Law nforcement Listening Session
	

!pril 18-19, 2011
	

Summary Report
	

Sharing Listening Collaborating 

Office of Justice Programs Prepared by: 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

810 Seventh Street NW 4601 Presidents Avenue, Suite 200
 

Washington, DC 20531 Lanham, Maryland 20706
 

This Summary Report was prepared under Contract number 2010C 10031 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or 

opinions expressed in this document are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position 

or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

Table of Contents
	

Background ................................................................................................1
 

LISTENING SESSION DAY ONE – APRIL 18 .....................................................2
 

Welcome and Introductions by Ron Laney, OJJDP Senior Advisor.............2
 

Statement of Purpose by Jeff Slowikowski, OJJDP Acting Administrator....2
 

Comments from Bernard Melekian, Director of COPS ................................3
 

Comments from Laurie Robinson, Assistant Attorney General ...................4
 

Mary Lou Leary, Principal Assistant Deputy Attorney General ....................4
 

Assessment Results ...................................................................................4
 

Launa Kowalcyk, Session Facilitator...........................................................5
 

Assessment—Reviews and Reactions........................................................6
 

Comments on Key Youth Issues and Effective Partnering Assessment Responses ............... 6
 

Comments on the Language of the Assessment .................................................................... 6
 

Where Does the Relationship with LE Begin and End?...............................7
 

Small Group Activity—Effective/Ineffective Partnerships ............................7
 

Group 1 Report....................................................................................................................... 8
 

Offenses Identified .............................................................................................................. 8
 

Contributing Factors............................................................................................................ 8
 

Juvenile Justice System Characteristics ............................................................................. 8
 

Group 2 Report....................................................................................................................... 8
 

Offenses Identified .............................................................................................................. 8
 

Contributing Factors............................................................................................................ 9
 

Juvenile Justice System Characteristics ............................................................................. 9
 

Group 3 Report....................................................................................................................... 9
 

Offenses Identified .............................................................................................................. 9
 

Contributing Factors............................................................................................................ 9
 

Juvenile Justice System Characteristics ............................................................................. 9
 

Group 4 Report......................................................................................................................10
 

Offenses Identified .............................................................................................................10
 

Report Date: June 21, 2011 P a g e | i
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

Contributing Factors...........................................................................................................10
 

Juvenile Justice System Characteristics ............................................................................10
 

Group 5 Report......................................................................................................................11
 

Offenses Identified .............................................................................................................11
 

Contributing Factors...........................................................................................................11
 

Juvenile Justice System Characteristics ............................................................................11
 

Group 6 Report......................................................................................................................12
 

Offenses Identified .............................................................................................................12
 

Contributing Factors...........................................................................................................12
 

Juvenile Justice System Characteristics ............................................................................12
 

Common Threads of Information across Small Groups .........................................................12
 

Small Group Activity: What Does OJJDP Need to Know and Acknowledge 

from LE About Youth Issues? ...................................................................13
 

Group 1 Report......................................................................................................................13
 

Group 2 Report......................................................................................................................14
 

Group 3 Report......................................................................................................................14
 

Group 4 Report......................................................................................................................15
 

Group 5 Report......................................................................................................................15
 

Group 6 Report......................................................................................................................16
 

Working Lunch Activity for Small Groups ..................................................17
 

Group 1 Report......................................................................................................................17
 

Effective Partnerships ........................................................................................................17
 

Ineffective Partnerships......................................................................................................17
 

Group 2 Report......................................................................................................................18
 

Effective Partnerships ........................................................................................................18
 

Ineffective Partnerships......................................................................................................18
 

Group 3 Report......................................................................................................................18
 

Effective Partnerships ........................................................................................................18
 

Ineffective Partnerships......................................................................................................19
 

Group 4 Report......................................................................................................................19
 

Effective Partnerships ........................................................................................................19
 

Ineffective Partnerships......................................................................................................19
 

Group 5 Report......................................................................................................................19
 

Report Date: June 21, 2011 P a g e | ii
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

Effective Partnerships ........................................................................................................19
 

Ineffective Partnerships......................................................................................................20
 

Group 6 Report......................................................................................................................20
 

Effective Partnerships ........................................................................................................20
 

Ineffective Partnerships......................................................................................................20
 

Emerging Themes from Small Group Activity ........................................................................21
 

Juvenile Justice Continuum ......................................................................21
 

Small Group Activity: Determine the Identification, Enhancement, and 

Development of Evidence-based Practices...............................................22
 

Group 1 Report - SROs .........................................................................................................23
 

Group 2 Report - SROs .........................................................................................................23
 

Group 3 Report – Police Officers...........................................................................................23
 

Group 4 Report – Child Protective Team ...............................................................................24
 

Group 5 Report – Diversion for Truancy ................................................................................24
 

Group 6 Report – Cops Visit Homes......................................................................................24
 

Comments after Small Group Activity ....................................................................................24
 

Small Group Activity: How Will LE/OJJDP Get There From Here?...........25
 

Detailed Comments from LEs................................................................................................26
 

LISTENING SESSION DAY TWO – APRIL 19...................................................27
 

Small Group Activity: Identify Existing Partnership Resources for LE and 

OJJDP ......................................................................................................27
 

Group 1 Report - Community.................................................................................................28
 

Available Resources for LE in the Community ...................................................................28
 

Beg, Borrow and Steal Resources .....................................................................................28
 

Available Resources from the Federal Government ...........................................................28
 

LE Wish List.......................................................................................................................28
 

Risk Assessment Models and Tools ...............................................................................29
 

Focus Current Best Practices Based on Public Safety Policies ..........................................30
 

Map Health Data with Crime Data ..................................................................................30
 

Change LE Interception Trigger......................................................................................30
 

Early Intervention Strategies...........................................................................................30
 

Group 2 Report - Management Buy-in...................................................................................31
 

Report Date: June 21, 2011 P a g e | iii
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

Community Resources.......................................................................................................31
 

OJJDP Resources .............................................................................................................31
 

LE/OJJDP Partnerships .....................................................................................................31
 

Group 3 Report - Police Officer..............................................................................................32
 

Community Resources.......................................................................................................32
 

OJJDP Resources .............................................................................................................32
 

Recommended Program/Initiative ......................................................................................33
 

Comments about Recommendation...................................................................................33
 

Group 4 – Cyber-monitoring ..................................................................................................33
 

Community Resources.......................................................................................................33
 

Local/State/Regional Resources ........................................................................................34
 

National Resources............................................................................................................34
 

OJJDP Resources .............................................................................................................34
 

Wish List from LE for OJJDP..............................................................................................34
 

Discussion Question—Who Else Should be at the Table?........................34
 

Other Working LE Programs in Juvenile Justice ....................................................................35
 

Final Remarks and Messages...................................................................37
 

Summary of Critical Needs ....................................................................................................37
 

Summary of Positive Outcomes.............................................................................................38
 

Final Remarks by LEs ...........................................................................................................38
 

Worthy Work of LEs ...........................................................................................................39
 

More Models of Best Practices...........................................................................................39
 

Additional Requests for OJJDP from LEs...........................................................................40
 

OJJDP‘s Calls to Action ............................................................................40
 

Closing Remarks from OJJDP ..................................................................41
 

Report Date: June 21, 2011 P a g e | iv
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

Background 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) of the Office of Justice 

Programs (OJP) recognizes that law enforcement officials are best qualified to enhance 

OJJDP‘s understanding of juvenile delinquency and to inspire strategic ideas about its 

prevention and interdiction. One of OJJDP‘s goals is to improve communication with law 

enforcement, and the listening session held on April 18-19 in Washington, DC was the first step 

toward meeting its critical objective. The listening session served as a means to exchange 

information to help shape OJJDP‘s strategic framework in the areas of policy, funding, training, 

and technical assistance for those in the field. 

Forty-four invitations were distributed to law enforcement (LE) executives and other juvenile 

justice stakeholders. Of the 44 invitees, 26 attended the listening session and comprised the 

following professional LE and Federal staff: 

	 Fourteen LE executives from across the country 

	 Seven participants from OJP, i.e., the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), the National Institute of Justice 

(NIJ), and the Office of the Assistant Attorney General (OAAG) 

	 The remaining attendees were from the following offices and organizations: 

o	 Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) 

o	 Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy 

(ONDCP) 

o	 International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) 

o	 Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) 

o	 National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) 

In preparation for the session, OJJDP developed an assessment tool as part of the registration 

process to receive valuable input for agenda topics that are pertinent to its law enforcement 

participants. Thirty-three of the invitees were asked to complete an online assessment 

regarding specific data about their jurisdiction‘s youth population, LE staff, community-focused 

programs, and juvenile issues. The assessment data was analyzed and compiled into an 

Executive Summary Report dated March 31, 2011, that was distributed to the listening session 

participants as part of their registration information packet. 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

LISTENING SESSION DAY ONE – APRIL 18 

Welcome and Introductions by Ron Laney, OJJDP Senior Advisor 

Mr. Ron Laney, Senior Advisor to the Acting Administrator of OJJDP, opened 

the listening session by welcoming its participants to Washington, DC, and 

acknowledged the vast amount of experience they brought to the table in the 

areas of cutting-edge law enforcement developments and initiatives, which is 

vital to assist OJJDP to better understand the needs of LE communities. 

OJJDP expressed its dedication to partner with LE to help prevent the cycle of 

juvenile offending and to better protect children who are victims of crime. Mr. 

Laney emphasized the unwavering commitment of OJJDP 

Acting Administrator, Mr. Jeffrey Slowikowski, to OJJDP‘s 

mission to protect children and provide them with every 

opportunity to be successful, free of abuse, exploitation, and 

harm. Mr. Laney also acknowledged that, while it is critical to 

hold juvenile offenders accountable for their actions, OJJDP 

strongly believes that prevention and intervention are key 

factors in helping youth step out of the revolving door of the 

juvenile and criminal justice system. Further, while juvenile 

offenders make up a considerable number of young adults who 

turn to crime as a way of life, there are many more youth and 

children who are victims of crime. OJJDP‘s goal is to hold 

juvenile offenders accountable, but not lose sight of the need to 

also interdict and protect our children. Mr. Laney stated that the 

listening session was to address areas of prevention, intervention, suppression/sanctions, and 

juvenile reentry. He reiterated that the Assistant Attorney General, Laurie Robinson, is also 

fiercely committed to improving the Federal response to all issues related to juvenile offending 

and victimization and substantial guidance would be gained by listening to the panel of LEs at 

the session, as well as other practitioners in the field. 

Statement of Purpose by Jeff Slowikowski, OJJDP Acting Administrator 

While it is critical to hold 

juvenile offenders 

accountable for their 

actions, prevention and 

intervention are key 

factors in helping youth 

step out of the revolving 

door of the juvenile and 

criminal justice system. 

- Ron Laney 

Senior Advisor 

Mr. Jeffrey Slowikowski was designated as the Acting Administrator of OJJDP 

by President Barack Obama on January 20, 2009. Prior to this appointment, 

Mr. Slowikowski served as the Associate Administrator of OJJDP‘s 

Demonstration Programs Division since 2004. Under his direction, the division 

managed grants that supported demonstration, research, evaluation, and 

training and technical assistance, including drug court, gang, juvenile violence, 

mentoring, reentry, tribal youth, truancy, and underage drinking initiative. 

Mr. Slowikowski explained the purpose and focus of the listening session—prevention and how 

to keep youth out of the juvenile justice system. He emphasized the need to develop a holistic 

viewpoint starting with law enforcement, which is the entry point into the juvenile justice system 

Report Date: June 21, 2011 P a g e | 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

for most youth offenders. Fifty percent of incarcerated youth do not need to be in the system 

(i.e., correctional facilities). OJJDP believes that LE is the key starting point to intervene and 

break that cycle. How can LE be a catalyst in the juvenile justice system reform? The purpose 

of the listening session is to respond to that question by having LE inform OJJDP on how to 

accomplish that goal and determine how and where to start. Mr. Slowikowski discussed how 20 

years ago, there was excellent LE training available; 10 years ago, the program was reduced to 

one small grant. Now is the time to change the most recent trend, and this listening session 

represented the first step. 

Comments from Bernard Melekian, Director of COPS 

Mr. Bernard (Barney) Melekian was assigned as Director of the Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) by Attorney General Holder in 

October 2009, where he leads an organization responsible for working closely with 

the Nation‘s State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to enhance the

safety of communities by advancing community policing. Mr. Melekian is 

committed to using COPS Office programs and resources to help LE build 

relationships and solve problems, which he views as the cornerstone of effective community 

policing. 

Mr. Melekian introduced two different studies that focused on early intervention and prevention, 

respectively. In the first study, referenced in a book by Edward Humes, No Matter How Loud I 

Shout: A Year in the Life of Juvenile Court (1996), Humes closely followed the cases of seven 

young people over a three-year period who were caught up in 

the juvenile justice system, which disclosed the following 

statistics: 16 percent of the juveniles equals 67 percent of the 

arrests; 52 percent of those juveniles were never arrested again 

if law enforcement took them home rather than entering them 

into the system. Humes concluded that early intervention by 

law enforcement was highly effective. 

The second study described the development and 

implementation of a SCUBA diving program for at-risk youth, 

which prompted a letter sent to the LA Times from a 17-year old 

girl raised in a dysfunctional home by her single mother. In spite of her challenging 

environment, the girl was a model student who never caused trouble. In her letter, the teen 

asked, ―When can I get into the SCUBA program?‖ Because she was a good student who 

stayed out of trouble, she was not eligible to participate in the program. The study provoked the 

question, ―Why do we only focus on kids in trouble?” The focus needs to be redirected to one of 

prevention. 

Fifty-two percent of 

incarcerated juveniles 

were never arrested 

again if law 

enforcement took them 

home rather than 

entering them into the 

system (Humes, 1996). 

Report Date: June 21, 2011 P a g e | 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

Comments from Laurie Robinson, Assistant Attorney General
 

Assistant Attorney General Laurie Robinson described Attorney General Eric 

Holder‘s commitment to youth issues and juvenile justice. While Attorney 

General Holder is involved in international matters, the issues he holds closest to 

his heart are those that involve kids. He personally chairs meetings whenever 

possible, or at the very least, he is involved in setting the agendas for those 

meetings to demonstrate his commitment and top-down support. 

Assistant Attorney General Robinson described a recent 

two-day summit, National Forum on Youth Violence 

Prevention Summit held in Washington, DC on April 4-5, 

2011, where six cities collaborated to develop a balanced 

approach to youth violence prevention from their 

respective comprehensive prevention plans. The 

Department of Justice is successfully working in true 

In this country, we will not give 

up on our children. 

-Attorney General Eric Holder at the 

National Forum on Youth Violence 

Prevention Summit, Washington, DC, 

April 5, 2011 

collaboration with the executive branch agencies (e.g., the 

White House, Department of Education). With the recent focus on the budget, there is no new 

funding available; however, they are working together to focus on youth-related issues within 

the current budget constraints. 

Mary Lou Leary, Principal Assistant Deputy Attorney General 

Assistant Attorney General Robinson identified Ms. 

Mary Lou Leary, Principal Assistant Deputy Attorney 

General in the Office of the Assistant Attorney 

General, as the direct point of contact for OJJDP. 

Ms. Leary described Attorney General Holder‘s 

signature initiative called Defending Childhood 

(http://www.justice.gov/ag/defendingchildhood/) and 

his desire to have LE participation in a pilot program 

that supports the goals of the initiative: 

	 Reduce children‘s exposure to violence

	 Mitigate impact of violence 

	 Implement a public awareness campaign 

Assessment Results 

Mr. Slowikowski summarized some of the key highlights garnered from the responses of the 

Assessment completed by several of the listening session participants: 

1.	 Youth-related problems include drug and alcohol abuse, gangs, rising involvement of 

juveniles in crime overall, including the increase of female participation in such crimes, and 

Defending Childhood is an 

initiative of Attorney General 

Eric Holder that strives to 

harness resources from across 

the Department of Justice to: 

 Prevent children‘s exposure 

to violence 

 Mitigate the negative impact 

of children‘s exposure to

violence when it does occur 

 Develop knowledge and 

spread awareness about 

children‘s exposure to

violence 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

gang activities. Truancy, mental illness among juveniles, bullying, homelessness, child 

trafficking and prostitution, and runaways are alarming emerging issues. 

2.	 Gang involvement ranges from a minor concern to a major concern, and the problem 

appears to be growing and expanding in many of the LE‘s communities.

3.	 Specialized staffing for juveniles is substantially different across the board regardless of the 

size of the agency. In several assessment responses, staffing is primarily focused more on 

the juvenile offender rather than the child victim. 

4.	 Most jurisdictions are experiencing declining budgets, which impacts all areas of these 

agencies, including juvenile services. In the face of economic challenges, Mr. Slowikowski 

emphasized that innovative thinking is key when addressing challenges faced by the 

communities; i.e., there is a need to learn to do more with less. He provided the following 

examples: 

a.	 Millions of dollars are spent on detention and incarceration of youth repeatedly 

entering the juvenile and criminal justice systems. The efforts of OJJDP and LE 

need to be directed in the areas of prevention and intervention; i.e., stopping the 

cycle before a child enters the system. 

b.	 One of OJJDP‘s key initiatives is juvenile reentry. In order to reduce recidivism

for juveniles, services need to be provided ―behind the walls‖ and immediately

upon transition into the community. Integrating youth back into their communities 

with a comprehensive aftercare plan will save dollars and, more importantly, save 

the future of many youth. 

c.	 Mr. Slowikowski encouraged participants to look at existing resources and 

identify innovative and efficient ways to use them instead of allowing funding 

issues to thwart any efforts toward progress. 

5.	 Nearly all survey respondents indicated they 

practice crime control strategies, and he 

expressed interest in hearing about those 

strategies and how crime control efforts are 

developed in their communities. 

6.	 More than 75 percent of the assessment 

respondents indicated that they participate in 

inter-agency partnerships, and OJJDP was 

interested in learning how these partnerships 

Launa Kowalcyk, Session Facilitator 

Ron Laney introduced Ms. Launa Kowalcyk as the facilitator for the LE Listening Session. Ms. 

Kowalcyk is employed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanian‘s Department of Corrections

Training Academy as their Curriculum Development Unit Supervisor. Prior, Ms. Kowalcyk was a 

Correctional Program Specialist with the National Institute of Corrections‘ Academy Division,

were developed, including common goals, impact, and how to expand successful models. 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

and was a trainer/supervisor at the Central Counties Youth Juvenile Detention facility. During 

her 18-year career within the Pennsylvania Juvenile Justice System, she conducted extensive 

research in adolescent suicide, post-traumatic stress disorder, and balanced and restorative 

justice. 

Ms. Kowalcyk reviewed the governing policies and procedures for session participation then 

presented the two main goals of the listening session: 

1.	 Solicit feedback from LE executives to explore the diversity and scope of juvenile justice 

issues. 

2.	 Determine the identification, enhancement, and development of evidence-based 

practices to reduce juvenile crime, address issues of child protection, and promote 

positive child and youth development during key stages in the Juvenile Justice 

Continuum. 

Ms. Kowalcyk introduced the first interactive topic in support of the first goal—reactions and 

feedback from LE on the Assessment and its Executive Summary Report. 

Assessment—Reviews and Reactions 

Comments on Key Youth Issues and Effective Partnering Assessment 

Responses 

When the LE participants were asked for feedback on the assessment and the executive 

summary of results, they provided the following comments: 

	 Types of information being requested in the assessment were unclear in certain areas, 

which makes the validity of the results questionable and difficult to truly identify what the 

strengths and weaknesses are. 

	 Participant from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) commented that there are good 

assessments available that could be used for a similar assessment. 

	 Assessment provided an opportunity to look at the scope and breadth of problems, and 

the listening session serves as an opportunity to identify key indicators. 

Comments on the Language of the Assessment 

When the LE participants were asked for feedback on the specific language of the assessment, 

they provided the following comments: 

	 It served as a jumpstart for a thought process. 

	 The type of information requested on the assessment is difficult to catalog, and it is not 

easy to develop a assessment to capture it. 

	 A question was posed if the LE team was going to be totally reactive rather than 

proactive, which was in reference to an article that the participants were asked to read, 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

In Determining Effectiveness of the Juvenile Justice System (December 2010). This 

was identified as a key indicator. 

	 A general consensus is that even though law enforcement is a reactive process, it needs 

to move away from a reactive model to one that is more proactive and emphasizes 

prevention. 

Where Does the Relationship with LE Begin and End? 

Comments about the Assessment initiated a facilitated discussion of 

effective points of interception by LE when addressing youth issues. 

Some of the key points were: 

	 Drugs are a huge part of youth issues; at this point, should a
 

kid go into the system or get averted?
 

	 Humes‘ study and the effectiveness of early intervention were
 

restated.
 

	 There is tension between LE and juvenile justice; juvenile justice does not view LE as 

part of the solution, because they take kids into custody and move them into the system. 

	 LE and juvenile justice sectors are funded differently and thus perform differently; for 

example, Recreation and Parks could be considered a point of entry. It is in juvenile 

justice‘s interest to move beyond law enforcement to include municipals—an opportunity 

for a single kid and a single point to intervene. 

Critical Point: Lack 

of communication 

between law 

enforcement and 

juvenile justice is a 

major issue. 

	 A juvenile victim is likely to become an at-risk 

youth who then becomes an offender and enters 

into the system. The system ultimately escalates 

and worsens a child‘s risky behavior, which

results in high probability of recidivism once the 

child is released from the system. A key indicator 

for initiating proactive/preventive steps is to 

identify the point a youth goes from being a victim 

to becoming an offender. 

Victim 

At-risk 

Offender 

System 

Recidivism 

Small Group Activity—Effective/Ineffective Partnerships 

The LE participants were divided into six small groups to discuss the key effective and 

ineffective partnerships within each of their juvenile justice communities. To facilitate this 

discussion among small group members, they were requested to consider the following three 

questions: 

1.	 What are the offenses? 

2.	 What are the contributing factors? 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

3.	 What does your juvenile justice system look like; i.e., who are the stakeholders and the 

offensives? 

The next step of the exercise involved synthesizing the information by identifying law 

enforcement‘s priorities within the juvenile justice continuum and document any links between 

law enforcement and its partners. 

Group 1 Report 

Offenses Identified 

1.	 Violent crimes, e.g., robbery 

2.	 Gateway crimes, e.g., theft, drugs, and alcohol 

Contributing Factors 

1.	 Family issues as a result of dysfunction and/or poverty 

2.	 Lack of achievement in school 

3.	 Lack of employment 

4.	 Generational issues 

5.	 Culture of failure 

6.	 Cycle of behavior 

Juvenile Justice System Characteristics 

1.	 Courts 

2.	 What we count (i.e., everything youth does bad); should be counting ―victims‖ rather than

―offenders.‖

3.	 LEs are practicing alternatives. 

4.	 ―Trail-Nail-Jail‖ - politicians only focus on the numbers that show crime goes down. 

Group 2 Report 

Offenses Identified 

1.	 Drugs and alcohol 

2.	 Prescription and OTC drugs (prevalent in Indian country) 

3.	 Gang activity 

4.	 Truancy 

5.	 Theft 

6.	 Vandalism and graffiti 

7.	 Robbery and burglary 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

8. Assault and bullying 

Contributing Factors 

1. Family dysfunction 

2. Drugs and alcohol 

3. Lack of prevention and intervention resources 

4. Lack of resources for this particular region 

Juvenile Justice System Characteristics 

1. Very reactive; needs to be more proactive 

2. Juveniles meet LE—courts—detention system 

3. No rehabilitative programs 

4. No reentry programs 

5. Lack of early intervention 

Group 3 Report 

Offenses Identified 

1. Thefts and shoplifting 

2. Vandalism 

3. Drugs and alcohol 

4. Traffic violations 

5. Status offenses (truancy) 

6. Assaults 

7. Above escalates into more serious crimes 

Contributing Factors 

1. Family dysfunction 

2. Learning disabilities (lack of basic skills and life skills) 

3. School system said, ―Kids seeking a sense of community,‖ that is, a sense of belonging 

Juvenile Justice System Characteristics 

1. Initial contact with LE 

2. Juvenile detention facilities 

3. Juvenile services - assessment – alleviate 

4. Changing court venues 

Report Date: June 21, 2011 P a g e | 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

5.	 Adjudication, such as, diversion and non-secured detention. 

6.	 Juvenile justice system is not structured to handle it. 

7.	 Lack of non-secured detention, such as, community services. 

Group 4 Report 

Offenses Identified 

1.	 Larcenies 

2.	 Guns on the street (violence,
 

robberies, and assaults)
 

3.	 Gangs and crews 

4.	 Drugs and alcohol 

5.	 Graffiti 

6.	 Sex offenses 

7.	 Truancy 

8.	 Domestic issues 

9.	 Bullying 

Contributing Factors 

1.	 Family dysfunction or lack of structure in family; no role models 

2.	 Kids as parents (teens); 13 year olds having babies 

3.	 Poverty* (major contributing issue) 

4.	 Lack of education, parenting skills, religion, positive alternatives 

5.	 Sexual abuse within family 

6.	 Lack of resources/jobs* (major contributing issue) 

7.	 Criminal action = financial ―enterprise‖ success

8.	 Media – message – music 

9.	 Social networking 

Juvenile Justice System Characteristics 

1.	 Different agencies, which do not work in coordination 

2.	 Reactive only (no proactive) 

3.	 LE, mental health agencies, probation, youth court, and detention 

4.	 Lack of sharing information (sometimes mandated by law; sometimes by turf issues) 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

Group 5 Report 

Offenses Identified 

1.	 Criminal 

2.	 Status offenses, e.g., truancy, smoking, alcohol, and curfew violations 

3.	 Behavioral problems, e.g., dysfunction, mental health, acting out, and runaways 

4.	 Victimization 

5.	 Substance abuse 

6.	 Court-ordered programs 

Contributing Factors 

1.	 Contributing factors need to be acted on early. 

2.	 Thirty-two youth development assets/indicators/predictions of youth models: 

 Dysfunctional environment(s), such as, family and friends 

 School performance 

 Social normalizing and peer norming (affluent kids abusing alcohol is the  ̳norm‘)

 Acting out 

3.	 By the time they come to the police‘s attention, it is downstream. 

Juvenile Justice System Characteristics 

1.	 Structural – systemic pieces are not aligned. Who handles intervention/warning signs? 

2.	 Juvenile delivery of services is specialized but not necessarily integrated. 

3.	 Cultural barriers = providers = cops = kids = lack of understanding; that is, a mentality of 

―Let someone else deal with those kids.‖

4.	 Youth development is usually the providers‘ domain, but it is important for all youthserving entities to understand. 

5.	 Barriers to sharing information and concerns about youth. 

6.	 So many entry/contact points, such as, schools, childcare, cops, probation, parks and 

recreation, parents; however, no one sees the whole picture to holistically evaluate and 

address juvenile issues. 

7.	 Entry point of LE is too late. 

8.	 No record sharing (too many entry points); lack of sharing is sometimes mandated by 

law, and sometimes by turf issues. 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

Group 6 Report 

Offenses Identified 

1.	 Status offenses, such as, truancy, zero tolerance, runaway, low income/poverty, mental 

health, and learning disabilities 

2.	 Criminal offenses, such as, drugs and alcohol 

3.	 Self-victimization (suicide attempts) 

4.	 Victimization (internet, cyber bullying, and child abuse) 

5.	 Unruly (parent-child problems), such as, lack of parenting skills, school issues, and 

adolescence 

Contributing Factors 

1.	 Cannot always blame parents 

2.	 Peer pressure 

3.	 Hormones 

4.	 School 

Juvenile Justice System Characteristics 

1.	 Players:
 

 Cops
 

 Prosecution
 

 Diversion programs
 

 Probation officer
 

 Judges/magistrates
 

 Mediation
 

 Juvenile detention
 

 Defense attorneys
 

2.	 Goal:
 

 Rehabilitative?
 

 Punitive?
 

 Preventative?
 

Common Threads of Information across Small Groups 

1. LE leadership role, services: 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

	 Acknowledgement that LE needs leadership. 

	 Cannot rely on other purviews. 

	 LE needs to lead/coordinate services with other institutions and their leaders. 

	 Collaborative effort 

2.	 The system is flawed if we have to rely on cooperation and coordination on a case-bycase basis. We need to go beyond that and implement a systems approach to the entire 

juvenile justice system that breaks down barriers (e.g., record sharing) and allows LE 

access the key entry points. 

3.	 LE should not wait for, nor expect, systems to work together; they are at cross purposes. 

Information sharing is a nightmare because of the privacy laws made to protect kids. 

Need to find ways to share information informally; such as, information handoffs from 

schools and police departments. What is the common factor, for example, to prevent 

more shootings? Need to carve out your objectives and figure out how to do it. 

4.	 Lack of social equity makes kids feel like they don‘t belong, which leads to gangs, 

graffiti. When there is a lack of belonging, there is a lack of ownership. Juvenile justice 

system further diminishes social equity. 

Small Group Activity: What Does OJJDP Need to Know and Acknowledge 

from LE About Youth Issues? 

Group 1 Report 

1.	 Customize LE strategy to meet the needs of communities and address the variances 

instead of a one-strategy-fits-all approach. 

2.	 Response is dictated by the type of offense—felony versus misdemeanor; focus LE 

attention on chronic offenders. Most offenses committed are minor ones (Taylor 

response). 

3.	 Allocate resources for prevention/intervention programs. Normally, these programs fall 

on the back burner, but we need to 

focus and commit resources to these 

programs instead. 

4.	 Collaboration among institutions; there 

are best practices to model this, such
 

as, Annie E. Casey Foundation and 

Burns Institute.
 

5.	 Offenses are symptoms of other issues;
 

focus on the causes and deal with core 

issues, such as, dysfunctional families, 

drug abuse, etc. While this is beyond the
 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

scope of LE, it should be the focus of OJJDP. 

Group 2 Report 

1.	 OJJDP needs to know that information sharing is a priority; it is a major challenge 

among the varied communities (urban, city, affluent, poverty-stricken, etc.). 

2.	 Who is ultimately responsible before youth enter the criminal justice system? 

3.	 Risk assessments for families of young children. 

4.	 Look at what works.
 

 Proactive partnerships
 

 Mission consensus
 

 Peer input
 

 Develop LE relationships with youth
 

 Executive leadership:
 

o	 Government 

o	 Non-government organizations (NGOs) 

o	 Faith-based 

o Private sector
 

 Measurement of results
 

 Share information about these proven practices
 

5.	 Understand what doesn‘t work:
 

 Reactive
 

 Lack of mission alignment
 

 Ignore juveniles as stakeholders
 

 Lack of communication
 

 Lack of executive leadership
 

 Lack of measurement results
 

Group 3 Report 

1.	 Importance of multi-disciplinary approach:
 

 We all have a piece but no one knows the ―whole‖ picture.
 

 Law enforcement point of entry is too late.
 

2.	 System does not serve the kids; if the goal is prevention, the system is reactive. 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

3.	 This is worthy work. 

4.	 One model or approach does not fit everyone. 

Critical Indicator: 

Communication & 

information 

sharing; identify 

warning signs 

before booking. 

5.	 Each element (i.e., prevention, intervention, enforcement,
 

sanctions, reentry) has its own success; that is, the degree of
 

the solution within the overall system or how far it moves the
 

needle.
 

6.	 Strength comes from multi-disciplinary, information-sharing,
 

local/neighborhood-level structure:
 

 Assisted by coordinating assessment process.
 

 Fed by legal, school, and family referrals.
 

	 Dependent upon effective gap analysis and linking systems/providers who are not 

naturally connected. 

7.	 Systemization of assessment center-mandatory: mental health, probation, healthcare 

worker, etc. 

Group 4 Report 

1.	 Resource allocation for youth agencies is not there:
 

 Lack of funding
 

 Training deficits
 

 Resource issues facing LE is reduced funding for:
 

o	 SROs 

o	 Crime prevention 

2.	 Need evidence-based practices. 

3.	 What is a really good model going forward? 

4.	 Less face-to-face interaction between LE and youth because of technology. 

5.	 Cyber-based crime growing exponentially; LE is having a hard time keeping up in this 

area. 

Group 5 Report 

1.	 Schools –Truancy:
 

 School is the first intervention point and truancy presents the first flag.
 

 LE needs integration of LE and education and to track it like CDC.
 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

	 Schools tend to hide bad news under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy 

Act (FERPA) but LE has a need-to-know; this is a missed opportunity for early 

intervention. 

	 FERPA laws for information sharing get in the way; cannot get truancy 

information from the school. 

	 SROs can get around FERPA, but it shouldn‘t have to be that way. 

	 LEs need access to attendance records, and information about victimization 

information and low-level crimes. 

	 Role models/mentors, such as tutors. 

	 Schools tend to be isolated and do not look for signs of victimization. 

2.	 Cops in schools:
 

 Count victims rather than offenders.
 

 Need training for SROs.
 

3.	 Prostitution (Juvenile):
 

 Focus on Johns as the offenders rather than prostitutes.
 

 Provide services for prostitutes.
 

4.	 Integration of services is key: 

	 OJJDP should be the convener and offer incentives for partnerships that provide 

One-Stop Shopping for resources and services for kids. Kids should not have to 

seek (shop around for) services they need. 

	 OJJDP should not allow creation of a more fragmented system. 

5.	 Model Training Policy for SROs to help them identify what to look for. 

Group 6 Report 

1.	 Need a more focused way of approaching youth services in LE agencies (training, 

finance allocation, evidence-based). 

2.	 Get back to basics (face-to-face). 

3.	 Communication among agencies, social groups, schools, non-profits, and nongovernment organizations (NGOs).
 

4.	 Integration of services and finances. 

5.	 Translational research, i.e., ―research-to-practice.‖

6.	 More police in youth services agencies (courts, probation, parole, LE). 

7.	 A political issue, i.e., new administration gets rid of previously-effective programs. 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

8.	 Need better communication between OJJDP and LE field. 

9.	 Reduction in finances, which affect LE capacity, particularly for juvenile justice ―erosion.‖

10. LEs have more ―global‖ view, which affects resources available for more local programs 

and less socially-oriented programs. 

11. Cyber-crimes, e.g., bullying; LE is behind the times technologically. 

12. Need more community-police interaction in positive relationship environment:
 

 Helps prevent ―us and them‖ mentality.
 

 Encourages positive reinforcement, e.g., acknowledges good kids.
 

 Spreads word about programs.
 

13. Provide web-based tool for linking non-profits, LE, and community; e.g., OJJDP Web site 

links to IRS-like list of non-profits. 

Working Lunch Activity for Small Groups 

What are the key components of effective and ineffective partnerships within the LE‘s juvenile 

justice programs (but not program-specific), and then explain why or why not the listed 

components worked? 

Group 1 Report 

Effective Partnerships 

1.	 Roles with clear job descriptions and partnerships; identify goals and stick to them, and 

build trust, e.g., Boys and Girls Clubs. 

2.	 Wraparound services and goals for specific kids. 

3.	 Family court – LE works with prosecution and shares information; it gives the judges 

options. 

4.	 Criminal court – provides alternatives to incarceration; tells DA which specific kids to 

work with, and LE works with DA on alternatives. 

5.	 Probation officer and LE conduct joint home visit. 

6.	 Parole officer and LE conduct joint home visit. 

7.	 Sentence that requires participation by agency. 

8.	 Stipends for kids to get them into a program. 

Ineffective Partnerships 

1.	 Champion of program moves on. 

2.	 Institutionalize and make consistent; e.g., accept program into institution, such as, bring 

the Boys and Girls Clubs into schools. 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

3.	 Identify kids who need programs and parents who need to retool. 

4.	 Tribal – no incentives for work. 

Group 2 Report 

Effective Partnerships 

1.	 Inviting all players to contribute; think outside of the box; e.g., invite the IRS to identify 

low-income families. 

2.	 Build partnerships to leverage resources; e.g., four agencies involved in trafficking. 

3.	 Acknowledge each other‘s strengths and weaknesses. 

Ineffective Partnerships 

1.	 Good at research but not putting research into practice, i.e., best practices. 

2.	 Not outreaching to other agencies, e.g., faith-based. 

3.	 Need to think outside of the box. 

Group 3 Report 

Effective Partnerships 

1.	 Geographic alignment of resources, e.g., family assessment resource center:
 

 Co-located resources (off-site):
 

o	 Family/Children Assessment Center 

o	 Probation 

o	 One-stop shop 

2.	 Diversion with multi-disciplinary resource programs. 

3.	 Extension of public safety 

role by nonpublic-safety 

partners, e.g., Parks and 

Recs. 

4.	 Share vision, mission, and 

purpose across 

partnerships. 

5.	 Proactive truancy 

prevention (schools and 

police). 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

6.	 Effective community collaboration, e.g., NGO, faith-based. 

Ineffective Partnerships 

1.	 Absence of formalized collaborations with partners, police-centric cultures/systems, lack 

of knowledge cross-silo. 

2.	 Work across silos but don‘t understand functions of others. 

3.	 Lack of resources (tribal world). 

4.	 Criminalizing disorder behaviors, e.g., drug/alcohol treatment. 

5.	 Limited capacities of other resources, e.g., schools. 

Group 4 Report 

Effective Partnerships 

1.	 Principals drive it. 

2.	 Establish relationship. 

3.	 Need documentation – Concept of Operations (ConOps) as personalities change (i.e., 

champion leaves): 

 Mission consensus in ConOps 

 Multiple services to treat one family with multiple problems. 

 Peer input, i.e., get kids‘ input

	 Community policing and outreach, e.g., Outward Bound program that involves LE 

and kids. 

Ineffective Partnerships 

1.	 Reactive 

2.	 Pre-established relationships 

3.	 Lack of mission alignment 

4.	 No peer input results in not having the kind of relationship needed with youth. 

Group 5 Report 

Effective Partnerships 

1.	 Early prevention – best to get youth before they are entered into the system. 

2.	 Truancy is the entry point before kids gets into the system. 

3.	 Adequate resources – searching for new normal. 

4.	 SROs create relationships with kids – more sharing and talking; e.g., high school senior 

rides in police cruiser, which builds trust and relationships. 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

5.	 Other positive relationships with youth and LE are athletic programs and GREAT. 

6.	 Take advantage of partners, e.g., church, tutoring. 

7.	 Perceived as problem solvers. 

8.	 Executive leadership is key. 

Ineffective Partnerships 

1.	 Lack of relationship and trust. 

2.	 Lack of collaboration. 

3.	 Lack of funding but it is not the major challenge; ask and you may find resources. 

4.	 Overreliance on detention (―just put them in jail‖ mentality). 

5.	 LE needs to say, ―Not the way—many programs are available without detention.‖

6.	 Dysfunctional family – you can fix the kid but then you have to return him/her to a 

dysfunctional family. 

7.	 Lack of access – segue into the system. 

8.	 Inability to determine who to work with first. Who is the threat to public safety? 

Group 6 Report 

Effective Partnerships 

1.	 Early prevention activities: 

o	 Truancy 

o	 Diversion for first time offenders 

o	 Adequate resources (funding) 

2.	 SROs are mentors and role models; they offer coaching collaborations and partnerships 

with schools, e.g., ride-a- longs for high school seniors lunching with youth. 

3.	 Positive police relationships = trust: 

o	 PAL 

o	 Coaching sports 

o	 GREAT = making good decisions 

o	 Churches forming support for tutoring 

4.	 Organization transparency = problem solvers. 

Ineffective Partnerships 

1.	 No trust 

2.	 No collaboration 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

3. No funding 

4. Slowness of system (probation, courts, services) 

5. Over-reliance on detention 

6. No family support/engagement 

7. Lack of access to services until it is too late 

8. Inability to delineate who is truly the threat to public safety 

9. Once incarcerated, no rehabilitation 

Emerging Themes from Small Group Activity 

1. Relationship 

2. Partnership 

3. Trust 

4. Collaboration 

5. Diversity (geographic alignment) 

6. Borderline kid comes out of detention worse than when s/he went in 

Juvenile Justice Continuum 

The first part of the Juvenile Justice Continuum is defined as PIE (Prevention, Intervention, and 

Enforcement), which is shown in the Figure on the next page. The total continuum also includes 

Sanctions and Rehabilitation or PIESR for the total continuum. 

Prevention and Intervention are not driven by LE; Enforcement is where LE traditionally 

intercepts. LE uses a diversity of models up and down the continuum, which involve the 

following strategies, processes, and/or approaches: 

1. Adjudication 

2. Suppression 

3. Sanctions (after enforcement) 

4. Diversion (redirection), which can occur before or after intervention. 

5. Restorative Justice can occur up and down the continuum. 

6. Rehabilitation can occur across the continuum. 

7. Alternative Adjudication 

Report Date: June 21, 2011 P a g e | 21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 -

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

Home 

School 

Community 

Truant 

At Risk 

Behavior 

Victim 

Dysfunctional 

Family 

Violent 

Offender 

Non-violent 

Repeat 

Offender 

Non-violent 

1st Offender 

Child/ 

Family 

Services 

School 

Staff 

SRO 

Juvenile 

Justice 

System 

LE 

Enforcement 

Traditional LE 

Interception 

Prevention 

Points 

Intervention 

Points 

Focus & 

Purpose 

Juvenile Justice Continuum (PIE) 

Small Group Activity: Determine the Identification, Enhancement, and 

Development of Evidence-based Practices 

The small groups were instructed to identify components where LE can enhance and develop 

evidence-based practices to reduce juvenile crime, address issues of child protection, and 

promote positive child and youth development during key stages in the Juvenile Justice 

Continuum. Ms. Kowalcyk provided examples of how groups could translate their specific 

programs into components of evidence-based practices and identify where LE fits in within its 

defined priority of public safety: 

Example of Translating Specific Programs into Determining the Identification, 

Enhancement and Development of Evidence based Practices 

Boys and Girls Clubs fall within Prevention on the continuum and have components of consistency, role model, 

and relationship. Where does LE fit into the Prevention part of the continuum for this example? Geographical 

alignment is a component of what works and parallels with LE’s priority of public safety. For example, LE can 

provide a safe route from school to the Boys/Girls Clubs and make the clubs a safe haven. Therefore, a priority 

would be co-located resources; i.e., use the same police officers to provide a safe haven and establish 

relationships in the same area, such as, the school and surrounding community. 

Report Date: June 21, 2011 P a g e | 22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

Group 1 Report - SROs 

School Resource Officer (SRO) model has four key components: 

1. Intelligence leads to quality response 

2. Coordinated response 

3. Interested 

4. Communicate with all partners 

SROs have an effect up and down the Juvenile Justice Continuum now: 

Position on 

the Continuum 

Prevention 

Priorities 

Knowledge of information 

Safe haven 

Intervention 

Information to intervene in an instant 

Provide information to other school staff that they can intervene 

Arrest, citation, hot spots 

Sanctions 

School policies 

Parole agent 

Arrest, diversion 

Rehabilitation Enforcing 

Social worker/psychologist in school 

Group 2 Report - SROs 

SROs touch all five areas of the Juvenile Justice Continuum (PIESR): 

Prevention/Intervention – The two key components of SROs are role models and monitor 

compliance. 

Group 3 Report – Police Officers 

Police Officers affect delinquency problems outside of the school: 

Position on 

the Continuum 

Prevention 

Priorities 

Has discretion 

Embeds in community through coaching, sports, alternative opportunities, GREAT 

Develops strong relationships 

Provides community education to youth by telling them the consequences of risky behavior 

Short walking distance to any community-based neighborhood programs (social, LE, parole, 

etc.) 

Enforcement Individualized enforcement versus zero tolerance 

Rehabilitation Provides community education 

Report Date: June 21, 2011 P a g e | 23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

Group 4 Report – Child Protective Team 

Child Protection Team – there is limited involvement in prevention by LE, but there is room for 

LE to participate. 

Position on 

the Continuum	 Priorities 

Train LE to interpret/assess issues on the spot 

Prevention DARE, Just Say No 

Provide sense of procedural justice; first contact to modify behavior 

Group 5 Report – Diversion for Truancy 

Diversion for truancy – there are varied requirements across schools. 

Position on 

the Continuum	 Priorities 

Rather than just taking truant youth home, LE can offer assistance; this requires a Enforcement relationship with the school system 

Chronic offenders have been adjudicated (given multiple opportunities); sanctions should be 

more serious; give LE options Sanctions Organizational transparency is a priority; give the community actual statistics of crime and 

juvenile justice issues 

Group 6 Report – Cops Visit Homes 

Cops Visit Homes is an evidence-based practice that requires three overarching concepts: 

 Management buy-in is a priority. 

 Clarity of mission for LE; i.e., understand where LE fits. 

 Create a common language across multiple disciplines, i.e., partners engaged in the 

process. 

Position on 

the Continuum 

Prevention 

Priorities 

Creates relationships with kids and families 

Build capacity in entire workforce based on indicators; retool officers; engage clients and 

neighbors 

Intervention 

Offer different services; i.e., wraparound, such as sports that involve youth and cops 

Identify the types of services families need 

Cyber-monitor on Facebook, Twitter, etc. which stops crime (e.g., teen parties) and provides 

actionable/non-actionable evidence 

Rehabilitation Work with community-based programs (e.g., church), which also gets cops in touch with the 

community 

Comments after Small Group Activity 

	 The gap between what JJS is and what it is perceived to be by youth is not as wide; the 

gap is smaller based on legitimacy. 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

	 Focus on community engagement which closes the gap. Youth want education, tools, 

and resources. LE does not know of all the resources available—communication is key. 

	 Community-based continuum of JJS: 

o	 Sanctions within the community rather than remove youth from school; provides 

local resources. 

o	 Sense of community policing needed. 

o	 Clear, concise message for target group of youth based on what part of the 

continuum they are in; teach them there are ramifications for their behavior. For 

example, for impulsive, explosive behavior in teens, LE must articulate choices, 

consequences, etc. This approach requires people, resources, and funding. 

o	 Procedural Justice (associated with Tom R. Tyler). 

o	 Build Trust + Build Legitimacy = Voluntary Compliance. 

Small Group Activity: How Will LE/OJJDP Get There From Here? 

The Reports of the previous small group activity fell into four major categories--each containing 

multiple strategies, approaches, and/or processes as shown in the table below: 

How LE and OJJDP Will Get There from Here 

Report Out Category Strategies, Approaches, and/or Processes 













Absolute clarity of mission 

Management buy-in 

Organizational transparency 

Building trust + building legitimacy = voluntary compliance 

Create a common language 

Quality information – best position to exercise best discretion 

Management/CEO 





















Community engagement 

Community education 

SRO 

One-stop shop 

Wraparound services 

Diversion 

Child protection teams 

Social services 

Community-based continuum of Juvenile Justice Services 

Positive relationships with police 

Community 













Home visits from police 

Police officer on patrol 

Individualized enforcement options versus all-or-nothing zero tolerance policy 

Enforcement 

Officer discretion 

Individualized responses 

Police Officer 

Cyber Monitoring 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

Detailed Comments from LEs 

A frequent comment from the LEs was a need for a bold 

approach and new model that deals with kids up and down the 

Juvenile Justice Continuum, which community-based and youthfocused policing approach achieves. This approach promotes 

creative thinking, relationship-building, and prevention. A 

summary of proposed strategies and comments offered by the 

LEs included the following: 

	 Start by educating the sheriffs and chiefs, whose capacity 

and depth of knowledge of child issues are not deep; many are not advocates for child 

services. A new bold approach requires buy-in from the sheriffs and chiefs, which in turn 

requires them to develop a greater understanding of child victimization and recognition 

that children are our future—we need to invest in them. 

	 Create change sooner by initiating education and training at the captain/lieutenant 

levels. 

	 Several comments included a change in thinking and behavior away from the mentality 

that the mission of law enforcement is to simply ―reduce crime,‖ ―arrest bad people,‖ and 

eliminate the idea that problems can be solved by ―arresting our way out‖ to ensure

public safety. For example, arresting a 13-year old is not making the public safer, 

because once out of detention, s/he is more dangerous, probability of recidivism 

significantly increases, which makes the public less safe. There was agreement by the 

participants that a paradigm shift of this magnitude in behavior and thinking needs to 

start at the top (i.e., chiefs). Also, long-term strategies that address poverty-stricken 

areas; pockets of concentrated areas of crime in gang violence, guns, drugs, etc. were 

necessary. The top-down strategy presented an issue in itself—how do you get that 

Community-based 

policing is a bold 

approach that deals 

with kids up and 

down the Juvenile 

Justice Continuum. 

message across to the chiefs? 

The discussion among the LEs then transitioned to approaches for 

changing the mindsets of LE management about communitybased/youth-focused policing: 

	 When this approach shows results, there will be increased buyin. For example, in one case, chiefs considered home visits by 

LE as non-traditional police functions which only coddled the 

kids; this perception changed once youth-focused policing showed positive results in 

fewer arrests. 

	 Changes in the mindsets of families in the homes also occur, and trust in police officers 

is developed; these outcomes also change the mindsets of those within the police 

department. 

	 However, not all police officers are equipped or comfortable with youth-focused and 

community-based policing and, therefore, should not be expected to engage in this 

model. 

Result-driven 

approaches 

promote 

departmental and 

community buy-in. 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

	 An effective approach should also include a team of professionals of law enforcement 

officers and those who address juvenile issues, such as, psychologist, parole officer, 

social worker, etc. 

	 Buy-in and change are best promoted when quantitative data is used to show results, for 

example, tracking the crime statistics and highlighting reports that indicate positive 

results, such as, reduced number of juvenile arrests. 

	 Youth-focused LEs need to be clear in their messaging when talking with youth and their 

families by explaining the ramifications of risky and criminal behavior—this approach has 

also shown effective in reducing juvenile crime. 

	 Law enforcement should realize and accept that some families will never trust police 

officers; while all at-risk youth cannot be saved, LEs can make a positive difference in 

many. 

	 Since the vision of the police department drives behavior and perception, it was 

recommended that the department recruit, hire, and promote those who support this 

model. 

	 Realize that this type of change takes time (both within the department and in the 

community); initially, police officers are seen as threatening until community/youth 

realize the police are not out to arrest them; e.g., an officer who is dispatched to a teen 

alcohol-related party, if the officer thinks of alternatives other than arresting the teens, 

this approach eventually builds trust between LE and youth. 

	 Develop a lesson plan in a standardized format based on these principles; put it in print 

and place it everywhere; articulate it clearly, and provide training on it. 

	 Adopt the notion of ―worthy work;‖ i.e., refer to an LE‘s role and function as more than to 

just ―reduce crime,‖ instead focus on ―no more dead children.‖ Make ―worthy work‖ a call

to action. It is understood that when a department focuses on ―worthy work,‖ some 

police calls will take longer, which results in a need for more resources. 

	 Frame the role of law enforcement in a way that stipulates it is ―good work,‖ which aligns 

with what most LEs want and the reason they entered law enforcement in the first place. 

	 Understand that these same principles also apply to affluent communities. 

LISTENING SESSION DAY TWO – APRIL 19 

Small Group Activity: Identify Existing Partnership Resources for LE and 

OJJDP 

Each small group was assigned one of the four major categories identified in the previous day‘s 

afternoon session and asked to identify existing resources available in the community and 

OJJDP in the presence of today and tomorrow‘s reality of budget cuts. The question posed 

was, “How can LE and OJJDP partner to address the four categories in the face of budget 

cuts?”

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

Group 1 Report - Community 

The small group brainstorming on the identification of existing resources within the community 

first developed a list of key points and questions: 

1.	 School environment keeps kids on track. 

2.	 Early intervention is key. 

3.	 What are the factors that teachers identify early on? 

4.	 How do we expand the policies? 

5.	 What are the ―high-risk‖ factors identified early on? 

6.	 Where are the intercept points? 

7.	 The community infrastructure needs to share information. 

8.	 How can LE leaders influence the necessary changes? 

9.	 Partner with the Health Department to bridge the gap. 

10. Summit with the Department of Education to have change happen from the top (―It takes

a village‖ concept). 

Available Resources for LE in the Community 

1.	 Annie E. Casey Foundation has funds available for families and neighborhoods to 

support kids in poverty (private funding). 

2.	 Specialized/Dedicated Units (Special Victims Unit, such as, sex crimes and child 

molestation, Domestic Violence Offices, and Youth Offices).
 

3.	 Youth Officers/SROs – dedicated LE working with youth, which requires special skills. 

4.	 501c3 – nonprofits and faith-based organizations. 

5.	 Youth activities (Boys & Girls Clubs [but not clubs for kids], PAL, COPS and Kids, parks 

and recreation, Cal Ripken Association, and DYCD). 

Beg, Borrow and Steal Resources 

1.	 Psych/socials only provide pieces at a time. 

2.	 Social workers in the home. 

Available Resources from the Federal Government 

1.	 NCIC for runaways and missing children. 

2.	 Earmarks from government for Gang Unit, SRO, PAL, etc. 

LE Wish List 

1.	 One-Stop Shop, such as Family Crises Center, that addresses gangs and/or family 

issues and provides: 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

 Legal services
 

 Outreach
 

 Counseling
 

 Family intervention
 

 Literacy programs (because reading and writing are fundamental)
 

 Mental health list
 

 Psych/socials on all juvenile arrests
 

2.	 More ―feet on the street;‖ i.e., more police officers dedicated to youth services and 

outreach. 

3.	 Mentoring 

4.	 Juvenile Justice System with back-end reviews (open forum for each program). 

5.	 GED programs provide stipends for jobs. 

6.	 Increased information sharing among institutions, which prompted significant discussion 

about risk assessment models and tools presented in the following subsection. 

Risk Assessment Models and Tools 

There was significant discussion 

about the benefits and risks of 

increased information sharing 

between LE and schools for 

assessing and identifying potential 

at-risk youth. For example, it was 

recommended that schools become 

involved with LE early, such as, 

during kindergarten 

registration/assessment, which would 

enable the police department to introduce psych/social services as a means of intervention or 

prevention. It is well documented that kindergarten teachers can identify problem kids with a 

degree of accuracy. If schools communicated this information to institutions (e.g., police 

officers), there would be a huge impact on early intervention to problem behaviors in youth that 

can lead to juvenile offenses. (A comment of concern over this proposal was made regarding 

the risk of ―false positives‖ of kids who do not have problems/issues later on. How can 

kindergarten teachers reliably predict that? The LE response to this concern was that the 

kindergarten teacher‘s assessment may be a point of access for LE but not necessarily 

intervention. However, the early assessment may alert LE there is an indication of a 

dysfunctional family-based issue to which LE can investigate and possibly intervene by bringing 

in other support services. This would be a comprehensive risk assessment that highlights what 

institutions should be involved; however, the issue remains of how to change policies governing 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

information sharing. Another recommendation was offered to take this approach further by 

initiating intervention at the birth of infants in family structures associated with high-risk factors; 

e.g., birth of infant girls in fatherless homes. 

A general recommendation was offered to infuse more organization into the process by charting 

a child‘s life to identify the appropriate intercept points for LE to become involved that has the 

greatest impact for early intervention. This is preferred to the current approach of involving LE 

after a crisis has already occurred. 

One of the participants stated there is available research, which presents existing risk 

assessment models, indicators for youth, and tools available for specific points of interception 

by various providers. For example, touch points include pediatricians when children are 

vaccinated, childcare providers, and schools. However, policies are needed to define which 

institution(s) should get involved when indicators are presented. There is an Asset Inventory for 

a ―Healthy Youth Model,‖ for example.

Focus Current Best Practices Based on Public Safety Policies 

After Group 1‘s presentation, which focused on education policies, the facilitator asked the 

participants of the small groups to present current best practices that utilize LE‘s control over 

public safety policies rather than focusing on strategies that involve education policies over 

which they have no control. The LEs followed up with these models: 

Map Health Data with Crime Data 

There are early warning signs from a health perspective: 

 Infant mortality correlates with crime and homicides. 

 Opportunities available for LE to partner with the health department. 

 How stress affects families. 

Change LE Interception Trigger 

Suspension/expulsion is the trigger; schools are not accountable. Kids are already suspended 

and expelled. 

Early Intervention Strategies 

OJJDP will convene a summit with the Department of Education to discuss high-level policy that 

affects intervention at an early age, which in turn affects public safety, and will invite Department 

of Health. 

A study on early intervention showed that overlaying social indicators point to problem behavior 

in preschool-aged children. OJJDP can show how to use this data. There is evolving work in 

Youth Violence Prediction. The best approach is to collapse data into a formula that predicts 

outcomes, but issue is how to test the system in the real world without the risk of ―false 

positives;‖ i.e., labeling him or her as a high-risk kid. It was suggested that it not be a ―label‖ but

―flags‖ or ―highlights‖ a potential problem for early intervention. 

Report Date: June 21, 2011 P a g e | 30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

Group 2 Report - Management Buy-in 

Community Resources 

1.	 Foster strong relationships with faith-based organizations. 

2.	 Collaborate with community organizations, such as, YMCA, Boys and Girls Clubs, Boy 

Scouts and Girl Scouts of America, etc. 

3.	 Schools 

4.	 Other social service organizations 

5.	 Mentoring organizations, such as, shadowing programs. 

OJJDP Resources 

1.	 OJJDP training programs, e.g., ICAC (Internet Crimes Against Children), National 

Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), and IACP (International 

Association for Chiefs of Police). 

2.	 National Crime Prevention Council 

3.	 Federal initiatives, e.g., Gangs 

4.	 COPS Office 

LE/OJJDP Partnerships 

Awareness—There are OJJDP programs available that are unknown by LE. Better 

communication from OJJDP to the field is needed. 

Education—OJJDP can support LE by developing education and training guidelines for youthfocused policing. 

Database Management—LE presented several questions about OJJDP databases, such as, 

initiatives around database management, availability of a new release. This highlighted the 

issue of the field is unaware of the databases and their usefulness. 

OJJDP responded with updates on the availability and purposes of these databases and 

announced there is a Bulletin forthcoming providing these types of details. 

The first database for LE has been released and identifies programs across several key Federal 

agencies. Additionally, the IACP Web site (http://www.theiacp.org/) provides a list of LE 

programs developed and implemented, identifies specific issues, and connects officers with 

other officers. 

The second database is information collected from partners under the National Juvenile 

Information Sharing Initiative (http://www.juvenileis.org/). This database is trying to meet 

information sharing needs; it allows a process to exchange information on a need-to-know basis 

and a Memorandum of Understanding is established via collaboration. The problem is a legal 

one in that privacy issues prevent sharing information on a juvenile. 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

Ms. Mary Lou Leary indicated that OJJDP is working in 32 States already. Each jurisdiction is 

required to work with partners—not just LE. The process has been effective, because it forces 

the jurisdiction to identify partners. OJJDP has templates that must be used when a partner has 

been identified and the jurisdiction wants to establish a partnership. The model is OJJDP‘s, 

which then trickles down to States and then to local jurisdiction; a jurisdiction partner must 

demonstrate partners before proceeding. 

Baskin & Robbins is an approach that addresses diversity with customized approaches (of all 

flavors). 

Group 3 Report - Police Officer 

Community Resources 

1.	 Youth officers/division 

2.	 SROs 

3.	 Gang officers/division 

4.	 JRIP 

5.	 Juvenile detectives 

6.	 DARE/GREAT/sports 

events
 

7.	 Crime prevention/safety 

8.	 Beat cops for daily
 

interaction
 

9.	 Probation 

10. Drug/youth courts 

11. Family courts 

12. Faith-based groups 

13. School-related 

14. Child victim advocacy groups 

15. United Way allocates funds for children 

OJJDP Resources 

1.	 Funding and training. 

2.	 Marketing need; i.e., let LE know what is available. 

3.	 Present/Future: 

	 National coherence for juvenile justice research, standards, measurable results, and 

evidence-based practices. 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

	 Training 

	 Philosophical issues related to adult versus juvenile behavior, e.g., adult-age 

behavior redefined from 16 to 18 years old. 

Recommended Program/Initiative 

Develop a successful initiative, ―Keep Kids Out of Crime-Not Out of Jail,‖ and pilot it across the 

country in concentrated areas of violence, e.g., Northern California; New York; Madison, 

Wisconsin, Las Vegas, and Atlanta. Study and develop a research-based control group of other 

kids using a data driven approach based on measurable results. Focus on crises areas; i.e., 

kids are dying and need to be saved immediately. Conduct a short- and long-term study 

nationwide to deal with emerging juvenile problems. 

Comments about Recommendation 

1.	 Who will lead the initiative to put together the program? It could be LE/Commissioner. 

2.	 Agency heads reporting to OJJDP. 

3.	 Buy-in from Commissioner and community partners is required. 

4.	 Run from police department and bring in other partners to assist using a target group of 

kids; provide some services initially and gradually add more services. 

5.	 Principles will emerge; apply principles set by OJJDP. 

6.	 Model—Child Abduction Response Team, which resulted by bringing together
 

community resources involved in this particular issue.
 

Group 4 – Cyber-monitoring 

Group 4 identified some of the internet-based activities, such as, social networking sites 

(Facebook, Twitter), and cell phones used for texting/sexting, lead to other criminal activity, 

such as, trafficking, and cyber-crimes, such as, identity theft. This group identified an extended 

their list of resources beyond the community and OJJDP sources that also included: 

1.	 Federal 

2.	 State 

3.	 Local 

4.	 Community-based organizations 

5.	 Private organizations 

6.	 Volunteer organizations 

Community Resources 

1.	 Media - local and regional community alerting tools 

2.	 Schools/SROs/PTA 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

3.	 PAL 

4.	 Youth-serving community-based and faith-based organizations, e.g., Boys and Girls 

Clubs, ―Fight Crime/Invest In Kids‖ nonprofit. 

Local/State/Regional Resources 

1.	 State Criminal Justice Council 

2.	 State LE agencies and associations‘ prosecutors

3.	 Youth Commission Prosecutors 

National Resources 

1.	 High-technology resources such as NCMEC, ICAC 

2.	 FBI – Regional Computer Forensics Lab (RCFL); innocent images 

3.	 Text TIP Lines and anonymous TIP lines 

4.	 Hosts of online game sites that detect threats feed tips to LE 

5.	 Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force 

OJJDP Resources 

Group 4 struggled with identifying specific resources available from OJJDP, which also provided 

evidence of a communication gap between LE and OJJDP. The members of Group 4 were 

unaware of available resources, such as, the State block and tribal grants, or juvenile justice 

grants for underage drinking. 

Wish List from LE for OJJDP 

1.	 More research and resources for best practices in a Web site portal. 

2.	 Education 

3.	 Clearinghouse (it was unknown that a clearinghouse exists already—another indicator of 

the communication gap). 

Discussion Question—Who Else Should be at the Table? 

The facilitator opened the floor for input on who else in LE should be present at the table that 

has programs, which could be shared; i.e., did the participants know of other programs, 

initiatives, and/or components that should be included in listening sessions. LE provided the 

following recommendations and indicated these other stakeholders should be present at the 

same time for the best benefits: 

	 Cross pollination from Departments of Education (school boards) and Health and Human 

Services. It is the perspective of Education that ―we already do too much,‖ and their

presence at the table may offer a viewpoint of a realistic level of support and resources 

they can provide. 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 34 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

	 Public defenders may provide insights into juvenile justice system issues. 

	 State Advisory Commissions (SACs) 

	 Tribal focus from the Bureaus of Indian Education, Housing, and Indian Law
 

Enforcement Program
 

	 Annie E. Casey Foundation (http://www.aecf.org/) to educate LE on the multidisciplinary 

work they perform; such as, mental health, courts, law enforcement, health, and schools. 

They can help bridge the gap between LE and the juvenile justice system. The 

Foundation also has a good record with alternatives to arresting non-violent juvenile 

offenders. 

	 Faith-based groups, such as, Fight Crime/Invest in Kids/SNG (Shepherding the Next 

Generation) (http://www.shepherdingthenextgeneration.org/) 

	 Mayors, Chambers of Commerce, and other members across communities 

Other Working LE Programs in Juvenile Justice 

The facilitator posed the next question for discussion and information sharing: Who in LE has 

working programs in Juvenile Justice but is not at the table today? The participants 

brainstormed and developed the following list: 

	 Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force Initiative funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance 

(BJA): (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/httf.html) —There are 39 tasks forces across 

the country. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and its reauthorizations seek 

to combat human trafficking by punishing traffickers, protecting victims, and mobilizing 

U.S. government agencies to wage a global anti-trafficking campaign. These Acts 

contain significant mandates for the U.S. Departments of State, Justice, Labor, 

Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services and the U.S. Agency for 

International Development. 

	 San José Mayor’s Gangs Prevention Task Force (http://www.sanjoseca.gov/prns/mgptf/) 

(MGPTF) is made up of a Policy Team and a Technical Team. The Policy Team, 

chaired by the Mayor, provides direction and focus to the City's gang prevention and 

intervention efforts. The task force is comprised of the city, county and state; community 

based organizations; the San José Police Department; faith community; schools; and 

other community stakeholders. By bringing together these partners, the Task Force has 

been able to leverage a variety of available ‖pro-social‖ community resources to combat

the anti-social influences that youth receive from gangs. 

	 Delancey Street Foundation of California (http://delanceystreetfoundation.org) is 

residential self-help organization for former substance abusers, ex-convicts, homeless 

and others who have hit bottom and need a place to help turn their lives around. 

	 A Better LA (www.abetterla.org) was founded by Seattle Seahawks Head Football 

Coach, Pete Carroll, and Diane and Lou Tice, who are founders of The Pacific Institute. 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

A Better LA, a non-profit organization, has a mission to create a model for reducing 

violence and strengthening inner cities. 

Other stakeholders that should be invited to the table are those that support the end of the 

Juvenile Justice Continuum, such as: 

	 Probation Officers 

	 Child Protective Services which may be useful for supporting early intervention 

	 FBI Victim Specialists 

	 Gang Prevention Programs in Richmond, VA and Durham, NC 

	 Consolidation of gang prevention/intervention programs across the country, such as, 

GREAT Program and National Gang Center 

	 Youth Development Initiative (http://www.bethedifference.org) provides assessment 

centers in San Mateo County for all entry points 

	 Other types of centers, for example, Miami Dade County Juvenile Services Department 

has an assessment center to divert arrest for non-violent offenders to keep kids out of 

the system and get services for them instead (http://www.miamidade.gov/jsd/) 

	 San Francisco has an assessment center within the juvenile detention center, which may 

prevent a non-violent offender from being entered into the system 

	 New York also has alternatives to incarceration which includes wraparound services 

	 Someone from NEA (National Education Association) that knows about their program of 

safely disposing old prescription medications 

	 Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) (http://whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/) 

	 School Resource Officers (SROs) can offer support as a focus group on best practices 

as alternatives to arrest, specifically, real-time alternatives 

	 W. Hayward Burns Institute (http://www.burnsinstitute.org) is a national nonprofit that 

aims to protect and improve the lives of youth of color and poor youth and the well-being 

of their communities by reducing the adverse impacts of public and private youth-serving 

systems to ensure fairness and equity throughout the juvenile justice system 

alternatives. There is an associated national network, Community Justice Network for 

Youth (CJNY) (http://www.cjny.org), which provides support to community groups and 

arms them with the tools and staff to strengthen their programs and engage in policy 

work. 

	 Sacramento, CA Police Department developed First Responder Training on DFC Issues 

that widens the net and addresses recidivism. Action Item for San Matero LE: 

Provide contact information for this program to Jeff Slowikowski. 

	 Rainier Vista Boys and Girls Program in Seattle is an ideal One-Stop Shop model 

(http://www.rv.positiveplace.org/) in its implementation of the Seattle Youth Violence 

Prevention Initiative (SYVPI). SYVPI was established in 2009 by the City of Seattle to 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 36 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

address the issue of youth violence. With the help of caring citizens, city agencies, and 

several community base organizations eligible youth between the ages of 12-17 are 

offered an opportunity to participate in the SYVPI allowing youth access to a variety of 

services and opportunities, including but not limited to: Intensive Case Management, 

Aggression Replacement Training (ART), Recreation, Mentoring, Job Training/ 

Employment, and other skill enhancement programs and activities. 

	 SAVE (Safe Alternatives and Violence Education) SAVE is a violence awareness 

education curriculum designed for 10- to 17-year-old students (and the parents of such 

students) who are found carrying a weapon on or near a school campus as an 

alternative to zero tolerance policy that results in expulsion. A program impact 

evaluation of SAVE revealed that almost 91 percent of the 372 students included in the 

study had no subsequent weapons offenses after participating in the SAVE program. 

(http://www.ojjdp.gov/jjbulletin/9804/community.html) 

Additionally, the LE participant representing Indian country offered statistics about law 

enforcement that support tribal youth. First, Indian country has a difficult infrastructure because 

there is only one law enforcement officer focused on youth, which covers 2.3 million acres. LE 

participant suggested an Office Exchange Program in which an Indian LE is sent to another LE 

department while that department sends their LE officer to Indian country. This type of 

exchange would be beneficial for sharing ideas and gaining a better understanding of the types 

of challenges faced by LE supporting tribal youth. 

Final Remarks and Messages 

A few common themes emerged from the final remarks provided 

by each participant in the listening session that fall into two 

distinct categories—critical needs and positive outcomes. The 

subsections below summarize these themes followed by a more 

detailed record of the participants‘ specific remarks. Any call to action noted in the session is 

emphasized in bolded red text. 

Summary of Critical Needs 

	 Information sharing at all levels and directions—locally, statewide, and nationally. 

	 Better communication and coordination from OJJDP to the field. 

	 Research, identify, pilot, and promote best practices from across the country. 

	 Innovative solutions and programs in the face of budget cuts and limited resources. 

	 Youth-focused policing policies are better accepted and implemented in reaction-based 

departments if long-term strategies, standardized guidelines and training are provided 

top-down from OJJDP. 

Positive Outcomes 

for some LEs included 

Empowerment, 

Inspiration, Affirmation, 

and Renewed Passion. 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 37 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

Summary of Positive Outcomes 

	 Information sharing with other
 

LEs and OJJDP allowed
 

discovery of effective models for
 

prevention/intervention.
 

	 Collaboration versus isolation 

	 Safe forum to vent frustrations 

	 Empowerment 

	 Inspiration and motivation to do
 

more
 

	 Affirmation that one person can make a difference 

	 Renewed passion for this worthy work 

Final Remarks by LEs 

The listening session ended with each participant offering final remarks about what they heard, 

learned, or other experiences they wished to share over the two days. Similar remarks made 

from several participants were compiled and summarized to omit some of the redundancy and 

also protect the confidentiality of the commentators. 

	 Hearing all of the different thoughts from the field was 

beneficial; while OJJDP does not have all the 

answers, this LE felt a need to take this information 

back to colleagues and develop programs to help. 

	 Awareness and getting information to the field is an 

important part of the partnership between LE and 

OJJDP. OJJDP needs to share information at the local level, and pilot and promote best 

practices from across the country as we move forward. 

	 The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) agreed with OJJDP‘s comments and stated her

excitement on seeing how NIJ can provide support. 

	 Look for warning signs and red flags for early intervention. Use the concept of 

developmental assets and Project Cornerstone. Look at kids with good assets and 

include those in special, such as, the model teenager referenced in the SCUBA diving 

program example on the first day. 

	 Police chiefs are short-sighted because of the budget cuts and expect LE‘s function to 

be reactionary only. 

I used to have a job; 

now I have a mission. 

-Comment from LE during 

session 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 38 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

Worthy Work of LEs 

Some participants offered emotionally-charged testimonials about their jurisdictions, 

communities, and challenges, which reaffirmed the passion and reason that all participants 

knew when they entered this field in the first place. As one chief remarked, I used to have a job; 

now I have a mission. The following comments illustrate examples of the worthy work LEs 

perform: 

	 One LE poignantly described the issues he faced as a young child when his parents 

were arrested in front of him and police abandoned him in the store. The story 

emphasized the importance of appropriately training first responders as well as the 

parents. Since most teaching occurs in the home, the point of interception should be at 

the home instead of pushing that responsibility on the school, juvenile justice, and law 

enforcement. 

	 Another LE provided powerful testimony on how poverty, public housing projects, lack of 

skills, education, and jobs result in significant crime and sense of hopelessness among 

youth; 15-year olds write their obituaries on Facebook because they know they will die in 

the projects. There is tremendous lack of available resources to help families; only two 

small programs deal with violent crimes. There is a critical need for funding more 

programs, and a dozen more community-focused officers; however, the most profound 

need is more jobs for parents and youth. The session provided renewed motivation to 

change the dynamic of the LE‘s relationship with youth from negative (reactionary) to 

positive and make an effort to know the kids on a personal level. A positive outcome 

was recognizing that LE can at least change some lives in small pockets of the 

jurisdiction. 

	 An LE stated a passion for juvenile justice and the ability to impact lives and was 

pleased to learn of OJJDP‘s focus on victimization.

	 A positive take away for one LE was recognizing the important role SROs play and is 

now motivated to talk to other partners on how to save the program in the face of 

impending budget cuts, which may reduce or eliminate the funding for SROs altogether. 

	 Indian country has special challenges and needs more Federal resources and services. 

The LEs are stressed and feel hopeless in dealing with tribal youth committing serial 

suicides or cutting themselves to relieve emotional pain. Sexual victimization and abuse 

create a cycle; Indian youth need more positive role models. 

More Models of Best Practices 

The session participants shared examples of programs implemented in their jurisdictions that 

serve as models of best practices, and many offered invitations for others to visit and observe 

firsthand how these may be adapted into their own regions: 

	 Model of Decentralized Policing was created in Colorado and the LE extended an 

invitation to visit and see this program. 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 39 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

	 The Assessment Center Model (in California) is critical because it achieves what they 

are trying to accomplish. This type of model is comparable to the Kaiser Permanente 

model of including all of the specialists in one building that is managed by a generalist. 

	 An LE wants to focus on youth policing by setting up programs based on location (e.g., 

schools). Youth-focused policing will become part of the LE‘s mission and to improve 

that area. The prior Mission statements focused on adults, but the focus for youth is 

program driven (instead of mission driven). The listening session redirected this LE‘s

thinking. 

	 Focus on what works, for example, PAT is a successful model in spite of the
 

disadvantages that surround it.
 

	 Focus on schools and change the mindset to an understanding that Education is power. 

	 LEs can be mentors; e.g., take a moment and think, ―Who was this 14-year old kid you 

are locking up 7 years ago?‖

Additional Requests for OJJDP from LEs 

1.	 A request was made for OJJDP to communicate long-term prevention/intervention 

strategies (i.e., 5-10 years). 

2.	 A frequent request from LEs asked OJJDP to improve their communication with the field 

about the various programs available to them, and make information sharing a priority. 

3.	 A clearinghouse pointer system would help centralize a knowledgebase of all the similar 

programs or those that dovetail one another that are unknown to the field at this time. 

4.	 For long-term strategies to prevent crime, focus on the indicators. Over the last 15 

years, juvenile crime has not changed. It has not dropped, but it also has not gotten 

worse. 

OJJP’s alls to !ction 

Mr. Slowikowski assured the LEs that OJJDP understands their needs and summarized the 

following actions for OJJDP: 

1.	 Better communication of resources that are available to LE; for example, Internet Crimes 

Against Children (ICAC) has 61 Task Forces focused on this issue, which includes over 

2,000 LE partners—1 to 2 in every State. 

2.	 How to get LE to reflect on their own visions and missions and add youth-focused 

policing; i.e., how will OJJDP get all 18,000 police chiefs to change their policy-thinking 

as well as their behavior? It is a public safety issue, and it can be justified. 

3.	 Follow-up with each LE present at the session. 

4.	 Continue process with future sessions. 

5.	 Provide a Report of the session. 

Report Date: June 21, 2011	 P a g e | 40 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law Enforcement Listening Session Report 

Closing Remarks from OJJDP
 

Mr. Slowikowski again emphasized the Attorney 

General, Eric Holder‘s commitment to all youth 

issues—not just children exposed to violence. While, 

admittedly, there are extenuating challenges at an 

international level that command his attention, 

Attorney General Holder‘s heart and passion are in 

serving children, youth and families, and he is equally 

dedicated to changing the juvenile justice system to 

make it better. The Attorney General is Chairman of 

the Federally-mandated Coordinated Council that has 

members from the Departments of Education, Labor, Interior, and HUD, which are all focused 

on youth issues. Mr. Slowikowski is the council‘s co-chair and, together, they are resolved in 

ensuring this is not just another group that meets. This year they are trying to make it realistic 

and having conversations with LE, such as this listening session, is part of that process. There 

will be more exploration on how the Coordinated Council can assume an active role; the 

Attorney General and Mr. Slowikowski are strongly committed to make it happen. 

Be passionate. Be 

confident. And be a 

champion. 

-Parents of children 

taken during Listening 

Session with OJJDP 

Mr. Slowikowski thanked the LEs for their participation in the 

listening session, reinforced OJJDP‘s obligation as an agency to 

innovate solutions with input from LE, and then he conveyed a 

relevant sentiment from parents of children taken during a recent 

listening session with OJJDP. They said, ―Be passionate; be 

confident, and be a champion.‖

---------------------End of Report--------------------­

Report Date: June 21, 2011 P a g e | 41