by this standard, a specific mechanism is not mandated. States should mandate this evaluation process by statute. See Report of the Task Force, supra at Standard 25.1 and Commentary. This standard leaves to the states determination of the appropriate division of operations between the state and local agencies involved. The state agency, in conjunction with local planning authorities, should allocate a specific percentage of financial and technical resources for the evaluation process, and should provide a mechanism for the distribution of such resources. Cf. Report of the Task Force, Standard 2.3 and Commentary.

The state agency should seek out local planning authorities and state advisory committees in order to involve all members of affected state, local, public and private groups, and interested private citizens, in decision making regarding the evaluation process.

Related Standards

1.114 Evaluation and Modification of the Local Juvenile Service System Program Efforts

1.126 Office of Youth Advocate

The state government should establish an executive office of youth advocate with the responsibility for investigating and reporting misfeasance and malfeasance within the juvenile service system, inquiring into areas of concern, and conducting periodic audits of the juvenile service system to ascertain its effectiveness and compliance with established responsibilities.

The office of the youth advocate should have the authority to: a. Examine all records pertaining to the juvenile service system;

b. Subpoena witnesses and hold public hearings;

c. Issue reports to the governor, legislature, family court, and the director of the agency under consideration; d. Recommend revocation of federal and state funding

and/or state certification;

e. Initiate legal action to obtain compliance with the recommendations; and

f. Publish its findings and recommendations on an annual basis for the general public.

emphasize program description rather than program implementation and evaluation, and as a result there are more "paper programs" than actual ones; (2) such agencies are usually dominated by one particular profession, the concerns of which are often more "territorially dominated" than youth oriented; and (3) such agencies often over diagnose and over classify youth as a method for excluding them from particular services. See Report to the President, supra at 390.

By establishing a single youth advocate office, this standard could ensure the setting of standards and specific goals to be achieved by the state's juvenile service system. The goals of such an office should include (1) ensuring a proper and nourishing environment for children; (2) strengthening the family by unifying a community's social services; (3) improving and strengthening child and family services; (4) providing basic services to individual youth in need of such services; and (5) working for legislation, judicial, and administrative change to improve the system. See Report to the President, supra at 390. See also R. Kobetz and B. Bosarge, Juvenile Justice Administration, 450 (International Associa

Source:

See generally White House Conference on Children, Report to the President (1970) [hereinafter cited as Report to the President]; National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Report of the Task Force on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Standard 2.3 (1976) [hereinafter cited as Report of the Task Force].

Commentary

This standard recommends that the state government establish a single executive Office of Youth Advocacy. Although some programs currently function as youth advocates, the range of services is too scattered and random to effectively meet the special needs of youth. See generally Report to the President, supra at 389-397 (1970); and Report of the Task Force, supra.

Several biases have been observed in present youth advocacy programs, and such programs as presently constituted have been charged with creating more disarray than responses to problems in the juvenile service system. See Report to the President, supra. The biases that have been noted are (1) present youth advocacy agencies tend to

be furthered by an Office of Youth Advocacy.

The Office would be principally responsible for serving as a centralized advocate for youth to maximize services through existing community-based facilities. See Report of the Task Force, supra at Standard 2.3. In addition to remedying current biases in the juvenile service system and setting more relevant goals for these systems, an Office of Youth Advocacy could remedy the lack of accountability now evident in the scattered agencies. See Report to the President, supra at 390. These agencies currently lack accountability to the very persons they were set up to serve-juveniles. All youth, in part because of the legal incapacities imposed by their status as children, require skilled and conscienctious advocates. By empowering the Office of Youth Advocacy with the ability to initiate legal action, hold hearings, publish findings, etc., this standard attempts to ensure that children and their special concerns will not be forgotten by the community or the legislature. See Report of the Task Force, supra at Commentary to Standard 2.3. The present lack of accountability to the community would be diminished because the Office of Youth Advocacy would be directly accountable to the governor of the state. See Report of the Task Force, supra at Commentary to Standard 2.3.

This standard gives the Office of Youth Advocacy authority to examine all juvenile records, to subpoena witnesses, and to hold public hearings. See paragraphs (a) and (b) of this standard. This authority will enable the office freely to probe

allegations of deficiencies and illegality within the juvenile service system, and should minimize the ability of agencies to impede the investigation of complaints. Consistent with the authority conveyed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this standard, the office should be responsible for knowing the functions of all relevant state agencies to reveal areas in which such agencies inadequately serve juveniles and to work for improvements. Accord, Report to the President, supra at 392.

remain a strong advocate for children. See Report of the Task Force, supra at Standard 2.3 and Commentary; see also Report to the President, supra at 392. This ability to recommend elimination of funding, supplemented by the ability to bring lawsuits, gives the Office of Youth Advocacy a unique capacity and potency to act quickly to remedy urgent and profound conditions which disserve juveniles and which abridge the letter or spirit of the law.

1.121 Organization of the State Juvenile Service System 4.82 Ombudsmen Programs

1.13 Federal-Level
Participation

1.131 Organization and
Coordination of the
Federal Juvenile Service
System

The Federal Government, through an executive agency responsible for juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, should:

a. Plan, organize, and coordinate all juvenile services relating to juvenile justice and delinquency prevention at the federal level; and

b. Coordinate all federal funds in direct support for juvenile justice and delinquency prevention.

Sources:

See generally National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Report of the Task Force on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Standards 2.4, 2.5, 2.8, and 2.9 (1976) [hereinafter cited as Report of the Task Force]; Institute of Judicial Administration/American Bar Association Joint Commission on Juvenile Justice Standards, Standards Relating to Planning for Juvenile Justice, Standards 1.2 and 4.1 (tentative draft, 1977) [hereinafter cited as IJA/ABA, Planning for Juvenile Justice]; Report of the White House Conference on Youth, 7.22a (2) and 7.23a (1971).

Commentary

This standard recommends that the Federal Government should establish an executive agency responsible for providing the leadership, coordination and resources necessary to increase the capacity of state and local governments and public and private agencies to conduct effective juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs, research, evaluation, and training services.

The current fragmentation of the juvenile service system and the proliferation of agencies responsible for portions of services delivered to juveniles and their families is often the result of attempts by states and local communities to meet the requirements of the many varied federal programs. It is this resultant tangle of state and local agencies, boards, and offices

with overlapping responsibilities and inconsistent policies for care and treatment of children which necessitates consolidation of the federal funding process and reduction of federal organizational fragmentation. See generally Report of the Task Force, supra at Commentary to Standard 2.4; IJA/ ABA, Planning for Juvenile Justice, supra at Commentary to Standard 4.1 (e).

The Federal Government has largely relied on a variety of antipoverty, social and welfare, education, and employment programs to help improve and upgrade the standard of living, and at the same time hopefully attack the root causes of juvenile delinquency.

Specific efforts to address the juvenile delinquency problem have been limited to either planning and funding programs outside the justice system or programs within the justice system. They have not been used in conjunction with each other because of the legislation of the federal agencies involved. No effective mechanism has been developed for planning and funding programs and projects across functional lines. General Accounting Office, How Federal Efforts to Coordinate Programs to Mitigate Juvenile Delinquency Proved Ineffective, 51 (1975).

The federal agency should provide leadership to facilitate efforts of the intergovernmental structures at the state and local level recommended in Standards 1.111 and 1.121. To accomplish these objectives the federal agency should have the authority to coordinate both existing services and funds provided by other federal agencies which directly affect the prevention and control of juvenile delinquency.

Paragraph (a) of the standard concerns the first of these coordination responsibilities. In order to plan, organize, and coordinate existing federal juvenile justice and delinquency prevention services, the federal agency should develop criteria for defining the characteristics of juvenile delinquency and its prevention, the diverting of youth from the juvenile justice system, and the training, treating, and rehabilitating of juvenile delinquents. Utilizing these criteria, relevant federal programs and agencies should be identified and, following an analysis of the programs' relevancy to impact on delinquency,

a comprehensive plan covering these programs should be developed by the federal agency. The plan should indicate modifications in the programs' organization, management, personnel standards, budget requests, and methods of implementation which would facilitate coordination and resource concentration at the local and state level. All federal officials who exercise significant decision-making authority within the aforementioned agencies and programs should advise and assist the federal agency in the coordination of overall policy and development of objectives and priorities of all federal juvenile delinquency initiatives.

However, the strategy to organize and coordinate federal agencies, and as a result to concentrate federal resources, proposed in paragraph (a) recognizes that most of the decisions affecting the allocation of funds provided by federal programs are made at the state and local levels. Accordingly, the standard, together with Standards 1.111 and 1.121, recommends an integrated federal, state, and local approach. The Federal Government provides leadership and assistance to state and local agencies where the problems are most immediate and decisions are made.

This leadership can be exercised not only by setting policy and priorities, but also by removing obstacles to more effective concentration and coordination of federal programs at the point of service delivery. Certain federal regulations, for example, are designed to assure compliance with legislative intent at the operating level. Some regulations may at the same time stand in the way of a community's creative use of program funds toward the achievement of program purposes. When this is the case, the regulatory requirements should be considered on a cost-benefit basis and, when appropriate, relaxed in a way to permit local program development while maintaining accountability and protecting against abuse. The federal agency, in conjunction with the other affected federal agencies, should develop an appropriate mechanism to respond to such requests from state and local communities.

The feedback from the specific efforts should provide the federal agencies with a solid basis for recommending and implementing changes in their programs, guidelines, regulations, and/or legislation. See generally IJA/ABA, Planning for Juvenile Justice, supra at Commentary to Standard 4.1(b). This standard's recommendation for an executive agency is in accordance with the dictates of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 [hereinafter cited as JJDP]. The law created the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to identify existing and needed resources, identify and set priorities, and develop strategies to implement a comprehensive effort to both prevent and control juvenile delinquency and improve the Federal Government's coordination of such efforts. It also provides for ongoing research, training, and the distribution of information on delinquency.

The role of the Federal Government outlined in this standard also parallels the recommendation of other standardsetting groups. In most instances, such groups recommend that the Federal Government concern itself less with the direct provision of services and more with the development of institutions to provide services through state and local government. Thus, the emphasis recommended by such groups is that

the Federal Government, through an appropriate executive agency, assist states and localities to improve their capacity to plan and manage the social services appropriate for reducing delinquency. See Report of the Task Force, supra at Commentary to Standard 2.4.

Federal juvenile justice policy should encourage the reduction of the number of agencies in each jurisdiction, innovation in services and organizational structure, and new approaches to decision making. Federal funding for juvenile justice should be allocated in such a way to give incentives to states, localities and private agencies to pursue these purposes. See IJA/ABA, Planning for Juvenile Justice, supra at Standard 4.1(e).

In addition to ending the tendency for federal funding to proliferate conflicting agencies in the state juvenile justice system, a single federal juvenile justice agency should also provide a greater impact on the content and quality of direct services to juveniles than is possible under the present approach.

Paragraph (b) of this standard addresses the second coordination responsibility noted earlier. It recommends that the federal agency administer and distribute all federal funds in direct support of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention and coordinate all other federal funds directly related to the same in accordance with the aforementioned strategy. Through the coordination of the federal funding mechanism, the federal agency can effect similar coordination at the state and local levels, thereby facilitating the concentration of resources at those levels. The structure of federal grant programs has been shown to have a major influence on the structure of state government. Both inside the juvenile justice system, and more generally throughout the range of public services, states tend to organize the supervision of their service-delivery systems to reflect-at least in formthe guidelines of federal programs. See IJA/ABA, Planning for Juvenile Justice, supra at Commentary to Standard 4.10. At present, it is clear that because of the large number of agencies giving money for children's services, and because of the relatively small amount each federal agency is able to spend on juvenile justice services, it is difficult for any federal guidelines to insure that funding has had any impact on services. IJA/ABA, Planning for Juvenile Justice, supra at Commentary to Standard 4.10.

The federal agency should provide or assure that an organizational structure exists through which federal resources can be made available to states and local communities in sufficient amounts to meet local needs. The distribution of federal resources should be in the form of block and formula grant allocations. The allocations should be determined on the basis of demographic characteristics associated with delinquency. See Report of the Task Force, supra at Commentary to Standard 2.8. Insofar as possible, guidelines for federal grant programs should communicate as directly as possible the original intent of the enabling legislation with as few restrictions on the recipients as possible. This should enable the funding mechanisms to respond to variations in state and local-level characteristics and integrate the federal funding process into the state and local organizational model provided through Standards 1.111-1.125. See generally IJA/ABA,