https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Combating Violence and Delinquency: The National Juvenile Justice Action Plan Full Report.

MENU TITLE: Juvenile Justice Action Plan

Series: OJJDP

Published: March 1996

151 pages

399,058 bytes

------------------------------

Combating Violence and Delinquency:

The National Juvenile Justice Action Plan

Report

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

March 1996

------------------------------

Foreword

Every day, crime shatters the peace in our Nation's neighborhoods.

Violent crime and the fear it engenders cripple our society,

threaten personal freedom, and fray the ties that are essential for

healthy communities. No corner of America is safe from increasing

levels of criminal violence, including violence committed by and

against juveniles. Parents are afraid to let their children walk to

school alone. Children hesitate to play in neighborhood

playgrounds. The elderly lock themselves in their homes, and

innocent Americans of all ages find their lives changed by the fear

of crime.

The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention's National Juvenile Justice Action Plan (Action Plan)

presents innovative and effective strategies designed to reduce

violence and victimization. Through these efforts, communities and

citizens are working to bring about positive change. They are

establishing neighborhood watches and citizen patrols and working

with law enforcement and other agencies to close down drug houses.

They are cleaning up playgrounds and parks and creating drug- and

weapon-free school zones. They are forming community planning teams

to identify risk factors for delinquency, assess resources and

needs, and provide programs designed to prevent juvenile

involvement in delinquency and crime. They are creating

opportunities for youth to take part in community-building

activities. In concert with community oriented policing and strict

accountability for offenders, these local prevention efforts are

our Nation's most effective long-term weapons against crime and

violence.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Although the public is deeply concerned about juvenile violence and

victimization, many Americans do not know how they can help.

Because the effects of juvenile violence are felt by entire

communities, the search for solutions must be a communitywide

effort, and every citizen needs to be involved. 

The Action Plan describes how communities can generate solutions

and how individuals and groups can prevent or reduce violence in

their own block, public housing unit, or neighborhood. Cooperative

partnerships among justice, health, child welfare, education, and

social service systems can lay the foundation for measurable

successes. Working together, individuals, groups, and communities

can make real and sustained changes. The Action Plan also provides

important information about Federal training, technical assistance,

grants, research, evaluation, and other resources that support

these efforts.

The Coordinating Council recognizes that much work needs to be

done. However, by continuing to build partnerships throughout our

government and communities, we can promote early intervention and

prevention of youth violence. The solutions are within reach. The

power to change America is within ourselves. Together, we can

redeem the promise that every young life holds.

Attorney General Janet Reno 

Chair 

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

------------------------------

Acknowledgments

The problem of violent crime committed by and against juveniles is

a national crisis. The work of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention in developing the Action Plan

represents an extraordinary accomplishment. The Action Plan frames

the fight against juvenile violence through eight objectives that

can be supported by activity at the Federal, State, local,

community, and individual levels--and bases its recommended actions

on research and program evaluations that give us reason to believe

that we can be successful. The Action Plan also provides an

annotated bibliography and technical assistance resources that can

assist in ensuring that success.

While all of the members of the Coordinating Council participated

in the development of the Action Plan, a Coordinating Council

Working Group that includes the practitioner members and staff from

both the member and other participating Federal agencies helped

make this a document truly reflective of the needs of the field.

The individuals and groups spent countless hours reviewing,

refining, and finalizing the Action Plan. I thank them for their

significant contribution. Special thanks are due to the Department

of Justice's youth violence working group and to the bureaus of the
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Office of Justice Programs.

There are several members of the staff of the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) without whom this Action

Plan could not have been produced. Gina E. Wood, Director of

Concentration of Federal Efforts, guided this project with patience

and vision to its conclusion. OJJDP Deputy Administrator John J.

Wilson helped refine the document into its present clear statement.

Sarah Ingersoll, Special Assistant to the OJJDP Administrator,

served as the Action Plan's primary author. OJJDP's Juvenile

Justice Resource Center provided invaluable support in developing

the Action Plan.

The Action Plan was designed to provide a framework and strategy

for action to address the problem of juvenile violence facing

communities, their youth, and the juvenile justice system. I

believe it has accomplished this goal. I look forward to

implementing the action steps and seeing the emergence of a

stronger juvenile justice system and a safer America.

Shay Bilchik

Vice Chair

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

------------------------------

Table of Contents

Foreword

Acknowledgments

Introduction

Objectives

 1. Provide Immediate Intervention and Appropriate Sanctions and 

 Treatment for Delinquent Juveniles

 2. Prosecute Certain Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile 

 Offenders in Criminal Court

 3. Reduce Youth Involvement With Guns, Drugs, and Gangs

 4. Provide Opportunities for Children and Youth

 5. Break the Cycle of Violence by Addressing Youth Victimization, 

 Abuse, and Neglect

 6. Strengthen and Mobilize Communities

 7. Support the Development of Innovative Approaches to Research 

 and Evaluation
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

 8. Implement an Aggressive Public Outreach Campaign on Effective 

 Strategies To Combat Juvenile Violence

Conclusion

------------------------------

Introduction

An Urgent Call to Action

In the 1990's, pervasive problems with juvenile violence threaten

the safety and security of communities across the country, and

projections for the future are cause for nationwide alarm.

Demographic experts predict that juvenile arrests for violent

crimes will more than double by the year 2010,1 given population

growth projections and trends in juvenile arrests over the past

decade. It is clear that our children--and the juvenile justice

system--need immediate help.

There is, however, reason for hope. Projections and trends are not

destiny. We can successfully intervene to reverse these trends

based on identified positive and negative characteristics--

protective and risk factors--that are present or lacking in

communities, families, schools, peer groups, and individuals. These

factors either equip a child with the capacity to become a healthy,

productive individual or expose that child to potential involvement

in crime and violence. Of equal importance, communities are

learning that they can make dramatic changes in delinquency levels

by taking steps that successfully reduce the risk factors and

strengthen the protective factors in children's lives.

In partnership with State and Federal agencies, communities are

beginning to mobilize to combat juvenile delinquency through

prevention, early intervention, and community-building strategies

that address local needs. They are reducing serious and violent

juvenile delinquency by using multi-agency, coordinated approaches

and innovative programs and services in the juvenile justice

system.

In support of these efforts, the Coordinating Council on Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention offers The National Juvenile

Justice Action Plan. This plan for local, State, and Federal action

is an eight-point statement of objectives and strategies that are

designed to strengthen State and local initiatives to reduce

juvenile violence and to increase the capacity of the juvenile

justice system to respond to, and prevent, delinquency.

A Cooperative Effort

To combat juvenile violence, all citizens must recognize that they

can make a difference in their communities, both through individual

action and by joining with others in comprehensive, collaborative

initiatives. While the Action Plan recognizes the critical Federal
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

role of providing support and a national perspective, State, local,

and individual commitment is the key ingredient if community

efforts are to succeed. All individuals can play crucial roles in

protecting and nurturing children in their communities.

Efforts to reduce juvenile violence can be as basic as parents

setting clear expectations and standards for children's behavior or

as far-reaching as a local government forming an anti-violence task

force or implementing community oriented policing. Another

effective strategy involves setting up local resource centers that

offer positive educational, social, and cultural activities to

provide youth with alternatives to crime. Many national

organizations are committed to supporting the implementation of

community-based initiatives to reduce juvenile violence and can

provide information about local projects across the country. The

Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile

Offenders2 and its companion piece, the Guide for

Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and

Chronic Juvenile Offenders,3 published in 1995 by the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), are valuable

resources for community planning and action. The Action Plan

supports implementation of the Comprehensive Strategy and the

Guide's framework for establishing a continuum of programs and

services designed to reverse the increasing trends of juvenile

violence and delinquency.

To support implementation of State, local, and community

activities, the Action Plan provides:

o A statement of resources that Federal member agencies of the

Coordinating Council will commit to the eight priority objectives,

including training and technical assistance, financial assistance,

research, legislation, evaluation, and information dissemination.

o A summary of research that supports the plan's objectives, which

State and local communities can use to guide their policy,

planning, and communication activities.

o Model program examples that can be adapted to meet local needs.

o A list of technical assistance providers, with addresses and

phone numbers, and an annotated bibliography.

Objectives of The National Juvenile Justice Action Plan

The Action Plan is a blueprint for community action designed to

address and reduce the impact of juvenile violence and delinquency.

It is founded on the premise that no single individual,

organization, or agency can address the causes of juvenile violence

in isolation. Working together, however, State and local leaders,

representatives of public and private groups, and individual

community members--including youth--can base their actions on what

works and direct their energies to meeting the eight Action Plan

objectives. The following objectives, all of equal importance, can
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

be achieved by communities that address public safety concerns

while making a commitment to services for children:

Objective 1. Provide immediate intervention and appropriate

sanctions and treatment for delinquent juveniles.

Objective 2. Prosecute certain serious, violent, and chronic

juvenile offenders in criminal court.4

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

Objective 4. Provide opportunities for children and youth.

Objective 5. Break the cycle of violence by addressing youth

victimization, abuse, and neglect.

Objective 6. Strengthen and mobilize communities.

Objective 7. Support the development of innovative approaches to

research and evaluation.

Objective 8. Implement an aggressive public outreach campaign on

effective strategies to combat juvenile violence.

These objectives are supported by research underscoring their

importance for strengthening the juvenile justice system and

addressing the crisis of youth violence. Each section of the Action

Plan addresses one of these objectives and includes a set of

actions based on research, evaluated programs, and successful

strategies.

A Safer Tomorrow Through Action Today

The sobering projections about the future of juvenile violence

underscore the need for strong, immediate, well-planned, and

decisive action to intervene early with efforts to prevent younger

children from following in the self-destructive footsteps of many

of their older brothers and sisters. At the same time, it is

imperative that we effectively respond to that small percentage of

juvenile offenders who repeatedly victimize the community and who

account for the vast majority of serious and violent delinquent

acts. We must take immediate steps to improve the capacity of the

juvenile justice system to respond to juvenile offenders. If we

fail to respond to their needs, the potential costs to society in

human lives and productivity will be an onerous and tragic burden

to future generations.

In taking action, States and localities have a variety of choices

that are both critical and difficult. Funds must be allocated for

juvenile justice program options, ranging from secure facilities to

day treatment, probation placements, and improvements in research

and data collection and dissemination of information about juvenile

violence issues. Also, funding must be made available for a broad

spectrum of effective youth development and delinquency prevention
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

programs, including afterschool programs, childcare for low-income

working families, community policing efforts, summer recreation and

job opportunities for low-income youth, and Head Start.

In addition to funding programs, there are many actions that States

and local communities can take that build on their commitment to

the safety, health, development, and well-being of children. By

starting new initiatives, implementing the objectives, accessing

the resources, and engaging in the activities of the Action Plan,

leaders at the Federal, State, and local levels working together

can make a difference.

------------------------------

Endnotes

1. Snyder, H., M. Sickmund, and E. Poe-Yamagata. 1996 (February).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1996 Update on Violence.

Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

2. Wilson, J.J., and J.C. Howell. 1993. Comprehensive Strategy for

Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Program Summary.

Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

3. Howell, J.C., ed. 1995 (May). Guide for Implementing the

Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile

Offenders. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

4. The classification of juveniles as serious, violent, and chronic

offenders is an important legal distinction. In some jurisdictions,

identification of a juvenile as a serious, violent, and chronic

offender determines how the juvenile is processed in the system--

for example, whether a juvenile is subject to established minimum

periods of secure confinement or subject to criminal court

jurisdiction. Additionally, the consequences of being placed in one

of these categories are critical to the allocation of scarce

treatment resources. Generally, such determinations are made at the

State and local levels.

Definitions used in different research and statistics-gathering

efforts often vary. OJJDP has developed the following definitions

of serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders for purposes of

general guidance.

o Juvenile refers to a person under the age established by a State

to determine when an individual is no longer subject to original

juvenile court jurisdiction for (any) criminal misconduct. While

this upper age is 17 in a majority of jurisdictions, it ranges from

15 to 17 years of age. 

o Serious juvenile offenders are those adjudicated delinquent for
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

committing any felony offense, including larceny or theft, burglary

or breaking and entering, extortion, arson, and drug trafficking or

other controlled dangerous substance violation. 

o Violent juvenile offenders are those serious juvenile offenders

adjudicated delinquent for one of the following felony offenses--

homicide, rape or other felony sex offense, mayhem, kidnaping,

robbery, or aggravated assault. 

o Chronic juvenile offenders are juveniles adjudicated delinquent

for committing three or more delinquent offenses. 

These definitions include juveniles convicted in criminal court for

particular offense types.

------------------------------

1. Provide Immediate Intervention and Appropriate Sanctions and

Treatment for Delinquent Juveniles

Overview

The increased volume and changing composition of juvenile

delinquency caseloads have overloaded the juvenile justice system.

Slightly more than half of the juveniles in detention and 62

percent of juveniles in long-term placements in the United States

in 1989 were housed in facilities where juvenile populations

exceeded design capacities.1 

To accurately assess the juvenile justice system and its role in

delinquency prevention, it is imperative to take into account the

nature and volume of cases coming before the juvenile court. In

1992, an estimated 1 million juveniles in the United States were

charged with approximately 1.5 million delinquent acts, a

26-percent increase from the volume of cases reported in 1987. In

addition, a disproportionate increase occurred in violent offenses

(56 percent) and in weapons offenses (86 percent) among young

people.2

Statistics also indicate that violent juvenile female offending is

rising and that the increase is greater proportionately than that

of males. Between 1988 and 1992, the number of females under age 18

arrested for all violent crimes increased 63 percent, whereas the

number of males under age 18 arrested for violent crimes increased

45 percent.

Most arrested juveniles, whether male or female, have not committed

serious or violent crimes, but rather property crimes or status

offenses. Even violent juvenile offenders rarely commit crimes

exclusively against persons. They are likely to also engage in

significant property or drug-related crimes. 

Juveniles are responsible for a far greater share of all property

crime arrests (33 percent) than either violent crime arrests (18
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

percent) or drug arrests (8 percent).3 In 1992, the highest

percentage of juvenile arrests, compared to adults, was for arson

(49 percent), vandalism (45 percent), and motor vehicle theft (44

percent). The juvenile property crime arrest rate in 1992 was five

times greater than the juvenile violent crime arrest rate.4

In addition to handling increased delinquency cases, juvenile

courts have jurisdiction over status offenses--acts that would not

be considered crimes if committed by an adult. Compared to

delinquency cases, the number of status offense cases is modest. In

1992, an estimated 97,000 status offense cases were formally

adjudicated, an increase of 18 percent from 1988, with the largest

increases in run-away (31 percent) and truancy (21 percent) cases.

The juvenile justice system must be equipped to address the full

range of juvenile problem behaviors. Often the presenting offense

is merely the "tip of the iceberg," and good case management and

needs assessments can help to identify and address individual

service needs.

However, the juvenile justice system is often so overwhelmed that

juvenile offenders receive no meaningful interventions or

consequences, even for relatively serious offenses. This neglect

serves neither rehabilitation nor accountability goals, and young

people need to know that if they break the law, they will be held

accountable. Clearly, a revitalized juvenile justice system that

ensures immediate and appropriate accountability and sanctions is

a key to reversing trends in juvenile violence.

This section of the Action Plan discusses the causes of increased

juvenile violence and delinquency and sets forth the "balanced and

restorative justice" model as a philosophical underpinning for the

juvenile justice system's handling of juvenile offenders. The keys

to this model are individual assessment and case management, a

system of graduated sanctions, and an emphasis on aftercare

services. This section also supports the rights of victims,

including the right to receive information about juvenile

offenders. It also provides examples of programs that support the

balanced and restorative justice model, and a summary of issues

surrounding disproportionate minority confinement and

gender-specific services.

Current Status and Analysis of the Problem

A separate juvenile justice system, which originated in the United

States in 1899 and quickly spread to all the States and

Territories, has not been able to respond effectively to the

increases in juvenile violence this society currently faces. In

fairness, however, it has never been given sufficient resources to

operate effectively to meet this challenge.

At the turn of the century, the juvenile justice system operated in

a world very different from the one we live in today. Then, more

Americans lived in rural areas and small communities, juvenile
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

offenses were generally less severe, and victims would be more

likely to know the consequences for individuals who had harmed

them. Today, the juvenile justice system is unable to devote

sufficient resources to dealing with status offenders and minor

delinquency because of the growing number of serious and violent

juvenile offenders. These offenders require a greatly enhanced

response, and greater coordination among the system's components.

Use of the balanced and restorative justice model of

accountability, multidisciplinary assessment teams, and a system of

graduated sanctions can help to provide the response and

coordination that are required to effectively address juvenile

violence and delinquency.

Causes of Delinquency

What causes juvenile delinquency? Before formulating proposed

remedies to a juvenile justice system in need of support, the

causes and correlates of juvenile delinquency need to be examined

to ensure that those factors are targeted. 

There is no single cause of delinquency and violence. Delinquents,

especially chronic delinquents, exhibit a variety of social and

psychological deficits in their backgrounds. These deficits, often

referred to as risk factors, stem from breakdowns in five

influential domains in juveniles' lives: neighborhood, family,

school, peers, and individual characteristics.5

Risk factors, such as community disorganization, availability of

drugs and firearms, and persistent poverty, make children more

prone to involvement in delinquent behavior than if those factors

were not present. Additionally, when a child's family life is

filled with violence, problem behaviors, poor parental monitoring,

and inconsistent disciplinary practices or maltreatment, a child's

risk of delinquency increases. Youth exhibiting combinations of

these deficits in multiple domains of their lives are at highest

risk of delinquency.

In sum, delinquency and violence have multiple causes, which often

occur simultaneously, exacerbating one another and making them more

difficult to ameliorate. Identifying those factors most prevalent

in a community is the essential first step toward developing

effective programs to prevent or control delinquent behavior. 

The second step requires identifying programs that help youth,

families, and communities protect themselves from these risks. (See

Objective 4 for a discussion of protective factors.) Recent

research sheds considerable light on the issue of "what works" in

the prevention and control of delinquency.6 Based on thorough

analyses of the research literature and programs identified in a

nationwide search, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention's (OJJDP's) Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive

Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders

(Guide), provides examples of effective prevention programs and

concludes:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

The most effective programs are those that address key areas of

risk in the youth's life, those that seek to strengthen the

personal and institutional factors that contribute to healthy

adolescent development, those that provide adequate support and

supervision, and those that offer youth a long-term stake in the

community.7

Effective and Promising Strategies and Programs

Balanced and Restorative Justice

A strong juvenile justice system must build upon the research and

evaluations of promising and effective programs, and must work to

reduce risk factors and enhance protective factors to successfully

address serious, violent, and chronic delinquency. The

establishment of such a system can be guided by the conceptual

framework of balanced and restorative justice.

The balanced and restorative justice approach to juvenile justice

consists of three related objectives: community protection,

accountability, and competency development. 

Accountability refers to the requirement that juvenile offenders

receive sanctions for their offenses and that they make amends to

the victim and the community for harm caused. Competency

development suggests that youth who enter the juvenile justice

system should exit more capable of being productive, responsible

citizens. Community protection requires that the juvenile justice

system ensure public safety.

Operating in the "best interest of the child," the American

juvenile justice system has traditionally focused on the individual

juvenile offender's extenuating circumstances and treatment needs.

Delinquency case reviews are generally conducted behind closed

doors to safeguard the confidentiality of children, distancing or

excluding victims from the proceedings. In contrast to the

adversarial criminal court, the juvenile court has not relied as

much on victims' impact statements in sentencing. Further, it has

often been assumed that victims would prefer not to meet their

offenders face to face.

In recent years, the juvenile justice system has embraced community

service and restitution programs, which emphasize the need to hold

juveniles accountable for their actions through repayment of their

debts to society and their victims. The balanced and restorative

justice approach calls for active participation by the juvenile

justice system, the juvenile offender, and community organizations.

Many Native American and Alaska Native communities rely on dual

systems of justice, one based on a common law model of justice and

another based on indigenous concepts of law and justice. In

handling juvenile offenders, these indigenous justice systems have

common inherent features based on restorative, reparative, and
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

distributive justice principles. Victim and offender, surrounded by

their extended family members, confront each other to resolve

conflict in an environment that is emotionally and physically safe.

This holistic approach promotes problemsolving in a non-adversarial

environment and addresses the healing needs of the victim, the

offender, and their families.

Although forcing victims to meet with juvenile offenders is

inappropriate, many victims agree to participate in mediation

programs. The mediation process personalizes the crime and forces

offenders to face the harm they have caused.

Responding to Victims' Concerns

As a civilized society, we need to feel safe in the company of

people who walk our streets and attend our schools. Even if we

improve the juvenile justice system so that it is capable of

providing treatment, skills training, and rehabilitation,

mechanisms must be in place to provide information about juvenile

offenders and support the rights of victims. Simultaneously,

however, we need to ensure that reasonable confidentiality

protections are afforded to juvenile offenders.

The Action Plan endorses the presence of victims in the courtroom,

particularly in felony cases. Victims of juvenile offenders should

be given the opportunity to address the court and be notified of

the disposition, parole status, and release of perpetrators. It

also supports programs that help young offenders understand the

long-term effects of their behavior and learn how to control anger

and resolve conflicts without violence. It is in agreement with a

number of the recommendations of the American Correctional

Association's Victims Committee relating to juvenile offenders and

will support Federal activity that assists in their

implementation.8 These recommendations include:

o The rights of victims of juvenile offenders should be recognized,

including notification; restitution; return of property; victim

impact statements; protection from intimidation, harassment, and

harm; and information and referral services.

o Victims must have access to information about their offenders'

status.

o Any treatment and/or education programs for juvenile offenders

must include a victim awareness component.

o Juvenile justice, victim service, and allied professionals should

collaborate on efforts to incorporate the balanced approach of

restorative justice in their agency and system philosophies,

policies, programs, and services.

o Juvenile justice personnel--including administrators, managers,

and line staff--need victim sensitivity training and must adopt

protocols, programs, and policies to respond to victimization
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

incidents.

o Crime data and statistics must be categorized and analyzed

according to the age of the offender, the classification of the

crime, and the type of victim.

o Existing victim service and awareness programs within the

juvenile justice system must be evaluated, with the data utilized

to enhance, expand, and replicate effective programs nationwide.

o Victim services personnel need training in the juvenile justice

system, and juvenile justice practitioners need victim services

training.

Texas has provided victim access to juvenile court hearings.

Specifically, the court may not prohibit a victim from attending a

hearing unless the victim is to testify in the hearing and the

court determines that the victim's testimony would be materially

affected if the victim hears other testimony at trial.

The California Youth Authority's Impact of Crime on Victims classes

provide a model approach to both rehabilitating offenders and

involving victims in the juvenile justice system. As part of the

recovery process, victims tell offenders about the impact of crime

on their own lives, their families, and the communities in which

they live. This approach has been adopted by a number of

corrections, probation, and parole agencies for use with both adult

and juvenile offenders.

Risk Classification, Needs Assessment, and Case Management

Risk classification and needs assessment. Risk classification and

needs assessment are central to an effective juvenile justice

system and critical to ensuring the three goals of the balanced and

restorative justice model. A National Council on Crime and

Delinquency study of 14 States found that an average of 31 percent

of incarcerated juveniles could be safely placed in less secure

community-based settings.9 This finding should have a significant

impact on how States approach the problem of facility overcrowding.

Because estimates of the annual cost of incarcerating a youth fall

between $34,000 and $64,000,10 reducing unnecessary training school

placements would reduce overcrowding and produce considerable

savings that could be used to develop and implement effective

graduated sanctions programs designed to address the needs of each

juvenile requiring intervention services.

Communities developing a graduated sanctions system need tools to

determine which and how many youth should be placed at each

security level and in an appropriate program in the continuum of

services. An effective juvenile justice system uses risk

classification instruments and needs assessments to appropriately

place juvenile offenders.11 The placement is determined by clearly

designed, objective criteria that focus on the seriousness of the

delinquent act, the potential risk for reoffending based on the
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

presence of risk factors, and the risk to public safety. Objective

risk classification can also be useful in addressing bias in

placement decisionmaking, thereby reducing disproportionate

incarceration rates for minority populations.

Needs assessments help to ensure selection of the most appropriate

program within the determined security level. The needs assessment

may identify chronic or multiple needs that warrant placement in

specialized programs (for example, programs for sex offenders or

violent offenders, or a rigorous wilderness program). Needs

assessments can also be used in case planning to identify

appropriate youth service needs.

Case management and assessment teams. An effective case management

system is also crucial to a strong juvenile justice system.

Continuous case management results in greater service coordination

and accountability. The case manager follows each youth from the

point of intake through initial needs assessment, probation,

incarceration, and aftercare to monitor progress and adjust the

treatment plan appropriately. Whenever possible, it is best for the

youth to be in community-based programs, allowing caseworkers to

develop community support networks and to involve the family.

The assessment team approach is an innovative method for

integrating the risk classification and needs assessment process of

the juvenile justice system, the goal of appropriate treatment, and

the need to maximize the use of scarce system resources. The

assessment team can serve as a central information or data

gathering point within a jurisdiction for all agencies with

juvenile service responsibility.

Effective rehabilitation requires maximum use of a broad range of

community resources, including health and mental health care,

social services, recreation, education, and employment and training

services. Each member of an assessment team should be knowledgeable

about individual differences that can stem from race, gender,

culture, and ethnicity. Central to the assessment team approach is

its ability to refer each juvenile, even the most serious offender,

to programs and services that address identified needs and

integrate the family into the treatment plan. This approach is

designed to prevent a youth's further involvement in the system by

inducing law-abiding behavior as early as possible through a

combination of appropriate intervention and treatments.

Family Assessment Service Teams (FAST), a part of the Norfolk (VA)

Police Assisted Community Enforcement effort, use an interagency

approach to coordinate resources and improve the effectiveness of

juvenile services, such as early intervention and prevention and

family counseling and followup. 

Statistics show that crime has dropped markedly in neighborhoods

targeted by the FAST program. According to one 1993 report, crime

decreased by 29 percent in the target areas, police reported fewer

service calls, and there was a significant drop in street drug
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

trafficking and gunfire. Participants also believed the program had

reduced fear of crime in target neighborhoods.12

If implemented properly, the assessment team concept has the

potential to facilitate the delivery of the right "front end"

services to the right juveniles in a timely manner. If team

approaches are institutionalized and centrally located in

assessment centers that either provide comprehensive services or

make referrals to community services, the juvenile justice system

would have an important tool to achieve the goal of effective and

coordinated service delivery.

Graduated Sanctions 

For interventions to be maximally effective, they should be swift,

certain, and consistent. An effective system of graduated sanctions

must also incorporate increasingly severe sanctions when a juvenile

fails to respond to initial interventions. As the severity of

sanctions increases, so must the intensity of treatment. At each

level, offenders must be aware that continued violations of the law

will subject them to more severe sanctions and may ultimately

result in secure confinement, ranging from a community-based

intensive treatment facility to a training school, camp, or ranch.

Effective and fair graduated sanctions that hold juvenile offenders

accountable can discourage them from continued involvement in

delinquency and crime. In addition, an OJJDP-funded study of

existing graduated sanctions systems found that they appear to be

more effective and less costly than juvenile incarceration.13 The

Guide includes descriptions of promising and proven programs at

each graduated sanctions level. The graduated sanctions system set

out in the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic

Juvenile Offenders includes the following components:

o Immediate intervention for first-time delinquent offenders

(misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies) and many nonviolent repeat

offenders.

o Intermediate sanctions for many first-time serious and repeat

offenders and some violent offenders.

o Secure corrections for many serious, violent, and chronic

offenders. 

Immediate intervention. First-time delinquent offenders (charged

with misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies) and many nonviolent

repeat offenders should be placed in programs designed to reduce

the probability of their committing more serious or violent

offenses. Nonresidential community-based programs, including

prevention programs serving at-risk youth, may be appropriate for

many of these offenders. These programs are small and open, located

in or near juveniles' homes, and involve participants in program

planning, operation, and evaluation. They also foster family

participation in treatment and facilitate the establishment of law-
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

abiding patterns of behavior.

Intermediate sanctions. Offenders for whom immediate intervention

is inappropriate (first-time serious or violent offenders) or

offenders who reoffend despite immediate intervention (for example,

repeat property offenders or drug-involved juveniles) are

appropriate subjects for intermediate sanctions. These sanctions

may be residential or nonresidential. For many serious and violent

offenders, placement in an intensive supervision or other intensive

service program may be appropriate.

In a South Carolina study of 39,250 males born between 1964 and

1971 who had official delinquency records, researchers identified

offenders who had been incarcerated or placed on probation as

adults. They found that those who had been institutionalized as

juveniles were substantially more likely to reoffend as adults. The

authors concluded that their findings "effectively underscore the

need to bolster programming for early effective intervention in

order to prevent the recurrence of delinquent behavior."14

OJJDP's Intensive Supervision of Probationers (ISP) Program Model

is a highly structured, continuously monitored, and individualized

plan that consists of five phases with decreasing levels of

restrictiveness:

o Short-term placement in community confinement.

o Day treatment.

o Outreach and tracking.

o Routine supervision.

o Discharge and followup.

The Bethesda Day Treatment Center Program in West Milton, PA, is a

model day treatment program.15 Initiated with OJJDP formula grant

funds, the program is currently funded through county service

contracts. The Center's services include intensive supervision,

counseling, and coordination of a range of services necessary for

youth to develop skills to function effectively in the community.

Client-focused services include intake, casework, service and

treatment planning, individual counseling, intensive supervision,

and study skills. Group-focused services include group counseling,

life and job skills training, cultural enrichment, and physical

education. Family-focused services include counseling, home visits,

parent counseling, and intervention.

The program provides delinquent and dependent youth, ages 10 to 17,

with as many as 55 hours of services a week without removing them

from their homes. A unique program feature requires work experience

for all working-age clients, with 75 percent of their paychecks

directed toward payment of fines, court costs, and restitution.

This intensive treatment program has shown promising results. A
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

preliminary study revealed recidivism rates far lower than State

and national norms.

Secure corrections. The criminal behavior of many serious, violent,

and chronic juvenile offenders requires the imposition of secure

sanctions to hold them accountable and to provide a structured

treatment environment. Large, congregate-care juvenile facilities,

such as training schools, camps, and ranches, however, have not

been effective at rehabilitating juvenile offenders. The continued

use of large facilities will remain a necessary alternative for

juveniles who require enhanced security to protect the public. Even

so, small, community-based facilities providing intensive treatment

services and special programming in a secure environment offer the

best hope for successful treatment of juveniles who require a

structured setting.16 These services include individual and group

counseling, educational and training programs, medical services,

and intensive staff supervision. Proximity to the community permits

direct, regular family involvement with the treatment process,

independent living, and a phased reentry into the community.

Since closing its traditional training schools in 1972,

Massachusetts has relied on a sophisticated network of small,

secure programs for violent youth coupled with a broad range of

highly structured, community-based programs for most committed

youth. Secure facilities are reserved for the most serious

offenders. A study of the State's community-based juvenile system

revealed recidivism rates equal to or lower than those of other

jurisdictions. In addition, Massachusetts has saved an estimated

$11 million a year by relying on community-based sanctions.17

Juveniles whose presence in the community would constitute a threat

to public safety or juveniles who have failed to respond to

community-based corrections may require extended correctional

placement in training schools, camps, ranches, or other secure

facilities that are not community based. These facilities should be

accredited by the American Correctional Association and offer

comprehensive treatment programs that focus on reversing criminal

behavior patterns through education, health, skills development,

victim impact awareness, teen parenting, and vocational or

employment training and experience. In addition, some serious,

violent, and chronic juvenile offenders who have been waived or

transferred to and convicted in the criminal justice system prior

to the age at which they are no longer subject to the original (or

extended) jurisdiction of the criminal justice system may be

appropriate candidates for placement in juvenile correctional

facilities as part of their criminal court sentence, where State

statute permits.

The Florida Environmental Institute (FEI), also known as "The Last

Chance Ranch," targets the State's most serious and violent

juvenile offenders. Located in a remote area of the Florida

Everglades, FEI offers both a residential phase and a

nonresidential aftercare program. Two-thirds of its referrals are

adjudicated delinquents from the criminal justice system. Yet,
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

because of its strong emphasis on education, hard work, social

bonding, and aftercare, recidivism rates of juveniles who have gone

through the program are substantially less than rates of

traditional training school programs: 30 percent instead of 50-70

percent.18

Intensive aftercare. Standard parole practices, particularly those

that focus on social control, have not been effective in

normalizing high-risk juvenile parolees' behavior over the long

term. If youth successfully complete treatment programs, they

should not be abruptly returned to the environment where the

misconduct occurred without appropriate supervision and

transitional support. Consequently, intensive aftercare programs

that provide high levels of social control and treatment services

have gained substantial support.

OJJDP has supported the development of an intensive aftercare

program, currently being demonstrated in four jurisdictions, that

incorporates five principles:

1. Prepare youth for progressive responsibility and freedom in the

community.

2. Facilitate youth-community interaction and involvement.

3. Work with both the offender and targeted community support

systems, such as families, peers, schools, and employers, to

facilitate the youth's constructive interaction with these groups

and gradual community adjustment.

4. Develop needed resources and community support.

5. Monitor and ensure successful reintegration into the

community.19

Cooperation between schools and the juvenile justice system. Two

key ingredients for implementing a system of graduated sanctions

are (1) strengthening cooperation and communication between school

districts and probation departments, and (2) providing schools with

alternative strategies for dealing with students who exhibit

behavioral problems or students who are suspended or have been

expelled from school.

The Allentown, PA, school district developed the Student Assistance

Program (SAP) to address the increased number of dropouts, violent

incidents, behavioral problems, and drug abuse problems among its

students. SAP incorporates three main objectives:

o Educating school personnel about the duties, functions, and

limitations of the juvenile justice system.

o Providing liaisons among the juvenile's family, the probation

department, the school district, and the police department so that

the educational interests and needs of the student can be met.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

o Involving probation officers in the program.

School-based probation officers are the key to SAP's effectiveness.

They act as student advocates and coordinators to refer targeted

students to resources in the school and the community. Probation

officers also visit classrooms to talk to students and faculty

members about the juvenile justice system and to clarify the

program.

The development of excellent working relationships among education,

juvenile justice, law enforcement, other social agencies, and

families has been one of the program's most important

accomplishments. School-based probation officers are now considered

a vital element in the schools' overall operation. Since

implementation, the program has served from 91 to 104 students

annually. In addition, the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and

Delinquency has allocated more than $2 million to replicate the SAP

model in other Pennsylvania jurisdictions. To date, 29 Pennsylvania

counties are implementing SAP programs.20

Disproportionate minority confinement and issues confronting

juvenile female offenders. Another key component of graduated

sanctions is a focus on alleviating disproportionate minority

confinement and gender bias in the juvenile justice system. Persons

of color, particularly African-American and Latino-American males,

are disproportionately represented at every stage of the juvenile

justice system. Research shows that disproportionate minority

confinement tends to result, in part, from a number of discrete

decisions made throughout the system, from the point of arrest

through intake and sentencing.21 The Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended in 1988,22 requires

States to make efforts to reduce the proportion of minority

juveniles detained or confined in secure detention or correctional

facilities, jails, and lockups if such proportion exceeds the

proportion of representation in the general population. Response to

this over-representation, as well as to demographic shifts,

requires additional or redirected resources, staff training,

recruitment, language and cultural programs, and materials and

documents translated into languages other than English for juvenile

offenders, their families, and crime victims. 

Similarly, the 1992 Amendments to the Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention Act addressed the issue of gender bias,

requiring States to plan for an analysis of the need, types, and

delivery of gender-specific services. Delinquency by female

offenders has risen dramatically in the past decade, accounting for

23 percent of juvenile arrests as of 1991. Recent data indicate

that because of the relatively small number of adjudicated female

juvenile offenders, little attention has been focused on their

special needs.23 A comparative study of 348 violent adolescent

females and a similar number of males revealed that, although half

the male offenders were admitted to rehabilitation programs or

alternative programs, only 29.5 percent of female offenders
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

received some alternative treatment.24

According to data provided by 85 State corrections institutions,

female offenders face many special problems, including the

perpetuation of a cycle of generational sexual abuse, teenage

pregnancy, early parenthood, and emotional dysfunction. Other

research25 supports the conclusion that girls become

self-destructive more often than boys when acting out problems.

Young females who run away, for example, more often become involved

in prostitution or turn to other unhealthy, exploitative, or

abusive environments for shelter or survival.

Front-end assessment through the assessment-team approach may help

to address some of the race and gender issues in the juvenile

justice system and ensure that judgments about treatment and

rehabilitation respond to the individual needs of each youth.

Federal Action Steps

Assist in the Development of Model State and Local Programs Through

Training and Technical Assistance

OJJDP will provide training and technical assistance to

jurisdictions in developing a balanced and restorative justice

model.

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP), through its Office for

Victims of Crime (OVC) and National Institute of Justice (NIJ),

will underscore the importance of accountability for juvenile

offenders by recognizing the rights and concerns of victims and by

emphasizing community service restitution programs. This will

include support for and strengthening of indigenous tribal justice

systems that apply reparative and restorative justice principles.

Ensure That the Rights of Victims of Juvenile Offenders Are

Recognized

OVC will provide funding for crucial victim services and for

training of a broad range of professionals who work with crime

victims and will develop projects to enhance victims' rights and

services. In addition, OVC will fund workshops to increase the

number of trainers qualified to train others in assisting victims

of juvenile offenders.

Provide Communities With Guidance for Implementing a Comprehensive

Strategy That Reflects Delinquency Prevention and Effective

Graduated Sanctions

OJJDP will widely disseminate the Guide for Implementing the

Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile

Offenders to practitioners, educators, community activists,

policymakers, city managers, governors, State attorneys general,

and others to aid in establishing effective prevention programs and

improving State and local juvenile justice systems.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

OJJDP will also provide communities interested in implementing a

continuum-of-care model with a range of training and technical

assistance through a series of regional conferences, satellite

video teleconferences, a CD-ROM package, and focus groups to

determine community needs for building capacity to implement the

Comprehensive Strategy.

OJP will support demonstration programs that provide a continuum of

treatment services and sanctions. These programs might include

weekend detention, inpatient treatment for drug abuse, electronic

monitoring, and community-based residential facilities. 

Provide Model Protocols for Intake, Assessment, and Aftercare

OJJDP will support programming to develop and demonstrate

methodologies to improve the front end of the juvenile justice

system through refined assessment protocols and interdisciplinary

case management teams. The Guide provides sample forms and guidance

for developing a risk classification process for making placement,

detention, probation and parole, and institutional custody

decisions. The Guide also provides information on placement

projections, client needs assessments, continuous case management,

and management information systems. Programming, training, and

technical assistance will be provided to assist communities in

strengthening their assessment processes and the delivery of

aftercare services.

OJJDP will continue to support the 3-year multisite implementation

and evaluation of its Intensive Community-Based Juvenile Aftercare

Program (IAP). The overall aim of IAP is to identify and help highrisk juvenile offenders make a gradual transition from secure

confinement into the community. This program is being implemented

in Denver, CO; Las Vegas, NV; Camden and Newark, NJ; and Norfolk,

VA. OJJDP will also continue to support aftercare training and

technical assistance to these sites and to other jurisdictions

across the country.

In addition, OJJDP will continue to support the Serious Habitual

Offender Comprehensive Action Program (SHOCAP). This information

and case management program seeks to improve efficiency in handling

serious habitual juvenile offenders by providing relevant case

information for more informed decisionmaking by juvenile-serving

agencies and organizations. The SHOCAP identification and

intervention process is included in OJJDP's Police Operations

Leading to Improved Children and Youth Services (POLICY) training

courses provided to local law enforcement representatives and

interagency teams.

Provide Research on the Effectiveness of Intermediate Sanctions

In a collaborative effort, NIJ, OJJDP, the OJP Corrections Program

Office, and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) will provide

funding to develop boot camp programs and research the
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

effectiveness of high-intensity, short-term programs, such as boot

camps, wilderness programs, and other intermediate sanctions that

combine vocational education, discipline, and life skills. This

intra-agency research will assess the rationale underlying boot

camp programs and examine boot camps nationwide.

Address and Support Efforts To Reduce Disproportionate Minority

Confinement in Secure Facilities

As a condition of full participation in the Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention Act Formula Grants Program, States must

gather and analyze data to determine whether disproportionate

minority confinement exists and, if so, to plan, implement, and

evaluate programs designed to address the problem. Program planning

should be accompanied by training, education on the issue, policy

revision, and legislation.

OJJDP will continue to provide training and technical assistance to

State and local governments, community-based organizations,

national organizations, and others on all aspects of this statutory

core requirement.

OJJDP will disseminate a planning manual to assist States in

addressing disproportionate minority confinement. This manual will

include sections on data collection and analysis, corrective action

planning, program implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. This

information will assist communities in effectively responding to

demographic shifts that are leading to increased confinement of

Latino-American and African-American offenders.

Highlight and Address Issues Confronting Female Juvenile Offenders

OJJDP will provide training and technical assistance to States that

have demonstrated a commitment to addressing gender bias and lack

of gender-specific programming within the juvenile system. 

OJJDP will also support innovative community-based programs that

provide comprehensive, gender-specific prevention, intervention,

treatment, and rehabilitative care. OJJDP's Program To Promote

Alternative Programs for Juvenile Female Offenders will include

case management and followup for at-risk and delinquent females as

both a freestanding program and as a component of its overarching

demonstration program, SafeFutures.

In addition, OJJDP will develop and disseminate a report

synthesizing current literature and best practices that address the

problems of at-risk young females and juvenile female offenders.

The report will contain information on trends and risk factors for

female delinquency as they relate to behavior, family and community

experience, the amelioration of those risks, and best practices for

prevention, intervention, and treatment models. OJJDP will hold a

national conference to share information in the report with

policymakers, researchers, practitioners, judges, lawyers, and the

media.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Suggestions for State and Local Action

o Include key elected and justice agency officials, grassroots

community leaders, crime victims, and diverse groups in community

planning and implementation of a comprehensive multidisciplinary

strategy to address juvenile delinquency. 

o Develop local prevention policy boards to assess risk factors for

delinquency in the community, review current juvenile justice laws,

and identify priorities.

o Incorporate key concepts of the balanced and restorative justice

model and indigenous justice models, particularly those addressing

youth accountability, competency development, and public safety.

o Develop and implement a range of graduated sanctions that combine

accountability with treatment and provide increasingly intensive

treatment and rehabilitation services for delinquent juveniles.

o Develop or improve nonsecure and secure community-based

correctional facilities for juvenile offenders who must be removed

from their homes.

o Establish a comprehensive system of youth service agencies to

reduce fragmentation in service delivery and to provide a full

continuum of service options. The work of justice personnel must be

coordinated with that of community members and other youth-serving

agencies to maximize the timely identification of delinquents and

to identify the earliest point of intervention. 

o Provide victim and community restitution opportunities for youth

to help enhance public safety and improve the quality of life.

o Work with victims' rights organizations to ensure both juvenile

accountability to victims and a strengthened community commitment

to rehabilitation.

o Develop ways to provide for the involvement of crime victims in

juvenile offender programming.

o Develop legislation, policies, and procedures to ensure that

crime victims have rights in the juvenile justice system.

o Develop assessment centers to coordinate community resources and

improve services to juveniles and their families.

o Use risk classification tools based on offense severity and risk

of future offending to determine appropriate security levels for

youth entering the system and to estimate program facility needs.

o Establish a process for ongoing assessment of disproportionate

minority confinement and implement strategies focused on system

improvement and program development (prevention, early
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

intervention, treatment, and aftercare services). If

disproportionate minority confinement exists, actively seek

technical and evaluation assistance to identify the causes and

implement corrective action. 

o Address the issues of gender bias and lack of gender-specific

programming within the juvenile system and actively participate in

Federal training and technical assistance programs.

o Develop prevention and intervention strategies for juvenile sex

offenders. 

o Expand and provide services to meet the physical and mental

health needs of juvenile delinquents.

------------------------------

Endnotes

1. Allen-Hagen, B. 1991 (January). Public Juvenile Facilities:

Children in Custody 1989. OJJDP Update on Statistics. Juvenile

Justice Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

2. Snyder, H., and M. Sickmund. 1995 (August). Juvenile Offenders

and Victims: A National Report. Washington, D.C.: Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of

Justice.

3. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1994. Crime in the United

States, 1993: Uniform Crime Reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice.

4. Snyder and Sickmund, 1995.

5. Hawkins, J.D., and R.F. Catalano, Jr. 1992. Communities That

Care: Action for Drug Abuse Prevention. San Francisco, Calif.:

Jossey-Bass, Inc.

6. Thornberry, T.P., D. Huizinga, and R. Loeber. 1995. The

prevention of serious delinquency and violence: Implications from

the program of research on the causes and correlates of

delinquency. In J.C. Howell et al., eds., Sourcebook on Serious,

Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:

Sage Publications.

Hawkins and Catalano, 1992.

Howell, J.C., ed. 1995 (May). Guide for Implementing the

Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile

Offenders. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Tolan, P., and N. Guerra. 1994 (July). What Works in Reducing
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Adolescent Violence: An Empirical Review of the Field. Boulder,

Colo.: The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence,

University of Colorado.

7. Howell, ed., 1995.

8. American Correctional Association Victims Committee. 1994

(August). Report and Recommendations on Victims of Juvenile Crime.

Lanham, Md.: American Correctional Association.

9. Krisberg, B., and J.F. Austin. 1993. Reinventing Juvenile

Justice. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.

10. Camp, G.M., and C.G. Camp. 1990. Corrections Yearbook,

1990:Juvenile Corrections. South Salem, N.Y.: Criminal Justice

Institute.

Cohen, M.A. 1994. The Monetary Value of Saving a High-Risk Youth.

Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

11. Howell, ed., 1995.

12. Pratt, G. 1994 (December). Community-based comprehensive wraparound treatment strategies (paper presented at the Arizona Supreme

Court Juvenile Justice Research Symposium. Phoenix, Ariz.).

13. Wilson, J.J., and J.C. Howell. 1993. Comprehensive Strategy for

Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Program Summary.

Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

14. Rivers, J., and T. Trotti. 1989. South Carolina Delinquent

Males: A Follow-Up Into Adult Corrections. Columbia, S.C.: South

Carolina Department of Youth Services.

15. Howell, ed., 1995.

16. Palmer, T.B. 1971 (January). California's community treatment

program for delinquent adolescents. Journal of Research on Crime

and Delinquency 8(1):74-92.

17. Krisberg, B., J.F. Austin, and P.A. Steele. 1989. Unlocking

Juvenile Corrections: Evaluating the Massachusetts Department of

Youth Services. Final Report. San Francisco, Calif.: National

Council on Crime and Delinquency.

18. Howell, ed., 1995.

19. Altschuler, D.M., and T.L. Armstrong. 1994 (September).

Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: A Community Care

Model. Program Summary. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

20. Delinquency Prevention Works. 1995 (May). Washington, D.C.:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.

Department of Justice.

21. Roscoe, M., and R. Morton. 1994 (April). Disproportionate

Minority Confinement. Fact Sheet #11. Washington, D.C.: Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of

Justice.

22. Public Law 93-415.

23. Chesney-Lind, M., and R.G. Sheldon. 1992. Girls: Delinquency

and Juvenile Justice. Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole Publishing

Company.

24. Sheldon, R.G., and S. Tracey. 1992. Violent female juvenile

offender: An ignored minority within the juvenile justice system.

Juvenile and Family Court Journal 43(3):33-40.

25. Baggett, G., et al. 1990. Oregon Girls' Advocacy Project: Final

Report. Ashland, Ore.: Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee, Oregon

Commission on Children and Youth Services. 

Burke, V.B. 1992 (March). Reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention Act: Testimony Before the House

Committee on Education and Labor, Subcommittee on Human Resources.

Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of

Justice.

Reilly, P.P. 1978 (December). What makes adolescent girls flee from

their homes? Clinical Pediatrics 17(12):886-893.

------------------------------

2. Prosecute Certain Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile

Offenders in Criminal Court

Overview

Juvenile violent crime is increasing at an alarming rate. Between

1983 and 1992, juvenile arrest rates for Violent Crime Index

offenses increased nearly 60 percent, while adult rates increased

by 47 percent. 

In 1994, the Federal Interdepartmental Working Group on Violence

concluded that we as a Nation have failed the juvenile justice

system, which, in turn, is failing us.1 Without adequate resources

to handle the growth of youth violence, the system has been unable

to successfully fulfill its role in securing community safety. Our

failure to support the juvenile justice system and to increase the

system's capacity to succeed has created an immediate need to

target certain serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders for

prosecution in the criminal justice system. While many types of

juvenile offenders can be treated in the juvenile justice system,

the Coordinating Council recognizes that prosecution in criminal
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

court is a necessary option in State and Federal juvenile justice

systems for those juveniles whose offenses are particularly serious

or violent or who are not amenable to rehabilitation in the

juvenile justice system.

It is important to note, however, that the vast majority of

juvenile cases can be appropriately handled in the juvenile justice

system. For example, in 1992, 70 percent of juveniles referred to

juvenile court were handled informally or not adjudicated, while

most adjudicated delinquents received dispositions of formal

probation. 

The juvenile justice system is in the midst of a revolutionary

period of change. A slow trend during the past decade to remove

more serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders from the

juvenile justice system and turn them over to criminal courts has

escalated. A recent national survey of State corrections agencies

showed a 39-percent increase in the number of juveniles transferred

to, convicted in, or sentenced in criminal courts between 1988 and

1990--from 5,797 to 8,067.2 In 1992, 38 States reported 5,212 new

court commitments of juveniles to State prisons.3

The behavior of a relatively small percentage of juvenile offenders

has had a devastating impact on the public's sense of security, on

victims, and on the families of victims. Research shows that,

although these serious, violent, and chronic offenders comprise

only 6 to 8 percent of the total juvenile offender population, they

account for a disproportionately large number of offenses. These

juveniles are involved in a wide range of offense types and are

likely to commit both serious offenses and violent crimes. Because

of its frequency and seriousness, the violent behavior of this

group of offenders must be controlled to ensure public safety and

security.4 

Transferring targeted juvenile offenders who commit the most

serious and violent crimes to criminal court enables the juvenile

justice system to focus its efforts and resources on the much

larger group of at-risk youth and less serious and violent

offenders who can benefit from a wide range of effective

delinquency prevention and intervention strategies. However, in

their efforts to ensure that certain juvenile offenders are

transferred to the criminal justice system because of the

seriousness of their offenses, the Federal Government and the

States must be sure that only those youth who truly require this

alternative under the laws of their particular jurisdiction are

placed in the criminal justice system. We must also remain vigilant

about the juvenile's right to counsel and about the potentially

harmful impact of placing juveniles in adult jails, lockups, and

correctional facilities, including problems associated with

overcrowding, abuse, youth suicide, and the risk of transforming

treatable juveniles into hardened criminals.5 Most of all, the

continuing need for transfer of juveniles to criminal courts should

strengthen our resolve to intervene at the earliest possible time

to decrease the risk of future criminal behavior.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

This section of the Action Plan describes the three primary

mechanisms for transferring targeted juveniles to criminal court

and summarizes current State legislation pertaining to juvenile

transfer. It also addresses the trend toward increased transfer and

describes innovative and alternative approaches to responding to

serious, violent, and chronic offenders, and providing the

treatment they need. This section includes proposed action steps

assisting Federal and State jurisdictions in focusing on these

offenders in order to secure the greater public safety. The Action

Plan also encourages further study of the effectiveness and impact

of transfers on both juvenile offenders and the justice system.

Current Status and Analysis of the Problem

Transfer Cases

A number of studies that have examined the offense characteristics

of juveniles transferred to criminal court show that the presenting

offense for most transferred juveniles is a property offense.6 This

trend, however, appears to be changing. 

Other research has focused on seriousness and chronicity. One study

found that juveniles transferred by judicial waiver in Virginia

tended to be older, more serious offenders, with prior records and

commitment histories, except in metropolitan areas of the State.7

Another study found that juvenile robbery offenders transferred to

criminal court in Philadelphia were more likely to have used guns

in their offenses than those who were not transferred.8 

Transfer Mechanisms

The three legal mechanisms for transferring juvenile cases to

criminal court are judicial waiver, prosecutorial discretion, and

statutory exclusion. The use of all three mechanisms is being

expanded as the problem of youth violence and the fear surrounding

it increase.

Judicial waiver. Most States have established mechanisms to waive

jurisdiction over a case to criminal court, generally after

consideration of a motion made by the prosecutor.9 Juvenile court

judges in all States except Nebraska, New York, and New Mexico have

the authority to waive jurisdiction over a case to criminal court.

An estimated 11,700 juvenile delinquency cases were referred to

criminal court by judicial waiver in 1992, a 68-percent increase

from 1987.10 

Prosecutorial discretion ("concurrent jurisdiction"). Twelve States

authorize prosecutors to file certain categories of juvenile cases

directly in criminal court (direct file). This discretion is

generally constrained by the age of the alleged offender and the

type of offense. Although national statistics are unavailable on

juvenile cases transferred to the criminal court as a result of

prosecutorial discretion, one expert estimated that there were
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

2,000 prosecutorial direct files nationwide in 1978.11 By 1993,

Florida prosecutors alone had filed criminal charges in 7,000 cases

involving offenders under age 18.12

In addition to a national increase, there are indications that

instances of prosecutorial discretion now outnumber judicial

waivers in States allowing such transfers. In Florida, which has

both judicial waiver and direct file provisions, two cases were

filed directly in criminal court for every one case transferred by

judicial waiver in 1981. By 1992, there were more than six direct

filings for every case of judicial waiver.13

Statutory exclusion. Although not typically considered transfers,

large numbers of youth age 17 and younger are tried as adults in

the 11 States where the upper age of original juvenile court

jurisdiction is less than 18 years. This type of statutory

exclusion accounts for the largest number of youth under age 18

being tried in criminal court. Nationwide, an estimated 176,000

cases involving youth under age 18 were tried in criminal courts in

1991 because the offenders were considered adults under State

law.14 Another statutory exclusion mechanism is to provide for

statutory waiver or transfer of certain juveniles to criminal court

for specific offenses -- generally older or repeat offenders for

violent offenses. In such cases, the prosecutor must file a case in

criminal court for the particular offense.

State Trends 

Since 1978, at least 41 States have enacted legislation to expand

the use of transfer mechanisms. In 1994, at least 13 States enacted

measures establishing or expanding statutory transfers of juveniles

to criminal court by expanding offense categories or reducing age

eligibility for certain offense types.

In any particular State, one, two, or all three transfer mechanisms

may be in place.15 By 1993, 28 States had at least two of the three

mechanisms for transferring juveniles to criminal court for

prosecution. Three States had statutory provisions for all three

methods, and at least 18 States were considering additional

legislation in 1994.

While every State provides one or more mechanisms that allow

juveniles charged with serious and violent criminal behavior to be

tried in criminal court, the waiver and direct file criteria vary

from State to State. Age 14 is the most common minimum age at which

transfer can take place. The crimes that are most commonly

authorized for transfer are aggravated felonies -- usually serious,

violent, repeat offenses.16 Several States also have provisions for

transferring "excluded" or "direct filed" cases from criminal court

to juvenile court under certain circumstances. This is sometimes

referred to as "reverse waiver" or "transfer back." A summary of

some recent actions of State legislatures follows:

o Only one State, Wyoming, lowered the upper age -- from 18 to 17
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

-- of its juvenile court jurisdiction during the past 20 years,

joining the other 39 States that had established age 17 as the

upper age limit for original juvenile court jurisdiction. In 1995,

however, two of these States, Wisconsin and New Hampshire, enacted

legislation to lower the upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction

to 16, effective January 1, 1996.

o North Carolina lowered the age of juveniles who can be tried as

adults to 13; Oklahoma can now prosecute as adults juveniles age 13

and older accused of murder; and Tennessee removed the age limit

for trying juveniles accused of certain serious and violent

offenses as adults.17

o Five States have recently enacted or expanded concurrent

jurisdiction legislation, bringing the total of States having such

legislation to 12. In Michigan and Florida, prosecutors may now

elect the court of original jurisdiction for certain classes of

adolescent offenders.

o Eighteen States now have excluded-offense provisions (statutory

waiver or transfer) for serious or violent crimes. For example, New

York's juvenile offender law gives the criminal court original

jurisdiction over juveniles ages 13 to 15 charged with murder, and

those 14 or 15 years of age charged with Class A or B felonies, as

defined by New York's Criminal Code. The State's 1978 juvenile

offender law also provides for the "reverse waiver" of these

juveniles from the criminal court to the juvenile court.

Depending on the decision point (judge, prosecutor, or legislator),

various transfer criteria are to be carefully considered, such as

the type of offense, age of offender, offense history, and

receptiveness to rehabilitation. Statutory exclusion is clearly the

most rigid method of determining how a juvenile offender will be

processed, and most determinations are based on serious offenses

and age limits. Several States also exclude juveniles charged with

felonies from juvenile court if they have prior felony

adjudications or convictions. Prosecutorial discretion, or direct

file authority, is also typically limited by age and offense

criteria.

The judicial waiver process typically focuses on age, offense,

offense history, and the juvenile's amenability to treatment. A

judicial waiver, therefore, should be predicated on an assessment

of the youth's history of prior delinquency, counseling, attempts

at rehabilitation, school record, and other relevant factors. The

decision of the court must be in writing, exercised in open court,

and predicated on an adversarial hearing with full due process,

including an opportunity for presentation of evidence by the

defense and the right to cross-examine witnesses.

Based on these varying requirements, each transfer mechanism is

generally applied according to the age of the youth and the

seriousness of the offense. For older offenders, when the offense

is more serious or when the juvenile is a repeat offender, the
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

tendency is to move away from judicial discretion and toward

prosecutorial discretion and statutory exclusion.

Sentencing and Dispositional Outcomes and Effectiveness

Criminal court handling of serious, violent, and chronic juvenile

offenders raises many philosophical, legal, program, policy, and

research questions. Unfortunately, in recent years, an inadequate

amount of research has been conducted on the impact of criminal

court processing on reducing violent juvenile offending.

Some studies have shown relatively lenient treatment of juvenile

offenders transferred to criminal court by judicial waiver,

concurrent jurisdiction, and/or excluded offense.18 These studies

are primarily based on data collected from the late 1970's and the

1980's. However, three more recent studies are available.

A Cook County, IL, study examined juveniles transferred to criminal

court for drug and weapons violations under several Illinois

excluded-offense statutes during 1991-92. The study found that most

of the transferred juveniles were not viewed by criminal court

judges as serious offenders. More than half received probation,

supervision, or conditional discharge. Twelve percent, most of whom

judges ruled eligible for boot camps, were sentenced to

incarceration in Illinois prisons. Among the remainder, 18 percent

were found not guilty.19

At least one study using more recent data shows a trend in

transfers reflecting changes in the profile of offenders and case

dispositions. A 1994 followup study by the Virginia Commission on

Youth showed increased incarceration of transferred juveniles

between 1988 and 1990 compared with those retained in the juvenile

justice system. Among the more than 1,000 juveniles transferred

between 1988 and 1990, 63 percent were sentenced to prison, 15

percent were sent to a local jail, and 22 percent received no

incarceration. Those sentenced to prison served an average of 17

months, compared with less than 8 months served by those

adjudicated in juvenile court and committed to juvenile

institutions.20

A 1981 Ohio study of juveniles transferred to criminal court under

judicial waiver found that most were involved in property offenses,

and less than 40 percent were involved in violent offenses. In

contrast, a study conducted a decade later found that almost twothirds of the transfers were for violent offenses.21

The relative merits of juvenile versus criminal justice system

handling of serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders are

difficult to determine conclusively.22 Few comparative studies have

been made, and those that exist are outdated. None has focused on

innovative sentencing options, such as þblending" of juvenile and

criminal justice system handling. A 1980 study demonstrated the

importance of examining the seriousness of offense and age of the

offender in these studies in order to obtain a clear picture of
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

what is happening in the juvenile and criminal justice systems.23

This study confirmed that these are critical control factors in

determining future case study outcomes. 

Likewise, it is difficult to develop updated policy when the

majority of the studies were generated in the 1980's, and it is

impossible to determine from the existing research the impact of

either criminal or juvenile system handling on subsequent offenses.

While much activity is taking place in State legislatures to

address mechanisms for the prosecution of juveniles in criminal

court, very little evaluative research exists to guide such

legislative change. The extent to which these transfer options are

being used and the effectiveness of the various policy options are

not yet known. The need for such information is substantial. Unless

we fully understand how that body of law shapes the processing of

cases as they move -- or fail to move -- through the juvenile and

criminal justice systems, the efficacy of various provisions of

State law will remain unknown. Without empirical assessments of the

application and impact of various recent adjustments to juvenile

law, those who favor or oppose such changes can do little more than

speculate or make rough projections based on personal experience or

limited research.24

The Climate That Drives Waivers

The trend toward treating more juveniles as criminal offenders is

a reaction to a number of factors. First, it is a response to the

increasing incidence and seriousness of juvenile violence and an

overcrowded and overburdened juvenile justice system. Second, it is

based on a concern that the juvenile justice system does not

dispense sufficiently tough sanctions to provide accountability to

victims and society. Third, because frequently there is no reliable

system for the retention of records and identification of

offenders, it is perceived that the juvenile justice system is not

able to track and suppress a blossoming criminal career.

Lack of capacity. As discussed in the first section of the Action

Plan, juvenile justice practitioners are confronted daily with

moving juvenile offenders through the juvenile system. Overwhelmed

by burdensome caseloads, they are often unable to assess the

individual treatment needs of each juvenile, provide appropriate

and sustained services, or ensure adequate supervision to

effectively monitor the youth's behavior and compliance with a

dispositional order. The lack of system capacity and graduated

sanction programs are central deficiencies in the juvenile justice

system that may tilt the frustrated decisionmaker (prosecutor,

judge, or legislator) toward the decision to transfer increasing

numbers of offenders. As noted in the Interdepartmental Working

Group on Violence's Violence: Report to the President and Domestic

Policy Council and in Objective 1 of this Action Plan, the already

strained juvenile justice system lacks sufficient resources to

accurately and reliably identify serious, violent, and chronic

offenders and to intervene effectively with them. 
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Confidentiality. Currently, in keeping with long-held

confidentiality rules, most juvenile courts do not provide victims

with formal notification about offenders or the disposition of

cases. Often, the only way the victim can receive such information

is by attending the hearing, where statute permits. In addition,

the media historically have had little access to information that

they could use to demonstrate the lack of resources and programs

facing individual offenders and the system. In more than 20 States,

juvenile codes do not allow the names or pictures of juveniles

involved in delinquency proceedings to be released to the media.25

However, recent court decisions have "opened the doors" of some

delinquency proceedings, expanding public and media access.26 In

addition, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

has declared that:

Traditional notions of secrecy and confidentiality should be

reexamined and relaxed to promote public confidence in the court's

work. The public has a right to know how courts deal with children

and families. The court should be opened to the media, interested

professionals and students and, when appropriate, the public, in

order to hold itself accountable, educate others, and encourage

greater community participation.27

Confidentiality within the system of youth services also hinders

the effectiveness of the juvenile justice system. Courts, schools,

mental health and health facilities, law enforcement, and other

social service agencies unintentionally impede effective

rehabilitation of youth by restricting the exchange of appropriate

and critical information about their individual histories. In the

majority of cases, the resistance to sharing information is not

based on laws or regulations but on institutional reluctance to

violate privacy interests. Overly restrictive confidentiality rules

and practices substantially weaken the juvenile justice system as

a viable arena for trying serious and violent juvenile offender

cases. Until we know the history and service needs of juveniles who

enter the system, we can neither provide adequate services nor

fully protect the public.

Lack of records or record availability. A State may manage its

juvenile recordkeeping systems through a variety of methods. All

are variations on the theme of "nondisclosure," a concept that

means the records are not ordinarily available outside the court.

The disclosure rules for each State vary, but the elements of the

formula are generic. The parties before the juvenile court are

entitled to the contents of the juvenile record file.

Unfortunately, however, most States do not permit additional

disclosure without specific authorization of the court or some

other statute. Thus, while several States are now either

considering or revising juvenile codes in response to growing

public concern over juvenile crime and increasing demands by

victims, it is likely that offender history information will remain

unavailable to other agencies and individuals with an interest in

a particular juvenile. Moreover, under varying conditions, every

State permits requests to expunge or destroy juvenile records.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Many State and local jurisdictions do not maintain accurate or

complete records of juvenile offenders or do not share these

records with other jurisdictions and State repositories. This is

primarily due to confidentiality concerns and the limited

automation of juvenile records. As a result, it is sometimes

impossible to determine whether a juvenile who gets into trouble is

a first offender, a repeat offender, or a chronic offender.

Ideally, when a juvenile first comes in contact with the juvenile

justice system, appropriate records are established and maintained

and all relevant agencies can share information to ensure positive

identification. This record sharing also makes possible a proper

treatment and rehabilitation plan designed to prevent the juvenile

from coming into further contact with the juvenile justice system.

Records of adjudications should be compiled and made available for

subsequent proceedings in the juvenile and criminal justice

systems, even after the juvenile reaches the age of full criminal

responsibility, and the length of time records are held should

depend on the seriousness of prior offenses.

Making juvenile records electronically accessible requires more

than collecting and automating record data. Some States require

electronic information systems, and others may need a change in

their laws. A number of institutional components are involved, and

assurances of appropriate confidentiality must be carefully

considered and provided.

Problems with record maintenance may contribute to prosecutors

seeking to transfer juvenile cases, particularly violent offenses.

Otherwise, when the juvenile reaches age 18, or a statutorily

provided time period, there may be no record of his or her

delinquent history. For example, citizens, crime victims, school

personnel, and law enforcement professionals express a legitimate

concern about not having access to the history of juveniles

adjudicated for sexual assault (even those who were treated) who

are now free to apply for a job working with children or other

vulnerable populations.

Length and termination of sentences. Another factor that drives the

increased number of transferred juveniles is concern that placement

in programs is often delayed because of waiting lists, and release

is too often determined by a slot-driven system in which the

critical factor is the need for a bed for the next offender.

Furthermore, the juvenile justice system generally loses

jurisdiction over a juvenile offender when the youth reaches a

certain age, whether or not treatment is completed or the juvenile

remains a threat to the public safety. This loss of jurisdiction

may also contribute to the transfer of serious, violent, and

chronic juvenile offenders to the criminal justice system in order

to ensure that public safety is not threatened with the release of

a violent offender who has reached the upper age of dispositional

jurisdiction, which generally ranges from 18 to 21.

Issues of Juveniles in Federal Custody
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Relatively few juveniles are in the Federal juvenile and criminal

justice systems. The Federal Bureau of Prisons reports that, as of

March 17, 1995, it had custody of 270 offenders who were 17 years

or younger at the time they committed their offenses. Of this

total, 130 were held as criminal offenders in adult institutions,

and 140 were housed in contract juvenile facilities.

Federal prosecutions of juveniles, whether as delinquents or as

criminal offenders, account for less than 1 percent of all Federal

prosecutions. Apart from prosecutions of juveniles on Native

American reservations and military bases, the Federal Government

typically prosecutes only those juveniles who are members of largescale narcotics-trafficking organizations or violent criminal

organizations, such as gangs. In other instances, juveniles are

prosecuted in Federal court for violent acts that have some Federal

nexus, such as civil rights violations, carjacking, or bank

robbery. 

Even though the Major Crimes Act asserts Federal jurisdiction over

certain offenses committed by Native Americans on their lands,

tribes and tribal courts have expressed concern over the handling

of serious crimes being committed by Native American youth in their

communities. While tribes exercise concurrent jurisdiction over

these crimes, they lack many of the resources needed to handle

these cases properly. Specifically, they lack secure placement

options, treatment resources, and sentencing capabilities. The

Indian Civil Rights Act28 prevents tribal courts from sentencing

any person convicted of a serious or violent offense to more than

1 year in jail and a fine of greater than $5,000.

Similarly, the prosecution of juvenile Federal offenders in cases

involving Native American youth, and the impact on tribes and

tribal courts when Federal prosecution is declined, need to be

explored. Virtually no studies have been conducted on their impact

on Federal and tribal criminal justice systems.

Effective and Promising Strategies and Programs

Information Sharing 

A number of States have recently passed laws authorizing or

requiring information on alleged violent delinquents or adjudicated

juvenile offenders to be shared with schools, child welfare

agencies, or other social service providers. This information

sharing provides all systems involved with a better understanding

of the youth with whom they are working and the best way to work

with that individual. It is also an important consideration for

protecting the rights of victims of juvenile offenders. The Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is currently

working with the Department of Education to develop a fact sheet on

sharing school information with the juvenile justice system so that

at-risk and delinquent youth can be identified and services

provided prior to their involvement in serious and violent crime.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

The Illinois juvenile court model for interagency information

sharing, passed by the General Assembly in 1992, supports law

enforcement, State attorneys, probation departments, juvenile

courts, social serv-ice providers, and schools in the early

identification and treatment of habitual juvenile offenders. This

1992 amendment to the Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1987

authorizes an interagency committee to gather and disseminate

comprehensive data to agencies in the juvenile justice system to

produce more informed system decisions. This is being accomplished,

in part, through the establishment of a statewide Serious Habitual

Offender Comprehensive Action Program (SHOCAP). Developed by OJJDP,

the SHOCAP multi-disciplinary interagency case management and

information-sharing system establishes an interdisciplinary

committee. The committee develops criteria to identify juveniles

who are serious habitual offenders and adopts a written interagency

information-sharing agreement.

The Florida model for interagency information sharing authorizes

the juvenile court to maintain records of all cases brought before

it. The model also provides that the court shall preserve records

pertaining to juveniles charged with committing delinquent acts or

violations of the law until they reach age 24, or age 26 in the

case of serious or habitual delinquents. Florida has recently

developed a statewide SHOCAP in 15 sites and will be adding another

10 sites in 1996.

Youthful-Offender Laws, Blended Sentencing, and Intermediate

Facilities

Some States are improving the response of their juvenile justice

systems to serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders by

developing intermediate (third system) facilities or blended

sentencing models. Other States have created separate

youthful-offender institutions for juveniles adjudicated delinquent

for serious or violent crimes or convicted and sentenced criminally

under youthful-offender statutes. These typically permit the

juvenile court to treat older, more aggressive juvenile offenders

as youthful offenders, rather than as delinquents, by placing them

in specialized youthful-offender facilities. Conversely, some

statutes permit criminal courts to treat juvenile criminal

offenders, and sometimes younger adults who have committed less

serious crimes, as youthful offenders. California, Montana, and New

York have long had such statutes.

Colorado's Youthful Offender System, created in 1993, is designed

to break down gang affiliation and youth violence by concentrating

on treatment, discipline, and intensive reintegration services

through a low staff-to-offender ratio. In Wisconsin's program, the

State mandates that some youthful offenders stay in the program for

5 years. If they have committed felonies that would have been

punishable by life imprisonment, juveniles must stay in the program

until they are 25 years old.29
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

In some jurisdictions, either through legislation or agency

procedures, judges and correctional officials have available a

range of both juvenile and adult correctional sanctions for

serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders who have been

adjudicated delinquent and/or convicted criminally. This blending

of sanctions may be strictly age based (for example, on reaching a

certain age, the delinquent offender is transferred to adult prison

under a criminal conviction). 

In 1995, Minnesota enacted a blended sentencing law that creates a

new category called "extended sentence jurisdiction juveniles" for

serious and repeat offenders over age 14. When found guilty of a

crime, these juveniles receive both a juvenile disposition and a

suspended criminal sentence. If they fail to conform to the

requirements of the juvenile disposition, juveniles can receive the

criminal sentence that, in most cases, would result in confinement

in an adult jail or prison. The law extends the continuing

jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system to age 21.

Florida has led the way in an unusual blending of traditional

features of the juvenile and criminal justice systems through a

three-tiered approach that gives prosecutors expanded discretionary

power in making jurisdictional decisions as the age of defendants

and the severity of offenses increase.30 In criminal court, the

judge has a variety of sentencing options, including sentencing the

offender as an adult or as a juvenile. The criminal court judge

retains jurisdiction over an individual sentenced as a juvenile to

monitor the sentence and, if there is a violation of the court

order, to resentence the offender as an adult. Thus, Florida's law

grants its criminal court judges broader dispositional power than

that of juvenile court judges, creating a "last chance" provision. 

Related statutory provisions in some States target serious,

violent, or chronic juvenile offenders by creating an official

record that will follow the offender into the criminal system

and/or by authorizing enhanced commitments by the juvenile court.

Colorado, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Texas have enacted

enhanced commitments. The Texas law, for example, gives the

juvenile court authority to provide determinate juvenile sentences

of up to 40 years in prison for 12 violent felony offenses, with

the sentence to begin with treatment in the juvenile correctional

system to age 18, at which time transfer to an adult facility

following a court review is authorized. Such transfer is automatic

at age 21. Juveniles subject to this Texas law have a right to all

the due process and procedural rights of accused criminal

offenders, including jury trial and bail.

The distinction in appropriate dispositional alternatives between

younger adult and older juvenile offenders is not always clear.

Justice system practitioners have strong and differing opinions

about what should be done to address these individuals.

Consequently, blended sentencing and extended jurisdiction

statutory schemes are gaining favor in an increasing number of

States. In order to address public safety needs, States should
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

continue to experiment with the development, implementation, and

evaluation of these types of dispositional options. At the same

time, however, we must also invest in the juvenile justice system

so that it can meet the treatment needs of juvenile offenders.

The Action Plan suggests providing increased flexibility for the

transfer of appropriate juveniles to criminal court until the

juvenile justice system has the capacity to provide adequate

program services to serious, violent, and chronic juvenile

offenders and to ensure public safety. Specifically, it proposes a

two-tiered system of extended jurisdiction in the juvenile court

for serious, violent, and chronic offenders and consideration of

innovative blended sentencing options for juvenile offenders under

criminal court jurisdiction.

The two-tiered system would provide for the transfer of serious,

violent, and chronic juvenile offenders contingent upon age,

presenting offense, and offense history, allowing greater

prosecutorial discretion for the older, more serious offender.

State laws should consider appropriate discretionary powers for

prosecutors to proceed to criminal court as the ages of juvenile

offenders and the severity of the offense increase, thereby

allowing for individualized case review and decisionmaking.

Extended jurisdiction of the juvenile court can be predicated upon

a judge's determination that a juvenile is a serious, violent, or

chronic offender based upon the current offense and the juvenile's

prior history in the justice system. The court could be authorized

to use this extended jurisdiction to keep an adjudicated delinquent

in the system beyond age 21 if there were a reasonable expectation

of successful treatment.

The use of innovative blended sentencing options can function as a

supplement to the provision of extended jurisdiction by authorizing

the criminal or juvenile court judge to utilize or, when

appropriate, to combine juvenile and adult responses into a

continuum of sanctions appropriate to the offense history and age

of the juvenile. The Action Plan advocates a clear judicial role in

either the decision to proceed against a juvenile as a criminal

offender or at the dispositional stage through discretion in

sentencing options, as outlined above. However, while not

advocating for statutory exclusion or lowering the age for criminal

court jurisdiction, the Action Plan recognizes that, in some

instances, State law may use more than one transfer mechanism and

expressly provide for the imposition only of criminal sanctions for

specific classes of offenses at specific ages.

If the graduated sanctions model recommended in the Action Plan is

fully implemented in a jurisdiction with adequate programming and

resources, then the numbers of juveniles being transferred into the

criminal court or classified for extended jurisdiction should

decrease. In the interim, however, a more flexible mechanism is

needed that ensures public safety and provides appropriate

sanctions for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders.

With flexibility in court sentencing, the criminal court judge can
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

access juvenile court programming as a "last chance" option for

these offenders, while also enhancing the supervision of the court

and heightening the motivation of the offender, who is accountable

to the criminal court and faces a potential prison sentence upon

violation of sentencing conditions.

Federal Prosecution of Juveniles

At the Federal level, the Action Plan suggests examining the

advisability of amending the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Code to

remove procedural barriers to the transfer of juveniles under

Federal jurisdiction for criminal prosecution, including adding

prosecutorial transfer authority (direct file) for certain serious

and violent offenses.

Federal Action Steps

Promote Innovative Options for the Appropriate Maintenance and

Sharing of Juvenile Records

OJJDP and the Department of Education (ED) will continue to review

Federal Educational Records Privacy Act (FERPA) regulations to

clarify and enhance the ability of schools to share information

with other agencies responsible for handling juvenile offenders. 

OJJDP and ED will also develop technical assistance mechanisms to

build the capacity of law enforcement and educational institutions

to share juvenile records.

Improve Targeting, Apprehension, Prosecution, Treatment, and

Correctional Facilities and Programs for Serious, Violent, and

Chronic Juvenile Offenders

The Department of Justice (DOJ) will provide funding through its

Correctional Facilities/Violent Offender Incarceration Grants for

construction of, or planning for, prison facilities for criminal

offenders and for boot camp programs for adult or juvenile

offenders (to make available secure space in prisons or juvenile

correctional facilities for violent offenders).

OJJDP will increase its focus on programs to identify and target

these offenders, such as SHOCAP; arrest and prosecute them, as

appropriate; and provide treatment programs for serious, violent,

and chronic juvenile offenders within the juvenile justice system.

These programs combine accountability and sanctions with

increasingly intensive community-based intervention, treatment, and

rehabilitation services correlated with the seriousness or nature

of particular offenses.

Assist States and Local Governments To Identify Juvenile Offenders

DOJ supports improved juvenile records that are accurate and

accessible, where appropriate, in both the juvenile and criminal

justice systems.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and OJJDP have produced

publications to assist State recordkeepers in understanding the

technical, legal, and policy issues relating to juvenile records.

Statistical and legislative solutions from States were compiled.

Based on this information, BJS will continue to address the issue

within the context of its ongoing program to assist States in

upgrading criminal records. Specifically, BJS will:

o Sponsor a national conference to address issues associated with

the use of, and access to, juvenile records in the criminal justice

system.

o Sponsor a study to analyze legal and policy issues associated

with the collection, use, and exchange of juvenile delinquency

records, including the relationship between juvenile and criminal

records.

o Convene a national conference to discuss issues involved in

linking juvenile and adult records. 

OJJDP's Systems and Statistics Development (SSD) Program--which

collects, analyzes, and disseminates national statistics on

juvenile victims and offenders and documents the system's response-

-will continue to raise the level of attention to juvenile record

issues. SSD's actions are helping States recognize the entire range

of issues associated with juvenile records: fingerprinting and

other forms of biometric identification of juveniles,

classification of juvenile offenses as compared with adult crimes,

automation of juvenile records,expunging or sealing of records, and

types of records to be made available in national criminal history

recordkeeping systems.

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) will sponsor research to

examine the use of juvenile record information in the adjudication

and sentencing of criminal offenders. The study will consist of two

phases. Phase one will be a national assessment of legislation and

practice to determine the extent to which States are authorized to

consider juvenile record information in criminal prosecutions.

Phase two will examine how juvenile record information is used in

Sedgwick County (Wichita), KS, and in Montgomery County, MD.

OJJDP and ED will develop a fact sheet on sharing school

information with the juvenile justice system.

Examine Transfer Statistics and the Impact of Innovative Sentencing

Options

In order to assist in developing this information, OJJDP will carry

out the following studies:

o A statistical assessment of national transfer trends in the

context of State legislative requirements.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

o A comparison between juvenile and criminal justice system

management of juvenile offenders.

These studies will control for presenting offense, offense history,

and age of offender in order to provide accurate data.

Develop and Support Innovative Options for the Handling of Serious,

Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders

OJJDP will survey innovative system practices in managing serious,

violent, and chronic juvenile offenders in both the juvenile and

criminal justice systems.

Review Procedural Barriers to Prosecuting Violent Federal Juvenile

Offenders as Criminal Offenders

DOJ will facilitate prosecuting certain serious, violent, and

chronic juvenile offenders as criminals in Federal court by

proposing that Congress amend the Federal juvenile delinquency

statute to accomplish the following:

o Remove unnecessary procedural barriers for prosecuting and

transferring violent juvenile felony offenders as criminals in the

Federal system.

o Authorize juveniles prosecuted as criminal felons to be detained

and incarcerated separately in adult facilities through a

reasonable process and on a case-by-case basis.

o Permit expanded use of fingerprinting and recordkeeping and

expanded access to those prints and records for juveniles

adjudicated delinquent.

o Address the Federal system's lack of victim rights, including

notification; restitution; return of property; victim impact

statements; protection from intimidation, harassment, and harm; and

information and referral services for those juveniles under Federal

delinquency jurisdiction.

o Permit use of supervised release for juveniles adjudicated

delinquent after their release from terms of confinement.

Provide Training and Technical Assistance to Federal, State, and

Local Prosecutors and Judges Handling Juvenile Cases

The DOJ Criminal Division, in conjunction with the Executive Office

for U.S. Attorneys, will disseminate to all U.S. Attorneys' Offices

a manual outlining the issues in federally prosecuting juvenile

offenders. The manual will cite relevant case law and include form

indictments and pleadings to aid Assistant U.S. Attorneys. In

addition, a publication examining these issues, entitled Federal

Prosecution of Gangs and Juveniles, is available from DOJ's Office

of Legal Education.31
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Through the Anti-Violent Crime Initiative, the Criminal Division

will encourage Federal prosecutors to continue working with their

State and local counterparts to develop strategies to reduce youth

violence. For example, all U.S. Attorneys have met with their

violent-crime workgroups to implement the Youth Handgun Safety Act

in their districts. As part of that effort, they have focused on

identifying the sources of firearms possessed by juveniles and

getting guns out of schools as part of a larger strategy to address

violent crime.

OJJDP will continue to support a prosecutor training center

developed by the National District Attorneys Association. This

project provides workshops on juvenile justice-related executive

policy, leadership, and management for chief prosecutors and

juvenile unit chiefs and provides background information to

prosecutors on juvenile justice issues and programs.

Suggestions for State and Local Action

o Review mechanisms for prosecuting, adjudicating, and sentencing

juveniles in the criminal justice system. 

o Assess the impact of proposed transfer mechanisms before they are

enacted into law.

o Establish and maintain a well-structured system of graduated

sanctions for juvenile offenders.

o Establish automated record-keeping systems in all local juvenile

courts. Collect and centralize juvenile records at the State level.

Forward records of adjudication for serious delinquency to the

Federal Bureau of Investigation to facilitate information sharing

and accurate criminal history records.

o Assist schools and juvenile justice system practitioners to

obtain court orders allowing information sharing on juveniles in

the justice system, where such orders are necessary to authorize

information sharing.

o Adopt policies and standards for prosecuting serious, violent,

and chronic juvenile offenders in criminal court.

o Develop innovative and/or alternative sanctions such as

community-based corrections options.

o Fingerprint and photograph youth charged with delinquent acts in

the juvenile justice system. 

o Request technical assistance and training through OJJDP to

institute needed system changes.

o Work with the media (print and broadcast) to promote greater

public understanding of the scope and complexity of the transfer
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

issue.

------------------------------ 

Endnotes

1. Interdepartmental Working Group on Violence. 1994. Violence:

Report to the President and Domestic Policy Council. Washington,

D.C.

2. Hunziker, D. 1995 (May). Juvenile crime, grown-up time. State

Legislatures 21(5):14-19.

3. Perkins, C. 1994. National Corrections Reporting Program--1992.

Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of

Justice.

4. Wolfgang, M.E. 1972. Delinquency in a Birth Cohort. Chicago,

Ill.: University of Chicago Press.

Wolfgang, M.E., R.M. Figlio, and T.P. Thornberry. 1987. From Boy to

Man--From Delinquency to Crime. Chicago, Ill.: University of

Chicago Press.

5. Parent, D.G., V. Lieter, S. Kennedy, et al. 1994 (August).

Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and Corrections

Facilities. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

6. Bishop, D.M., C.E. Frazier, and J.C. Henretta. 1989 (April).

Prosecutorial waiver: Case study of a questionable reform. Crime

and Delinquency 35(2):179-201.

Bortner, M.A. 1986 (January). Traditional rhetoric, organizational

realities: Remand of juveniles to adult court. Crime and

Delinquency 35:53-73.

Champion, D.J. 1989 (October). Teenage felons and waiver hearings:

Some recent trends, 1980-1988. Crime and Delinquency 35(4):577-585.

Fagan, J., and E.P. Deschenes. 1990 (Summer). Determinants of

judicial waiver decisions for violent juvenile offenders. Journal

of Criminal Law and Criminology 81(2):314-347.

Gillespie, L.K., and M.D. Norman. 1984. Does certification mean

prison? Some preliminary findings from Utah. Juvenile and Family

Court Journal 35(3):23-34.

Greenwood, P.W. 1986. Differences in criminal behavior and court

responses among juvenile and young adult defendants. In M. Tony and

N. Morris, eds. Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research.

Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press. 

Hamparian, D.M., et al. 1985. The Young Criminal Years of the
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Violent Few. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Heuser, J.P. 1985. Juveniles Arrested for Serious Felony Crimes in

Oregon and "Remanded" to Adult Criminal Courts: A Statistical

Study. Salem, Ore.: Crime Analysis Center, Oregon Department of

Justice.

Houghtalin, M., and G.L. Mays. 1991. Criminal dispositions of New

Mexico juveniles transferred to adult court. Crime and Delinquency

37:393-407.

Nimick, E.H., L. Szymanski, and H. Snyder. 1986. Juvenile Court

Waiver: A Study of Juvenile Court Cases Transferred to Criminal

Court. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Thomas, C.W., and S. Bilchik. 1985. Prosecuting juveniles in

criminal courts: A legal and empirical analysis. Journal of

Criminal Law and Criminology 76(2):439-479.

7. Poulon, T.M., and S. Orchowsky. 1994 (January). Serious juvenile

offenders: Predicting the probability of transfer to criminal

court. Crime and Delinquency 40(1):3-17.

8. Eigen, J.P. 1981. The determinants and impact of jurisdictional

transfer in Philadelphia. In J.C. Hall et al. Major Issues in

Juvenile Justice Information and Training: Readings in Public

Policy. Columbus, Ohio: Academy for Contemporary Problems.

9. Hunziker, 1995.

10. Snyder, H., and M. Sickmund. 1995 (August). Juvenile Offenders

and Victims: A National Report. Washington, D.C.: Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of

Justice.

11. Hamparian et al., 1985.

12. Snyder and Sickmund, 1995.

13. Ibid.

14. Sickmund, M. 1994 (October). How Juveniles Get to Criminal

Court. OJJDP Update on Statistics. Juvenile Justice Bulletin.

Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

15. Snyder and Sickmund, 1995.

16. Howell, J.C., J.D. Hawkins, and J. Wilson, eds. 1995.

Sourcebook on Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders.

Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publishing.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

17. Hunziker, 1995.

18. Clarke, S.H. 1994 (Summer). Increasing imprisonment to prevent

violent crime: Is it working? Popular Government 16-24.

Hamparian et al., 1985.

Snyder, H., and J. Hutzler. 1981 (September). The Serious Juvenile

Offender: The Scope of the Problem and the Response of Juvenile

Courts. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

19. Howell et al., eds., 1995.

20. Hunziker, 1995.

21. Howell et al., eds., 1995.

22. Howell, J.C., ed. 1995 (May). Guide for Implementing the

Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile

Offenders. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

23. Greenwood, P.W., J. Petersilia, and F.E. Zimring. 1980

(October). Age, Crime, and Sanctions: The Transition from Juvenile

to Adult Court. Santa Monica, Calif.: The RAND Corporation.

24. Thomas and Bilchik, 1985.

25. Snyder and Sickmund, 1995.

26. Martin, G.A., Jr. 1995 (Summer). Open the doors: A judicial

call to end confidentiality in delinquency proceedings. New England

Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement 21:393.

27. Children and Families First: A Mandate for America's Courts,

cited in Martin, G.A., Jr. 1995 (Summer).

28. U.S.C. 25 1302(7).

29. Hunziker, 1995. 

30. Thomas and Bilchik, 1985. 

31. Stevens, J.B. 1994. Federal prosecution of gangs and juveniles.

Criminal Practice Manual. Washington, D.C.: Office of Legal

Education, U.S. Department of Justice.

------------------------------

3. Reduce Youth Involvement With Guns, Drugs, and Gangs

Overview
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

The involvement of judges, prosecutors, social service providers,

law enforcement officers, crime victims, community-based

organizations, and others is critical to improving the juvenile

justice system and reducing youth violence. The Action Plan

supports interagency law enforcement teams, or task forces, that

coordinate the investigative efforts and suppression tactics of

Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in weapons,

drug, and gang arrests.

In many communities, law enforcement has taken the lead in

implementing innovative juvenile crime prevention and intervention

efforts as part of an overall community oriented policing approach.

Successful public safety and prevention strategies provide

comprehensive, targeted community services and support to youth to

keep them from becoming the next generation of offenders.

Youth-focused community oriented policing that is effectively

linked to the juvenile justice system can significantly contribute

to the reduction of crime, restoration of order, and eradication of

fear in local communities.

This section addresses four primary problem areas in which law

enforcement plays a critical leading role: juvenile gun violence;

the combination of youth, guns, and drugs; the link between drugs

and delinquency; and youth gangs. Examples of programs illustrate

effective ways of finding solutions to each of these problems in

local communities. The Action Plan supports strong measures to

prevent juveniles from using guns illegally and to remove guns from

schools through youth-focused community oriented policing, reducing

the availability of firearms to youth, strengthening anti-drug and

anti-gang measures, and building healthy communities through

expanded youth opportunities.

The Action Plan also supports the development of model juvenile

handgun legislation to facilitate law enforcement activities.

Further, it encourages the efforts of school officials to remove

guns from schools, and supports the dissemination of information on

promising juvenile gun violence reduction programs, and the

provision of technical assistance to achieve those goals.

Current Status and Analysis of the Problem

Juvenile Gun Violence

A trend analysis of juvenile homicide offenses shows that since the

mid-1970's, the number of homicides in which no firearm was

involved has remained fairly constant. However, homicides by

juveniles involving a firearm have increased nearly threefold. In

addition, during this same period, the number of juvenile arrests

for weapons violations increased 117 percent. When guns are the

weapon of choice, juvenile violence becomes deadly.1 

Because recent crime statistics--excluding homicides--gathered by

the Federal Bureau of Investigation do not show all chargeable

offenses involved in a particular incident, there is no reliable
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

way to determine how many crimes involved a weapon, what was the

nature of any injury, or whether the crime involved illicit drugs.

Therefore, it is difficult to determine the precise role that guns

and illegal drugs have played in the recent increase in violent

juvenile crime. Although there are gaps, the data make a compelling

case that the role of guns in juvenile-related homicides is

increasing at an unprecedented level. 

During the period 1976 to 1991, firearms were used by 65 percent of

juvenile homicide offenders (44 percent used handguns). Firearms

were used in nearly 8 out of 10 juvenile homicides in 1991,

compared with 6 out of 10 in 1976.2

Young black males have the most elevated homicide victimization

rate of any race or gender group. Homicides involving firearms have

been the leading cause of death for black males ages 15 to 19 since

1969, and the rates more than doubled in the decade from 1979 (40

deaths per 100,000) to 1989 (85 deaths per 100,000).3 Teenage boys

in all racial and ethnic groups are more likely to die from gunshot

wounds than from all natural causes combined.4

Between 1979 and 1991, the rate of suicide among youth ages 15 to

19 increased 31 percent. In 1991, 1,899 youth ages 15 to 19

committed suicide, a rate of 11 per 100,000 youth in this age

group. Firearms were used in 6 out of 10 suicides among youth ages

15 to 19 in 1989.5

In 1990, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveyed a

nationally representative sample of 9th- to 12th-grade students

about the number of times they had carried a weapon such as a gun,

knife, or club during the prior 30 days. One in 20 students

indicated he or she had carried a firearm, usually a handgun. A

number of additional surveys confirm an increased propensity among

young people to carry guns.6 The increased availability of guns and

access to guns by youth have had devastating consequences on

schools and communities. In many schools, learning is no longer the

top priority; survival concerns lead many students to avoid school

entirely or carry weapons for protection. Educators must divert

attention from academics to monitor and control student aggression.

In neighborhoods, people are apprehensive about going outside their

homes, and fights that once involved fists have become deadly

exchanges.

Youth, Guns, and Drugs

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)

is currently supporting research on the causes and correlates of

delinquency and has found a strong relationship among illegal gun

possession by juveniles, delinquency, and drug use. Nearly 3 in 4

juveniles who illegally possessed guns committed some type of

street crime; 1 in 4 committed a gun-related crime; and 4 out of 10

used drugs.7

Drug activity appears to exacerbate juvenile violence in two ways.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

First, firearms are more prevalent around drug activity.8 In 1984,

the United States saw a dramatic increase in juvenile gun homicide,

coinciding with the introduction of crack cocaine into urban

communities. Studies show that as the use of guns by drug-involved

youth increases, other young people obtain guns for their own

protection. This cycle of fear or "diffusion" theory9 is supported

by recent research on the "ecology of danger."10 A 1993 Louis

Harris poll showed that 35 percent of children ages 6 to 12 fear

their lives will be cut short by gun violence,11 and a longitudinal

study of 1,500 Pittsburgh, PA, boys revealed that their frequency

of carrying a concealed weapon increased when they began selling

drugs.12

The second way drugs and juvenile gun violence appear related is

through the impact of drugs on a young person's perceptions.

Adolescence is a time of taking risks and seeking stimulation, and

juvenile delinquents report a certain level of excitement as well

as fear of apprehension in the commission of a crime. Many youth

revel at the thrill of roller coasters, some ignore cautions about

"safe sex," and others seek an "ultimate high" from illicit drugs

or possession of a deadly weapon.

Drugs and Delinquency

Although researchers have not established a definite causal link

between drug use and delinquency, they have confirmed a

delinquency-illegal drug use correlation. In the 1987 Survey of

Children in Custody, 81 percent of wards in State-operated

institutions responded affirmatively when questioned about lifetime

use of drugs.13 Nearly half (48 percent) admitted to being under

the influence of drugs or alcohol while committing the offense for

which they were institutionalized. Although there is some variance

across offense categories, the percentage of institutionalized

wards who reported being under the influence of drugs or alcohol at

the time of the offense ranged from 34 percent in the case of rape

offenses to 51 percent for robberies and 59 percent for drug

possession.

Although the link between drug use by juveniles involved in serious

delinquency and by those not attending school is well documented,

drug use by another segment of the youth population not considered

to be at risk--students who have progressed to their senior year in

high school--also continues to be the focus of serious concern.

According to the results of a 1994 national household survey,

monthly marijuana use among 12- to 17- year-olds nearly doubled

from 1992 to 1994--from 4.0 percent of students surveyed to 7.3

percent--following a steady decline in drug use from 1979 to 1992.

The survey also reported that 2 million youth rate themselves as

heavy alcohol drinkers, with over 1 billion cans of beer being

consumed annually by junior and senior high school students

alone.14

Youth Gangs
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Today, youth gangs exist in nearly every State. One expert

estimates that more than 3,875 youth gangs with a total of more

than 200,000 gang members are established in the 79 largest U.S.

cities.15 Gang activity has extended beyond the inner city of major

population centers into smaller communities and suburbs. Today's

gangs are best characterized by their diversity in ethnic

composition, geographical location, organization, and the nature

and extent of members' involvement in delinquent and/or criminal

activities.16 In the 79 U.S. cities with populations over 200,000,

91 percent reported having a gang problem that had spread from the

streets into areas traditionally considered safe havens, such as

schools.17 In the Chicago metropolitan area, all public and some

parochial high schools, including many in suburban Cook County,

reported evidence of gang activity.18

Researchers have identified a number of factors that put youth at

risk of gang involvement: poverty, school failure, substance abuse,

family dysfunction, and domestic and societal violence.19 Easy

access to illicit drugs and the perceived financial rewards of drug

dealing pose attractive alternatives for youth with inadequate

education and limited employment opportunities, leading them into

high-risk behaviors and potential gang involvement. Gang recruits

often have a poor self-image, low self-esteem, and little adult

participation in their lives. Some of them are children of gang

members and are choosing a familiar lifestyle. Many are seeking the

recognition they fail to receive from home or school. Even parents

with strong parenting skills cannot ensure that their children will

not become involved in gangs, particularly in low-income,

problem-ridden neighborhoods. 

Youth gang research has focused extensively on the gang-drug nexus.

Recent research, however, suggests that there is also a significant

connection among gang involvement, gang violence, and firearms. In

one study based on responses from 835 male inmates in 6 juvenile

correctional facilities in 4 States, researchers found that

movement from nongang membership to gang membership brought

increases in most forms of gun-involved conduct. Forty-five percent

described gun theft as a regular gang activity. Sixty-eight percent

said their gang regularly bought and sold guns, and 61 percent

described "driving around shooting at people you don't like" as a

regular gang activity.20

Additionally, experts report that gangs appear to be increasing

their organizational sophistication and their propensity for

individual and collective violence.21 These structural and

behavioral changes are often, but not universally, attributed to

the impact of the drug trade and the availability of firearms.

Another study indicates that gang homicide settings differ from

nongang homicide settings in that they are more likely to involve

public areas, automobiles, and firearms, among other elements.22

The researchers further speculate that location, automobile

involvement, and gun presence suggest potential points of

intervention.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Effective and Promising Strategies and Programs

Getting Guns Out of the Hands of Juveniles

Research suggests that to reduce the environment of fear and

achieve the greatest reduction in the number of weapon-carrying

youth, efforts must be directed at frequent weapon carriers.23

Youth gun-reduction and fear-reduction strategies should reinforce

one another. One expert suggests a "market disruption" approach,

such as that used to fight street drug markets.24 Police have been

successful in reducing drug trafficking in communities by using

community allies to report new dealing sites, making buyers feel

vulnerable by publicizing reverse sting operations in which police

pose as dealers and arrest buyers, and interfering with business by

loitering around dealer sites. Community support and youth

involvement in planning and implementation are critical to the

effectiveness of such an operation.

The Kansas City (MO) Gun Experiment is an example of a successful

effort. The Department of Justice (DOJ), the U.S. Attorney's

Office, and the Kansas City Police Department worked together to

form a working group consisting of law enforcement, human service

agencies, and community organizations to focus police efforts in

high-crime neighborhoods by routinely stopping traffic violators,

youth in violation of curfews, and individuals involved in other

infractions of the law. During these routine stops, police look for

any infractions that give them legal authority to search a car or

pedestrian for illegal guns. Special gun-intercept teams have

proven to be 10 times more cost effective than regular police

patrols.25

Targeted on an 80-block neighborhood with a homicide rate 20 times

the national average, the Kansas City program reduced crime by at

least 50 percent during a 6-month period. In addition, the program

did not displace crime to other locations--gun crimes did not

increase significantly in any of the surrounding seven patrol

beats. Despite the fact that previous police campaigns had drawn

protests of discrimination, the gun-intercept program did not

experience such protests. Police had involved community and

religious leaders in initial planning, and neighborhoods had

actively sought greater police activity. Results of a recent

program evaluation funded by the National Institute of Justice

(NIJ) indicate that this strategy appears very promising: gun

crimes in the target neighborhoods declined 49 percent and drive-by

shootings and homicides also dropped significantly.26

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms' (ATF's) Achilles

Program coordinates ATF's resources with State and local law

enforcement to combat armed, violent gangs and armed narcotics

traffickers in 21 of the Nation's communities with the highest

levels of firearms-related violence. This initiative focuses on the

enforcement of tough Federal firearms laws that require

minimum/mandatory sentencing with no chance of parole for convicted

offenders. The Achilles Program targets gangs that lure juveniles
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

into a life of crime. Because firearms, unlike narcotics or other

forms of contraband, are not easily disposable, they often provide

a history of the criminal and can link the individual to other

crimes and provide valuable intelligence about the offender's

criminal associates. Consequently, firearms can be an Achilles'

heel for gangs and violent criminals.27

Focusing on Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression

Strategies

A combination of prevention, intervention, and suppression

strategies has been implemented in communities across the United

States to address the problem of gangs. It is imperative that any

program, whether prevention, intervention, suppression, or any

combination of these, be based in sound theory and work closely

with the juvenile justice system. Specifically, policies and

programs must be based on appropriate targeting of both

institutions and youth, as well as their relation to each other at

a specific time and place. For example, it is important to focus on

youth entering or leaving a gang and on the developmental stage of

the gang problem.28

In the late 1980's and early 1990's, OJJDP supported the completion

of two phases of a National Youth Gang Suppression and Intervention

Program. This program has provided an assessment of youth gang

research, including definitions, the nature and causes of the youth

gang phenomenon, and the effectiveness of the program strategies

used by various agencies and organizations in the community.29 The

need for conclusive evaluations of these strategies was emphasized,

but the following common elements appear to be associated with the

sustained reduction of gang problems:

o Leaders must recognize that gangs are present in the community

and that suppression strategies must be complemented by prevention

and intervention strategies.

o Community leaders must reach a consensus on the nature of the

problem and the critical points for intervention. 

o The combined leadership of the justice system and community-based

organizations must focus on the mobilization of political and

community resources to address gang problems.

o Leaders must create a mechanism or structure to coordinate

communitywide efforts.

o A team comprising representatives from law enforcement,

prosecutors, judges, probation, corrections, schools,

community-based organizations, grassroots agencies, and other

groups must prepare a set of policies and practices for the design

and mobilization of community efforts.

OJJDP's Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to Gang Prevention,

Intervention, and Suppression (Gang Suppression and Intervention)
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Program provides policies and practices and a detailed analysis of

how various components of a community can, in partnership, approach

chronic and emerging gang problems.

OJJDP is in the process of completing the final phases

(implementation and testing) of this program through A

Comprehensive Response to America's Gang Problem (Comprehensive

Response Initiative). Five jurisdictions have been awarded funds to

begin a 3-year effort to implement the comprehensive model

developed under the Gang Suppression and Intervention Program.

These demonstration sites, which are experiencing an emerging or

chronic gang problem, are Mesa and Tucson, AZ; Riverside, CA;

Bloomington, IL; and San Antonio, TX.

Other components of the Comprehensive Response Initiative are:

o The National Youth Gang Center, operated by the Institute for

Intergovernmental Research located in Tallahassee, FL, which is

designed to assist State and local jurisdictions in the collection,

analysis, and exchange of gang-related statistics, legislation,

research, and promising program strategies.

o An independent evaluation of the Gang Suppression and

Intervention Program to determine how the five demonstration sites,

confronted by chronic or emerging gang problems, can effectively

plan and implement a comprehensive anti-gang violence model program

and to test the efficacy of such a model.

o Training and technical assistance in areas such as community

mobilization, youth gang problem assessment, program strategy

design, and data collection and analysis to support communities in

their planning and implementation efforts.

o Targeted dissemination and acquisition of youth gang-related

resources, including publications, manuals, and research findings

through OJJDP's Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

These components represent a comprehensive Federal effort to

prevent, intervene, and suppress youth gang violence and to help

communities learn what programs and strategies are effective.

With support from OJJDP, the Boys and Girls Clubs of America has

successfully expanded its Targeted Outreach Program through its

local clubs. This program, designed to serve at-risk youth, is

currently used as a strategy for youth gang prevention and to

intervene with gang members in the early stages of gang

involvement. This program has been implemented in over 200 clubs,

reaching tens of thousands of young people. The clubs offer

positive activities as alternatives to the lure of gangs. The

organization's national office provides training and technical

assistance to local clubs that are potential expansion sites. A

1992 evaluation of this program found that 90 percent of the youth

served by the program attended the club once a week or more and

that 48 percent showed improvement in school behavior. Over one-
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

third reported improved grades and an additional one-third reported

increased attendance.30

ATF continues to support gang prevention efforts nationwide through

the Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) Program. GREAT

is an educational, school-based gang prevention program that was

originally developed in response to an escalating youth gang

problem in metropolitan Phoenix, AZ. Representatives from ATF, area

law enforcement agencies, and local educators designed GREAT to

help children set goals, make sound judgments, learn how to resolve

conflicts without violence, and understand how gangs and youth

violence negatively affect the quality of their lives. The GREAT

curriculum provides teenagers with critical skills and information

to resist gang involvement and learn to become responsible members

of society. GREAT also offers optional curriculums for grades three

to six, as well as a followup summer recreation program.

To date, 1,300 officers from more than 530 agencies representing 45

States, the District of Columbia, and military bases overseas, have

been trained to present the core curriculum in elementary, junior

high, and middle school classrooms. Since the program's inception

in 1992, more than 2 million children have received GREAT program

training.

Nuestro Centro (Our Center) Gang, Drug, and Dropout Intervention

Program in Dallas, TX, inaugurated in 1991 with OJJDP funds, took

a grassroots preventive approach to the problem of juvenile

violence. Citizens and community leaders in a predominantly

minority neighborhood decided to take back their streets by

converting an abandoned fire station into a community-run youth

center. Participants in the afterschool program are unemployed and

undereducated youth affected by drug abuse, gangs, school problems,

family problems, physical and sexual abuse, and delinquency.

Through the dedicated work of counselors and volunteers, most of

whom live in the neighborhood, the program has shown significant

success in deterring gang violence and drug use, with 95 percent of

participants surveyed involved in educational activities, including

school, general equivalency diploma (GED) preparation, and

vocational training.31

A joint effort between the Chicago Police Department and the

Chicago Housing Authority Police Department provides another

promising model that specifically targets public housing. Funded by

the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the Building Interdiction

Team Effort (BITE) secures the perimeters of buildings, challenges

suspicious persons, patrols and searches common areas and vacant

apartments, and conducts searches of occupied units with tenant

consent. This concentrated effort on the part of police is sending

a clear message to the gangs that these buildings contain family

homes and are neither havens for criminal activity nor turf to be

claimed. Preliminary results indicate that the program has improved

overall safety and reduced drug trafficking in one housing

development and drug-related violence in another.32
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

The San Diego Urban Street Gang Drug Trafficking Enforcement

Demonstration Project, funded by BJA, is another example of a

successful approach. It targets young adult (ages 18 to 25) gang

leaders identified by law enforcement as being involved in drug

trafficking and gang-perpetrated violence and whose apprehension

and prosecution would significantly alleviate or prevent an

increase in drug trafficking, related violence, and economic

disruption of the community. During the first 2 years, over 160

hardcore gang members were arrested and successfully prosecuted

through these operations. Using enhanced prosecution strategies,

targeted gang members received lengthy prison terms, which reduced

gang violence in San Diego.33

Enhancing Youth-Focused Community Oriented Policing

Research from the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence

suggests that violence may be a response to young people's

perception that the authorities cannot protect them or maintain

order in their neighborhoods.34 Other researchers believe that the

fundamental challenge with youth and firearms is to convince youth

that they can survive in their neighborhoods without being armed.35

Successfully reducing firearm possession means reducing both

perceived environmental dangers and actual opportunities for

weapon-associated violence.36 Because the fear of assault is often

stated as the reason youth carry firearms, programs should be

implemented that address the risk of victimization, improve school

safety, and foster a secure community environment.37 

Law enforcement agencies increasingly emphasize that juvenile

delinquency prevention and intervention are key elements of

community oriented policing. However, many law enforcement agencies

and community organizations lack the information and resources to

intervene effectively in situations involving youthful offenders.

Public safety and prevention strategies can provide comprehensive,

targeted, community services and support to at-risk youth. The

Action Plan supports youth-focused community oriented policing and

believes it has the potential to contribute significantly to the

reduction of crime, disorder, and fear.

In 1992, the New Haven (CT) Police Department and the Yale Child

Study Center initiated the Child Development-Community Policing

Program. Although not specifically dedicated to gun, gang, or drug

reduction, this police department uses officers to work with

children and their families to prevent violent juvenile crime and

to help them cope with the stress caused by living with violence.

A key element of the program is to increase police officers' level

of confidence and competence in working with youth who have been

victims of or witnesses to violence, recognizing a child's

emotional needs, and understanding family dynamics. This approach

is also intended to enable clinicians to intervene at the time of

crisis and have a better understanding of the risk factors and

problems that lead to violence and crime. 

Other youth-focused community oriented policing strategies and
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

programs that have demonstrated promise and/or effectiveness

include:

o Reintegrative Policing Strategies, in which law enforcement

officers help juveniles make the transition into the community

following secure confinement.

o Police Athletic Leagues (PAL), in which police provide a wide

array of youth activities and programs that serve as alternatives

to gang involvement, drug use, and other delinquency.

o Futures Programs in Philadelphia, PA, and other jurisdictions, in

which police officers serve as mentors and role models, focusing on

the academic achievement of at-risk students.

o Kids and Kops Day, part of the Santa Ana (CA) Police Department's

youth-related activities, in which police officers spend a day with

at-risk youth attending recreational and cultural events and

participating in community activities.

o Multidisciplinary team building, such as the Family Assessment

Services Teams of the Norfolk (VA) Police Assisted Community

Enforcement project, which addresses the needs of multiproblem

families in targeted neighborhoods and serves as a vehicle for

information sharing and problemsolving at the neighborhood level.

The program led to a drop in violent crime in the targeted

neighborhoods.

Promoting Maturity and Respect for Life

Developmental issues associated with a lack of maturity can

contribute to youth violence. Young people seldom understand the

full impact of their behavior.38 This lack of awareness of

consequences coupled with a tendency to respond with violence can

be a lethal combination. Prevention strategies that help youth to

understand the impact of and take responsibility for their actions

and that demonstrate ways to handle problems without resorting to

violence can be highly effective.39 Such programs should be

available to high-risk youth between the fifth and sixth grades,

when violence-prone attitudes appear to increase and become

entrenched.

Research has shown that in addition to the environment of fear in

which many youth live, the culture of the illicit gun trade has

popularized firearms and made backing down from arguments and

"losing face" difficult for young people.40 Self-defense, the need

to show off, or the need to ensure respect and acquiescence from

others can also contribute to youth gun violence.41 Other studies

indicate that youth who respond aggressively to shame, who find

guns exciting, who feel comfortable with aggression, and who

believe that guns bring power and safety are most likely to engage

in gun violence.42 Thus, prevention programs that promote

self-esteem, respect for others, cultural pride, and nonviolent

conflict resolution can be an effective antidote to the culture of
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

violence.43 Adult programs focusing on parenting skills can

complement youth gun violence prevention programs. Classes on gun

violence and its impact on victims should be provided in juvenile

justice programs, schools, and community settings. 

Reducing Firearms Availability, Strengthening Regulations, and

Applying Technological Innovations

Safer gun design, regulation, product liability, increased sales

tax, firearm registration and licensure, background checks, and

ammunition modification are ways to reduce the dangers and

availability of guns.44 Stricter legislation and assault weapon and

illegal handgun bans are approaches almost unanimously suggested by

researchers as ways to limit the accessibility of guns to youth.45

The National Rifle Association also favors regulations relating to

the access and misuse of firearms by minors, particularly at the

State level.46 In addition to these States, all but three of the

States and Territories have code provisions relating to juvenile

possession of firearms.

An evaluation of the effectiveness of local gun laws and policies

shows that mandatory sentencing laws for felonies involving a

firearm have prevented gun-related violent crime.47 Restrictive

handgun laws also show indications of effectiveness.48 Other types

of laws have not been evaluated adequately to determine their

effectiveness.

Technological changes are an important approach to reducing both

youth gun violence and the extensive use of guns against their

owners. Low prices49 and innovations in firearm and ammunition

manufacturing50 further increase the lethal nature of youth gun

violence. Firearm design requirements are both technological and

legal interventions that can decrease accessibility of deadly

weapons by young people.

Preventing and Treating Drug Abuse 

Additional support for drug and alcohol prevention and treatment is

also an effective anti-violence strategy.51 Reducing the illicit

drug trade would reduce drug-related violence as well as

drug-induced violence. In addition, researchers have shown that a

reduction in the number of juveniles selling drugs is likely to

reduce the carrying of concealed weapons, particularly guns.52

The 1995 National Drug Control Strategy53 empowers communities to

respond to their own drug problem through initiatives such as

community policing and the Safe and Drug-Free School and

Communities Program. The Strategy seeks to reduce chronic, hardcore

drug use through treatment, including the support of drug courts,

substance abuse treatment in detention and secure confinement

facilities, and a Substance Abuse Performance Partnership, which

coordinates the activities of national substance abuse prevention

organizations. Finally, it places critical emphasis on source

countries, focusing on programs to achieve democratic institution
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

building, dismantling narcotics trafficking organizations, and

interdicting drugs.

OJJDP supports the implementation of the Congress of National Black

Churches' National Anti-Drug/Violence Campaign's (NADVC's)

Technical Assistance and Training Program. This program implements

national training and technical assistance designed to increase

public awareness and mobilize residents to address the problems of

drug abuse and related crimes in targeted communities throughout

the United States. It also works to summon, focus, and coordinate

church, public, and community leadership to launch local anti-drug

campaigns. This campaign is being implemented in 37 cities

involving 1,760 clergy and affecting about 500,000 members. NADVC

has helped the sites leverage over $13.4 million in direct funding

to local site anti-drug, anti-violence initiatives.

Through its Community Anti-Drug Abuse Technical Assistance Voucher

Project, OJJDP assists the National Center for Neighborhood

Enterprise (NCNE) to extend its outreach to community-based

grassroots organizations that are working to solve the problem of

juvenile drug abuse. The project has three goals:

o To allow various neighborhood groups to inexpensively purchase

needed services through the use of technical assistance vouchers

disbursed by NCNE.

o To demonstrate the cost-effective use of vouchers to help

neighborhood groups secure technical assistance for anti-drug abuse

projects to serve high-risk youth.

o To extend OJJDP technical assistance to groups that are

traditionally excluded because they lack the administrative

sophistication, technical and grantsmanship skills, and resources

to participate in traditional competitive grant programs.

NCNE provides support to community groups in developing and

implementing a strategy under DOJ's Operation Weed and Seed

program; functions as a clearinghouse for information on community

anti-drug prevention initiatives; and reviews technical assistance

applications to select up to 25 eligible community-based, anti-drug

programs for award vouchers. Vouchers, which range in value from

$1,000 to $10,000, can be used for planning, proposal writing,

program promotion, legal assistance, financial management, and

other activities. 

Selection of voucher awardees and amounts is determined by the

degree to which applicants meet the following criteria: not

previously funded by NCNE; lack of access to traditional funding

sources; need for technical assistance and training; small budget;

comprehensiveness of youth anti-drug programs; and clarity and

feasibility of strategies presented in the application to NCNE.

Building Community and Increasing Opportunity
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Youth gun and drug violence researchers agree that the strategies

suggested above should be accomplished by a broad coalition of

individuals and organizations.54 Crime control professionals,

public health and other health professionals, victims' families,

educators, lawmakers and criminologists, gun control groups,

community-based organizations, the elderly, the armed services, the

Federal Communications Commission, and the U.S. Civil Rights

Commission can all participate in advocating for the freedom of our

youth from gun, gang, and drug violence.

Youth who embrace the culture of violence are most likely to be

those who feel that they have no stake in society and no trust in

the adults who are supposed to provide them with safety and

guidance. Communities must address the culture of violence and lack

of opportunity and alternatives, reaching out to youth who feel

disenfranchised from the adult world and providing them with

positive opportunities.55 An effective strategy is one that

includes young people as a resource and provides legitimate

activities and opportunities for them.56 

Research has shown that high levels of poverty, high rates of

single-parent households, educational failure, and a widespread

sense of economic hopelessness exacerbate the cycle of fear or

diffusion phenomenon and increase the use of guns by young

people.57 Youth drug involvement, crime in neighborhoods, and

violence portrayed in the media are also factors contributing to

the use of guns by young people.58 Therefore, the Action Plan

endorses support and service systems for families and neighborhoods

that complement any intervention focused on the individual.

In the past decade, Knoxville, TN, along with many other cities,

experienced a growth in crime and drug-related problems in its

public housing communities. During this same time, communications

and liaison between the police department and the municipal housing

authority, the Knoxville Community Development Corporation (KCDC),

were unsatisfactory. Many field officers were unhappy with KCDC

because they felt the housing authority was not sufficiently

addressing crime. KCDC saw its role as limited to the housing

business and felt the police department should be the agency to

address all crime-related issues. 

Members of the police department and KCDC took action to become

involved in a citywide, multiagency committee to look at the city's

crime problem. From this group, members of the police department

and KCDC developed a strong working relationship and collaborated

to examine ways to reduce crime and improve the quality of life in

KCDC housing projects. 

Significant outcomes in KCDC housing projects have been produced

through Operation Safe Home, which is part of the broader

collaborative efforts of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) and DOJ. Drug dealing has been disrupted. Many

drug offenders have been evicted, making housing developments

safer. Fences have been installed. Shrubbery has been cut back to
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

reveal criminals' hiding places. Where there was little or poor

lighting, new high-pressure sodium lights have been installed, and

a general cleanup has taken place. Diversity training is being

provided to police department employees to help them gain a better

understanding of cultural differences and to facilitate the process

of community oriented policing. As a result of the drug abuse

prevention education initiatives and the progressive intervention

of the collaboration, violent crimes in Knoxville for 1993 were on

the decline.59

Implementing Comprehensive Curfew Initiatives

Communities are increasingly recognizing the importance of

integrating curfew legislation with youth services such as job

training and placement opportunities, individual and family

counseling programs, and youth development recreational programs,

in an effort to further reduce juvenile crime and victimization.

The curfew program in Phoenix, AZ, illustrates one city's

multifaceted response to juvenile curfew violations. A review of an

ineffective curfew ordinance enacted in 1968 led to the formation

of a partnership between the police department and the Parks,

Recreation, and Library Department. Curfew violators, detained by

police, are supervised by recreation specialists at the city's

gymnasiums. They are counseled and engaged in recreational

activities until parents arrive. An additional aspect of the

Phoenix curfew program involves targeting juvenile curfew violators

who are also gang members. They, too, are counseled and exposed to

positive alternatives to gang affiliation. Some curfew offenders

receive followup care to determine if further support services are

needed. These curfew programs have worked because other services,

such as recreation and parental counseling, are part of an

integrated strategy.

Federal Action Steps

Enhance Law Enforcement's Capacity To Respond to Juvenile Crime and

Drug Trafficking

Through its law enforcement and training contract, OJJDP will

provide training and technical assistance to help law enforcement

agencies improve their capabilities to respond to serious juvenile

crime and contribute more effectively to delinquency prevention. 

HUD will support agency efforts to combat drug trafficking in

public and Native American housing developments by encouraging

housing authorities to address drug-related activities, reimbursing

local law enforcement agencies, enhancing security in housing

developments, and providing social services to residents. 

ATF's Project Uptown will address the problem of armed gangs and

armed narcotics trafficking in public housing. The New York City

Uptown initiative involves the concentration of enforcement

resources by ATF, the New York Housing Authority Police Department,
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

and the Office of the U.S. Attorney in selected public housing

developments to reduce gang-related violence.

With experience gained through Project Uptown, ATF, in cooperation

with HUD, developed a successful strategy and guidebook entitled

Addressing Violent Crime in Public Housing Developments,60 which it

will disseminate to interested individuals.

To enable the criminal justice system to react more effectively to

the problem of youth and drugs, NIJ will fund research to assess

the magnitude of youth gang involvement in drug trafficking.

Support Interagency Gun and Drug Interdiction and Suppression

Strategies

The Coordinating Council will support the Office of National Drug

Control Policy (ONDCP) in implementing its National Drug Control

Strategy to eradicate drug sources and reduce the demand for drugs.

BJA will establish and fund a national law enforcement organization

to provide training and administrative support to the Interstate

Firearms Trafficking Compact, composed of 14 States and the

District of Columbia, which works to eliminate illegal gun

trafficking and to improve the investigation and prosecution of

cases involving the criminal use of firearms. 

DOJ will support continuation of interagency partnerships that

promote comprehensive, community-based gun interdiction strategies

and will work with community organizations to ensure that schools,

public housing developments, and other high-priority settings are

free from gun violence.

ATF will implement the Violence Reduction Alliance (VRA), a

comprehensive, nationwide strategy to stop illegal firearms

trafficking. VRA will coordinate the resources of Federal, State,

and local law enforcement to combat and prosecute violent criminals

and also target for prosecution illegal firearms traffickers who

supply firearms to violent criminals. Through VRA, ATF will provide

support to investigative efforts with Project LEAD, the illegal

firearms trafficking data base, and ATF's National Firearms Tracing

Center.

BJA will document promising suppression and interdiction strategies

to assist other jurisdictions that wish to implement such

approaches. 

BJA and OJJDP will provide funds to assist State and local

jurisdictions to develop and implement new or enhanced strategies

to prevent the illegal possession and use of firearms by youth.

Get Guns Out of Schools

The Department of Education (ED) will provide guidance to local

schools and law enforcement agencies to implement the Gun-Free
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Schools Act of 1994, 8 U.S.C. Section 14601. The law requires

States that receive Federal elementary and secondary education

funds to require school districts to expel for at least 1 year any

student who brings a gun to school, subject to certain exceptions.

The law also requires local education agencies that receive Federal

funding to adopt a mandatory policy of referring students who bring

firearms or other weapons to school to law enforcement agencies.

ED will work with OJJDP to support alternative education programs

to keep youth expelled for weapons violations off the streets.

ATF will continue to trace all firearms recovered from juveniles at

school or at the scene of a crime through the juvenile firearms

tracing initiative operating at the National Tracing Center. When

warranted, ATF will investigate and recommend to the local U.S.

Attorney's Office for prosecution those individuals found to be

providing firearms illegally to juveniles. ATF will also analyze

the juvenile firearms trace data to determine trends in armed

juvenile crime and frequent sources of firearms for juveniles. This

program will permit Federal law enforcement to more accurately

gauge the extent of firearms in schools and to direct limited

Federal prosecution resources in the most effective manner.

Support U.S. Attorneys' Efforts To Advance Local Anti-Crime

Initiatives

U.S. Attorneys' offices in each Federal Judicial District will work

with Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to

identify, target, and investigate individuals who engage in illegal

trafficking, sales, possession, or use of firearms. Prosecution

will be vigorously pursued through the Federal and State courts.

Each office will implement the following strategies to support

State and local efforts to get guns out of the hands of young

people: 

o Enforce laws and prosecute violators in order to disrupt the

illegal gun trade.

o Work with State and local officials to enhance enforcement of

laws concerning illegal trafficking in firearms and the use of guns

to commit crimes.

o Provide encouragement to State and local agencies to trace guns

seized from juveniles through ATF's juvenile firearms tracing

program.

o Launch targeted enforcement efforts related to juveniles'

involvement in firearms trafficking, sales, possession, or use.

o Actively participate in delinquency prevention efforts through

Operation Weed and Seed and other community-based initiatives.

o Use public outreach to promote increased personal responsibility

among youth concerning the use of guns.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Target Youth Gang Violence 

Federal agencies will increase their efforts to work cooperatively

at the national, State, and local levels to intervene in youth gang

activities. The agencies will use their particular areas of

expertise in a comprehensive effort to address the pervasive,

multifaceted problems of youth gangs and associated violence. DOJ

will provide leadership in implementing gang suppression and

intervention strategies, coordinating its efforts with the

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which has

traditionally focused on community-based prevention efforts.

In a key element of the DOJ strategy, U.S. Attorneys will work with

law enforcement agencies at the Federal, State, and local levels

through the operation of task forces to identify, apprehend, and

prosecute certain gang-involved juvenile offenders in Federal and

State courts. 

NIJ will fund research to examine the criminal behavior of gang

members, including motivation to join and remain in gangs, the role

of gang life in criminal activity, and involvement in the illegal

economy. In addition, NIJ will conduct research on the

effectiveness of special anti-gang legislation and gang prosecution

units. 

BJA, OJJDP, and HHS will coordinate, evaluate, and enhance their

gang prevention, intervention, and suppression activities. Research

will focus on identifying the prevalence and characteristics of

violent gangs; examining gang behavior; evaluating prevention and

intervention strategies; and analyzing the relationship among gang

participation, gang delinquency, and individual violence.

BJA will continue to support the Comprehensive Gang Initiative,

which provides funds to eight local jurisdictions including four

sites that participate in the Comprehensive Communities Program.

OJJDP will continue to support the Comprehensive Response

Initiative, including the activities of the National Youth Gang

Center, the five demonstration sites of the Gang Suppression

Intervention Program, the independent evaluation of this

demonstration effort, the provision of training and technical

assistance to these demonstration sites, and the targeted acquisition and dissemination of youth gang-related resources through the

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

OJJDP will expand the implementation of the comprehensive model

developed through the Gang Suppression and Intervention Program by

up to six additional demonstration sites, as part of OJJDP's SafeFutures program. These additional demonstration sites will also

benefit from the other components of the Comprehensive Response

Initiative.

OJJDP will establish a Gang Consortium, as part of OJJDP's
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Comprehensive Response Initiative, to facilitate and expand ongoing

coordination and enhance youth gang prevention, intervention, and

suppression policies and activities, including information exchange

and technical assistance services of the many Federal agencies with

program emphasis on youth gangs and related problems.

OJJDP will continue to support research of various gangs and gangrelated issues. OJJDP will also continue to support the expansion

of the Boys & Girls Clubs' Targeted Outreach Program to over 30

more sites, which will serve more than 1,500 additional high-risk

and gang-involved youth.

HHS' Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) has awarded six grants

to implement action plans developed through the Youth Gang Drug

Prevention Program. In FY 1994, FYSB awarded 21 grants under this

program to develop 5-year action plans to transform the

environment, circumstances, and attitudes that put youth at risk

for unhealthy behaviors. The grantees were required to work closely

with youth, parents, community-based organizations, police

departments, schools, churches, and local businesses to determine

the most critical developmental needs of youth, identify gaps in

services, and support schools, health systems, and other agencies

in collaborative efforts to serve youth.

Advance Youth-Focused Community Oriented Policing

In a joint effort, DOJ's Community Oriented Policing Service

Office, the Community Relations Service, and OJJDP will develop a

Youth-Focused Community Oriented Policing Initiative designed to

assist up to 31 communities in implementing effective community

oriented policing strategies that focus on juvenile crime,

disorder, and related community problems. 

Although each program implemented will focus on a different set of

problems within the community, a set of similar activities will be

undertaken to:

o Involve the community and youth in problem identification and

resolution.

o Enhance law enforcement in the community.

o Increase information sharing among key agencies, organizations,

and the community.

o Enhance linkages and cooperation among community agencies and

organizations.

o Provide a common framework for decisionmaking and a comprehensive

interdisciplinary approach to problemsolving.

o Focus on prevention as well as intervention for delinquent and

at-risk youth.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

A youth-focused community oriented policing training and technical

assistance package based on these principles will be developed.

Provide Information on Curfew Programs for Juveniles

In response to heightened concern among community residents as a

result of increased violent juvenile crime and victimization, many

jurisdictions have sought various means to protect themselves and

the community at large while addressing the need to reduce the

incidence of such crime and victimization. One method that has

gained widespread use and attention is juvenile curfew ordinances.

In order to help jurisdictions better understand curfews and the

surrounding controversy, the elements of effective curfew

ordinances, and their accompanying enforcement programs, OJJDP is

developing a summary document designed to assist jurisdictions

interested in establishing a juvenile curfew ordinance and

enforcement program.

The document will describe the two-pronged strict scrutiny test

some jurisdictions have addressed and satisfied for a curfew law or

ordinance to be valid on Constitutional grounds. Up to seven curfew

ordinances and their community-based curfew enforcement programs

will be highlighted with information on resources, organizations,

and jurisdictional contacts provided.

Disseminate Information on Model Youth Handgun Legislation and

Strategies for Reducing Gun Violence

Pursuant to the Youth Handgun Safety Act, OJJDP funded the National

Criminal Justice Association to survey State handgun laws and

ordinances and convene a broad-based group of experts to develop a

draft model youth handgun law, with commentary, for the Attorney

General's consideration in formulating a proposed Model Code.

Following the submission of the Model Code to Congress, DOJ will

work with governors, attorneys general, and State legislators to

encourage consideration and adoption of youth handgun legislation

in all States and U.S. Territories.

To support community efforts to curb youth gun violence, OJJDP will

also disseminate a directory of effective anti-gun programs. The

directory will contain a summary of current research on youth gun

violence, legislation, and contact information for organizations

working to address this issue. 

In addition, OJJDP will develop a guide to implementing promising

strategies to reduce youth gun violence based upon site assessments

of innovative programs by the International Association of Chiefs

of Police. Working with ED, OJJDP will broadly disseminate this

information to U.S. Attorneys, chiefs of police, education

organizations, juvenile justice specialists, and other agencies and

individuals. 

The National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) will

provide information on youth violence and guns to agencies,
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

organizations, and individuals. This service will bridge the gap

between criminal justice and public health research by synthesizing

and integrating existing research and cataloging ongoing projects

in these areas. In addition to providing an automated data base of

criminal and juvenile justice firearms research, NCJRS provides

specialized support services to assist clearinghouse users.

Provide Research on the Efficacy of Drug Abuse Prevention and

Treatment Models

NIJ will support a project to develop a comprehensive analysis of

drug treatment methods and programs for both juvenile and adult

offenders.

Promote the Development of Juvenile Drug Courts

DOJ, through the Office of Justice Programs Drug Court Office, will

provide grants to local governments to establish and operate drug

court programs, including juvenile drug courts, that provide

judicial supervision over nonviolent offenders with substance abuse

problems. Drug court programs typically include mandatory, periodic

drug testing; substance abuse treatment; diversion, probation, and

other types of supervised release; and offender management and

aftercare services. In addition, NIJ will continue to fund research

to evaluate the effectiveness of drug court programs.

Support Community Efforts To Prevent Substance Abuse and Help Youth

Resist Pressure To Use Drugs

The HHS Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) will provide

Federal leadership in promoting the development of comprehensive,

long-range, multidisciplinary, communitywide programs to address

alcohol and other drug use prevention through the Community

Partnership demonstration program. This program supports the

development of coalitions or partnerships comprising public and

private organizations, agencies, and institutions to identify the

needs and service gaps in each community, to establish priorities,

to coordinate new and established prevention programs in the

community, and to help public and private organizations promote and

support drug abuse prevention programs.

CSAP will also support the High-Risk Youth Demonstration

Program,61 which seeks to counteract factors that place a child at

risk for using alcohol, tobacco, or illegal drugs. Projects funded

through this initiative will focus on three specific areas:

o Decreasing the incidence and prevalence of alcohol and other drug

use among high-risk youth.

o Identifying and reducing factors in the individual, parents,

extended family, school, peer group, and neighborhoods that place

youth at risk for using alcohol and other drugs.

o Increasing youth resiliency as a way to counter peer pressure to
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

use alcohol and other drugs.

CSAP will disseminate a directory of Federal programs that make

grants to States, communities, and private agencies for drug abuse

prevention and intervention activities. The directory describes the

Federal grantmaking process, provides a catalog of applicable

Federal grants and other funding programs, and includes information

on additional Federal and private resources. 

ONDCP will promote Federal agency partnerships with State,

community, and national substance abuse prevention organizations to

establish a united front against drug abuse.

Advance Technological Interventions To Reduce Gun Violence

Through its Science and Technology Division, NIJ is working to

identify technologies to aid law enforcement in preventing the

illegal acquisition and use of firearms. NIJ will continue to fund

demonstration projects to assist in designing guns that are harder

to conceal and have trigger safeties, fingerprint identification,

and loading indicators. 

ATF will explore and expand the investigative application of

canines in firearms detection. This application was discovered as

a result of training methodologies and protocols designed and

developed by ATF for canines in explosives detection. ATF has

instituted a program that uses its own canine team to detect

explosives or firearms, recover evidence, and present

demonstrations. Efforts are also under way to make this program

available to State and local law enforcement.

NIJ will support the publication of Smart Gun Technology

Requirements: A Preliminary Report. The primary purpose of the

report is to state the requirements for a smart gun technology that

would limit the use of firearms to authorized users. The secondary

purpose of the report is technology transfer. For this report,

Sandia National Laboratories has collected information from law

enforcement agencies, firearm manufacturers, and others. In

addition, NIJ will sponsor technology development to create a

concealed weapon detection system.

Suggestions for State and Local Action 

o Seize firearms from juvenile offenders in school and ensure that

firearms information is submitted to ATF for tracing.

o Develop appropriate intervention programs for youth who bring

guns to schools.

o Develop a broad-based, multi-disciplinary strategy to inform

youth about the dangers of using firearms, prevent them from

illegally possessing firearms, and rigorously enforce existing

firearms laws as they relate to youth.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

o Review existing State firearms statutes in light of the Youth

Handgun Safety Act and DOJ's Model Code, and make appropriate

revisions to eliminate illegal handgun possession and use by youth.

o Initiate interagency law enforcement efforts to develop

comprehensive gun prevention, intervention, and suppression

strategies such as gun buy-back programs.

o Involve youth in planning and implementing youth-focused

community oriented policing programs. 

o Consider using juvenile curfew laws and related programs as one

element of a comprehensive approach to reducing juvenile violence

and victimization.

o Promote community-based collaborative efforts to assess community

gun, gang, and drug problems; develop appropriate suppression,

intervention, and prevention strategies; and mobilize community

resources.

o Establish juvenile drug courts or sessions as a community

resource to address youth substance abuse.

o Establish, support, and enforce drug-free and gun-free zones.

o Teach youth about the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse and help

youth develop positive social skills.

------------------------------

Endnotes

1. American Psychological Association. 1993. Violence and Youth:

Psychology's Response. Washington, D.C.

Howell, J.C. 1994 (October). Recent gang research: Program and

policy implications. Crime and Delinquency 40(4):495-515.

Zimring, F.E. 1986. Gun control. Bulletin of the New York Academy

of Medicine 62:615-621.

2. Snyder, H., and M. Sickmund. 1995 (August). Juvenile Offenders

and Victims: A National Report. Washington, D.C.: Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of

Justice.

3. Ibid.

4. Jones, M.A., and B. Krisberg. 1994. Images and Reality: Juvenile

Crime, Youth Violence, and Public Policy. San Francisco, Calif.:

National Council on Crime and Delinquency. 

5. Allen-Hagen, B., M. Sickmund, and H. Snyder. 1994 (November).

Juveniles and Violence: Juvenile Offending and Victimization. Fact
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Sheet #19. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

6. Callahan, C.M., and F.P. Rivera. 1992. Urban high school youth

and handguns: A school-based survey. Journal of the American

Medical Association 267(22):3038-3042. 

Lizotte, A.J., et al. 1994 (March). Patterns of adolescent firearms

ownership and use. Justice Quarterly 11(1):51-74.

A Survey of Experiences, Perceptions, and Apprehensions About Guns

Among Young People in America. 1993. New York, N.Y.: Louis Harris

and Associates, Inc., and LH Research, Inc.

Webster, D.W., P.S. Gainer, and H.R. Champion. 1993 (November).

Weapon-carrying among inner-city junior high school students:

Defensive behavior vs. aggressive delinquency. American Journal of

Public Health 83(11):1604-1608.

7. Huizinga, D., et al. 1994. Urban Delinquency and Substance

Abuse. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

8. American Psychological Association, 1993.

9. Blumstein, A. 1994. Youth, Violence, Guns, and the Illicit-Drug

Industry. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Carnegie Mellon University.

10. Fagan, J. 1995. What Do We Know About Gun Use Among

Adolescents? Boulder, Colo.: Center for the Study and Prevention of

Violence, University of Colorado.

11. Louis Harris and Associates, Inc., 1993.

12. Van Kammen, W., and R. Loeber. 1994. Delinquency, Drug Use and

the Onset of Adolescent Drug Dealing. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University

of Pittsburgh.

13. Krisberg, B., R. DeComo, and N.C. Herrera. 1992. National

Juvenile Custody Trends: 1978-1989. Washington, D.C.: Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of

Justice.

14. 1994 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. 1995. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

15. Spergel, I. 1995. The Youth Gang Problem: A Community Approach.

New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.

16. Tatem-Kelley, B. 1994 (July). A Comprehensive Strategy To

Address America's Gang Problem. Washington, D.C.: Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of

Justice.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

17. Spergel, 1995.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. Sheley, J.F., and J.D. Wright. 1992 (June). Youth, Guns, and

Violence in Urban America (paper presented at the National

Conference on Prosecution Strategies Against Armed Criminals and

Gang Violence: Federal, State, and Local Coordination, San Diego,

Calif.). Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S.

Department of Justice.

21. Quinn, J.F., and B. Downs. 1995 (Spring). Predictors of gang

violence: The impact of drugs and guns on police perceptions in

nine States. Journal of Gang Research 2(3):15-27.

22. Maxson, C.L., M.A. Gordon, and M.W. Klein. 1985. Differences

between gang and nongang homicides. Criminology 23(2):209-222.

23. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1991.

Weapon-carrying among high school students: United States, 1990.

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 40(40):681-684.

Blumstein, 1994.

24. Kennedy, D.M. 1994. Can We Keep Guns Away from Kids? Cambridge,

Mass.: Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, John F.

Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

25. Sherman, L.W., J.W. Shaw, and D.P. Rogan. 1995 (January). The

Kansas City Gun Experiment. Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.:

National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

26. Ibid.

27. Achilles Program. 1995 (September). Washington, D.C.: Firearms

Enforcement Division, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms,

U.S. Department of the Treasury.

28. Spergel, 1995.

29. Tatem-Kelley, 1994.

30. Feyerherm, W., C. Pope, and R. Lovell. 1992 (December). Youth

Gang Prevention and Early Intervention Programs. Final Research

Report. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

31. Delinquency Prevention Works. 1995 (May). Washington, D.C.:

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.

Department of Justice.

32. Ibid.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

33. Urban Street Gang Enforcement Operations Manual. Forthcoming.

Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of

Justice.

34. Elliott, D.S. 1994. Youth Violence: An Overview. Boulder,

Colo.: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, University

of Colorado.

35. Butterfield, G.E., and J.L. Arnette, eds. 1989. Weapons in

Schools. Malibu, Calif.: National School Safety Center.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1991.

Fagan, 1995.

Kennedy, 1994.

Sheley, J.F., and J.D. Wright. 1993 (December). Gun Acquisition and

Possession in Selected Juvenile Samples. Research in Brief.

Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice and Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of

Justice.

36. Fingerhut, L.A., et al. 1991. Firearm mortality among children,

youth, and young adults 1-34 years of age, trends, and current

status: United States 1979-1988. Monthly Vital Statistics Report

(39)11-27.

37. Butterfield and Arnette, 1989.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1991.

Fagan, 1995.

Kennedy, 1994.

Sheley and Wright, 1993.

38. Pacific Center for Violence Prevention. 1994. Preventing Youth

Violence: Reducing Access to Firearms. San Francisco. Calif.

39. Shapiro, J.P., et al. 1993. Attitudes Toward Guns and Violence

in Third- Through Twelfth-Grade Youth. Cleveland, Ohio: The

Guidance Center.

40. Fagan, 1995.

41. Elliott, 1994.

42. Shapiro et al., 1993.

43. Henkoff, R. 1992 (August). Kids are killing, dying, bleeding.

Fortune 126(3):62-69.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

44. American Academy of Pediatrics. 1989. Report of a Forum on

Firearms and Children. Elk Grove, Ill.

Christoffel, K.K. 1991. Toward reducing pediatric injuries from

firearms: Charting legislative and regulatory course. Pediatrics

88(2):294-305.

Sugarmann, J., and K. Rand. 1994. Cease fire. Rolling Stone 677:30-

42.

45. American Academy of Pediatrics, 1989. 

Christoffel, 1991. 

Fingerhut et al., 1991.

Henkoff, 1992.

Kennedy, 1994.

Lawyers Committee on Violence. 1994. Gun Violence in New York City:

Problems and Solutions. New York, N.Y.: Lawyers Committee on

Violence, Inc.

Pacific Center for Violence Prevention, 1994.

Smith, D., and B. Lautman. 1990. A Generation Under the Gun: A

Statistical Analysis of Youth Firearm Murder in America.

Washington, D.C.: Center to Prevent Handgun Violence.

46. Blackman, P.H. 1994. Children and Guns: The NRA's Perception of

the Problems and Its Policy Implications (paper presented at the

American Society of Criminology in Miami, Fla., on November 9-12,

1994).

47. Howell, J.C., ed. 1995 (May). Guide for Implementing the

Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile

Offenders. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

48. Elliott, 1994.

Loftin, C., et al. 1991. Effects of restrictive licensing of

handguns on homicide and suicide in the District of Columbia. New

England Journal of Medicine 325(23):1615-1620.

49. Pacific Center for Violence Prevention, 1994.

50. Jones and Krisberg, 1994.

51. American Psychological Association, 1993.

Blumstein, 1994.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

52. Van Kammen and Loeber, 1994.

53. Office of National Drug Control Policy. 1995 (February).

National Drug Control Strategy 1995: Strengthening Communities'

Response to Drugs and Crime. Washington, D.C.: Office of the

President.

54. Advocacy Institute. 1994. Toward a Gun-Safe Society: Movement

Building Strategies. Washington, D.C.: American Academy of

Pediatrics.

American Academy of Pediatrics, 1989.

American Psychological Association, 1993.

Becker, T.M., L. Olson, and J. Vick. 1993 (February). Children and

firearms: A gunshot injury prevention program in New Mexico.

American Journal of Public Health 83(2):282-283.

Price, J.H., S.M. Desmond, and D. Smith. 1991 (August). A

preliminary investigation of inner-city adolescents' perceptions of

guns. Journal of School Health 61(6):255-259.

Smith and Lautman, 1990.

Sugarmann and Rand, 1994.

Treanor, W.W., and M. Bijlefeld. 1989. Kids and Guns: A Child

Safety Scandal. Washington, D.C.: American Youth Work Center and

Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence.

55. Ruttenberg, H. 1994 (May). The limited promise of public health

methodologies to prevent youth violence. The Yale Law Journal

103:1885.

Sheley, J.F., J.D. Wright, and Z.T. McGee. 1992 (June). Gun-related

violence in and around inner-city schools. American Journal of

Diseases of Children 146(6):677-682.

56. Blumstein, 1994.

57. Ibid.

Howell, 1994.

Pacific Center for Violence Prevention, 1994.

58. Howell, 1994.

Pacific Center for Violence Prevention, 1994.

59. Roehl, J., G. Capowich, and R. Llaneras. 1991 (May). National

Evaluation of the Systems Approach to Community Crime and Drug
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Prevention. Unpublished. Arlington, Va.: Institute of Social

Analysis.

60. Addressing Violent Crime in Public Housing Developments. 1994.

Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, U.S.

Department of the Treasury, and U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development.

61. The Community Partnership Demonstration Program and the HighRisk Youth Demonstration Program will be subsumed under the

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

demonstration cluster as of FY 1996.

------------------------------

4. Provide Opportunities for Children and Youth

Overview

What future do children envision for themselves? What opportunities

are presented to them as they grow up? Many children grow up amid

poverty, violence, and illness. They see their families, friends,

and communities suffering from the effects of alcoholism,

unemployment, incarceration, AIDS, or a lack of educational

opportunities. Many children, however, are resilient and manage to

succeed despite a negative environment. Although not all children

are faced with adverse circumstances, our Nation's well-being

requires that every child in every community be guaranteed the

opportunity to reach his or her full potential.

Providing children with the opportunity to develop positive

behaviors is the foundation of most efforts to prevent youth crime

and violence. For nearly three decades, educators, policymakers,

and criminal justice professionals have sought effective crime

prevention strategies. Although some communities are experiencing

success, the country is plagued with escalating juvenile violence,

which has compelled policymakers to turn their attention from

prevention to "get tough" approaches. But we know now what works.

Effective strategies include comprehensive approaches that provide

opportunities for education, mentoring, conflict resolution

training, and safety; engage youth and their families; and are

community-based and integrated.1

This section of the Action Plan emphasizes the importance of

enhancing delinquency prevention efforts and coordinating them

throughout the community. It focuses on what we know about factors

that put youth at risk of becoming delinquent or serious and

violent offenders as well as those that protect youth. It

encourages communities to take steps to reduce characteristics that

contribute to delinquency while strengthening characteristics that

nurture youth. This section emphasizes the importance of truancy

reduction and safe school programs and illustrates the Coordinating

Council's strong support of youth involvement in community crime

and violence prevention strategies. The section concludes that
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

positive youth skill building, through mentoring, conflict

resolution, and community service, can work to prevent or reduce

juvenile delinquency and serious juvenile violence, especially when

coordinated with broader communitywide efforts. 

Current Status and Analysis of the Problem

Most adolescents are on a healthy path to productive adult lives.

There is evidence, however, that 25 percent of adolescents are at

significant risk of veering off that path because they frequently

engage in behaviors with negative consequences, such as alcohol or

other drug abuse, unprotected sexual activity, delinquency, or

violence. Another 25 percent of adolescents, who engage in fewer of

these behaviors, are at moderate risk.2

A 1992 study conducted by the Carnegie Foundation determined that

only 60 percent of an adolescent's nonsleeping time is taken up by

school, homework, chores, meals, or employment. Many adolescents

spend the remaining 40 percent of their nonsleeping time alone,

with peers without adult supervision, or with adults who might

negatively influence their behavior.3 A recent study found that 27

percent of eighth graders spent 2 or more hours alone after school

and that low-income youth were more likely than others to be home

alone for 3 or more hours.4 It is not surprising, therefore, that

most violent crimes committed by juveniles take place at the close

of the school day, when fewer opportunities for constructive

activities are available. 

In recent years, the capacity of America's low-income rural and

urban communities to provide critical positive activities or

environments has declined. Public schools in many areas have

deteriorated, and the quality of public education has been

compromised. City parks and recreation centers are in disrepair,

and financial support for youth facilities and programs has

decreased,5 leaving high-risk environments for youth.

The demand for an immediate solution to this problem, which

commands considerable public attention, has been compounded by a

historical impatience with prevention strategies in which results

may be long in coming and benefits--that is, crimes not committed--

are extremely difficult to measure. The good news, however, is that

three decades of seeking effective prevention strategies finally

have netted results.

The public health model has been particularly useful in developing

a strong scientific process and assessment of prevention

activities. 

Risk Factors for Delinquency

Some youth lack healthy parental guidance and monitoring. Some

youth have cognitive and psychological deficits that make social

and academic success difficult. Some attend disorganized and

disruptive schools and fail to engage in academic pursuits. Some
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

live in chaotic neighborhoods with few resources or outlets for

positive social activities. Some are excluded from prosocial peer

groups and have few, if any, wholesome friends.

These risk factors, particularly when several are present, increase

the likelihood of delinquency and violence. Conditions such as

maltreatment or neglect by family members and others, a community

with a large population of delinquent juveniles and gangs, ready

access to drugs and guns, and an unsafe school increase the chance

that a youth will make unhealthy or unlawful choices.

The study of Causes and Correlates of Delinquency, sponsored by the

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP),6

found the influence of peers and parents to be strong risk factors

in the causes of delinquency. 

Protective Factors

Some youth who experience child abuse, neglect, poverty, poor

health, or other risk factors do not become juvenile delinquents,

school drop-outs, or teenage parents. These youth have the benefit

of a combination of protective factors that help guide them in

making healthy choices.

A resilient temperament and the development of close relationships

with parents and other role models who provide encouragement,

healthy beliefs, and clear standards of behavior offer protection

from negative environmental influences.7 In general, healthy youth

have resources in their families and communities that help them

control their behavior and provide them with the skills and

opportunities to be successful. Often referred to as protective

factors, these resources reduce the chance that youth will become

involved in serious delinquency.

Prevention strategies seek to reduce existing risk factors and

provide protective factors that are missing from a youth's

environment. In many ways, prevention strategies attempt to provide

for at-risk children what effective parents and communities provide

in the natural course of youth development. The most effective

prevention strategies attend to family and community deficits over

a sustained period of time.

The Social Development Strategy suggests that opportunities,

skills, and recognition lead to healthy behaviors. The underlying

theme of this strategy is to reduce risk factors and increase

protective factors in the lives of at-risk children. The

identification of risk factors and protective factors has been an

important step in prevention, assisting educators and practitioners

in developing more effective programs for youth. 

Experts studying the impact of cultural influences on youth believe

that conditions such as poverty, unemployment, discrimination, poor

health, poor education, and despair lay the foundation for alcohol

and other drug-related problems. These conditions must be
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

alleviated. Risk factor research has become more comprehensive and

now includes the following domains: individual, family, school,

peer group, and community. Protective factor research, however, has

primarily identified strategies that focus on the individual.

Although it is important to focus on increasing skills or abilities

of the individual, it is equally imperative to focus on changing

and improving social systems that create these conditions. The

following elements increase the likelihood of successful change:

o Protective factors in the family, including having parents who

demonstrate love and caring for their children, who are involved in

their children's activities, and who monitor and supervise their

children's behaviors. Other family-oriented protective factors

include family stability and adequate financial resources.

o Positive personal attributes such as intelligence, a steady

disposition, social skills (including the ability to solve problems

without resorting to violence), and a conventional belief system.

o Schools that positively shape behavior of young children and

teenagers due to strong policies on violence and drugs. Teachers

who care about students and demonstrate concern for their students'

social and academic growth also help to ensure successful

development. When youth are prepared for school, succeed in school,

and are committed to the education system, they are less likely to

become delinquents.

o Communities that provide opportunities and social controls.

Communities that exhibit a high level of organization and

cooperation, with neighbors working together to meet common

objectives, channel youth behavior toward positive outcomes. For

example, communities with active PTA's, afterschool activities,

churches and religious organizations, and youth social clubs help

to protect youth from the temptations and hazards that exist in

society.

o Youth participation in and acceptance by prosocial peer groups.

Peer influence is particularly important during adolescence. 

o Adult supervision of and involvement in youth peer group

activities, to provide added protection against developing

delinquent behavior.

Cumulative Impact of Protective Factors

Healthy growth and development are most likely to occur when

protective factors are sustained throughout these areas of

influence. A nurturing family, positive friendships, a good

education, and career opportunities combine as important factors to

ensure positive outcomes for youth, not only in preventing

delinquency but also in preventing substance abuse, violent

behavior, teenage pregnancy, and school dropout. Parents should

attempt to provide their children with this constellation of

protective factors continuously over the course of their
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

development.

Comprehensive Delinquency Prevention

The best delinquency prevention strategies are comprehensive,

reducing risk and developing protective factors in each child and

in families, schools, communities, and peers. Researchers have

found that collective strategies with multiple protective programs,

rather than those that address single risk factors, have a sizable

impact on reducing delinquency.8 Activities that take place under

one roof in the community and that reflect the cultural values of

participants are more likely to engage the individuals they are

meant to serve. This means that to effectively reduce youth

violence, strategies must engage the entire spectrum of systems and

individuals impacting a young person's life. 

Serious delinquency and youth violence are most likely to occur in

youth exposed to multiple risk factors, multiple deficits of

protective factors, and multiple concurrent problem behaviors.

Consequently, prevention strategies need to deal simultaneously

with a host of problems and require comprehensive strategies.

Moreover, because risk factors and concurrent problem behaviors

tend to interact with one another, it is important that prevention

strategies deal with all of these factors in an integrated fashion.

This recommendation is consistent with what we know about resilient

youth. Even high-risk youth can avoid involvement in delinquency if

they experience many protective factors.9

Improving education and youth employment opportunities, enhancing

social skills, and providing youth with mentors and adult role

models are essential components of delinquency prevention. Three

decades of research indicate that increased opportunities for

success, meaningful activities, positive role models, consistent

moral standards, and viable educational and employment

opportunities have a prominent place in the Nation's crime control

strategy.

Decades of research also demonstrate that delinquency prevention is

cost effective. According to one conservative estimate, the average

cost of incarcerating a juvenile for 1 year is close to $34,000.10

Others put the figure between $35,000 and $64,000.11 In addition,

the total cost of a young adult's (ages 18 to 23) serious, violent

criminal career is estimated to be $1.1 million.12 In contrast, the

current cost of Head Start's intervention program, which is

effective in developing school readiness skills among high-risk

children and reduction in later delinquency, is $4,300 per year per

child. Similarly, a delinquency prevention program in California

produced a direct savings to law enforcement and the juvenile

justice system of $1.40 for every $1 spent on prevention.13

Effective and Promising Strategies and Programs

Delinquency Prevention Works
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

We know that there are effective programs that reduce delinquency

and show promise for stemming the rising tide of delinquency and

youth violence. Materials on this research published by OJJDP and

others summarize much of the treatment and evaluation literature

and identify model programs that are worthy of replication. Among

the best of these reports are those of Lipsey,14 Tolan and

Guerra,15 Howell,16 Thornberry,17 and Mendel.18

Truancy Reduction

Too many of America's young people attend school on an irregular

basis, resulting in their failure to gain a solid foundation of

basic academic skills. These young people have not yet officially

dropped out of school and they are not on an extended absence due

to illness. They are truants--at risk of academic failure and

dropping out of school at age 16, or earlier, and never obtaining

the skills necessary to become contributing members of society.

Truancy has been rated among the top 10 problems facing schools,

with the daily absentee rate as high as 30 percent in some cities.

As a number of studies have documented,19 high rates of truancy are

linked to high daytime burglary rates and vandalism. Truancy is not

a problem restricted to the education and law enforcement

communities. It has an even more important impact on the truant's

ability to learn, develop interpersonal relationships, and

ultimately complete school and gain the knowledge and skills

necessary for higher education and/or future employment. In order

to comprehensively address the truancy problem, a range of

interested parties must join together to coordinate a response.

These parties include schools, law enforcement agencies, parents,

businesses, judicial and social services agencies, and community

and youth organizations.

Communities have a responsibility to provide an appropriate

education for all youth in a disciplined, safe, and secure

environment. Yet school systems are frequently presented with

students who have specific instructional and/or social problems

that make it difficult to achieve in the regular school environment

with a traditional curriculum. A host of problems from the home and

the community emerge in the classroom and require special handling.

Teachers may observe signs of hunger, child abuse, neglect, alcohol

or other drug abuse, learning disabilities, developmental problems,

socialization problems, behavior disorders, gang involvement, and

a general lack of school readiness.

In order to provide prevention and early intervention for youth at

risk of truancy, as well as youth who are truant, the school system

needs the active support and participation of parents, students,

the community, law enforcement, and businesses. A number of

jurisdictions across the country have truancy prevention and

intervention programs that are collaborative initiatives, and they

are listed in the National School Safety Center publication

Increasing Student Attendance.20 In addition, the National Council

of Juvenile and Family Court Judges' (NCJFCJ) report, A New

Approach to Runaway, Truant, Substance Abusing and Beyond Control
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Children,21 describes innovative processes and approaches that

individual communities might adopt to more adequately address this

population of youth. NCJFCJ has also updated its Disposition

Resource Manual22 that informs judges and juvenile court personnel

about various programs that hold promise or have proven positive

results. Within the Manual, several programs are provided that

address the problem of truancy.

Truancy reduction programs are having positive effects on both

school attendance and juvenile crime. A truancy reduction pro-gram

in the Oklahoma City public school system reported a steady decline

in the dropout rate from 5.9 percent to 4.1 percent during the

1991-92 school year.23 The Truancy Habits Reduced, Increasing

Valuable Education (THRIVE) program is a partnership between the

school system and law enforcement to reduce truancy and crime

during school hours. Law enforcement officers bring in juveniles

who are out of school without an excuse and notify parents who must

pick up their children. If parents cannot be located, juveniles are

sent to the Oklahoma County Youth Services Agency until they can be

picked up.

Another truancy prevention program impacting elementary and middle

school attendance and disciplinary referrals is Self Enhancement,

Inc. (SEI) of Portland, OR. SEI is a community-based organization

that began in 1981 and has served more than 12,000 inner-city

school students. The program offers classroom instruction,

extracurricular activities, cultural enrichment, career counseling,

and summer outreach for 450 high-risk children every year. SEI

staff work with participants in their schools, provide tutoring,

encourage academic excellence, and respond to crises in the school.

In addition, SEI sponsors field trips, sporting activities, and

afterschool supervision. A key component of the program is for

staff to work with families and help parents become more active in

preventing truancy. In 1994, SEI participants had improved school

attendance and disciplinary referrals dropped dramatically.

Students in elementary school raised their grades by 47 percent and

middle school students by 70 percent.24

Mentoring

Mentoring has been defined as a "sustained, close, developmental

relationship between an older, more experienced individual and a

younger person, with the goal of building character and competence

on the part of the prot‚g‚."25 Usually the relationship involves

regular contact over a sustained period of time and involves mutual

commitment, respect, and loyalty.

Mentoring has proved to be a valuable strategy for helping

disadvantaged youth. A mentoring relationship can enrich children's

lives, address the isolation of some youth from adult contact, and

provide support and advocacy for at-risk children. Research has

indicated that mentoring relationships can have a positive impact

on a youth's attitudes toward alcohol, tobacco, and drug use.26
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Other studies document the positive effects of cross-cultural

mentoring.27

Bigs in Blue is an innovative mentoring program developed by the

Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Warren County, NJ, that matches at-risk

youth with police officer mentors. They employ prevention and

intervention strategies to help youngsters from chaotic home

environments cope with peer pressure, succeed in school, receive

career guidance, and make sound life choices. Evaluations completed

by parents, volunteers, and youth indicate reductions in

delinquency and court involvement and improvement in school

attendance, behavior, and grades.28

Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago, IL, the largest public housing

development in the country, has implemented a Mentoring and Rites

of Passage program designed to assist adolescents in their

transition to adulthood. Mentors meet with groups of 10 to 15

youths of similar ages at least twice a week and address such areas

as self-concept, sexual identity and awareness, communications and

decisionmaking, and cultural heritage appreciation. Evaluations of

participants are conducted every 6 months to track their

interpretation of standard social interactions and situations,

self-reported violent behavior and self concept, hospital visits

related to violence, and calls to the police about violent events

in the housing project.

Conflict Resolution

Conflict resolution encompasses creative problemsolving strategies

in which parties in dispute collaborate by expressing their points

of view, voicing their interests, and finding mutually acceptable

solutions. Conflict resolution programs recognize that conflict is

natural and that people can learn new skills to deal with conflict

in appropriate, nonviolent ways. The programs appear to be most

effective when they are comprehensive and involve multiple

components such as moral reasoning, anger control, social skills

development, and collaborative problemsolving methods.

William DeJong, a lecturer at the Harvard School of Public Health,

reports in the 1994 fall issue of School Safety: "The best

school-based violence prevention programs seek to do more than

reach the individual child. They instead try to change the total

school environment, to create a safe community that lives by a

credo of nonviolence and multicultural appreciation."29 Effective

conflict resolution programs achieve the following goals:

o Enable children to respond nonviolently to conflict, using the

conflict resolution strategies of negotiation, mediation, and group

problemsolving.

o Develop educators' competence to manage behavior in school

without coercion, using a program that teaches students

responsibility and self-discipline.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

o Mobilize community involvement in violence prevention through

education programs and services, such as expanding the role of

youth as effective citizens beyond the school into the community.

Conflict resolution programs in schools generally fall into one of

three models: mediation, curriculum integration, or peaceable

schools. The peaceable schools model synthesizes the elements of

the first two models.

Recognizing the importance of directly involving youth in conflict

resolution, many school communities are employing peer mediation as

a violence prevention strategy. In these programs, specially

trained student mediators work with their peers to find resolutions

to conflicts. Mediation programs reduce the use of traditional

disciplinary actions such as suspension, detention, and expulsion;

encourage effective problemsolving; decrease the need for teacher

involvement in student conflicts; and improve school climate.

An example of a mediation program is We Can Work It Out, developed

by the National Institute for Citizen Education in the Law and the

National Crime Prevention Council. The program promotes mediation,

negotiation, or other nonlitigating methods as strategies to settle

unresolved confrontations and fighting. The program emphasizes the

importance of showing students that many of the problems that are

often taken to court might be solved more effectively through

cooperative methods, such as peer mediation.

In the curriculum integration approach, teachers deliver daily

lessons in conflict resolution, infuse conflict resolution concepts

and skills into core curriculum areas, and model effective conflict

resolution in their management of the classroom. Promoting

Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) is a curriculum integration

approach to conflict resolution for children from kindergarten

through sixth grade. It is designed to enhance the social

competence and understanding of elementary school children and to

facilitate educational processes such as self-control, emotional

awareness, and interpersonal problemsolving skills that are

integrated into the curriculum. An evaluation of PATHS shows that

the program is effective for both low- and high-risk children in

increasing management and understanding of emotional experiences.30

Peaceable school programs seek to create schools in which conflict

resolution has been integrated at every level. Ultimately, conflict

resolution skills are adopted by every member of the school

community, creating a school climate that encourages caring,

honesty, cooperation, and appreciation for diversity. Peaceable

school programs incorporate conflict resolution skills and

noncoercive school and classroom management strategies directly

into the classroom curriculum. Peaceable schools challenge youth

and adults to believe and act on the understanding that a

nonviolent, diverse society is a realistic goal.

In schools in New York and other cities, the Resolving Conflict

Creatively Program (RCCP) is implemented as a peaceable schools
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

model of conflict resolution. The RCCP approach requires schools to

participate in the curriculum for a year or more; in schools with

a strong core of teachers who regularly use the curriculum, the

student mediation program may be added. The RCCP approach to

conflict resolution integrates two primary components: the RCCP

elementary and secondary curriculum and the RCCP student mediation

program. A third component-- the parent training curriculum--

introduces RCCP principles into the home to send youth a consistent

message from parents and teachers, who thus reinforce each other on

this crucial issue.

Safe Schools and Safe Havens

Community schools and family centers provide youth with safe spaces

for productive alternatives to occupy out-of-school and weekend

time. They also provide a central space for integrating various

promising strategies and programs, such as mentoring, conflict

resolution, and employment training. These programs generally

provide a range of educational, recreational, and cultural

activities in a supervised environment with trained staff. 

For years Boys and Girls Clubs of America have been engaged in

comprehensive strategies to help their members build self-esteem,

acquire honest values, and pursue productive futures. These clubs

also work specifically to prevent gang involvement. Supported in

part by Federal funding, the clubs have developed partnerships with

corporations, private foundations, individuals, and government

agencies. According to a Columbia University study, Boys and Girls

Clubs have been effective in increasing rates of school attendance

and improving academic performance. In addition, Clubs in public

housing projects have reduced the juvenile crime rate by 13

percent.31 

Members of the Corporation for National Service's (CNS')AmeriCorps

program have established a Safe Corridors program in eight

elementary schools in Philadelphia. The program is designed to

ensure the safe passage of youth to and from school by using 80

parent volunteers who patrol the streets around the schools in the

mornings and afternoons. The volunteers design the program

structure, uniforms, and policies, and are responsible for

recruiting other parents to carry out the program. The Safe

Corridors program has been so successful in increasing safety that

the city is offering it as a model for statewide implementation.

In Seattle, WA, AmeriCorps members staff 7 Safe Haven sites that

provide an opportunity for 1,000 at-risk youth to participate in

workshops, tutoring and mentoring programs, and conflict resolution

sessions. The programs are designed to increase self-esteem,

provide educational opportunities, and reduce violent behavior.

National and Community Service Opportunities

CNS, established in 1993 to engage citizens of all ages and

backgrounds in community service, operates AmeriCorps and Learn and
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Serve America. AmeriCorps participants provide a year or two of

public service in exchange for education awards to finance college

or other educational training or to pay back student loans.

Volunteers have helped elementary school students improve their

reading skills and scores in Kentucky, patroled recreation areas in

New York City, assisted law enforcement and community members in

closing crack houses in Kansas City, and helped residents recover

from natural disasters in California and the Midwest.

Through the Learn and Serve America program, school-age youth serve

their communities by teaching younger students about violence

prevention; designing crime prevention and public safety exhibits

for local fairs; helping other youth to combat negative peer

pressure; eliminating graffiti in their communities; establishing

Junior Neighborhood Watch programs; and helping to identify

physical problems in the community, such as broken lighting,

overgrown foliage that blocks clear views of public places, and

run-down parks.

One example of an effective community-building program is the

Teens as Resources Against Drugs (TARAD) project, funded by the

Bureau of Justice Assistance. This youth-led prevention program

combats delinquency by inspiring teens to fight drug activity in

their communities. Teens in New York City, Evansville, IN, and

three South Carolina communities led the way in their schools and

neighborhoods by creating anti-drug messages on murals;

disseminating accurate facts about drugs and teaching their peers

healthy life choices; writing, choreographing, and producing plays

and puppet shows dramatizing the dangers of drug use; and

organizing community events such as fairs and substance-free New

Year's Eve parties. The teens report positive attitude changes

about drug use among their peers. Another measure of success is

that local agencies, groups, and organizations have assumed funding

of most of the programs.32

Federal Action Steps

Launch an Initiative To Address the Problem of Youth Outside the

Educational Mainstream

The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Education

(ED) will implement a joint initiative directed at youth who are in

danger of leaving or who have left the educational mainstream. The

initiative will heighten public awareness of this increasing

problem and identify effective and promising programs that are

finding solutions. It will provide assistance to selected

jurisdictions and sites to develop or enhance programs for youth

outside the educational mainstream, including youth who are truant,

dropouts, afraid to go to school, suspended, or expelled (for

example, for weapon possession), or need to be reintegrated into

the mainstream from the juvenile justice system. 

To help achieve the goals and objectives of this initiative, 4

regional forums and 10 training and technical assistance programs
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

will be held to address the needs of these youth. One component

will be a partnership between schools, law enforcement, and

juvenile and family court judges. Collaborative efforts will focus

on prevention, early intervention, and supportive services.

Provide Mentoring Opportunities for Youth

OJJDP will provide programmatic support, technical assistance, and

training to 41 mentoring programs, funded under the Juvenile

Mentoring Program (JUMP).

The Interagency Council on Mentoring, which includes

representatives from the Domestic Policy Council; the Departments

of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor (DOL), Defense,

Education, and Justice; and the CNS, will continue to identify

existing mentoring programs, investigate research issues, and

explore opportunities for collaboration. The Council is publishing

a report entitled Making the Most of Mentoring, which summarizes

current mentoring efforts and proposes a three-part mentoring

strategy.

Provide Guidance on School-Based Conflict Resolution Programs

OJJDP, in partnership with ED, will publish a guide and provide

training seminars to help school administrators, teachers, and

other interested parties understand the concept of conflict

resolution and its usefulness in preventing violence and teaching

positive life skills. The guide will be a tool for schools and

communities to use in their strategic planning for implementing

effective conflict resolution programs that meet their specific

needs. By answering typical questions asked about conflict

resolution, the guide will give readers a description of the

essential elements of effective school-based conflict resolution

programs, as well as information useful for establishing and

sustaining conflict resolution programs in their schools. Six case

studies incorporating models of peer mediation, curriculum

integration, and peaceable schools will be included in the guide.

Other helpful features include annotated lists of conflict

resolution programs, resources, and trainers with contact

information.

Increase School Safety To Improve Opportunities for Learning

Federal reforms such as the reauthorization of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Educate America: Goals 2000, and

School to Work Transition are first steps in addressing the crisis

facing our public school system. Title I, Part A of ESEA provides

grants to States to support standards-based educational reform and

improve the ability of schools to help educationally disadvantaged

children. Before these improvements can be effective, however,

students must be assured that they can learn in a safe environment.

ED's Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program (SDFSP) was established in

1994 to provide a comprehensive, coordinated approach to prevention
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

of school violence and alcohol, tobacco, and drug use by young

people. SDFSP administers State formula grant and discretionary

grant programs and also provides technical assistance to schools in

the development of comprehensive programs to prevent violence and

drug use. 

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) will provide funding to

assess the effectiveness of the organizational structure and

operation of a variety of these programs nationwide. This

assessment will try to determine how school-based drug prevention

programs, such as Drug Awareness Resistance Education (DARE), can

be tailored to better meet the needs of specific populations. The

study will also recommend new structures and operations to improve

and expand DARE and other existing drug prevention education

programs.

NIJ will also do the following:

o Fund evaluations of school-based programs aimed at reducing youth

violence and promoting school safety.

o Support a study of juveniles who have been involved in school

violence in an attempt to clarify the dynamics leading to violence.

The information gathered from this study will be used to design and

implement a school curriculum that better addresses those dynamics.

o Explore risk factors that contribute to delinquency

(relationships among school discipline and control practices,

behavior problems, in-school victimization, and school location)

and school crime. This will be accomplished through analysis of

information from interviews of students, teachers, and principals.

HHS has provided funds through the Community Schools/FACES grant

programs to support the development or expansion of programs that

are designed to improve the academic and social development of atrisk students at selected public schools in eligible communities.

Activities in these schools include homework assistance and

afterschool activities, such as educational, social, and athletic

programs; nutrition services; mentoring programs; family

counseling; and parenting programs.

To assist in ensuring the safety of these and other sites, OJJDP

will support the National School Safety Center in providing

training and information on school safety techniques through the

School Administrators for Effective Police, Prosecution, and

Probations Operations Leading to Improved Children and Youth

Services (SAFE POLICY) program. This program addresses the problem

of increased serious juvenile violence in schools. A team of school

personnel develops strategies for sharing information and improving

school safety, as well as supervision, control, and delinquency

prevention. 

Provide Youth With Activities That Encourage Positive Youth

Development
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

To ensure that resource and family centers can implement programs,

the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) National

Youth Sports Grants will provide funds for positive alternative

activities for at-risk youth,including sports, recreational,

cultural, and educational programs. This grant program is a vehicle

for youth to develop leadership skills, gain self-esteem, learn the

value of teamwork, and exercise self-empowerment in a positive and

drug-free environment. 

OJJDP's Pathways to Success will promote business, entrepreneurial,

educational, recreational, and job skills, as well as arts programs

for afterschool and weekend hours. In addition, OJJDP's grant with

the Academy for Educational Development will support the

development of a curriculum that trains youth workers to apply a

youth development approach.

Provide Training and Opportunities for Youth Employment

HUD will continue to fund the YouthBuild program, which works with

AmeriCorps to help disadvantaged young adults who have dropped out

of high school obtain employment and education skills that will

help them achieve economic self-sufficiency.

To encourage the involvement, investment, and participation of

educators, businesses, students, and parents, DOL's School-to-Work

Opportunities Initiative will integrate a career employment,

education, and learning program. The program will be geared to all

youth to prepare them for the highly technological and rapidly

evolving workplace. The link between unemployment and lack of

opportunities and delinquency is strong, and a national commitment

to this issue is critical. DOL administers the Job Corps to address

the multiple barriers to employment faced by disadvantaged youth.

Job Corps, which serves about 60,000 youth each year, provides a

comprehensive mix of coordinated and integrated services in one

facility. These services assist young adults to become more

responsible, employable, and productive citizens. 

The Department of the Interior and OJJDP will jointly sponsor the

Youth Environmental Services (YES) program. The purpose of the YES

program is twofold:

o To increase the capacity of States and communities to correct,

treat, and rehabilitate adjudicated delinquents.

o To prevent at-risk youth from entering the juvenile justice

system by implementing environmental work programs on federally

owned land.

In addition, OJJDP will explore opportunities to include high-risk

and juvenile court-involved youth in employment and training

programs.

Establish and Support Family-Based Community Centers That Integrate
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Service Delivery Through a Range of Promising Prevention Programs

HHS will continue to fund community-based family resource programs

to help States develop and implement, or expand and enhance,

comprehensive statewide systems of family resource services. These

services will be provided through innovative funding mechanisms and

collaboration with existing education, vocation, rehabilitation,

health, mental health, employment and training, child welfare, and

other social service agencies. The goal will be to reduce barriers

to the delivery of high-quality, community-based services for

families, with an emphasis on interagency collaboration, service

integration, public and private partnerships, interdisciplinary

governance of lead agencies, and full partnership between families

and professionals. 

HUD awards grants to public housing authorities to provide families

and youth with better access to education and employment

opportunities. The objective is to help these individuals achieve

economic self-sufficiency, improve their quality of life and,

ultimately, decrease drug and crime problems. In 1995, $10 million

was made available to support the Family Investment Centers and

Youth Development initiative sites that are providing youth-related

activities and services such as training and assistance in

obtaining General Equivalency Diplomas (GED's) and entrepreneurship

skills.

NIJ will continue to support an evaluation of the Boys and Girls

Clubs program in public housing.

Provide Opportunities for Youth To Serve Their Communities

CNS will continue to establish full- and part-time community service programs such as AmeriCorps and Learn and Serve America, which

involve individuals of all ages in violence reduction initiatives

and other public service activities. These include school-based

initiatives for kindergarten through 12th grade and higher

education programs that make service an integral part of college

education.

OJJDP will continue to support Teens, Crime, and the Community, a

program conducted by the National Crime Prevention Council and the

National Institute for Citizen Education in the Law, that seeks to

direct the energies of young people toward constructive activities

designed to reduce crime and violence.

All Federal agencies administering programs that address the

problem of juvenile violence will encourage communities to include

youth in the planning and implementation of their programs. 

Coordinate Federal Crime Prevention Programs

There is a substantial need to coordinate Federal programs that are

designed to prevent and intervene in specific youth problems,

improve the environments in which youth live, and foster the
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

overall positive development of youth. The President's Crime

Prevention Council, created by the 1994 Violent Crime Control and

Law Enforcement Act, has published and disseminated a delinquency

prevention catalog that highlights major Federal programs and

offers guidance for communities seeking to plan and implement

comprehensive crime prevention strategies. Over the next year, the

Prevention Council will work to identify ways to coordinate and

integrate existing Federal prevention programs to ensure better

collaboration and to maximize their impact on communities.

Suggestions for State and Local Action 

o Establish and enhance programs that bring together teachers,

school administrators, social service providers, police, juvenile

justice practitioners, and citizens.

o Develop partnerships between parks and recreation agencies,

libraries, public housing agencies, community centers, and

gymnasiums to furnish safe sites for positive activities for youth.

o Advocate volunteerism for mentoring and tutoring programs.

o Develop safe passage community patrols to ensure that youth get

to and from school safely.

o Invite parents, law enforcement officers, business leaders, and

others into school buildings to provide additional supervision and

positive role models.

o Provide students with the skills and knowledge necessary to

manage their behavior and resolve conflicts in a nonviolent manner.

o Implement developmentally appropriate conflict resolution

programs for students at all grade levels.

o Expand existing programs to include artistic and cultural

activities, and implement activities designed to promote the values

of individual and civic responsibility.

o Implement national service initiatives at the local level to

provide youth with opportunities to serve their communities.

o Review and modify personnel policies in the private sector to

encourage employees to serve as community volunteers with youth.

o Increase funding for youth employment and training programs.

o Review allocation of funding to ensure equitable distribution of

resources for delinquency prevention programs in schools.

------------------------------

Endnotes
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

1. Delinquency Prevention Works. 1995 (May). Washington, D.C.:

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.

Department of Justice.

2. Dryfoos, J.G. 1990. Adolescents at Risk: Prevalence and

Prevention. London, England: Oxford University Press.

3. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. 1994 (April). A

Matter Of Time: Risk and Opportunity in the Out-of-School Hours.

New York, N.Y.: Carnegie Foundation.

4. National Center for Education Statistics. 1990. National

Education Longitudinal Study of 1988: A Profile of an American

Eighth Grader. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and

Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.

5. Carnegie Council, 1994.

6. Thornberry, T.P., D. Huizinga, and R. Loeber. 1995. The

prevention of serious delinquency and violence: Implications from

the program of research on the causes and correlates of

delinquency. In J.C. Howell et al., eds. Sourcebook on Serious,

Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:

Sage Publications.

7. Hawkins, J.D., and R.F. Catalano, Jr. 1993. Communities That

Care: Risk-Focused Approach Using the Social Development Strategy:

An Approach to Reducing Adolescent Problem Behaviors. Seattle,

Wash.: Developmental Research and Programs, Inc.

8. Ibid.

9. Lipsey, M.W. 1992. Juvenile delinquency treatment: A

meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In T.D. Cook

et al., eds., Meta-Analysis for Explanation: A Casebook. New York,

N.Y.: Russell Sage Foundation.

10. Cohen, M.A. 1994. The Monetary Value of Saving a High-Risk

Youth. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

11. Camp, G.M., and C.G. Camp. 1990. Corrections Yearbook: Juvenile

Corrections. South Salem, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Institute.

12. Cohen, 1994.

13. Lipsey, 1992.

14. Ibid.

15. Tolan, P., and N. Guerra. 1994 (July). What Works in Reducing

Adolescent Violence: An Empirical Review of the Field. Boulder,

Colo.: The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence,

University of Colorado.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

16. Howell, J.C., ed. 1995 (May). Guide for Implementing the

Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile

Offenders. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

17. Thornberry et al., 1995.

18. Mendel, R.A. 1995. Prevention or Pork? A Hard-Headed Look at

Youth-Oriented Anti-Crime Programs. Washington, D.C.: American

Youth Policy Forum.

19. Beach, C. 1983. Truancy and Student Delinquency: A Pilot Study.

New York, N.Y.: Office of the Mayor, City of New York.

Diebolt, A., and L. Herlache. 1991 (March). The School Psychologist

as a Consultant in Truancy Prevention. Tempe, Ariz.: Arizona State

University.

Levine, B. 1993 (August 16). Tracking Truants. Los Angeles Times,

p. E-1.

Pennell, S., C. Curtis, B. McCardell, and P. Kichinsky. 1981.

Truancy Project Evaluation: Final Report. San Diego, Calif.:

Criminal Justice Evaluation Unit, San Diego Association of

Governments.

Stephens, R.D., S. Greenbaum, and R.W. Garrison. 1988. Increasing

Student Attendance: NSSC Resource Paper. Sacramento, Calif.:

National School Safety Center, Pepperdine University.

Truancy, Chronic Absenteeism and Dropping Out. 1989. York, Pa.:

William Gladden Foundation.

20. Stephens et al., 1988.

21. New approach to runaway, truant, substance abusing and beyond

control children. 1990. Juvenile and Family Court Journal 41(3B):9-

49.

22. Disposition Resource Manual. 1990. Washington, D.C.: National

Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

23. Beyond Convictions: Prosecutors as Community Leaders in the War

on Drugs. 1993. Alexandria, Va.: American Prosecutors Research

Institute.

24. Yap, K.O., and J. Pollard. 1992 (October). A Preliminary

Evaluation of the Self Enhancement, Inc. (SEI) Program. Portland,

Ore.: Northwest Regional Educational Lab.

25. Freedman, M. 1995. Making the Most of Mentoring. Unpublished

report. Interagency Council on Mentoring. Washington, D.C.:

Corporation for National and Community Service.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

26. LoSciuto, L., and T.N. Townsend. An Outcome Evaluation of

"Across Ages"; An Intergenerational Mentoring Program.

Philadelphia, Pa.: Institute for Survey Research.

27. Freedman, 1995.

28. Barnes, L. 1992 (Fall/Winter). Police Officers at Heart of Bigs

in Blue Program. Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America.

29. DeJong, W. 1994. "Creating a more peaceful world," School

Safety (Fall 1994): p. 8.

30. Greenberg, M.T., et al. 1995. Promoting emotional competence in

school-aged children: The effects of the PATHS curriculum.

Development and Psychopathology 7:117-136.

31. Howell, ed., 1995.

32. Given the Opportunity: How Three Communities Engaged Teens As

Resources in Drug Abuse Prevention. 1992. Washington, D.C.:

National Crime Prevention Council.

------------------------------

5. Break the Cycle of Violence by Addressing Youth Victimization,

Abuse,and Neglect

Overview

As the most vulnerable members of society, children have the right

to be protected from victimization. We as a Nation must act

decisively to uphold that right. Although media attention often

focuses on youth who commit acts of violence, children are also

increasingly becoming victims of violent crime and neglect. 

This section explains how early experiences of violence not only

harm children but also can lead to later violence and delinquency.

It describes effective intervention strategies to break that cycle

of violence, a strengthened dependency courts system that works

more closely with child protective serv-ices, and improved delivery

of services through unified family courts, administrative reform,

written protocols, and the use of court appointed special advocates

(CASA's). 

This section also examines how parents who have abused or neglected

their children can learn to change their behavior and how

authorities can determine when children should be removed from

their homes because of the threat of abuse or neglect. Finally, it

describes ways to intervene with at-risk families before abuse,

neglect, or family dysfunction arise or become entrenched.

Current Status and Analysis of the Problem

Each year, abuse and neglect leave 18,000 children permanently--
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

often severely--disabled and inflict lifelong psychological damage

on thousands of victims, siblings, and family members.1 

Abuse statistics are similarly tragic. In 1994, public welfare

agencies received reports of 3.1 million children being abused or

neglected. The increasing trend in child maltreatment reports over

the past decade is believed to be the result, at least in part, of

a greater willingness to report suspected incidents. Greater public

awareness both of child maltreatment as a social problem and the

resources available to respond to it are factors that contribute to

increased reporting.

The U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect provides

national data on child victimization. In 1991, there were an

estimated 2.9 million reports of child abuse and neglect involving

1.9 million children.

Each year an estimated 2,000 children--most under age 4--die at the

hands of parents or caretakers, about 5 children every day.

According to a 1988 Bureau of Justice Statistics study of murder

cases, 4 out of 5 children under age 12 who were murdered by a

parent or caretaker had been previously abused by the person who

killed them.2 

An analysis of police data on child victims under the age of 12

(victims not covered in the National Crime Victimization Survey)

estimated that as many as 2.2 million violent

victimizations--murder, rape, robbery, and assault--of children

under the age of 18 occurred in 1992. The analysis also revealed

that the perpetrators of violent crime against children under the

age of 12 were most likely to be acquaintances of the child (54%)

and family members (33%) rather than strangers (13%).3

Two years later, statistics showed similar trends. In 1994, a study

revealed that children ages 5 and younger who are victims of

violent crime are more likely than older juvenile victims to be

victimized by a family member. 

Even when children are not subjected to violence themselves, they

increasingly live in a world permeated by violence. Many children

are exposed to chronic violence in their homes and communities. A

recent study conducted at Boston City Hospital reported that 10

percent of children seen in its primary care clinic have witnessed

a shooting or stabbing before age 6. In a survey of inner-city

elementary school children in New Orleans, LA, 80 percent reported

witnessing acts of violence, and 60 percent had seen a dead person.

Similarly, in a study of 6th, 8th, and 10th graders in New Haven,

CT, 40 percent reported having witnessed at least one violent crime

in the past year.4

The Cycle of Violence

Numerous studies demonstrate the connection between child abuse and

neglect and later violent delinquent behavior.5 A National
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Institute of Justice (NIJ)-funded study found that experiencing

childhood abuse and neglect increases the likelihood of arrest as

a juvenile by 53 percent, of arrest as an adult by 38 percent, and

of committing a violent crime by 38 percent.6 An Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) study found that

adolescents from families reporting multiple forms of violence are

more than twice as likely as their peers from nonviolent homes to

report committing violent offenses.7 

Due to the disproportionate number of neglect cases in comparison

to abuse cases, youth who were neglected as children are almost as

likely to be arrested for violent crimes as those who were

physically abused. Consistent with this finding, of the maltreated

children who were arrested for violent acts, 8 out of 10 were

neglected as children.

Structural violence--harm inflicted on individuals by social

institutions or the social and physical environment--also has a

major influence on children. Children living in economically

deprived areas are more likely to engage in crime than other

children and are more susceptible to violent and other criminal

behavior.8 

Child Protective Services and Dependency Courts

The system of child protective services (CPS) and dependency

courts, which addresses family violence and child abuse and

neglect, has reached a crisis point. The complexity, seriousness,

and ever-increasing volume of maltreatment cases have undercut CPS'

ability to process reports of child abuse and neglect; conduct

sound investigations; communicate findings to the court; provide

protective supervision; arrange appropriate foster care; monitor

placements; and develop thoughtful, timely, and suitable permanency

planning. As a result, children frequently languish for years in a

series of temporary placements, such as foster homes, shelters,

group homes, and hospitals. In one out of five cases in which

maltreatment was indicated or substantiated in 1992, the child was

removed from the home. More than 440,000 children were in some type

of substitute care at the end of 1992--60 percent more than 10

years earlier. Recent projections estimated that 550,000 children

would be in foster care by the end of 1995.9

Juvenile and family courts must make critical legal decisions and

oversee CPS agency efforts when families refuse to cooperate with

protective services or when a child must be removed from the home.

However, both judicial and agency caseloads have increased

dramatically. One expert has found that in many jurisdictions, the

demands made on juvenile courts in neglect and abuse cases far

exceed the number of judges and courtrooms to conduct the

hearings.10 It is no exaggeration to refer to this situation as a

crisis in many large urban courts.

This crisis arose in part from the increased demands on family

courts. In the 1970's, juvenile and family courts were required
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

only to determine whether a child had been abused or neglected and,

if so, whether the child should be removed from the home and placed

under court or agency supervision. State and Federal legislation,

particularly the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (AACWA)

of 1980,11 sharply increased the scope of judicial oversight

responsibilities to include ensuring that every abused and

neglected child who comes before the court is placed in a safe,

permanent, and stable home. The court must remain involved in a

case until a child is returned home safely or placed in a new

permanent home. Judicial oversight may extend over a period of

years until the case is finally closed. Yet most judges can spend

an average of only 10 minutes on each of the 35 to 40 cases on

their daily calendars. This time constriction underscores the need

for additional resources and assistance, such as trained CASA's for

abused children, a strategy that is working effectively in many

communities.

Communities need to provide financial resources to improve child

protective services and dependency courts, including better

management of the system and training for CPS workers, social case

workers, judges, and court counselors. A community CASA program is

one way to augment the professional staff.

Effective and Promising Strategies and Programs

State Court Improvement Program

Since 1980, the responsibilities and caseloads of many juvenile and

family courts have sharply increased. These increases are partly

due to the judicial oversight functions imposed by AACWA, requiring

certain court determinations in foster care and adoption

proceedings for children who enter into State care as a result of

abuse or neglect. Additionally, the incidence of drug-affected

children and families and the reporting of child abuse and neglect

have increased steadily in recent years, resulting in higher court

caseloads.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-66)

established a new grant program to help State courts focus on their

role in proceedings relating to foster care and adoption and

improve their handling of those proceedings.12 Forty-eight States,

including the District of Columbia, began to implement the program

beginning in FY 1995.

The State Court Improvement Program is operated by the Children's

Bureau within the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS')

Administration on Children, Youth, and Families. This grant program

provides State courts with the opportunity to collaborate with

other interested parties to review laws and procedures regarding

foster care and adoption proceedings, supporting alternatives and

improvements. State courts have the flexibility to design

assessments that identify barriers, highlight practices that are

not fully successful, evaluate areas they find to be in need of

improvement or added attention, and implement reforms that address
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

specific needs.

Unified Family Courts

Despite problems facing child welfare services and dependency

courts, many successful systemic improvements are underway. There

has been increased coordination of information sharing about family

cases among juvenile courts. Some courts emphasize nonadversarial

dispute resolution in family conflicts and have developed an array

of domestic violence, visitation, divorce education, child

advocacy, and litigation resources. The most promising development

is the emergence of unified family courts that handle the full

range of family-related cases, including delinquency, dependency,

status offenses, paternity, custody, support, mental health,

adoption, family violence, and divorce. Properly administered,

unified family courts such as those in Hawaii, New Jersey, and

Rhode Island, can effectively address the needs of children in the

context of the family.13 A unified family court should have

authority equal to the highest trial court of general jurisdiction

and be staffed by specialized judges and other professionals.

For unified family courts to be effective, judges must be

interested, committed, and qualified. They should receive

specialized training and have the authority to develop alternative

dispute resolution forums. Judges could further improve the family

court system by making more informed and effective decisions

regarding children and families through the use of integrated

family court management information systems, eliminating the

problem of conflicting court orders in children and family cases,

and providing the leadership required to develop an integrated

service delivery system. They should also ensure that children and

families have complete and open access to the protective and

restorative powers of the court.

Children's Advocacy Centers

Children's advocacy centers provide a community-based approach

whose goal is to improve management of abuse and neglect cases,

increase the rate of prosecutions, and ensure that victims and

their families receive coordinated treatment services. Over the

past 10 years, nearly 300 communities have established children's

advocacy centers. Multidisciplinary teams conduct joint interviews

and share in decisionmaking concerning the management and

investigation of cases, providing a range of serv-ices for victims

and their families. Some advocacy centers have special teams that

focus on preventing child fatalities arising from abuse and

neglect, including providing child abuse prevention education.

Children's advocacy centers provide increased substantiation and

prosecution of abuse cases, decreased post-abuse trauma to victims

through centralized intake procedures, and enhanced support to

victims of abuse and their families. Children's advocacy centers

provide two additional long-term benefits: they focus community

attention on child abuse prevention and raise community awareness
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

of the problems of child abuse. They also provide locally developed

infrastructure that facilitates collaboration among key local

government agencies. Communities that have developed such

infrastructures increase the efficiency of their systems, improve

the quality of care in a cost-effective manner, and address a

multitude of local juvenile justice and human services issues with

increased cooperation.

Court Appointed Special Advocate Programs

The CASA program is another local approach to improving the lives

of abused and neglected children. CASA programs use trained

volunteers, sometimes known as guardians ad litem, who help

stabilize the lives of victimized children. Appointed by the courts

and working under court supervision, CASA's serve as advocates for

children during court proceedings and help to ensure that a child

is quickly placed in a safe, nurturing, and permanent home. They

recommend plans that will effectively serve the best interest of

the child based on an independent, thoroughly researched

investigation of the child's circumstances.

Because CASA's typically handle only one or two cases at a time,

they are able to devote significant attention to individual

children and obtain a full understanding of each case. They appear

at all appropriate court proceedings and monitor court orders,

ensuring compliance by all parties. They also bring changes in the

child's circumstances to the court's attention. Their work aids

overburdened court officials and social workers and enables judges

to make more informed decisions.

Nearly 700 communities nationwide have established CASA programs.

In 1994, some 37,000 court appointed special advocates represented

more than 128,000 abused and neglected children--about 25 percent

of such children who came before the courts.14

One exemplary program is successfully meeting the needs of children

who have been removed from their homes due to abuse or neglect and

who need safe shelter, counseling, and other assistance. In

Cincinnati, the Hamilton Juvenile Court, the Cincinnati Bar

Association, and the Junior League developed ProKids to serve as

court appointed special advocates for youth. When ProKids was

created in 1981, only 25 programs in the Nation used community

volunteers as child advocates for abused and neglected children. By

1994, ProKids had trained more than 450 child advocate volunteers,

and 1,200 children have been served by the program.15

Family Preservation, Family Support, and Independent Living 

During the past two decades, the focus on abused children and their

families has shifted within the child welfare system. Rather than

removing abused children from their homes as the first course of

action, efforts are made to preserve families by addressing the

problems of abuse and changing behavior within the family. This new

approach is based on the following assumptions:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

o Children's safety and security is the first priority.

o If their safety can be ensured, children belong with their

families.

o Families are the best environment for socialization.

o Being placed in a series of temporary foster homes can seriously

impair a child's emotional development. 

o Removing a child from an abusive home does not automatically

ensure the child's safety. 

The shift in emphasis toward family preservation and changing

family behavior grew out of research showing that family bonding is

essential for healthy cognitive, emotional, and behavioral

development, and that families that receive assistance can most

often overcome problems. A 1984 study by the National Center on

Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) found that for every 1,000 children

placed in out-of-home care, 30 experienced additional abuse. By

contrast, among 2,505 children and their families who participated

in the Families First family-strengthening program, only one child

reported an incident of abuse during the first 12 months of the

program.16 

Homebuilders of Tacoma, WA, one of the first local family

preservation programs, has operated with impressive results since

its establishment in 1974. In the first 12 months after entering

the program, 88 percent of the children identified by case workers

as candidates for out-of-home placement remain in their homes, and

both child and family functioning show significant improvement on

standardized measures. A similar program be-gun in 1987 in the

Bronx, NY, to test the Homebuilders treatment model in an urban

setting also achieved a high level of success.

Family Ties of New York, another program modeled after the

Homebuilders approach, is underwritten by New York City with

matching State funds. From 1991 to 1992, 80 percent of juveniles

who participated in Family Ties remained out of the juvenile

justice system during the 6 months after starting with the program.

During a period of a year or more, the success rate for program

participants was 82 percent. Recidivism rates were significantly

lower for the program group than for a comparison group.17

Early Family Strengthening and Support

Research has shown that juvenile delinquency prevention strategies

are most effective when they are applied early in life--as early as

prenatally and perinatally.18 Waiting until middle or late

adolescence, when violent behavior patterns are well established,

makes remediation efforts more difficult. By that time, serious

delinquents generally exhibit multiple, interwoven, and recurring

problem behaviors and a severe deficit in protective factors.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

A review of violence research suggests that predatory and

psychopathological violence is most effectively treated by early

family-focused comprehensive interventions.19 Reducing multiple

risk factors and increasing several protective factors will

increase the likelihood that children will develop into productive,

competent adults.20 Programs such as Prenatal/Perinatal-Healthy

Families, Healthy Babies provide prenatal and perinatal medical

care, intensive health education for pregnant women and mothers

with young children, and prenatal and infancy home nurse visits.

Services such as these have been known to reduce the risks of head

injuries, exposure to toxins, maternal substance use, perinatal

difficulties, and child abuse--all delinquency-related risk

factors--and enhance parenting skills.21

The Healthy Start Program in Hawaii seeks to reduce child abuse by

offering postnatal counseling to high-risk parents when mothers are

still in the hospital. By using 15 effective screening indicators,

the program targets parents for early intervention services, which

have been accepted by approximately 95 percent of parents. The

program continues until the child is 5 years old, providing a

connection to a "medical home" that emphasizes preventive

healthcare and home visits by trained health service personnel. The

program offers parent training, family counseling, enhancement of

parent-child interaction, child development activities, and social

service linkage. Early evaluation findings provide evidence that

the program is successful in reducing the likelihood of child

abuse.22

The Elmira Home Visitation Program in New York provides a wide

range of maternal and child health services to poor, unmarried

teenagers during pregnancy and the first 2 years of their

children's lives. The program has demonstrated the following

results: 75 percent reduction in State-verified cases of child

abuse and neglect, 32 percent fewer emergency room visits during

the second year of life, 84 percent increase in unmarried mothers

participating in the workforce, and 43 percent fewer subsequent

births by unmarried women than by their counterparts assigned to

comparable services.23

The Memphis Home Visitation Program showed the following outcomes

among participating African-American mothers: 46 percent less

alcohol consumption and 26 percent fewer cigarettes used during

pregnancy, 24 percent fewer cases of preeclampsia, and 26 percent

fewer second pregnancies. In addition, more mothers breast fed

their infants, fewer women reported attitudes that are associated

with child abuse, such as lack of empathy for children and belief

in physical punishment as a means of disciplining infants and

toddlers; and fewer were seen by health care professionals for

injuries.24

In Tennessee, lawmakers adopted an "earlier is better" crime

prevention plan that provides a range of services to at-risk

infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. The State legislature also
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

enacted the Childhood Development Act of 1994, expanding family

support and preservation services and requiring development of a

statewide early childhood education plan.25

Other early prevention strategies targeting children and their

families in the first 5 years of life have shown dramatic

results.26 For example, during the preschool years, home visitation

programs that provide health and parent education and enhance

family social support systems have been shown to be effective.

Also, preschool programs and structured educational day care have

demonstrated success in reducing risk factors and involvement in

delinquency.27

Several other States emphasize early intervention approaches, such

as Minnesota and Tennessee. In recent years, Minnesota has used

funds earmarked for crime prevention to augment Head Start,

learning readiness, and family support programs. In addition, the

State legislature has established a Senate Crime Prevention

Committee.

Other successful prevention strategies include parent training and

multisystemic family therapy. Parent training programs teach skills

that can improve parenting practices. Multisystemic family therapy

includes parent training within a wider range of interventions for

improving family cohesiveness. Both programs have been shown to

reduce antisocial behavior and delinquency.28

Victimization Prevention Programs

Prevention strategies should also address victimization among

teens. An exemplary victim education program is the Teens, Crime,

and the Community school-based curriculum that makes youth aware of

crime and the high rate of teen victimization through real-life

issues. Formal evaluations have documented that the program has

resulted in local youth-led victimization prevention measures and

changed students' attitudes about crime and victimization.29

Federal Action Steps

Improve Juvenile and Family Court Handling of Child Abuse and

Neglect Cases

With support from OJJDP, the National Council of Juvenile and

Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) will help replicate in several

jurisdictions the successful demonstration juvenile and family

court reform project in operation in Hamilton County, OH. NCJFCJ

will widely disseminate comprehensive resource guidelines for

improving the handling of child abuse and neglect cases, developed

on the principles of the demonstration project. The Departments of

Justice (DOJ) and HHS will support the implementation of this model

in juvenile and family courts across the country.

The National Child Protection Act of 1993, as amended by the 1994

Crime Act, requires the Attorney General and DOJ to develop
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

guidelines for the adoption of appropriate safeguards by care

providers and by States for the protection of children, the

elderly, and individuals with disabilities from abuse. The Attorney

General will consult with Federal, State, and local officials,

including those responsible for criminal history record systems,

and representatives of public and private care agencies and health,

legal, and social welfare organizations. DOJ will use research by

the American Bar Association to draft guidelines.

DOJ will make available a set of protocols to assist decisionmakers

in law enforcement, public health, drug treatment, and other

relevant areas in making reasonable efforts to enable drug-exposed

children to remain safely at home. 

NIJ will support a scientific study of the effects of hearsay

evidence on juror decisionmaking in child abuse cases.

HHS' Children's Bureau operates the State Court Improvement

Program, which provides State courts with the opportunity to

collaborate with other interested parties to review laws and

procedures regarding foster care and adoption proceedings.

Enhance Local Efforts To Investigate and Prosecute Child Abuse and

Neglect Cases and Strengthen Child Protective Services

NIJ will fund research to examine the use of parent drug testing to

facilitate judicial and social serv-ices in the prevention of

further maltreatment in child abuse and neglect cases.

NCCAN, established by the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act

of 1974, will assist States and communities in child abuse

prevention, identification, investigation, and treatment. NCCAN

will support State grant programs, research and demonstration grant

projects, clearinghouses, resource centers, and an Interagency Task

Force on Child Abuse and Neglect. 

OJJDP will provide training in investigative techniques to law

enforcement, child protective serv-ices, and other justice system

agencies involved in investigating missing children cases and child

abuse, sexual exploitation, and pornography. Courses will include

the most advanced concepts in investigative process and will

provide information on interagency development, advanced

interviewing techniques, team activity involving investigations,

case preparation, and prosecution.

OJJDP will continue to provide local children's advocacy centers

with funding, training, and technical assistance through the

National Network of Children's Advocacy Centers and with training,

consultation, resource materials, and other technical assistance

through the four regional children's advocacy centers. OJJDP will

also seek to increase the number of children represented by court

appointed special advocates through continued support of the

development and enhancement of local CASA programs.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Strengthen At-Risk Families and Support Healthy Start Programs for

Children

HHS will provide nearly $1 billion through the Family Preservation

and Family Support Services Program to States and a limited group

of tribes for family support services and services to families at

risk or in crisis. The program offers States an extraordinary

opportunity to make sweeping changes in their child welfare systems

to assist children at risk for abuse and neglect. 

Under Title XX of HHS' Social Security Act (enacted in 1974), the

Federal Government provides grants to States for social services

aimed at preventing or remedying abuse and neglect while preserving

families and preventing inappropriate institutional care. Grants

are also set aside for evaluation, research, and training and

technical assistance.

HHS' Children's Bureau began to provide grants to State courts in

1995 to improve foster care and adoption proceedings. Without the

services these programs provide, most children who are at risk for

serious child abuse, family conflict, and mental health problems

would be immediately removed from the home.

HHS will provide Maternal and Child Health Improvement Grants to

improve the delivery of health care services to mothers and

children, particularly those families in low-income and isolated

areas. The Department will also continue to support Healthy Start

sites to increase awareness of infant mortality and overcome

barriers to delivery of child and maternal health care; streamline

and coordinate services between public and private agencies; and

build partnerships among families, volunteers, companies, and

health care and social service providers. 

In FY 1995, HHS began to award grants to implement Early Head Start

programs that provide intensive and comprehensive child development

and family support services to low-income families with children

under age 3 and to pregnant women. In addition, HHS will continue

to support the Head Start program to provide comprehensive health,

educational, nutritional, social, and other serv-ices to bridge the

gap between economically disadvantaged children and their peers. 

NIJ will provide technical assistance and training to the

nationwide Girl Scouts Beyond Bars program. The primary goals of

this program are to prevent juvenile delinquency in these at-risk

children, improve the parenting skills of incarcerated mothers, and

reduce the probability of recidivism.

OJJDP will establish a national family-strengthening training and

technical assistance effort. One or more agencies will be funded to

provide a range of technical support to help communities establish

or strengthen family support programs.

Support Community-Based Services That Reduce Family Violence and

Victimization
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

HHS will continue to fund the Family Violence Prevention and

Services Program to assist States and Native-American tribes in the

prevention of family violence and the provision of immediate

shelter and related assistance for victims of family violence and

their dependents. The program also funds discretionary grants to

support research into the causes and prevention of family violence,

to support the training of family violence personnel and provide

technical assistance in the conduct of family violence programs,

and to support the operation of a national resource center on

family violence. 

These funds are also used to provide grant awards to nonprofit

private sector organizations in each State to form State Domestic

Violence Coalitions that are dedicated to the prevention of family

violence in general and spouse abuse in particular. The Violent

Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 requires State

coalitions to work with local domestic violence programs and

providers of direct serv-ices through training, planning,

disseminating information, and collaborating with other

governmental systems that help battered women.

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) will fund three Violence

Against Women demonstration sites to identify mechanisms and

procedures to help jurisdictions coordinate criminal justice

agencies, victims services, social serv-ices, medical services, and

others, as appropriate, to ensure that issues and problems about

violence are handled effectively. These pilot programs provide BJA

with a basis for determining a prototype to enhance and coordinate

jurisdictionwide responses to issues concerning violence against

women.

The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) will provide funds to help

DOJ implement the recently enacted Violence Against Women Act

(VAWA). OVC funding will be allocated for the development of model

policies and procedures on implementation and enforcement of the

Full Faith and Credit provisions, and to train State and local

criminal justice components and advocates.

NIJ will sponsor research on youth victims of domestic abuse in an

attempt to provide a better understanding of their needs and how

they can be more effectively addressed. NIJ will also support

research to clarify understanding of the prevalence of partner

violence among young adults.

Provide Training and Technical Assistance To Strengthen Agencies

Serving Children and Their Families

HHS will continue to fund national child welfare resource centers

focusing on critical topics such as family-centered practice,

permanency planning, organizational improvement, youth development,

and legal and court issues. These centers provide training and

technical assistance to build the capacity of State, local, tribal,

and other publicly administered or publicly supported child welfare
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

agencies in the development, expansion, strengthening, and

improvement of the quality and effectiveness of services to

children and their families.

HHS will continue to provide discretionary child welfare training

grants and promote the use of Social Security Act Title IV-E

training funds to enhance child welfare practice in ways that make

positive differences for children and their families.

HHS will also continue to fund and work with States to strengthen

the design and delivery of Independent Living Initiatives to assist

children who have reached the age of 16 in making the transition

from foster care to independent living. The National Resource

Center for Youth Development, funded by HHS, is responsible for

identifying and disseminating information to the field on

innovative, successful transitional and independent living programs

dealing with issues such as effective parenting and adolescent

input into program design.

Improve Services to Children Who Are Victims of Abuse and Other

Crimes

OJJDP will work with OVC to improve services to children through

expansion of resources for multidisciplinary teams and extension of

the teamwork concept used by children's advocacy centers to a wide

range of crimes, including family violence. OJJDP will also work

with OVC to improve services to children who are victims of crimes

under Federal law, including those living on Native-American lands.

OJJDP will support an initiative to provide more conflict

resolution programming for young people to equip them with the

skills necessary to resolve conflict nonviolently. A training and

technical assistance provider will assist interested communities in

selecting an appropriate conflict resolution model and in

implementing it in schools, youth facilities, recreation centers,

and other institutions serving youth.

Suggestions for State and Local Action

o Foster substance abuse treatment approaches designed for parents,

including residential treatment programs that allow children to

accompany their addicted parents.

o Provide financial and other resources to enable parents to take

part in treatment.

o Eliminate punitive policies such as those that require parents to

give up parental rights in order to be eligible for treatment.

o Develop a network of State and local victim assistance strategies

that serve children and their families.

o Establish victim awareness activities in juvenile corrections

facilities to help young offenders understand the impact of their
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

crimes on others, the roots of their own violent behavior, and ways

to become nonabusive spouses and parents.

o Support comprehensive adolescent pregnancy prevention programs.

o Support victim education for teens through community- or

school-based programs.

o Advocate for manageable caseloads and properly trained child

protective workers.

o Reform juvenile and family court administration to better address

needs of victimized children and improve dependency case

management.

o Encourage formation of local CASA and other children's advocacy

programs.

o Launch local Healthy Start programs.

o Involve young men in parenting programs, especially those placed

in juvenile justice facilities and those incarcerated in

correctional facilities.

o Establish and maintain an effective and inclusive planning effort

focused on family preservation and family support services.

o Provide mental health and treatment services and parenting skills

training for confined abusers and/or young offenders who are

victims of abuse.

------------------------------

Endnotes

1. A Nation's Shame: Fatal Child Abuse and Neglect in the United

States: A Report of the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and

Neglect. 1995. Washington, D.C.: Administration for Children and

Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

2. Dawson, J., and P. Langan. 1994. Murder in Families. Bureau of

Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of

Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

3. Snyder, H., and M. Sickmund. 1995 (August). Juvenile Offenders

and Victims: A National Report. Washington, D.C.: Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of

Justice.

4. Thornberry, T.P. 1994 (December). Violent Families and Youth

Violence. Fact Sheet #21. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

5. Ibid.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Wright, K.N., and K.E. Wright. 1994 (May). Family Life,

Delinquency, and Crime: A Policymaker's Guide. Research Summary.

Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

6. Widom, C.S. 1992 (October). The Cycle of Violence. Research in

Brief. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S.

Department of Justice.

7. Thornberry, 1994.

8. Eron, L.D., J. Gentry, and P. Schlegel, eds. 1994. Reason to

Hope: A Psychosocial Perspective on Violence and Youth. Washington,

D.C.: American Psychological Association.

9. National Commission on Children. 1991. Beyond Rhetoric: A New

American Agenda for Children and Families. Final Report.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

10. Hardin, M. 1992. Judicial Implementation of Permanency Planning

Reform: One Court That Works. Washington, D.C.: American Bar

Association.

11. Public Law 96-272, The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare

Act of 1980.

12. Public Law 103-66, The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1993.

13. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. 1991.

Recommendations for a Model Family Court: A Report from the

National Family Court Symposium. Reno, Nev.

Rubin, H.T., and V.E. Flango. 1992. Court Coordination of Family

Cases. Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts.

14. CASA: Court Appointed Special Advocate for Children . . . A

Child's Voice in Court. 1988. Juvenile Justice Bulletin.

Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

15. ProKids: Speaking Up for Abused and Neglected Children in

Hamilton, Ohio (brochure). 1994. Cincinnati, Ohio: ProKids.

16. Bergquist, C., G. Pope, and K. Corliss. 1995. Evaluation of

Michigan's Families First Program, Summary Report. Lansing, Mich.:

Michigan Department of Social Services.

 17. Collier, W.V., and R.H. Hill. 1993 (June). Family Ties

Intensive Family Preservation Services Program: An Evaluation

Report. City of New York, N.Y.: Department of Juvenile Justice.

18. Thornberry, T.P., D. Huizinga, and R. Loeber. 1995. The
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

prevention of serious delinquency and violence: Implications from

the program of research on the causes and correlates of

delinquency. In J.C. Howell et al., eds., Sourcebook on Serious,

Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:

Sage Publications.

19. Tolan, P., and N. Guerra. 1994 (July). What Works in Reducing

Adolescent Violence: An Empirical Review of the Field. Boulder,

Colo.: The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence,

University of Colorado.

20. Howell, J.C., ed. 1995 (May). Guide for Implementing the

Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile

Offenders. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Wilson, J.J., and J.C. Howell. 1993. Comprehensive Strategy for

Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Washington, D.C.:

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.

Department of Justice.

21. Olds, D.L., et al. Forthcoming. The potential for reducing

antisocial behavior with a program of prenatal and early childhood

home visitation. Denver, Colo.: Prevention Research Center for

Family and Child Health and Home Visitation. 

22. Delinquency Prevention Works. 1995 (May). Washington, D.C.:

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.

Department of Justice.

23. Ibid.

24. Olds, D.L., et al. 1993. Effect of prenatal and infancy nurse

home visitation on government spending. Medical Care 31(2):155-174.

25. Rubin and Flango, 1992.

26. Mendel, R.A. 1995. Prevention or Pork? A Hard-Headed Look at

Youth-Oriented Anti-Crime Programs. Washington, D.C.: American

Youth Policy Forum.

27. Delinquency Prevention Works.

28. Ibid.

29. Hwalick, M. 1992 (August). 1992 Evaluation of Teens, Crime, and

the Community. Bingham Farms, Mich.: Social Program Evaluators and

Consultants, Inc.

------------------------------

6. Strengthen and Mobilize Communities

Overview
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Communities play the primary role in preventing juvenile

delinquency and the criminal victimization of juveniles. With

Federal and State leadership and support, communities can

successfully change local conditions to help youth become

law-abiding, productive citizens.

All community members--business leaders, media representatives,

teachers, parents and grandparents, young people, policymakers,

clergy, elected officials, and law enforcement--are responsible for

ensuring the health and well-being of children. When all members of

the community work together to achieve common goals, everyone

benefits from the strength of a working partnership. 

Even medium- and small-scale community mobilization efforts can be

effective. The Community Responses to Drug Abuse (CRDA) Initiative,

a program researched by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and

designed and implemented by the National Crime Prevention Council

(NCPC), found that modest neighborhoods with limited resources can

make significant strides in reducing drug activity, protecting

youth, and improving the physical environment.1 

The Subgroup on Violence and Place of the Interdepartmental Working

Group on Violence summarized the advantage of using the community

as a frame of reference to solve the problem of violence in the

following manner:

Using community as a unit of analysis shifts attention from

individual incidents of crime as such (the undifferentiated

categories of murder, assault, drug trafficking, etc.), and

generalized responses (law enforcement, gun control, drug

interdiction, stiff sentences) to local dynamics, local impact, and

local opportunities. [Community analysis] suggests that the fear

caused by violence is as much a problem as violence itself; that

local responses can successfully fight the drivers of violence

(street gun and drug markets). It emphasizes the power and

potential of local resources, local alliances, and local

experiments in violence prevention.2

This section describes why strong communities are critical to

reducing delinquency and violence and provides fundamental elements

essential to successful community change. It also presents examples

of efforts that prove community mobilization strategies work.

Current Status and Analysis of the Problem

Community Deterioration

Earlier sections of this Action Plan describe categories of risk

factors that research has shown can contribute to juvenile

delinquency. They include individual, family, peer, school, and

community factors. Community risk factors include the availability

of drugs and firearms, community laws and norms favorable to drug

use, the nature and extent of crime, media portrayals of violence,
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

neighborhood transition and mobility, reduced interaction among

residents causing community disassociation, and economic

deprivation.

Community life has changed significantly in recent decades,

resulting in a decline in essential youth nurturing, supervision,

and guidance. In many instances, the deterioration of the community

has isolated parents and their children from the network and

support of extended families, and fear of children has replaced

fear for children.3

Poverty exacerbates social disorganization and is both a source of

stress and a risk factor for communities, individuals, and

families. In 1992, 22 percent of youth lived below the poverty

level, a 42-percent increase since 1976. Poverty rates are higher

among children under age 6 (25 percent) than among older youth (19

percent). Poverty is also higher among minority youth, particularly

African Americans (47 percent) and Hispanics (40 percent), than

among white youth (17 percent). Youth growing up in inner cities

are most likely to live in poverty.4

Historically, government has responded to youth problems by

providing services to address the symptoms, often resulting in

inefficient use of scarce resources. Children labeled as delinquent

enter the correctional system, which has been unable to pay

attention to underlying family and other problems. Youth

intervention agencies identify some children as abused, neglected,

or dependent, remove them from their homes, and place them in

foster care, but the agencies fail or are unable to provide

preventive family support or mental health services. Some children

with mental health needs are placed in secure psychiatric settings

with little opportunity for treatment in community-based,

family-oriented programs.5

This fragmented human services system does not serve anyone

effectively--youth, families, or communities. The system is

expensive; it often fails to solve youth's problems; and youth are

referred from agency to agency with little followup. Comprehensive

and targeted collaborative efforts can more effectively assess the

needs of at-risk youth, implement promising strategies, and

maximize community resources.6

Effective and Promising Strategies and Programs

Although evaluation has not yet proved the effectiveness of efforts

to produce positive and lasting community change, several

community-building strategies appear to be promising. A

communitywide approach to reducing violence and delinquency is

promising for several reasons. First, it affects the entire social

environment by focusing on community norms, values, and policies as

well as on conditions that place children at risk for adolescent

problems. Second, all members of the community can apply their

expertise where it is most effective. Community mobilization holds

the promise of investing every local resident in solving what is
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

truly a shared goal--to help young people grow up to maximize their

potential and reduce their likelihood of involvement in violence

and delinquency. Federal and State governments can assist

communities by showing them the most effective ways to tap into

fiscal and human resources.

Community planning teams that include a partnership of agency and

lay participants can help create a consensus on priorities and

services to be provided. They also build support for a

comprehensive approach that draws on all sectors of the community

for participation, such as the criminal justice and juvenile

justice systems; other service systems such as health and mental

health, child welfare, education, assisted housing providers,

recreation, and law enforcement; business; media; religious

institutions; and grassroots organizations, including parent

groups, youth clubs, crime victim groups, and civic and social

groups.

The Department of Justice's (DOJ's) Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services (COPS) supports the concept of successful

community policing through close, mutually beneficial ties between

police and community members. COPS uses a long-term problemsolving

approach that targets persistent or recurring problems in

communities. One of the key COPS components is enhanced

communications among police, the community, and other public and

social service agencies. The community must be viewed as an active

partner with law enforcement in identifying problems and

determining appropriate tactics and measures of success.

In the Texas City Action Plan To Prevent Crime (T-CAP),7 NCPC

worked with seven municipal governments, local leaders, private

entities, and citizens to adopt and implement strategies to reduce

violence. Through this partnership, the initiative has accomplished

the following:

o Violence reduction through environmental design, such as improved

street lighting.

o Job creation and training programs.

o Mandated parent education and enhanced childcare.

o Youth recreation and senior citizen safety projects.

o Community oriented policing strategies aimed at community

disorder.

o Conflict resolution training.

o Substance abuse reduction programs.

o Improved juvenile justice processes.

o Block teams and jurisdiction-wide teams to address specific
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

problems.

In 1989, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) provided funding to

establish the CRDA National Demonstration Program in 10 sites

across the country. The purpose of the program was to help

communities develop and implement effective strategies to reduce

drug abuse and improve the quality of life in their neighborhoods.

A process and impact evaluation funded by NIJ identified a number

of positive changes in target areas compared with control areas.

The evaluation found that local organizations in these

neighborhoods, assisted by NCPC and the National Training and

Information Center, could successfully develop and implement a wide

variety of anti-drug strategies.

Many of these strategies involved cooperative efforts with law

enforcement workers who helped community organizations increase

levels of citizen awareness and participation in anti-drug

activities. These community interventions also resulted in

increased social interaction among residents, favorable attitudes

toward the police, and positive perceptions about their

neighborhood as a safe place to live. The CRDA program also helped

grassroots organizations develop partnerships with criminal justice

agencies, fire and housing departments, city councils, school

boards, and recreation departments.

One of the key CRDA projects was the Oakland (CA) Community

Organization. Residents learned to work in partnership with law

enforcement, which resulted in increased funding for the police

department's Beat Health Unit. Beat Health has been directly

responsible for mobilizing residents to take direct action in drug

abuse prevention, organizing a neighborhood cleanup, and closing

more than 300 drug houses.8

Community Assessment

The public health model of youth violence prevention encourages a

partnership of community leaders to determine their community's

readiness for a comprehensive risk-focused prevention effort and to

identify or create a community prevention board. The board assesses

the community's risks and existing resources by collecting data on

risk indicators and analyzing existing programs. With this

information, the community board prioritizes risk factors,

identifies programming gaps, and reviews effective approaches to

address high-priority risk factors.

With a complete community assessment, the board can develop a

strategic plan to implement and evaluate a comprehensive

risk-reduction strategy tailored to the unique risk and resource

profile of its community. Such a strategy includes helping

communities reduce critical risk factors; helping youth develop

protective factors such as healthy beliefs, clear standards for

behavior, and skills for economic self-sufficiency; or implementing

a combination of both approaches.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's

(OJJDP's) Title V Initiative, Local Incentive Grants for

Delinquency Prevention Programs (Title V Initiative), provides an

example of effective resource allocation combined with training.

During 1994, the Title V Initiative distributed grants to 49 States

and 6 Territories to promote local momentum and attract local

financial and human resources. Nearly 2,500 local participants

attended OJJDP-sponsored training sessions and learned how to

implement an effective prevention planning framework, design new

approaches to interagency collaboration, and conduct valuable risk

and resource assessments.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has funded

several promising pilot programs based on the public health model

through its Maternal and Child Health Block Grants. The Communities

That Care process formalizes the public health model into a tool

for mobilizing communities to address issues of delinquency,

violence, substance abuse, school dropout, and teen pregnancy.

Youth Involvement

Many young people feel a deep sense of alienation and disconnection

from their own communities, contributing to a lack of self-esteem.

Youth need opportunities to establish their self-worth and receive

affirmation of their place and role within the community. Adult

leaders often fail to tap into essential youth skills, such as

problemsolving and decisionmaking, that can effectively change

conditions and attitudes within a community. 

Adults must recognize that youth have a stake in their communities

and need to be substantially involved in addressing community

problems, particularly juvenile violence and victimization.

Youth involvement has two beneficiaries: the community benefits

from the high energy and creative talents of young people, and

young people benefit from the critical realization that they can

make positive differences in their community. Many community

programs attribute their success to activities designed to help

youth realize that they are valuable to their families and

communities and to convey a sense of respect and pride in the

positive contributions that youth can make.9

Communities should initiate activities and services that help youth

resist violence and develop skills to mediate conflicts peacefully.

They should take steps to help youth replace their mistrust toward

the law and law enforcement with a sense of trust and a willingness

to cooperate. The Youth as Resources Program, operated by NCPC, is

an example of a program with strong youth and community

involvement. Guided by a board of local leaders, including youth,

young people take active roles in planning, implementing, and

managing community service projects. The program, which began in 3

Indiana cities, has spread to more than 35 sites in 17 States and

abroad.10
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Neighborhood-Targeted and Place-Based Strategies

Strategies that benefit communities include those that foster a

return to the informal social control once provided by stay-at-home

neighbors and senior citizens, who would "watch over" their

neighborhoods and their neighbors' children. Programs that

encourage informal community involvement and emphasize community

partnerships with law enforcement and social service agencies can

strengthen a community's ability to serve as its own guardian. A

good example is found in community oriented policing strategies,

which seek to give law enforcement a highly visible presence in

communities and build positive relationships with residents. These

community-based programs, which promote police-community

partnerships to solve problems that lead to crime, have proven to

be successful in fostering this kind of neighborhood

responsibility.

Private initiatives funded by foundations have taken the lead in

supporting communitywide and neighborhood-based strategies. Over

the years, national foundations such as Ford, Rockefeller,

McArthur, Robert Wood Johnson, Clark, Casey, and Carnegie have

supported these programs. These programs have reached out to the

corporate and business sectors that have been supportive in

enhancing their success.

The Administration's Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community

initiative applies the principles of community mobilization to

neighborhood economic development strategies. Other examples of

place-based violence prevention strategies include the Office of

Justice Programs' (OJP's) Operation Weed and Seed, the Department

of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) Public Housing Drug

Elimination Program, the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention's

(CSAP's) Community Partnerships, and the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention's (CDC's) violence prevention projects.

Operation Weed and Seed "weeds out" violent crime, gang activity,

drug use, and drug trafficking in targeted high-crime

neighborhoods, and then "seeds" the area by restoring social and

economic revitalization. In many areas, Operation Weed and Seed has

reduced crime, fear, and violence, and helped communities develop

innovative planning and organizational strategies to address

neighborhood problems.

HUD's Public Housing Drug Elimination Program has encouraged

cooperative working relationships among housing authorities, law

enforcement, and tenants to enhance local resident control and

accountability for buildings, conditions, and responsible tenancy. 

Local/Federal Partnerships

Federal agencies can collaborate as partners in local efforts to

improve communities. Key to the success of a Federal/local

partnership is a willingness to compromise and sustain involvement

over time. Agencies must be prepared to allow flexibility and
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

leeway in decision-making and in framing local initiatives.

In the Pulling America's Communities Together (PACT) program,

Federal representatives of the Departments of Education, Housing

and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Justice, and

Labor have worked with Atlanta, GA; Denver, CO; the District of

Columbia; and the State of Nebraska to coordinate efforts to reduce

community violence by building healthier communities. Through NCPC,

the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, and Developmental

Research and Programs, Inc., BJA and OJJDP have provided technical

assistance to the PACT program.

As a result of these partnerships, PACT has stimulated cooperation

among many agencies that have no prior history of collaboration,

providing a comprehensive framework for community leaders to

address the problem of violence. It has also produced innovative

local actions, often beyond traditional jurisdictional boundaries,

to prevent and reduce violence.

Training and Resource Utilization

Community leaders need to know how and where to target and generate

local resources. They also gain from establishing mechanisms that

sustain linkages among local resources. A number of Federal

agencies, ranging from HUD's Office of Public and Indian Housing to

CSAP, have developed training programs and clearinghouses to

support efforts to identify and sustain resources. AmeriCorps and

other service-oriented initiatives provide information about human

resource opportunities. OJJDP has established a Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention Training and Technical Assistance

Center. These agencies are complemented by a host of private

nonprofit agencies that have strong records of success in

supporting local mobilization efforts. 

OJJDP's Title V Initiative, described earlier, not only provides a

sound strategy for assessing risk and protective factors but is an

example of effective resource utilization combined with training.

The program encourages communities to pool delinquency prevention

resources and systems in several ways. First, by developing

comprehensive needs assessments and objectives, grantees enable

communities to make more effective use of local prevention funds.

Second, grantees must match at least 50 percent of the Federal

award with State or local funds or in-kind services, thus

stimulating local public and private funding. Third, local leaders

must develop and implement comprehensive, community-based Title V

initiatives and gain support from key leaders from the public,

nonprofit, and private sectors. Finally, the Title V Initiative

encourages existing prevention coalitions and programs to expand to

delinquency prevention programming, thereby enhancing the

effectiveness and scope of community systems.

To support the effective use of Title V Initiative funds, OJJDP

makes available a two-phase training program on risk-focused

prevention to local leaders and community planning teams. During
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

1994, nearly 2,500 local participants attended OJJDP training

sessions and learned how to implement an effective planning

framework, design new approaches to interagency collaboration, and

conduct valuable risk and resource assessments. These communities

are joining forces to aggressively address their juvenile violence

and delinquency problems.11

Information Sharing

Newsletters, bulletins, computer linkages, and other vehicles for

sharing information can generate action as well as convey critical

information. Information sharing can identify programs that are

founded on successful strategies. However, rather than reproducing

successful programs, communities must adapt the underlying

strategies to their own structure and needs. Experience suggests

that methods and strategies are more transferable than programs and

more portable than institutions. Sharing information about the

results of successful strategies is vital not only to publicizing

successful models but also to encouraging communities to set

realistic program goals and devise useful evaluation mechanisms.

Outcomes: Short- and Long-Term Successes

Tackling the complex problem of juvenile delinquency will not

necessarily produce immediate results. Long-term successes are

usually built on a layered foundation of many short-term efforts

and successes. Short-term objectives, when successfully met, create

confidence and generate energy and enthusiasm toward working on the

longer term issues. They also help develop skills and capacities

that will be valuable in working on more complex long-term goals.

Federal Action Steps

Support Concentrated Strategies To Improve Distressed Neighborhoods

and Reduce Violence Citywide

The Federal Government will support community efforts to assess and

identify local needs, resources, and priorities in order to

identify and respond to the needs of high-risk youth and juvenile

offenders. Federal agencies will continue to support community

mobilization models such as the Title V Initiative, Comprehensive

Communities Program, Project PACT, National Funding Collaborative

on Violence Prevention, Operation Weed and Seed, and Hope VI public

housing Urban Revitalization Grants.

NIJ will continue to support evaluations of Operation Weed and

Seed. The Administration will continue to support Empowerment Zones

and Enterprise Communities as an economic model for concentrating

resources on and strategically planning action for distressed urban

areas.

CDC, through its Community Demonstration Grants, and OJJDP, through

its Title V Initiative grant program, will help communities design

and implement multifaceted juvenile delinquency and violence
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

prevention programs. 

Link Federal and Private Initiatives at the Community Level

Improving the coordination of comprehensive community-based efforts

to prevent crime is critical. OJJDP's SafeFutures program will

provide funding to six jurisdictions that create exemplary

public-private partnerships in the areas of juvenile justice and

delinquency prevention, demonstrate a comprehensive strategy to

strengthen the juvenile justice system, and provide a continuum of

services and sanctions. It will also establish technology and

protocols to replicate its successes in other jurisdictions.

Other Federal agencies, including the Departments of Housing and

Urban Development, Health and Human Services, and Education will

join with the Corporation for National Service (CNS) and private

agencies to provide training and technical assistance to

SafeFutures communities.

The President's Crime Prevention Council will provide small grants

in support of community efforts to develop comprehensive plans to

assess neighborhood-based programs, ensure a continuum of responses

to youth problems (violence, delinquency, drug use, gangs, and

teen pregnancy), and coordinate or integrate service delivery and

funding.

In support of creating these linkages, OJJDP has disseminated the

Matrix of Community-Based Initiatives to inform communities about

existing sites with successful public and private comprehensive,

community-based strategies to prevent violence and strengthen

economic development. The report provides a broad narrative

description of each major initiative, a local contact, and a

contact within the Federal department or the foundation that can

provide additional information.12

Advance the Public Health Approach to Assessing and Reducing

Violence in Communities

OJJDP will continue to widely disseminate its Guide for

Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and

Chronic Juvenile Offenders and will continue to make available

timely research findings and program strategies to help communities

understand the issues surrounding youth violence, including the use

of firearms, and potential responses to these problems.

CDC will distribute guidelines on violence prevention and

intervention to communities to help them develop their own violence

prevention programs. As part of this dissemination strategy, CDC

will disseminate proceedings from a National Conference on Violence

on issues such as domestic violence, suicide, violence in the

workplace, and youth violence.

Hold Satellite Video Teleconferences To Share Information on

Delinquency Prevention and Juvenile Justice Programs
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

OJJDP has begun a series of video teleconferences to permit local

officials, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention

practitioners, and others to share a wide range of promising

strategies. The teleconferences provide information about training

and technical assistance, discuss principles of prevention and

intervention, and address techniques for implementing successful

juvenile justice reform.

The first teleconference focused on community planning,

mobilization, and coordination of services as a followup to OJJDP's

Title V Risk-Focused Prevention Training Program. Subsequent

teleconferences concentrate on delinquency reduction topics,

including proven programs that address serious, violent, and

chronic juvenile offenders; community policing; boot camps; truancy

reduction; mentoring; and conflict resolution.

Encourage Youth and Adults To Contribute to the Safety of Their

Communities

CNS provides opportunities for youth and adults to become involved

in violence reduction activities through programs such as

AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve America, and JustServ.

AmeriCorps' VISTA, a CNS program, will continue to assist men and

women age 18 and older who commit themselves to helping low-income

people with neighborhood safety and revitalization through

employment training, housing, literacy, and health education.

The National Senior Service Corps will continue to draw on the

skills, talents, and experiences of older Americans to address

community needs through the Foster Grand-parent Program, the Senior

Companion Program, and the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program.

HUD's Heinz Neighborhood Development Program will continue to

assist neighborhood groups in organizing and improving their

environments.

Improve the Existing Communications Infrastructure and Utilize

State-of-the-Art Technology To Share Information

OJJDP is expanding JUVJUST, an electronic list service that will

facilitate the sharing of information on juvenile violence

reduction. It will supplement efforts such as the Partnerships

Against Violence Network (PAVNET), the Juvenile Justice

Clearinghouse, OJJDP's on-line information on reducing youth gun

violence, and HHS' PrevLine. PAVNET is a coalition of Federal

agencies (Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services,

Housing and Urban Development, Justice, and Labor) that integrates

data and resources, removing barriers to information sharing. It

provides an online search and retrieval system; a printed directory

of programs, technical assistance resources, and funding sources;

networking among Federal clearinghouses and resource centers; and

an Internet mail group.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

OJJDP will also provide local jurisdictions with an interactive CDROM program through which they can obtain information about

implementing programs and strategies that can be effective in

reducing youth violence. The interactive nature of CD-ROM

technology will enable local users to apply the forms and

protocols, risk assessment information, and research and guiding

principles provided on diskette to strategies that address local

needs.

Establish a Center That Coordinates Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention Training and Technical Assistance 

OJJDP has established and will continue to support a Training

Center to provide an inventory of juvenile justice and delinquency

prevention training and technical assistance resources and to

establish a resource data base.

OJJDP will also conduct needs assessments that will support new

training and technical assistance program development and implement

specialized training, including training of trainers.

Promote Federal and Other Joint Funding 

DOJ will publicize and promote funding efforts with other Federal

agencies and other public-private funding sources and encourage

joint funding of efforts to prevent juvenile delinquency.

Suggestions for State and Local Action

o Consider innovative ways to mobilize communities that break out

of traditional institutional practices.

o Develop partnerships with community-based organizations, schools,

businesses, parents, and others.

o Assess and identify local needs, resources, and priorities to

target high-risk youth and juvenile offenders. 

o Use the Federal communications infrastructure to gather

information about successful prevention and intervention programs

that can be adapted to local needs.

o Develop and implement locally based strategies of integrated

prevention and graduated sanctions to target youth violence.

o Create a youth commission or task force that involves young

people in designing and implementing community activities that

affect them.

o Develop a clearinghouse and information hotline and hire a youth

services coordinator to evaluate programs and assist youth in

finding services in their communities.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

o Coordinate activities in local communities by linking law

enforcement efforts with economic empowerment, youth development,

education reform, and an improved juvenile justice system.

o Assist the private sector and local governments to form

partnerships by identifying Federal resources that are committed to

promoting public-private partnerships.

o Foster neighborhood crime watches, cleanups, and public awareness

events.

o Enforce anti-noise ordinances, housing codes, health and fire

codes, anti-nuisance laws, and drug-free rental clauses in

residential and business environments.

o Organize a hotline number for reporting criminal activity and

information.

------------------------------

Endnotes

1. Rosenbaum, D.P., et al. 1994. Community Responses to Drug Abuse:

A Program Evaluation. Washington, D.C. National Institute of

Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

2. Interdepartmental Working Group on Violence. 1994. Violence:

Report to the President and Domestic Policy Council. Washington,

D.C.

3. Anderson, E. 1990. Street Wise: Race, Class, and Change in an

Urban Community. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.

Jencks, C. 1992. Rethinking Social Policy: Race, Poverty, and the

Underclass. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Merry, S.E. 1981. Urban Danger: Life in a Neighborhood of

Strangers. Philadelphia, Pa.: Temple University Press.

Wilson, W.J. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the

Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago

Press.

4. Snyder, H., and M. Sickmund. 1995 (August). Juvenile Offenders

and Victims: A National Report. Washington, D.C.: Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of

Justice.

5. Howell, J.C., ed. 1995 (May). Guide to Implementing the

Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile

Offenders. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

6. Wilson, J.J., and J.C. Howell. 1993. Comprehensive Strategy for
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Program Summary.

Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

7. Taking the Offensive To Prevent Crime: How Seven Cities Did It.

1994 (April). Washington, D.C.: National Crime Prevention Council.

8. Rosenbaum et al. 1994.

9. Interdepartmental Working Group on Violence. 1994.

10. Changing Perspectives: Youth As Resources. 1990. Washington,

D.C.: National Crime Prevention Council.

11. 1994 Report to Congress: Title V Incentive Grants for Local

Delinquency Prevention Programs. 1995 (March). Washington, D.C.:

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.

Department of Justice.

12. Matrix of Community-Based Initiatives. 1995 (May). Washington,

D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.

Department of Justice.

------------------------------

7. Support the Development of Innovative Approaches to Research and

Evaluation

Overview

Effective public policy, laws, and intervention strategies to

prevent and reduce juvenile crime and violence require a solid

knowledge base. Building a knowledge base requires a thoughtfully

developed, comprehensive portfolio of statistical systems, research

programs, and evaluation capabilities. This combination is

necessary for the following reasons:

o Statistical systems monitor changes in juvenile crime, violence,

and risk factors that have been shown to be related to these

phenomena.

o Focused long-term research improves our understanding of the

causes and correlates of juvenile crime and strengthens our ability

to develop successful prevention, early intervention, and graduated

sanctions programs.

o Effective evaluation tools to measure progress--to tell us if we

are on the right track--are critical for refining and modifying

existing prevention and early intervention strategies as well as

graduated sanctions programs.

The Nation's ability to address the problems of juvenile violence

and delinquency has been hampered by an incomplete understanding of

the nature and extent of these problems. Recent research has
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

greatly increased knowledge about juvenile crime, its origins,

factors that place youth at risk for involvement in criminal

activity, and factors that protect youth from turning to violence

and delinquency. Research is providing information on violence in

some major cities and helping the cities develop a plan to solve

this problem. Building on solid research into the causes and

correlates of delinquency, we must continue to evaluate strategies

and programs to determine what works to prevent juvenile

delinquency and crime. Strong evaluation data are essential to

create national, State, and community partnerships to effectively

prevent and intervene in juvenile delinquency.

Techniques have become increasingly sophisticated for collecting,

storing, managing, and analyzing large amounts of data on juvenile

delinquency. This information contributes to our understanding of

the problems of juvenile violence and delinquency, provides the

basis for new research, and aids in evaluating the effectiveness of

the programs and strategies contained in the Action Plan.

To enhance evaluation and research efforts, we need to improve

three critical areas: national statistical information and systems

on the nature and extent of juvenile delinquency and violence;

longitudinal research to strengthen our understanding of the

complex relationships between risk and protective factors; and

rigorous evaluation of programs designed to address juvenile crime

and delinquency. In each of these areas, we must develop data

collection instruments that are sensitive to ethnicity, culture,

and gender and that can better measure the complete context of

youth development.

This section addresses each of these critical areas. It presents a

clear description of the issues involved in juvenile justice system

data collection and the challenges faced by researchers and

evaluators. This section also looks ahead to future directions

required by effective juvenile justice research, evaluation, and

data collection and proposes a series of steps that the juvenile

justice system can take to improve the outlook for effective

research and evaluation.

Current Status and Limitations of Existing Knowledge

Statistical Information and Systems

Statistical information on juvenile justice comes both from the

juvenile justice system and from data on delinquent behavior

generated by other disciplines. Ideally, data collection systems

should complement and enhance each other. For example, analysis of

juvenile arrests should reveal information about causes of

delinquency and juveniles' entry into detention, their processing

in juvenile court, and their placement in the juvenile correctional

system.

Much can be learned from nationwide statistics about juvenile

arrest and victimization rates, the number of cases handled
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

annually in juvenile courts, and the number and types of juveniles

in custody. This information contributes to the development of

national policy on a wide range of issues. However, enhanced

analysis of State and local data and research findings can lead to

even greater refinements in the approach to juvenile justice and

delinquency prevention. State and local jurisdictions are the

primary sources of juvenile justice policies and procedures, and

improvements in national data are largely dependent on information

generated from the State level. An example is data on the

deinstitutionalization of status offenders and disproportionate

minority confinement. As each State addresses these issues, a

national data system tracks progress and gathers and disseminates

information that can be helpful to other States and local

jurisdictions.

In addition, each component of the juvenile justice system, from

law enforcement to corrections, has its own data collection system

that provides unique perspectives on the problems of juvenile

delinquency and the operation of the juvenile justice system. Each

perspective is important to understanding the entire picture of

juvenile justice. However, in order to obtain a comprehensive

portrait of delinquent behavior, we need a data collection system

that tracks the offender from arrest through court proceedings to

disposition, identifying successful techniques within programs. 

If we clearly understand the goals of a national data collection

system, we are better able to assess its effectiveness. For

example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime

Reporting (UCR) system annually collects national data on the

number of reported crimes and arrests.1 UCR uses standardized

definitions of crimes and provides information on crime at the

State and local levels. Throughout its 60-year history, UCR has

gained the cooperation of every State and nearly every local police

department. Despite its high quality and comprehensiveness, UCR

does not serve as an accurate indicator of the total number of

juvenile crimes because it includes only reported crimes. Further,

UCR includes incidents of criminal activities and arrests but not

court data.

Although the UCR approach is logical from a law enforcement

perspective, it does not work as well in other sectors of the

juvenile justice system. The juvenile court data collection system,

for example, counts case records but not arrests. In most

jurisdictions, it is not possible to assess the number and types of

cases that the juvenile court handles based on the number and type

of juvenile offenses or arrests. The issue is complicated by

differences among States in defining "juvenile." Depending on State

law, the maximum age that an individual is considered a juvenile

ranges from under 16 to under 18 and, for purposes of continuing

juvenile court jurisdiction over alleged or adjudicated

delinquents, can extend to age 25.

Juvenile court data are more disparate than UCR data. The Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) funds the
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

National Juvenile Court Data Archive (NJCDA) project, which

collects automated data files from many States and localities and

publishes reports from a number of others.2 NJCDA illustrates the

promises and difficulties of State-level data collection. Although

automated information systems provide accurate and complete

pictures of juvenile court activities within each State, the level

of data collection varies considerably among States. Some States

have basic information systems that enable users to make simple

comparisons but do not allow for indepth analysis. Other States

have expansive systems that facilitate longitudinal analysis of

court careers. Still others have no individual data collection. In

order to obtain an accurate nationwide picture of the juvenile

justice system, all States and localities need to collect

standardized core data.

OJJDP's current data collection on juvenile custody reflects still

another system of gathering national information. As with other

systems, it has its strengths and weaknesses. The main source of

custody data since 1974 has been the Children in Custody (CIC)

census, that surveys all facilities that can hold juvenile

offenders.3 This census collects information on the population of

these facilities on a given day by age, race, and sex. As with

other data sets, however, it cannot discern State and local

policies that directly affect the numbers. Also, CIC cannot connect

with other data sets (given differing definitions and units of

measurement) to track offenders individually or generically through

the juvenile justice system.

Since 1990, OJJDP has pursued another avenue for collecting custody

statistics: the Juveniles Taken Into Custody (JTIC) program that

provides the same population detail as CIC but in greater depth.4

Under this program, States supply individual data on juveniles in

their custody. By tracking each juvenile through the entire custody

experience, JTIC collects both admission and release information,

providing length of stay measures for juveniles in custody at both

the national and State levels. Unlike CIC, JTIC does not collect

information on the conditions of confinement for these juveniles.

As with CIC, its ability to link to other parts of the juvenile

justice system is limited by the compatibility of individual data

systems. Together with CIC, JTIC provides an expansive view of

juvenile custody in the Nation.

The other main division in national juvenile delinquency data

collection relates to information on delinquent behavior. Data on

delinquent behavior are frequently gathered from surveys and selfreported data, or may be drawn from other sources that contribute

to our knowledge of delinquency and delinquent behavior. For

example, the Department of Labor's (DOL's) National

Longitudinal Survey of Youth collects some reports of delinquent

behavior and law enforcement contact.5 Other surveys supported by

the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Education

(ED) collect information on substance abuse and education and

include questions about delinquent behavior. Research studies have

tracked comprehensive self-report measures of delinquency, but
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

these studies are limited in geographic distribution and time.

Unfortunately, such disjointed analyses of the correlates of

delinquency provide limited insights into delinquent behavior.

Longitudinal Research

The development of effective delinquency prevention strategies

requires that we support research into the factors that place

children at risk for delinquent behavior as well as those that

protect children. While the body of research in the field is

increasing, three trends have hampered its development and

application:

o Inadequate support for research and longitudinal studies.

o Inadequate funding for replication of successful research

projects.

o Inadequate planning for research and dissemination of research

findings.

These deficiencies must be remedied before we can fully identify

and target prevention, intervention, and treatment programs that

effectively reduce delinquency as well as make broader social

policy decisions and foster systemic change.

Inadequate support for research and longitudinal studies.

Historically, there has been a shortage of empirical research on

the factors that put youth at risk for involvement in delinquent

activity and the protective factors that help at-risk youth avoid

delinquency. A recent comprehensive meta-analysis of 30 years of

research on risk and protective factors represents a significant

advance in this area.6 However, more empirical research is

essential to developing a full range of programs that will be

successful in preventing juvenile delinquency and reducing

recidivism.

With the alarming growth in violence among youth gangs,

gang-related research has attracted increased attention. Recent

gang research has been valuable, but gaps remain in our

understanding about why youth join and leave gangs and about the

interrelationship between gang participation and other forms of

delinquency and violence.7

Inadequate funding for replicating successful research projects.

One important way to find solutions to juvenile delinquency is to

replicate models of programs that work. Once the replication has

been evaluated, the researcher understands whether and how a

successful strategy drawn from research will be successful in other

settings. The final step in the research process is dissemination

and technical assistance to those who wish to establish successful

programs.

Inadequate planning for research and limited dissemination of
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

research findings. A 5-year plan for research would enable

policymakers, practitioners, legislators, and researchers to

determine what information is valuable and how limited funding can

be used responsibly. This plan would include designing basic

research questions, testing theories, and developing successful

programs. The final step would be technology transfer and

dissemination of the information to the field. 

In addition to funding long-term research, research findings need

to be translated into effective community strategies. Research

findings can be used to develop better information about causes of

crime and how to intervene successfully, information that needs to

be both accessible and useful to communities. The involvement of

nonprofit organizations, service providers, and practitioners in

the juvenile justice system is critical to this process.

Evaluation of Programs 

Evaluation research can contribute tremendously to the development

of effective juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs.

This potential can be fully realized with strong support for a

program evaluation strategy that addresses the following critical

needs:

o Develop effective evaluation strategies and capabilities.

o Improve evaluation information.

o Link evaluation to program development and practice.

o Target funds to long-term evaluation.

Develop effective evaluation strategies and capabilities. The

current state of evaluation research underscores the need for more

sophisticated evaluation methodologies and data collection

capabilities to address complex programs. Many prior evaluations of

juvenile justice programs have suffered from weak research designs

that have lacked sufficient rigor to clearly demonstrate program

impacts.8 Additionally, many evaluations have focused more on

process evaluation issues (exploring what activities were

undertaken and why) than on impact evaluation issues (determining

program outcomes and impacts).

Prevention programs in particular pose a number of challenges for

evaluation. First, preventive efforts focus on reducing or

eliminating certain behaviors or conditions in at-risk

populations.9 Unlike typical program evaluations that measure what

happened or what changed as a result of a program, prevention

program evaluations must assess what did not happen; for example,

a crime that would have been committed by a juvenile but did not

occur. Moreover, it must show that the crime would have happened

without the prevention program. Second, primary prevention efforts

often target large population groups, such as entire schools or

communities, rather than specific individuals. The results of these
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

efforts on the full population can be difficult to measure,

especially when multiple interrelated interventions are being

conducted simultaneously. Increasingly sophisticated evaluation

methods are needed to address these challenges.

Problems in conducting evaluations of prevention, intervention, and

treatment programs are compounded by deficiencies in data

collection systems nationwide. Impact evaluations of juvenile

justice programs rely on an ability to track changes in a variety

of community and individual data components related to juvenile

offense rates, juvenile justice system processing rates, indicators

of risk, and other outcomes. These data components are not always

easily accessible, comprehensive, or easily linked to individual

participants, and inconsistencies often exist among different data

collection systems.

Evaluation challenges posed by prevention and intervention programs

are particularly problematic for many local communities that do not

have access to sophisticated evaluation tools or data collection

systems. There is a great need to build local evaluation capacity

both to conduct self-evaluations and to participate more

meaningfully in national evaluation efforts. 

Improve evaluation information. Although research on the prevention

and control of juvenile delinquency and violence has increased

substantially over the past 30 years, more knowledge is needed of

what works, for whom, and under what conditions.10 A recent

exhaustive review of evaluations of prevention and corrections

programs and strategies identified several interventions that

consistently demonstrate positive effects. It also revealed,

however, that the uneven quality of evaluation research makes it

difficult to determine program effectiveness for many program

areas. Most evaluation research could be improved by stronger

research design, longer term followup, and better documentation of

program implementation.11 We are able, however, to offer

communities an array of strategies and programs that have shown

promise and some programs that have been carefully evaluated and

found to be effective.12

Link evaluation to program development and practice. Too often,

evaluations are not designed with the user audience in mind; and

too often, they are not put to good use by communities that could

benefit from their practical information. Consequently, important

findings about what does and does not work often fail to reach

front-line practitioners who could put this valuable information

into action. Intervention efforts should consist of significant

long-term investments to be most effective. To ensure the

development and testing of new, high-quality, scientifically based

prevention strategies, funding partnerships between service

agencies and research institutes are needed, in addition to

increased investment in well-planned, rigorous evaluations.

Target funds to long-term evaluation. Historically, agencies have

tended to provide resources for the delivery of services rather
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

than for an evaluation of the long-term effectiveness of these

services. Where evaluations have been funded, often they have been

added to programs as short-term efforts, resulting in weak

evaluations based on limited data. In addition, the short-term

nature of some federally funded programs has precluded long-term

evaluations. Demonstrating the effectiveness of prevention programs

(especially early interventions with children, families, and

schools) requires collecting impact data over long periods of time-

-sometimes 5, 10, or more years. Funding agencies and service

providers need to build in evaluation at the front end of programs

and sustain the evaluation over the full term of the program.

Future Directions in Juvenile Justice Statistics, Research, and

Evaluation 

Statistics

In 1990, as part of a comprehensive effort to define and address

gaps in data and data quality, OJJDP funded the Juvenile Justice

Statistics and Systems Development (SSD) project to analyze the

current state of data about juvenile victimization and delinquency

and generate discussion about improvements. In the early phases,

the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) conducted an

inventory of all Federal data systems that focus on juvenile

offending and delinquent behavior. From this inventory, NCJJ

identified systems that support particular analyses, such as

substance abuse, child victimization, health and poverty issues,

and delinquent behavior.

With this comprehensive picture of existing data systems, OJJDP and

NCJJ are working with other Federal and public- and private-sector

experts to identify the most critical information needs on a

particular topic and determine the most effective methodology for

collecting those data. In addition, OJJDP will continue to update

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report. 

Efforts to improve national statistics will involve the active

participation of the following interagency collaborations:

o Department of Justice (DOJ) Crime Statistics Working Group.

o Interagency Panel on Improving National Statistics on Children

and Families.

o Interagency Working Group on Violence Research.

o National Neighborhood Indicators Project.

o Interagency Forum on Early Childhood Research.

Participants in these projects will identify and pursue

opportunities to improve measures and statistics on juvenile

victims and offenders. These opportunities may include sharing

information or planning and cofunding collaborative initiatives.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

This collaboration will emphasize juvenile violence and

delinquency, the populations involved, and the systems' responses.

The result of these efforts will be a plan that reflects the

culmination of development activities by the year 2001. The 5-year

plan will propose:

o A portfolio of data collection efforts including their purpose,

cosponsors, periodicity, content, and methods with an outline of

expected analyses and uses.

o Plans for specific methodological research, with the necessary

feasibility and pilot test objectives and plans.

o System development plans associated with the collection of data

requested from operational agencies. These could include the

development of software to assist in the collection of data or

products containing statistical feedback to be sent to the

participating agency.

o A publication plan with descriptions of products and services to

be made available from a given data collection (or series of

collections), lists of intended audiences, methods for evaluating

the usefulness of the products, and dissemination strategies.

Research

Federal agencies have implemented several effective and promising

research initiatives to promote knowledge of the patterns and

trends in juvenile delinquency and violence. These include efforts

to build understanding in the following areas:

o Causes and correlates of crime, delinquency, and violence.

o Drug use.

o Youth gangs.

o Juvenile sex offenders.

o Youth development.

Understanding the causes and correlates of violence. In 1986 the

Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency

(Causes and Correlates), sponsored by OJJDP, began drawing data

from three sources: (1) Denver Youth Survey, (2) Pittsburgh Youth

Study, and (3) Rochester Youth Development Study. Causes and

Correlates studied 4,000 youth over a 5-year period, allowing

researchers to identify a pattern of causes and risk factors

leading to delinquency, including data on drugs, guns, peers,

school, and family. This longitudinal research with a shared

measurement approach is a milestone in delinquency research.

Interviews with 60,000 test subjects and caregivers confirmed the

direct relation between youth involvement with drugs and
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

delinquency.13 

Causes and Correlates findings suggest that involvement in violent

behavior begins early for many youth, often before the teenage

years. By the mid-to-late teenage years, approximately 20 percent

of males and 10 to 15 percent of females are involved in violent

behavior.14 Not all youth involved in violence are involved at the

same rate. One group of offenders, an estimated 14 to 19 percent,

is responsible for approximately 75 percent of offenses. The

encouraging news, however, is that 82 percent of juveniles who have

nine or more protective factors are able to resist the pressure to

become involved in delinquency. This research offers evidence of

our ability to solve the problem of juvenile delinquency through

prevention programming.15

HHS' Family and Youth Services Bureau recently conducted a national

study of substance use, suicide, and other at-risk behaviors among

juveniles with runaway, throwaway, and homeless experiences.

Although the results of the study are not yet available, one study

goal was to determine the prevalence of substance use, suicide

attempts, and other problem behaviors (delinquent activity,

victimization, and sexual activities) in this population.

In addition, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and OJJDP have

supported several studies focusing on the cycle of violence that

establish the relationship between experiences of childhood

violence and adolescent delinquent behavior:

o An NIJ-sponsored longitudinal study of childhood victimization

followed more than 1,500 cases from childhood through young

adulthood. This study found that childhood abuse increases the

likelihood of future delinquency and adult criminality by nearly 40

percent.16 Data from the study subsequently were used to examine

the specific criminal consequences of child sexual abuse.17 

o The Rochester Youth Development Study collected extensive data

through personal interviews and agency records, finding that a

history of maltreatment increases the chances of youth violence by

24 percent. In addition to adolescents who were themselves abused

or neglected as children, adolescents growing up in homes where

partner violence existed also exhibited higher rates of violence.18

Understanding the role of drugs in delinquency. Since 1990, NIJ has

collected quarterly data and recorded trends in drug use among a

group of high-risk male juvenile arrestees or detainees in 12 U.S.

cities. Ten of the sites also collect data from female juvenile

arrestees and detainees. This Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program

documented a dramatic rise from 1992 to 1993 in the use of

marijuana among juvenile arrestees/detainees, underscoring the

importance of providing intervention programs for youthful

offenders. The program shows that many juveniles who use illegal

drugs falter in school attendance and eventually enter the juvenile

justice system.19
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

From the Causes and Correlates study, OJJDP has also found that the

number of violent offenses increased after the onset of drug use.

Drug use is closely related to violent crime and juvenile

offending.20

Understanding youth gangs. The Family and Youth Services Bureau's

Youth Gang Drug Prevention Program supports ongoing gang-related

research projects, including:

o Gang Families in a Public Housing Project, which examines the

dynamics of family life as they relate to gang membership and the

transfer of gang habits and values among family members.

o Factors Related to Gang Membership Resistance, which uses

comparison group studies to explore how some at-risk youth avoid

gang activity. 

The National Youth Gang Center, a key component of OJJDP's

Comprehensive Response to America's Gang Problem initiative,

maintains and expands critical knowledge about youth gangs and how

communities can respond to them effectively. The center collects

and analyzes gang-related data; analyzes anti-gang legislation;

reviews current anti-gang literature; identifies promising gang

prevention program strategies; and coordinates activities of the

Gang Consortium, a coalition of representatives of Federal

agencies. The center also supports a national baseline study of the

locations and characteristics of violent gangs.

Understanding system response to juvenile sex offenders.

Recognizing that juvenile sex offenders have become an increasingly

visible and particularly problematic offender population, OJJDP has

supported an initiative to describe and assess the ways in which

the juvenile justice system and other related systems respond to

juvenile sex offenders. This ongoing research initiative, conducted

by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, includes a

comprehensive literature review, an indepth assessment of system

functioning at 8 sites, and multistate retrospective data tracking

of a cohort of 450 juvenile sex offenders from the point of court

referral through disposition and treatment. 

Understanding the positive and resilient aspects of youth

development. The first principle in designing youth development

research should be to move away from the "deficit model" that

focuses on discrete problem behaviors, such as teen pregnancy, to

a more comprehensive approach that describes experiences of youth

in high-risk situations, including their capacity for change,

resourcefulness, and full potential. Research should describe youth

in the context of peer group, family, neighborhood, and community

rather than solely in the context of individual behavior. We also

need to understand the adaptive and protective behaviors of youth

in high-stress environments and pay greater attention to positive

developmental outcomes. A research framework that considers the

full context of youth development would:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

o Identify the developmental needs of youth in general and within

the context of distressed environments.

o Focus attention on the interaction of risk factors and protective

factors.

o Support studies that identify needs that are being met and those

that are not so that youth programs can include appropriate goals.

o Support longitudinal studies that examine processes of individual

development and change as well as change in communities and

institutions.

o Specify the most effective combination of community supports and

opportunities for youth to develop the skills and strengths they

will need to become productive adults.

When developing effective community strategies with measurable

results, program designers should pay attention to the

circumstances in which youth live and grow, addressing a broad

spectrum of areas associated with a healthy community and healthy

human development (for example, economic opportunity, safety,

health, and education). Research in this area needs to include an

understanding of the developmental needs of adolescents in relation

to the environment.

The proposed model for inquiry would move beyond measuring

individual actions and circumstances to include data that

illustrate the importance of positive developmental outcomes among

youth. Rather than using research activities to focus simply on

individual problem behaviors and the categorical funding streams by

which most current programs are supported, this model would focus

on the interaction of risk factors and normal processes of human

development, positive adaptation, and resilience among youth.

Examples of areas for future research include the following:

o Availability of recreational and educational activities and

employment opportunities.

o Existence of family and community supports.

o Developmental needs served by gang participation and other highrisk behaviors.

o Cultural and ethnic characteristics as well as intergenerational

influences on gang participation and other high-risk behaviors.

o Patterns of drug use and violent delinquency among youth to

determine whether they are part of a single syndrome or a

developmental stage.

o Correlation among family variables (for example, parental

supervision and/or involvement) and high-risk behaviors to

determine whether there is a concurrent or predictive relationship.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Dissemination and implementation of research findings. OJJDP

published the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and

Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Comprehensive Strategy) in 1993 and the

Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious,

Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Guide) in 1995. These

documents are the foundation upon which the Action Plan rests. The

Comprehensive Strategy and the Guide integrate more than 30 years

of research into the causes and correlates of juvenile delinquency

and violence, risk and protective factors for delinquency, and the

effectiveness of a wide variety of prevention programs and juvenile

justice system graduated sanctions. These documents help to

translate research into practical information that can be used at

the community level.

Evaluation 

Several effective and promising strategies have been implemented by

Federal agencies over the past several years that have resulted in

useful evaluations to drive successful program development. These

include:

o Making evaluation funding an integral part of program

development.

o Using evaluability assessments and constructing logic models.

o Enhancing local evaluation capacity.

o Linking evaluation findings to program development and practice.

Making evaluation funding an integral part of program development.

A number of recent delinquency prevention initiatives have made

evaluation an integral part of the program. The Cities in Schools

(CIS) program, for example, is a dropout prevention program

implemented in 665 sites in 197 communities nationwide and funded

by OJJDP in collaboration with ED, HHS, and the Departments of

Commerce and Defense. The program's continued operation has been

supported by preliminary evaluation results that indicate

significant success in keeping at-risk students in school. Eighty

percent of students who entered the program during the 1989-90 and

1990-91 school years were still in school in 1993, and 70 percent

of students with high absenteeism prior to entering CIS improved

their attendance.21

Other examples of recent and on-going demonstration projects with

integrated evaluation components include:

o Center for Substance Abuse Prevention's (CSAP's) Community

Partnerships, a program that launched a variety of drug-prevention

activities tailored to the needs of target communities.

o Bureau of Justice Assistance's (BJA's) Comprehensive Communities

program, a strategy to control violent crime through community
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

mobilization.

o Office of Justice Programs' (OJP's) Operation Weed and Seed, a

multiagency strategy supporting law enforcement and community

revitalization.

o OJJDP's Title V Initiative, Incentive Grants for Local

Delinquency Prevention Programs (Title V Initiative), a

comprehensive risk-focused approach to developing community-based

delinquency prevention strategies.

The results of these evaluations are being used to enhance

knowledge of what is effective and to guide ongoing program

implementation and replication efforts.

In recent years, several agencies have strengthened their

institutional evaluation capabilities and management evaluation

systems. In addition, OJJDP has established an evaluation contract

capable of planning and performing independent evaluations of a

variety of OJJDP projects. 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) created the

National Evaluation Data and Technical Assistance Center (NEDTAC)

to serve as a program evaluation system and resource center to

support the needs of CSAT staff and grantees and substance abuse

treatment evaluators. NEDTAC provides a wide range of technical

assistance and data base development services to support grantees

in meeting evaluation requirements and utilizing evaluation data.

Under its program evaluation system, NEDTAC also conducts special

studies to inform policy decisions and program planning.

Using evaluability assessments and constructing logic models.

Evaluability assessments have been gaining increasing popularity as

a tool to help ensure that an evaluation will be both technically

feasible and capable of answering research questions important to

decisionmakers.22 Evaluability assessments address important issues

related to a program's measurable goals and objectives,

hypothesized causal links between activities and outcomes, and data

collection capabilities. Addressing these issues before the

evaluation begins strengthens the potential reliability of the

evaluation.

Logic models are also useful tools to help program planners create

program activities and expected outcomes. The principal purpose of

the logic model is to present graphically the logical connections

among conditions that contribute to the need for a program in a

community, the activities aimed at addressing these conditions, and

the outcomes and impacts expected to result from the activities.23

These models, which have been required of CSAP grantees in several

programs and recently by OJJDP in its SafeFutures program, can also

play a key role in conducting evaluability assessments of newly

designed programs.

Enhancing local evaluation capacity. Enhancing local capacity is
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

critical to conducting successful, sophisticated evaluations of

complex prevention and intervention strategies. In recent years, a

number of evaluation manuals have been developed and disseminated

to local communities, including:

o What, Me Evaluate? A Basic Evaluation Guide for Citizen Crime

Prevention Programs. National Crime Prevention Council (1986).

o Evaluating Drug Control and System Improvement Projects. NIJ

(1991).

o Handbook for Evaluating Drug and Alcohol Prevention Programs:

Staff/Team Evaluation of Prevention Programs (STEPP). HHS, Public

Health Service (1987).

o Evaluating Juvenile Justice Programs: A Design Monograph for

State Planners. DOJ, OJJDP (1991). 

o Prevention Plus III: Assessing Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention

Programs at the School and Community Level. HHS, Office for

Substance Abuse Prevention (1991).

o Understanding Evaluation: The Way to Better Prevention Programs.

ED (1993).

o How Good Is Your Drug Abuse Treatment Program? A Guide to

Evaluation. HHS, National Institutes of Health (1995).

These manuals explain key evaluation concepts and list the steps

necessary for communities to more easily evaluate their own

programs. In addition to disseminating manuals, several agencies,

including CSAT and CSAP, have provided community members with

substantial training and technical assistance about conducting

evaluations and collecting and assessing relevant program data.

Linking evaluation findings to program development and practice.

OJJDP's recently published Guide is a current example of

transferring evaluation findings to program development and

practice.24 The Guide describes the community planning and

organizational steps necessary to design and implement local

prevention and graduated sanctions strategies and to link them to

provide a complete continuum-of-care system. Findings from

available research and evaluation are explained in easily

understandable language to support prescribed steps in program

implementation, management, and evaluation.

The development of performance standards is another tool used to

link evaluation to practice. DOL has been developing performance

indicators and standards for youth employment programs. If the

objective of a program is youth employment, for example, standards

(based on prior research and evaluation) might be set for the

percentage of youth placed in jobs and the average wage earned.

Performance standards such as these could help to keep programs

accountable while providing objective measures for assessing
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

program effectiveness.

Federal Action Steps

Build Local and Federal Evaluation Capabilities

OJJDP will expand the technical assistance and training role of the

evaluation contractor under its umbrella evaluation contract. In

addition to conducting evaluations of individual projects, the

contractor will be responsible for helping to build local

evaluation capacity and strengthening national and local

partnerships to evaluate Federal initiatives.

OJJDP will continue to build local capacity in prevention program

implementation and evaluation through the Title V Initiative. Local

communities will receive training and technical assistance related

to implementing risk-focused prevention strategies and assessing

risk and resource data. OJJDP will provide local grantees with

Delinquency Prevention Program Community Self-Evaluation Workbooks

to assist them in building self-evaluation capacity.

This workbook will contain a series of forms and instructions to

assist local communities to assess and evaluate youth violence

reduction and delinquency prevention activities in three key areas:

(1) documenting their prevention plans, resource allocation,

organizational structure, and decisionmaking processes; (2)

monitoring implementation of programs, activities, and services;

and (3) tracking changes in the indicators of risk. 

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Crime

Act) mandates the allocation of 20 percent of every new Crime Act

grant program to evaluation. NIJ and OJJDP will continue to include

evaluation requirements in their grant solicitations and encourage

applicants to initiate partnerships with researchers, evaluators,

and management information systems specialists at the outset of

their projects.

Develop a 5-Year Plan To Improve National Statistical Data

OJJDP has made a significant investment in improving national

statistics on juvenile offenders and victims and the justice

system's response to juvenile delinquency and violence. OJJDP's

Statistics and Systems Development (SSD) program has examined more

than 50 national data collection efforts, identifying many gaps in

basic information and specific needs for improvement. The resulting

report, Developing a National Juvenile Justice Statistical Program

(1994), outlines both general strategies for filling critical

information gaps and a detailed continuum of options for a

comprehensive juvenile custody statistics program.

OJJDP is currently implementing recommendations for improving

juvenile custody statistics, starting with an extensive redesign of

the Children in Custody census. Other planning work focuses on

juvenile probation and transfers of juveniles to criminal court. 
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

In 1996, OJJDP will issue a 5-year plan, Juvenile Justice

Statistics 2001, a blueprint for achieving long-term gains in our

ability to monitor trends in juvenile delinquency, violence, and

victimization. 

Develop a 5-Year Violence and Delinquency Research Plan 

To close the gaps in research on delinquency and crime, the

Coordinating Council member agencies will continue to support many

of the research efforts discussed earlier and will also introduce

new studies of interest.

OJJDP will develop a 5-year research plan to organize and develop

new knowledge on violence and delinquency and will confer with

experts on the plan.

Implement Additional Long-Term Studies To Increase Understanding of

the Causes and Correlates of Youth Crime and Violence

HHS, through the National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development (NICHD), will launch a new effort in adolescent health

that is its largest and most comprehensive to date. Using

longitudinal surveys of over 19,000 middle and high school students

and their parents, researchers will collect data about adolescents'

health status, health behaviors, family behavior, neighborhood, and

community. The goal of the study is to better understand the

complex forces (i.e., what they are and how they may be shaped)

that promote good health in young people.

NIJ will continue research related to drug use and criminal

activities, including the expansion of juvenile research protocols

under its multi-year DUF program. 

NIJ will also continue to fund the Project on Human Development in

Chicago neighborhoods, which is a longitudinal study on child

development and risk factors for violence.

OJJDP will conduct additional analyses using data collected under

the Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of

Delinquency. These analyses will be used to support further

development of OJJDP's Comprehensive Strategy.

OJJDP will continue to support studies on the incidence and

characteristics of violence committed by or against juveniles in

Los Angeles, CA, and Washington, DC, and will report on studies

being completed in Milwaukee, WI, and South Carolina.

OJJDP will fund the Gangs, Groups, Individuals, and Violence

Intervention study panel. This panel will assist in the

implementation of OJJDP's Comprehensive Strategy by providing upto-date information about prevention and intervention strategies

that work effectively for specific types of individuals, at

specific stages of development, and under specific conditions. This
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

study should be completed in 1996.

OJJDP will also consider funding a longitudinal survey of youth to

gather self-reported data concerning juvenile crime and violent

acts. Other areas of future research interest include: assessment

centers; child abuse and neglect and other related issues; youth

and guns; developmental pathways of juvenile offenders; family

influences, such as absent or teen fathers; and victims and

witnesses of violence in the home.

Address Gaps in Youth Gang, Gun, and Drug Research

NIJ and OJJDP will address gaps in research about youth involvement

with gangs, guns, drugs, and their interconnections.

OJJDP will examine the interrelationships among gangs, guns, drugs,

and violence through research on causes and correlates of

delinquency in Rochester, NY; Pittsburgh, PA; and Denver, CO.

OJJDP will continue its research on juvenile gang involvement,

collecting information on gang members who commit murder. It will

also conduct a national assessment of the scope and seriousness of

gang violence.

NIJ will conduct a study about the nature and extent of gang

migration to provide data to law enforcement, community members,

and policy-makers and to enhance the capability of the juvenile

justice system to effectively address this problem. The results of

gang-related research will be shared among Office of Justice

Programs agencies through the Gangs Working Group and among Federal

agencies through the National Gang Consortium.

OJJDP will supplement the baseline study on the presence of violent

gangs with two studies designed to develop detailed information on

various aspects of gangs such as the proportion of violent crime

attributed to youth gangs. NIJ has funded several studies (Huff,

Klein, and Maxson) that will supplement these efforts and further

define the relationships among gang participation and other forms

of delinquency and violence. 

OJJDP's Field-Initiated Research program will support research

ideas generated in the field. Priority research topics may include

factors related to joining and leaving gangs, ethnographic studies

on the dynamics of gang creation or enlistment, and prevention or

intervention approaches aimed at diverting at-risk youth from

becoming gang members.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms is studying how the

disruption of illegal weapons markets impacts juvenile violent

crime rates and gun homicides.

NIJ is conducting several firearms studies, including a national

survey of high school students, to examine firearm acquisition,

ownership, and use as well as victimization experiences; a study on
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

firearm prevalence in and around urban, suburban, and rural high

schools; and a study that applies the principles of community

oriented policing to the interruption of illicit youth gun markets

in Boston, combining prevention strategies with policing strategies

used against illegal drug traffickers.

OJJDP will evaluate the effectiveness of a comprehensive strategy

to reduce juvenile gun violence in the Atlanta metropolitan region.

HHS will fund, through the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, a research project to examine the risk factors for gun

use and injury among young males in inner cities. The research will

examine two aspects. First, it will compare young males whose

violence and/or injuries involve guns, and those whose violence

and/or injuries involve gangs whose violence does not involve guns.

Second, it will determine the characteristics and processes of

personal interactions where gun injuries occur compared to nongun

injuries. The research will identify modifiable risk factors in the

daily routines of youth in areas of concentrated violence, and will

contribute to the development of a framework for process analysis

of violent events.

NIJ will continue to fund research to measure the incidence of drug

use among juveniles using three modes of drug-use detection: selfreport, hair analysis, and urinalysis. NIJ will also continue to

document the prevalence and use of drugs through 11 of its DUF

sites. Also through its DUF program, NIJ will measure firearm

access, possession, and use by 6,000 booked juvenile and adult

arrestees in 11 sites.

Examine the Impact of Options for Processing Juvenile Offenders

OJJDP will support a study of the processes by which juveniles are

transferred to criminal court and the comparative effectiveness of

the criminal justice system's handling of serious, violent, and

chronic juvenile offenders with juvenile justice system processing.

This research is expected to provide legislatures and other

policymakers with empirical information about juvenile transfer

mechanisms, such as court processing, case dispositions, and

outcomes. The comparative effectiveness of different processing

options for protecting public safety and reducing subsequent

recidivism is of particular interest.

Translate Research Findings Into Programs and Practices

DOJ will continue to support research and evaluation of programs

and effective and promising approaches to youth violence. This

knowledge will assist in program design and focus, resulting in

more effective ways to prevent and stop juvenile offending, and

will include:

o Gathering data about the extent and demographics of the problem

of youth crime and violence to examine the influence of factors

such as location, age trends, gender, ethnicity, and situational
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

precursors. These data should provide information about specific

types of victims (such as the elderly) and offenses (such as

domestic violence).

o Supporting further research on the effectiveness of different

intervention strategies for different populations, groups, and

individuals. This research will promote flexibility in evaluation

methodologies ranging from randomized controlled trials to

qualitative assessments with the goal of building knowledge of

effective practices. Research and evaluation, including data on

cost effectiveness, should be built into all prevention and

intervention funding.

o Coordinating research funding efforts with other Federal agencies

and public and private funding sources and encouraging joint

funding of projects. Also, encouraging university partnerships with

local community-based organizations and service providers through

proposal requests that require such partnerships.

o Summarizing, packaging, and disseminating relevant juvenile

justice and delinquency prevention research findings in a

user-friendly format to other Federal agencies and State and local

juvenile justice practitioners. Identifying and referencing

juvenile justice and delinquency prevention research, promising

programs, and proven models at each stage of youth development.

Providing information about funding availability for juvenile

justice and delinquency prevention research from various Federal

agencies. 

o Reviewing plans for juvenile justice and delinquency prevention

research projects and offering recommendations for coordination.

Reviewing final reports and findings of relevant research projects.

NIJ will continue to support research to examine the relationship

between early childhood abuse and neglect, subsequent violent

criminal behavior, and intervention strategies that help prevent

progression to this behavior.

NIJ will also fund research to explore the influence of peer groups

in the development of career criminals.

OJJDP will convene a study group consisting of experts in the

juvenile delinquency field to continue development and refinement

of the Comprehensive Strategy.

BJA will continue to collect program and evaluation data and

disseminate them through the What Works series. NIJ will also

continue to evaluate and disseminate information through the

Research in Brief series, evaluation bulletins, and other

publications.

NIJ and OJJDP will develop additional mechanisms to disseminate

research findings and data, such as conferences, meetings,

clearinghouse services, research reports, and research briefings.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

The Coordinating Council and its member agencies will support

efforts to translate the findings of evaluation activities into

effective programs and practices. OJJDP will continue to update and

disseminate the Guide as additional evaluation findings are

available. 

NICHD will continue to support community-based studies to determine

the factors influencing risk-taking behavior, including violence in

various minority and ethnic adolescent populations. This knowledge

will then be used to develop and test targeted intervention

programs.

Integrate Evaluation Into Demonstration Projects

Coordinating Council member agencies will enhance the role of

evaluation in Federal juvenile justice and delinquency prevention

programs by building Federal and local evaluation capacity. 

OJJDP will support a national evaluation concurrent with the

funding of six SafeFutures demonstration sites that will test

OJJDP's Comprehensive Strategy. The participating SafeFutures

communities will be expected to demonstrate a strong capacity for

data collection and analysis to support an evaluation component

addressing both process and outcome measures. Partnerships between

local and national evaluators will be encouraged.

OJJDP will also support the development of a long-term national

evaluation strategy for the Title V Initiative to assess the impact

of community-based, risk-focused prevention efforts. This strategy

will aggregate data from individual communities participating in

the Title V Initiative and will integrate preliminary findings from

the current implementation evaluation.

The Executive Office for Weed and Seed and BJA will continue to

support NIJ's evaluation of the Comprehensive Communities and Weed

and Seed programs to assess strategies for crime and drug control.

Other agencies will also begin or continue national evaluations of

related prevention or intervention programs. For example, HHS will

support a national evaluation of its new Family Preservation and

Family Support Services program.

Suggestions for State and Local Action

o Develop linkages with colleges, universities, and nonprofit

research centers for the purpose of expanding their research and

evaluation capabilities.

o Expand and coordinate management information systems across youth

service agencies.

o Work cooperatively with national evaluators to enhance program

effectiveness.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

o Support research into causes and correlates of juvenile

delinquency at the State and local levels.

o Develop new programs based on state-of-the-art research and

evaluation.

o Support randomized assignments for assessing program

effectiveness.

o Make data available for monitoring changes in risk and protective

factors.

o Serve as learning laboratories for the field.

------------------------------

Endnotes

1. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1994. Crime in the United

States, 1993: Uniform Crime Reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice.

2. Butts, J.A., et al. 1995. Juvenile Court Statistics 1992.

Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

3. Ibid.

4. DeComo, R., et al. 1995 (May). Juveniles Taken Into Custody:

Fiscal Year 1992. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

5. National Longitudinal Surveys Handbook 1995. Center for Human

Resources Research, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio:

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.

6. Hawkins, J.D., and R.F. Catalano, Jr. 1993. Communities That

Care. Risk-Focused Approach Using the Social Development Strategy:

An Approach to Reducing Adolescent Problem Behaviors. Seattle,

Wash.: Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. 

7. Spergel, I. 1995 (June). The Youth Gang Problem: A Community

Approach. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.

8. Howell, J.C., ed. 1995 (May). Guide for Implementing the

Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile

Offenders. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

9. Linney, J.A., and A. Wandersman. 1991. Prevention Plus III:

Assessing Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Programs at the School

and Community Level. Rockville, Md.: Office of Substance Abuse

Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

10. Delinquency Prevention Works. 1995 (May). Washington, D.C.:

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.

Department of Justice.

11. Howell, ed. 1995. 

12. 1994 Report to Congress: Title V Incentive Grants for Local

Delinquency Prevention Programs. 1995 (March). Washington, D.C.:

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.

Department of Justice.

13. Huizinga, D., R. Loeber, and T. Thornberry. 1994. Urban

Delinquency and Substance Abuse. Washington, D.C.: Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of

Justice.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. Widom, C.S. 1992 (October). The Cycle of Violence. Washington,

D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

17. Widom, C.S. 1995 (March). Victims of Child Sexual Abuse--Later

Criminal Consequences. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of

Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

18. Huizinga et al., 1994.

19. Drug Use Forecasting, 1993 Annual Report on Juvenile

Arrestees/Detainees: Drugs and Crime in America's Cities. 1994

(November). Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S.

Department of Justice.

20. Thornberry, T.P., D. Huizinga, and R. Loeber. 1995. The

prevention of serious delinquency and violence: Implications from

the program of research on the causes and correlates of

delinquency. In J.C. Howell et al., eds. Sourcebook on Serious,

Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:

Sage Publications.

21. Delinquency Prevention Works.

22. Rutman, L. 1980. Planning Useful Evaluations--Evaluability

Assessment. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.

23. Linney and Wandersman, 1991.

24. Howell, ed., 1995.

------------------------------

8. Implement an Aggressive Public Outreach Campaign on Effective

Strategies To Combat Juvenile Violence 
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Overview

Public information about juvenile crime presents a paradox. In some

ways there is too much information--and in other ways there isn't

enough. While the media frequently focus on the increase in youth

gangs, drugs, and juvenile violence, few people beyond the juvenile

justice field realize that a relatively small number of youth

become involved in serious criminal activity. Most people are also

unaware that a significant body of research exists on the causes

and correlates of juvenile delinquency and crime, serving as a

foundation for effective Federal, State, and local programs and

strategies.

Researchers have verified that long-term public education campaigns

on violence prevention, family education, alcohol and other drug

prevention, and gun safety curriculums in school are effective

strategies to help prevent delinquency.1 They also concur that

involving youth2 and developing community consensus are essential

to an effective public education process.3

A well-designed public education campaign can make a positive

impact on public opinion, target specific audiences, and be a costeffective way of providing critical information to a large number

of people. For example, it can enhance community

understanding about the nature and value of the juvenile justice

system. It can educate all members of the community about effective

prevention and intervention strategies. It can help communities

identify and access local resources. And it can inform policymakers

of tested, proven options for effective juvenile justice at all

levels. 

This section documents the effectiveness of mass media public

education efforts and suggests a range of successful strategies

that can bring about measurable change in communities. It also

encourages communities to enlist support for juvenile justice and

delinquency prevention and intervention efforts by engaging the

media as partners. The section concludes with an outline of public

information efforts being planned by the Federal Government and

coordinated with national organizations to inform communities about

what works to reduce juvenile delinquency and violence.

Current Status and Analysis of the Problem

As youth violence has increased, the media have expanded national

and local coverage of the problem, often using images that build

upon community fear. However, the media frequently overlook the

more complicated messages about the causes of violence and

approaches to redress it, including the importance of community

involvement in finding solutions.

Public debate over prevention program funding tells the tale:

unless the public understands the effective strategies underlying

prevention programs, communities will face difficulties getting
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

support and implementing many of these strategies. A dynamic public

education campaign can herald the service-oriented efforts of

resilient young people who are improving safety in their

communities and spotlight policymakers whose decisions result in

positive outcomes for youth. Most importantly, it can focus on what

works, what does not work, and for whom, when, and why. Translating

data and research into straightforward language and providing this

information to those who need it is, therefore, an essential

component of reducing youth violence and crime.

Government and the media share important roles in this process. In

recent years, some media have spearheaded public education

campaigns to address various social problems and have disseminated

information, for example, on the serious health risks of tobacco

use and alcohol overconsumption. Government has sounded the alarm

about these and other health-related hazards, pushed for greater

media responsibility, and offered guidance on promising strategies

to address the problems. Throughout this process, national

organizations that directly serve teachers, police, and local

governments have been key partners in getting the message out.

It is imperative that a public information campaign make effective

use of innovative media efforts, such as new dissemination

techniques and outreach materials, to convey the complicated, but

critically important, messages of the causes of youth violence and

the effective strategies for violence prevention.

Effective and Promising Strategies and Programs

Effectiveness of Mass Media Public Education Efforts

The effectiveness of mass media campaigns is well documented. The

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration linked the sharp

decline in drunk driving crashes and deaths over the past two

decades to effective behavior modification and explicit changes in

community attitudes and values due to public information

campaigns.4 The positive effects of increasing knowledge about HIV

infection and AIDS through entertainment television were

demonstrated when the number of calls received by the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention's National AIDS Hotline increased

from the Saturday average of 4,900 to nearly 84,000 after the ABC

network broadcast a 2-hour entertainment and AIDS outreach

special.5

These campaigns are among dozens of national media efforts,

publicizing a variety of issues, that have increased public

awareness and generated positive action. Notable among these are

the campaigns for individual responsibility for forest fire

prevention (Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires), safety belt use

(Buckle Up for Safety), community crime prevention (Take a Bite Out

of Crime), and support for historically black colleges and

universities (A Mind Is a Terrible Thing To Waste). Similarly, mass

media education campaigns can directly and indirectly generate

public support for the actions proposed in this Action Plan.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Many national, Federal, State, and local organizations have

conducted information campaigns on a wide variety of criminal

justice issues. Both the private and nonprofit sectors have

initiated media campaigns aimed at reducing all types of violence,

including domestic and other family violence, child abuse, violence

with guns and other weapons, and juvenile violence. Some networks

have provided a focus on family violence. The Corporation for

Public Broadcasting produced "Act Against Violence" and encouraged

local media to get involved. The California Wellness Foundation has

contributed millions of dollars to a statewide Campaign to Prevent

Handgun Violence Against Kids. The Center for Substance Abuse

Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, National Crime

Prevention Council (NCPC), Harvard University School of Public

Health, and Children's Defense Fund have also developed media

information campaigns on violence.

The National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign conducted a largescale public education effort, symbolized by McGruffþ, the "crime

dog." Locally, crime prevention practitioners view the McGruffþ

campaign as an effective catalyst to generate citizen action,

galvanize police-community partnerships, and rally local and State

crime prevention efforts. In the past decade, the campaign has

received more than $500 million in funds and in-kind support,

distributed hundreds of thousands of timely publications, provided

training to crime prevention practitioners, and conducted hands-on

demonstration programs to help citizens work with law enforcement

and other public and private service providers to build safer,

healthier, and more nurturing communities. 

An extensive independent evaluation6 funded in 1991 by the

Department of Justice (DOJ) found that the McGruffþ anti-crime

campaign can teach an individual about crime prevention for only

2.2 cents in Federal funds, and the campaign spends only 2.9 cents

to generate individual action. Additionally, the campaign's public

service messages generate $50 or more in donated print space and

air time for every $1 of Federal funds spent in their development,

a remarkable public-private partnership.

National Night Out, supported by the Bureau of Justice Assistance

(BJA), provides an example of a well-publicized yearlong campaign

to support the development of community-based policing initiatives

in thousands of neighborhoods across the United States, its

Territories, many Canadian cities, and at U.S. military bases

around the world. In 1994, public service ads about this program,

involving youth, families, educators, business, law enforcement,

and other service providers, encouraged the participation of 27

million people in 8,750 rural, urban, and metropolitan

jurisdictions.

Partnerships 

One of the important benefits of a successful public education

campaign is the opportunity for individuals, groups, public and
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

private agencies, and others to form partnerships to share

responsibility in combating juvenile violence and other delinquency

problems. Through public service advertising and public outreach to

print and electronic media, more community members become aware,

and can become essential members, of existing prevention

activities. These partnerships, forged through a shared

understanding of the strategies and principles underlying local

programs, can draw on diverse skills and talents to broaden the

scope of efforts to reduce juvenile violent crime.

As community leaders begin to collaborate with State or local level

groups and individuals, it is important that they consider the

following as partners in a public information campaign strategy:

o Groups that can impact public policy, such as the National

Governors' Association, the National Conference of State

Legislators, the National Association of Counties, the National

League of Cities, and State and local agencies.

o Groups that can bring law enforcement support to juvenile crime

and violence prevention as a matter of public safety, such as the

National Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of

Chiefs of Police, the Crime Prevention Coalition, the Police

Executive Research Forum, the National Organization of Black Law

Enforcement Executives, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Hispanic

Law Enforcement Officers' Association, and the National Association

of State Troopers.

o Professional organizations that have a stake in the effectiveness

of the juvenile justice system to reduce juvenile violence and

other juvenile crime, including the American Bar Association, the

National Association of State Attorneys General, the National

Association of District Attorneys, the American Psychological

Association, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges, and the American Medical Association.

o Service providers and private organizations that can contribute

ideas, resources, and strategies to anti-crime information

campaigns, such as child advocacy groups, religious organizations,

entertainment and sports leaders, business and industry, and

foundations.

Some groups have accumulated substantial experience in helping

local communities with media campaigns and partnerships. NCPC, for

example, distributes an action kit, Partner With the Media To Build

Safer Communities, containing reproducible materials that

communities can use to reach the public with their anti-crime,

anti-violence messages.

NCPC has partnered with the media in a Turn Off the Violence

Campaign, inaugurated in Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN. In this effort,

the community engaged the help of local print and electronic media

to convince residents that violence is an unacceptable way to

resolve conflict. The campaign also encourages media to reevaluate
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

their own violent entertainment programming. This grassroots

partnership, which required limited funding, has spread throughout

Minnesota and is being adopted by other States and cities.7 

Sharing communications market research and polling information

about juvenile delinquency and violence can form the foundation for

an effective communication strategy. Again, many organizations have

already gathered this information and can be of assistance in

formulating sound strategies that respond to public concerns.

Collaborating to develop anti-violence messages for use in public

service announcements (PSA's) and other mass media is fundamental

to a successful campaign.

Getting the Message Out

The goal of public information efforts must be twofold: to change

public perception about youth violence and available solutions and

to convince adults and youth that their active involvement is

essential to success. To achieve these goals, public information

campaigns should enable people to reach informed judgments about

preventing crime by and against juveniles. The message should

reflect an awareness of the increasing cultural diversity in this

country, be sensitive to gender-related differences and problems,

and appeal to the priorities of key decisionmakers.

Generally, the public information campaign should:

o Provide accurate information about the causes, nature, and extent

of juvenile delinquency and victimization problems.

o Provide needed information to convince the audience that juvenile

delinquency and victimization are preventable.

o Inspire individuals and communities to address these problems

because they have a stake in the outcome.

Ideas for Action

Communities can begin immediately to take short-term concrete steps

to get the message out, while larger, overarching public

information campaigns get underway. Local action can include:

o Speeches, interviews, and public statements.

o Town hall meetings and focus groups.

o Electronic dissemination of information on juvenile violence and

solutions by CD-ROM and online access.

o Teleconferences and audio conferences.

o Meetings with government officials and legislators.

o Articles in journals and news magazines.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

o Opinion pieces and letters to the editor.

o Press releases about anti-violence events highlighting juvenile

justice activities.

o Outreach to youth through schools and youth organizations to

learn their views, discuss alternatives to violence and crime, and

enlist their leadership and involvement.

Matching the Message to the Medium and Increasing Local Awareness

of Resources

Research and experience have shown that public information

campaigns directed at different audiences require differing

approaches, strategies, and creative execution. The issue is not

simply to target a mix of television, radio, newspaper, magazine,

and other communications outlets, but rather to determine what

combinations within these media prove most effective. Communities

wishing to publicize their delinquency prevention and intervention

strategies can consult with media experts to determine which type

of medium is best suited to their audience and their activities.

Effective communication requires tailoring each message to a

specific audience, such as youth victims, minorities, women, or the

elderly, and knowing the desired result.

It is essential that juvenile justice practitioners, including

court personnel, probation officers, law enforcement officers, and

youth service workers, collaborate with local leaders to inform the

public about the strategies they are using and their successes.

Their experience brings credibility and an immediacy to the

concerns being addressed and to the solutions being described.

Communities should also develop localized campaigns that increase

residents' awareness of Federal, State, and local resources for

juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. Lists of resources can

be posted in community gathering places, at agency offices, and in

other sites where clients are most likely to see them. Foreignlanguage radio PSA's in special programming can also include

appropriate information to reach residents who are unable to read

or understand English.

Communities that design local targeted public information campaigns

should include an evaluation mechanism that will provide important

data on the effectiveness of structured, public communications

efforts as well as information to help identify ways to increase

awareness and the use of resources that can prevent or reduce

violence among youth.

Through effective media campaigns, young people can receive public

recognition for community service and neighborhood or school

improvements. Elderly residents can begin to feel confident again

about the safety of going out of their homes. Neighborhood leaders

can turn their discouragement about pervasive violence into action
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

toward ridding their streets of the causes of juvenile violence

with strategies that work. Parents can learn about the positive

effects of local youth programs. And policymakers can support local

groups with resources for programs that have documented records of

success.

Federal Action Steps

DOJ will convene national organizations in support of a public

information campaign that will consist of several components: a

series of PSA's to highlight solutions to youth violence, a booklet

developed with the President's Crime Prevention Council on ways to

reduce youth violence, a CD-ROM and videotape combining the

messages of the PSA's, and a public information campaign on gun

violence. These mass media components will be disseminated through

intensive outreach to State and local constituencies.

Disseminate Public Service Announcements

DOJ proposes the production of PSA's by a public-private

partnership, using donated airtime and print space, when possible.

The PSA's are aimed at a variety of audiences and have a three-part

message:

o Persuade young people to turn away from violence and dangerous

lifestyles.

o Educate parents and other community residents about solutions to

youth violence.

o Demonstrate to youth, parents, and youth-serving professionals

how they can be part of the solution. 

Develop a Document on Ways To Reduce Youth Violence

A user-friendly document will communicate to the public "what

works" in prevention and early intervention. This publication,

being developed by the President's Crime Prevention Council, will

communicate the goals of prevention programs and suggest ways for

community leaders, parents, and youth to become involved in

prevention efforts. This document will include the objectives set

forth in the Action Plan.

A response pamphlet will also be available through an 800 telephone

number that will be advertised during the PSA's, and by the

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. Linking the information in this

pamphlet online with the Partnerships Against Violence Network

(PAVNET) will offer additional distribution opportunities. 

Produce a Videotape and CD-ROM on Reducing Youth Violence

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)

is producing a CD-ROM demonstrating the tools and implementation

strategies of effective youth violence prevention programs.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Additionally, OJJDP will explore the possibility of producing a

state-of-the-art videotape with a well-known and admired public

figure as narrator. It would combine the messages of all

delinquency prevention PSA's into a coordinated and compelling

production.

This video will be the visual media equivalent of OJJDP's

Delinquency Prevention Works and the Comprehensive Strategy for

Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. 

Produce a Media Message on Reducing Youth Gun Violence

DOJ will continue to support a public information campaign to

specifically address youth gun violence. Although the Department

advocates comprehensive gun interdiction strategies, it is clear

that youth gun violence raises unique problems requiring additional

forms of intervention. The message articulates youth's perspectives

on gun violence and also dramatizes for parents the problem of an

unsecured gun in the home.

Link Successful Local Initiatives With a National Public

Information Campaign

BJA has developed a technical assistance package for public

information campaigns that communities can use to showcase local

juvenile justice prevention successes and other achievements. The

package identifies local programs that have successfully

demonstrated and documented delinquency prevention and intervention

strategies. Local media can support this public information sharing

by contributing space, airtime, and programming.

As the national campaign develops, a working group consisting of

media representatives, organizations with experience in mass media

campaigns, key constituents, and the philanthropic sector could

join forces to maximize the use of existing resources and to

strengthen and coordinate the message. Members of this group could

include, but would not be limited to, the National Association of

Counties, the National Funding Collaborative on Violence

Prevention, the Police Executive Research Forum, the Crime

Prevention Coalition, the National League of Cities, the National

Governors' Association, the National School Board Association, and

the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

The working group would have the capacity to engage in a number of

activities:

o Share market communications research conducted in the area of

youth violence.

o Combine and leverage resources to support public outreach

efforts.

o Develop a statement that could be integrated into individual
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

media projects, such as billboards, PSA's, and radio and print

announcements.

o Create collaborative projects. 

o Access and highlight Federal programs or best practices in the

area of youth violence.

Suggestions for State and Local Action

o Engage local media in highlighting positive youth activities.

o Encourage mayors, police chiefs, sheriffs, and others to deliver

local anti-violence prevention announcements to local station

managers.

o Showcase youth successes in local communities.

o Include PSA's with contact numbers and resource information

hotlines after programming on youth violence.

o Develop a local teen talk show hosted and produced by youth.

------------------------------

Endnotes

1. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Adolescence. 1992.

Firearms and adolescents. Pediatrics 89(4):784-787.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1991. Weapon-carrying

among high school students: United States, 1990. Morbidity and

Mortality Weekly Report 40(40):681-684.

Christoffel, K.K. 1991. Toward reducing pediatric injuries from

firearms: Charting a legislative and regulatory course. Pediatrics

88(2):294-305.

DeJong, W. 1994. Preventing Interpersonal Violence Among Youth: An

Introduction to School, Community and Mass Media Strategies.

Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice. 

2. Treanor and Bijlefeld, 1989.

3. Fingerhut et al., 1991.

4. DeJong, W., and L. Wallack. 1992 (Winter). The role of the

designated driver programs in the prevention of alcohol impaired

driving: A critical reassessment. Health Education Quarterly

19(4):429-442.

5. Interdepartmental Working Group on Violence. 1994. Violence:

Report to the President and Domestic Policy Council. Washington,

D.C.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

6. O'Keefe, G.J., et al. 1993. The Social Impact of the National

Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of

Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice. 

7. Working Together To Stop the Violence: A Blueprint for Safer

Communities. 1994. Washington, D.C.: National Crime Prevention

Council.

------------------------------

Conclusion

Reduce Tomorrow's Violence: Take Action Today

In a healthy society, citizens should neither have to fear for the

safety of youth nor fear being victimized by them. Today, however,

many children are exposed to the threat of violence in their homes,

schools, and neighborhoods. At an alarming rate, the

entrepreneurial talents and skills of some of our brightest

youngsters are employed in the lucrative but lethal trade of

distributing illegal substances. They war with each other, deface

buildings, terrorize neighborhoods, and engage in other malicious

acts. Youthful prostitutes and runaways live in the streets,

merchants are robbed at gunpoint, and the elderly are attacked.

Easy access to guns has added to the lethality of juvenile

violence. 

Researcher and child advocate James Garbarino likens American

communities plagued by gang violence to urban war zones where more

than one in four children have witnessed a homicide. Garbarino

concludes: "Environmental danger of this magnitude is equaled only

in the lives of children who live in situations of armed

conflict."1

It is disheartening to see the growing numbers of violent youth who

value neither their own lives nor those of their victims. In this

Action Plan, the Coordinating Council has presented its broad

vision for reforming the juvenile justice system and strengthening

communities to reduce both the number of juvenile victims and the

number of juvenile offenders. The vision is responsive in terms of

advocating intensified law enforcement and prosecution of serious,

violent, and chronic juvenile offenders and responsible in terms of

advancing strategies to bolster the system of support and

intervention for those children and youth confronted by violence in

their communities, their schools, and their homes.

Self-assessment or external evaluation is critical to success in

this field. The Coordinating Council urges all communities to find

a clear way to measure and demonstrate the outcome of the actions

they take to address their juvenile violence and delinquency

problem. 

The Nation can ill afford to make the wrong choices. The Action
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/jjplanfr.txt[05/03/12 01:03:27 PM]

Plan presents examples of community commitment to solutions that

work. We have an opportunity to build on these accomplishments and

implement them in our own communities.

------------------------------

Endnote

1. Garbarino, J., K. Kostlny, and N. Dubrow. 1991. No Place To Be

a Child: Growing Up in a War Zone. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington

Books.