[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 3, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34770-34775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16842]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
28 CFR Part 31
[OJP No. 1091]
RIN 1121-AA39
OJJDP Formula Grants Regulation
AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP) is publishing for public comment proposed amendments to its
Formula Grants Regulation, 28 CFR Part 31. The Formula Grants
Regulation implements Part B of Title II of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, as amended by the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Amendments of 1992. The proposed
amendments to the existing Regulation provide further clarification and
guidance to States in the formulation, submission and implementation of
State Formula Grant plans and determinations of State compliance with
plan requirements. They are intended to provide additional flexibility
and greater clarity to participating States with respect to key
provisions related to the core requirements of the JJDP Act.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments which
must be received on or before August 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments to Mr. Shay Bilchik, Administrator,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 633 Indiana
Avenue NW., Room 742, Washington, DC 20531.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Roberta Dorn, Director, State
Relations and Assistance Division, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, 633 Indiana Avenue NW., Room 543, Washington,
DC 20531; (202) 307-5924.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention is proposing revisions to the existing
Regulation, codified at 28 CFR Part 31, and inviting public comment on
the proposed changes. The proposed changes in the regulatory text
accomplish the following:
(1) Revise Sec. 31.303(d)(1)(i) to clarify the level of contact
that is prohibited between juveniles in a secure custody status
within an institution and incarcerated adults;
(2) Revise Sec. 31.303(d)(1)(i) by providing an exception to the
core requirement of separation with respect to brief, and
inadvertent contact between juveniles in a secure custody status
within an institution and incarcerated adults in nonresidential
areas;
(3) Revise Sec. 31.303(d)(1)(v) to permit the placement of an
adjudicated delinquent in an institution with adults once the
adjudicated delinquent reaches the State's age of full criminal
responsibility, when authorized by State law;
(4) Revise Sec. 31.303(e)(2) to permit the placement of an
accused or adjudicated delinquent juvenile in an adult jail or
lockup for up to six hours immediately before or after a court
appearance for processing and transportation purposes;
(5) Revise Sec. 31.303(e)(3) by eliminating the requirement for
OJJDP concurrence in State approved collocated juvenile facilities,
the requirement that a needs-based analysis precede a jurisdiction's
request for State approval, and to permit time-phased use of
nonresidential areas of collocated facilities;
(6) Revise Sec. 31.303(f)(2) to expressly provide that accused
status offenders can be placed in a secure juvenile detention
facility for up to twenty-four hours, exclusive of weekends and
holidays, prior to an initial court appearance and up to twenty-four
hours, exclusive of weekends and holidays, following an initial
court appearance;
(7) Revise Sec. 31.303(f)(3)(vi) to eliminate the regulatory
recommendation that a multi disciplinary team may be used to satisfy
the ``public agency'' requirement, under the valid court order
exception even if some members represent court or law enforcement
agencies;
(8) Revise Sec. 31.303(f)(4)(vi) to eliminate the requirement
that States document and describe in their annual monitoring report
to OJJDP the specific circumstances surrounding each use of
distance/ground transportation and weather exceptions to the jail
and lockup removal requirement;
(9) Revise Sec. 31.303(f)(5)(i)(C) to define and clarify the
scope of the exception to the deinstitutionalization of status
offenders requirement for offenses under ``Sec. 922(x) of Title 18
or other similar State law'' (relating to possession of handguns by
juveniles);
[[Page 34771]]
(10) Revise Sec. 31.303(f)(6)(i) to eliminate portions of the
section related to funding eligibility for fiscal year 1993 and
prior years that are no longer applicable;
(11) Revise Sec. 31.303(f)(6)(ii) to permit States that do not
have a law, regulation, or court rule prohibiting the incarceration
of all juvenile offenders in circumstances that would be in
violation of the separation requirement to be eligible for a finding
of compliance if reported violations do not constitute a pattern or
practice and mechanisms are in place to prevent such violations from
recurring in the future; and
(12) Revise Sec. 31.303(j) to clarify the purpose of the
Disproportionate Minority Confinement core requirement.
Contact With Incarcerated Adults
OJJDP recognizes that there has been a lack of clarity surrounding
the issue of contact between juveniles and incarcerated adults in
secure facilities. OJJDP finds that the term ``sight and sound
contact'' needs to be clarified. In the 1992 amendments to the JJDP
Act, Congress amended the existing ``regular'' contact standard that
defined the level of permissible contact between juveniles and
incarcerated adults by deleting the word ``regular''. OJJDP interpreted
Congress' intent to be that ``haphazard and accidental contact''
between juveniles and incarcerated adults should be prohibited because
this was the level of contact permitted under the regulation
implementing the no ``regular contact'' prohibition in effect prior to
the 1992 amendments. After further review, OJJDP believes that the no
contact prohibition should be interpreted to preclude the systematic,
procedural, and condoned contact between juveniles and incarcerated
adults in secure areas of facilities. Consequently, OJJDP would not
consider brief and inadvertent or accidental contact between juveniles
and incarcerated adults in nonresidential areas of a secure facility to
be a violation of the separation requirement. Specifically, OJJDP
proposes to amend the regulation to provide that brief and inadvertent
contact between juveniles and incarcerated adults in secure
nonresidential areas of a facility such as dining, recreational,
educational, vocational, health care, sallyports and passageways
(hallways) should not be considered a violation of the JJDP Act
separation requirement. However, in any secure residential area of a
facility, any contact between juvenile offenders and adult inmates is
prohibited.
Further, the regulation would provide definitions for sight and
sound contact to assist in understanding what is permitted under
Sec. 223(a)(13). Sight contact is defined as clear visual contact
between incarcerated adults and juveniles in close proximity of each
other. For example, a detained juvenile who sees an adult inmate who is
several hundred feet away is not in close proximity to the incarcerated
adult. In this scenario, the juvenile is not exposed to any conceivable
harm as a consequence of seeing an adult inmate several hundred feet
away. A rule of reason should be exercised by jurisdictions in
assessing whether a juvenile who is exposed visually to an incarcerated
adult is in close proximity to that adult.
With respect to sound contact, the regulation would state that
``direct'' oral communication between incarcerated adults and juveniles
is prohibited. This addition is intended to alleviate concerns over
misinterpretation of this provision. The purpose of the provision is to
prevent incarcerated adults from having direct oral communication with
juveniles, thereby reducing the likelihood of intimidation and
harassment. A rule of reason should also be exercised with sound
contact. Direct oral communication such as conversations and yelling in
close proximity is clearly prohibited. However, an incarcerated adult
yelling at a juvenile who is several hundred feet away may not be
engaged in direct oral communication with the juvenile.
Placement of Juveniles in Adult Facilities
Under the current regulation, States are prohibited from
administratively reclassifying and transferring adjudicated delinquents
to adult (criminal) correctional institutions. OJJDP recognizes that
State laws are increasingly providing for the mandatory or permissible
transfer of adjudicated delinquents to adult facilities once the
delinquent has attained the age of full criminal responsibility under
State law. Consequently, OJJDP proposes to amend the regulation to
provide that it is not a violation of the separation requirement to
transfer an adjudicated delinquent to an adult correctional institution
once the adjudicated delinquent has reached the age of full criminal
responsibility established by State law. The proposed regulation would
permit the placement of an adjudicated delinquent who reaches the age
of full criminal responsibility in an adult correctional facility only
when such transfers are required or authorized by State law.
OJJDP also proposes to amend the regulation to permit the placement
of an alleged or adjudicated delinquent in an adult jail or lockup for
up to six hours immediately before or after a court appearance. Several
States have advised OJJDP that the detention of a juvenile prior to a
court appearance and the immediate transport of a juvenile after a
court appearance creates a difficulty if there is more than one
juvenile before the court on a given day or where separate facilities
are not available. The secure detention of an alleged or adjudicated
delinquent in a jail or lockup for up to six hours immediately before
or after a court appearance would be permissible when circumstances
warrant such a detention, and provided that such juveniles are
separated from adult offenders.
Collocated Facilities
OJJDP currently requires that a needs-based analysis precede a
jurisdiction's request for State approval and OJJDP's concurrence in
order for a juvenile detention facility that is collocated with an
adult jail or lockup to qualify as a separate juvenile detention
facility. OJJDP finds that this requirement is best left to the State
to determine whether a needs-based analysis should be required. In
addition, OJJDP's concurrence with a State agency's decision to approve
a collocated facility would no longer be required. The elimination of
the needs-based analysis and OJJDP's concurrence does not negate the
separation criteria set forth in Sec. 31.303(e)(3)(D). The regularly
scheduled review of State monitoring systems would insure that the
facility continues to meet the separate juvenile detention facility
criteria. Consequently, OJJDP proposes to modify Sec. 31.303(e)(3) to
reflect the elimination of the needs-based analysis and OJJDP's
concurrence.
Under the current regulation, collocated facilities are prohibited
from sharing common use nonresidential areas. Based on State and local
input, OJJDP finds that common use nonresidential areas should be
permissible in collocated facilities. This would require the
utilization of time-phasing in order to allow both juveniles and adults
access to available educational, vocational, and recreational areas of
collocated facilities. The allowance of time-phased use would apply
only to nonresidential areas in collocated facilities.
Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders
OJJDP has found that confusion exists over the secure detention of
accused status offenders and non-offenders. For purposes of
clarification, OJJDP is adding a paragraph at the end of
Sec. 31.303(f)(2) to state clearly that it is permissible to hold an
accused status
[[Page 34772]]
offender or a nonoffender in a secure juvenile detention facility for
up to twenty-four hours, exclusive of weekends and holidays, prior to
an initial appearance and up to twenty-four hours, exclusive of
weekends and holidays, after an initial court appearance.
Valid Court Order
Under the current statute and regulation, an independent public
agency (other than a court or law enforcement agency) is required to
prepare and submit a written report to a court that is considering an
order that directs or authorizes the placement of a status offender in
a secure facility for the violation of a valid court order. A multi
disciplinary review team that operates independently of a court is
described in the regulation as one option for meeting the requirement,
even where some members of the team may be law enforcement or court
agency staff. Pretrial Service agencies are another option for
jurisdictions to consider to meet the criteria of ``other than a court
or law enforcement agency.'' These offices operate in various
jurisdictions to assess and evaluate individuals who are before the
court for a determination on pretrial release or custody. The intent of
this multi disciplinary provision was to provide States with an example
of a public agency that would meet the criteria where some members of a
team were employed by the courts and/or law enforcement. Because the
wording of this provision had led some States to the conclusion that
multi disciplinary teams are required, the provision would be deleted
from the regulation.
Removal Exception
States are required to document and describe, in their annual
monitoring report to OJJDP, the specific circumstances surrounding each
individual use of the distance/ground transportation and weather
exceptions to the jail and lockup removal requirement. OJJDP finds this
requirement to be overly burdensome on the States and therefore
proposes that it be deleted from the regulation.
Reporting Requirement
The JJDP Act provides that juveniles may be securely detained or
confined pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(x) or a similar State law. Section
922(x) was added to the Federal Criminal Code by the Youth Handgun
Safety Act that was passed as a part of the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796
(1994), codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 13701 et seq. Specifically,
Sec. 922(x) makes it a Federal delinquent offense for a juvenile to
possess a handgun. The possession of a handgun by a juvenile is,
however, a status offense in those States where possession of a handgun
by an adult is permitted. Consequently, the Youth Handgun Safety Act
specifically amended the JJDP Act to exclude from the
deinstitutionalization of status offenders requirement a juvenile who
has violated Sec. 922(x) or a similar State law. For the purpose of
clarification, where Sec. 922(x) initially appears in the regulation,
it is described as a federal law prohibiting the possession of a
handgun by a juvenile and specifically excluding such a violation, or
the violation of a similar State law, from the coverage of the
deinstitutionalization of status offenders requirement.
Compliance
OJJDP would delete the first two sentences of Sec. 31.303(f)(6)(i)
because it pertains to States substantially complying with the
deinstitutionalization of status offenders core requirement in fiscal
year 1993 and prior years. The substantial compliance criteria allowed
States to be eligible for formula grant funding during these years if
the State had achieve a seventy five percent reduction in the aggregate
number of status offenders and nonoffenders held in secure detention or
correctional facilities and had made an unequivocal commitment to
achieving full compliance. Because this standard does not apply to
fiscal years beyond 1994, OJJDP would remove it from the regulation.
However, the portion of the section that defines full compliance would
remain.
Under the current regulation, compliance with the separation
requirement is considered to be achieved when a State can demonstrate
that in the last monitoring report, covering a full 12 months of data,
no juveniles were incarcerated in circumstances in violation of the
separation requirement. Also, compliance can be achieved where a State
has a law, regulation, court rule, or other established executive or
judicial policy clearly prohibiting the incarceration of juvenile
offenders in circumstances that would be in violation of the separation
requirement, and violations reported do not constitute a pattern or
practice in the State. However, a State that has no law or policy that
mirrors the JJDP Act separation requirement could not be in compliance
if any juvenile was held in violation of the separation requirement.
OJJDP proposes to modify this policy in order not to unfairly penalize
States that have not enacted laws, rules, regulations or policies
prohibiting the incarceration of all juvenile offenders under
circumstances that would be in violation of the separation requirement.
OJJDP proposes a single standard applicable to all States regardless of
whether a law, regulation, rule or policy exists that prohibits the
detention of juveniles with incarcerated adults. Specifically,
compliance can be established under circumstances in which the
instances do not indicate a pattern or practice and mechanisms or plans
to address exist within the State to ensure that such instances are
unlikely to recur in the future.
Minority Detention and Confinement
Several States have expressed concern over the Disproportionate
Minority Confinement (Sec. 223(a)(23)) core requirement of the JJDP
Act. Specifically, this core requirement has been criticized as
requiring the establishment of numerical standards or quotas in order
for a State to achieve or maintain compliance. This is not the purpose
of the statute or its implementing regulation. In order to respond to
this concern, two sentences have been added to Sec. 31.303(j) of the
regulation to state specifically that the purpose of the statute and
regulation is to encourage States to address, programmatically, any
features of its justice system that may account for the
disproportionate detention or confinement of minority juveniles. The
section states clearly that the Disproportionate Minority Confinement
core requirement neither requires nor establishes numerical standards
or quotas in order for a State to achieve or maintain compliance.
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' for
purposes of Executive Order 12866 because it does not result in: (1) An
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or state, local or tribal governments or communities; (2)
create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with action taken
or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact
of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; and (4) does not raise novel legal
or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities or the principles of Executive Order No. 12866. The Office
of Management and
[[Page 34773]]
Budget has waived its review process for this rule under Executive
Order 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a ``significant''
economic impact on a substantial number of small ``entities'' as
defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This action is intended to
relieve existing requirements in the Formula Grants program and to
clarify other provisions so as to promote compliance with its
provisions by States participating in the program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
No collections of information requirements are contained in or
affected by this regulation pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act,
codified at 44 U.S.C. 3504(H).
Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs
In accordance with Executive Order 12372 and the Department of
Justice's implementing regulation 28 CFR Part 30, States must submit
Formula Grant Program applications to the State ``Single Point of
Contact,'' if one exists. The State may take up to 60 days from the
application date to comment on the application.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 31
Grant programs--law, Juvenile delinquency, Grant programs.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed to amend
the OJJDP Formula Grants Regulation, 28 CFR Part 31, as follows:
PART 31--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 31 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.
2. Section 31.303 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and
(v) to read as follows:
Sec. 31.303 Substantive requirements.
* * * * *
(d)(1) * * *
(i) Separation. Describe its plan and procedure, covering the
three-year planning cycle, for assuring that the requirements of this
section are met. The term ``contact'' includes any physical or
sustained sight or sound contact between juveniles in a secure custody
status and incarcerated adults, including inmate trustees. A juvenile
in a secure custody status is one who is physically detained or
confined in a locked room or other area set aside or used for the
specific purpose of securely detaining persons who are in law
enforcement custody. Secure detention or confinement may result either
from being placed in such a room or area and/or from being physically
secured to a cuffing rail or other stationary object. Sight contact is
defined as clear visual contact between incarcerated adults and
juveniles within close proximity to each other. Sound contact is
defined as direct oral communication between incarcerated adults and
juveniles. Separation must be accomplished in all secure areas of the
facility which include, but are not limited to, admissions, sleeping,
toilet and shower, and other areas, as appropriate. Brief and
inadvertent or accidental contact between juveniles in a secure custody
status and incarcerated adults, in secure nonresidential areas of a
facility such as dining, recreational, educational, vocational, health
care, sally ports or other entry areas, and passageways (hallways)
would not require a State to document or report such contact as a
violation. However, any contact in a residential area of a secure
facility between juveniles and incarcerated adults would be a
reportable violation.
* * * * *
(v) Assure that adjudicated delinquents are not reclassified
administratively and transferred to an adult (criminal) correctional
authority to avoid the intent of separating juveniles from adult
criminals in jails or correctional facilities. A State is not
prohibited from placing or transferring an alleged or adjudicated
delinquent who reaches the State's age of full criminal responsibility
to an adult facility when required or authorized by State law. However,
the administrative transfer, without statutory direction or
authorization, of a juvenile offender to an adult correctional
authority, or a transfer within a mixed juvenile and adult facility for
placement with adult criminals, either before or after a juvenile
reaches the age of full criminal responsibility, is prohibited. A State
is also precluded from transferring adult offenders to a juvenile
correctional authority for placement in a juvenile facility. This
neither prohibits nor restricts the waiver or transfer of a juvenile to
criminal court for prosecution, in accordance with State law, for a
criminal felony violation, nor the detention or confinement of a waived
or transferred criminal felony violator in an adult facility.
* * * * *
3. Section 31.303(e) is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(2),
(e)(3) introductory text and (e)(3)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 31.303 Substantive requirements.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) Describe the barriers that a State faces in removing all
juveniles from adult jails and lockups. This requirement excepts only
those alleged or adjudicated juvenile delinquents placed in a jail or a
lockup for up to six hours from the time they enter a secure custody
status or immediately before or after a court appearance, those
juveniles formally waived or transferred to criminal court and against
whom criminal felony charges have been filed, or juveniles over whom a
criminal court has original or concurrent jurisdiction and such court's
jurisdiction has been invoked through the filing of criminal felony
charges.
(3) Collocated facilities. (i) Determine whether or not a facility
in which juveniles are detained or confined is an adult jail or lockup.
The JJDP Act prohibits the secure custody of juveniles in adult jails
and lockups, except as otherwise provided under the Act and
implementing OJJDP regulations. Juvenile facilities collocated with
adult facilities are considered adult jails or lockups unless
paragraphs (e)(3)(i)(C)(1) through (4) criteria established in this
section are complied with.
(A) A collocated facility is a juvenile facility located in the
same building as an adult jail or lockup, or is part of a related
complex of buildings located on the same grounds as an adult jail or
lockup. A complex of buildings is considered ``related'' when it shares
physical features such as walls and fences, or services beyond
mechanical services (heating, air conditioning, water and sewer), or
the specialized services that are allowable under paragraph
(e)(3)(i)(C)(3) of this section.
(B) The State must determine whether a collocated facility
qualifies as a separate juvenile detention facility under the four
criteria set forth in paragraphs (e)(3)(i)(C)(1) through (4) of this
section for the purpose of monitoring compliance with
Sec. 223(a)(12)(A), (13) and (14) of the JJDP Act.
(C) Each of the following four criteria must be met in order to
ensure the requisite separateness of a juvenile detention facility that
is collocated with an adult jail or lockup:
(1) Separation between juveniles and adults such that there could
be no sight or sound contact between juveniles and incarcerated adults
in the facility. Separation can be achieved architecturally or through
time-phasing of common use nonresidential areas; and
[[Page 34774]]
(2) Separate juvenile and adult programs, including recreation,
education, vocation, counseling, dining, sleeping, and general living
activities. There must be an independent and comprehensive operational
plan for the juvenile detention facility which provides for a full
range of separate program services. No program activities may be shared
by juveniles and incarcerated adults. Time-phasing of common use
nonresidential areas is permissible to conduct program activities.
Equipment and other resources may be used by both populations subject
to security concerns; and
(3) Separate staff for the juvenile and adult populations,
including management, security, and direct care staff. Staff providing
specialized services (medical care, food service, laundry, maintenance
and engineering, etc.) who are not normally in contact with detainees,
or whose infrequent contacts occur under conditions of separation of
juveniles and adults, can serve both populations (subject to State
standards or licensing requirements). The day to day management,
security and direct care functions of the juvenile detention center
must be vested in a totally separate staff, dedicated solely to the
juvenile population within the collocated facilities; and
(4) In States that have established standards or licensing
requirements for juvenile detention facilities, the juvenile facility
must meet the standards (on the same basis as a free-standing juvenile
detention center) and be licensed as appropriate. If there are no State
standards or licensing requirements, OJJDP encourages States to
establish administrative requirements that authorize the State to
review the facility's physical plant, staffing patterns, and programs
in order to approve the collocated facility based on prevailing
national juvenile detention standards.
* * * * *
4. Section 31.303 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(2),
(3)(vi), and (4)(vi) to read as follows:
Sec. 31.303 Substantive requirements.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) For the purpose of monitoring for compliance with section
223(a)(12)(A) of the Act, a secure detention or correctional facility
is any secure public or private facility used for the lawful custody of
accused or adjudicated juvenile offenders or non-offenders, or used for
the lawful custody of accused or convicted adult criminal offenders.
Accused status offenders or non offenders in lawful custody can be held
in a secure juvenile detention facility for up to twenty-four hours,
exclusive of weekends and holidays, prior to an initial court
appearance and for an additional twenty-four hours, exclusive of
weekends and holidays, following a court appearance.
(3) * * *
(vi) In entering any order that directs or authorizes the placement
of a status offender in a secure facility, the judge presiding over an
initial probable cause hearing or violation hearing must determine that
all the elements of a valid court order (paragraphs (f)(3)(i), (ii) and
(iii) of this section) and the applicable due process rights (paragraph
(f)(3)(v) of this section) were afforded the juvenile and, in the case
of a violation hearing, the judge must obtain and review a written
report that: reviews the behavior of the juvenile and the circumstances
under which the juvenile was brought before the court and made subject
to such order; determines the reasons for the juvenile's behavior; and
determines whether all dispositions other than secure confinement have
been exhausted or are clearly inappropriate. This report must be
prepared and submitted by an appropriate public agency (other than a
court or law enforcement agency).
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(vi) Pursuant to section 223(a)(14) of the JJDP Act, the non-MSA
(low population density) exception to the jail and lockup removal
requirement as described in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through (v) of this
section will remain in effect through 1997, and will allow for secure
custody beyond the twenty-four-hour period described in paragraph
(f)(4)(i) of this section when the facility is located where conditions
of distance to be traveled or the lack of highway, road, or other
ground transportation do not allow for court appearances within twenty-
four hours, so that a brief (not to exceed an additional forty-eight
hours) delay is excusable; or the facility is located where conditions
of safety exist (such as severely adverse, life-threatening weather
conditions that do not allow for reasonably safe travel), in which case
the time for an appearance may be delayed until twenty-four hours after
the time that such conditions allow for reasonably safe travel. States
may use these additional statutory allowances only where the precedent
requirements set forth in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through (v) of this
section have been complied with. This may necessitate statutory or
judicial (court rule or opinion) relief within the State from the
twenty-four hours initial court appearance standard required by
paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
5. Section 31.303(f)(5)(i)(C) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 31.303 Substantive requirements.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) The total number of accused status offenders and nonoffenders,
including out-of-State runaways and Federal wards, held in any secure
detention or correctional facility for longer than twenty-four hours
(not including weekends or holidays), excluding those held pursuant to
the valid court order provision as set forth in paragraph (f)(3) of
this section or pursuant to section 922(x) of Title 18, United States
Code (which prohibits the possession of a handgun by a juvenile), or a
similar State law. A juvenile who violates this statute, or a similar
state law, is excepted from the deinstitutionalization of status
offenders requirement;
* * * * *
6. Section 31.303 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(6)(i) and
(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 31.303 Substantive requirements.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(6) * * *
(i) Full compliance with section 223(a)(12)(A) is achieved when a
State has removed 100 percent of status offenders and nonoffenders from
secure detention and correctional facilities or can demonstrate full
compliance with de minimis exceptions pursuant to the policy criteria
contained in the Federal Register of January 9, 1981 (46 FR 2566-2569).
(ii) Compliance with section 223(a)(13) has been achieved when a
State can demonstrate that:
(A) The last submitted monitoring report, covering a full 12 months
of data, demonstrates that no juveniles were incarcerated in
circumstances that were in violation of section 223(a)(13); or
(B)(1) The instances reported under paragraph (f)(6)(ii)(A) of this
section do not indicate a pattern or practice but rather constitute
isolated instances; and
(2) Existing mechanisms or plans to address these incidences are
such that they are unlikely to recur in the future.
* * * * *
7. Section 31.303 is amended by inserting the following sentences
after the 2nd sentence of paragraph (j) introductory text:
[[Page 34775]]
Sec. 31.303 Substantive requirements.
* * * * *
(j) * * * The purpose of the statute and regulation is to encourage
States to address, programmatically, any features of its justice
system, and related laws and policies, which may account for the
disproportionate detention or confinement of minority juveniles in
secure detention facilities, secure correctional facilities, jails and
lockups. The Disproportionate Minority Confinement core requirement
neither establishes nor requires numerical standards or quotas in order
for a State to achieve or maintain compliance. * * *
* * * * *
Dated: June 26, 1996.
Shay Bilchik,
Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
[FR Doc. 96-16842 Filed 7-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
