**Foreword**

Pursuant to Section 504(4) of Title V of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5601
*et seq*.), it is my pleasure to present to you this third annual
*Report to Congress*. In the 1992 amendments to the JJDP Act, Congress
established *Title V---Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention
Programs*, referred to as the Community Prevention Grants Program. The
bottom line goal of this program is to *prevent* the Nation's young
people from becoming involved in the juvenile justice system. Since
1994, this watershed delinquency prevention program has provided the
framework, tools, and funding for communities to assess their needs,
mobilize their resources, and tackle their local problems to help divert
at-risk youth from the path of crime to one of positive growth and
development.

In 1996, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP) distributed another \$20 million to the States to support the
Community Prevention Grants programs at the local level. This brings the
total to more than \$50 million over the past three years that has been
distributed on a formula basis to 49 States, five Territories, and the
District of Columbia to award to units of general local government for
delinquency prevention activities. OJJDP also has continued to provide
training in how to plan and implement effective, community-specific,
risk- and protection-focused prevention strategies. This training,
combined with stimulus funding from the Title V appropriations, has
helped States and communities move beyond traditional program-driven
approaches to outcome-driven strategies to reduce juvenile crime,
delinquency, and other adolescent problem behaviors.

Our optimism and message about this program remain consistent:
delinquency prevention *will work* in the long run, but real change will
take time. This program is not a quick fix approach to solving "youth
problems." This program says to communities, "We know you're in it for
the long haul, and here's a sound way to think about prevention, as well
as some help to get going." With the Community Prevention Grants
Program, we have already made significant progress toward the
establishment of a comprehensive, nationwide approach to delinquency
prevention---one that puts control of resources and decisions at the
local level. As we complete the third Program year, our optimism has
proved well-founded. Nearly 400 communities across the Nation have
embraced the rigorous community assessment and delinquency planning
process and received prevention grants. Most importantly, many already
are beginning to see early and encouraging results from their efforts.

In this third Report to Congress on Title V, we hope to convey the
momentum and progress that participating communities are beginning to
achieve, and how the Community Prevention Grants Program is changing the
way they do business. As you will see, their interest in and commitment
to solving their problems show true promise of creating environments
that foster strong families and help children grow up to be healthy,
law-abiding, and contributing members of society.

Shay Bilchik

Administrator

**Table of Contents**

**Foreword i**

**Introduction 1**

**I. A National Strategy for Community-Based Juvenile Delinquency
Prevention 3**

1\. Key Principles of the Community Prevention Grants Program 5

2\. A Risk- and Protection-Focused Approach to Prevention 6

3\. The Structure of the Community Prevention Grants Program 8

**II. Local Prevention: Progress and Promise 13**

1\. State and Local Grant Awards 13

2\. Defining Local Progress 15

3\. Pathways to Change: Local Progress and Promise 20

4\. National Evaluation: Toward a Better Understanding of How Community

Prevention Works 35

**III. State and Federal Support of Local Delinquency Prevention Plans
39**

1\. State Agencies Respond to the Community Prevention Grants Program 39

2\. Concentration of Federal Effort to Prevent Delinquency 44

**IV. The Prevention Imperative 53**

**References 55**

**Appendix: Risk Factors for Unhealthy Adolescent Behaviors 61**

**Introduction**

Title V of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974,
as amended in 1992 (PL 93-415; 42 U.S.C. 5601 *et seq.*), established a
new delinquency prevention program---*Community Prevention Grants
Program*---to assist and encourage communities to focus on preventing
juveniles from entering the juvenile justice system. This is the third
annual report fulfilling the requirements of Section 504(4) of Title V,
which states that the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) shall submit a report to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, in the U.S. House of
Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary in the U.S. Senate:

>  Describing activities and accomplishments of grant activities funded
> under this title.
>
>  Describing procedures followed to disseminate grant activity
> products and research findings.
>
>  Describing activities conducted to develop policy and to coordinate
> Federal agency and interagency efforts related to delinquency
> prevention.
>
>  Identifying successful approaches and making recommendations for
> future activities conducted under the title.

The *1996 Report to Congress* begins with a review of current trends in
juvenile justice and the role the Community Prevention Grants Program
plays in the prevention and control of juvenile problem behaviors. The
second chapter describes the implementation process and highlights
real-life local success stories. In the third chapter, the contribution
of State and Federal support to local delinquency prevention efforts is
discussed. Finally, the last chapter offers recommendations on future
investment in prevention**.**

**I. A National Strategy for Community-Based Juvenile Delinquency
Prevention**

Juvenile arrests for violent crimes increased by 51 percent between 1988
and 1994 (Snyder, Sickmund, & Poe-Yamagata, 1996). Although juvenile
arrests for violent crime decreased in 1995 for the first time in nearly
a decade, the number of arrests still remains above the mid-1980s level
(Snyder, 1997). In addition, some juvenile justice researchers have
projected a doubling in juvenile arrests for violent crime by the year
2010 based on juvenile demographic trends (Snyder & Sickmund, 1995).
Over the past few years, juvenile crimes have made television and
newspaper headlines nationwide, fueling public perceptions of a juvenile
crime "epidemic" and prompting public outcries for swift, decisive
action to stop it. Policymakers, practition-ers, and scholars have
called for a juvenile justice system that is tougher on that small
percentage of hardened, violent, youthful offenders who are responsible
for a large majority of juvenile crime.[^1]

In response, Federal, State, and local governments have moved to control
juvenile crime and violence and protect the public through increased
accountability of juvenile offenders. Since 1992, nearly all States have
adopted or modified laws to make it easier to prosecute serious,
violent, and chronic juvenile offenders in the adult criminal justice
system. For example, these new laws lower the age at which a juvenile
can be transferred to adult court, expand the list of crimes for which
juveniles can be transferred, and change the process for conducting
transfer hearings (Parent, Dunworth, McDonald, & Rhodes, 1997; Torbet,
Gable, Hurst, Montgomery, Szymanski, & Thomas, 1996).

At the same time, there is growing recognition of the importance of
adopting an *integrated* approach to dealing with juvenile crime---one
that includes *both* accountability-based sanctions and comprehensive
prevention programs. Through new State policies and juvenile code
reforms, States are also promoting a continuum of prevention programs
and control-oriented graduated sanctions that correspond to the
treatment needs, severity of offense, and offense history (National
Criminal Justice Association, 1997). These efforts are designed to
facilitate immediate and appropriate community-based responses to
juvenile problem behaviors and juvenile crime.

Research suggests that such an integrated approach holds the greatest
promise for reducing juvenile crime and delinquency (National Criminal
Justice Association, 1997; Parent, Dunworth, McDonald, & Rhodes, 1997).
A recent study of crime reduction strategies in California, for example,
suggests that if existing strategies to control crime through increased
incarceration were coupled with comprehensive prevention programs, the
level of crime reduction achieved would roughly double (Greenwood,
Model, Rydell, & Chiesa, 1996).

More and more States are moving to develop legislation and adopt
approaches that incorporate a range of prevention and control
components. To help State-level policymakers and local practitioners
design and implement effective strategies and programs, OJJDP developed
its *Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile
Offenders* (Wilson & Howell, 1993), which provides a research-based
framework for combating juvenile crime by targeting prevention efforts
on youth who are at risk of crime and delinquency and by responding to
youth who become involved in serious, violent, and chronic offenses with
a system of graduated sanctions and treatment alternatives. Together,
prevention programs and graduated sanctions provide a "continuum of
care" that both prevents and interrupts the progression of delinquent
and criminal careers.

The *Comprehensive Strategy* promotes a systematic approach to crime
reduction that draws on the basic principles of the public health model.
According to this model, we first must identify the root causes of
juvenile crime and then develop comprehensive strategies to prevent it
from occurring in the first place. If offenses still occur, we must also
have a full range of sanctions programs to defuse and control the
conduct at the earliest opportunity. By coming at the problem of
juvenile crime from both the front and back ends---i.e., prevention and
control---we can achieve the greatest success in enhancing positive
youth development and reducing juvenile crime.

Fortunately, research on the root causes and correlates of juvenile
delinquency and crime is paying off. We now know, for example, that
children who are sexually or physically abused or neglected are
predisposed to substance abuse, teenage pregnancy, and/or violent
criminal behavior in later years (Smith, 1996; Smith & Thornberry, 1995;
Widom, 1995). We also know that association with delinquent peers is a
major predictor of delinquent behavior. Moreover, studies on the
effectiveness of various prevention, intervention, and sanction
strategies have provided valuable information that can help guide our
program planning and implementation efforts. We know, for example, that
parent training programs decrease rates of juvenile crime and
delinquency in participating populations (Greenwood et al., 1996). We
have learned that the after-care components of boot camps for juvenile
offenders are critical to the potential success of this particular
sanction strategy (Peters, Thomas, & Zamberlan, in press; Bourque,
Cronin, Pearson, Felker, Han, & Hill, 1996).

The *Comprehensive Strategy* synthesizes our growing understanding of
the causes of juvenile crime and best juvenile justice practices for
responding to them to guide the development of effective prevention
programs. The Title V Community Prevention Grants Program supports the
"front-end" of the *Comprehensive Strategy's* continuum of care by
providing communities with the resources needed to identify and respond
to the root causes of their local juvenile delinquency problems through
comprehensive, collaborative prevention planning. With Program funding,
training, technical assistance to develop local plans, and seed funding
to implement plans over a three-year period, communities are empowered
to develop and implement prevention programs that best suit their unique
needs and circumstances.

In the following sections we describe the key, underlying principles of
the Community Prevention Grants Program, risk- and protection-focused
prevention, and the overall Program structure.

**1. Key Principles of the Community Prevention Grants Program**

A major impetus behind the development of the

Title V Community Prevention Grants Program was the National Association
of Counties' (NACO) concern that counties had been caught in a cycle of
paying the expensive \"back-end\" costs of the juvenile justice
system---enforcement and treatment. Without an alternate source of
Federal funds for more cost-effective \"front-end\" prevention
strategies, cities and counties would continue to pay the price for
sanctions that may have been avoidable. In 1992, NACO testified before
the Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice of the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, recommending strategies to help communities develop not only
a more balanced response to juvenile crime but also one tailored to
their specific local needs. NACO recommended the creation of a Federal
grants program to fund collaborative, community-based prevention
planning efforts.

In the 1992 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974, as Amended (JJDP Act), Congress established
*Title V---Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs*.
This Community Prevention Grants Program integrates six underlying
principles:

 **Community control and decision making**---As a grass roots
initiative, the Community Prevention Grants Program enables local
jurisdictions to assess their own delinquency prevention needs and
resources and then plan, develop, and implement delinquency prevention
initiatives that best meet these needs. As a result, the Program
recognizes and assists the community in developing local prevention
efforts.

 **Research foundation for planning**---The Program promotes a rational
framework for responding to adolescent problem behaviors that has been
verified by years of research on risk- and protection-focused prevention
(Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992). Through systematic risk assessments
and ongoing data collection activities, communities can identify and
track the factors that contribute to juvenile delinquency and crime
(i.e., risk factors). With empirical data on these risk factors,
communities can identify and prioritize areas of risk that warrant
attention and prevention resources *and* track the outcomes of their
prevention efforts.

 **Comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach**---Recognizing that a
broad-based approach dramatically increases the efficacy of prevention
efforts and reduces duplication of services, the Program requires the
formation or use of an existing multidisciplinary community planning
board, known as the Prevention Policy Board. The board should include
representatives from law enforcement, juvenile justice, education,
recreation, social services, private industry, health and mental health
agencies, churches, civic organizations, and other community agencies
that serve youth and families. This approach encourages the commitment
and participation of the entire community in developing and implementing
a prevention strategy. It also fosters the coordination needed to
deliver a comprehensive system of programs and services that meets the
needs of each community\'s children, youth, and families.

 **Leverage of resources and systems**---While some subgrant awards to
local communities are relatively small, this seed money can provide both
a financial base and the incentives necessary for local jurisdictions to
secure additional resources and implement sustainable prevention systems
in their communities. Program risk and resource assessments, supported
by community data, lend validity to community requests for local and
State funding and enable communities to use more effectively the
prevention funds they secure.

 **Evaluation to monitor program success**---At the local level,
requisite program evaluation activities enable local participants to
assess progress, refine their programs, and optimize effectiveness over
time. Evaluation components also help community members assess program
outcomes and monitor long-term changes in the prevalence of risk factors
and adolescent problem behaviors in the community. In addition,
evaluation of the Program at the national level will help OJJDP analyze
program results across communities, assess the impact of Federal program
dollars, and gather and disseminate information on what does and does
not work in delinquency prevention.

 **Long-term perspective---**Perhaps most importantly, this Program
does not propose quick-fix solutions to complicated juvenile problems,
but rather has adopted a long-term perspective that fosters positive,
*sustained* community change. Short-term efforts must be combined with
long-term investments to reduce risks and enhance those factors that
protect youth against risks in order to create healthier and safer
neighborhoods over the long run.

The Community Prevention Grants Program combines these fundamental
principles into an innovative strategic approach to reducing juvenile

delinquency. Furthermore, this Program provides a sound framework for
their practical application.

**2. A Risk- and Protection-Focused Approach to Prevention**

The Community Prevention Grants Program's approach to prevention differs
from other traditional prevention strategies because it includes a
systematic assessment and planning process that, ideally, involves every
segment of the community *and* builds on what is known to be effective
in delinquency prevention: a risk- and protection-focused approach to
prevention.

Risk- and protection-focused prevention maintains that in order to
prevent a problem from occurring, the factors that contribute to the
development of that problem must first be identified. Prevention
programs then must be developed to *reduce* those factors that increase
risks for the problem area (i.e., risk factors) and *enhance* those
factors that protect against risk (i.e., protective factors). Prevention
efforts that reduce those risk factors that contribute to problem
behaviors, or employ protective factors to buffer children against their
influence, maximize the chances of reducing juvenile delinquency and
other related problems. This premise forms the cornerstone of the
delinquency prevention model based on risk and protective factors.

Persuasive evidence exists that a risk-reduction and protective
factor-enhancement approach to preventing unhealthy behaviors is
effective. For example, comprehensive, community-wide programs to reduce
risks and enhance protective factors for heart and lung disease have
succeeded in persuading people to change their behavior in areas such as
diet, exercise, and smoking (Elder, Molgaard, & Gresham, 1988; Jacobs et
al., 1986; Murray, Davis-Hearn, Goldman, Pirie, & Luepker, 1988;
Vartiainen, Pallonen, McAlister, & Puska, 1990). Research indicates that
similar strategies undertaken by communities to prevent delinquency hold
great potential for success when they focus on reducing known risks for
crime and delinquency and enhancing protective factors in several areas
of a youth\'s life (Hawkins & Catalano, 1992).

This risk- and protection-focused approach has been incorporated into
juvenile delinquency prevention as researchers have increased their
understanding of the causes and precursors of juvenile delinquency and
documented the factors that contribute to the development of adolescent
problem behaviors (Tolan & Guerra, 1994; Yoshikawa, 1994; American
Psychological Association, 1993; Reiss & Roth, 1993; Dryfoos, 1990;
Kandel, Simcha-Fagan, & Davies, 1986; Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller,
1992).

Risk factors for delinquent behavior and youth violence include a number
of conditions, attitudes, or behaviors that increase the likelihood that
a child will develop delinquent behaviors in adolescence, leading to
crime and arrest. Risk factors exist in several domains, including the
community, school, family, and peer group, as well as within the
individual. Examples of risk factors include the availability of drugs
in the community, extreme economic and social deprivation, family
conflict, favorable parental and peer attitudes toward problem
behaviors, academic failure, lack of commitment to school, and
alienation and rebelliousness (Hawkins & Catalano, 1992). A list of risk
factors that studies have linked to unhealthy adolescent behaviors is
included in the Appendix.

Balancing risk factors are protective factors---aspects of individuals'
lives that counter risk factors or buffer against them. They protect
juveniles either by reducing the impact of risks or by changing the way
a person responds to risks (i.e., building a child\'s capacity to be
more resilient). A key strategy to counter risk factors in young
people's lives is to enhance the protective factors that promote
positive behavior, health, well-being, and personal success (Hawkins,
Catalano, & Miller, 1992). Examples of protective factors include a
resilient temperament and natural sociability, positive adult and peer
relationships that promote bonding, as well as healthy beliefs and clear
standards.

Generalizations regarding risk and protective factors have significant
implications for community prevention planning and development. Research
(Coie et al., 1993; Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992) reveals that:

 **Risks exist in multiple domains.** Since risk factors exist in all
areas of life, if a single risk factor is addressed only in one domain,
the school, for example, problem behaviors may not be significantly
reduced. Communities must focus on reducing risks across several
domains.

 **Common risk factors predict diverse behavior problems.** Several
adolescent problem behaviors---substance abuse, delinquency, teen
pregnancy, school dropout, and violence---are predicted by the presence
of common risk factors. When any individual risk factor is reduced,
therefore, multiple problems in the community are affected.

 **The more risk factors present, the greater the risk for juvenile
problem behavior.** While exposure to one risk factor does not condemn a
child to problems later in life, research shows that exposure to
multiple risk factors increases exponentially a young person's risk of
delinquency. Even if a community cannot eliminate all the risk factors
that are present, reducing or eliminating even a few may decrease risk
significantly for young people living in that community.

 **Risk factors show consistency in effects across different races and
cultures.** While levels of risk may vary in different racial or
cultural groups, the way in which these risk factors work does not
appear to vary. As such, programs selected to target specific risk
factors should be adaptable to fit the needs of various groups in any
community.

The implication of the research is clear: if the risks in young people's
lives can be reduced or countered with protective factors, the
possibility of preventing adolescent problem behaviors associated with
those risks is greatly increased.

Strategies that work to reduce known risk factors and enhance protective
factors have gained widespread acceptance among researchers and
practitioners as an effective approach for preventing delinquency and
other juvenile problem behaviors. Several risk- and protection-focused
delinquency prevention models have been proposed that differ slightly in
scope, emphasis, and terminology, including, for example, the Benson
Asset Model (Benson, Galbraith, & Espeland, 1994), the Health
Realization model (Benard, 1991), Pransky's Prevention Pyramid (Pransky,
1991), and *Communities That Care* (Developmental Research and Programs,
1994). OJJDP selected the risk- and protective-factor approach used in
the *Communities That Care* (CTC) strategy as the prevention training
model because of its strong empirical basis and systematic approach to
community-based, collaborative assessment and planning. Based on 30
years of research on factors associated with adolescent problem
behaviors, this risk- and protective-factor approach incorporates only
those risk factors that have been demonstrated to predict the
development of a problem behavior and stresses the need for programs
that enhance protective factors to buffer high-risk juveniles from the
impact of risk factors. This approach provides an overall conceptual
framework that facilitates community-wide involvement in assessing risks
and protective factors and planning prevention programs that respond to
these locally identified factors. Although communities are not required
to apply the CTC strategy, it is well-suited to support communities in
their implementation of the Community Prevention Grants Program.

**3. The Structure of the Community Prevention Grants Program**

The Community Prevention Grants Program structure is designed to provide
communities with a guiding framework for building healthy communities in
an objective, systematic, and comprehensive manner. The Program grant
award process---as set forth in the final Program Guideline in the
*Federal Register*, August 1, 1994 (Volume 59, Number 146)--- authorizes
the State to award grant funds to units of general local government and
allows for broad local discretion in applying funds toward
community-based prevention activities tailored to the needs of the
specific locality. In conjunction with the grant award process, OJJDP
has awarded a contract to provide widespread training and technical
assistance to help communities that wish to build their capacity in
prevention planning and implementation. The Program\'s grant award
process and capacity building activities are illustrated in Exhibit I-1.

**3.1 The Grant Award
Process**![](media/image5.wmf){width="3.4166666666666665in"
height="5.405555555555556in"}

Program funds are distributed to local communities in a two-step
process. In the first funding step, OJJDP awards grants to States
through their State Advisory Group (SAG). As provided by Section
223(a)(3) of the JJDP Act, the SAG is an advisory board appointed by the
Governor with 15 to 33 members who have training, experience, or special
knowledge concerning the prevention and treatment of juvenile
delinquency or the administration of juvenile justice. Statutory
responsibilities of the SAG include supervising the preparation and
administration of the State\'s juvenile justice plan, advising the
Governor and legislators on responding to juvenile justice needs, and
reviewing grant applications related to juvenile justice and delinquency
prevention.

Each State, as well as the District of Columbia and U.S. Territories, is
eligible to apply for Program funds provided that it has a State agency
designated by the chief executive under Section 299(c) of the JJDP Act
and a SAG, as described above. Program grant amounts are based on a
formula determined by the State\'s population of youth who are subject
to original juvenile court delinquency jurisdiction under State law,
with a minimum award level of \$100,000 for States and \$33,000 for
Territories in fiscal year 1996.

In the second funding step, State SAGs subgrant the Community Prevention
Grants Program funds to units of general local government through a
competitive process. In order to be eligible to apply for a subgrant
from the State, a unit of general local government must meet four basic
requirements:

 Receive SAG certification of **compliance** with the JJDP Act core
requirements, which include deinstitutionalization of status offenders
from secure detention, sight and sound separation of juveniles from
adults held in secure facilities, removal of juveniles from secure
custody in adult jails and lockups, and efforts to address the
disproportionate confinement of minority juveniles in secure facilities.

 Convene or designate a local **Prevention Policy Board** comprising
representatives from various community sectors that provide services for
children, youth, and families.

 Submit a three-year, **comprehensive risk-focused delinquency
prevention plan** to the State, describing the prevalence of identified
risk factors in the community and outlining strategies for addressing
priority risk factors and enhancing protective factors.

 Provide a 50-cents-on-the-dollar cash or in-kind **match** of the
Program subgrant.

SAGs may establish additional eligibility criteria for subgrant awards
in their States based on criteria related to juvenile crime or other
indications of need (e.g., jurisdictions with above average violent
crime rates).

Local applicants' comprehensive delinquency prevention plans are
required to include:

 The formation of a Prevention Policy Board, consisting of 15 to 21
members representing a balance of public agencies, nonprofit
organizations, private business and industry, at-risk youth, and
parents.

 Evidence of the commitment of key community leaders to supporting the
delinquency prevention effort.

 Definition of the boundaries of the program\'s neighborhood or
community.

 An assessment of the community\'s readiness to adopt a comprehensive
delinquency prevention strategy.

 An assessment of baseline data related to risk factors prevalent in
the community.

 An identification of available resources and promising approaches that
address identified risk factors and an assessment of gaps in needed
resources.

 A strategy for mobilizing the community to implement prevention
activities.

 A strategy for obtaining and coordinating identified resources to
implement promising approaches that address priority risk factors and
strengthen protective factors.

 A plan describing how Program funds and matching resources will be
used to accomplish stated goals and objectives.

 A description of the Prevention Policy Board\'s program management
role.

 A plan for collecting performance and outcome evaluation data.

Local applications are assessed by the SAG for inclusion and quality of
each of these elements.

The grant application process requires data collection and thorough
assessment of community readiness, risk, and resources *before*
prevention strategies are developed and funded. These assessments then
drive an empirically-based plan to implement and/or expand
community-based programs and services for children, youth, and families.

As a consequence of the locally-driven assessment processes, the type,
scope, and combination of programs and services implemented varies from
community to community. While one community may respond to its risk
profile and resource gaps by implementing a family support program,
another may identify the need to implement after-school recreation
services and youth leadership development activities, and yet another
may focus on a widespread media campaign to mobilize the community to
effect change to reduce risks youth face. Each community, in essence,
creates a unique prevention initiative tailored to the specific
conditions, risk profiles, and existing resources in that community.

**3.2 Community Capacity Building: Training and Technical Assistance**

To support communities in conducting quality risk and resource
assessments and developing sound delinquency prevention plans, OJJDP has
offered training and technical assistance to States and communities
across the country since early 1994. State Juvenile Justice Specialists,
who are responsible for coordinating the administration of juvenile
justice grants at the State level, have facilitated the provision of
training and technical assistance to interested communities in their
States.

**Training.** The Program's risk-focused prevention training is
delivered in two phases. The first phase---The *Key Leader Orientation*
(KLO)--- consists of a 1-day workshop for key community leaders and
high-level executives. The second phase of training---The *Risk and
Resource Assessment* (RRA)---is a 3-day \"hands-on\" workshop for
members of the community\'s Prevention Policy Board on how to conduct
community risk and resource assessments, including data collection and
analysis. The training provided for the Community Prevention Grants
Program is based on the *Communities That Care* model.

**Technical Assistance.** OJJDP also makes technical assistance
available to States and communities on an as-needed basis. Assistance is
available to strengthen the conceptual understanding of the risk-focused
prevention model that was presented in the training sessions, provide
information related to other risk- and resiliency-focused prevention
strategies, or to help with technical aspects of planning or
implementing their delinquency prevention strategies.

The training and technical assistance components of the Community
Prevention Grants Program support communities in developing Program
applications and prevention plans. Moreover, these activities build the
capacity of localities to apply the risk-focused principles and
comprehensive strategic planning procedures not only to Program efforts,
but also to other current and future Federal, State, and local
delinquency prevention initiatives.

\* \* \* \* \*

This chapter has described the need for a balanced juvenile crime
reduction strategy that incorporates a full range of prevention
activities as well as appropriate sanctions. The chapter also provided
an overview of the Community Prevention Grants Program and the risk- and
protection-focused approach to prevention on which it is based. The
following chapters examine more closely the implementation of the
Community Prevention Grants Program, with examples of early, local
program successes.

**II. Local Prevention: Progress and Promise**

Over the past three years, nearly 400 communities nationwide have
received Community Prevention Grants, and, as a result of their
participation in the Program, many are beginning to see positive
outcomes in their communities. This chapter describes local
implementation of the Community Prevention Grants Program and some of
the many local success stories. Much of the information presented in
this chapter comes from a recent OJJDP survey of the Juvenile Justice
Specialists in all participating States and Territories.[^2]

The first section in this chapter describes the Community Prevention
Grants Program awards to the States and State subgrant awards to
communities. The second provides an overview of four general
implementation stages that occur as communities design and initiate
their prevention efforts. The third section traces local progress and
highlights real-life implementation experiences and early promising
outcomes. The final section of this chapter provides an overview of the
national effort to conduct a more detailed assessment of program
implementation and outcomes.

**1. State and Local Grant Awards**

In fiscal year 1996, only one State (Wyoming) and one Territory (U.S.
Virgin Islands) did not submit applications for Community Prevention
Grants Program funds. Unallocated funds from fiscal year 1995
(\$133,000) were combined with the \$19.8 million in fiscal year 1996
Community Prevention Grants Program funds (\$20 million appropriated
less the \$200,000 to SafeFutures[^3]) for a total of \$19,933,000
available for distribution to the States and Territories. The allocation
of funds for which each State was eligible in fiscal years 1994, 1995,
and 1996 is shown in Exhibit II-1. (Up to 5 percent of a State's
allocation can be used to cover the costs of administering and
evaluating the Community Prevention Grants Program subgrants and support
SAG activities related to the Program.)

State agencies award subgrants to eligible units of general local
government, defined as any city, county, town, borough, parish, village,
or other general purpose political subdivision of a State, and any
Indian tribe that performs law enforcement functions. The award process
generally includes a Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by the State, a
competitive review of local subgrant applications based on criteria
established by the SAG, and subsequent award of subgrants to units of
general local government. States award grants to units of general local
government in annual increments covering not more than 12 months, with
overall project periods of 12 to 36 months. Except in the first program
year, therefore, when all awards were "new," subgrants to units of
general local

government are awarded either to "new" grantees (those who have not
received a subgrant in previous years), or "continuing" grantees (those
who previously had been awarded a subgrant and now are receiving second
or third year funds).

When the Program began in 1994, the subgrant award process and
eligibility criteria did not vary dramatically from State to State. In
the past two years, however, one-quarter of the States have modified
their subgrant award process and eligibility criteria. The State of
Florida, for example, changed its subgrant award process to reflect a
more balanced approach to delinquency prevention based on the principles
of OJJDP's *Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Juvenile
Offenders*. Wisconsin changed its eligibility requirements in support of
greater collaboration, now permitting \"teams\" of local government
applicants and private service providers to submit joint applications.
In the latest grant cycle (fiscal year 1996), Virginia and Michigan both
adapted sections of the *Title V Community Self-Evaluation Workbook,*
provided by OJJDP, to provide a consistent application framework and
help ensure the evaluability of their programs.

In 1996, more than 400 communities nationwide applied for Community
Prevention Grants. Over 230 subgrants were awarded, of which
approximately one-quarter are new grantees, receiving Community
Prevention Grants for the first time. Of the applicants that did not
receive Community Prevention Grants in fiscal year 1996, roughly half
were not funded due to a lack of

Title V funds. The total number of communities that received Community
Prevention Grants in fiscal year 1996, by State, and the average grant
amount are shown in Exhibit II-2.

**2. Defining Local Progress**

The Community Prevention Grants award process allows broad local
discretion in applying funds toward community-based prevention
activities tailored to the needs of the specific locality. The Community
Prevention Grants Program includes four general program implementation
stages common to all participating communities:

 Stage 1: Community Mobilization.

 Stage 2: Assessment and Planning.

 Stage 3: Initiation of Prevention Efforts.

 Stage 4: Institutionalization and Monitoring.

These four broad implementation stages provide a framework for
understanding both the process and progress of this long-term prevention
program. Each implementation stage has several components, as shown in
Exhibit II-3.

**Stage 1**, *community mobilization*, includes introducing risk-focused
prevention to key community leaders, obtaining their "buy-in" and
infusing the notion of long-term prevention into the fabric of the
community, establishing a multidisciplinary Prevention Policy Board, and
participating in community prevention training. With the knowledge and
skills gained in this stage, communities are ready for the second
implementation stage.

**Stage 2**, *assessment and planning,* includes two key components. The
first component is the risk and resource assessment to identify local
risk factors, existing prevention resources, and promising delinquency
prevention programs. The second is the development of a comprehensive,
three-year prevention plan, based on the results of the

assessment process. This plan serves as the community's application to
the State for a Community Prevention Grant.

**Stage 3**, *initiation of prevention efforts*, begins when units of
general local government first receive their Community Prevention Grants
from the States. With these grant funds, communities can initiate the
prevention services and activities described in their plans. In Stage 3,
communities also continue to identify and leverage resources to support,
enhance, and sustain their prevention efforts. As part of the
implementation process, communities also begin to put in place systems
that enable them to monitor the effectiveness of their prevention
efforts on an on-going basis. With these systems, communities will have
immediate access to programmatic and outcome information for future
program planning and funding.

**Stage 4**, *institutionalization and monitoring,* means that
prevention programs, resources, and data collection systems are in place
and operating. By monitoring their program activities and results,
communities are able to track their progress toward reducing risks,
enhancing protective factors, and ultimately decreasing juvenile problem
behaviors, including crime and delinquency.

Within each implementation stage, there are certain tasks, events, and
activities that indicate progress toward the goal of healthy youth,
families, and communities. Key outcomes for each implementation stage
are illustrated in Exhibit II-4. The following section highlights the
process of implementing the Community Prevention Grants Program though
community examples of promise and success.

**3. Pathways to Change: Local Progress and Promise**

In the first two Program years, most local grantees were focused on the
implementation activities of Stage 1 (community mobilization) and Stage
2 (assessment and planning). Now, in the third Program year, communities
that received funding in fiscal year 1994 are well into Stage 3,
initiating their prevention efforts.[^4] As they move through the
implementation stages, participating communities already are
demonstrating positive changes at the local level, toward the ultimate
goal of reducing the risk factors associated with delinquency and
ultimately delinquency itself.

**3.1 Stage 1: Community Mobilization**

Stage 1 of the Community Prevention Grants Program in fact occurs prior
to the award of a local subgrant and includes organizing the community
around risk- and protection-focused prevention planning. The involvement
of key community leaders is one of the features that differentiates the
Community Prevention Grants Program from traditional, single-agency
prevention efforts. Ultimately, mobilization involves the whole
community in thinking about and planning for risk-focused delinquency
prevention.

Indicators of community mobilization include:

 Community buy-in and commitment to risk-focused delinquency
prevention.

 Forming a multidisciplinary Prevention Policy Board.

 Improving the community's capacity for implementing the program
through training and technical assistance.

A key measure of the extent to which communities have been mobilized is
participation in the risk-focused delinquency prevention training. Units
of general local government bring together leaders from the community
for an orientation to risk- and protection-focused prevention and the
Community Prevention Grants Program planning process. To date,
approximately 4,300 participants, representing nearly 500 communities,
have attended the *Key Leader* and *Risk and Resource Assessment*
training sessions provided by OJJDP. In addition, more than 10 States
have purchased additional community prevention training sessions to meet
the demand from interested communities.

Asked what changes have occurred in the States as a result of the
Community Prevention Grants Program, the Juvenile Justice Specialists
most frequently reported positive changes in community buy-in, coalition
development, and capacity building. A Juvenile Justice Specialist in
California noted that community buy-in to the Community Prevention
Grants Program model is evident even in communities that applied for but
did not receive subgrants: "When California provided the OJJDP-sponsored
Key Leader Orientation, some communities adopted the strategies
utilizing local resources." A statewide evaluation in Iowa found that
"the \[Community Prevention Grants Program\] funding has generated
significant enthusiasm and commitment among professionals and citizens.
. . . \[the\] prevention initiative has involved citizens who were
unfamiliar with youth problems in the process of finding solutions to
crime and delinquency" (Jenson, Hartman, & Smith, 1997). On
mobilization, a program coordinator in Michigan said, "Community
Prevention Grants have made our community into a big quilt; community
members and agencies that work with youth are the patches and the
Prevention Policy Board is the quilter who stitches the patches
together."

Juvenile Justice Specialists also report that the Community Prevention
Grants Program model has increased the communities' capacity for
understanding delinquency prevention issues. A Specialist from Alaska
noted, ". . . local governments have become more aware and have a
broader understanding of delinquency prevention."

**Local Success in Mobilizing Communities**

Historically, service providers in **Kauai County, Hawaii** offered only
non-prevention-based recreational activities to youth. The County looked
to State agencies to plan, develop, and implement prevention programs.
There had been limited community involvement in delinquency prevention
efforts. Motivated by information provided at a State orientation to the
Community Prevention Grants Program and risk-focused delinquency
prevention, the Kauai Mayor's Youth Program Office decided to introduce
risk-focused prevention to service providers and citizens in the county.

To mobilize the community, the Office developed eight introductory
prevention programs in conjunction with the Department of Education, the
Police Department, Parks and Recreation, and various non-profit
organizations. These pilot programs were designed to alert agencies
about the need for prevention and identify key leaders interested in
planning and implementing risk-focused prevention. As a result of the
Office's mobilization efforts, agencies in Kauai County came together
for the first time to address prevention. The pilot programs allowed the
County to identify 24 agency representatives, who were "cornerstones" of
the Kauai youth picture, and to collaborate with them to form a Youth
Prevention Policy Board (YPPB). The YPPB has become the lead advisory
group to the County on prevention issues. The board has doubled in size
since its inception in 1995 and continues to involve community members
in sharing resources and information.

^\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_^  ^\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_^

By pooling local resources in the county, the Children's Services
Council in **St. Lucie County, Florida,** brought together 72 agencies
and organizations for risk-focused delinquency prevention planning. One
indicator of the success of the county's mobilization efforts is that
commitment from the participating agencies has been sustained. Two years
after the initial mobilization, the 72 community entities continue to
meet on a monthly basis to review risk factors and prevention resources
and plan efforts that will improve the lives and reduce the risk factors
for families of first grade children. The coalition jointly developed a
resource directory and worked to establish 48 First Stop Centers,
community-based information and referral resources for families across
the county.

**3.2 Stage 2: Assessment and Planning**

The second general program implementation stage involves conducting
community risk and resource assessments and developing comprehensive
prevention plans. The risk and resource assessment component of the
Community Prevention Grants Program provides the foundation for
comprehensive prevention plans. The assessment process provides a method
for communities to identify the root causes of delinquency, inventory
existing prevention efforts, and tailor responses to fit their needs. As
a result of the individualized assessment and planning processes, the
type, scope, and combination of programs and services implemented varies
from one community to another. Each community, in essence, creates a
unique prevention initiative tailored to the specific conditions, risk
profiles, and existing resources in that community.

In the most recent, detailed, community-specific review of Program
grantees, the General Accounting Office (GAO) collected data on the
priority risk factors identified by existing grantees. GAO found that on
average communities are targeting more than six risk factors and that
more than half of the communities rated family management problems,
availability of drugs, and academic failure as the highest priority
risks in their communities. To address these risk factors, communities
had planned a number of primary and secondary prevention efforts, the
most frequent of which included:

 Ongoing community mobilization.

 Parent training.

 After-school programs.

 Community/school policies.

 Family therapy.

 School behavior management strategies.

 Mentoring with behavioral management (GAO, 1996).

Prevention approaches selected by communities may include direct
services (programs that provide services directly to clients or
participants in the community) or systems change (intended to influence
broader community-level changes rather than changes in individuals).

One measure of the assessment and planning process is the number of
application plans developed and submitted to the States. In 1996,
approximately 225 communities that had not received subgrants in 1994 or
1995 developed and submitted comprehensive prevention plans.

Two other outcomes of the assessment and planning process are increased
interagency collaboration and resource sharing. By collaborating and
sharing resources, communities have been able to develop comprehensive
plans that are realistic and reflect the communities' prevention needs.
Increased interagency collaboration was singled out by more than half of
the State Juvenile Justice Specialists as one of the positive Community
Prevention Grants Program outcomes. In addition, by combining prevention
resources and funding, communities have been able to maximize available
resources to fully implement their prevention plans. In Arkansas, for
example, a State Juvenile Justice Specialist reported that communities
have made great strides in pooling their resources across agencies as a
result of the Community Prevention Grants Program planning and
assessment model.

Similarly, at the local level, a project coordinator in Michigan stated,
"The \[Community Prevention Grants Program\] gave us time with committed
agencies to rethink and coordinate our efforts---we knew we were rich in
community resources, but we needed to redefine our efforts in order to
combine assets and resources and move in the same direction." And, a
human services director in Wisconsin said, "Communities need to realize
what they are capable of doing with the amount of resources available to
them. These grants only have an effect if planners focus and combine
efforts to achieve the greatest impact."

**Improved Interagency Collaboration**

Community Prevention Grants enhanced collaboration among agencies in
**Fremont County, Colorado**. In an effort to maximize funding
resources, the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice streamlined
Community Prevention Grant funding with the State's Build A Generation
initiative. Build A Generation provides support services for Community
Prevention Program subgrants in prevention planning, assessment, and
program development. Build A Generation was designed to ensure that
communities move forward in a collaborative manner and to ensure the
long-term continuation of multi-institutional planning. Support services
include:

 Funding a program coordinator to supervise Community Prevention
Program subgrants, community trainings and workshops, and public
education in State technical assistance documents and workshops.

 Developing a Steering Committee comprising agency heads and program
coordinators. The Steering Committee meets monthly to allow members to
coordinate program efforts, reduce duplication of program services, and
incorporate prevention themes into their programs.

 Identifying State and National funding resources for use by prevention
partners on the Steering Committee to help coordinate funding
applications.

Thus, Community Prevention Grants have enabled Key Leaders in Fremont
County to use risk-focused prevention as a multi-institutional planning
effort. The combined funding initiatives promote the
institutionalization of the Community Prevention Grant planning process
and support the infrastructure necessary to ensure multi-institutional
coordination.

**Improved Interagency Collaboration**

Supported by the Community Prevention Grants Program, members of the
**Washtenaw, Michigan** Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Action Committee
partnered with the Family Services Coordinating Council to develop a
comprehensive delinquency prevention initiative. The resulting
initiative includes three components:

 Early childhood education focusing on reading, self-control, and rules
and consequences.

 Supportive home-based intervention to provide the families of children
exhibiting pre-delinquent behavior with counseling, communication skills
enhancement, and therapy through home visits.

 Parenting classes focusing on childhood development, family
management, bonding, and adolescent behavior problems.

Implementing the prevention initiative and its component programs
involves collaboration with the Washtenaw Community College, Willow Run
School District, the juvenile court, county sheriff's department, and
county gang task force, in addition to the initiative's two founding
partners. As a result of this collaborative effort, the Willow Run
School District reports a decrease in school suspensions and improved
language and motor skills for kindergarten students enrolled in the
early childhood program. In addition, pre- and post-test data indicate
improved communication between family members participating in the
home-based intervention and parenting programs.

**Improved Interagency Collaboration**

As part of the Community Prevention Grants application process,
representatives of the Office of Children and Youth in **Erie County,
Pennsylvania** joined forces with key leaders from the County
Departments of Education, Juvenile Services, Health Services, and Human
Services to broaden community support and input into the planning
process. The 24-member Erie County Policy and Planning Council for
Children and Families took steps to implement the prevention effort by:

 Forming an 8-member Data Collection Committee subgroup as part of the
Council's risk and resource assessment to collect data from 35
publications and resources.

 Forming collaborative relationships with community leaders interested
in the delinquency prevention effort, including representatives from
municipal and county government, the juvenile courts, law enforcement,
education, commerce, and faith and religious communities.

 Convening a community meeting of 100 participants to examine the risk
and resource data and select priority risk factors.

As a result of these efforts, the Erie County Policy and Planning
Council for Children and Families identified three priority risk
factors: early and persistent antisocial problem behaviors, extreme
economic and social deprivation, and family management problems. To
address these risk factors, the Council initiated the Erie County
Delinquency Prevention Program to merge education, health, welfare and
employment services for students and families most affected by the
priority risk factors.

According to the Policy Analyst who monitors and evaluates the
delinquency prevention initiative, Community Prevention Grants effected
the most comprehensive collaborative prevention effort Erie County ever
had experienced: "People from all walks of life were mobilized to
receive the grant and to truly make it effective. Before this process,
there was little productive communication among agency heads and between
agency heads and the community."

In addition to overseeing the Erie County Delinquency Prevention
Program, the Erie County Policy and Planning Council acts as a
collaborative planning body for County services to children and
families. It has expanded to include over 50 members and functions to
enhance communication and mutual understanding among social service
professionals, governmental leaders, the service and religious
communities, and the public.

There is also anecdotal information suggesting that communities that
have tried to implement delinquency prevention programs without engaging
community members in a comprehensive planning and assessment process
have not been as successful as those communities that use the Community
Prevention Grants Program model. A Juvenile Justice Specialist from one
of the Territories noted, "Once the Program showed success, other
agencies tried to implement similar projects without the planning and
village assessment elements and this has \[not proven to be
effective\]."

In Madison, Wisconsin, for example, the Prevention Policy Board (PPB)
collaborated with an existing grassroots gang and drug prevention
program to involve residents in prevention planning and to increase
neighborhood attachment among community residents in a low-income
neighborhood. The resulting effort gave structure to the existing
mentoring and recreational program and resulted in an increase in direct
services available to area youth. Prior to the collaboration with the
PPB, no formal monitoring of services was occurring, and the grassroots
organization estimated that a maximum of 10 youth were receiving
services regularly. After collaborating with the PPB and residents, the
organization's activities became more structured and monitoring of
service delivery began. The prevention effort now reaches 40 youth on a
regular, daily basis with many other youth receiving services
periodically.

**3.3 Stage 3: Initiation of Prevention Efforts**

Stage 3 begins with award of the Community Prevention subgrant from the
State. At this point, communities translate their prevention plans into
action. To date, nearly 400 communities across the country have received
Community Prevention Grants and have initiated their prevention efforts.

Communities vary in how far they have progressed in initiating their
prevention efforts. As previously indicated, at least 56 communities
received new Community Prevention Grants in 1996 and are just beginning
to initiate their prevention efforts. Among the more than 300
communities that received subgrants in 1994 and 1995, many of their
prevention efforts already have been operational for up to 2 years.

Regardless of how far along they are, communities use their Community
Prevention Grants to better target their prevention efforts, reduce
duplication of services through interagency planning, and fill gaps in
needed services. These efficiencies help maximize prevention coverage
and ensure that prevention efforts are reaching the groups most in need
of services. Achieving these efficiencies greatly increases a
community's potential to reduce risk factors, enhance protective
factors, and, ultimately, impact juvenile delinquency rates.

A key measure of targeted prevention efforts is the number of people
served. Based on fiscal year 1996 reports from the communities, the
number of youth and parents that have been reached nationwide is
estimated to be more than 100,000 in 1996 alone. Since the program's
inception in 1994, two States alone report having reached more than
62,400 youth and parents.[^5]

Participating communities and States indicate that more youth and
families have received prevention services and have been reached through
the Community Prevention Grants Program as a result of reduced
duplication of effort and fewer gaps in services. A State Juvenile
Justice Specialist in Minnesota reported, "Communities participating in

\[the Community Prevention Grants Program\] have learned that
coordinating activities among multiple agencies \[has\] paid off in
terms of planning and implementation. Eliminating or substantially
reducing overlap has improved the quality of programs provided, and has,
in many cases, resulted in others seeking to participate in the program
at the community level."

In Nebraska, "\[The Community Prevention Grants Program\] has allowed
communities to address the whole continuum of juvenile justice issues
from treatment to intervention to prevention. This has placed an
emphasis on prevention, \[including\] primary prevention targeted at all
youth, looking at

**Targeting Prevention Efforts to Reduce Duplication of Services and to
Fill Gaps in Needed Services**

**Randolph County, Vermont** used its Community Prevention Grant to
streamline the services provided by State agencies, local organizations,
and community members and to provide comprehensive prevention services
for at-risk youth and their families. The resulting initiative, Building
Caring Communities (BCC), has two components designed specifically to
reduce the duplication of services and to ensure that appropriate
services are available to youth and families who need them:

 The Family Resource Mobilizer connects under-served families and youth
with State services and district agencies to ensure the families receive
comprehensive prevention services. The Family Resource Mobilizer
facilitates interagency collaboration primarily through "team meetings"
that bring together families and their various service providers to
determine service needs, define common goals, and design efficient
strategies to meet these goals.

 The Community Resource Mobilizer is responsible for securing other
funding sources and facilities for program services and activities.
Currently, the Community Resource Mobilizer is developing a Family
Services Center that will co-locate health care representatives,
including a maternal child care nurse and the State Department of Health
WIC program; educational programs; social rehabilitative services (e.g.,
Child Protective Services and Child Welfare); and the BCC offices. The
purpose of this center is to increase collaboration among the various
providers and maximize the use of existing resources.

Both the Family and Community Mobilizers report reduced duplication of
services as a result of the multi-agency team meetings and co-located
services. Members of the BCC also report that the increased interagency
collaboration has resulted in more effective family services, with the
team meetings leading to greater accountability of all participating
agencies. One unexpected outcome of these efforts is the increased
participation and involvement of youth and families in prevention
activities. As a direct result of the Mobilizer efforts, some of the
youth and their families receiving services have become involved in a
discussion group, sponsored by the BCC, in which 50 to 60 community
members meet regularly to discuss prevention programming initiatives.

**Targeting Prevention Efforts to Reduce Duplication of Services and to
Fill Gaps in Needed Services**

Community members in **Anchorage, Alaska** combined their Community
Prevention Grants Program funds with municipal funds and donations from
private sources to implement a Youth Court. Prior to combining funds and
implementing the Youth Court, as many as 80 percent of juveniles
arrested for minor offenses in Anchorage were never processed due to a
lack of resources. The Youth Court Program ensures that all youth
diverted from the juvenile court into the program are held accountable
for their actions. The Program has shortened the time between arrest,
charge, and disposition. In its first full year of operation, the Youth
Court heard 381 cases and expects to handle as many as 600 in 1997. In
the full 15 months of operation, only 10 percent of juveniles handled by
the Youth Court have been re-arrested.

**Targeting Prevention Efforts to Reduce Duplication of Services and to
Fill Gaps in Needed Services**

Key leaders in **LaCrosse, Wisconsin** joined forces with the LaCrosse
County Human Services Department to accomplish two objectives:

 Combine Community Prevention and Family Preservation funding to
conduct a joint risk and resource assessment in order to minimize the
duplication of planning and service delivery efforts.

 Identify and enhance existing services and programs that promote
healthy communities in which parents are actively involved in
delinquency prevention.

Through joint planning meetings and grant-writing efforts, the
collaborative prevention team was able to identify three existing
prevention initiatives that were providing overlapping services: 1) the
Hmong Mutual Assistance Association, 2) a community-based
mentoring/tutoring program, and 3) the Serious Habitual Offenders
Comprehensive Action Program. The collaborative planning enabled the key
leaders to focus prevention efforts on targeted objectives and build
upon the objectives of these three programs. With enhanced funding and
support, each program was able to focus its effort on its primary
objectives and reach more youth and families. From 1995 to 1996, as a
result of the reduced duplication of effort and enhanced prevention
services, the prevention team achieved an 8 percent reduction in county
delinquency referrals to juvenile court and a 10 percent reduction in
county Child Protective Services referrals.

long-range, cost effective solutions to providing positive opportunities
for youth involvement at the community level, thereby reducing the risk
of juvenile delinquency."

Some States also reported that communities have been able to secure
additional resources, beyond the required match, in support of their
prevention efforts. Although the majority of States did not indicate
whether their subgrantees had received grants from other funding
sources, the 26 that did provide this information reported that at least
60 communities have received additional grants to support their
community-based risk-focused prevention efforts. Most of the additional
grants came from the States, followed by OJJDP formula grants, other
Federal grant funds and private foundation sources.

An important measure of progress at this implementation stage is the
development of monitoring systems to track community prevention efforts
and indicators of risk and protective factors, as well as juvenile
problem behaviors. Communities are encouraged to design local evaluation
plans that include such monitoring systems. To help them develop these
plans and systems, OJJDP has widely distributed the *Title V Community
Self-Evaluation Workbook*. The *Self-Evaluation Workbook,* described in
more detail in the next chapter, contains model self-administered
evaluation instruments to assist Community Prevention Grant recipients
in meeting their own local evaluation needs and implementing regular
monitoring of prevention efforts.

**Increased Funding for Prevention**

The Prevention Policy Board in **Grand Haven, Michigan** drew from
existing community resources to produce a three dollar in-kind or cash
match for every Federal dollar offered through their Community
Prevention Grant. The Grand Haven Prevention Policy Board, consisting of
representatives from business and industry, the school district, police
departments, and the city manager, collaborated with the Northwest
Ottawa Area Community Coalition to enhance community prevention
services. Soliciting help and donations from several public and private
agencies, institutions, and individuals, the Prevention Policy Board was
able to effect a "systems change" by coordinating health, educational,
and social services to meet the needs of the community more effectively.

^\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_^  ^\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_^

In **Sisters, Oregon**, a rural community in central Oregon, key leaders
were faced with limited resources for positive youth activities other
than interscholastic athletic events. Working with the Boys and Girls
Club, Parks and Recreation District, and a latchkey program, the Sisters
Organization for Activities and Recreation (SOAR) was able to secure
\$52,000 in financial support from local service clubs, businesses, and
churches to add to their \$10,000 Community Prevention Grant. In total,
these monies supported numerous safe and structured activities for youth
such as tutoring programs, job placement programs, athletic and
recreational events, and intergenerational activities. The leveraged
resources allowed SOAR to triple the number of youth served in one year
(from 367 to 1,180 youth).

**3.4 Stage 4: Institutionalization and Monitoring**

In this final stage of full program implementation, communities
demonstrate a sustained and long-term commitment to the risk-focused
delinquency prevention model. Risk-focused prevention is tightly woven
into the fabric of community and a normal way of "doing business." Truly
integrated prevention strategies take time to attain, and even more time
to effect impressive changes in trend lines. Changes in community risk
and protective factors require long-term, sustained efforts before
significant change can be observed at the community level. As such,
though we are all eager to see rapid results, it is not realistic to
expect significant changes in these very early years of program
implementation. That being said, however, there is *already* encouraging
evidence from some communities of early positive program outcomes.

**Early Indications of Decreased Risk and Enhanced Protective Factors**

Some of the more promising changes in risk and protective factors were
reported by Story County (Ames), Iowa; East Prairie, Missouri;
Cincinnati, Ohio; Montgomery County, Maryland; South Sioux City,
Nebraska; Vancouver, Washington; and Nekoosa, Wisconsin. All seven
communities report evidence of decreased risk factors and enhanced
protective factors as a result of the Community Prevention Grants
Program.

**(1) Healthy Futures and Healthy Choices in Ames, Iowa**

The prevention planning team in Story County (Ames), Iowa, received
State juvenile justice funds for their risk assessment and new
prevention programs in conjunction with their Community Prevention
Grant. Youth and Shelter Services of Ames, a community-based nonprofit
agency, has coordinated the introduction of two new prevention programs.
The first was Healthy Futures---designed to fill a gap in needed
services for high-risk teen parents by providing in-home visits and
counseling. Healthy Futures has served an average of 340 parents per
year since 1994. Pre- and post-program tests found that parents in the
Healthy Futures Program have increased their parenting skills thereby
reducing the family management risk factor identified by the prevention
planning team as a priority in the target community.

The second new program was Healthy Choices---an elementary school-based
skills training program that teaches children problem-solving, drug
refusal, and social skills. Approximately 3,000 youth have participated
in the Healthy Choices initiative. Tests conducted with program
participants found that children in Healthy Choices show improved
cognitive skills.

**(2) Empowering Families to be Self-Sufficient in East Prairie,
Missouri**

Combining their Community Prevention Grant with Federal Enterprise
Community funding, community leaders in East Prairie, Missouri have
implemented two prevention efforts---a parent training program and an
adult leadership program---targeting low-income families and youth. The
parent training program consists of several components, including:

 Bowden Outreach Project, which focuses on pre-parenting skills such as
impulse control, anger management, and decision making.

 Second Steps Project to enhance the parenting skills of
developmentally-challenged parents.

 Drug Free Years Project, which addresses substance abuse prevention
for youth and their families.

 Living on Your Own Project to assist parents in completing job
applications, obtaining employment, budgeting money, and managing their
households.

 Drivers' education to help parents get drivers' licenses.

In addition, the Positive Adult Leadership Program provides self-image
and self-esteem building activities such as leadership skills training
to teens, in an effort to prepare them for adulthood and parenting.

These prevention programs were implemented to address family management
problems in East Prairie that lead to substance abuse, delinquency, teen
pregnancy, school dropout, and violence. These programs were designed to
provide parents with incentive-based opportunities to develop positive
self-images and healthy expectations.

Quarterly evaluations of the Parent Training Program found that all of
the 47 adult program participants demonstrated improved parenting
skills. Five of the participants found employment, and several were
reported to have enrolled in college courses, received a GED, and
regained custody of their children. Similar positive results were found
in the Positive Adult Leadership program. The Positive Adult Leadership
evaluation found that all of the 80 program participants improved their
academic performance. In addition, 96 percent reported improved family
relations, 93 percent said community relations improved, and 80 percent
reported better self-images.

**(3) Leadership for Violence Prevention in Montgomery County,
Maryland**

Community members in Montgomery County, Maryland used their Community
Prevention Grants Program funds to implement a school-based program
designed to improve academic success and reduce and change violent and
anti-social behavior among middle school youth. The program is intended
to foster the natural leadership skills of youth (including those youth
leaders who demonstrate positive prosocial leadership and those who
demonstrate less desirable, negative, "anti-social" leadership skills).
Community members believe that pairing "positive" and "negative" leaders
will foster the development of prosocial leadership skills in "negative"
leaders.

Over the past two years, program staff have identified both the
"positive" and the "negative" leaders among the students in three
targeted middle schools. The youth leaders are sent to a 3-day
Residential Leadership Training where they participate in skill and
team-building exercises to teach them to work together. The youth
leaders also work together to develop action plans to reduce violence in
their schools. Since the program began, 160 students have attended the
training, 98 percent of whom completed the program.

One team, from the Parkland Middle School, has developed and implemented
an action plan that includes:

 Organizing a Family Funday Carnival.

 Hiring a Student Conflict Resource Officer who is available during the
school day to help resolve student conflicts.

 Recognizing peaceful students with Non-Violence Awards.

 Sponsoring a writing contest on the subject of students' families.

 Staging plays about non-violence and ways to cope with potentially
violent situations.

Since the implementation of the action plan, both suspensions and
behavior referrals have declined in Parkland Middle School. From 1993
(just prior to program implementation) to 1996, suspensions have dropped
72 percent (from 205 to 57). Similarly, behavior referrals have dropped
approximately 30 percent (from 3,753 to 2,635) from the 1994-95 to the
1995-96 school year.

During the summer, Montgomery County's Community Prevention Program
continues its prevention efforts with work apprenticeship activities for
youth from the targeted middle schools. In 1996, 46 students
participated in the Community Power Crew, a four-week program designed
to interest students in the world of work by providing them with job
skills, work experience, and money management training.

**(4) Peer Mediation in South Sioux City, Nebraska**

South Sioux City, Nebraska used its Community Prevention Grant to target
troubled peer and family relations by enhancing youth skills and
providing positive opportunities for youth involvement at the community
level. Working with the South Sioux City Junior High School, the Dakota
County Interagency Team (DCIT) and the City Council designed and
implemented the Peer Mediation Program to help build youth skills in
conflict resolution and decision making to bolster self confidence and
improve troubled peer and family relations.

The Peer Mediation Program was designed to address discipline problems,
fighting, and racial intolerance in the Junior High School. Through this
program, students use time during study hall to work with a peer
mediator to resolve conflicts as an alternative to Saturday detention or
suspension. This program has led to a decrease in the number of
suspensions and detentions at the Junior High School. Data from one
semester in which the program was operational show that 86 percent of
the peer mediations were resolved without conflict or further
disciplinary action.

**(5) The Family Connection Program in Cincinnati, Ohio**

In Cincinnati, Ohio, there was concern about the increased number of
youth from the Appalachian community entering the juvenile court system.
Their risk assessment identified a high incidence of family conflict and
family management problems among families in this community. In an
effort to succeed where other prevention efforts have failed in breaking
the cycle of family problems, the Cincinnati Prevention Policy Board
collaborated with the Urban Appalachian Council to implement the Family
Connection Program.

This program targets Appalachian families with at least one child in the
juvenile court system. The program is designed to teach parents family
management techniques and both parents and children effective means of
communication and conflict resolution. Directed by the community members
themselves, the grass-roots program addresses family risk factors by
helping participants improve parenting and life skills. The program
consists of three components:

 Weekly parenting classes (group sessions for parents to discuss family
communication, discipline, and self-esteem issues).

 Weekly home visits by a family therapist to provide individual
treatment and counseling.

 Family activities (including family outings to promote bonding and a
Ropes course that teaches families to work together to solve problems).

Early indications are that the Family Connection Program is having a
positive impact on participants. Of the 25 families who have
participated in the program, all have demonstrated improved attitudes
toward their children/parents. In addition, 20 percent of the parents
report they are now able to discipline their children more effectively,
and 25 percent report fewer family conflicts as a result of improved
communication. The most significant indicator of program success is
that, since its inception, none of the children whose families are
participating in the program have had subsequent contact with the
juvenile justice system. In assessing the program's effectiveness, one
key leader noted, "Given the cultural dynamics, it has been difficult in
the past to teach families to help themselves. By training community
members to lead group discussions and classes, the participants \[have
been\] more receptive and willing to employ what they've learned in
their homes."

**(6) Vancouver, Washington's Re-Entry Program**

The Re-Entry Program in Vancouver, Washington is an educational program
for youth who have been expelled from school for weapon-related
violations or malicious conduct. The program combines an academic
curriculum with outdoor educational activities, intensive family
involvement (including family process groups and contracts between youth
and their parents to spend time together), and service opportunities to
teach youth positive life skills and social values. The program is
intended to improve self-esteem and foster problem-solving skills as
part of the youth participants' transition back to local schools.

Early data indicate that the program has been successful in building
protective factors and providing participants with skills to avoid
involvement in subsequent criminal or malicious activities. According to
the Program's first-year evaluation report (which provides the most
current data available), 95 percent of students who completed the
Re-Entry Program and were transitioned back to school have not exhibited
behavioral problems in the six months after leaving the program. One
youth reported, "The program has showed me to have respect and think
before I do my actions. I have learned self-talk and anger management .
. . and \[the program\] makes us feel good about ourselves . . .."
Another gang-involved youth who completed the program said, "I've
learned that teamwork and friendship are what will keep you pushing hard
throughout life . . .. I have found a new person inside of me that I'm
not ashamed to live with---a person who now feels good about himself,
and a person who isn't going to do something stupid to try and fit in."

**(7) Reaching Out Against Drugs in Nekoosa, Wisconsin**

In 1993, a survey of middle school youth in Nekoosa, Wisconsin indicated
a dramatic increase in substance abuse problems. Recognizing the
importance of combating juvenile problem behaviors during the early
stages of development, community leaders used the Community Prevention
Grant funds to develop and administer the Reaching Out Against Drugs
(ROAD) Project.

The Nekoosa Prevention Policy Board has collaborated with the Wood
County Partnership Council, a county coalition working to reduce
substance abuse and other destructive behaviors, to provide a wide range
of programs to address the risk factors associated with alcohol,
tobacco, and other drug use among Nekoosa youth. Programs in the ROAD
Project include parent education workshops; peer helper programs on
substance abuse issues; tutoring programs for youth at risk of academic
failure; scholarships for underprivileged youth to participate in summer
camps and workshops; a hotline for school district announcements and
homework help for students and their parents; a Native American Cultural
Awareness program to build self-esteem and promote culturally-relevant,
anti-substance abuse messages; and other alternative recreational and
athletic activities.

Early findings show a decrease in the number of student detentions, a
decrease in the number of eighth grade student failures in core academic
areas, and a decrease in the number of students who are chronically
truant or absent. According to a program volunteer, "\[the tutoring and
other programs\] have helped children realize that there is someone who
really wants to see them succeed." Program stakeholders are confident
that each of the ROAD programs will result in more success stories that
in turn will result in increased community involvement and decreased
delinquency.

**Early Evidence of Decreased Rates of Juvenile Delinquency**

Although the Community Prevention Grants Program is only in its third
year, communities are, nonetheless, already reporting modest decreases
in their rates of juvenile problem behaviors. Evidence from Woodbury
County (Sioux City), Iowa; Ingham County (Lansing), Michigan; and Port
Angeles, Washington, for example, indicate changes in delinquency rates
and other problem behaviors that are attributed to the Community
Prevention Grants Program.

**(1) Decreased Juvenile Court Adjudications in Woodbury County, Iowa**

The Prevention Policy Board in Sioux City, Iowa targeted their
prevention activities on a middle school neighborhood with historically
high rates of violence and low academic achievement. The Board
distributed its Community Prevention Program funds to several programs
that, together, provide a continuum of care for the at-risk students.
After-school activities at the Crittenden Center, a community-based
agency, have been funded. Community prevention planners also provided
the Boys and Girls Home with funds to expand their family services
programs aimed at reducing the number of out-of-home placements for
delinquent youth. Approximately 70 youth and 10 parents participate in
both programs. Together, the programs involve probation department
staff, outreach workers, child welfare service providers, and teachers.
The Crittenden Center serves students from the targeted middle school in
their after-school program, offered every day and summers from 3:00 to
9:00 p.m. Dinner and transportation home are provided in the evening.
Youth in the program regularly participate in tutoring, mentoring,
drama, and life skills training programs.

While a formal evaluation of the programs has not been conducted,
outcome indicators suggest that the programs may be responsible for a
significant drop in problem behaviors. Police calls to the targeted
neighborhood have declined 37 percent in the last year, primarily as a
result of declining delinquency. Juvenile court adjudications of
students from the targeted middle school have dropped 85 percent (from
39 in 1993 to 6 in 1996). Violence and weapons have been almost
completely eliminated from the school. Students and teachers in the
targeted school, free from safety concerns, are once again able to teach
and learn. Since 1993, when violence rates began to fall, average
reading scores in the school have risen two grade levels.

**(2) Decreased School Violence in Ingham County (Lansing), Michigan**

The Youth Violence Coalition, serving Ingham County and the city of
Lansing, Michigan, worked with the Lansing and Stockbridge School
Districts to implement the School/Community Violence Prevention Program
(S/CVPP) in elementary, middle, and high schools. The program consists
of a violence prevention and conflict resolution curriculum administered
by elementary school teachers, a peer mediation program for middle and
high school students, and parent involvement/student assistance. The
S/CVPP is beginning to show positive results. One middle school in
particular has exceeded the Coalition's expectations. Nearly 50 percent
of the students in this school have participated in peer mediation.
Since the implementation of the peer mediation program, students in the
middle school report a significant decrease in the number of fights and
conflicts, fewer suspensions, and increased feelings of safety in the
school. Overall, suspensions for incidents of fighting have decreased 10
percent between 1994 and 1995.

**(3) Decreased Juvenile Crime in Port Angeles, Washington**

The community of Port Angeles, Washington, was faced with the problem of
juvenile crime on the local waterfront and surrounding tourist areas. In
assessing the problem, the community found that the teens were loitering
in these areas without supervision, resulting in rising drug and gang
activity. In addition to the clear delinquency problems, businesses and
the local tourism industry also were suffering because of the increased
juvenile crime.

The Police Department and residents collaborated with the Clallam County
YMCA to provide alternative activities for youth who were loitering in
the waterfront area. The resulting Port Angeles Teen Help (PATH) Program
provides area youth a healthy alternative setting and focuses on
providing positive relationships with adults. The PATH Program consists
of five components:

 Drop-In Teen Scene---a drop-in teen recreational center, which
provides after-school and weekend recreational activities for an average
of 40 youth on weekdays and 60 on weekends.

 Choice Alternative School Connection---an alternative physical
education program at the YMCA offered during school hours to keep
dropouts and truants engaged in the learning process.

 Family Activities---weekend family activities and outings to foster
positive familial relationships and promote social bonding between
parents and their children.

 Saturday Teen Night---pro-social alternative activities and drop-in
peer counseling at the teen center.

 Friday Night Recreation---open gym and late-night recreation with
police and volunteer staff at the YMCA to promote relationships with
positive adult role models.

During the first two years of the PATH Program, the Police Department
noted a significant decrease in the number of complaints from community
residents and tourists about teens loitering in the area. The following
reductions in juvenile crime also have been observed:

 65 percent decrease in weapons charges.

 45 percent decrease in burglaries.

 29 percent decrease in drug offenses.

 27 percent decrease in assault charges.

 18 percent decrease in larcenies.

The Port Angeles Chief of Police and the PATH Program Director point to
the Program as the primary cause of the decrease in juvenile crime along
the waterfront and report that the Community Prevention Grant was
instrumental in motivating the community and service providers to regain
control of an area, which in recent years, had suffered economically due
to the increased delinquency and juvenile crime. Both the Chief of
Police and the Program Director believe that the efforts of PATH have
helped instill healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior among
program participants.

A State Juvenile Justice Specialist from California eloquently
summarized the beliefs of many of the Juvenile Justice Specialists and
communities in saying, "Title V works! The Title V philosophy of
risk-focused collaborative efforts certainly met the need for community
solutions to community problems. Risk-focused delinquency prevention is
the necessary proactive approach that has long been needed." The local
success stories provided in this section demonstrate significant
progress by the communities toward building healthier and safer
communities. Building on the early information from the participating
communities, in-depth evaluation of the program will provide even more
conclusive evidence of the overall effectiveness of the Community
Prevention Grants Program.

**4. National Evaluation: Toward a Better Understanding of How Community
Prevention Works**

To better understand how the Community Prevention Grants Program works,
OJJDP is designing a national evaluation. The national evaluation is
intended to examine whether this comprehensive, locally-defined
prevention model is more effective in preventing juvenile delinquency
than the more traditional, single-agency approach. Very broadly, the
national evaluation will address the following questions:

 What is the impact of the Community Prevention Grants Program on risk
factors, protective factors, and juvenile problem behaviors?

 What factors affect implementation of the Program model and are
associated with positive program outcomes?

The national evaluation strategy is designed to provide a comprehensive
understanding of how the community risk-focused prevention model works
by examining program implementation at three "levels" of specificity.
Level I will continue to provide a basic profile of Community Prevention
Grant Program recipients. Through on-going monitoring of the
participating States and Territories, Level I data will provide basic
grant information about all subgrantees (e.g., number and amount of
awards and participation in training and technical assistance). This
information will provide a general understanding of the distribution of
Program funds and activity across the country.

Level II is designed to provide more detailed information on program
implementation (e.g., priority risk factors, target populations, and
prevention activities undertaken) and begin to examine program outcomes
and impacts. In Level II, the focus of the evaluation will be narrowed
to all or most participating Community Prevention Grant communities in
each of six selected States. Level II data will be drawn from the *Title
V Community Self-Evaluation Workbook* and will include analysis of
community-provided impact and outcome information as well as general
implementation information.

Level III will examine in greater detail the underlying program theory
through a more intensive study of program implementation and the factors
that contribute to effective implementation and positive outcomes and
impacts (e.g., planning processes, resource allocations, and service
delivery). In Level III, the evaluation will "telescope in" on 12
participating communities, two from each of the selected States,
providing comparative case studies of these 12 communities and
furthering our understanding of community-based prevention through an
intensive examination of the implementation processes, immediate program
outcomes, and longer-term impacts.

In total, the three-tiered evaluation strategy will result in:

 An ongoing description and characterization of the Community
Prevention Grantees in all participating States and Territories.

 An in-depth assessment of the extent to which community risk-focused
prevention has been implemented in the communities, including an
understanding of what community planning processes were undertaken,
which risk factors were addressed, what interventions were carried out,
what target populations were served, the magnitude and intensity of the
services provided, as well as the impact of the Program on trends in
indicators of risk as well as reductions in rates of juvenile problem
behaviors.

 An increased understanding of the processes involved in effective
implementation of the Community Prevention Grants Program model and a
test of the theoretical causal links between the risk-focused prevention
model and community-wide impacts.

**\* \* \* \* \***

This chapter described local implementation of the Community Prevention
Grants Program, early outcomes, and planned efforts for more intense
evaluation of the Program. In the next chapter we discuss how the
Federal and State governments have supported implementation of the
Community Prevention Grants Program, leading to more systematic,
coherent, coordinated responses to juvenile crime and delinquency.

**III. State and Federal Support of Local Delinquency Prevention Plans**

The Community Prevention Grants Program is shaping both State and
Federal delinquency prevention programming, enabling agencies at these
levels to better support effective and meaningful prevention programs at
the local level through improved collaboration mechanisms and resources.
This chapter describes the ways in which the Community Prevention Grants
Program supports State and Federal agencies as delinquency prevention
policymakers and program funders and the response of these agencies to
risk-focused prevention planning approaches. It also describes the
concentration of Federal effort in collaborative delinquency prevention
planning and information sharing about risk-focused models to help shape
prevention policies and programming.

**1. State Agencies Respond to the Community Prevention Grants Program**

The Community Prevention Grants Program provides State Advisory Groups
and juvenile justice agencies with tools and opportunities to
proactively encourage delinquency prevention and to re-make their
prevention policies and programs to respond to local needs, support
collaboration efforts, incorporate current research findings, and
leverage local resources. States have responded to this Program in
different ways. Many have embraced it, using it as a foundation for
improving their prevention policies and adding resources to expand the
impact of the Program. Other States have approached it as a
self-contained Federal effort, adding little more to their Program than
is required by the terms of the grant. Examining the ways that States
have responded to the Program reveals both the potential effectiveness
of the risk-focused prevention approach and its influence on statewide
policies, telling us more about successful models for State and Federal
partnerships in promoting grassroots, community-level changes in
juvenile justice systems. The following sections describe the different
levels of State commitment and response to the Community Prevention
Grants Program model, as demonstrated by the current roles that States
are playing in implementing it.

**1.1** **Improved Prevention Policy at the State Level**

By examining the roles of State juvenile justice agencies in promoting
the adoption of this delinquency prevention model and supporting
implementation of locally-defined prevention plans, we can see evidence
of the ways the Community Prevention Grants Program is changing how
State and local policymakers think about delinquency prevention. With a
locally-defined prevention model, it can be difficult to define the
roles of the State Advisory Groups (SAGs) and State juvenile justice
planning agencies (SPAs) in promoting the Community Prevention Grants
Program. The roles given to these groups (SAGs and SPAs) by law are to:

 Apply to OJJDP for Community Prevention Grant funds.

 Award subgrants to units of general local government through a
competitive process in accordance with the Program guidelines by:

> -- SAG certifying that the applicant is in compliance with the core
> requirements of the JJDP Act
>
> -- Verifying that the applicant has convened a Prevention Policy Board
> with broad community representation
>
> -- Confirming that the applicant has conducted a risk assessment of
> the target community and submitted a three-year comprehensive,
> risk-focused delinquency prevention plan
>
> -- Validating that the State or the applicant will provide a 50
> percent match for subgrant funds received.

 Establish, at their option, additional guidelines for subgrant awards.

Although not required by law, State juvenile justice planning agencies
also play a critical role in facilitating the training sessions in
risk-focused prevention planning provided by OJJDP; they are expected to
publicize the availability of the training and organize the sessions for
local communities.

In addition to these required roles, many State agencies have made
voluntary changes to their delinquency prevention planning and
administration, policies, and program funding priorities to better
enable local subgrantees to adopt the Program model. Respondents to the
Community Prevention Grants Program Survey were asked whether the
Program's emphasis on risk-focused delinquency prevention had influenced
the way States approach delinquency prevention. All but 14 of the 46
States responding said that the Program had improved State functions,
resulting in increased support for prevention. (Three of those 14
respondents said that their States had an effective focus on prevention
that pre-dated the Program.)

The influence of the Community Prevention Grants Program on State-level
delinquency prevention **planning and administration** can be seen in
the adoption of risk-focused planning into other programs at the State
level. Seventeen percent of respondents (8 States) said that their State
had integrated risk-focused prevention planning into their State-level
prevention strategies using the approach provided by the Community
Prevention Grants Program model. Pennsylvania has done as much as any
State---and more---to use the training and risk-focused planning
approach provided by the Program to reconstitute its statewide approach
to delinquency. The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency
(PCCD) has committed to providing training to local communities three
times per year and to covering the cost of attendees until the need for
training is met. PCCD has made an independent contract with OJJDP's
national training provider to train eight Pennsylvanians to provide
further training in risk- and protective-factor assessment and planning.
PCCD has also formed a Task Force for the promotion of risk-focused
community planning among State agencies, including the Departments of
Public Welfare, Education, and Health; the Juvenile Court Judges
Commission; and the County Commissioners Association. Together, these
agencies support the expanded use of risk-focused planning processes in
their respective areas of responsibility.

Not only have some States made risk-focused planning their standard for
prevention programming, they have also incorporated features of the
Community Prevention Grants Program's administrative procedures into
their statewide prevention efforts. In Texas, according to the State
Juvenile Justice Specialist, "the Criminal Justice Division has begun
requiring a community plan to be attached to all grant applications
regardless of their funding source. The plan is very much like the
three-year plan required by Title V Guidelines." Other States have made
use of the local Prevention Policy Boards a requisite for participation
in other program funding distributed by the SAG.

More than a quarter of the Juvenile Justice Specialists responding (13
States) said that their State had changed its prevention **policies**
since the introduction of the Program by increasing the emphasis on
prevention relative to intervention and control of delinquent youth. A
Juvenile Justice Specialist for the State of Kansas says, "the State is
currently considering a reform bill that recognizes the importance of
prevention. The \[bill\] might not have emphasized prevention without
the \[Community Prevention Grants\] programming." In Guam, the
Department of Youth Affairs reports, "the Program has changed the
Agency's perspective and approach in addressing youth problems and
needs. With the risk-focused prevention model we are now focusing our
prevention efforts within each of Guam's villages through a \[local\]
action team." In the past, the Agency had employed an island-wide
approach to juvenile delinquency that emphasized risk and control,
rather than protection and prevention.

The influence of the Community Prevention Grants Program also can be
seen in changes in State **funding** for prevention programming. Nearly
one-third of State juvenile justice planning agencies responding to the
survey have chosen to supplement the grant funds they received from
OJJDP for locally-defined, research-based delinquency prevention
programs to expand the impact of risk-focused prevention. These States
also reflect the influence of the Program in their funding priorities
beyond the boundaries of the Federal grant funds.

Juvenile Justice Specialists responding to the survey supplied
information about the amount and source of funds their States added to
the Community Prevention Grants Program. Fifteen States supplemented the
Program funds available to local communities, with additional funding
totaling over \$3.4 million in fiscal year 1996. Four of these States
provided contributions from State general funds, accounting for \$1.8
million of the total. Six States added part of their Federal formula
grant (distributed by OJJDP as described in Title II of the JJDP Act) to
supplement their local grants, totaling more than \$1.3 million. The
remaining additional funding (\$300,000 in three States) came from
Federal block grants and other programs. (Two States that added
supplemental funds did not report the source or the amount.)

**1.2 State-Level Support of Local Prevention Efforts**

The Community Prevention Grants Program provides the tools for States to
help implement effective and meaningful prevention programs at the local
level. The Program provides State juvenile justice administrators with
resources, models, and access to expertise that enhance their ability to
collaborate with and support local communities as they design and
implement their Community Prevention Grants programs. State-level
activities in support of local prevention initiatives demonstrate both
enhanced collaboration and its benefits to the local grantees.
State-level support includes providing additional training and technical
assistance, fostering communication among subgrantees, and assisting
them in monitoring their local progress through evaluation.

**Capacity-Building through Additional Training and Technical
Assistance**

State agencies are given access to Federal-level training and technical
assistance providers as part of the Community Prevention Grants Program.
Local Prevention Policy Boards can request assistance from their State
Juvenile Justice Specialist, who has the option of providing assistance
at the State level or requesting assistance from OJJDP. This two-tier
system makes the State juvenile justice planning agency the primary
training and technical assistance provider, enabling the agency to
further develop its own capacities to fill this role. At the same time,
the needs of local communities can, if necessary, be met by the Federal
provider.

The majority of State Juvenile Justice Specialists (38 out of 46)
reported that they identify training and technical assistance resources
or notify local grantees of their availability as part of their
Community Prevention Grants Program activities. Further, 40 out of 46
survey respondents said that they provide technical assistance to
grantees in support of implementation goals at the State and local
level. A smaller number of respondents (29 out of 46) said that they
provide training at the local level. Three States in the survey sample,
for example, Michigan, Iowa, and Washington, indicated that they
specifically earmark their own funding to make additional technical
assistance available.

**Fostering Communication and Sharing Implementation Experiences**

Community representatives who attend the Community Prevention Grants
Program training in risk- and protection-focused prevention often say
that the opportunity to share their experiences with their counterparts
from other towns is one of the most valuable aspects of the three-day
sessions. The great majority of States support ongoing communication
among subgrantees through statewide conferences or teleconferences,
newsletters, Internet and electronic bulletin boards, or mail campaigns.
All but 10 of the 46 States responding to the Community Prevention
Grants Program Survey reported that they provide some mechanism for
subgrantees to share information and implementation experiences.

The most common method for promoting communication among subgrantees is
to coordinate some form of in-person meeting such as a conference,
workshop, or training session (which is used by 32 out of 35 States
providing some mechanism for information sharing). In Pennsylvania, for
example, PCCD has contracted with the Center for Juvenile Justice
Training and Research at Shippensburg University to provide on-going
technical assistance and training. As part of this assistance, the
Center supports a Prevention Grants Network among the subgrantees that
meets periodically to discuss progress and issues related to the
implementation of the programs in the participating counties. Michigan
subgrantees benefit from a similar arrangement in which the Prevention
Grants communities take turns hosting a quarterly meeting to discuss
issues of common interest. The State covers the costs for Prevention
Policy Board representatives to attend these two-day sessions and
provides resource materials and technical assistance from knowledgeable
facilitators. Attendees work in small groups in order to give individual
attention to the challenges faced by each community.

Other means of communication provided, and the number of States that
indicated using them, include the following:

 Newsletters (8).

 Internet or electronic bulletin board system (6).

 Mail campaigns (4).

 Statewide video or teleconferences (2).

State Juvenile Justice Specialists have recognized the need for and
value of these mechanisms and have independently created the systems
listed above for sharing experiences and communicating successful
implementation strategies.

**Monitoring Progress**

The Community Prevention Grants Program places a strong emphasis on the
evaluation of local delinquency prevention programs, both to track
outcomes and to provide local planners with data to better manage their
activities. The majority of States responding to the survey (26) have
chosen to require local evaluations of implementation processes and
outcomes:

 13 States require an evaluation of both process and outcomes.

 9 States require only an evaluation of the implementation process.

 4 States require only an outcome evaluation.

Two of the States that require local evaluations, Michigan and
Pennsylvania, are providing additional funds to support these
activities. Another four States require subgrantees to set aside a part
of their grant funds for their evaluations. So far, only the State of
Iowa has conducted an independent evaluation of programs statewide
(described on

page 45).

Although few States provide funding for local evaluation, many States
provide in‑kind assistance to support local efforts. Seventeen of the 46
survey respondents provide in‑kind data collection and evaluation
support to local subgrantees to better enable them to assess the
processes and outcomes of their programs.

Another source of evaluation assistance available to local communities
through OJJDP and their State juvenile justice agency is the *Title V
Community Self-Evaluation Workbook.* The *Workbook,* provided by OJJDP,
contains model self-administered evaluation instruments to assist
Community Prevention Grant recipients in meeting their own local
evaluation needs.

The *Self-Evaluation Workbook* is available either in a three-ring
binder or electronic format and consists of easy-to-complete forms and
step-by-step instructions that guide communities through evaluation
activities in three key areas:

 Documenting community mobilization efforts, planning and
decision-making processes, organizational structure, prevention plans,
and resource allocations.

 Monitoring implementation of new programs and community-change
projects.

 Tracking changes in community statistics that measure risk levels and
adolescent problem behaviors.

The *Workbook* also provides information about how to analyze and use
evaluation data to improve program operation and services to youth. It
provides a framework from which subgrantees can look critically at where
they are in relation to their prevention goals and objectives and
measure their progress from baseline assessments toward improvements in
risk factors and community conditions.

The *Workbook* has been widely distributed by OJJDP through the Juvenile
Justice Clearinghouse as an important tool for program management and
assessment. Every State Juvenile Justice Specialist received the
*Workbook*, and copies are available for State training sessions. OJJDP
has also provided training to Juvenile Justice Specialists in the use of
the *Workbook* at Regional Juvenile Justice Coalition Meetings. The
OJJDP national evaluation contractor provides these training workshops
as part of their technical assistance to States on Community Prevention
Grants Program evaluation. In addition to familiarizing the Specialists
with the *Workbook* features, each workshop is tailored to address
specific areas of evaluation interest or need. At the request of the
Southern Coalition, for example, their workshop focused on how to
translate evaluation findings and data into policy (i.e., how to take
what the States learn from program evaluations and use that information
to inform policy recommendations and decisions). OJJDP also provided a
workshop on using the *Self-Evaluation Workbook* for grantees in two
States to pilot the *Workbook* forms and procedures and to ensure their
usefulness to local grantees.

The majority of States reported use or planned use of the
*Self-Evaluation Workbook*. Four States require subgrantees to use some
or all of the *Workbook*. In 13 additional States, at least half of all
subgrantees use it voluntarily*,* and another 12 States reported that
some of their local grantees use it. Another 12 States reported that
they eventually plan to use the *Workbook.*

**2. Concentration of Federal Effort to Prevent Delinquency**

The Community Prevention Grants Program promotes collaboration among
government agencies at the local level by requiring broad representation
of stakeholders on the Prevention Policy Board and granting communities
the flexibility to fund prevention efforts through any agency they deem
appropriate, whether schools, parks, police department, health
department, or private providers. Collaboration is essential to
achieving community-level changes in norms and expectations because it
promotes widespread communication of a consistent pro-social message.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention reflects this
emphasis on collaboration at the Federal level through its leadership
and coordination of Federal delinquency prevention policy and
initiatives. Collaboration at the Federal level is equally important to
achieving nationwide improvements in prevention.

**2.1 The Need for Concentration of Effort**

Although OJJDP is the lead Federal Office in the effort to reduce youth
crime and violence, other Federal agencies also have operated programs
in this area. Each of these Federal agencies---including the Departments
of Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development,
and Labor---focuses their policies and programs for youth on the aspects
of prevention that are part of the Department's overall mission (e.g.,
the

**Evaluation of Iowa's Community Prevention Grants Programs**

The State of Iowa hired the School of Social Work at the University of
Iowa to conduct an evaluation of the planning, program implementation,
and early outcomes of 20 Community Prevention Grants Program
subgrantees, which was completed in January 1997. Researchers conducted
site visits, program observations, interviews with key informants, and
focus groups with parents and youth to collect evaluation data. Using
these methods, the researchers gathered qualitative information from
each site about target populations, the risk and protective factors
addressed, and program activities. They also collected quantitative data
on the number of youth and parents participating in the programs; the
race, age, and gender of the participants; and indicators of program
outcomes, when available, such as changes in school attendance, academic
grades, school discipline referrals, and juvenile crime rates.

The evaluation found that the 20 Iowa programs together served over
15,000 youth in 1994-95 and more than 25,000 youth in 1995-96. The
program served an average of 1,400 participants in 1995-96, and the
average age of youth served was 11.6 years old. The average program
budget in both years was approximately \$93,000. The most commonly used
program activities were youth skills training (10 programs), mentoring
(9), recreation (9), and after-school programs (8). According to
interview data, the introduction of these programs has "generated
significant enthusiasm and commitment among professionals and citizens
in Iowa communities." One representative from a rural town said:

> Prevention funds received from the State have empowered people in our
> neighborhoods

to do things they never thought they had the ability to do. Things like
form neighborhood

groups and associations . . . maybe even more importantly, funding has
educated people in

this town about the problems young people have growing up.

In interviews with 25 youth and 18 parents conducted in 8 counties,
satisfaction with the prevention programs was high, and participants
credited them with keeping many youth out of trouble. One parent said:

> I wish they would have had this program for my two older kids. My son
> has been helped

a lot by some of the things he is doing and learning. I now see that
these kind of prevention

programs can keep a lot of kids from doing stupid \[illegal\] things in
the community.

The evaluation of program outcomes was limited by the availability of
data and researchers discovered few quantitative indicators. They were
able to conclude, however, that many programs are producing positive
changes in client attitudes and behaviors.

Department of Housing and Urban Development aims to reduce delinquency
and youth violence in public housing communities, the Department of
Health and Human Services funds programs to prevent drug use among
youth). The 1992 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (JJDP) Act underscored the importance of coordinating and
streamlining Federal delinquency prevention policy and programs, finding
that a lack of coordination had harmed Federal efforts. "\[E\]xisting
Federal programs have not provided the direction, coordination,
resources, and leadership required to meet the crisis in delinquency"
(JJDP Act, 42 U.S.C. 5601). Section 204 of the Act gave the
Administrator of OJJDP the responsibility to develop an overall policy
for all Federal delinquency prevention programs and to review and
coordinate delinquency prevention policies and programs with other
Federal agencies.

This renewed emphasis on inter-agency collaboration for delinquency
prevention accomplishes several important goals:

 Ensures that all Federal agencies stress the **balance** between
preventing delinquency and providing a system of graduated sanctions to
control violent juvenile offenders.

 **Reduces duplication** of Federal efforts and programs.

 Communicates a **consistent message** from the Federal level to State
and local agencies.

 Fosters **collaboration** at both the Federal and local levels among
agencies providing youth with a continuum of care from education,
housing, and health care to law enforcement, treatment services, and
corrections.

OJJDP is leading the concentration of Federal effort in delinquency
prevention by sharing current information about youth through
conferences and teleconferences, developing coordinated programs with
other Federal agencies, and conducting joint planning efforts. These
activities are described in the following sections.

**2.2 OJJDP Conferences and Joint Teleconferences**

In 1996, OJJDP collaborated with the Department of Education to present
two satellite teleconferences on delinquency prevention issues of
importance to both agencies. On May 29, 1996, OJJDP and the Department
of Education's Safe and Drug Free Schools Program broadcast the
"Conflict Resolution for Youth" national satellite teleconference, to
inform participants about new conflict resolution education resources
and promote the use of these strategies in schools, non-profit
organizations, and juvenile justice settings. OJJDP broadcast the "Youth
Out of the Education Mainstream" teleconference on October 30, 1996,
which concerned effective programs developed as part of this joint
Federal initiative to address truancy, school drop out, and
reintegration of youth into the education mainstream.

On December 12-14, 1996, OJJDP conducted its national conference,
"Juvenile Justice at the Crossroads," which was attended by delinquency
prevention practitioners and policy makers from Federal agencies, State
and local government, and the private sector. At this conference, OJJDP
presented state-of-the-art methods and information on topics including
assessing at-risk youth, preventing gang and gun violence,
youth-oriented community policing, and innovative community prevention
partnerships. OJJDP also provided attendees with a Resource Kit
containing information about successful community-based prevention
models and comprehensive approaches such as mentoring, parenting skills,
school-based initiatives, and family-focused prevention models.

**2.3 OJJDP Joint Programs**

OJJDP currently collaborates with other Federal offices, both within the
Department of Justice and in other agencies, to offer prevention
programs consistent with the aims of OJJDP and the mission of its
Federal partners. In 1996, ten major inter-agency delinquency prevention
programs resulted from collaborations among OJJDP and partners from nine
other Federal agencies and offices outside the Department of Justice.
All ten of these programs reflect and reinforce the Community Prevention
Grants Program approach to prevention.[^6] These programs are summarized
in Exhibit III-1.

Through these collaborative programs and its own internal funding
priorities, OJJDP has worked to establish a unified Federal policy for
delinquency prevention, a policy promoting the following key principles:

 **Community control** of needs assessment and delinquency prevention
planning.

 A risk-focused **research foundation** for prevention approaches.

 A **comprehensive** approach encompassing youth welfare and public
safety services such as education, mental health, substance abuse
treatment, recreation, law enforcement, and juvenile justice.

By sending this consistent message about the key principles of effective
prevention programs, OJJDP is building a foundation of
mutually-reinforcing initiatives at the local level that incorporate
these principles.

These key principles are evident in joint Federal programs, as indicated
in the right-hand columns of Exhibit III-1. Programs such as
SafeFutures, Pulling America's Communities Together (PACT), and
Operation Weed and Seed emulate and support the goals of the Community
Prevention Grants Program in participating States and communities.
SafeFutures is a demonstration program that emphasizes community-wide
collaboration and planning to develop a comprehensive continuum of
prevention services that address the needs of at-risk youth. It
demonstrates the combined effect of OJJDP local initiatives including
the Community Prevention Grants Program (which contributed \$200,000
from fiscal year 1996 funding), mentoring, day treatment, aftercare,
gang intervention, and mental health services, as well as the economic
development resources of Empowerment Zones (HUD), to address the needs
of at-risk and delinquent youth. SafeFutures requires the coordination
of local agencies with nonprofits; religious, civic, and business
groups; and residents to plan and coordinate programs creating a
"continuum of care" to prevent and control juvenile delinquency.

Through PACT, the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services,
Housing and Urban Development, Justice, and Labor foster and support the
development of broad-based, fully coordinated local and statewide
initiatives for public safety. With this support, communities build
their own coalitions to plan solutions to local safety problems.
Operation Weed and Seed uses a similar coordinated approach to remove
the influence of drugs from

+-----------------------------------+----------+------+--------+-------+
| **EXHIBIT III-1**                 |          |      |        |       |
|                                   |          |      |        |       |
| **CONCENTRATION OF FEDERAL        |          |      |        |       |
| EFFORT**                          |          |      |        |       |
|                                   |          |      |        |       |
| **IN DELINQUENCY PREVENTION       |          |      |        |       |
| PROGRAMS**                        |          |      |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+----------+------+--------+-------+
| **Program Description**           | **Coo    | **L  | **Res  | **C   |
|                                   | perating | ocal | earch- | ompre |
|                                   | Ag       | C    | B      | -hens |
|                                   | encies** | ontr | ased** | ive** |
|                                   |          | ol** |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+----------+------+--------+-------+
| **Communities in                  | DOJ      | \_   | \_     | \_    |
| Schools**---Training for          | (OJJDP)  |      |        |       |
| localities to adopt a national    |          |      |        |       |
| school dropout prevention model   | DOC      |      |        |       |
| using employment, mental health,  |          |      |        |       |
| drug prevention,                  |          |      |        |       |
| entrepreneurship, and other       |          |      |        |       |
| resources with at-risk youth      |          |      |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+----------+------+--------+-------+
| **Community Responses to Drug     | DOJ      | \_   | \_     | \_    |
| Abuse**--- Demonstration program  | (BJA)    |      |        |       |
| in 10 sites to help communities   |          |      |        |       |
| develop their own effective       | DOJ      |      |        |       |
| strategies to reduce drug abuse   | (NIJ)    |      |        |       |
|                                   |          |      |        |       |
|                                   | NCPC     |      |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+----------+------+--------+-------+
| **Community Partnership           | HHS      | \_   | \_     | \_    |
| Demonstration Grants**--- Five    | (CSAP)   |      |        |       |
| Weed and Seed sites using         |          |      |        |       |
| community-based delinquency and   | DOJ      |      |        |       |
| substance abuse prevention models | (NIJ)    |      |        |       |
| developed by CSAP, empowering     |          |      |        |       |
| community coalitions to mobilize  |          |      |        |       |
| their own comprehensive           |          |      |        |       |
| approaches to prevention          |          |      |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+----------+------+--------+-------+
| **Empowerment Zones/Enterprise    | HUD      | \_   | \_     | \_    |
| Communities**--- Applies          |          |      |        |       |
| principles of community           | CNS      |      |        |       |
| mobilization and empowerment to   |          |      |        |       |
| local economic development and    | PCPC     |      |        |       |
| provides youth with prevention,   |          |      |        |       |
| youth leadership, and             |          |      |        |       |
|                                   |          |      |        |       |
| job training                      |          |      |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+----------+------+--------+-------+
| **National Funding Collaborative  | HUD      | \_   | \_     | \_    |
| on Violence                       |          |      |        |       |
| Prevention**---Demonstration      | DOJ      |      |        |       |
| program in 12 sites, initiated by | (OJJDP)  |      |        |       |
| private foundations, using a      |          |      |        |       |
| community assessment model to     | ED       |      |        |       |
| develop collaborations for        |          |      |        |       |
| violence prevention               | Private  |      |        |       |
|                                   | Fou      |      |        |       |
|                                   | ndations |      |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+----------+------+--------+-------+
| **National Drug Prevention        | ONDCP    | \_   | \_     | \_    |
| System**---Unites Federal         |          |      |        |       |
| agencies to promote comprehensive | ED       |      |        |       |
| community-based drug prevention   |          |      |        |       |
| for at-risk youth, dissemination  | HHS      |      |        |       |
| of best practices, and evaluation |          |      |        |       |
|                                   | DOJ      |      |        |       |
|                                   |          |      |        |       |
|                                   | HUD      |      |        |       |
|                                   |          |      |        |       |
|                                   | DOL      |      |        |       |
|                                   |          |      |        |       |
|                                   | PCPC     |      |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+----------+------+--------+-------+
| **Pathways to                     | DOJ      | \_   | \_     | \_    |
| Success**---Demonstration of      | (OJJDP)  |      |        |       |
| arts-based, out-of-school         |          |      |        |       |
| programs to teach skills and      | NEA      |      |        |       |
| prevent delinquency among at-risk |          |      |        |       |
| youth                             |          |      |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+----------+------+--------+-------+
| **EXHIBIT III-1 (CONTINUED)**     |          |      |        |       |
|                                   |          |      |        |       |
| **CONCENTRATION OF FEDERAL        |          |      |        |       |
| EFFORT**                          |          |      |        |       |
|                                   |          |      |        |       |
| **IN DELINQUENCY PREVENTION       |          |      |        |       |
| PROGRAMS**                        |          |      |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+----------+------+--------+-------+
| **Program Description**           | **Coo    | **L  | **Res  | **C   |
|                                   | perating | ocal | earch- | ompre |
|                                   | Ag       | C    | B      | -hens |
|                                   | encies** | ontr | ased** | ive** |
|                                   |          | ol** |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+----------+------+--------+-------+
| **Pulling America's Communities   | DOJ      | \_   | \_     | \_    |
| Together (PACT)**--- Stimulates   | (OJJDP)  |      |        |       |
| collaboration at the Federal and  |          |      |        |       |
| local level to promote new        | ED       |      |        |       |
| comprehensive, community-based    |          |      |        |       |
| approaches to address problems of | HUD      |      |        |       |
| violence in four sites            |          |      |        |       |
|                                   | HHS      |      |        |       |
|                                   |          |      |        |       |
|                                   | DOL      |      |        |       |
|                                   |          |      |        |       |
|                                   | NCPC     |      |        |       |
|                                   |          |      |        |       |
|                                   | ONDCP    |      |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+----------+------+--------+-------+
| **SafeFutures**---Enhances        | DOJ      | \_   | \_     | \_    |
| community partnerships among      | (OJJDP)  |      |        |       |
| public, private, and non-profit   |          |      |        |       |
| agencies to address the needs of  | HUD      |      |        |       |
| at-risk and delinquent youth      |          |      |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+----------+------+--------+-------+
| **Weed and Seed**---Multi-agency  | DOJ      | \_   | \_     | \_    |
| neighborhood strategy to suppress | (NIJ)    |      |        |       |
| drug activity through community   |          |      |        |       |
| policing, to provide drug         | HUD      |      |        |       |
| prevention and treatment, and to  |          |      |        |       |
| promote economic restoration      | CNS      |      |        |       |
+-----------------------------------+----------+------+--------+-------+

> **GLOSSARY**
>
> BJA---Bureau of Justice Assistance, Department of Justice
>
> CNS---Corporation for National Service
>
> CSAP---Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
>
> DOC---Department of Commerce
>
> DOJ---Department of Justice
>
> DOL---Department of Labor
>
> ED---Department of Education
>
> HHS---Department of Health and Human Services
>
> HUD---Department of Housing and Urban Development
>
> NCPC---National Crime Prevention Council
>
> NEA---National Endowment for the Arts
>
> NIJ---National Institute for Justice, Department of Justice
>
> OJJDP---Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
> Department of Justice
>
> ONDCP---Office of National Drug Control Policy
>
> PCPC---President's Crime Prevention Council

housing communities. Federal partners (DOJ, HUD, CNS) support enhanced
law enforcement, community policing, drug treatment and prevention
programs, and economic revitalization.

**2.4 OJJDP Joint Planning**

OJJDP is empowered by the JJDP Act to staff and support the main vehicle
for joint planning of Federal delinquency prevention policy---the
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Chaired by the Attorney General, with a membership of nine Federal
agencies and nine juvenile justice practitioner members, the
Coordinating Council promotes inter-agency cooperation to advance
Federal prevention programs in line with the key principles defined by
OJJDP. In 1996, the Coordinating Council published *Combating Violence
and Delinquency: The National Juvenile Justice Action Plan*. The *Action
Plan* establishes eight objectives for the Nation's juvenile justice
systems, each of which is supported by Federal "action steps" and
suggestions for State and local actions. These objectives are:

1.  Provide immediate intervention and appropriate sanctions and
    treatment for delinquent juveniles.

2.  Prosecute certain serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders
    in criminal court.

3.  Reduce youth involvement with guns, drugs, and gangs.

4.  Provide opportunities for children and youth.

5.  Break the cycle of violence by addressing youth victimization,
    abuse, and neglect.

6.  Strengthen and mobilize communities.

7\. Support the development of innovative approaches to research and
evaluation.

8\. Implement an aggressive public outreach campaign on effective
strategies to combat juvenile violence.

This joint planning initiative has helped to develop and implement a
unified Federal delinquency prevention policy.

All Federal agencies that are members of the Coordinating Council have
widely distributed the *Action Plan*. With it, the development of new
initiatives and program coordination among members of the Coordinating
Council have increased. For example, in response to the Council's
discussions about the problems of learning disabilities among youth in
the corrections system, the Department of Education has taken the lead
to address the special educational needs of youth in custody. Also on
the horizon for the Council is the development of a response to the
impact of welfare reform on the juvenile justice system. Another measure
of the commitment to the *Action Plan*, and the consensus building
around its goals and objectives, is the fact that higher-level
representatives (such as Assistant Secretaries) from member agencies are
regularly attending the quarterly meetings. Their attendance indicates a
high level of commitment to the Council and its objectives, which
translates into more effective collaboration and, ultimately, more
effective service delivery.

The influence of the *Action Plan* reaches beyond the membership of the
Coordinating Council. The State of California passed the *Juvenile Crime
Enforcement and Accountability Challenge Grant Program* in 1996 (Article
18.7 of the Welfare and Institutions Code) that mirrors and promotes the
objectives of the *Action Plan.* The new law calls for the establishment
of county-level, multi-agency coordinating councils for the assessment
of the continuum of delinquency prevention services and the development
of a Local Action Plan to reduce delinquency. The joint development of
the *Action Plan* has resulted in steady progress in establishing a
unified Federal approach to prevention and collaborative programs for
youth.

**IV. The Prevention Imperative**

In this third year of the Community Prevention Grants Program, we have
continued to see a significant demand at the local level for strategies
and approaches for *preventing* juvenile crime and delinquency. While
communities clearly need effective controls and sanctions to deal with
the delinquency problem that already exists, at the same time, they want
to find effective ways of preventing these problems from occurring in
the future. Before the Title V Program was implemented in 1994, many
local communities simply did not have the knowledge or resources to
systematically implement a research-based delinquency prevention
strategy. The Community Prevention Grants Program has provided
communities with four essential ingredients to successfully put such a
strategy in place: a theory-driven, research-based *framework*; the
*tools* for building on that framework; *training and technical
assistance* to use those tools efficiently and cost-effectively; and
*local control* of the process. We have early and promising evidence
that this systematic, community-driven prevention strategy is making a
difference. Now we must capitalize on the commitment and momentum that
have been seeded throughout the country by continuing to support and
reinforce the prevention imperative.

We know that the prevention process takes time and requires a real
commitment at all levels---from neighborhoods to cities and counties and
from States to the Federal government. OJJDP has continuously gathered
feedback and input about the Program from local communities and States,
not only to document the successes achieved, but also to learn about the
challenges they face and refinements they require in order to be
successful in preventing and reducing juvenile delinquency. OJJDP is
committed to working with the States and local communities to enhance
the Community Prevention Grants Program so that its strategic framework
is preserved (i.e., systematic, data-driven prevention planning), while
barriers to implementation are overcome, policies and procedures are
simplified, and program requirements are streamlined.

In response to State and local feedback, the Administration has proposed
to reshape the existing Community Prevention Grants Program by framing
it as a component of a larger youth violence legislative and funding
proposal that incorporates early intervention. Given the broad and
growing support across the Nation for initiatives that emphasize the
prevention of crime and delinquency, while at the same time taking the
necessary steps to control it, we urge the Congress to give full
consideration to increased delinquency prevention and early intervention
funding. This additional investment would increase the number of new
community participants that would have the opportunity to establish
targeted, local prevention and early intervention initiatives while
continuing to sustain those jurisdictions that have begun to implement
their initiatives. Not only will additional funding expand the depth and
breadth of national delinquency prevention efforts, beginning to bring
these efforts to scale, it also will help expand our understanding of
"what works" in delinquency prevention through ongoing, systematic
evaluation of the strategies communities are adopting to address their
local juvenile crime and delinquency problems. This evaluation data will
provide Congress, State and local governments, and local service
providers with critical information needed to shape policy and program
design and to ensure long-term national success in reducing unacceptably
high levels of juvenile crime and delinquency.

**References**

Ahmed, S., Bush, P., Davidson, F., & Iannotti, R. (1984, November).
*Predicting children\'s use and intentions to use abusable substances.*
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Public Health
Association, Anaheim, CA.

Alexander, G., Massey, R., Gibbs, T., & Altekruse, J. (1985).
Firearm-related fatalities: An epidemiologic assessment of violent
death. *American Journal of Public Health, 75,* 165-168.

American Psychological Association. (1993). *Violence and youth:
Psychology\'s response.* Washington, D.C.

Bachman, J., Lloyd, D., & O\'Malley, P. (1981). Smoking, drinking and
drug use among American high school students: Correlates and trends,
1975-1979. *American Journal of Public Health, 71,* 59-69.

Barnes, G., & Welte, J. (1986). Patterns and predictors of alcohol use
among 7-12th grade students in New York state. *Journal of Studies on
Alcohol, 47,* 53-62.

Benard, B. (1991). *Fostering resiliency in kids: Protective factors in
the family, school, and community.* Portland, Oregon: Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory.

Benson, P., Galbraith, J., & Espeland, P. (1994). *What kids need to
succeed*. Search Institute and Free Spirit Publishing, Inc.

Bohman, M. (1978). Some genetic aspects of alcoholism and criminality.
*Archives of General Psychiatry, 35,* 269-276.

Bourque, B., Cronin, R., Pearson, F., Felker, D., Han, M., & Hill, S.
(1996). *Boot camps for juvenile offenders: An implementation evaluation
of three demonstration programs.* Supported under Award #92‑DD‑CX‑K043
from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
National Institute of Justice.

Brook, J., Brook, D., Gordon, A., Whiteman, M., & Cohen, P. (1990). The
psychosocial etiology of adolescent drug use: A family interactional
approach. *Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 116.*

Bursik, R., & Webb, J. (1982). Community change and patterns of
delinquency. *American Journal of Sociology, 99,* 24-42.

Cairns, R., Cairns, B., Neckerman, H., Gest, S., & Gairepy, J. (1988).
Social networks and aggressive behavior: Peer support or peer rejection?
*Developmental Psychology, 24,* 815-823.

Coie, J., et al. (1993). The science of prevention: A conceptual
framework and some directions for a national research program. *American
Psychologist, 48,* 1013-1022.

Cook, P., & Tauchen, G. (1982). The effect of liquor taxes on heavy
drinking. *Bell Journal of Economics, 13,* 379-390.

Developmental Research and Programs. (1994). *Preventing juvenile
violence and delinquency using communities that care. Risk and resource
assessment training guide.* Prepared for the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention under contract No. OJP-94-C-003. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Dryfoos, J. (1990). *Adolescents at risk: Prevalence and prevention.*
New York: Oxford University Press.

Elder, J., Molgaard, C., & Gresham, L. (1988). Predictors of chewing
tobacco and cigarette use in a multiethnic school population.
*Adolescence, 23,* 689-701.

Elliott, D., Huizinga, D., & Menard, S. (1989). *Multiple problem youth:
Delinquency, substance use and mental health problems.* New York:
Springer-Verlag.

Elliott, D., Huizinga, D., & Morse, B. (1986). Self-reported violent
offending: A descriptive analysis of juvenile violent offenders and
their offending careers. *Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1,*
472-514.

Eron, L., & Huesmann, L. (1987). Television as a source of maltreatment
of children. *School Psychology Review, 16,* 195-202.

Farrington, D. (1991). Childhood aggression and adult violence. In D.
Pepler & K. Rubin, (Eds.), *The Development and Treatment of Childhood
Aggression.* Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Farrington, D., Loeber, R., Elliott, D., Hawkins, J., Kandel, D., Klein,
M., McCord, J., Rowe, D., & Tremblay, R. (1990). Advancing knowledge
about the onset of delinquency and crime. In B. Lahey & A. Kazdin
(Eds.), *Advances in Clinical Child Psychology, 13,* 283-342. New York:
Plenum Press.

Fingerhut, L., Kleinman, J., Godfrey, E., & Rosenberg, H. (1991).
Firearm mortality among children, youth and young adults 1-34 years of
age, trends and current status: United States, 1979-88. *Monthly Vital
Statistics Report, 39* (11, Suppl.), 1-15.

General Accounting Office. (1996). *Juvenile Justice: Status of
delinquency prevention program and description of local projects.*
GAO/GGD-96-147. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Gorsuch, R., & Butler, M. (1976). Initial drug abuse: A review of
predisposing social psychological factors. *Psychological Bulletin, 83,*
120-137.

Goodwin, D. (1985). Alcoholism and genetics: The sins of the fathers.
*Archives of General Psychiatry, 42,* 171-174.

Gottfredson, G. (1988). *Issues in adolescent drug use.* Unpublished
final report to the U.S. Department of Justice. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University, Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools.

Greenwood, P., Model, K., Rydell, C., & Chiesa, J. (1996). *Executive
summary: Diverting children from a life of crime---measuring costs and
benefits.* Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Hansen, W., Graham, J., Shelton, D., Flay, B., & Johnson, C. (1987). The
consistency of peer and parent influences on tobacco, alcohol, and
marijuana use among young

> adolescents. *Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 17,* 135-154.

Hawkins, J., & Catalano, R. (1992). *Communities that care: Action for
drug abuse prevention.* San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hawkins, J., Catalano, R., & Miller, J. (1992). Risk and protective
factors for alcohol and other drug problems in early adolescence and
early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention.
*Psychological Bulletin, 112,* 64-105.

Hawkins, J., & Lam, T. (1987). Teacher practices, social development,
and delinquency. In J. Burchard & S. Burchard (Eds.), *Prevention of
Delinquent Behavior.* Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hawkins, J., & Weis, J. (1985). The social development model: An
integrated approach to delinquency prevention. *Journal of Primary
Prevention, 6.*

Herting, J., & Guest, A. (1985). Components of satisfaction with local
areas in the metropolis. *The Sociological Quarterly, 26,* 99-115.

Huesmann, L., & Eron, L. (1986). The development of aggression in
American children as a consequence of television violence viewing. In L.
Huesmann & L. Eron (Eds.), *Television and the Aggressive Child: A
Cross-National Comparison.* Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jacobs, D. et al. (1986). Community-wide prevention strategies:
Evaluation design of the Minnesota Heart Health Program. *Journal of
Chronic Diseases, 39,* 775-788.

Jenson, J., Hartman, J., & Smith, J. (1997). *An evaluation of Iowa's
Juvenile Crime Prevention Community Grant Fund Program*. University of
Iowa, School of Social Work.

Jessor, R. (1976). Predicting time of onset of marijuana use: A
developmental studyof high school use. *Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 44,* 125-134.

Jessor, R., & Jessor, S. (1977). *Problem behavior and psychosocial
development: A longitudinal study of youth.* San Diego: Academic Press.

Johnston, L., O\'Malley, P., & Bachman, J. (1991). *Drug use among
American high school seniors, college students, and young adults,
1975-1990: Volume 1. High school seniors.* Washington, D.C.: National
Institute on Drug Abuse.

Kandel, D. (1982). Epidemiological and psychosocial perspectives on
adolescent drug use. *Journal of American Academic Clinical Psychiatry,
21,* 328-347.

Kandel, D., & Andrews, K. (1987). Processes of adolescent socialization
by parents and peers. *International Journal of the Addictions, 22,*
319-342.

Kandel, D., Kessler, R., & Maguiles, R. (1978). Antecedents of
adolescent initiation into stages of drug use: A developmental analysis.
*Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 7,* 13-40.

Kandel, D., Simcha-Fagan, O., & Davies, M. (1986). Risk factors for
delinquency and illicit drug use from adolescence to young adulthood.
*Journal of Drug Issues, 16,* 67-90.

Kellam, S., & Brown, H. (1982). *Social adaptational and psychological
antecedents of adolescent psychopathology ten years later.* Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University.

Kellerman, A., Rivara, F., Rushforth, N., Banton, J., Reay, D.,
Francisco, J., Locci, A., Prodzinski, J., Hackman, B., & Somes, G.
*Drugs, first, and firearms: Risk factors for homicide in the home.*
Manuscript submitted for publication.

Lerner, J., & Vicary, J. (1984). Difficult temperament and drug use:
Analyses from the New York longitudinal study. *Journal of Drug
Education, 14,* 1-8.

Levy, D., & Sheflin, N. (1985). The demand for alcoholic beverages: An
aggregate time-series analysis. *Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,
4,* 47-54.

Loeber, R. (1988). Natural histories of conduct problems, delinquency,
and associated substance use: Evidence for developmental progressions.
In B. Lahey & A. Kazdin (Eds.), *Advances in Clinical Psychology, 11,*
73-124. New York: Plenum Press.

Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. (1984). Boys who fight at home and school:
Family conditions influencing cross-setting consistency. *Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52,* 759-68.

Minnesota Department of Economic Security, Office of Youth Development.
(1996). *1996 Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee report*. St. Paul,
Minnesota: Department of Economic Security.

Murray, C. (1983). The physical environment and community control of
crime. In J. Wilson (Ed.), *Crime and Public Policy*, (pp.107-122). San
Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies.

Murray, D., Davis-Hearn, M., Goldman, A., Pirie, P., & Luepker, R.
(1988). Four- and five-year follow-up results from four seventh-grade
smoking prevention strategies. *Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 11,*
395-405.

National Criminal Justice Association. (1997). *Juvenile justice reform
initiatives in the States 1994-1996.* Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

National Research Council. (1993). *Losing generations: Adolescents in
high-risk settings.* Panel on the High Risk Youth, Committee on
Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press.

Parent, D., Dunworth, T., McDonald, D., & Rhodes, W*.* (1997). *Key
legislative issues in criminal justice: Transferring serious juvenile
offenders to adult courts,* NIJ Research in Action. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Patterson, G., & Dishion, T. (1985). Contributions of families and peers
to delinquency. *Criminology, 23,* 63-77.

Peters, M., Thomas, D., & Zamberlan, C. (in press). Boot camps for
juvenile offenders. Program summary. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Peterson, P., Hawkins, J., Abbott, R., & Catalano, R. (1994).
Disentangling the effects of parental drinking, family management, and
parental alcohol norms on current drinking by black and white
adolescents. *Journal of Research on Adolescents, 4,* 203-227.

Pransky, J. (1991). *Prevention: The critical need*. Springfield,
Missouri: The Burrell Foundation and Paradigm Press.

Reiss, A., & Roth, J. (Eds.). (1993). *Understanding and preventing
violence.* Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Robins, L., & Przybeck, T. (1985). Age of onset of drug use as a factor
in drug and other disorders. In C. Jones & R. Battjes (Eds.), *Etiology
of Drug Abuse: Implications for Prevention* (pp. 178-192)*.* (NIDA
Research Monograph No. 56, DHHS Publication No. ADM 85-1335).
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Robins, L., & Ratcliff, K. (1979). Risk factors in the continuation of
childhood antisocial behavior into adulthood. *International Journal of
Mental Health, 7,* 76-116.

Rutter, M., & Giller, H. (1983). *Juvenile delinquency: Trends and
perspectives.* New York: Penguin.

Sampson, R. (1986). Crime in cities: The effects of formal and informal
social control. In A. Reiss & M. Tonry (Eds.), *Crime and Justice: An
Annual Review of Research: Vol. 8. Communities and Crime* (pp. 271-311).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Slavin, R. (1990). *Cooperative learning theory, research and practice.*
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Smith, C. (1996). The link between childhood maltreatment and teenage
pregnancy. *Social Work Research, 20* (3)*,* 131-141.

Smith, C., & Thornberry, T. (1995). The relationship between childhood
maltreatment and adolescent involvement in delinquency. *Criminology,
33* (4), 451-481.

Snyder, H. (1997). *Juvenile arrests 1995.* Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.

Snyder, H., Sickmund, M., & Poe-Yamagata, E. (1996). *Juvenile offenders
and victims: 1996 update on violence.* Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Snyder, H., & Sickmund, M. (1995). *Juvenile offenders and victims: A
national report.* Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Thornberry, T. (1994). *Violent families and youth violence.* (Fact
Sheet #21). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Tolan, P. & Guerra, N. (1994). *What works in reducing adolescent
violence: An empirical review of the field.* Unpublished Paper,
University of Illinois.

Torbet, P., Gable, R., Hurst, H., Montgomery, I., Szymanski, L., &
Thomas, D. (1996). *State responses to serious and violent juvenile
crime.* Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Vartiainen, E., Pallonen, U., McAlister, A., & Puska, P. (1990).
Eight-year follow-up results of an adolescent smoking prevention
program: The North Karelia Youth Project. *American Journal of Public
Health, 80.*

Widom, C. (1995). *Victims of childhood sexual abuse---later criminal
consequences*, Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Wilson, J., & Hernstein, R. (1985). *Crime and human nature*. New York:
Simon and Schuster.

Wilson, J., & Howell, J. (1993). *Comprehensive strategy for serious,
violent, and chronic offenders: Program Summary.* Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.

Wintenute, G. (1987). Firearms as a cause of death in the United States,
1920-1982. *The Journal of Trauma, 27,* 532-536.

Yoshikawa, H. (1994). Prevention as cumulative protection: Effects of
early family support and education on chronic delinquency and its risks.
*Psychological Bulletin, 115,* 28-54.

**APPENDIX**

**RISK FACTORS FOR UNHEALTHY ADOLESCENT BEHAVIORS**

The following is a summary of risk factors identified in longitudinal
studies as predictors of adolescent health and behavior problems. The
problem behaviors they predict are indicated in parentheses.

**Community Risk Factors**

**Availability of drugs (substance abuse).** The more easily available
drugs and alcohol are in a community, the greater the risk that drug
abuse will occur in that community (Gorsuch & Butler, 1976). Perceived
availability of drugs in school is also associated with increased risk
(Gottfredson, 1988).

**Availability of firearms (delinquency, violence).** Firearms,
primarily handguns, are the leading mechanism of violent injury and
death (Fingerhut, Kleinman, Godfrey, & Rosenberg, 1991). Easy
availability of firearms may escalate an exchange of angry words and
fists into an exchange of gunfire. Research has found that areas with
greater availability of firearms experience higher rates of violent
crime including homicide (Alexander, Massey, Gibbs, Altekruse, 1985;
Kellerman, Rivara, Rushforth et al., in review; Wintenute, 1987).

**Community laws and norms favorable toward drug use, firearms, and
crime (substance abuse, delinquency, and violence).** Community
norms---the attitudes and policies a community holds in relation to drug
use, violence, and crime---are communicated in a variety of ways:
through laws and written policies, through informal social practices,
through the media, and through the expectations that parents, teachers,
and other members of the community have of young people. When laws, tax
rates, and community standards are favorable toward substance abuse or
crime, or even when they are just unclear, young people are at higher
risk.

One example of a community law affecting drug use is the taxation of
alcoholic beverages. Higher rates of taxation decrease the rate of
alcohol use (Levy & Sheflin, 1985; Cook & Tauchen, 1982). Examples of
local rules and norms that also are linked with rates of drug and
alcohol use are policies and regulations in schools and workplaces.

**Media portrayals of violence (violence).** There is growing evidence
that media violence can have an impact upon community acceptance and
rates of violent or aggressive behavior. Several studies have documented
both long- and short-term effects of media violence on aggressive
behavior (Eron & Huesmann, 1987; National Research Council, 1993).

**Transitions and mobility (substance abuse, delinquency, and school
dropout).** Even normal school transitions can predict increases in
problem behaviors. When children move from elementary school to middle
school or from middle school to high school, significant increases in
the rate of drug use, school dropout, and anti-social behavior may occur
(Gottfredson, 1988).

Communities characterized by high rates of mobility appear to be at an
increased risk of drug and crime problems. The more people in a
community move, the greater is the risk of criminal behavior
(Farrington, 1991). While some people find buffers against the negative
effects of mobility by making connections in new communities, others are
less likely to have the resources to deal with the effects of frequent
moves and are more likely to have problems.

**Low neighborhood attachment and community disorganization (substance
abuse, delinquency, and violence).** Higher rates of drug problems,
crime, and delinquency and higher rates of adult crime and drug
trafficking occur in communities or neighborhoods where people have
little attachment to the community, where the rates of vandalism are
high, and where surveillance of public places is low (Murray, 1983;
Wilson & Hernstein, 1985).

Perhaps the most significant issue affecting community attachment is
whether residents feel they can make a difference in their lives. If the
key players in the neighborhood---such as merchants, teachers, police,
and human and social services personnel---live outside the neighborhood,
residents' sense of commitment will be less. Lower rates of voter
participation and parental involvement in school also reflect attitudes
about community attachment. Neighborhood disorganization makes it more
difficult for schools, churches, and families to pass on pro-social
values and norms (Herting & Guest, 1985; Sampson, 1986).

**Extreme economic and social deprivation (substance abuse, delinquency,
violence, teen pregnancy, and school dropout).** Children who live in
deteriorating neighborhoods characterized by extreme poverty, poor
living conditions, and high unemployment are more likely to develop
problems with delinquency, teen pregnancy, and school dropout or to
engage in violence toward others during adolescence and adulthood
(Bursik & Webb, 1982; Farrington et al., 1990). Children who live in
these areas *and* have behavior or adjustment problems early in life are
also more likely to have problems with drugs later on (Robins &
Ratcliff, 1979).

**Family Risk Factors**

**A family history of high-risk behavior (substance abuse, delinquency,
teen pregnancy, and school dropout)**. If children are raised in a
family with a history of addiction to alcohol or other drugs, their risk
of having alcohol or other drug problems themselves increases (Goodwin,
1985). If children are born or raised in a family with a history of
criminal activity, their risk for delinquency increases (Bohman, 1978).
Similarly, children who are born to a teenage mother are more likely to
be teen parents, and children of dropouts are more likely to drop out of
school themselves (Slavin, 1990).

**Family management problems (substance abuse, delinquency, violence,
teen pregnancy, and school dropout).** Poor family management practices
are defined as a lack of clear expectations for behavior, failure of
parents to supervise and monitor their children, and excessively severe,
harsh, or inconsistent punishment. Children exposed to these poor family
management practices are at higher risk of developing all of the health
and behavior problems listed above (Patterson & Dishion, 1985;
Farrington, 1991; Kandel & Andrews, 1987; Peterson et al., 1994;
Thornberry, 1994).

**Family conflict (substance abuse, delinquency, violence, teen
pregnancy, and school dropout).** Although children whose parents are
divorced have higher rates of delinquency and substance abuse, it
appears that it is not the divorce itself that contributes to delinquent
behavior. Rather, conflict between family members appears to be more
important in predicting delinquency than family structure (Rutter &
Giller, 1983). For example, domestic violence in a family increases the
likelihood that young people will engage in violent behavior themselves
(Loeber & Dishion, 1984). Children raised in an environment of conflict
between family members appear to be at risk for all of these problems
behaviors.

**Parental attitudes and involvement in the problem behavior (substance
abuse, delinquency, and violence).** Parental attitudes and behavior
toward drugs and crime influence the attitudes and behavior of their
children (Brook et al., 1990; Kandel, Kessler, & Maguiles, 1987; Hansen,
Graham, Shelton, Flay, & Johnson, 1987). Children of parents who excuse
their children for breaking the law are more likely to develop problems
with juvenile delinquency (Hawkins & Weis, 1985). Children whose parents
engage in violent behavior inside or outside the home are at greater
risk for exhibiting violent behavior.

In families where parents use illegal drugs, are heavy users of alcohol,
or are tolerant of children's use, children are more likely to become
drug abusers in adolescence. The risk is further increased if parents
involve children in their own drug or alcohol-using behavior---for
example, asking the child to light the parent's cigarette or get the
parent a beer from the refrigerator (Ahmed, Bush, Davidson, & Iannotti,
1984).

**School Risk Factors**

**Early and persistent antisocial behavior (substance abuse,
delinquency, violence, teen pregnancy, and school dropout).** Boys who
are aggressive in grades K-3 or who have trouble controlling their
impulses are at higher risk for substance abuse, delinquency, and
violent behavior (Loeber, 1988; Lerner & Vicary, 1984; American
Psychological Association, 1993). When a boy's aggressive behavior in
the early grades is combined with isolation or withdrawal, there is an
even greater risk of problems in adolescence. This also applies to
aggressive behavior combined with hyperactivity (Kellam & Brown, 1982).

**Academic failure beginning in late elementary school (substance abuse,
delinquency, violence, teen pregnancy, and school dropout)**. Beginning
in the late elementary grades, academic failure increases the risk of
drug abuse, delinquency, violence, teen pregnancy, and school dropout.
Children fail for many reasons, but it appears that the *experience* of
failure itself, not necessarily ability, increases the risk of these
problem behaviors (Jessor, 1976; Farrington, 1991).

**Low commitment to school (substance abuse, delinquency, teen
pregnancy, and school dropout).** Lack of commitment to school means the
child has ceased to see the role of student as a viable one. Young
people who have lost this commitment to school are at higher risk for
the problem behaviors listed above (Gottfredson, 1988; Johnston, 1991).

**Individual/Peer Risk Factors**

**Rebelliousness (substance abuse, delinquency, and school dropout).**
Young people who feel they are not part of society or are not bound by
rules, who don't believe in trying to be successful or responsible, or
who take an actively rebellious stance toward society are at higher risk
of drug abuse, delinquency, and school dropout (Jessor &

Jessor, 1977; Kandel, 1982; Bachman, Lloyd, & O'Malley, 1981).

**Friends who engage in the problem behavior (substance abuse,
delinquency, violence, teen pregnancy, and school dropout).** Young
people who associate with peers who engage in a problem
behavior---delinquency, substance abuse, violent activity, sexual
activity, or dropping out of school---are much more likely to engage in
the same problem behavior (Barnes & Welte, 1986; Farrington, 1991;
Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Gest, & Gairepy, 1988; Elliott et al., 1989).

This is one of the most consistent predictors that research has
identified. Even when young people come from well-managed families and
do not experience other risk factors, just spending time with friends
who engage in problem behaviors greatly increases the risk of that
problem developing.

**Favorable attitudes toward the problem behavior (substance abuse,
delinquency, teen pregnancy, and school dropout).** During the
elementary school years, children usually express anti-drug, anti-crime,
and pro-social attitudes and have difficulty imagining why people use
drugs, commit crimes, and drop out of school. However, in middle school,
as others they know participate in such activities, their attitudes
often shift toward greater acceptance of these behaviors. This
acceptance places them at higher risk (Kandel et al., 1978; Huesmann &
Eron, 1986).

**Early initiation of the problem behavior (substance abuse,
delinquency, violence, teen pregnancy, and school dropout).** The
earlier young people drop out of school, use drugs, commit crimes, and
become sexually active, the greater the likelihood that they will have
chronic problems with these behaviors later (Elliott et al., 1986). For
example, research shows that young people who initiate drug use before
the age of 15 are at twice the risk of having drug problems than those
who wait until after the age of 19 (Robins & Przybeck, 1985).

**Constitutional factors (substance abuse, delinquency, and violence).**
Constitutional factors are factors that may have a biological or
physiological basis (Hawkins & Lam, 1987). These factors are often seen
in young people with behaviors such as sensation-seeking, low
harm-avoidance, and lack of impulse control. These factors appear to
increase the risk of young people abusing drugs, engaging in delinquent
behavior, and/or committing violent acts.

[^1]: According to Federal Bureau of Investigation data, 6 percent of
    all juveniles (i.e., youth ages 10 to 17) were arrested in 1994. Of
    those, 7 percent were arrested for a violent offense. Thus, less
    than one-half of 1 percent of all juveniles in the U.S. were
    arrested for a violent offense in 1994 (Snyder, Sickmund, &
    Poe-Yamagata, 1996). Data for 1995 indicate the same low, overall
    arrest rate of less than one-half of 1 percent of all juveniles 10
    to 17 (Snyder, 1997).

[^2]: Data were collected in February 1997 from the 49 participating
    States, the District of Columbia, and 4 Territories. Wyoming and the
    U.S. Virgin Islands were not included in the survey because they did
    not submit applications for FY 96 Program funds. Responses were
    received from 41 States, the District of Columbia, and 4
    Territories, for a response rate of 85 percent.

[^3]: The SafeFutures Initiative, operating in 6 sites, supports
    community-wide strategies to address juvenile crime and delinquency
    with prevention, intervention, and a range of graduated sanctions
    and treatment services.

[^4]: Several States did not award their first year (fiscal year 1994)
    program funds in 1995; some communities, therefore, are only in
    their second year of funding. In addition, many States have
    continued to make awards to new communities in fiscal years 1995 and
    1996, and these communities are also at varying degrees of
    implementation.

[^5]: Jenson, Hartman, and Smith's (1997) evaluation of the Community
    Prevention Grants Program in Iowa found that between 1994 and 1996,
    43,761 youth and parents in 20 communities received prevention
    services. The Minnesota Department of Economic Security, Office of
    Youth Development's 1996 Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee Report
    shows that the 13 Community Prevention subgrantees in the State
    served 18,656 youth.

[^6]: In addition to these 10 selected programs, the Coordinating
    Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention lists in
    their *Juvenile Delinquency Development Statements:* *Fiscal Year
    1995 Report on Federal Programs* 20 other delinquency prevention
    programs that were joint collaborations of Federal agencies, but did
    not significantly reflect the Community Prevention Grants Program
    approach.