National Juvenile Defender Training, Technical Assistance, and Resource Center
Purpose To assist in the funding and development of a national training center that will provide training and technical assistance to State and local juvenile defenders and serve as a resource center for information and materials on juvenile defense issues. Background In 1967, the Supreme Court, in the case of In Re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), established the constitutional right of children to counsel when they are charged with a crime in a delinquency or other proceeding that may result in a loss of liberty. Both the National Advisory Committee Standards on Juvenile Justice and the Institute for Judicial Administration/American Bar Association (ABA) Standards on Juvenile Justice require that all children charged with a crime in a delinquency proceeding be represented by counsel. However, in many jurisdictions, juveniles are still not represented by legal counsel in proceedings subject to Gault. Recent studies of selected jurisdictions have found that less than 50 percent of juveniles in juvenile court proceedings are represented by counsel (Feld, 1988). This lack of counsel has been attributed to several factors: parents' reluctance to retain an attorney, inadequate public defender legal services in nonurban areas, and judicial ambivalence toward advocacy in treatment-oriented courts. The last factor often results in pressure on juveniles and parents to waive counsel (Feld, 1984 and 1989). Congress, in the 1992 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, modified Section 261(a)(3) to require that the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) fund advocacy programs and services that encourage the improvement of due process available to juveniles in the juvenile justice system and the quality of legal representation for such juveniles. In response to this requirement, OJJDP competitively funded a project in 1993 to determine the status of juvenile defense services in this country, develop training and technical assistance to support juveniles' increased access to counsel, and improve the quality of representation by juvenile defenders. The grant was awarded to the ABA and its partners-the Youth Law Center of San Francisco, CA, and the Juvenile Law Center of Philadelphia, PA-and they examined juvenile defense services in the United States delivered by public defenders' offices, court-appointed attorneys, contract juvenile defenders, law school juvenile clinic programs, and children's advocacy centers. Their findings were reported in the monograph A Call for Justice: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in Delinquency Proceedings, published in 1995. Although the survey found that many dedicated attorneys follow sound advocacy practices for juvenile offenders, such representation was neither widespread nor common. Problems summarized in A Call for Justice included: (1) annual public defender caseloads of more than 500 cases including 300 juvenile cases; (2) lack of resources for independent evaluations, expert witnesses, and investigatory support; (3) lack of computers, telephones, files, and adequate office space; (4) juvenile public defenders' inexperience, lack of training, low morale, and salaries lower than those of their counterparts who defend adults or serve as prosecutors; and (5) inability to keep up with rapidly changing juvenile codes. Consistent with findings from earlier studies, the ABA also found that a disturbing number of juveniles waive the right to counsel. Heavy caseloads were a primary source of problems with lawyers unable to adequately inform clients of the status of their cases and to adequately address detention and dispositional alternatives. This led to unnecessary detention and commitment of juveniles to facilities, with all the attendant negative consequences for youth and at enormous cost to the communities. The ABA found that the most effective defenders worked in offices that included the following attributes:
All of the above-stated work has set the stage for the development of a more permanent support system for juvenile defenders. Goal The goal of this program is to increase access to counsel for juveniles charged with crimes (or other offenses involving a liberty interest) and to improve the quality of representation that juveniles receive in delinquency proceedings. Objectives The objectives of this project are to:
Program Strategy The ABA's work in compiling information on the status of juvenile defense services in the United States and then developing training and technical assistance programs to address identified issues has been significant in advancing knowledge about juvenile defender services. OJJDP believes that the time has come to support the creation and establishment of such a permanent entity. In FY 1998, OJJDP will fund the initiation of the National Juvenile Defender Training, Technical Assistance, and Resource Center (Juvenile Defender Center). OJJDP hopes that in future years other funding partners will join OJJDP in assisting in the funding and development of the Juvenile Defender Center that will result in the creation of a permanent structure for this essential service. It is expected that the Juvenile Defender Center will coordinate its development with the ABA's current efforts, as the ABA phases out of the initial project activities, in order to minimize disruption in the provision of training and technical assistance to the field. The grantee will be expected to establish a broad-based partnership of public and private organizations to help ensure long-term financial support for a permanent center. The Juvenile Defender Center, in its first year, will be expected to become fully staffed, develop an initial plan for delivery of training and protocols for delivery of onsite and distance technical assistance, engage in the initial development of the Center's resource capacity, and begin delivering training and technical assistance. The grantee will be expected to develop products to assist with the tasks of this effort, such as a concise document for use in reporting on technical assistance delivery and relevant curriculums. Applicants should outline their plans for achieving these tasks and activities and provide a timeline for completing important milestones. Applicants must address how they would develop and deliver training and technical assistance. What strategies are proposed to assist jurisdictions with increasing access to counsel and to enhance the advocacy and appellate skills of juvenile defenders? Should this be done through national, regional, or State training events? In addition, applicants must discuss how curriculums will be developed for the trainings. What curriculum is essential to the varied strategies, and how will it be tailored to the State and local communities? How does the applicant propose to determine technical assistance needs in State and local jurisdictions? How would the applicant prioritize the delivery of the technical assistance? What process would be used to deliver technical assistance onsite and through distance learning, such as satellite teleconferences, videoconferences, or Web-based instruction? What should be the scope of the resource activities of the Juvenile Defender Center, and how should they be organized? What information and materials should the Center maintain, and how should they be maintained (e.g., electronically or hard copy)? How would this activity be coordinated with OJJDP's Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse? How would defenders access the information? Staffing is another issue to be addressed. What will be the management structure for the program? What staffing does the applicant believe is necessary to provide the functions of the Juvenile Defender Center? To what extent will consultants be used for specific activities, particularly when training and technical assistance is focused on a State or local jurisdiction? Eligibility Requirements OJJDP invites applications from public and private agencies, organizations, institutions, and individuals. Private, for-profit organizations must agree to waive any profit or fee. Joint applications from two or more eligible applicants are welcome; however, one applicant must be clearly indicated as the primary applicant (for correspondence, award, and management purposes) and the others indicated as coapplicants. Applicants must have substantial experience with issues related to the delivery of defense services, training and technical assistance, and resource dissemination, preferably with a focus on juvenile justice and juvenile court-related matters. Selection Criteria Applicants will be evaluated and rated by a peer review panel according to the criteria outlined below. Problem(s) To Be Addressed (15 points) Applicants must convey a clear understanding of the problem(s) to be addressed by this program. The problem statement must be consistent with the purpose of the program and its goal and objectives. The applicant must convey a clear understanding of the outcomes expected for the program and the obstacles to achieving these results. Goals and Objectives (10 points) The goals and objectives must be clearly defined, and the objectives must be measurable and outcome based. They must be consistent with the problem statement and provide the basis for the project tasks and activities. Project Design (30 points) The project design must address the purpose, goals, and objectives of this effort. The applicant must address what will be accomplished by its conceptualization of the Juvenile Defender Center and how it will be organized to deliver training and technical assistance to juvenile defenders and disseminate resources. What products are proposed for development and publication? The applicant should also address who will be the recipients of these services and in what priority. Finally, the applicant should provide a rationale for its conceptualization of the project design. Management and Organizational Capability (35 points) The project management structure and staffing must be appropriate to the successful implementation of the Juvenile Defender Center's functions and responsibilities. Key staff should have significant experience in the delivery of juvenile defender services and product development and must also demonstrate several years of experience in managing a grant or program of training and technical assistance. When staff are identified, résumés must be provided in the appendix. When staff have not been identified, job descriptions must be provided in the appendix. The applicant organization's ability to conduct the project successfully must be clearly demonstrated in the application. The documentation must include organizational experience with defender services, training, technical assistance, and resource dissemination. Because of the complexity of this program, organizations are encouraged to form consortia or partnerships with other highly experienced agencies and organizations. The financial resources that the consortia or partnerships would provide or help develop should be identified, so as to determine how they would assist in creating a permanent center that would be sustained after Federal support has ended. Budget (10 points) The proposed budget must be complete, reasonable, allowable, and cost effective in relation to the work to be performed. Applicants must provide a general outline of a 5-year budget for the program and a detailed budget for the first budget year with all costs justified. Budgeted amounts for years 2 through 5 should reflect what the applicant thinks will be necessary to carry out the functions under this grant and bring the effort to scale. Format The narrative must not exceed 40 pages in length (excluding forms, assurances, and appendixes) and must be submitted on 8½- by 11-inch paper, double spaced on one side of the paper in a standard 12-point font. This is necessary to maintain fair and uniform standards among all applicants. If the narrative does not conform to these standards, OJJDP will deem the application ineligible for consideration. Award Period The project will be funded for 5 years in five 1-year budget periods. Funding after the first year budget period depends on performance of the grantee, availability of funds, and other criteria established at the time of award. Award Amount Up to $300,000 is available for the initial 1-year budget period. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number For this program, the CFDA number, which is required on Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance, is 16.541. This form is included in OJJDP's Application Kit, which can be obtained by calling the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736 or sending an e-mail request to puborder@ncjrs.org. The Application Kit is also available online. (See the Introduction for more contact information.) Coordination of Federal Efforts To encourage better coordination among Federal agencies in addressing State and local needs, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is requesting applicants to provide information on the following: (1) active Federal grant award(s) supporting this or related efforts, including awards from DOJ; (2) any pending application(s) for Federal funds for this or related efforts; and (3) plans for coordinating any funds described in items (1) or (2) with the funding sought by this application. For each Federal award, applicants must include the program or project title, the Federal grantor agency, the amount of the award, and a brief description of its purpose. "Related efforts" is defined for these purposes as one of the following:
Delivery Instructions All application packages should be mailed or delivered to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, c/o Juvenile Justice Resource Center, 2277 Research Boulevard, Mail Stop 2K, Rockville, MD 20850; 301-519-5535. Note: In the lower left-hand corner of the envelope, the applicant must clearly write "National Juvenile Defender Training, Technical Assistance, and Resource Center." Due Date Applicants are responsible for ensuring that the original and five copies of the application package are received by 5 p.m. ET on August 10, 1998. Contact For further information, contact Douglas C. Dodge, Director, Special Emphasis Division, 202-307-5914, or send an e-mail inquiry to doug@ojp.usdoj.gov. References Feld, B.C. 1984. Criminalizing juvenile justice: Rules of procedure for juvenile court. Minnesota Law Review 69:190. Feld, B.C. 1988. In re Gault revisited: A cross-state comparison of the right to counsel in juvenile court. Crime and Delinquency 34:393-424. Feld, B.C. 1989. The right to counsel in juvenile court: An empirical study of when lawyers appear and the difference they make. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 79:1216-17. Grisso, T. 1980. Juveniles' capacities to waive Miranda rights: An empirical analysis. California Law Review 68:1134. Grisso, T. 1981. Juveniles' Waiver of Rights: Legal and Psychological Competence. New York: Plenum Press. Kempf, K.L. 1992. The Role of Race in Juvenile Justice Processing in Pennsylvania. Shippensburg, PA: Center for Juvenile Justice Training and Research and Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, pp. 53-54. Melton, G. 1989. Taking Gault seriously: Toward a new juvenile court. Nebraska Law Review 68:146. National Advisory Committee for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1980 (July). 3.132 Representation by Counsel-For the Juvenile. Standards for the Administration of Juvenile Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Puritz, P. 1995 (December). A Call to Justice: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in Delinquency Proceedings.
|
