National Academy of Sciences

1. Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental ApproachPresentation to the Coordinating Council for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency PreventionRobert L. JohnsonEdward P. MulveyGladys CarrionJuly 26, 2013

2. National Academy of Sciences • Chartered by Congress in 1863 • Purpose: To advise the government and the nation on critical national issues through objective, scientific, and evidence-based research and analysis Designed to be independent, balanced, and objective; Not an agency of the federal government.

3. Committee Process • Scholarship and stature of Academies’ members • Ability to get the very best to serve pro bono, ensuring the breadth and balance of interdisciplinary committee composition • Quality assurance and control procedures, including a strict peer review process • Written reports (source of “formal advice”) based on evidence and rigorous analysis, ensuring independence and objectivity

4. Assessing Juvenile Justice Committee Charge and Composition • To assess the implications of advances in behavioral and neuroscience research for the field of juvenile justice and the implications of such knowledge for juvenile justice reform. Committee Members: • 6 from the social sciences • 2 physicians • 3 practitioners • Director of state children’s services • Director of state juvenile corrections • Juvenile court judge • 2 with law/public policy expertise • 1 neuroscientist

5. Committee Members • Robert L. Johnson (Chair), UMDNJ - New Jersey Medical School • Richard J. Bonnie (Vice Chair, IOM), University of Virginia • Carl C. Bell, Community Mental Health Council, Inc. • Lawrence D. Bobo (NAS), Harvard University • Jeffrey A. Butts, John Jay College of Criminal Justice • Gladys Carrion, New York State Office of Children & Family Service • B.J. Casey, Weill Medical College of Cornell University • Kenneth A. Dodge, Duke University • Sandra A. Graham, University of California, Los Angeles • Ernestine Gray, Orleans Parish, Louisiana • Edward P. Mulvey, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine • Robert Plotnick, University of Washington • Elizabeth S. Scott, Columbia University • Terence P. Thornberry, University of Maryland • Cherie Townsend, Texas Youth Commission

6. Summary of “Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach”

7. The Neuroscience

8. “Pruning” Image adapted from Gogtay N, et al. Dynamic mapping of human cortical development during childhood through early adulthood. PNAS 2004;101(21): 8174 - 79, Fig. 3; downloaded from www.brainfacts.org

9. “Different parts at different times”

10. Behavioral Science

11. Findings • Adolescents differ from adults and/or children in three important ways: • self-regulation in emotionally charged contexts • heightened sensitivity to contextual influences • less ability to make judgments that require future orientation • Cognitive tendencies are associated with biological immaturity of the brain and with an imbalance among developing brain systems

12. Figure 4 from Steinberg, L. (2013). The influence of neuroscience on U.S. Supreme Court decisions involving adolescents’ criminal culpability. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 513-518

13. Capacity + Environment = Developmental Path • Holds for both adolescence and early adulthood • Positive adolescent development related to: • Parent or parent figure • Positive peers • Opportunities for decision making/critical thinking • Juvenile justice interventions are responsible for creating positive development as well as ensuring public safety • Being held accountable for wrongdoing and accepting responsibility in a process perceived as fair promotes healthy moral development and legal socialization • Conversely, being held accountable and punished in a process perceived as unfair can reinforce social disaffection and antisocial behavior

14. “Incorrigibility is inconsistent with youth.” - Miller majority opinion

15. Goals of the System • Promoting Accountability • Ensuring Fairness • Preventing Re-offending

16. Recommendations Adoption of a developmental approach to youth programs, policies and practices within DOJ/OJJDP, across the federal government, and when working with state, local and tribal partners in the field. • Create multi-stakeholder task forces • Strengthen the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention • Promote research • Improve data

17. CHALLENGES TO REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE ON THE GROUND FEDERAL ROLE LEADERSHIP GUIDANCE SUPPORT RESOURCES WHAT TO DO? WHAT WORKS? HOW TO DO IT? EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS? RESEARCH

18. Success at Reforming Juvenile Justice Requires Many Partners REQUIRES COLLABORATION AND SHARED OWNERSHIP OF THE JUSTICE INVOLVED CHILDREN FRONT DOOR TO JUVENILE JUSTICE IS INCREASINGLY THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM OF LAST RESORT; INABILITY TO ACCESS OTHER SYSTEM SUPPORTS MENTAL HEALTH SUBSTANCE ABUSE EDUCATION DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES HOUSING HOUSING

19. LOOKING FORWARD STRONGER FEDERAL VOICE INCENTIVIZE WHAT WORKS SUPPORT AND PROMOTE THE RESEARCH DOING WHAT DOESN’T WORK IS EXPENSIVE

20. For copies of the report: www.nap.edu For more information: Bboyd@nas.edu Thank you!