia for seminars
addressed to law enforcement administrators on current issues in
juvenile justice and on the presentation of modern police
management strategies to improve police juvenile services. This
fiscal year, 15 seminars were held with approximately 375 law
enforcement administrators in attendance.
- 2 -
Special Emphasis
A number of new programs were initiated by the Special
Emphasis Division in FY 1983. These included:
Serial Child Murders Information System. This is the
initial phase of a program designed to establish a
national missing or abducted persons and serial murder
tracking and prevention program. It will develop a
comprehensive criminal justice tracking, pattern
recognition and investigative assistance mechanism to
trace and locate missing and/or abducted juveniles. Funds
for this program are being provided by the National
Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Suppression of Drug Distribution to Juveniles. Under this
program, five law enforcement agencies will establish a
structured law enforcement effort focused on serious crime
perpetrated by juvenile drug users, to reduce crime
frequency and drug procurement by juveniles and to
increase identification, arrest, conviction and
incarceration of drug pushers whose clients are primarily
juveniles.
Habitual Serious Juvenile Offenders. This is an
experimental program to control and provide treatment to
that small percentage of offenders who commit a
disproportionately large share of juvenile crimes. Grants
will be made directly to prosecutors in 13 major cities
across the country.
- 3 -
New projects funded in FY 1983 include:
Delinquency Prevention and Runaway Children: Covenant
House of New York will provide crisis care services to
runaway and homeless youth through two new emergency
crisis intervention centers.
Project Helping Hand: This will continue the development
of the successful "Wing Spread" diversion program
operating in California. The purpose of this project is
to provide jobs, in business and industry, to delinquent
youth.
Private Sector Corrections: We are presently in the midst
of a competitive process which will culminate in the
funding of several new, privately-run, alternative
correctional facilities for serious juvenile offenders.
The projects will be intensively evaluated to determine
their success with such offenders, and to determine their
cost effectiveness.
A number of programs also have been continued in 1983.
Project New Pride provides comprehensive community-based
treatment for serious offenders. It reduces recidivism,
increases school and social achievement, and provides employment
opportunities. Four projects have received a final year of
funding, to allow refinement of program models prior to
development of a marketing plan. New Pride included 996
participants as of February, 1983, who averaged 7.8 prior
offenses, 4.6 of them sustained by the time of their admission to
- 4 -
the program. Nearly half were school dropouts.
The Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, the
program evaluators, found that New Pride participants were
responsible for 25% less crime than a similar group. Over 70%
now attend school, and unexcused absences were reduced by half.
The Violent Juvenile Offender Program is a major research
and development effort with two parts: Part I tests a specific
intervention approach for the treatment and reintegration of
adjudicated violent juvenile offenders. Phase II tests the
capability of neighborhood organizations to reduce violent and
serious juvenile crime. While it is too early to have definitive
program results, Part I juveniles have begun to show significant
educational achievement and social adjustment compared to their
counterparts in the control group. Part II projects are now
under way and are gathering data for establishing program
priorities and developing crime prevention action plans.
Restitution by Juvenile Offenders also will be continued,
with training and technical assistance provided to practitioners
wishing to establish or improve a restitution program.
One Alternative Education project received funding this
year, and in 1983, Special Emphasis Division funds were used to
continue the Close-Up project.
National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention
During FY 1983, the Institute supported 23 training projects
carried out by specialized public and private organizations and
institutions concerned with improving juvenile justice.
- 5 -
Approximately 2,500 juvenile court judges and other court-related
management personnel as well as juvenile service professionals,
educators, administrators of juvenile correctional institutions
and community-based alternative programs, law enforcement
personnel, and people associated with employment and family
counseling programs participated in the training.
More than $2,000,000 was awarded to eight information
collection/dissemination projects. The National Criminal Justice
Reference Service responded to approximately 3,500 written and
oral information requests from researchers, judges, legislators,
and others involved in the criminal justice field. While the
focus is on improving the operations of the juvenile justice
system through the provision of training and information
dissemination, emphasis also was placed on training and informing
juvenile justice professionals in the habitual serious and
violent juvenile offender problem. The wide range of training
and information dissemination efforts supported by the Office has
become nationally recognized and has had great influence upon the
juvenile justice community.
Ten regional seminars held across the country provided
training to approximately 300 correctional administrators,
judges, and court personnel in the judicial, legislative, and
administrative application of standards. In addition, support
was given to develop model policies and procedures for the
operation of juvenile detention facilities.
Analysis of the national Uniform Crime Reports and National
Crime Survey data show that juvenile involvement in serious crime
- 6 -
has stabilized and slightly declined since the mid-1970's. There
is some evidence, however, that it has increased in frequency and
seriousness in some urban areas.
Recent research sponsored by the Institute indicates that
relatively few juvenile offenders continue criminal behavior as
adults, although the more serious their crimes, the more likely
they are to continue their criminal careers as adults. However,
research also has confirmed that a small number of these youths
do become habitual offenders--career criminals-- who are
responsible for the majority of serious and violent crimes
through late teenage years and early adulthood. This knowledge
dictated a policy of focusing a large share of office and
Institute resources on finding effective ways of dealing with
this population. A variety of programs for these youths are
being developed and tested. These include more intensive
prosecution, better crime analysis on this part of law
enforcement, comprehensive diagnostic assessment, continuous case
management, a system of graduated sanctions, from secure custody
to intensive supervision in the community, and intensively
supervised reintegration. Restitution, one type of sanction,
continues to have as much support from professionals, the
research community, and the public, as any other type of
sanction.
Reauthorization
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Administration does not
support reauthorization of the JJDP Act. Those functions of the
office which have proven to be worthwhile and successful, in
- 7 -
addition to the missing children aspects of the bill before you,
would be carried forth instead by the proposed Office of Justice
Assistance. Other functions of the JJDP Act have been adequately
tested, we believe, to indicate whether they either work or do
not; those activities that have demonstrated their effectiveness
can be continued and funded by state and local governments, if
they so desire. Other functions of the office which have proven
to be counterproductive should no longer be funded by the federal
government. In all cases, we believe that the programs of the
sort required by the JJDP Act should not be mandated to the
states.
Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders
One of the primary purposes of the Act was to
deinstitutionalize status offenders (those juveniles whose
offenses would not be offenses were they adults), diverting them
from the judicial system and out of secure detention facilities
and into community-based, non-judicial settings.
Deinstitutionalization of status offenders has largely been
accomplished as a result of the JJDP Act, at least to the extent
that juvenile status offenders are now only rarely held in secure
detention facilities. The effects of deinstitutionalization, as
I will indicate later in my testimony, are not as positive.
+
Forty-six states and the District of Columbia now
participate in the JJDP Act by, among other things,
deinstitutionalizing their status offenders in order to get JJDP
Act money, in accordance with Section 223 (a) (12) (A) and (B) of
the Act. Each of these states has submitted a plan and submits
- 8 -
annual reports to my office containing a review of its progress
made to achieve deinstitutionalization. The other four states,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Nevada, indicate at the
present time no desire to participate in the Act.
We believe that the states which now participate in the
program will continue to deinstitutionalize without the federal
government's money, and will be able to do so more successfully
without the unyielding and strict requirements of federal law.
Each state has a different set of circumstances and, without the
need to comply with federal mandates, will be able to adjust its
programs to meet its own local problems and conditions. Since
the funds OJJDP provides to states are insufficient to cover the
full cost of deinstitutionalization, the individual states must
have shown a commitment to deinstitutionalize status offenders in
order to participate in the program. More than federal money, in
other words, was required for the states to join the program;
with the relatively small amount of OJJDP money going to each
state, there is no reason to believe that the states will now
retreat from their commitment, with the exception of perhaps
amending the statutes to more nearly conform to local conditions.
The JJDP Act also provides that in order to participate in
the program, delinquent juveniles shall not be held in
institutions in which they have regular contact with adults.
Section 223 (a) (13). Those states participating in the program
have made sufficient progress under this section to deem these
separation requirements an almost total success.
In 1980, the JJDP Act was amended to mandate that, beginning
- 9 -
in 1985, no state participating in the program may detain
juveniles in jails or lock-ups for adults. Section 223 (a)
(14). Because this mandate is not fully in place, it is not
possible to report precisely what each state has done. However,
OJJDP, through its state representatives, does monitor the
states' progress and is generally aware of whether each state
would be able to be in compliance by 1985 in the event the Act
were reauthorized. See Appendices A and B for a summary of
states' compliance with Section 223 (a) (12), (13) and (14).
Again, because of the relatively small amount of federal
money involved, the states are not undertaking the jail removal
requirements because of federal money, but because they believe
it is the right thing to do. Those that have adopted the
philosophy of the Act will continue this mandate without the
federal government telling them to do so; those which cannot, or
do not wish to, carry out this mandate may cease participation in
the program. We believe that the states will be able to perform
these functions better, in fact, without the federal mandates,
because the state legislatures will be able to respond more
creatively to their own individual problems.
Impact of Deinstitutionalization
Because the Act places such emphasis on
deinstitutionalization, and because one of the purposes of the
mandate, when the statute was passed, was to reduce criminality
among juveniles, it is worthwhile to examine the impact
deinstitutionalization has had on recidivism.
- 10 -
We have done so by commissioning a study, done by the
American Justice Institute, which reviews virtually all existing
empirical studies on deinstitutionalization. These independent
findings are startling. They show that comparisons of
deinstitutionalized status offenders and non-deinstitutionalized
status offenders generally show no differences in recidivism. Of
the fourteen programs in which recidivism rates could be
compared, no differences were found in eight, in three, the
deinstitutionalized status offenders did better, and in three,
they did worse.
Further, although commitment of status offenders to public
correctional institutions has declined since the beginning of the
federal effort in 1974, it has not been ended, and there has been
a substantial increase in commitments to private correctional
institutions.
We have found that both of the major strategies for reducing
or eliminating the secure confinement of status offenders
(developing alternative programs or issuing absolute prohibitions
against confinement) produced unintended side effects. Many
jurisdictions that developed alternatives without prohibiting
confinement experienced "net widening" effects in which the
alternative programs were used mainly for juveniles who
previously had been handled on an informal basis and the status
offenders who previously had been detained continued to be held
in secure facilities. Additionally, the absolute prohibitions
against confinement produced changes in the use of discretion
(popularly termed "relabeling") which resulted in many of the
- 11 -
cases that previously might have been treated as status offenses
being handled as minor offenses. Worse, in some of the
jurisdictions which prohibited confinement, we have found that
law enforcement officers and the agencies responsible for
delivery of services on a voluntary basis simply were not dealing
with these youths at all and that those most in need of services
were not receiving them.
What has been the impact of the removal of services, and the
removal of the ability of local jurisdictions to hold certain
status offenders in secure facilities? Although hard data is
scanty and difficult to find, in at least one area it appears the
Act may have done more harm than good. That area involves
runaways -- one of the most frequently committed of the status
offenses.
In 1975, the year after the JJDP Act was passed, the Opinion
Research Corporation concluded that some 700,000 children ran
away from home each year. Today, however, nine years later, the
Health and Human Resources Department estimates that number may
be 1.3 million, nearly twice as high. Yet in 1975 there were
29.5 million teenagers, and today there are 3.5 million fewer, or
26 million.
The effect of the JJDP Act on runaway youth has been to
effectively emancipate them, or to allow those who would leave
home a free hand. It has inhibited, for all intents and
purposes, the law enforcement system from dealing with and
attempting to control runaway youth --- a law enforcement system
which may have had some faults, but also provided troubled youth
- 12 -
with services and assistance.
In many jurisdictions, deinstitutionalization has encouraged
and even forced authorities to neglect runaway and homeless
children. In this country's toughest urban centers,
deinstitutionalization has meant, not transferring youths from
reform schools to caring environments, but releasing them to the
exploitation of the street.
The 1974 Act and its amendments make it virtually impossible
for state and local authorities to detain status offenders in
secure facilities for more than a few days, or in some instances,
hours. In the case of runaways, that prohibition is too
extreme. In some situations, secure settings - not jails - are
necessary to protect these children from an environment they
cannot control and often are unable to resist. The costs of such
a policy to those children - and to society generally - are too
great to continue.
A study recently conducted in Florida on runaways concluded
that of those children who stay away from home for more than two
weeks, 75% will be supporting themselves within that two week
period, by theft, drugs, prostitution, and pornography -- in
other words, by crime. Many are arrested and enter the judicial
system no longer as status offenders, but as criminal offenders
-- often for crimes that they were virtually forced to commit in
order to survive. In many cases by providing services to them at
an early stage, the law enforcement system could help these
children return home, thereby preventing subsequent criminality.
By no means do all runaway or homeless children need closed
- 13 -
programs. We fully endorse the views of such experts as Father
Bruce Ritter who runs the Covenant House in New York City, who
believe that those children living on the street most likely to
be helped are those who recognize they need help and who turn to
and remain at voluntary facilities.
But what do we do for the thirteen year old runaway girl,
living on the street, selling her body, who is repeatedly
returned to her parents or a voluntary foster setting, and who
repeatedly runs back to the street? In some cases, according to
many experts who have dealt with the problem at first hand, the
only answer is being able to use secure confinement, again not
for punishment, but for treatment. As Father Ritter who has
probably had more experience with runaway children than virtually
anyone else in the country, says:
"A thirteen year old girl is pimp bait. She'll be
lucky if she survives to her fifteenth year. If she does
survive to her fifteenth year, she'll be no good to anyone,
including herself. I don't think you can let a fifteen year
old girl wander loose and I don't think the state has the right
to say 'we're going to wash our hands'
"Sometimes kids are so out of control and incapable of
making an informed, mature decision in their best interest that
adults have to make that decision for them. It is criminal not
to. But once you make that decision to place a child in a
closed program, you have got to make the equally difficult
decision to make sure it is a good one."
The 1974 Act and its amendments erred by specifying too
strictly the ways in which state and local authorities could
handle the status offender problem. By imposing the same
standard in every state, we may have helped the states begin the
process of deinstitutionalizing, but in a manner sufficiently
unyielding as to make matters worse. By now lifting federal
- 14 -
restrictions, we believe that state law will be adjusted to meet
the specific problems of each state, but without returning to the
old system of jailing status offenders.
Delinquency Prevention
OJJDP has, in the past years, directed a considerable amount
of its resources to delinquency prevention. Delinquency
prevention is a process that involves schools, families,
communities, neighborhoods, churches, and community-based
organizations -- areas where it is difficult for the Department
of Justice in particular, and the federal government generally,
to make a difference. Delinquency prevention is made up of those
things which are good for youth in general -- things which the
federal government will do in any case, under names other than
delinquency prevention. Accordingly, we find more than thirty
different bureaus and offices in the federal government which
engage in, as they are broadly defined, delinquency prevention
activities with expenditures of billions of dollars.
The delinquency prevention programs OJJDP has supported in
the past have done little to prevent delinquency. In a major
evaluation of the Office's delinquency prevention activity, the
National Council on Crime and Delinquency, in The National
Evaluation of Delinquency Prevention: Final Report (1981), came
to this discouraging conclusion after looking at over sixty
different programs that the Office had funded:
"Data from this national study together with past research
suggest that the idea of preventing delinquency remains
excessively ambitious if not pretentious. There is a large gap
between policy makers' hopes and what can be accomplished by
- 15 -
prevention programs funded under this broad notion. As yet,
social scientists have not isolated the causes of juvenile
delinquency, but even if they were known it is not obvious that
anything could be done about them. Many writers would agree
that delinquency is generally associated with the growth of
industrialism and social trends (e.g., poverty and racism) of
such scope and complexity that they cannot easily be sorted out
and remedied
Given this perspective on delinquency it
becomes fruitless or even naive to believe that highly
generalized and often unclear directives to introduce
prevention programs into heterogeneous target areas can curtail
delinquency.'
We believe that federal delinquency prevention programs
based on social service activities should be housed in
departments other than the Department of Justice, such as the
Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of
Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and
the ACTION agency. Those aspects of juvenile delinquency
appropriately addressed by the criminal justice system, and
therefore suited to the Department of Justice, should be funded
through the Office of Justice Assistance.
Serious Juvenile Crime
Juveniles commit some 35% of all serious crime in the United
States, and some 20% of all violent crime. Although the
percentage is slightly lower than it was ten years ago, arrest
rates for juveniles, as a percentage of the juvenile population,
remains about the same.
Juvenile crime is, and is increasingly treated by the states
as, a criminal justice issue. Accordingly, programs to assist
juvenile courts, as well as criminal courts, in dealing with the
issue of juvenile crime could be more efficiently sponsored
through the Office of Justice Assistance, as part of its
consolidated criminal justice assistance responsibilities, than
- 16 -
through a separate office which deals only with juveniles.
Most serious and chronic juvenile offenders go on to become
adult criminals, and most adult chronic offenders were offenders
when they were juveniles. The states now treat chronic
offenders, whether they be juveniles or adults, in a similar
manner much more than heretofore. The result is that such
offenders are increasingly in the same law enforcement system,
the same court system, and even the same correctional system.
Having a separate juvenile justice office within the Department
of Justice to address only those parts of the system which deal
with juveniles is an artificial distinction which often
duplicates services that are provided by other offices within the
Department and forces the Department to act in a less efficient
manner than it otherwise might.
Some may argue that it is wrong for the states to treat
juvenile offfenders as adults. We believe that is an argument
which should be made and resolved in the state legislatures.
Each state is different; each state has a different set of
problems, different statutes, and different legislatures and
constituencies which see things in different ways. We believe
that the genius of the federal system is reflected by the states'
ability to be able to handle their problems in their own way.
The development and implementations of criminal justice policy,
outside of the federal justice system, is one of those state
prerogatives which may be assisted by the federal government but
without federal interference. Assistance which is rendered by
the federal government, such as by the Office of Justice
- 17 -
Assistance, can be beneficial, but should be done without
specific mandates and without the imposition of requirements that
state laws be changed.
In conclusion, we do not dispute that OJJDP has done many
good things during existence, and recognize that it continues to
fund many excellent programs. Nevertheless, we do not believe
its programs warrant continuation of a separate office and the
expenditure of $70 million, particularly in times of restricted
federal budgets. OJJDP, for all of its good programs, has had
little impact on crime. OJJDP has brought a new awareness to the
world of juvenile justice, but that new awareness should now be
carried forth in state and local governments, in the communities,
volunteer groups, and neighborhoods throughout the country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will be pleased to respond to any
questions you or members of the Subcommittee may have.
- 18 -
Appendix A
Summary of Compliance with
Section 223 (a) (12), (13), and (14)
of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
There are 57 states and territories eligible to participate in the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Formula Grant Program.
Currently 53 are participating; the four not participating are Nevada,
North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. According to the most
recently submitted and reviewed State Monitoring Report, the following is
a summary of compliance with Section 223 (a) (12), (13), and (14).
SECTION 223 (a) (12) (A)
Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders and Non-Offenders
A.
Of the 53 participating states, 47 have participated for five or
more years and are thus required to achieve full compliance with
Section 223 (a) (12) (A) of the Act to maintain eligibility for FY 84
Formula Grant funds. Of these 47 states, a determination has been
made that the following 44 states and territories are in full compliance
pursuant to the policy and criteria for full compliance with de minimis
exceptions.
Alabama
Michigan
Alaska
Minnesota
American Samoa
Mississippi
Arizona
Missouri
Arkansas
Montana
California
New Hampshire
Colorado
New Jersey
Connecticut
New Mexico
Delaware
New York
District of Columbia
Oregon
Florida
Pennsylvania
Georgia
Puerto Rico
Guam
Rhode Island
Illinois
South Carolina
Indiana
Tennessee
Iowa
Texas
Kansas
Trust Territories
Kentucky
Vermont
Louisiana
Virginia
Maine
Virgin Islands
Maryland
Washington
Massachusetts
Wisconsin
Three of these 47 states have not to date been found to be in full
compliance with the deinstitutionalization requirement. Those states
are Hawaii, Idaho, and Ohio.
B.
Of the 53 participating states, four must achieve substantial or
better compliance to be eligible for FY 84 Formula Grant funds.
Those states are North Carolina, Northern Marianas, Utah, and West
Virginia. All four have been found in full compliance.
C.
Two of the 53 participating states, Nebraska and Oklahoma, must
demonstrate progress to maintain eligibility for FY 84 funds and each
have done so.
SECTION 223 (a) (13)
Separation of Juveniles and Adult Offenders
There are 39 states which have demonstrated compliance with
Section 223 (a) (13) of the Act. Fourteen other states have reported
progress. Those 39 states which have been found in compliance with the
separation requirements are:
Alabama
Nebraska
American Samoa
New Hampshire
Arizona
New Jersey
Arkansas
New Mexico
Connecticut
New York
Delaware
North Carolina
District of Columbia
Northern Marianas
Florida
Ohio
Georgia
Pennsylvania
Guam
Puerto Rico
Hawaii
Rhode Island
Illinois
South Carolina
Iowa
Texas
Kansas
Utah
Louisiana
Vermont
Maine
Virginia
Maryland
Virgin Islands
Massachusetts
Washington
Michigan
Wisconsin
Minnesota
The 14 states reporting progress are:
Alaska
Missouri
California
Montana
Colorado
Oklahoma
Kentucky
Oregon
Idaho
Tennessee
Indiana
Trust Territories
Mississippi
West Virginia
SECTION 223 (a) (14)
Removal of Juveniles from Adult Jails and Lockups
All participating states and territories must demonstrate full
compliance or substantial compliance (i.e., 75% reduction) with the jail
removal requirement by December 1985. Eligibility for FY 1984 Formula
Grant funds is not dependent upon the states' level of compliance with the
jail removal requirement of Section 223(a)(14). Refer to "Appendix B"
(attached) for information on the number of juveniles held in adult jails and
lockups.
APPENDIX B
The summary of state participation in the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act and compliance with the
deinstitutionalization and separation requirements of Sections 223 (a) (12)
and (13) of the Act is based upon the 1982 monitoring reports which
determined states' eligibility for FY 1984 formula funds (10/1/83 -
9/30/84).
Attached are two fact sheets showing the number of status
offenders and non-offenders held in secure detention and correctional
facilities and the number of juveniles held in regular contact with
incarcerated adult persons. The data presented represents a twelve-month
period and was actual data for some states and projected to cover a
twelve-month period for other states. All current data is that provided as
"current data" in the 1982 monitoring reports. The baseline data for the
number of status offenders and non-offenders held in secure detention and
correctional facilities is that provided as "baseline data" in the 1979
reports. The baseline data for the number of juveniles held in regular
contact with adult offenders is that provided as "baseline data" in the 1981
reports. Only participating states are included in the figures. A fact sheet
showing the number of juveniles held in jails and lock-ups is attached.
However, this data is not projected to cover a twelve-month period.
The nationwide baseline data for the number of status offenders and
non-offenders held in secure detention and correctional facilities was
determined to be 199,341. The nationwide current data showed 22,833
status offenders and non-offenders held in secure detention and
correctional facilities. Thus, by comparing baseline and current data, the
number of status offenders and non-offenders held in secure facilities has
been reduced by 88.5% over the past 5 to 7 years. According to the 1980
census, approximately 62,132,000 juveniles under the age of eighteen reside
in the participating states. Thus, the number of status offenders and non-
offenders currently held computes to a national ratio of 36.7 status
offenders and non-offenders securely held per 100,000 juvenile population
under age 18. This national ratio is in excess of the maximum rate which
an individual state must achieve to be eligible for a finding of full
compliance with the deinstitutionalization requirements of Section 223 (a)
(12) (A) of the JJDP Act, pursuant to OJJDP's policy and criteria for de
minimis exceptions to full compliance. It should also be noted that these
figures do not include those status offenders and non-offenders held less
than 24 hours during weekdays and those held up to an additional 48 hours
(i.e., a maximum of 72 total hours) over the weekend.
The number of juveniles held in regular contact with incarcerated
adults has reduced from 97,847 to 27,552. This computes to a 71.8%
reduction over approximately a five-year period.
Based upon the number of status offenders and non-offenders
currently held in secure facilities, which is a 88.5% reduction in the number
held five or more years ago, and based upon the fact that 48 states and
territories have been found in full compliance with de minimis exceptions,
it is evident that substantial progress has been made in attaining the
deinstitutionalization objective of the Act. However, considering, as
stated above, that status offenders held less than 24 hours are not included
and considering that states can securely hold status offenders at a level
acceptable for a finding of full compliance pursuant to the de minimis
policy, it is also evident that the deinstitutionalization objectives have not
been fully met. It is also noted that OJJDP determines compliance a
statewide aggregate data, thus cities, counties, regions or districts may not
have achieved local compliance in their efforts to deinstitutionalize.
JJDP Act legislation does not require states to be in either
substantial or full compliance to be eligible for FY '84 dollars. The
attached fact sheet on Section 223 (a) (14) shows progress being made at
the national level but not necessarily at the state level. Based upon
individual state reporting periods varying from one month to twelve
months, there appears to be an overall 18.9% reduction in the number of
juveniles held in adult jails and lock-ups. This data does not include those
juveniles who are waivered or those for which criminal charges have been
filed in a court having criminal jurisdiction. This data, also does not
include those juveniles held in adult jails or lock-ups for less than six hours.
Attachments: I, II, III
I
Number of Status Offenders and Non-Offenders Held in Secure Facilities
Baseline
Current
LABAMA
4,836
412
LASKA
485
14
TOTALS
RIZONA
4,410
632
RKANSAS
3,702
0
Baseline
Current
ORNIA
34,216
238
OLORADO
6,123
370
199,341
22,833
CNNECTICUT
699
0
ELAWARE
374
2
IST. OF COLUMBIA
178
4
LORIDA
9,188
22
FORGIA
4,047
432
*A - All Data is 12 month
Amail
681
629
actual or projected to
OMAN
4,188
1,272
cover a 12 month period
LINOIS
5,391
136
DIANA
7,494
438
*B - Baseline data is that
1,204
8
provided as baseline data
ANSAS
3,826
576
in 1979 report.
ENTUCKY
4,849
1.104
UISIANA
3,179
111
*C - Current data is that
LINE
41
0
provided as current data
ARYLAND
857
4
in 1982 report.
RSSACHUSETTS
37
0
RCHIGAN
14,344
35
*D - Nebraska baseline data is
.NNESOTA
6,309
7
that provided as baseline
,,51351mm
1,170
244
data in 1981 report.
issoum,
4,786
366
ONTANA
1.224
85
SBRASKA
546*D
624
FVADA
Not Participating
HAMPSHIRE
200
0
zw JERSEY
217
29
:- MEXICO
2.376
48
w YORK
7.933
2
RTH CAROLINA
2.678
580
JRTM DAKOTA
Not Participating
HIO
16.552
3,099
LAHOMA
No data required
EGON
4,110
71
NNSYLVANIA
3,634
45
HODE ISLAND
1,572
17
,UTH CAROLINA
1,568
184
JUTH DAKOTA
Not Participating
NNESSEE
4,078
2,940
CAAS
4,722
976
AM
2,448
689
RMONT
218
36
RGINIA
6,558
328
SHINGTON
9,600
0
:ST VIRGINIA
627
7
SCONSIN
2,847
136
OMING
Not Participating
ERTO RICO
961
0
ERICAN SAMOA
4
0
AM
228
39
UST TERRITORIES
0
0
IGIN ISLANDS
178
0
MAGIANAS
0
0
AA FORM 6510/1 (REV.
circus
STATE
LISTING
SECTION 223(a)(13)
II
Number of Juveniles Held in Regular Contact With Adults*A
Baseline
*B
Current*B
ALABAMA
3,300
1,104
ALASKA
824
349
TOTALS
*RIZONA
25
0
ANKANSAS
8,724
36
Baseline
Current
ALIF ORNIA
3,041
2,612
OLORADO
4,750
1,537
97,847
27,552
CONNECTICUT
3
2
DELAWARE
0
0
C.IST. OF COLUMBIA
0
0
FLORIDA
1.996
104
GEORGIA
1,769
10
HAWAII
1
0
IDAHO
2.011
?
ILLINOIS
777
3
*A All data is 12 month actu
INDIANA
8,580
235
or projected to cover a
IOWA
1,993
194
12 month period.
KAMSAS
1,716
168
-
UCKY
5,702
5,874
*B Baseline and Current data
-C
:ANA
3,523
180
is that provided as basel
MAINE
1,186
0
and current in 1982 repor
MARYLAND
229
0
MASSACHUSETTS
0
0
*C - Pennsvlvania data is that
MICHIGAN
0
0
provided in 1980 report.
MINNESOTA
3
0
MISSISSIPPI
2.280
108
MISSOURI
3,278
348
MONTANA
1,878
213
NEBRASKA
0
0
NEVADA
Not Participating
:.EW HAMPSHIRE
74
0
riw JERSEY
42
17
:Ew MEXICO
6,696
0
.E YORK
27
0
YORTH CAROLINA
0
0
-ORTH DAKOTA
Not Participating
-10
5,751
480
JKLAHOMA
Not Participating
DREGON
1,798
10
WENNSYLVANIA
3,196*C
14*C
:MODE ISLAND
176
0
SOUTH CAROLINA
3,984
0
SOUTH DAKOTA
Not Participating
TENNESSEE
7,574
9,806
TEXAS
370
0
UTAM
22
449
/ERMONT
0
12
VIRGINIA
5,624
0
WASHINGTON
2,088
0
WEST VIRGINIA
940
12
DISCONSIN
1,857
0
RYOMING
Not Participating
PUERTO RICO
3
0
IMERICAN SAMOA
0
0
,JAM
0
0
t
PUST TERRITORIES
3
2
VIRGIN ISLANDS
13
0
NO. MARIANAS
20
TLE:
STATUS OF STATES RE:
223(a)(14)
Carl W. Hamm, Chief, FG's
2/22/84
III
Baseline
Current
VIOLOLATIONS
Per
YR.
Period
Period
Baseline
Current
Cent
LABAMA
82
1/82 - 3/82
1/83 3/83
295
198
32.8%
LASKA
83
1/76 - 12/76
1/81 12/81
864
787
9 %
RIZONA
82
1/82 - 8/82
1/82 8/82
29
29
0 %
RKANSAS
83
8/82
8/83
ALIFORNIA
82
7/81 6/82
1/82 12/82
4365
5552
No
Progress
OLORADO
83
1/80 12/80
1/82 - 12/82
6112
2070
66 %
ONNECTICUT
83
7/81 6/82
7/82 6/83
0
0
In
Compliance
ELAWARE
83
12/81 9/82
12/82 - 12/83
0
0
In
Complianc
IST. OF COLUMBIA
1/75 12/75
1/83 - 12/83
0
0
In
Complianc
LORIDA
83
1/82 12/82
7/82 6/83
117
45
61.5%
EORGIA
82
9/81 - 8/82
9/81 8/81
130
130
0 %
AWAII
83
10/82 - 10/83
10/82 - 10/83
0
0
Ques
tionable
3aHo
.82
No Date Now
LINOIS
82
4/80 - 6/80
4/82 - 6/82
618
399
35%
NDIANA
82
-
7/82 - 9/82
-
1,782
?
DWA
82
7/81 6/82
7/81 - 6/82
1886
1886
Q
ANSAS
83
2/83
2/83
101
101
0%
ENTUCKY
82
1/82 6/82
1/82 - 6/82
509
509
0%
QUISIANA
83
9/80 8/81
9/82 - 8/83
336
154
54.17%
IAINE
83
1983
1983
0
0
In
Complianc
BARYLAND
82
1/75 12/75
1/82 12/82
229
0
In
Complianc
IASSACHUSETTS
83
0
0
In
Complianc
ICHIGAN
82
1/82 12/82
1/82 12/82
23
23
o
UNNESOTA
82
1/81 12/31
1/82 12/82
1639
533
67%
ISSISSION
83
7/83 - 12/83
7/83 - 12/83
167
107
0%
ISSOURI
82
1/82 12/82
1/82 12/82
768
768
0%
ONTANA
82
1/80 12/80
1/81 12/81
934
760
18%
EBRASKA
83
1/80 - 12/80
1/82 - 12/82
3566
2804
21%
EVADA
NP
EW HAMPSHIRE
83
10/81 11/82
10/82 9/83
0
0
In Complianc
EW JERSEY
83
1/82 - 12/82
1/83 - 12/83
0
0
In
Complianc
EW MEXICO
82
8/75
2/5/ - 8/82
2015
N/A
EW YORK
82
1/75 - 12/75
1/82 - 11/82
?
0
In
Complianc
13RTH CAROLINA
83
8/82 - 10/82
8/83 - 10/83
266
132
50.04%
CRTH DAKOTA
MIO
82
1/82 12/82
1/83 12/83
3741
2657
29%
IKLAHOMA
- Not Required -
REGON
1/75 - 12/75
10/82 9/83
1618
10
99%
PENNSYLVANIA
82
No Information available (exempt)
IMODE ISLAND
82
7/75 - 6/76
12/81 - 11/82
0
0
In
Complianc
OUTH CAROLINA
83
1/82 - 9/82
1/83 - 9/83
1303
1232
5.4%
OUTH DAKOTA
NP
ENNESSEE
82
1/82 - 6/82
1/82 - 6/82
1854
1854
0%
TEXAS
83
Data Not Available
ITAH
83
1/83 12/83
64
0%
ERMONT
82
7/76
7/82
0
0
In
Complianc
FIRGINIA
83
7/79 6/80
7/82 6/83
3578
2075
42%
ASHINGTON
83
1/83 - 6/83
1/83 6/83
237
237
0%
EST VIRGINIA
83
1/80 12/80
1/82 12/83
189
78
39%
DISCONSIN
82
1/80 12/80
1/82 12/82
3741
2657
29%
YOUNG
NP
UERTO RICO
83
12/81 12/82
12/82 - 12/83
38
11
71%
MERICAN SAMOA
83
1/81 -12/81
1/82 - 12/82
0
0
In Complianc
SUAM
83
9/81 9/82
9/82 - 9/83
0
0
In Complienc
TRUST TERRITORIES
83
Not available
351
351
0%
VIRGIN ISLANDS
82
7/81 - 12/81
1/82 12/82
0
0
In Complianc
as
1/83 12/83
19
In Complete
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 12, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR GREGORY JONES
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS SR
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Statement of William R. McGuiness
Concerning H.R. 3498 -- Victim
Compensation, March 14, 1984
Counsel's Office has reviewed the above-referenced testimony,
and finds no objection to it from a legal perspective.
ID # 210809 CU
JVA
Is
WHITE HOUSE
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING WORKSHEET
o . OUTGOING
H INTERNAL
John-durs - dent
I - INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
Name of Correspondent:
Areq June
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Statement of William R. me Guiness
concerning H.R. 3498 itim Congeniation,
mar 14.84
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
WHolland
ORIGINATOR
84,03,08 PY
/
/
WAT18
Referral R Note:
84,03,09
<<2
5 84,03,19
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
I
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A Appropriate Action
I Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C Comment/Recommendation
R - Direct Reply w/Copy
B - Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S - For Signature
F Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments: Greg Janes
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
DRAFT
210809
cu
STATEMENT
OF
WILLIAM R. MCGUINESS
DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BEFORE
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
CONCERNING
H.R. 3498 - VICTIM COMPENSATION
ON
MARCH 14, 1984
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
I appreciate this opportunity to appear today on behalf of
the Department of Justice to discuss H.R. 3498, the Victims of
Crime Act, as well as the Administration's Victims of Crime
Assistance Act. Assistant Attorney General Lois Haight
Herrington will address the substantive provisions of this bill
in detail. Before proceeding to the issue of victim compen-
sation, however, I would like to take just a few moments to
discuss our approach to the larger universe of victim assistance
issues.
On August 17, 1981, the Attorney General's Task Force on
Violent Crime issued its final report. In that report, the Task
Force recognized the pivotal role of victims and witnesses in the
criminal justice system. Among the specific recommendations of
the Task Force was a call for federal standards for the fair
treatment of victims of serious crimes and for a study of victim
compensation programs.
On April 23, 1982, President Reagan signed Executive Order
12360 establishing the President's Task Force on Victims of
Crime. This Task Force, chaired by Lois Herrington, was created
to address the needs of the millions of Americans who are vic-
timized by crime each year. The Task Force heard formal testimo-
ny in six cities, from over 200 witnesses and consulted approxi-
mately 1,000 other experts and victims. The final report of the
2
Task Force, which was submitted in December of 1982, made exten-
sive recommendations for executive and legislative action at the
federal and state levels to improve treatment of, and services
to, crime victims. Specific recommendations contained therein
related to the necessity of federal legislation that would
provide funds for state crime victim compensation and vic-
tim/witness assistance programs.
During the period when the Task Force on Victims of Crime
was conducting its hearings, the Congress commenced deliberations
upon the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982. That measure
enjoyed virtually unanimous support in the Congress and was
quickly approved by the Senate and House. On October 12, 1982,
the President signed the Victims and Witness Protection Act into
law as P.L. 97-291. As you know, the stated purpose of the Act
is to "ensure that the Federal government does all that is
possible within the limits of available resources to assist
victims and witnesses of crime without infringing upon the
constitutional rights of the defendant."
Because of the importance of that Act, the balance of my
remarks will be directed to a brief discussion of its most
significant aspects and the current status of their implementa-
tion by the Department of Justice. Section 3 of the Victim and
Witness Protection Act of 1982 requires the inclusion of a victim
impact statement as part of a presentence report filed pursuant
to Rule 32 (c) (2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
3
Effective March 1, 1983, presentence investigations include an
appropriate section describing the impact of the offense upon the
victim. The primary objective of this provision is to ensure
that information pertaining to the effect of the crime upon its
victims is brought to the attention of the sentencing court.
With regard to Section 4 of the Act, which involves ob-
struction of justice and witness tampering provisions, we have
communicated to the United States Attorneys in the field as well
as to all Department of Justice attorneys the important changes
in the obstruction of justice laws and have provided them with
detailed guidance through the U.S. Attorneys' Manual, as to the
application of these provisions. Significantly, Section 4 of the
Act provides for a civil injunctive remedy to restrain harassment
of victims or witnesses, and Section 8 of the Act makes
non-violation of these intimidation and harassment statutes a
condition of any release on bail. The Criminal Division of the
Department has maintained ongoing supervision of these statutes
to provide necessary advice to prosecutors and to resolve issues
which may arise in the application of those statutes.
The Victim/Witness Guidelines mandated by Section 6 of the
Act were issued on July 9, 1983, by Attorney General William
French Smith. These guidelines entail a significant administra-
tive directive to Department of Justice components with respect
to the delivery of victim services and assistance contemplated by
the Act. The guidelines incorporate all the recommendations in
4
the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 as well as some
proposals of the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime. The
basic approach of the Guidelines is to set out general guidance
as to the rights of victims and witnesses and the obligations of
prosecutors and investigators.
These guidelines apply to all Department of Justice compo-
nents engaged in the detection, investigation or prosecution of
crimes and are intended to apply in all cases in which victims
are adversely affected by criminal conduct or in which witnesses
provide information regarding criminal activity.
The Attorney General's guidelines establish procedures to be
followed in responding to the particular needs of both crime
victims and witnesses. They are intended to ensure that respon-
sible officials, in the exercise of their discretion, treat
victims and witnesses fairly and with understanding. The guide-
lines are also intended to enhance the assistance which victims
and witnesses provide in criminal cases and to assist victims in
recovering from their injuries and losses to the fullest extent
possible, consistent with available resources. Special attention
is directed toward victims and witnesses who have suffered
physical, financial, and emotional trauma as a result of violent
criminal activity. The amount and degree of assistance provided
will, of course, vary with the individual's needs and circum-
stances.
5
These actions were followed, on August 29, 1983, by a set of
comprehensive instructions to all United States Attorneys, issued
by Associate Attorney General D. Lowell Jensen, pertaining to the
implementation of the restitution provision of P.L. 97-291.
Since the restitution provision of the Victim and Witness Pro-
tection Act raised a number of issues relating to the prosecution
of criminal offenses, these instructions sought to address these
outstanding questions and to provide a common Department policy
and approach regarding restitution matters.
Concurrent with the issuance of the Attorney General's
Guidelines, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys distributed
materials to all U.S. Attorneys designed to aid their offices in
meeting the obligations under both the Act and the Guidelines
during the initial phase of implementation. These materials, as
well as internal office procedures, are currently being refined.
In addition, the Administration's FY 1985 budget has requested
$3,090,000 to fund 94 Victim/Witness-LECC coordinator positions
for U.S. Attorneys' Offices. These Victim-Witness coordinators
would help to ensure that the Act and guidelines are implemented
as fully and expeditiously as possible.
To assist prosecutors, victim-witness coordinators, and
other Departmental personnel charged with implementing the Act,
the Department has initiated formal training sessions. The
Attorney General's Advocacy Institute has for some time included
course material directed toward new prosecutors and their
6
responsibilities under the Act. In April, personnel from each
U.S. Attorney's Office, investigative agency and litigating
division will attend a training session designed to address
implementation of the Act. A Technical Assistance Team comprised
of Department attorneys has been designated to visit representa-
tive United States Attorney's Offices in order to fully assess
training needs. Furthermore, the FBI has initiated training of
agents at the FBI Academy in Quantico on this subject and the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, is likewise
developing a program to be included in their training structure.
Finally, the Department of Justice has forwarded to Congress
for consideration the Administration's Victims of Crime
Assistance Act of 1984. As you know, this bill would authorize
federal financial assistance to state victim compensation pro-
grams and would improve the assistance offered by every level of
government and the private sector to victims of crime.
Assistant Attorney General Lois Haight Herrington will
address the specific provisions of the bill and compare that
proposal with H.R. 3498. I appreciate this opportunity to
address the Committee.
DRAFT
STATEMENT
OF
WILLIAM R. MCGUINESS
DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BEFORE
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
CONCERNING
H.R. 3498 - VICTIM COMPENSATION
ON
MARCH 14, 1984
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
I appreciate this opportunity to appear today on behalf of
the Department of Justice to discuss H.R. 3498, the Victims of
Crime Act, as well as the Administration's Victims of Crime
Assistance Act. Assistant Attorney General Lois Haight
Herrington will address the substantive provisions of this bill
in detail. Before proceeding to the issue of victim compen-
sation, however, I would like to take just a few moments to
discuss our approach to the larger universe of victim assistance
issues.
On August 17, 1981, the Attorney General's Task Force on
Violent Crime issued its final report. In that report, the Task
Force recognized the pivotal role of victims and witnesses in the
criminal justice system. Among the specific recommendations of
the Task Force was a call for federal standards for the fair
treatment of victims of serious crimes and for a study of victim
compensation programs.
On April 23, 1982, President Reagan signed Executive Order
12360 establishing the President's Task Force on Victims of
Crime. This Task Force, chaired by Lois Herrington, was created
to address the needs of the millions of Americans who are vic-
timized by crime each year. The Task Force heard formal testimo-
ny in six cities, from over 200 witnesses and consulted approxi-
mately 1,000 other experts and victims. The final report of the
2
Task Force, which was submitted in December of 1982, made exten-
sive recommendations for executive and legislative action at the
federal and state levels to improve treatment of, and services
to, crime victims. Specific recommendations contained therein
related to the necessity of federal legislation that would
provide funds for state crime victim compensation and vic-
tim/witness assistance programs.
During the period when the Task Force on Victims of Crime
was conducting its hearings, the Congress commenced deliberations
upon the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982. That measure
enjoyed virtually unanimous support in the Congress and was
quickly approved by the Senate and House. On October 12, 1982,
the President signed the Victims and Witness Protection Act into
law as P.L. 97-291. As you know, the stated purpose of the Act
is to "ensure that the Federal government does all that is
possible within the limits of available resources to assist
victims and witnesses of crime without infringing upon the
constitutional rights of the defendant."
Because of the importance of that Act, the balance of my
remarks will be directed to a brief discussion of its most
significant aspects and the current status of their implementa-
tion by the Department of Justice. Section 3 of the Victim and
Witness Protection Act of 1982 requires the inclusion of a victim
impact statement as part of a presentence report filed pursuant
to Rule 32 (c) (2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
3
Effective March 1, 1983, presentence investigations include an
appropriate section describing the impact of the offense upon the
victim. The primary objective of this provision is to ensure
that information pertaining to the effect of the crime upon its
victims is brought to the attention of the sentencing court.
With regard to Section 4 of the Act, which involves ob-
struction of justice and witness tampering provisions, we have
communicated to the United States Attorneys in the field as well
as to all Department of Justice attorneys the important changes
in the obstruction of justice laws and have provided them with
detailed guidance through the U.S. Attorneys' Manual, as to the
application of these provisions. Significantly, Section 4 of the
Act provides for a civil injunctive remedy to restrain harassment
of victims or witnesses, and Section 8 of the Act makes
non-violation of these intimidation and harassment statutes a
condition of any release on bail. The Criminal Division of the
Department has maintained ongoing supervision of these statutes
to provide necessary advice to prosecutors and to resolve issues
which may arise in the application of those statutes.
The Victim/Witness Guidelines mandated by Section 6 of the
Act were issued on July 9, 1983, by Attorney General William
French Smith. These guidelines entail a significant administra-
tive directive to Department of Justice components with respect
to the delivery of victim services and assistance contemplated by
the Act. The guidelines incorporate all the recommendations in
4
the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 as well as some
proposals of the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime. The
basic approach of the Guidelines is to set out general guidance
as to the rights of victims and witnesses and the obligations of
prosecutors and investigators.
These guidelines apply to all Department of Justice compo-
nents engaged in the detection, investigation or prosecution of
crimes and are intended to apply in all cases in which victims
are adversely affected by criminal conduct or in which witnesses
provide information regarding criminal activity.
The Attorney General's guidelines establish procedures to be
followed in responding to the particular needs of both crime
victims and witnesses. They are intended to ensure that respon-
sible officials, in the exercise of their discretion, treat
victims and witnesses fairly and with understanding. The guide-
lines are also intended to enhance the assistance which victims
and witnesses provide in criminal cases and to assist victims in
recovering from their injuries and losses to the fullest extent
possible, consistent with available resources. Special attention
is directed toward victims and witnesses who have suffered
physical, financial, and emotional trauma as a result of violent
criminal activity. The amount and degree of assistance provided
will, of course, vary with the individual's needs and circum-
stances.
5
These actions were followed, on August 29, 1983, by a set of
comprehensive instructions to all United States Attorneys, issued
by Associate Attorney General D. Lowell Jensen, pertaining to the
implementation of the restitution provision of P.L. 97-291.
Since the restitution provision of the Victim and Witness Pro-
tection Act raised a number of issues relating to the prosecution
of criminal offenses, these instructions sought to address these
outstanding questions and to provide a common Department policy
and approach regarding restitution matters.
Concurrent with the issuance of the Attorney General's
Guidelines, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys distributed
materials to all U.S. Attorneys designed to aid their offices in
meeting the obligations under both the Act and the Guidelines
during the initial phase of implementation. These materials, as
well as internal office procedures, are currently being refined.
In addition, the Administration's FY 1985 budget has requested
$3,090,000 to fund 94 Victim/Witness-LECC coordinator positions
for U.S. Attorneys' Offices. These Victim-Witness coordinators
would help to ensure that the Act and guidelines are implemented
as fully and expeditiously as possible.
To assist prosecutors, victim-witness coordinators, and
other Departmental personnel charged with implementing the Act,
the Department has initiated formal training sessions. The
Attorney General's Advocacy Institute has for some time included
course material directed toward new prosecutors and their
6
responsibilities under the Act. In April, personnel from each
U.S. Attorney's Office, investigative agency and litigating
division will attend a training session designed to address
implementation of the Act. A Technical Assistance Team comprised
of Department attorneys has been designated to visit representa-
tive United States Attorney's Offices in order to fully assess
training needs. Furthermore, the FBI has initiated training of
agents at the FBI Academy in Quantico on this subject and the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, is likewise
developing a program to be included in their training structure.
Finally, the Department of Justice has forwarded to Congress
for consideration the Administration's Victims of Crime
Assistance Act of 1984. As you know, this bill would authorize
federal financial assistance to state victim compensation pro-
grams and would improve the assistance offered by every level of
government and the private sector to victims of crime.
Assistant Attorney General Lois Haight Herrington will
address the specific provisions of the bill and compare that
proposal with H.R. 3498. I appreciate this opportunity to
address the Committee.