PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 27, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS: Title I: Federal Juvenile Proceedings Title II: Grant Program for at Risk Juveniles Teaching Responsibility and Accountability to Children Act of 1997 - Title I: Federal Juvenile Proceedings - Amends the Federal criminal code to require an appropriate Federal authority (designated by the Attorney General), before any decision is made to proceed against a juvenile as a juvenile or as an adult, or to refer the juvenile to State authorities, to perform an initial intake screening to determine whether that juvenile is an at risk juvenile. Requires a juvenile who is determined to be at risk and who is proceeded against as a juvenile to be referred to a youth development specialist. Provides that if a juvenile is referred to State authorities for further proceedings or transferred for prosecution as an adult, the results of the screening shall be made available to those authorities or to the entity to which the juvenile is so transferred. Requires the screening body to determine that a juvenile is at risk if it determines that the juvenile is likely to exhibit recidivist or increasingly violent crimes, based on specified factors. Limits the use of such determination. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) the qualifications and duties of the youth development specialist, including determining a course of action for the juvenile that will avoid continued criminal activity and monitoring the juvenile's progress through the court system; and (2) data collection and dissemination by the Attorney General. Title II: Grant Program for At Risk Juveniles - Directs the Attorney General to award: (1) grants to an entity that has implemented specified at risk juvenile screening programs and youth development specialist referral services; and (2) not more than $10,000 each year for each juvenile who receives services to an entity that meets the requirements of this title. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) eligibility; and (2) permissible uses of grant funds. Authorizes appropriations. Specifies that funds authorized may be appropriated from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.
People & committees
Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-16] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Referred to House Education and the Workforce
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House Judiciary
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.879 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.879 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.879 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.879 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.