R E S E A R H

Report

C

2000

OJJDP

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Research and Program Development Division

develops knowledge on national trends in juvenile 

delinquency; supports a program for data collection 

and information sharing that incorporates elements 

of statistical and systems development; identifies the

pathways to delinquency and the best methods to

prevent, intervene in, and treat it; and analyzes practices and trends in the juvenile justice system.

Training and Technical Assistance Division provides

juvenile justice training and technical assistance to

Federal, State, and local governments; law enforcement, judiciary, and corrections personnel; and private

agencies, educational institutions, and community

organizations.

Special Emphasis Division provides discretionary

funds to public and private agencies, organizations,

and individuals to develop and support programs and

replicate tested approaches to delinquency prevention,

treatment, and control in such pertinent areas as 

mentoring, gangs, chronic juvenile offending, and 

community-based sanctions.

State and Tribal Assistance Division provides funds

for State, local, and tribal governments to help them

achieve the system improvement goals of the JJDP

Act, address underage drinking, conduct State challenge activities, implement prevention programs, and

support initiatives to hold juvenile offenders accountable. This Division also provides training and technical assistance, including support to jurisdictions that

are implementing OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy

for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders.

Information Dissemination and Planning Unit produces and distributes information resources on juvenile

justice research, statistics, and programs and coordinates the Office’s program planning and competitive

award activities. Information that meets the needs of

juvenile justice professionals and policymakers is provided through print and online publications, videotapes,

CD–ROM’s, electronic listservs, and the Office’s Web

site. As part of the program planning and award process,

IDPU identifies program priorities, publishes solicitations and application kits, and facilitates peer reviews

for discretionary funding awards.

Concentration of Federal Efforts Program promotes

interagency cooperation and coordination among Federal agencies with responsibilities in the area of juvenile justice. The Program primarily carries out this

responsibility through the Coordinating Council on

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, an independent body within the executive branch that was

established by Congress through the JJDP Act.

Child Protection Division administers programs related to crimes against children and children’s exposure

to violence. The Division provides leadership and funding to promote effective policies and procedures to

address the problems of missing and exploited children,

abused or neglected children, and children exposed to

domestic or community violence. CPD program activities include supporting research; providing information,

training, and technical assistance on programs to prevent and respond to child victims, witnesses, and their

families; developing and demonstrating effective child

protection initiatives; and supporting the National

Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) was established by the President and Congress

through the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, Public Law 93–415, as amended. Located

within the Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice, OJJDP’s goal is to provide national leadership in

addressing the issues of preventing and controlling juvenile delinquency and improving the juvenile justice system.

OJJDP sponsors a broad array of research, demonstration, and training initiatives to improve State and local juvenile programs and to benefit private youth-serving agencies. These initiatives are carried out by seven components within OJJDP,

described below.

The mission of OJJDP is to provide national leadership, coordination, and resources to prevent and respond to juvenile

offending and child victimization. OJJDP accomplishes its mission by supporting States, local communities, and tribal

jurisdictions in their efforts to develop and implement effective, multidisciplinary prevention and intervention programs 

and improve the capacity of the juvenile justice system to protect public safety, hold offenders accountable, and provide

treatment and rehabilitative services tailored to the needs of individual juveniles and their families.
i

OJJDP Research 2000

Report

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

May 2001
ii

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice

Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the

National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

John Ashcroft

Attorney General
iii

Foreword

The findings of well-planned and well-executed research are critical to the success of efforts to prevent and

reduce juvenile delinquency and victimization. Through its Research and Program Development Division,

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is committed to supporting a comprehensive and coordinated program of research, evaluation, and statistics that is designed to determine the

causes and correlates of juvenile delinquency and the ways in which communities can protect at-risk youth

and their families from delinquency and victimization.

Space limitations preclude an exhaustive account of the broad array of research activities carried out under

OJJDP’s auspices. Accordingly, this Report summarizes representative achievements as a way of illustrating

the larger picture. New findings, emerging research, and key issues are highlighted, and a wealth of resources

in the form of descriptive lists of research-related programs, publications, and Web sites are provided.

The OJJDP initiatives described in these pages—and others like them—inform and enhance the daily, collaborative efforts of researchers, policymakers, and practitioners. The work supported by OJJDP is designed

to prevent and reduce juvenile delinquency and victimization. In this way, the seeds planted by sound research

will bear productive fruit in the planning and implementation of programs that improve the lives of youth and

their families.
v

Table of Contents

Foreword ............................................................................................................................................................. iii

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

New Findings ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

Research on Very Young Offenders ............................................................................................................. 3

What Have We Learned? ......................................................................................................................... 3

What Does This Mean? ............................................................................................................................ 4

Selective Bibliography on Research on Very Young Offenders ............................................................. 6

Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency ...................................................... 6

What Have We Learned? ......................................................................................................................... 7

What Does This Mean? ............................................................................................................................ 7

Selective Bibliography on the Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency ... 8

Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court .......................................................................................................... 8

Overview of Transfer Research Projects ............................................................................................... 10

What Have We Learned? ....................................................................................................................... 11

What Does This Mean? .......................................................................................................................... 12

Selective Bibliography on Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court ......................................................... 12

Juveniles in Corrections .............................................................................................................................. 12

What Have We Learned? ....................................................................................................................... 13

What Does This Mean? .......................................................................................................................... 14

Selective Bibliography on Juveniles in Corrections .............................................................................. 14

Youth Gang Research ................................................................................................................................... 14

What Have We Learned? ....................................................................................................................... 15

What Does This Mean? .......................................................................................................................... 15

Selective Bibliography on Youth Gang Research .................................................................................. 16
vi

Diversion From Juvenile Court: Teen/Youth Courts and Restorative Justice Programs ................... 17

What Have We Learned? ....................................................................................................................... 18

What Does This Mean? .......................................................................................................................... 19

Selective Bibliography on Diversion From Juvenile Court: Teen/Youth Courts and

Restorative Justice Programs ................................................................................................................. 20

National Statistics on Juvenile Offenders and Victims ........................................................................... 20

What Have We Learned? ....................................................................................................................... 22

What Does This Mean? .......................................................................................................................... 23

Selective Bibliography on National Statistics on Juvenile Offenders and Victims ............................. 23

New and Emerging Research Efforts ...................................................................................................... 25

Girls Program Evaluations and Girls Study Group ................................................................................. 25

Research on American Indian and Alaska Native Juveniles ................................................................... 26

Understanding and Monitoring the “Whys” Behind Juvenile Crime Trends ....................................... 28

Mental Health and Juvenile Justice: Building a Model for Effective Service Delivery ..................... 28

Highlights ............................................................................................................................................................ 31

Evaluations of School-Related Projects ..................................................................................................... 31

Evaluations of Substance Abuse Programs ............................................................................................... 31

Drug-Free Communities Support Program ........................................................................................... 31

Enforcing the Underage Drinking Laws Program ................................................................................ 32

Child Victimization ...................................................................................................................................... 33

Safe Start Demonstration Project .......................................................................................................... 33

Second Comprehensive Study of Missing Children .............................................................................. 33

Crimes against Children Research Center ............................................................................................. 34

Pathways to Desistance: A Prospective Study of Serious Adolescent Offenders ................................ 34

Working With States and Communities To Improve Evaluation and Information

Collection Efforts ......................................................................................................................................... 35

Juvenile Justice Evaluation Center ....................................................................................................... 35

Juvenile Justice Statistics and Systems Development Project ............................................................ 36

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................... 37

Appendixes

Appendix A: Active Projects, September 1999 to Present ....................................................................A–1

Appendix B: OJJDP Publications and Products From the Research Division,

August 1999 to the Present ........................................................................................................................ B–1

Appendix C: Research-Related Online Resources .................................................................................C–1
1

Introduction

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (OJJDP), through its Research and

Program Development Division (the Research

Division), supports and promotes science-based

research, rigorous and informative evaluations of

demonstration programs, and meaningful collection

and analysis of statistics. The Research Division’s

overall mission is to generate credible and useful information to improve decisionmaking in the juvenile

justice system and thereby prevent and reduce juvenile delinquency and victimization. To achieve this

goal, OJJDP translates research into action.

This Report summarizes the activities and achievements of OJJDP’s Research Division from August

1999 to the present in three areas:

◆ Research. The Research Division sponsors

empirical studies on an array of topics related

to juveniles and delinquency, from the roots of

violence to the impact of victimization. Studies

range from exploratory and descriptive to rigorously analytical.

◆ Evaluation. One of the Research Division’s important functions is to identify what works. Its

evaluations measure the impact of programs

geared to preventing or reducing the incidence

of juvenile delinquency and victimization. Many

OJJDP-sponsored projects are communitybased initiatives with multiple components. This

type of project presents special challenges to the

Research Division when measuring the impact of

interventions and specific programs.

◆ Statistics. The Research Division sponsors the

Nation’s primary efforts to gather data and statistics on juveniles and crime, including information

on juvenile detention and corrections populations,

probation caseloads, and court activities. OJJDP’s

Research Division also has taken the lead in making such statistical data accessible to the field.

Solutions to juvenile crime and delinquency must be

based on what has been learned about effective programming. OJJDP strategically sponsors research

that has the greatest potential to improve the Nation’s

understanding of juvenile delinquency and victimization and of ways to develop effective prevention and

intervention programs. The Research Division collaborates with a number of Federal agencies to carry

out research and evaluation efforts, the findings of

which are useful to an interdisciplinary audience.

The work produced through OJJDP research,

evaluation, and statistics programs is used by:

◆ Researchers in the field.

◆ Practitioners on the front lines.

◆ Policymakers at the Federal, State, and local levels.

In addition, the Research Division works with other

OJJDP divisions to use research to enhance training efforts, improve program activities, inform the

public, craft effective interventions, and formulate

policies that will have a positive impact on individuals, families, and communities.

Programs that promote protective factors and help

reduce the risk factors that lead to juvenile crime are

among the best investments a community can make

to lower its rate of delinquency. Evaluation and testing must be used to identify the programs that are

effective in keeping juveniles from being arrested and

entering the juvenile justice system in the first place.

At the same time, communities need to identify corrections treatment and aftercare programs that will

effectively reduce the likelihood of recidivism.
2

Collaboration With Other Federal Agencies

OJJDP collaborates with other Federal Government agencies to cofund and oversee research related to

juveniles. Such collaboration enables OJJDP to use its funds more efficiently and ensure that its efforts do

not duplicate those of other agencies. OJJDP is much sought after as a partner by other agencies. The Research Division currently works with the Office of National Drug Control Policy; the U.S. Departments of Commerce (Bureau of the Census), Education, Health and Human Services (Administration for Children and

Families, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Institute of Mental Health,

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and National Institute on Drug Abuse), and

Labor; the Federal Trade Commission; and other U.S. Department of Justice offices, including the Bureau

of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Executive Office for Weed and Seed, the National

Institute of Justice, the Office for Victims of Crime, the Office of Community Oriented Policing, and the

Violence Against Women Office.

The Research Division is committed to maximizing

the impact of OJJDP research by disseminating its

findings to practitioners and policymakers who

work with juveniles and juvenile offenders. Space

constraints make it impossible to cover fully in

this document the number and scope of projects

undertaken by the Research Division every year.

Instead, this Report offers a current overview of the

Division’s diverse work, with particular focus on

important new findings and emerging research

areas. The Report includes the following chapters:

◆ New Findings. This chapter describes important

OJJDP research projects, including the Study

Group on Very Young Offenders, the Program

of Research on the Causes and Correlates of

Delinquency, and research on juvenile transfers

to criminal court.

◆ New and Emerging Research Efforts. This

chapter highlights new and emerging research

efforts being launched by OJJDP, including

research programs that examine female delinquency, tribal youth, and mental health issues

and a study that examines the “whys” behind

juvenile crime trends.

◆ Highlights. This chapter presents information on

some key OJJDP research activities, including

research on child victimization, school violence,

and substance abuse initiatives.

In addition, three appendixes list active research

projects, research-related publications and products,

and research-related online resources.
3

Research on Very Young

Offenders

A key finding of OJJDP’s Study Group on Serious

and Violent Juvenile Offenders—that most chronic

juvenile offenders begin their delinquency careers

before age 12 and some as early as age 101

—led

OJJDP in 1998 to establish its Study Group on

Very Young Offenders (the Study Group). The

Study Group assembled a distinguished panel of

15 researchers to examine collaboratively what is

known about the prevalence and frequency of very

young offending (i.e., offending by children younger

than age 13). The Study Group focused specifically

on determining whether young offending is predictive of future delinquent or criminal careers, how

juveniles are handled by various systems, and what

the best methods are for preventing very young offending and the persistence of offending. The Study

Group’s findings are complete, and OJJDP will

issue a Bulletin on the project in late 2001.

What Have We Learned?

Young offending is serious business. The most

recent available national data show that in 1999,

police arrested about one-quarter of a million

(230,800) youth age 12 and younger. Such very

young offenders (“child delinquents”) represented

about 9 percent of the total number of juvenile

arrestees (those up to age 18 in 1999). Although

most of these child delinquents were boys, nearly

one in four was a girl. These numbers may underestimate the number of child delinquents because

in many jurisdictions it is unusual for delinquents

under age 12 to be arrested or referred to juvenile

court.

In 1997,2

 offenders age 12 and younger made up

about 16 percent of those referred to juvenile court.

Compared with later onset offenders, child delinquents commit certain types of serious offenses at

relatively high rates. For example, they account for

1 in 3 juvenile arrests for arson, 1 in 5 juvenile arrests for sex offenses and vandalism, and 1 in 12

juvenile arrests for violent crime. Child delinquents

are also more likely than later onset offenders to

engage in minor theft and commit status offenses

such as truancy, running away from home, and

curfew and liquor law violations.

No evidence of a new and more serious “breed”

of child delinquent and young murderer exists.

Although statistics relating to the number of child

delinquents are sobering, they do not represent a

drastic shift in the trend of juvenile offending. The

prevalence of child delinquents does not appear to

have increased over the past two decades. For example, the number of recorded arrests of juveniles

increased 35 percent between 1988 and 1997, but

the number of child delinquents increased by only

6 percent during that time. In addition, examination

New Findings

1

 The full findings of the Study Group on Serious and Violent

Juvenile Offenders appear in Loeber and Farrington’s 1998

publication Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and

Successful Interventions. The Study Group Report on which this

publication is based (Loeber and Farrington, 1997) is available

from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. See the selective

bibliography on page 6 for more information on both

publications.

2

 1997 is the most recent year for which national juvenile court

data are available. This is due to the lengthy technical process of

creating a national database from dozens of State and local

courts. Juvenile and family courts across the Nation voluntarily

provide data to the National Juvenile Data Court Archive

(available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/njdca/), which

collects, stores, and analyzes data on juvenile justice.
4

of self-reported delinquency data for the past 20

years indicates no increase in delinquency by young

offenders in the United States. Moreover, between

1980 and 1997, the number of murders committed

by offenders age 12 or younger remained fairly

constant, averaging about 30 per year. Increased

media coverage and public awareness of very young

offenders, however, may affect the public’s view of

child delinquents.

It is short-sighted for communities to ignore

delinquent acts and problem behaviors of child

delinquents in the hope that they will “grow out

of them.” Child delinquency is a predictor of serious, violent, and chronic offending. Research findings uniformly show that the risk of subsequent

violence, serious offenses, and chronic offending is

two to three times higher for child delinquents than

for later onset offenders. Child delinquents also tend

to have longer delinquency careers than later onset

delinquents. In addition, child delinquents are more

likely than later onset juvenile offenders to become

gang members and/or engage in substance abuse.

Incarceration in a detention center or correctional

facility is inappropriate for child delinquents in

most cases. No evidence shows that incarcerating

serious child delinquents substantially reduces recidivism or prevents careers of serious and violent

offending. In fact, correctional placement of child

delinquents may lead to their exposure to and

victimization by older, serious delinquent offenders

and increase the child delinquents’ likelihood of

becoming serious and chronic offenders.

What Does This Mean?

Researchers cannot definitively predict which preschoolers will become child delinquents and serious

and violent juvenile offenders, but there are warning

signs. A certain level of disruptive behavior is common

during the preschool years, especially at ages 2 and 3,

when many children of both sexes show high levels of

aggression and noncompliance. Although the majority

of early-onset delinquents have a history of aggressive,

inattentive, or sensation-seeking behavior in the

James C. Howell, Ph.D., Institute for Intergovernmental Research, Tallahassee, FL

David Huizinga, Ph.D., University of Colorado,

Boulder

Kate Keenan, Ph.D., University of Chicago,

Chicago, IL

Dan Offord, M.D., Chedoke McMasters Hospital,

Ontario, Canada

Howard N. Snyder, Ph.D., National Center for

Juvenile Justice, Pittsburgh, PA

Richard Tremblay, Ph.D., University of Montreal,

Quebec, Canada

Terence P. Thornberry, Ph.D., University at Albany,

State University of New York

Gail A. Wasserman, Ph.D., Columbia University,

New York, NY

Chairs

David P. Farrington, Ph.D., University of Cambridge,

England

Rolf Loeber, Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh,

Pittsburgh, PA

Members

Barbara J. Burns, Ph.D., Duke University Medical

Center, Durham, NC

Dante Cicchetti, Ph.D., Mount Hope Family Center,

Rochester, NY

John Coie, Ph.D., Duke University Medical Center,

Durham, NC

Darnell Hawkins, Ph.D., University of Illinois at

Chicago

J. David Hawkins, Ph.D., University of Washington,

Seattle

Members of the OJJDP Study Group on Very Young Offenders
5

Definition of Child Delinquency

Child delinquency includes offending between

the ages of 7 and 12. The Study Group on Very

Young Offenders concentrated on three categories of children:

◆ Serious child delinquents: Children between

the ages of 7 and 12 who have committed

one or more of the following acts: homicide,

aggravated assault, robbery, rape, or serious

arson.

◆ Other child delinquents: Children who commit

delinquent acts, excluding serious offenses.

◆ Nondelinquent children: Children up to and

including age 12 who engage in persistent

disruptive behavior but do not commit

delinquent acts.

preschool years, the reverse is not true: The majority

of aggressive, inattentive, or attention-seeking preschoolers do not go on to become child delinquents.

Researchers nonetheless have identified the following

important warning signs of later problems:

◆ Disruptive behavior that is either more frequent

or more severe than that of other children the

same age.

◆ Disruptive behavior, such as temper tantrums

and aggression, that persists beyond ages 2 to 3.

For many very young offenders, disruptive behavior becomes apparent during the preschool

and certainly the elementary years.

Additional early warning signs for the development

of delinquency at a young age include:

◆ Physical fighting.

◆ Cruelty to people or animals.

◆ Covert acts such as frequent lying, theft, and fire

setting.

◆ Inability to get along with others.

◆ Low school motivation during elementary school.

◆ Substance use (without parental permission).

◆ Repeated victimization (e.g., child abuse

or peer bullying).

Steps can be taken to prevent child delinquency

and its escalation to chronic criminal behavior.

The best way to prevent any type of delinquency

(including child delinquency) is to focus on risk and

protective factors. Risk factors for child delinquency,

like those for later onset juvenile offending, exist in

the individual child, the family, the peer group, and

the school. They probably also exist in the neighborhood in which the child lives. For very young

offenders, the most important risk factors are likely

individual (e.g., birth complications, hyperactivity,

and impulsivity) or family related (e.g., parental substance abuse and poor childrearing practices). Protective factors—that is, those that can buffer or offset

the impact of risk factors—include prosocial behavior

during the preschool years and strong cognitive performance. Ultimately, children with many risk factors

and few protective factors are at highest risk of becoming serious, violent, and chronic offenders.

Communities should emphasize primary prevention and early intervention. Several primary prevention programs reviewed by the Study Group are

geared to conflict resolution and violence prevention

and focus on enhancing children’s problem-solving

and interaction skills. Programs that teach children

about the causes and the destructive consequences

of violence (e.g., the Second Step and the Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways curriculums) have

been shown to reduce aggressive behavior significantly. Several other effective programs focus on

reducing early persistent disruptive behavior among

children. Some programs (e.g., Parent Management

Training, Functional Family Therapy, and Multisystemic Therapy) have been shown to reduce the

risk of later, more serious offending.

No single agency can reduce child delinquency;

rather, partnerships between agencies are likely

to be more productive and efficient. Child delinquents often have co-occurring problems, such as

early substance abuse, depression, rejection by

peers, academic underachievement, and truancy.

Because child delinquents frequently have multiple

problems at a young age, they tend to require
6

services from several agencies. Ideally, programs for

serious child delinquents should incorporate immediate screening and assessment to identify children’s

programmatic needs. Interventions for persistently

disruptive children and child delinquents should:

◆ Be integrated across services.

◆ Focus on children younger than age 13.

◆ Apply multimodal interventions—that is, those

that address more than one risk factor domain

(e.g., individual child, family).

◆ Address the multiple problems of a child, as

necessary.

Selective Bibliography on Research

on Very Young Offenders

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P. 1997. Never Too

Early, Never Too Late: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions for Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders. Final

Report of the Study Group on Serious and Violent

Juvenile Offenders (grant number 95–JD–FX–

0018). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available from

the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, 800–638–8736.

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P., eds. 1998. Serious and

Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D. In press. Child Delinquency: Early Intervention and Prevention. Bulletin.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention (NCJ 186162).

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D., eds. 2001. Child

Delinquents: Development, Interventions, and Service Needs.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Program of Research on the Causes

and Correlates of Delinquency

Since 1986, OJJDP has sponsored three longitudinal

studies—collectively referred to as the Program

of Research on the Causes and Correlates of

Delinquency—designed to improve understanding of

serious delinquency, violence, and drug use by examining how individual juveniles develop within the context

of family, school, peers, and community. Samples of

inner-city youth from three cities (Denver, CO; Pittsburgh, PA; and Rochester, NY) were selected. The

studies involved repeated contacts with the same juveniles, including face-to-face private interviews every

6 to 12 months for a substantial portion of their developmental years. On average, the studies have retained

90 percent of the juveniles in the sample populations.

Researchers at the three sites used the same core

measures to examine:

◆ Delinquent behavior.

◆ Drug use.

◆ Involvement in the juvenile justice system.

◆ Community characteristics.

◆ Family experiences.

◆ Peer relationships.

◆ Education experiences.

The Causes and Correlates Studies

◆ A Longitudinal Multidisciplinary Study of

Developmental Patterns (Denver Youth Survey), directed by David Huizinga, Ph.D., at the

University of Colorado.

◆ Progressions in Antisocial and Delinquent Child

Behavior (Pittsburgh Youth Study), directed by

Rolf Loeber, Ph.D., at the University of

Pittsburgh.

◆ A Panel Study of a Reciprocal Causal Model of

Delinquency (Rochester Youth Development

Study), directed by Terence P. Thornberry,

Ph.D., at The Research Foundation, University

at Albany, State University of New York.

Additional information on these studies appears

on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency

Web site: www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ccd/.
7

◆ Attitudes and values.

◆ Demographic characteristics.

Many of this research program’s initial findings

were reported in OJJDP’s Report OJJDP Research:

Making a Difference for Juveniles, published in August

1999 (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, 1999). The current Report focuses on

additional research findings and policy implications.

What Have We Learned?

Multiple family transitions are a risk factor for

delinquency. Youth in the studies’ urban samples

experienced a substantial number of transitions during adolescence.3 Family instability was most pronounced in Rochester, where about two-thirds of

the sample experienced at least one transition and

nearly one-half experienced two or more transitions

during a 4-year period. Almost one-half (49 percent)

of the Denver youth and almost one-third (30 percent) of the Pittsburgh youth experienced one or

more family transitions during that time. Researchers found a consistent relationship between the

number of transitions a youth experienced and his

or her level of delinquency and drug use.

Adolescent males’ early involvement in drug use

and delinquency is highly correlated with teen

fatherhood. In Rochester, 70 percent of the highfrequency drug users in the sample became teen

fathers (compared with 24 percent of nonusers or

low-frequency users). Similarly, nearly one-half of

high-rate delinquents4 later became teen fathers

(compared with 23 percent of nondelinquents or

low-rate delinquents). In Rochester, researchers

also found that teen fatherhood was generally linked

to a boy’s involvement in deviant behavior such as

sexual intercourse before age 16, gang membership,

chronic violent behavior, and chronic drug use.

Even controlling for other variables, researchers

found that a number of these problem behaviors

substantially increased a boy’s likelihood of becoming a teen father. Chronic drug use alone more than

doubled the probability of teen fatherhood.

In the Pittsburgh sample, early delinquency—but

not early drug use—was a significant risk factor for

teenage fatherhood. The Pittsburgh study found

several other significant risk factors for teen fatherhood, including being raised in a family on welfare

and being exposed to drugs (e.g., being offered

drugs or witnessing a drug deal).

Teen fatherhood does not make young males more

responsible and law-abiding. Some policymakers

and researchers hypothesize that fatherhood might

encourage young males to become more responsible

and assume the tasks of helping to establish and

support a family. Researchers, however, have found

that teen fatherhood is associated with a significant

increase in delinquent behavior. In the same year

that the young men in the Pittsburgh study reported

becoming fathers, they were 7.5 times more likely

than nonfathers to commit serious delinquent acts.

In the year after the boys became fathers, their risk

of committing serious delinquent acts remained

relatively high (4.2 times higher than that of nonfathers). Overall, young fathers in the Pittsburgh

sample appeared considerably worse off than nonfathers. They were more likely to have had a court

petition alleging delinquency, to drink alcohol frequently, to be involved in drug dealing, and to have

dropped out of school. What is perhaps most important, the study indicates that it is a mistake to assume that having a child will force young fathers to

turn away from delinquency, drug use, and other

negative behavior. In fact, without support, the

added pressure of this responsibility might result

in drinking or drug use, poor school performance,

and further isolation from prosocial peers.

What Does This Mean?

Programs that target at-risk juveniles need to include their families. Previous research on risk and

protective factors identified a link between family

instability and a child’s risk of delinquent behavior.

Recent findings of the Causes and Correlates research confirm this link. In particular, research shows

that family disruption (whether through divorce,

3

 Transitions are changes in the family structure caused by

events in the parenting figures’ lives such as divorce, separation,

death, or long-term hospitalization.

4

 “High-rate offending” was defined as a high frequency of

general delinquency offending. High-rate offenders were those

juveniles who fell into the highest quartile of offending

frequency.
8

separation, illness, work-related mobility, or imprisonment) greatly affects a child’s risk of juvenile delinquency. Prevention and intervention programs for

juvenile delinquents, therefore, need to closely examine the juveniles’ family circumstances. Family

violence, physical and mental health problems, poverty, unemployment, and the criminal activity of a

child’s parents can all result in multiple family disruptions. Any program that hopes to improve a juvenile’s

future must include his or her family in the solution.

Teen pregnancy prevention programs should focus

on boys and girls. Historically, teen pregnancy prevention programs have focused only on teenage girls.

More recently, however, some programs have focused

on teenage boys—both in terms of prevention and

in terms of encouraging fathers’ involvement in childrearing. Recent findings from the Causes and Correlates program indicate that focusing on both boys and

girls is extremely important, especially among youth

at risk for delinquency and drug use.

Selective Bibliography on the Program of

Research on the Causes and Correlates

of Delinquency

Huizinga, D., Loeber, R., Thornberry, T.P., and

Cothern, L. 2000. Co-occurrence of Delinquency and Other

Problem Behaviors. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (NCJ 182211).

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1999. OJJDP Research: Making a Difference for

Juveniles. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(NCJ 177602).

Thornberry, T.P., Smith, C.A., Rivera, C., Huizinga,

D., and Stouthamer-Loeber, M. 1999. Family Disruption and Delinquency. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (NCJ 178285).

Thornberry, T.P., Wei, E.H., Stouthamer-Loeber,

M., and Van Dyke, J. 2000. Teenage Fatherhood and

Delinquent Behavior. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (NCJ 178899).

Juvenile Transfers to

Criminal Court

The transfer of juveniles from the jurisdiction of the

juvenile court to the jurisdiction of the adult criminal

court has been part of the juvenile justice system since

◆ Two projects directed by Jeffrey Fagan, Ph.D.,

Columbia School of Public Health,

New York, NY:

❖ Comparative Impact of Juvenile Versus Criminal

Court Sanctions on Recidivism Among Adolescent Felony Offenders: A Replication and

Extension.

❖ Age, Crime, and Sanction: The Effect of Juvenile

Versus Criminal Court Jurisdiction on AgeSpecific Crime Rates of Adolescent Offenders.

◆ Evaluation of Blended Sentencing in Minnesota,

directed by Fred L. Cheesman II, Ph.D., National

Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, VA, and

Heidi E. Green, MPP, Minnesota Supreme Court.

(This project was cofunded by the State Justice

Institute.)

◆ Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court Studies,

directed by Henry George “Ship” White, Juvenile

Justice Accountability Board, Florida Department

of Juvenile Justice.

◆ Project To Study the Outcome of Juvenile

Transfer to Criminal Court, directed by Howard

N. Snyder, Ph.D., National Center for Juvenile

Justice, National Council of Juvenile and Family

Court Judges, Pittsburgh, PA.

OJJDP-Funded Research Projects on the Transfer of Juveniles to Criminal Court
9

its inception. The concept of transfer acknowledges

that some violent and chronic juvenile offenders are

not amenable to treatment and must, for the purposes of public safety and accountability, be dealt

with in the criminal justice system. Transfer, however, was originally only a minor part of the juvenile court’s routine activities and was invoked only

in the most serious cases. In the late 1980s and

early 1990s, as the rate of juvenile violent crime

rose significantly, many policymakers looked for a

new approach. Between 1992 and 1995, 40 States

and the District of Columbia modified their transfer provisions to make the transfer of jurisdiction

easier and/or broader under certain circumstances.

For example, some States lowered the age of criminal court jurisdiction for particularly serious offenses, such as assault with a deadly weapon.

When mandating or allowing for the transfer of

jurisdiction, States also considered the number

and type of offenses a juvenile had committed.

Transfer mechanisms range from statutory exclusion to concurrent jurisdiction to judicial waiver.

Under exclusion statutes, State legislatures exclude

from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction certain categories of juveniles. Such categories are generally defined by the seriousness of the offense and/or by the

number or type of prior offenses committed by the

offender. Under concurrent jurisdiction, the district

attorney has the option of filing certain types of

cases in juvenile court or in adult criminal court.

Finally, under judicial waiver, the prosecutor (or

defense attorney) asks the juvenile court judge to

transfer or waive the juvenile to adult criminal

court. Each State has adopted one or more of these

mechanisms, generally specifying particular criteria

Three Transfer Mechanisms

Although they may have different names in different States, the three general types of transfer mechanisms

are judicial waiver, statutory exclusion, and concurrent jurisdiction. Each is described below.

◆ Judicial waiver (juvenile court judge). Under judicial waiver, a hearing occurs in juvenile court, typically in

response to a prosecutor’s request that the juvenile court judge waive or forego the juvenile court’s jurisdiction over a matter involving a juvenile and transfer the juvenile to criminal court for trial in the adult

system.

◆ Statutory exclusion (the legislature). In a growing number of States, legislatures have statutorily excluded certain young offenders from juvenile court jurisdiction based on age and/or offense criteria.

For example, many States have set the upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction at 15 or 16. (An estimated 218,000 cases involving youth under age 18 were tried in criminal court in 1996 as a result of

State laws defining the youth as adults solely on the basis of an age criterion.) Many States also exclude

youth charged with certain serious offenses from juvenile court jurisdiction. Typically, these offenses are

capital offenses and other murders and violent offenses. Some States exclude other, additional felony

offenses from juvenile court jurisdiction.

◆ Concurrent jurisdiction (prosecutor). Under this transfer option, State statutes give prosecutors the discretion to file certain cases in either juvenile or criminal court because original jurisdiction is shared by

both courts. Concurrent jurisdiction provisions, like other transfer mechanisms, are typically limited by age

and offense criteria. Unlike judicial waiver, however, prosecutorial transfer is not subject to judicial review

and is not required to meet due process requirements. Some States have developed guidelines for prosecutors to follow in “direct filing” cases (i.e., cases involving juveniles that prosecutors file directly in adult

criminal court).

Although the term “transfer” refers to three general mechanisms, only one (judicial waiver) actually involves

the transfer of a juvenile from the juvenile court to the adult criminal court. Cases that follow the other two

paths may never pass through the juvenile court system.
10

that must be met (e.g., injury to a victim, use of a

firearm or other weapon, or a history of serious

offenses) to transfer a juvenile to criminal court.

(See the sidebar on page 9 for more information.)

Overview of Transfer Research Projects

OJJDP has funded several studies of local and

State-level transfer provisions. These research efforts were designed to determine how transfers are

being used presently and have been used in the past

and to examine the effects of recent legislative

changes altering the nature of transfers in specific

States. Two projects funded in 1995 include a multiState study conducted by the National Center for

Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) and a multiyear study in

Florida conducted by the Florida Juvenile Justice

Accountability Board (JJAB). In 1997, OJJDP

funded a two-State study conducted by Columbia

University to replicate and expand a previous study

it conducted in the early 1990s.

NCJJ study. Using archival data from the 1980s

and 1990s, NCJJ conducted studies in Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Utah. The results of these

studies were published in an OJJDP research Summary, Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court in the 1990’s:

Lessons Learned From Four Studies (Snyder, Sickmund,

and Poe-Yamagata, 2000). These three States were

selected because they have historically relied on

judicial waiver as their primary transfer mechanism.

The study in South Carolina examined waiver cases

from 1985 through 1994 because, during that time,

the State’s only transfer mechanism was judicial

waiver. In 1995, State law changed to include other

transfer mechanisms.

Because Utah also had a stable judicial waiver provision up until 1995, data from its study cover the

period from 1988 to 1994. The Utah data, however,

track cases that began in juvenile court but also involved a prosecutor’s request for waiver.

The Pennsylvania research included two studies. In

the first, researchers collected State data to compare

the characteristics of juveniles transferred in 1986

with those of juveniles transferred in 1994, a period

during which the State’s transfer provisions remained unchanged. In the late 1980s, juvenile

crime in Pennsylvania began to increase substantially,

and the study examined how the juvenile justice system

dealt with this increase. In the second Pennsylvania

study, data from three counties were used to examine

the effects of State legislation passed in March 1996

that excluded certain juveniles from the jurisdiction of

the juvenile court. Researchers in this second Pennsylvania study examined the cases of juveniles excluded

from juvenile court jurisdiction under this provision

during the final 9 months of 1996.

Florida study. The Florida JJAB began its multiphase study in 1995. The study was designed to examine the changes in transfer that resulted from Florida’s

broad reform of juvenile justice in 1994. One phase of

the Florida study used the statewide Client Information System (CIS), which tracks all juvenile offenders

through the juvenile justice system. By comparing the

use of transfer mechanisms in 1993 with their use in

1995, researchers hoped to determine the effect of new,

more lenient transfer provisions put in place in 1994.

Columbia University study. OJJDP is supporting

research at Columbia University that is replicating a

1987 study. The original study compared two urban

counties in New Jersey with two boroughs of New

York City. The jurisdictions in both States were comparable in terms of population, socioeconomic levels,

and urban environments. State transfer provisions in

New Jersey and New York, however, differ substantially. Under New York law, all persons age 16 and

older are considered “adults” and are thus handled

in the criminal court system. Under New Jersey

law, youth age 18 and older are considered adults.

This difference provided researchers an opportunity

to examine how the difference in the age of criminal

court jurisdiction may have affected the treatment

of adolescent offenders. By matching offenders in

the two jurisdictions and tracking their cases, researchers sought to determine whether sanctions

applied in criminal court were harsher and more consistently applied than juvenile court sanctions and

whether criminal court sanctions resulted in less

recidivism among offenders than sanctions applied

in juvenile court (hypotheses expounded by proponents of the transfer of juveniles to criminal court).

Concentrating on 16- and 17-year-olds charged with

first-degree robbery, second-degree robbery, or firstdegree burglary, Fagan (1995) used archival data to
11

track the process of matching pairs of youth from

each jurisdiction. In the end, Fagan (1995:253)

found that:

Accountability for adolescent offenders in

criminal courts was no greater than in the

juvenile court, and depending on the social

and legal context surrounding the court,

appeared to be weaker. Nor was criminal

court punishment a more effective strategy

for crime control. Quite possibly, more

harm than good resulted from the effort

to criminalize adolescent crimes.

The replication study being funded by OJJDP,

which includes three counties in New Jersey and

three boroughs of New York, is designed to expand

and update the original research. It expands the list

of offenses studied to include serious assault, and

researchers are comparing the certainty, quickness,

and severity of sanctions and the recidivism associated with criminal versus juvenile court jurisdiction.

Further, researchers conducting the replication

study are providing an indepth examination of the

organizational context of the various jurisdictions to

determine how these contexts affect outcomes. This

ongoing research from Columbia University will be

completed in 2001.

What Have We Learned?

Transfer is generally reserved for the most serious

cases and the most serious juvenile offenders. The

research studies described in the previous section

showed that judges and prosecutors in South Carolina and Utah used similar criteria in determining

which juveniles should be transferred to criminal

court. Although the decisionmaking process in each

State differed significantly, in both States certain

common criteria—including a juvenile’s court history and the seriousness of his or her offense—were

strong predictors of whether the youth would be

transferred. Determinations of the seriousness of

an offense or a juvenile’s amenability to treatment

changed during the period under consideration. In

Pennsylvania, the number of judicial waivers increased 84 percent between 1986 and 1994—an

increase that exceeded the 32-percent rise in juvenile

crime during the same period. Although some of the

increase in waiver derives from the rise in juvenile

crime, the research suggests that the juvenile courts

waived a larger number of juvenile drug offenders

than other offenders. The research also suggests that

Pennsylvania courts began to believe that a greater

proportion of adjudicated delinquents were no

longer amenable to treatment within the juvenile

justice system.

In Pennsylvania, judges and prosecutors generally

agree on which juveniles should be transferred. In

Florida, however, prosecutors and judges viewed

the purpose and impact of reform differently. In

four out of five cases examined in the first Pennsylvania study, the juvenile court supported the request

for waiver, indicating that prosecutors and judges

in that State generally agree about who should be

waived and who should not. It may be that prosecutors are simply able to gauge the cases in which a

judge is likely to grant a waiver request. The study

of exclusions in Pennsylvania indicated that criminal

court judges agree with juvenile court judges about

which cases should be transferred.

The Florida study included a survey of prosecutors

and juvenile court judges in the State’s judicial districts. The survey was designed to help researchers

understand these players’ perceptions of the State’s

statutory changes. Although prosecutors and juvenile court judges were found to generally agree on

the results of the reforms, the survey showed important distinctions. For example, 61 percent of the

prosecutors believed that the most significant

change was the lowering of the direct file age

(from 16 to 14), whereas only 32 percent of the

juvenile court judges regarded this as the most significant change. In addition, 36 percent of prosecutors felt that public safety was the goal of transfers,

and only 8 percent of judges held that view. The

study also showed that 79 percent of prosecutors

viewed direct file as the preferred method of transfer, compared with 36 percent of judges.

Exclusion laws are not necessarily having their

intended effect. Transfer provisions that went into

effect in Florida in 1994 specifically addressed and

made it easier to transfer younger offenders, felons,

and juveniles with significant offense records. Data

from CIS, however, indicate that the reforms had

little effect on the types of youth transferred during the year following the changes. The lack of an
12

immediate impact may mean that prosecutors and

judges have been slow to exercise their new authority. It may also reflect a disconnect between the sentiments of legislators and those of practitioners who

deal directly with juvenile offenders.

The Florida study has several other components,

including a survey of youth who were the subject of

proceedings in the criminal or juvenile court. The

respondents in the juvenile system and those in the

criminal system were matched (according to factors

such as age and offense seriousness) to allow researchers to compare the experiences of similar

juveniles in the two systems. Finally, the study is

exploring the use of blended sanctioning, whereby

a juvenile receives both a juvenile and an adult sanction. These last two study elements are continuing,

and results will be reported in late 2001. The project

has completed all data collection activities on these

elements and is currently writing analyses and reports based on the data collected.

What Does This Mean?

Although transfer provisions are often adopted to

address a perceived problem of increasing juvenile

violence, the studies in Florida and Pennsylvania

show that it is unclear whether broader transfer

provisions actually result in increased use of transfer. The Florida data, for example, indicate that the

State’s 1994 reforms did not result in the transfer of

more juveniles to criminal court. The Pennsylvania

study of exclusions similarly showed that only those

juveniles who would have ended up in criminal

court anyway remained there. The Pennsylvania

exclusion study also revealed a considerable time

lag in prosecuting juveniles in criminal court. Thus,

while the sanction ultimately imposed was similar

to the sanction a youth would have received in the

juvenile system, the criminal system expended

greater resources to prosecute the case and detain

the juvenile prior to sentencing.

Selective Bibliography on Juvenile

Transfers to Criminal Court

Bishop, D.M., Frazier, C.E., Lanza-Kaduce, L., and

White, H.G. 1999. A Study of Juvenile Transfers to

Criminal Court in Florida. Fact Sheet. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (FS 99113).

Fagan, J. 1995. Separating the men from the boys:

The comparative advantage of juvenile versus criminal court sanctions on recidivism among adolescent

felony offenders. In Sourcebook on Serious, Violent, and

Chronic Juvenile Offenders, edited by J.C. Howell, B.

Krisberg, J.D. Hawkins, and J.J. Wilson. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 238–260.

Puzzanchera, C.M. 2000. Delinquency Cases Waived to

Criminal Court, 1988–1997. Fact Sheet. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (FS 200002).

Snyder, H., Sickmund, M., and Poe-Yamagata, E.

2000. Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court in the 1990’s:

Lessons Learned From Four Studies. Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (NCJ 181301).

Torbet, P., Griffin, P., Hurst, H., Jr., and MacKenzie,

L.R. 2000. Juveniles Facing Criminal Sanctions: Three

States That Changed the Rules. Report. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (NCJ 181203).

Juveniles in Corrections

Even though juvenile arrest and victimization data

for the past few years indicate that juvenile crime

has been dropping, a large number of juvenile offenders remain in residential detention and corrections programs across the Nation. Responses to

OJJDP’s Census of Juveniles in Residential

Placement (CJRP) identified more than 125,800

young persons assigned beds on October 29, 1997,

in 1,121 public and 2,310 private facilities nationwide. Of these individuals, nearly 105,800 (84

percent) met the inclusion criteria for the Census,

which included being under age 21, being assigned

a bed in a residential facility at the end of the day

on October 29, 1997, having been charged with or

court adjudicated for an offense, and being in residential placement as a result of that offense.
13

Although there are many juveniles residing in facilities on any given day, the quality and condition of

these facilities are largely unknown. How well do

these facilities operate? Is the safety of juveniles

and staff assured? Are facilities fulfilling the dual

mission of the youth detention and corrections system: to keep the public safe and provide treatment to

young offenders so that they will return to the community as productive citizens? How can facilities

measure their effectiveness and identify areas that

need improvement? The Research Division supports

several projects that examine these questions.

In 1995, OJJDP launched the Performance-based

Standards (PbS) project, largely in response to its

landmark Conditions of Confinement Study, which

found high rates of suicidal behavior by youth in

residential placement, few timely or professionally

conducted health screenings, and high levels of staff

turnover at detention and correctional facilities. In

addition, the study found that pervasive crowding at

facilities was related to high rates of injury to staff

and youth. OJJDP recognized the need for national

performance standards to improve the quality and

conditions of such facilities and awarded a grant to

the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators

(CJCA) to develop and implement performance

standards for youth correctional and detention

facilities. Through the consensus of more than 40

representatives from major youth corrections and

detention agencies, correctional associations, and

related organizations, an advisory board and four

working groups established outcome measures and

data elements to assess the impact of the following

PbS goals for the areas of operations:

◆ Security: To protect public safety and provide a

safe environment for youth and staff. Security is

essential for effective learning and treatment.

◆ Order: To establish clear expectations of behavior and an accompanying system of accountability

for youth and staff that promotes mutual respect,

self-discipline, and order.

◆ Safety: To engage in management practices that

promote the safety and well-being of staff and

youth.

◆ Programming: To provide meaningful opportunities for youth to improve their educational and

vocational competence, address underlying behavioral problems, and prepare for responsible

lives in the community.

◆ Justice: To operate the facility in a manner that is

consistent with principles of fairness and that provides ways to ensure and protect the legal rights of

youth and their families.

◆ Health/Mental Health: To identify and effectively respond to youth’s physical and mental

health problems and to related behavioral problems throughout the course of confinement by

using professionally appropriate diagnostic,

treatment, and prevention protocols.5

What Have We Learned?

Standards appear to be making a difference in the

quality of service. Thirty-two facilities have been

implementing PbS since August 1998. These facilities have completed four rounds of data collection

and are continuing to work on improvements before

completing their next data collection in spring 2001.

Since beginning implementation of PbS, several

facilities have reported measurable improvements,

such as reduction of youth injuries and decline in

staff turnover.

A facility that had experienced a youth suicide and

received major criticism from the media, policymakers, and the public before implementing the

standards showed dramatic improvement 1 year

after implementation. The facility’s data report

showed that there had been no suicides during the

year and that all youth were screened at intake for

risk of suicide before being assigned housing. The

evaluation also showed a reduction in the use of

mechanical restraints and indicated that no youth

had been injured when restraints were used. During

the same period, the facility’s use of isolation and

5

 Additional information on PbS for juvenile detention and

corrections is available from the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators, Stonehill College, 16 Belmont Street,

South Easton, MA 02375; 508–238–0073; 508–238–0651 (fax);

CJCA@corrections.com (e-mail); www.corrections.com/cjca/

cjcalist.html (Internet).
14

room confinement was cut in half and there were

fewer injuries to youth and fewer escapes from the

facility. Each of these areas had been targeted for

improvement, and each had been the subject of public criticism. A consequence of the reduction in use

of mechanical restraints and greater staff involvement in handling disruptive situations has been an

increase in staff reports of fear (a 17-percent increase in 1 year). The facility and PbS project have

responded by hiring experts to train staff on deescalation techniques. Followup for this and other

facilities is ongoing to ensure that improvements

are sustained and other key performance areas do

not suffer.

Implementation of PbS is challenging, but valued.

Recent survey results from an evaluation being conducted by the National Academy of Public Administration are encouraging, in terms of both adoption of

PbS and improvements in facility outcomes. Even

the nearly one-third of facilities that reported experiencing significant difficulties with initial implementation of standards felt strongly that the standards

would ultimately be accepted and used in youth

correctional and detention facilities. Researchers

found that PbS goals are widely shared by facility

administrators and staff.

What Does This Mean?

Interest in and adoption of PbS are growing. In

fall 2000, the 32 facilities originally engaged in PbS

activities were joined by 25 new facilities. OJJDP

is working with CJCA to publish and distribute a

Bulletin on the PbS project, a PbS user’s manual,

and resource guides that describe effective programs

and provide resources to help facilities improve their

practices. Topics to be addressed in the resource

guides include suicide prevention, treatment of sex

offenders, educational programming, mental health

services, and facility communications. The PbS Web

site (www.performance-standards.org) is another

vehicle that OJJDP uses to provide the field with

information on facilities participating in the PbS

project.

Additional research on the impact of PbS is

needed. Although initial findings on the impact

of PbS are encouraging, ongoing evaluation and

research are necessary to ensure that positive

changes are sustained and facilities are able to

adapt to modifications in staffing patterns and

populations. Implementation in a wide range of

facilities offers the field a unique opportunity to

understand how targeted changes in practice and

training and the infusion of additional resources

affect important outcomes for youth in confinement.

Standards can be applied to other facility activities. Early successes encouraged the PbS team to

look beyond the six areas of operations originally

identified for standards and consider what facilities

are doing to prepare youth for reintegration when

they return to the community. The PbS team has

partnered with OJJDP’s Intensive Aftercare Program to develop a set of standards and outcome

measures relating to facilities’ efforts to transition

youth from confinement to the community.

Selective Bibliography on Juveniles in

Corrections

Sickmund, M. 2000. Census of Juveniles in Residential

Placement Databook. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (FS 200008).

Sickmund, M. 2000. State Custody Rates, 1997.

Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(NCJ 183108).

Youth Gang Research

The Research Division sponsors a broad-based program of research that focuses on many aspects of

youth gangs. Through a series of research projects

and evaluations, secondary data analysis, and activities of the National Youth Gang Center (NYGC),

OJJDP continues to learn valuable information

about the prevalence, nature, and impact of youth

gangs in communities across the country. Most important, this information is used to craft solutions

and strategies to counter the impact of gang activity

on youth and schools.
15

National Youth Gang Center

The National Youth Gang Center (NYGC) collects

data, analyzes State legislation related to gangs,

conducts reviews of literature dealing with gang

issues, identifies promising gang program strategies, and provides technical support to the National Youth Gang Consortium. The Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(OJJDP) convenes the Consortium—which includes all Federal agencies and bureaus engaged

in antigang activities—three times a year to build

partnerships and coordinate Federal resources

at the local level to develop comprehensive approaches to gang prevention, intervention, and

suppression.

Since 1995, NYGC has conducted the annual

OJJDP National Youth Gang Survey of law enforcement agencies. Summaries and Fact Sheets

based on the survey are published regularly

through OJJDP. NYGC also provides training and

technical assistance for the Rural Youth Gang

Initiative and will do the same for the Gang-Free

Schools and Communities Initiative launched in

early 2001. The NYGC Web site is an excellent

resource for information on gang programs, research, and legislation. Full-text publications,

bibliographies of publications relating to gang

research, and lists of gang legislation by State

and subject can be found at www.iir.com/nygc/.

What Have We Learned?

Although the prevalence of youth gangs is decreasing nationwide, it is increasing in rural

communities. In 1998, nearly half (4,463) of the

U.S. cities and counties responding to the National

Youth Gang Survey reported experiencing youth

gang activity. Such activity included an estimated

28,700 gangs and 780,200 active youth gang members in the United States, a modest decrease of

about 3 percent from 1997 and a decrease of 5 percent from 1996, when 53 percent of all responding

jurisdictions reported active youth gangs. Most of

the nationwide decrease occurred in large suburban

counties (i.e., those with populations of 250,000 or

more). Counter to the nationwide trend, however,

between 1996 and 1998, the number of gang members in rural counties increased 43 percent and the

number of gang members in small cities increased

3 percent.

Even with a national decrease in youth gang activity, many communities face major challenges as

they address their gang problem. In 1998, more

than two-thirds of jurisdictions reported that their

gang problem was either “staying about the same”

or “getting worse,” compared with previous years.

In addition, only 16 percent of jurisdictions reported

that gang members in their communities did not use

firearms in conjunction with assaults. More than

half indicated that gang members used weapons

“often” or “sometimes.” Moreover, one-third of all

youth gangs today are drug gangs (i.e., gangs organized specifically for the purpose of trafficking in

drugs). These drug gangs appear most prevalent in

rural counties (38 percent). Jurisdictions report

most of their gang members are involved in one or

more of the following serious and/or violent crimes:

larceny/theft (17 percent), burglary/breaking and

entering (13 percent), aggravated assault (12 percent), motor vehicle theft (11 percent), and robbery

(3 percent).

Youth gangs are prevalent in schools, where drug

and gang activities appear linked. The most recent

data available indicate that more than one-third

(37 percent) of students report a gang presence at

school (Howell and Lynch, 2000). A high correlation exists between student victimization of all types

and school gang presence. In addition, most gangs

that students see at school are actively involved in

criminal activity. Students reported, for example,

that about two-thirds of school gangs were involved

in violence, drug activity, or gun carrying. Students

also reported that gangs were most prevalent in

schools where drugs were easy to obtain.

What Does This Mean?

A comprehensive approach appears to be the most

promising way to address gang activity. OJJDP’s

Comprehensive Gang Program model incorporates

five key components that continue to show the greatest promise for communities addressing the activities

of youth gangs: community mobilization, social intervention, provision of opportunities, suppression of
16

gang activity, and organizational change and development. This comprehensive approach coordinates

services (e.g., social, academic, vocational, and law

enforcement) to prevent youth from becoming involved in gangs and to help jurisdictions intervene

with gang-involved juveniles and reduce the criminal

impact of gangs. Two current OJJDP projects—the

Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to Gang

Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Program

(being used in five communities) and the Rural Youth

Gang Initiative (under way in four rural sites)—are

implementing the strategies of the Comprehensive

Gang model.

OJJDP is expanding its comprehensive approach

to youth gangs through the new FY 2000 GangFree Schools and Communities Initiative. This

initiative includes two new programs being

launched by OJJDP to address and reduce youth

gang crime and violence in schools and communities

across America: OJJDP’s Gang-Free Communities

Program, which will offer seed funding to up to 12

communities to replicate OJJDP’s Comprehensive

Gang Model, and OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang

Model: An Enhanced School/Community Approach to

Reducing Youth Gang Crime, which will support up to

4 demonstration sites implementing school-focused

enhancements to the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang

Model. Both efforts will include technical assistance

and training through OJJDP’s NYGC and provide

support for program evaluation. The initiative through

which these programs are being launched represents a

collaboration between OJJDP and the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services,

Labor, and the Treasury.

Selective Bibliography on Youth

Gang Research

Burch, J., and Kane, C. 1999. Implementing the

OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

OJJDP-Funded Gang Research

◆ Action Research on Youth Gangs in Indian Country: Profiling the Problem and Seeking Solutions,

directed by Troy Armstrong, Ph.D., Center for

Delinquency and Crime Policy Studies, California

State University, Sacramento.

◆ Case Studies and Evaluation Planning of the

OJJDP Rural Youth Gang Initiative, directed by

Barry Krisberg, Ph.D., National Council on Crime

and Delinquency, Oakland, CA.

◆ Evaluation of the Comprehensive CommunityWide Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Program, directed by Irving

Spergel, Ph.D., School of Social Services Administration, University of Chicago, IL.

◆ Finding and Knowing the Gang Naye’e in the

Navajo Nation, directed by James W. Zion,

Ph.D., Navajo Nation Judicial Branch, Window

Rock, AZ.

◆ National Youth Gang Center (conducts the annual National Youth Gang Survey), directed by

Emory B. Williams, Ph.D., Institute for Intergovernmental Research, Tallahassee, FL.

◆ Socialization to Gangs in an Emerging Gang City,

directed by G. David Curry, Ph.D., Department of

Criminology, University of Missouri, St. Louis.

◆ Survey of School-Based Gang Prevention and

Intervention Programs, directed by Gary D. Gottfredson, Ph.D., Gottfredson Associates, Inc.,

Ellicott City, MD.

◆ Women and Gangs: A Field Research Study, directed by Ann McGuigan, Ph.D., Illinois State

University, Normal. (For a description of the

project, refer to page 26 of this Report.)

◆ Youth Gangs in Juvenile Detention and Corrections Facilities, directed by David W. Roush, Ph.D.,

National Juvenile Detention Association,

Richmond, KY.

◆ Youth Groups and Gangs in Europe, directed by

Finn-Aage Esbensen, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska, Omaha.
17

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (FS 99112).

Egley, A., Jr. 2000. Highlights of the 1999 National

Youth Gang Survey. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (FS 200020).

Esbensen, F. 2000. Preventing Adolescent Gang Involvement. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(NCJ 182210).

Howell, J.C. 2000. Youth Gang Programs and Strategies. Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(NCJ 171154).

Howell, J.C., and Gleason, D.K. 1999. Youth Gang

Drug Trafficking. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (NCJ 178282).

Howell, J.C., and Lynch, J.P. 2000. Youth Gangs in

Schools. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(NCJ 183015).

Moore, J.P., and Cook, I.L. 1999. Highlights of the

1998 National Youth Gang Survey. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (FS 99123).

National Youth Gang Center. 2000. 1998 National Youth

Gang Survey. Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(NCJ 183109).

Wyrick, P. 2000. Vietnamese Youth Gang Involvement. Fact

Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention (FS 200001).

Diversion From Juvenile Court:

Teen/Youth Courts and

Restorative Justice Programs

An estimated 1,755,000 juvenile cases were referred to

juvenile court in 1997, but only 57 percent (996,000)

went through the formal court process. The rest

(43 percent or 759,000) were nonpetitioned. Fewer

than half of the nonpetitioned cases resulted in a dismissal. What happened to the other nonpetitioned

cases? Undoubtedly, many were diverted to alternative programs such as teen/youth courts and restorative justice programs. These options have been

available for several years, and more and more communities today are using them to handle juvenile

offenders diverted from the formal court process.

Teen courts, first established about 20 to 25 years

ago, are generally used for younger juveniles (ages

10 to 15) with no prior arrests who have been

charged with minor violations (e.g., shoplifting,

vandalism, and status offenses). These offenders are

typically offered diversion to teen court in lieu of

more formal handling by the traditional juvenile

justice system. Although teen courts often include

many of the same steps as the formal juvenile court

(e.g., intake, preliminary review of charges, court

hearing, disposition), they differ from other juvenile

justice programs in that young people, rather than

adults, are in charge. Youth in teen courts may act

as prosecutors, defense counsel, jurors, court clerks,

bailiffs, or judges (or as members of a panel of youth

judges). Adults act as administrators who provide

oversight, planning, and training. Although some

teen court programs involve deliberation on charges,

the key feature of all teen court programs is the substantial role that youth play in the imposition of sanctions on young offenders.

OJJDP’s Evaluation of Teen Courts Project recently

conducted a national survey of teen and youth courts.

More than 300 programs responded to the survey

(a more than 70-percent response rate). Responses to

the survey documented the range of teen and youth

court programs used in jurisdictions across the country, the characteristics of teen and youth court clients,

the sanctions imposed, the courtroom models used,
18

the extent of community support received, and the

challenges faced. Survey findings are described in

the next section (see pages 18–19).

In addition to diverting youth to teen and youth

courts, many communities are starting to use another alternative to formal processing: restorative

justice conferences. Based on the Australian model

of family group conferencing, a restorative justice

conference brings together an offending youth, his

or her victim, and supporters of both with a trained

facilitator to discuss the incident and the harm and

effect it has had on the victim and supporters. In a

restorative justice conference, the victim has an opportunity to explain how he or she has been harmed

and to question the offending youth. Supporters

have a chance to describe how they have been affected by the incident, and the conference ends with

a reparation agreement in which all participants

agree on how the offending youth can make amends

to the victim. The reparation agreement may include

an apology and/or some type of restitution to be

made to the victim. It may also describe other actions to be taken by the youth, such as improving

school attendance or completing homework. As part

of a balanced and restorative justice model, these

conferences seek to hold youth accountable, involve

and meet the needs of victims, and build a community of support around youth.

The field of research on restorative justice efforts—

for both adults and juveniles—is growing. A recently completed OJJDP-funded evaluation of one

such program in Indianapolis, IN, found highly

positive results in terms of conference completion,

participant satisfaction, and youth reoffending.

Research on Diversion Programs

◆ Evaluation of Teen Courts, directed by Jeffrey

Butts, Ph.D., State Policy Center, The Urban

Institute, Washington, DC.

◆ Preventing Juvenile Crime: Evaluating Restorative Justice Conferences as an Innovative

Response to Juvenile Crime, directed by

Edmund McGarrell, Ph.D., Crime Control Policy

Center, The Hudson Institute, Indianapolis, IN.

Research findings on both of the alternative methods discussed in this section—teen/youth courts and

restorative justice conferences—continue to provide

OJJDP with important information about the obstacles to establishing such programs, the challenges

of sustaining volunteers and funding, and the key

elements to program success. Research findings can

be used by communities to guide program planning

and implementation.

What Have We Learned?

The potential benefits of teen/youth courts and

restorative justice conferences are widely recognized. Communities are increasingly using teen/

youth courts and restorative justice programs,

largely because of the great potential benefits of

these alternative programs. Such benefits include

improved accountability in minor offense cases that

are unlikely to result in sanctions from the traditional

juvenile justice system, more timely handling of cases,

cost savings (teen/youth courts and restorative justice

programs rely heavily on volunteers), and enhanced

community-court relationships. Some evaluations

also show that participants in teen/youth courts and

restorative justice programs have higher levels of

satisfaction and feel more invested in the process

than participants in more traditional juvenile justice

programs (and even participants in other diversion

programs).

Teen/youth court and restorative justice programs

are selective about the types of cases they will

handle. Comprehensive screening of case referrals

helps ensure that only offending youth who are amenable to intervention end up in teen/youth court or

restorative justice programs. Overall, these youth

are nonviolent offenders who commit less serious

offenses, and most have not had a previous referral.

For example, more than 90 percent of teen court

programs that responded to the survey reported that

they “never” or “rarely” accept youth who have had

a previous juvenile court referral. Even fewer programs accept youth who have a prior felony arrest.

The Indianapolis Restorative Justice Project reported that it screens out juveniles with prior adjudications and juveniles older than age 14 and requires

juveniles to admit responsibility for their offense.

(Restorative justice conferences are not fact-finding
19

hearings. If a youth challenges the allegations, the

matter proceeds to court.)

A program’s screening processes may influence its

impact (e.g., if more difficult cases are screened out,

positive results may be less meaningful). Evaluations

that appropriately compare these interventions with

other diversion programs that serve youth with similar characteristics and offenses and use similar screening procedures are more likely to provide meaningful

information about the effectiveness of various diversion options.

Even though many serious cases may be screened

out, the cases that are handled by teen/youth courts

and restorative justice programs often call for a serious response. Most cases that teen court programs

reported handling involve theft, minor assault, disorderly conduct, possession or use of alcohol, and

vandalism. These cases are similar to those handled

by the Indianapolis Restorative Justice Project,

which reported handling primarily conversion

(shoplifting), battery, theft, and criminal mischief

cases.

Benefits of alternatives to formal court processing

may include greater satisfaction for victims, greater

involvement of offenders and parents, and lowered

recidivism rates. Indianapolis’ restorative justice program recorded high levels of satisfaction for victims.

More than 90 percent of victims (compared with

68 percent of victims in the control group) either

“strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they were satisfied with the conference. Typically, victims participating in the program reported feeling much more

involved in the process (97 percent versus 47 percent of victims in the control group). In addition,

many victims who participated in the program indicated that they would recommend the process to a

friend in a similar situation. Although levels of satisfaction for participating offenders and their parents

did not differ from those of offenders and parents in

other diversion programs, participants and their

families felt much more involved in the process. In

terms of reoffending, the results of restorative justice

conferences are promising. When compared with

the total sample and with juveniles who successfully

completed other diversion programs (the control

group), youth participating in restorative justice

conferences were significantly less likely to be

rearrested 6 months after the incident.

A principal goal of both teen/youth courts and restorative justice programs is to hold young offenders

accountable for their behavior. Every youth who

admits guilt or is found guilty in teen/youth court

receives some form of sanction. In many cases, these

sanctions do more than punish a young offender;

they encourage him or her to repair (at least in part)

the damage caused to the community or inflicted on

a specific victim. Sanctions may include an order to

pay restitution or perform community service. In

some cases, sanctions involve writing a letter of

apology to a victim. Many teen/youth courts require

offenders to serve on a subsequent teen/youth court

jury. The satisfaction level of offenders diverted to

teen/youth courts has not yet been measured. However, the greater accountability required of these

offenders might result in findings similar to those

of the restorative justice project.

What Does This Mean?

Communities need clear guidelines to implement

alternative programs. As more and more communities begin to adopt alternative programs such as teen/

youth courts and restorative justice initiatives, they

need clear guidelines on how to develop the programs

and what key components to include for successful

implementation. OJJDP, through its Training and

Technical Assistance Division, provides communities

with this type of assistance. Examples include the

National Youth Court Center and OJJDP publications such as the Guide for Implementing the Balanced

and Restorative Justice Model. These resources and

OJJDP’s evaluation efforts in this area inform the

technical assistance that OJJDP provides to communities. Such assistance helps communities continue to

provide juvenile offenders, their families, and victims

alternatives to formal court processing that offer support and rehabilitation and promote accountability.

More research on teen courts and restorative

justice conferences is needed. Although teen/youth

courts and restorative justice programs tend to enjoy

broad community support, little is known about

their actual effectiveness in reducing future delinquent behavior. Favorable media coverage, high
20

short-term satisfaction levels of parents and youth,

and widespread public interest make these programs

popular options for policymakers. Yet, little research

has been conducted on what the outcomes are for

juvenile offenders participating in the programs,

whether these alternatives are more effective at reducing future delinquent behavior than the formal

juvenile court or other diversion programs, and

how the programs affect victims and the community.

Preliminary findings from recent studies indicate that

participation in teen/youth court may be associated

with lowered recidivism rates, improved youth attitudes toward authority, and increased knowledge of

the justice system among youth. In addition, although

the findings of the Indianapolis Restorative Justice

Project (which shows higher levels of satisfaction and

lower recidivism rates than other diversion programs)

are encouraging, more research is required to determine whether these positive results can be sustained

over the long term and replicated reliably in other

communities.

Community-based involvement appears to improve the likelihood of a program’s longevity

and success. Community involvement in both teen/

youth courts and restorative justice conferences is

extremely important. Programs, therefore, often

need to engage in efforts early on to recruit and train

volunteers, locate appropriate referrals, and maintain the support of youth-serving organizations. Also

important is the continuing involvement of other

agencies and organizations, including courts, law

enforcement, and social services agencies. Schools

and faith organizations can play an important role

by providing facility space, volunteers, and opportunities for community service.

Teen/youth court programs indicated that their three

greatest challenges are sustaining funding, retaining

youth volunteers, and continuing to receive sufficient

case referrals. Teen/youth court programs operated

by schools or private agencies were significantly more

likely to report problems with funding, judicial support, and coordination with other agencies than were

those operated by courts, law enforcement, or prosecutors. Although these findings may not be surprising, they reinforce the need for strong communitybased collaboration to design, implement, and sustain

an effective teen/youth court program.

Selective Bibliography on Diversion From

Juvenile Court: Teen/Youth Courts and

Restorative Justice Programs

Butts, J., and Buck, J. 2000. Teen Courts: A Focus on

Research. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(NCJ 183472).

Butts, J., Hoffman, D., and Buck, J. 1999. Teen

Courts in the United States: A Profile of Current Programs.

Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(FS 99118).

McGarrell, E. In press. Restorative Justice Conferences as

an Early Response to Young Offenders. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (NCJ 187769).

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1998. Guide for Implementing the Balanced and Restorative Justice Model. Report. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (NCJ 167887).

National Statistics on Juvenile

Offenders and Victims

OJJDP’s Research Division monitors trends relating to juvenile offenders and victims, including information on self-reported offending and official

statistics on juvenile offenses, juvenile arrests, and

juvenile offenders. Working with other branches of

the U.S. Department of Justice, including the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI), and other government agencies,

such as the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention, and Bureau of

Labor Statistics, OJJDP’s Research Division gathers information that provides a complete look at the

nature and extent of juvenile delinquency and victimization in the United States. To that end, the

Research Division supports the following projects:
21

◆ The National Juvenile Court Data Archive

(NJCDA). NJCDA collects, stores, and analyzes

data about young people referred to U.S. courts

for delinquency and status offenses. A series of

OJJDP Fact Sheets and Bulletins about these

data informs the field on a regular basis.

◆ National Juvenile Justice Data Analysis

Project (NJJDAP). NJJDAP was established

in 1998 to address an important need of the juvenile justice community: current, high-quality information on a broad spectrum of issues. Most

research projects address specific issues through

scientific research designs that include data collection and analysis. NJJDAP, on the other

hand, makes use of existing data sets. By searching out experts on data sets and contracting them

to complete analyses, NJJDAP takes full advantage of existing expertise. The project team also

has in-house expertise on important juvenile justice data sets such as the National Longitudinal

Survey of Youth (NLSY97) and the Census of

Juveniles in Residential Placement. NJJDAP

is able to develop reports, bulletins, and other

products on a wide range of topics. To date, it has

produced the CJRP Databook (a Web-based

interactive program), fact sheets on self-reported

delinquency (based on NLSY97), briefing materials on crowding in detention centers, briefing

materials on school suspension, and analyses of

the National Crime Victimization Survey.

◆ Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement.

Conducted for the first time in 1997, CJRP gathers detailed information on juveniles in residential

placement facilities as a result of contact with the

juvenile justice system. CJRP collects data on

characteristics of juveniles in the facilities (date of

birth, race, sex, and most serious offense), court

of jurisdiction (juvenile or criminal), adjudicatory

status (pre- or post-adjudication), and the State

or county with jurisdiction over the juvenile.

OJJDP has developed an online databook that

contains both national and State-level tables

based on the data from CJRP. (The databook

can be found in the Statistical Briefing Book via

OJJDP’s Web site, www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org, under

“JJ Facts & Figures.”) Data from the second

CJRP (conducted in 1999) will identify trends

during the past 2 years, and the online databook

will be updated to include this information. Information from the 1999 CJRP will be released in

late 2001.

◆ Survey of Youth in Residential Placement

(SYRP). SYRP will survey the same youth

included in CJRP: those in residential custody

as a result of their contact with the juvenile justice

system. SYRP researchers will interview youth

directly about their offense history, service needs,

experience in custody, and general background

(including standard demographic items). The

survey will also examine the risk and protective

factors of the youth. OJJDP began a 2-year

development phase for this survey in 1998 by

awarding a cooperative agreement to Westat,

Inc., and the first full implementation of the

survey will occur in 2002.

◆ Juvenile Probation Survey. OJJDP is developing the Juvenile Probation Survey to complement

various other censuses that deal with juvenile

custody. Even though juvenile probation has been

described as “the workhorse of the juvenile justice

system” (Torbet, 1996), few data exist on the use

of probation and no data exist on the number of

Resources for OJJDP Statistical

Projects

The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement,

the Juvenile Residential Facility Census, and the

Juvenile Probation Survey, directed by Joseph

Moone, M.S., Program Manager, Research and

Program Development Division, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, in collaboration with the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

National Juvenile Court Data Archive and National Juvenile Justice Data Analysis Project,

directed by Howard N. Snyder, Ph.D., National

Center for Juvenile Justice, National Council of

Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Pittsburgh, PA.

Planning for the Survey of Youth in Residential

Placement, directed by Andrea Sedlack, Ph.D.,

Westat, Inc., Rockville, MD.
22

juveniles on probation at any given time. The

new Juvenile Probation Survey will fill this gap.

OJJDP hopes to field test the survey in 2001.

◆ Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC).

To complement CJRP, OJJDP developed JRFC,

which will describe both the residential environments in which juveniles are held and the services

they receive while residing in the facilities. The

census will cover security arrangements, health

services, mental health treatment, substance abuse

treatment, education, and facility capacity. A largescale feasibility test of the census was performed in

October 1998, and the census was implemented

nationally for the first time in October 2000.

What Have We Learned?

Juvenile violent crime continues to decline. In

1999, law enforcement agencies arrested an estimated 2.5 million persons under the age of 18—an

8-percent decrease from 1998 but still an increase

of 11 percent over the number arrested in 1990.

In 1999, juveniles accounted for 17 percent of all

arrests and 16 percent of all violent crime arrests.

In 1999, for the fifth consecutive year, the juvenile

violent crime arrest rate (i.e., the number of juvenile

arrests per 100,000 persons ages 10 to 18 in the

population) declined. Specifically, between 1995 and

1999, the juvenile violent crime arrest rate declined

9 percent. The juvenile murder rate fell 68 percent

in 1999 from its peak in 1993, reaching its lowest

level since the 1960s.

In 1997, courts with juvenile jurisdiction disposed

more than 1.7 million delinquency cases. The

number of delinquency cases disposed in 1997

(about the same as the number disposed in 1996)

represented a 48-percent increase from the number

disposed in 1988. Most cases (84 percent) handled

in juvenile court in 1997 had been referred by law

enforcement, although some referral variations

existed across offenses.

Younger juveniles account for a substantial proportion of juvenile arrests and the juvenile court

caseload. Thirty-two percent of juveniles arrested in

1999 were younger than age 15. The proportion of

juvenile arrests involving younger juveniles (under age

15) was highest for arson (67 percent), followed by

sex offenses (51 percent), vandalism (44 percent), and

other assaults (43 percent). Of all delinquency cases

processed by the Nation’s juvenile courts in 1997,

58 percent involved juveniles younger than age 16.

Female delinquency continues to grow. In 1999,

27 percent of juvenile arrests involved a female offender. Between 1990 and 1999, the number of female juvenile offenders arrested increased more or

decreased less than the number of male juvenile

offenders arrested in most offense categories. The

number of juvenile court delinquency cases involving females increased 83 percent between 1988 and

1997, while cases involving males increased 39 percent during this period. Females accounted for one

in seven juveniles in residential placement in 1997.

OJJDP’s Web-Based Statistical Briefing Book

More and more, OJJDP has turned to high-tech solutions and the Internet to inform the public of new 

research findings and their implications for the field. The OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book (www.ojjdp.ncjrs. 

org/ojstatbb/index. html) allows users to access online data via OJJDP’s Web site to learn more about juvenile crime trends across the Nation and in specific communities. The Briefing Book also provides basic 

information on juvenile crime and victimization and on youth involved in the juvenile justice system. Data 

in several content areas listed on the site (e.g., juvenile populations, juvenile arrests, juveniles in court,

and juveniles in corrections) provide timely and reliable statistical answers to the most frequently asked 

questions of policymakers, the media, and members of the general public.
23

Twenty-five percent of the juveniles in residential

custody nationwide were charged with Violent

Crime Index offenses. Data from the 1997 Census

of Juveniles in Residential Placement, which replaced the Children in Custody series, show more

than 105,790 juveniles in public and private facilities

on October 29, 1997. One-quarter of the juveniles in

placement had been charged with or adjudicated for

a violent offense. Youth charged with delinquent

offenses made up 93 percent of juvenile offenders in

both private and public residential placement; those

charged with status offenses made up 7 percent.

Minority juveniles continue to be overrepresented

in the custody population. For every 100,000 nonHispanic black juveniles in the U.S. population,

1,018 were in a residential placement facility on

October 29, 1997. The rate was 515 for Hispanics

and 204 for non-Hispanic whites.

What Does This Mean?

Even with recent declines, juvenile crime remains

too high. Despite decreases in recent years, juvenile

arrests in 1999 were 11 percent higher than in 1990.

For violent crimes committed by juveniles, 1999

arrests were 5 percent higher than in 1990. Such

increases confirm that juvenile crime and delinquency remain serious problems in the Nation.

Communities should place special focus on young

offenders and female offenders. These two groups

account for a greater proportion of the delinquency

population than ever before. Therefore, the unique

factors that contribute to these groups’ increased

involvement in crime and delinquency and ways to

effectively intervene with the groups should be examined and tested.

Additional research on juveniles in custody is

necessary. To understand where to focus resources,

communities need to learn more about the characteristics and needs of juveniles in custody. Unfortunately,

most information about juveniles in residential facilities is provided by the facilities themselves. OJJDP’s

Research Division is planning the Survey of Youth in

Residential Placement (described on page 21), which

will gather individual-level data directly from the juveniles in residential facilities. In addition, the Juvenile

Residential Facility Census (see page 22) will gather

information on programs and services offered by

residential facilities across the country.

Selective Bibliography on National

Statistics on Juvenile Offenders

and Victims

Moone, J. 2000. Innovative Information on Juvenile

Residential Facilities. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (FS 200011).

Porter, G. 2000. Detention in Delinquency Cases, 1988–

1997. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(FS 200017).

Puzzanchera, C.M. 2000. Delinquency Cases Waived to

Criminal Court, 1988–1997. Fact Sheet. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (FS 200002).

Puzzanchera, C.M. 2000. Juvenile Court Placement of

Adjudicated Youth, 1988–1997. Fact Sheet. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (FS 200015).

Puzzanchera, C.M., Stahl, A., Finnegan, T., Snyder,

H.N., Poole, R., and Tierney, N. 2000. Juvenile Court

Statistics 1997. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (NCJ 180864).

Scahill, M.C. 2000. Female Delinquency Cases, 1997.

Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(FS 200016).

Scahill, M.C. 2000. Juvenile Delinquency Probation

Caseload, 1988–1997. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (FS 200019).
24

Scahill, M.C. 2000. Person Offense Cases in Juvenile

Court, 1988–1997. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (FS 200006).

Sickmund, M. 2000. Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1997.

Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention (NCJ 181204).

Sickmund, M. 2000. State Custody Rates, 1997. Bulletin.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (NCJ 183108).

Sickmund, M., and Wan Y. 1999. Census of Juveniles

in Residential Placement: 1997 Databook. Data presentation and analysis package. Pittsburgh, PA: National

Center for Juvenile Justice (available online, see

page C–2).

Snyder, H.N. 1999. Juvenile Arrests 1998. Bulletin.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention (NCJ 179064).

Snyder, H.N. 2000. Counting America’s Youth: Easy

Access to Population Data. Fact Sheet. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (FS 200014).

Snyder, H.N. 2000. Juvenile Arrests 1999. Bulletin.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention (NCJ 185236).

Snyder, H.N., Finnegan, T.A., Kang, W., Poole, R.,

Stahl, A., and Wan, Y. 2001. Easy Access to Juvenile

Court Statistics: 1989–1998. Data presentation and

analysis package. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for

Juvenile Justice (available online, see page C–2).

Snyder, H.N., Finnegan, T.A., and Wan, Y. 2001.

Easy Access to the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports:

1980–1998. Data presentation and analysis package.

Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile

Justice (available online, see page C–2).

Snyder, H.N., and Poole, R. 2000. Easy Access to FBI

Arrest Statistics, 1994–1998. Data presentation and

analysis package. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for

Juvenile Justice (available online, see page C–2).

Snyder, H.N., Poole, R., and Wan, Y. 2000. Easy

Access to Juvenile Populations. Data presentation and

analysis package. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for

Juvenile Justice (available online, see page C–2).

Stahl, A. 2000. Delinquency Cases in Juvenile Courts,

1997. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(FS 200004).

Stahl, A. 2000. Juvenile Vandalism, 1997. Fact Sheet.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention (FS 200010).

Stahl, A., McGlynn, E., and Wan, Y. 2000. Easy

Access to State and County Juvenile Court Case Counts

1997. Data presentation and analysis package. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice

(available online, see page C–2).

Torbet, P.M. 1996. Juvenile Probation: The Workhorse of

the Juvenile Justice System. Bulletin. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (NCJ 158534).
25

Girls Program Evaluations and

Girls Study Group

According to the FBI, between 1990 and 1999, the

number of arrests of juvenile females increased

more or decreased less than the number of male

arrests in most offense categories. In 1980, females

represented only 11 percent of all juvenile arrests

for violent offenses. By 1999, that proportion had

increased to 17 percent. The increase in arrests of

juvenile females affects several levels of the juvenile

justice system, from probation services to residential programs and aftercare. Between 1988 and

1997, the number of juvenile court delinquency

cases involving males increased 39 percent, while

the number of cases involving females increased

83 percent. During this period, the relative change

in delinquency case rates was greater for females

than for males in all major offense categories.

In response to this disturbing trend, OJJDP’s

Research Division launched a program of research

on delinquent girls and initiatives that target female

juvenile offenders. In FY 1999, OJJDP’s FieldInitiated Research Program solicited applications

for evaluations of projects for at-risk and delinquent girls. The following projects were selected

for funding:

◆ A Comparative Evaluation of Three Programs

for Adolescent Female Offenders (University

of Michigan). Wayne County, MI, which includes the city of Detroit, is in the process of developing community-based models of treatment

to reduce the number of institutional placements

for adjudicated female juvenile offenders. The

project’s goal is to evaluate the following Wayne

County programs for adolescent female offenders:

a new program that incorporates gender-specific

programming, home-based intervention, and community involvement (e.g., services for pregnant/

parenting adolescents); an intensive probation

program that includes limited gender-specific programming; and a secure, female-only residential

program that provides limited gender-specific

treatment but no specialized programs to address

the needs of pregnant/parenting offenders. The

study will use a quasi-experimental design to

evaluate the efficacy of the three programs listed

above. In particular, researchers will use random

assignment to compare the new community-based

intervention model with the established intensive

probation program. Researchers will also compare

the outcomes of these community-based programs

with those of the secure, female-only residential

program.

The research project will examine a range of

outcomes, including recidivism, substance use,

depression, community integration, academic performance, career aspirations, parenting readiness,

and responsible sexual behavior. The project will

also explore how specific program components

relate to these outcomes. By determining whether

characteristics of the participants relate to different outcomes in the three modes of treatment,

researchers will also help identify important intervening variables that may result in positive outcomes for female offenders.

◆ Evaluation of the GIRLS Project (University

of Georgia, Department of Counseling and

Human Development). This study will provide

a process and outcome evaluation of the GIRLS

(Gaining Insight into Relationships for Lifelong

Success) Project, an ongoing project that addresses problems of female delinquency through

the use of a relational approach to intervention.

New and Emerging Research Efforts
26

The program involves two primary levels of

intervention. The first is a psychoeducational

counseling group that deals with relationships

and focuses on the girl in relation to self, family,

peers, and teachers. The evaluation of this intervention will examine each of the four relational

domains through the use of multimethod data

collection (e.g., self-reports, other reports, school

records, and recidivism data). The program’s second level of intervention includes court services

workers involved in local juvenile justice systems

and focuses on individual consultation, educational workshops, and local juvenile justice system policies and procedures. Researchers will

evaluate this level of intervention by using qualitative observational data gathered from monthly

meetings and focusing on court services workers’

use of gender-sensitive treatment recommendations and referrals.

This evaluation will investigate the applicability

of a relational approach to the treatment of female

juvenile offenders; examine components of the

relational approach that deal with a girl’s relationships to self, family, peers, and teachers; evaluate

the impact of increasing the knowledge base of

professionals involved in the local juvenile justice

system; and provide an empirically based, alternative model of treatment that can be replicated in

other settings.

◆ Women and Gangs: A Field Research Study

(Illinois State University). This study focuses

on gang-involved women in Little Chicago, a

neighborhood in Champaign, IL, with chronic

gang problems. Research will consist of direct

interviews with women who are hardcore or

background members of the Vice Lords or Black

P–Stones gang and systematic observations of

gang activities over a 6-month period. The

research will explore the women’s role in maintaining social capital through membership in a

gang and the gang’s role in offering stable social

supports for female gang members in neighborhoods plagued by chronic economic deprivation.

In 2000, OJJDP released a solicitation announcing

the establishment of a Girls Study Group. The purpose of this study group will be to build a sound

theoretical and empirical foundation to guide future

development, testing, and dissemination of strategies

that effectively prevent and reduce girls’ involvement in delinquency and violence and minimize the

negative consequences of such involvement. Major

tasks of the Girls Study Group will be to:

◆ Systematically review the research literature on

juvenile female antisocial, delinquent, and violent behavior; child abuse and neglect; and

criminal victimization.

◆ Develop a theoretical framework for the project

based on gender-neutral and female-specific risk

and protective factors.

◆ Explore what is known about the developmental

pathways that lead females to engage in delinquent and criminal behavior.

◆ Conduct secondary analyses of data sets that

may shed new light on female delinquency.

◆ Examine research literature on program evaluations to identify programs, program elements,

and implementation principles of strategies and

public policies that are particularly effective

or promising in preventing or reducing female

juvenile delinquency.

The Girls Study Group will collaborate with

OJJDP’s new National Girls Institute to develop

programs, address evaluation issues, and disseminate the study group’s findings to policymakers,

practitioners, and researchers.

Research on American Indian

and Alaska Native Juveniles

The Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative is a

joint effort by the U.S. Departments of Justice and

the Interior to address the compelling need to improve the administration of criminal and juvenile

justice in Indian Country. OJJDP’s Tribal Youth

Program (TYP) was established in FY 1999 as part

of this initiative and provides funding for programming, training and technical assistance, and research.

Based on ongoing consultation and coordination with

practitioners and researchers in Indian Country,

OJJDP’s program of research on American Indian

and Alaska Native (AI/AN) juveniles is conducted
27

according to the following basic principles: investigators should involve indigenous people in the design and implementation of research, a study’s

research findings should have clear and practical

implications for the community in which it was conducted and for AI/AN communities in general, and

methods of inquiry should be based on and sensitive

to local customs and values. TYP research projects

currently under way include:

◆ Evaluation Facilitation of the Tribal Youth

Program (Michigan Public Health Institute).

This participatory evaluation involves a subset

of TYP program sites that volunteered to be involved in the research effort. The evaluation

facilitator will provide training and technical

assistance to program assessment teams at each

site for a participatory evaluation that covers

program processes and outcomes, analyze the

juvenile and tribal justice system structures and

operations at each evaluation site, and analyze

the relationships between tribal governments and

county, State, and Federal government agencies

as they relate to juvenile justice responsibilities

and operations. The evaluation’s approach is designed to build local evaluation capacity, while

keeping the capacity community driven and directed toward practical application and utility of

findings.

◆ Development and Demonstration of a Culturally Appropriate Approach to Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention (directed by Sylvia

Wilber, College of Menominee Nation, WI). The

goal of this project is to develop, demonstrate, and

evaluate a culturally appropriate, integrated service approach to the prevention of juvenile delinquency among American Indian youth ages 11 to

18. This approach will be implemented by the

Menominee Nation, and a guide will be developed

for other tribal and urban Indian organizations or

agencies to improve juvenile justice approaches

with American Indian youth.

◆ Research on Native American Delinquency

and Juvenile Justice (directed by Lisa BondMaupin, Ph.D., New Mexico State University,

Las Cruces). This project combines quantitative

and qualitative data collection approaches to

provide information on delinquency and on the

legal processing of juveniles in a Southwestern

tribe over an 11-year period. This study will

examine the effect of opening a reservation casino on delinquency and processing of juveniles.

◆ Action Research on Youth Gangs in Indian

Country: Profiling the Problem and Seeking

Solutions (California State University, Sacramento). This project will use qualitative and

quantitative methods to examine Indian youth

gangs in a number of reservation and urban settings. The study will allow researchers to identify the broad-based factors shaping the origin,

organization, and activities of American Indian

youth gangs. The study will also identify and

recommend programmatic efforts to address

gangs and youth involved in gangs in Indian

Country.

The following projects are currently in development:

◆ Longitudinal Study of Tribal Youth Risk and

Resiliency. A 2-year planning period will precede

implementation of an accelerated longitudinal

study of tribal youth development and delinquency. The study will examine risk and protective factors within the cultural and historical

context of American Indian youth and provide a

unique database for examining the development

of delinquency among American Indians. Findings will highlight the role of cultural and historical factors in increasing or reducing tribal youth’s

risk of delinquency.

◆ Tribal Youth Field-Initiated Research and

Evaluation Program. As part of OJJDP’s ongoing commitment to field-initiated research,

funding will be available for research and evaluation projects that focus on one or more of the

following areas: child abuse and neglect, substance abuse, and indigenous approaches to

juvenile justice. Research findings will inform

OJJDP’s prevention and intervention efforts

with tribal youth offenders, high-risk youth, and

juvenile victims of crime.

◆ Indian Country Supplement to the National

Youth Gang Survey. In response to a growing

number of reports of gang activity on Indian

lands, NYGC will develop and administer an
28

Indian Country supplement to its ongoing National Youth Gang Survey of law enforcement

officials. The survey will assess the prevalence,

composition, and activities of youth gangs in Indian territories not traditionally included in the

national survey.

Understanding and Monitoring

the “Whys” Behind Juvenile

Crime Trends

The Nation’s two primary data sources on juvenile

crime—the National Crime Victimization Survey

(NCVS) and the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting

(UCR) program—present similar pictures of the

trends in juvenile violent crime during the past two

decades. Both sources indicate a fairly stable pattern

through most of the 1980s and a sharp increase

in juvenile violence in the later part of the 1980s,

lasting until the early 1990s, when rates of juvenile

violence began a steady decline.

This significant improvement in national rates of

juvenile violence offers a welcome relief, especially

in light of dire predictions of a wave of violence by

young superpredators in the new millennium. However, the sudden and precipitous change in rates of

juvenile violence raises questions, such as the following, that have not yet been answered with a

strong degree of certitude:

◆ Why did rates fall?

◆ Did the fall in rates happen everywhere?

◆ Where did rates fail to fall and why?

◆ What actions, policies, programs, and other steps

should be continued to sustain the decline in rates

of juvenile violence or to reverse an increase in

such rates?

Numerous reporters, commentators, politicians, and

scholars have put forth explanations for the rise and

fall in juvenile crime. Many of these theories have

been offered and supported with varying degrees of

empirical evidence and with varying degrees of attention to juvenile crime trends and local divergence from

national trends. Explanations include populationbased theories, epidemiological and etiological

theories (risk and protective factors), economic

theories/policies, crime-focused public policies,

social policies, and theories based on spiritual and

cultural trends. To understand these theories fully,

researchers and policymakers must sift through

competing explanations for the rise and fall of juvenile crime rates and determine not only which merit

further scrutiny in the exploration of juvenile crime

and violence trends but where and how to pursue

research hypotheses that emerge as promising based

on this exercise.

To better understand factors correlated with the

trend in juvenile crime and violence and explain

future trends in delinquency and youth violence,

OJJDP’s Research Division issued a solicitation in

fall 2000 for research applications to undertake a

definitive study of such recent trends. This 5-year

research project will explore ways to determine the

reasons for changes in local juvenile crime trends in

the 1990s and monitor rates during this millennium.

Federal, State, and local policymakers need a better

sense of what went right in communities where declines occurred and what went wrong where increases occurred or where rates continued at high

levels. Researchers, therefore, need to develop methods to understand and monitor the reasons for such

changes. OJJDP expects the lessons learned from

this inquiry to yield a number of tools that Federal,

State, and local policymakers and planners can use

to anticipate, monitor, and explain future trends and

plan effective prevention and intervention strategies.

Mental Health and Juvenile

Justice: Building a Model for

Effective Service Delivery

Researchers estimate that between 9 and 13 percent

of youth in the general population suffer from a

diagnosable mental disorder at any given time.6

The prevalence of mental disorders among the

6

 See Friedman, R.M., Katz-Leavy, J.W., Manderscheid, R.W.,

and Sandheimer, D.L. 1996. Prevalence of serious emotional

disturbances in children and adolescents. In Mental Health,

United States, edited by R.W. Manderscheid and M.A. Sonnerschein. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration, Center for Mental Health Services, pp. 71–89.
29

approximately 1.8 million youth who enter the juvenile justice system each year is likely even higher.

Yet, very little is known about the mental health

needs of juvenile offenders. No large-scale national

investigation of mental disorders in juvenile offenders

has been conducted, and the lack of methodological

consistency across smaller prevalence studies often

produces inconsistent results. Since the mid-1990s,

OJJDP has recognized the critical role that mental

health problems play in the lives of youth involved in

the juvenile justice system. As a result, OJJDP has

been working for several years on a number of efforts

to increase knowledge and improve services in this

area. OJJDP, for example, has been active in the

Federal Partnership for Children’s Mental Health,

organized by the Center for Mental Health Services

of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration in the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services.

A recognized gap in the continuum of services for juvenile offenders is the lack of mental health programming, particularly for youth in detention and secure

corrections. The lack of aftercare or reentry programming for these incarcerated juveniles is also of particular concern. Although the lack of services may be most

acute for juveniles in detention, secure corrections, and

aftercare, OJJDP believes that the best strategy for

closing these gaps is to develop a comprehensive

model that addresses the mental health needs of

youth at every point in the juvenile justice system.

To that end, OJJDP’s Research Division in FY

2000 initiated an effort to build on existing research

and knowledge in the area of mental health and juvenile justice. This multiyear research and development effort will:

◆ Review what is known about theory and best

practices in this area.

◆ Examine the prevalence of mental health problems and co-occurring substance abuse disorders

in a sample of youth in the juvenile justice system.

◆ Document the services available to meet the

needs of this population.

◆ Develop a model that incorporates existing theory

and best practices to provide comprehensive mental health services to youth in the juvenile justice

system.

The model developed under this initiative will subsequently be used in a demonstration and evaluation

project that replicates and evaluates the model at

several sites.
31

Evaluations of School-Related

Projects

In recent years, OJJDP has partnered with the

U.S. Department of Education (through the Safe

and Drug-Free Schools Office) and other Federal

agencies to launch several school-related demonstration programs that include national evaluations. Two

important efforts being managed by OJJDP’s Research Division are national evaluations of the Safe

Schools/Healthy Students Initiative and the Truancy

Reduction Demonstration Program.

◆ Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative. The

Safe Schools/Healthy Students evaluation, being

conducted by Research Triangle Institute (RTI)

in Research Triangle Park, NC, will carefully

document the initiative’s activities and outcomes

at 77 Safe Schools/Healthy Students sites. The

evaluation encompasses the formation of community collaboratives, the impact of the collaborations

on school safety and health, student development,

economic analyses, surveillance of core indicators,

and intensive outcome analyses.

◆ Truancy Reduction Demonstration Program.

The Colorado Foundation for Families and Children is conducting the national evaluation of the

Truancy Reduction Demonstration Program.

The evaluation will examine the seven sites that

received demonstration funding, document the

implementation process and challenges the sites

have faced, and gather specific information about

the interventions and student and family outcomes.

A primary goal of the evaluation is to identify key

components of projects that have successfully reduced truancy and other risk factors for delinquency. Findings are expected in 2002.

◆ Annual Report on School Safety. OJJDP

also works with the U.S. Department of Education’s Safe and Drug-Free Schools Office to

produce the Annual Report on School Safety,

which provides an overview of the nature and

extent of crime and violence on school property. The report describes measures taken by

some schools to prevent and address school

violence and provides communities with guidelines for reducing school violence in their jurisdictions. OJJDP’s Web site (www.ojjdp.ncjrs.

org) provides online access to the most recent

version of the report.

Evaluations of Substance

Abuse Programs

Drug-Free Communities Support

Program

The Drug-Free Communities Support Program

(DFCSP) is designed to strengthen communitybased coalitions’ efforts to reduce substance

abuse by youth. The coalitions include community representatives from the following groups or

areas: youth; parents; business; media; schools;

youth service organizations; law enforcement;

civic groups; volunteer organizations; fraternal

groups; healthcare professionals; State, local, or

tribal government agencies with expertise in the

field of substance abuse; and other organizations

involved in reducing substance abuse. The program enables coalitions to enhance collaboration

and coordination in an effort to target the use of

illegal drugs and the underage use of alcohol and

tobacco. Coalitions also encourage citizen participation in efforts to reduce substance abuse and

disseminate information about effective programs.

Highlights
32

In 1999, Caliber Associates, Inc., received an

award to evaluate DFCSP. The evaluation has two

components—a process evaluation and an outcome

evaluation of community-based, collaborative substance abuse prevention projects whose initiatives

(1) target the use of illegal drugs, alcohol, and/or

tobacco by juveniles and (2) implement comprehensive long-term plans to reduce substance abuse

and study its relationship to youth violence. The

process evaluation is examining the implementation

of programs in more than 100 sites. Twelve of these

sites will be studied in depth to measure the outcome of program activities.

Early findings of the evaluation indicate that DFCSP

coalitions serve urban, suburban, rural, and tribal

areas. Coalitions are concentrated in urban and suburban areas (40 percent) and in areas that encompass

urban, suburban, and rural communities (34 percent).

A large proportion of coalitions target an entire community (42 percent), approximately one-fourth target youth, and almost one-third target a specific age

group (elementary, middle, or high school). The strategies and activities that coalitions plan to implement

reflect the range of services and activities frequently

used in the prevention and treatment of substance

abuse. Forty-six percent of coalitions engage in datadriven planning and decisionmaking with other

agencies, 37 percent continue to mobilize and form

partnerships, 55 percent provide training and education services, and 56 percent plan to improve their

information-sharing techniques. Evaluators continue

to track the implementation of these programs, and

final results are expected in 2003.

Enforcing the Underage Drinking

Laws Program

OJJDP is helping States address the problem of

underage drinking through a $25 million per year

program of block grants, discretionary programs,

and training and technical assistance. OJJDP’s

Enforcing the Underage Drinking Laws (EUDL)

program (formerly the Combating Underage Drinking program) is helping all 50 States, the District of

Columbia, and Puerto Rico to develop comprehensive and coordinated initiatives to enforce State

laws that prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages

to minors (defined as individuals under 21 years of

age) and to prevent the purchase or consumption

of alcoholic beverages by minors. States are using

funds from this program to support activities in one

or more of the three areas outlined in the legislation:

enforcement, public education activities, and innovative programs. In addition to providing block grant

funds, OJJDP awards States and other jurisdictions discretionary funds to foster State and local

collaboration in developing comprehensive approaches to the problem of underage drinking, with

an emphasis on increasing law enforcement activity.

Wake Forest University School of Medicine in

Winston-Salem, NC, received a grant from OJJDP

to evaluate States’ and local communities’ use of

their block grants and discretionary funds and the

program’s impact during its first 2 years in a sample

of communities.

The evaluation design includes four major data

collection components:

◆ A telephone survey of key actors in the program

from all 50 States.

◆ Indepth case studies of program implementation

in six States.

◆ Telephone surveys of a sample of youth ages

16 to 20 in the six States.

◆ A telephone survey of police departments and

sheriff’s offices in a sample of States that have

received grants.

Early findings of these surveys and case studies indicate that the EUDL program is bringing together

groups that have not previously worked together—

particularly law enforcement agencies and substance

abuse treatment agencies. Some States appear to

be facing difficulties in program implementation—

especially among agencies that have limited experience working together (such as alcohol beverage

control agencies, which are reportedly involved in

the program in 66 percent of States). The survey

also indicates that citizens’ groups—such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)—are highly

involved in the program in only 28 States.

Data from the evaluation’s youth survey underscore

the magnitude of the underage drinking problem.

Data show that underage drinking is pervasive, with
33

about half (46 percent) of the sample of youth ages

16 to 20 reporting current alcohol use (within the

past 30 days), 27 percent reporting alcohol use during

the past 7 days, and 21 percent reporting binge drinking (defined as having five or more drinks in a row on

at least one occasion during a 2-week period). Moreover, a substantial percentage of youth surveyed reported engaging in a number of risky behaviors

associated with alcohol use, including driving while

under the influence of alcohol and riding with a

driver who has been drinking. Negative consequences of drinking reported by current drinkers in

the sample included experiencing headaches and

hangovers, being unable to remember what had happened after a drinking incident, passing out, getting

into fights, having sex without birth control, breaking

or damaging property, missing school, and being the

victim of a forced sex attempt.

These and other early findings provide a good

baseline for continued evaluation of the EUDL program. Final evaluation results are expected in 2002.

Child Victimization

Although the focus of OJJDP’s work has traditionally been on juvenile offenders, its program and

research activities also target child victimization.

In 2000, OJJDP established the Child Protection

Division to consolidate OJJDP’s demonstration,

replication, and technical assistance and training

projects focusing on child victimization. In furtherance of these efforts, the Research Division manages

several important research and evaluation projects

that relate to child victimization. Descriptions of

several of these programs follow.

Safe Start Demonstration Project

The purpose of the Safe Start Demonstration

Project is to prevent and reduce the impact of family

and community violence on young children (primarily from birth to age 6). The project promotes the

creation of comprehensive service delivery systems

by helping communities expand existing partnerships among service providers in the fields of early

childhood education/development, health, mental

health, family strengthening and support, domestic

violence prevention, substance abuse prevention and

treatment, crisis intervention, child welfare, law

enforcement, courts, and legal services. These comprehensive service delivery systems are designed to

improve access to and quality of services for young

children at high risk of exposure to violence, young

children who have already been exposed to violence,

and both groups’ families and caregivers. The following nine sites have received Safe Start awards

and are now in the planning phase of the project:

Baltimore, MD; Bridgeport, CT; Chatham County,

NC; Chicago, IL; Pinellas County, FL; Rochester,

NY; San Francisco, CA; Spokane, WA; and Washington County, ME.

The Safe Start evaluation will document and assess

these communities’ efforts to prevent and reduce

the impact of family and community violence on

young children. The overall evaluation design is

intended to allow researchers to carefully document

the formative aspects of the project and measure the

project’s effectiveness in terms of level of implementation of the strategic planning process, extent of

systems reform and service integration, and impact

of the initiative on the lives of children and families.

At the national level, evaluation activities will be

carried out by the National Evaluation Team, which

includes staff from four organizations: Caliber Associates, Inc.; the Association for the Study and Development of Community; Roper Starch Worldwide,

Inc.; and Research Triangle Institute. The staff will

provide ongoing training and technical assistance to

local site evaluators in designing and implementing

plans to assess the impact of specific local programs

and strategies.

Second Comprehensive Study of

Missing Children

The first National Incidence Studies of Missing,

Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children

(NISMART 1) was conducted in 1988 and published in 1990. This study was conducted pursuant to

the Missing Children’s Assistance Act, which requires

periodic studies of the scope of the problem of missing children in the United States. NISMART 1 provided the first comprehensive data available on the

incidence of missing children. Although NISMART 1

was an important study, the data are already more

than a decade old.
34

NISMART 2, currently under way, is the second

national study to measure the incidence of each category of missing children. Researchers surveyed

16,000 households to determine how many children

are missing on an annual basis. NISMART 2 also

included a survey of approximately 8,000 youth to

determine what happens during missing child episodes. In addition, the survey included interviews

of law enforcement officers to secure information

about child abductions, interviews of directors of

youth residential programs to determine how many

residents run away from such settings, and an analysis of data on thrownaway children (youth who have

been abandoned or forced from their homes). Results of NISMART 2 (expected in 2001) will help

parents and other members of the public better understand the dimensions of the missing children

problem and the factors that place children at greatest risk of becoming missing. Practitioners and

policymakers can use the new information to design

programs and policies to ensure the safety of the

Nation’s youth. The study is being conducted for

OJJDP by the Institute for Survey Research at

Temple University in Philadelphia, PA; the Family

Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, Durham; and Westat, Inc., of Rockville, MD.

Crimes against Children Research Center

Supported by OJJDP’s Research Division, the

Crimes against Children Research Center (CCRC)

works to combat crimes against children by conducting high-quality research and providing statistics to

members of the public, policymakers, law enforcement personnel, and child welfare practitioners.

CCRC focuses its research on both the nature and

impact of crimes such as child abduction, homicide,

rape, assault, and physical and sexual abuse. CCRC,

which is located at the University of New Hampshire

in Durham, produces a variety of informative publications on child victimization issues for the field.

Pathways to Desistance:

A Prospective Study of Serious

Adolescent Offenders

During the past few decades, researchers of adolescent crime and disorders have shown increasing

interest in and appreciation for placing a particular

period of development (e.g., adolescence) within the

context of an individual’s entire life course. This is

often referred to as a “life course approach” to investigations. This emphasis has resulted in several large

longitudinal studies that have significantly improved

researchers’ understanding of the development of

antisocial behavior in adolescents. Juvenile justice

and child welfare professionals can use information

provided by such studies to make better informed

decisions regarding policy and practice. For example, the identification of risk factors that precede

the onset of specific problem behaviors provides

valuable information about where communities

should concentrate programming resources for

children of different ages. Existing longitudinal

research, however, has not been particularly useful

in providing clear guidance for dealing with adolescents who are already deeply involved in the juvenile justice system. Evidence is sketchy on the

relative influences of interventions, sanctions, and

developmental events on outcomes for serious adolescent offenders. Although a significant percentage

of adolescent offenders decrease or stop antisocial

activity in late adolescence, it is unclear exactly how

such desistance occurs or what factors influence the

process.

Through a partnership with the National Institute

of Justice, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur

Foundation, and the William T. Grant Foundation,

OJJDP is sponsoring a study that will intensively

follow a sample of 1,200 serious adolescent offenders in Philadelphia, PA, and Phoenix, AZ, as they

navigate late adolescence. The study, Pathways to

Desistance: A Prospective Study of Serious Adolescent Offenders, will bring together a number of

respected researchers (see page 35 for a listing)

and demonstrate the cooperative efforts of several

Federal agencies and private foundations.

The goals of the Pathways to Desistance study are

to describe patterns of desistance from delinquent

and criminal behavior, identify key developmental

events related to desistance, and compare the effects

of different interventions and sanctions on desistance. Specifically, the study seeks to:
35

◆ Determine whether there are distinct pathways

out of involvement with juvenile crime and, if so,

identify such pathways.

◆ Identify the characteristics of adolescents who

progress along each of these pathways.

◆ Identify the types of life events or influences

that appear to promote desistance from criminal

activity among adolescents.

◆ Determine the type and magnitude of the effect

that researchers can expect from the intervention

strategies most commonly used with serious adolescent offenders.

Findings from the study will provide policymakers

with evidence regarding the utility of different processing and sanctioning options, a topic widely discussed at the State and national level. Findings will

also be valuable to practitioners who need direction

regarding what factors to consider during risk assessments and what indicators to monitor or assess

on an ongoing basis when working with serious

adolescent offenders.

Working With States and

Communities To Improve

Evaluation and Information

Collection Efforts

OJJDP has several projects that focus on helping

communities evaluate their efforts to prevent and reduce juvenile delinquency and risky behavior. These

projects include the Juvenile Justice Evaluation

Center (JJEC) and the Juvenile Justice Statistics

and Systems Development Project.

Juvenile Justice Evaluation Center

The goal of JJEC is to provide training, technical

assistance, and other resources to States to enhance

their ability to evaluate juvenile justice programs.

The first phase of the project focused on assessing

existing evaluation practices and technical assistance

needs in 56 “States” (i.e., jurisdictions eligible to

receive OJJDP formula and block grants), especially as they relate to programs and initiatives

funded through OJJDP’s State Formula Grants

Program. The assessment included a survey of three

groups of State juvenile justice stakeholders: juvenile justice specialists, Statistical Analysis Center

(SAC) directors, and State Advisory Group (SAG)

chairs. Results of the assessment show that training

and technical assistance should:

◆ Increase knowledge at the State and local level of

evaluation principles and techniques.

◆ Help States develop and improve infrastructures

for supporting systematic evaluation.

◆ Foster relationships between State agencies, local

programs, and evaluators.

The following ongoing activities of JJEC are designed

to address the needs identified in the assessment:

◆ Conducting four regional evaluation training conferences with the Coalition for Juvenile Justice.

The training conferences feature a combination of

skill-building workshops and sessions highlighting successful local and national juvenile justice

evaluation efforts.

◆ Providing onsite technical assistance to States

that are designing evaluation systems, developing

statewide performance measures for juvenile justice projects, or conducting large-scale evaluation

studies.

◆ Supporting the Justice Research and Statistics

Association’s Juvenile Justice Evaluation Center

Online.

◆ Providing seed money to encourage partnerships

between SACs and SAGs. The goal of such

Pathways to Desistance: Prospective

Study of Serious Adolescent

Offenders

Principal investigators for this project are Edward

P. Mulvey, Ph.D., and Elizabeth Cauffman, Ph.D.,

from the University of Pittsburgh’s Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, Department of Law and

Psychiatry. Other researchers on the project are

Larry Steinberg, Ph.D., of Temple University and

Jeffrey Fagan, Ph.D., of Columbia University.
36

partnerships is to build sustainable relationships

that will enhance juvenile justice evaluation capacity over the long term.

Juvenile Justice Statistics and Systems

Development Project

To meet the challenge of managing cases involving

youth effectively and efficiently, juvenile court administrators and judges need ready access to information that will support the operation, management,

and decisionmaking of the full-service juvenile court

system. Broad knowledge and effective decisionmaking, which should be hallmarks of every juvenile

justice system, require not only the collection of data

but the collaboration of community leaders who will

give meaning to the data. This need for collaboration

is the focus of the book Juvenile Justice With Eyes

Open, produced by the Juvenile Justice Statistics

and Systems Development (SSD) project and published by NCJJ in 2000. Using concepts from this

book, the SSD project developed and field-tested an

approach that local jurisdictions can use to systematically identify and, in turn, fulfill their information

needs. This approach includes:

◆ Conducting trainings and seminars for local

juvenile justice leaders on use of the rational

decisionmaking model as a design tool for

management information systems.

◆ Developing data specifications necessary for

an effective information system to meet a jurisdiction’s operational, management, and research

needs.

◆ Identifying the data needs of collateral service

providers.

◆ Modeling agreements and protocols with collateral service providers to allow for the sharing of

case-level and/or aggregate data.

The SSD project has also identified several jurisdictions across the country that are effectively using

juvenile justice information to make key juvenile

justice decisions, such as determining the sentences

of juvenile offenders. Case studies of these jurisdictions will be published in 2001.

OJJDP Projects That Help States

and Communities Enhance

Evaluation Capacity

◆ Juvenile Justice Evaluation Center (Justice

Research and Statistics Association).

◆ Juvenile Justice Statistics and Systems Development Project (National Center for Juvenile

Justice, Pittsburgh, PA).

The Justice Research and Statistics Association’s Juvenile Justice Evaluation Center Online

The Juvenile Justice Evaluation Center Online, supported by OJJDP, is designed to provide evaluation resources and information specific to juvenile justice programs and initiatives. The Web site (www.jrsa.org/jjec)

provides guidance to States and localities conducting their own evaluations and includes an evaluation

manual that details how local programs can collect and use evaluation material. The site also includes a series

of nontechnical briefing papers related to the evaluation of juvenile justice programs and provides contact

information for States interested in benefiting from onsite help in designing evaluation systems, developing

statewide performance measures for juvenile justice projects, or conducting large-scale evaluation studies.
37

Conclusion

Research is the foundation for identifying and developing programs to prevent and reduce juvenile

crime and delinquency. The best way to identify

strategies that work is by learning about the factors

that place youth at risk for delinquency, recognizing

youth’s patterns of offending, and identifying strategies that are effective in responding to youth’s needs

and behaviors. Therefore, investing in research is

one of the most important ways that OJJDP can

respond to the needs of children at risk of delinquency and their families and communities. OJJDP

is accordingly committed to sponsoring a program

of research, evaluation, and statistics that seeks to

determine what the roots of delinquency are, what

policies and programs can help protect youth and

families from risk factors, and how communities

can support these efforts.

The ultimate goal of OJJDP’s Research Division is

to prevent at-risk youth from pursuing a delinquent

career and to help youth already in the juvenile justice system turn away from future delinquency and

criminal behavior and become productive citizens.

One of the most important concepts demonstrated

by this Report is the need to use what researchers

have learned to craft solutions and interventions

that address the problems of juvenile crime and

violence. OJJDP will continue its strong tradition

of using knowledge gained through research to

inform program initiatives. Together, OJJDP divisions and program units provide a continuum of

activity that fully supports the efforts of researchers, policymakers, courts, schools, juvenile justice

facilities, practitioners, parents, and juveniles.

Despite the knowledge OJJDP has gained

through the efforts of its Research Division, much

remains to be done. Over the years, OJJDP has

developed strong partnerships with the many

highly skilled researchers in the field of juvenile

justice and risk behavior. These partnerships will

continue, and many new partnerships will be

formed as OJJDP continues to support an array

of research studies, evaluations, and statistical activities. With the help of researchers in the field,

OJJDP will use what it has learned to develop

programs and solutions that will make a difference

to juveniles, their families, and their communities.
A–1

Appendix A: Active Projects, September 1999

to Present

Grants

Action Research on Youth Gangs in

Indian Country: Profiling the Problem

and Seeking Solutions

California State University Sacramento

Center for Delinquency and Crime Policy Studies

7750 College Town Drive, Suite 104

Sacramento, CA 95826

OJJDP Grant 00–TY–FX–0033

Age, Crime, and Sanction: The Effect

of Juvenile Versus Criminal Court

Jurisdiction on Age-Specific Crime Rates

of Adolescent Offenders

Columbia University

The Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health

Health Sciences Division

600 West 168th Street

New York, NY 10032

OJJDP Grant 99–JR–VX–0002

Analysis of Social Contextual Mediators

of Adolescent Violence

Vera Institute of Justice

233 Broadway, 12th Floor

New York, NY 10274

OJJDP Grant 99–JN–FX–0004

Assessing ADM Disorders Among

Juvenile Detainees

Northwestern University

633 Clark Street

Evanston, IL 60208

OJJDP Grants 98–JD–FX–0002, 99–JE–FX–1001

Assessment of Psychiatric Risk

in Incarcerated Youth

Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene, Inc.

1051 Riverside Drive

New York, NY 10032

OJJDP Grant 98–JB–VX–0115

Chicago Project for Violence Prevention

University of Illinois at Chicago

School of Public Health

Office of Research Services

Chicago, IL 60612

OJJDP Grant 96–MU–FX–0013

Community Policing and Youth Study

COSMOS Corporation

3 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 950

Bethesda, MD 20814

OJJDP Grant 2001–JN–FX–K002
A–2

A Comparative Evaluation of Three

Programs for Adolescent Female

Offenders

Regents of the University of Michigan

Division of Research Development and

Administration

3003 South State Street, Room 1060

Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1274

OJJDP Grant 00–JR–VX–0008

Comparative Impact of Juvenile Versus

Criminal Court Sanctions on Recidivism

Among Adolescent Felony Offenders:

A Replication and Extension

Columbia University

The Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health

Health Sciences Division

600 West 168th Street

New York, NY 10032

OJJDP Grant 97–JN–FX–0001

Consortium on Children, Families,

and the Law

Clemson University

Institute on Family and Neighborhood Life

158 Poole Agricultural Center

Clemson, SC 29634–0132

OJJDP Grant 99–JF–FX–1001

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Juvenile

Justice Programs

University of Texas at Dallas

P.O. Box 830688

Richardson, TX 75083

OJJDP Grant 98–JN–FX–0001

Crimes against Children Research Center

University of New Hampshire

Office of Sponsored Research

4 Garrison Avenue

Durham, NH 03824–3585

OJJDP Grants 98–JN–FX–0012,

00–JW–VX–0005, 99–JP–FX–1001

Criminal Justice Response to Parental

Abduction Cases

American Bar Association Fund for Justice

and Education

ABA Center on Children and the Law

740 15th Street NW.

Washington, DC 20005

OJJDP Grant 93–MC–CX–0010

Delinquency Prevention Through

Media Literacy: Evaluation of

the Flashpoint Program

Education Development Center, Inc.

Health and Human Development Programs

55 Chapel Street

Newton, Massachusetts 02158–1060

OJJDP Grant 00–JN–FX–0004

Development and Demonstration

of a Culturally Appropriate Approach

to Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention

College of Menominee Nation

P.O. Box 1179

Keshena, WI 54135

OJJDP Grant 00–TY–FX–0034

Development and Evaluation of a

Cognitive-Behavior Group Intervention

for Adolescents in a Youth Correctional

Facility: The Coping of Life

Oregon Research Institute

1715 Franklin Boulevard

Eugene, OR 97403

OJJDP Grant 00–JN–FX–0003

Early Onset Offending: Development

and Consequences

University of Washington

Social Development Research Group

9725 Third Avenue NE., Suite 401

Seattle, WA 98115

OJJDP Grant 99–JN–FX–0001
A–3

Empathy and Juvenile Sex Offenses

University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center

Center on Child Abuse and Neglect

940 NE 13th Street

CHO–3B–3406

Oklahoma City, OK 73104

OJJDP Grant 99–JN–FX–0002

Enhancing Personnel Training

and Understanding Minority

Overrepresentation in the

Juvenile Justice System

Prairie View A&M University

Texas Juvenile Crime Prevention Center

P.O. Box 4017

Prairie View, TX 77446

OJJDP Grant 98–JN–FX–0014

Evaluation of the Combating

Underage Drinking Program

Wake Forest University

School of Medicine

Winston-Salem, NC 25157

OJJDP Grant 98–AH–F8–0101

Evaluation of the Comprehensive

Community-Wide Approach to Gang

Prevention, Intervention, and

Suppression Program

University of Chicago

School of Social Services

5801 South Ellis

Chicago, IL 60637

OJJDP Grants 95–JD–CX–K002,

96–JD–FX–K001, 97–MU–FX–K014

Evaluation of the Creation and

Implementation of a Family Index

Superior Court of California County of Riverside

4075 Main Street, Suite 310

Riverside, CA 92501

OJJDP Grant 00–JR–VX–0002

Evaluation of the Drug-Free Communities

Support Program

Caliber Associates, Inc.

10530 Rosehaven Street, Suite 400

Fairfax, VA 22030

OJJDP Grant 98–JN–FX–0016

Evaluation Facilitation of the Tribal

Youth Program

Michigan Public Health Institute

Data System, Evaluation and Training

2464 Woodlake Circle, Suite 300

Okemos, MI 48864

OJJDP Grant 00–TY–FX–K001

Evaluation of the GIRLS Project

University of Georgia

Department of Counseling and Human Development

University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc.

621 Boyd Graduate Studies Research Center

Athens, GA 30602–4103

OJJDP Grant 00–JR–VX–0005

Evaluation of Intensive Community-Based

Aftercare Demonstration and Technical

Assistance Program

National Council on Crime and Delinquency

1970 Broadway, Suite 500

Oakland, CA 94612

OJJDP Grants 95–JN–CX–007, 95–JN–FX–0023

Evaluation of the Juvenile Mentoring

Program (JUMP)

Information Technology International

6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 700

Bethesda, MD 20817–1572

OJJDP Grants 97–JN–FX–003, 98–JG–FX–0002
A–4

Evaluation of OJJDP’s Rural Youth

Gang Initiative

National Council on Crime and Delinquency

1970 Broadway, Suite 500

Oakland, CA 94612

OJJDP Grant 99–JD–FX–K001

Evaluation of Parents Anonymous®

National Council on Crime and Delinquency

1970 Broadway, Suite 500

Oakland, CA 94612

OJJDP Grant 00–JP–FX–K003

Evaluation of Partnerships To Reduce

Juvenile Gun Violence Program

COSMOS Corporation

3 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 950

Bethesda, MD 20814

OJJDP Grant 97–MU–FX–0004

Evaluation Planning Proposal for the Free

To Grow National Demonstration Program

Columbia University

The Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health

600 West 168th Street

New York, NY 10032

OJJDP Grant 99–JN–FX–0020

Evaluation of the Safe Start Initiative

Caliber Associates, Inc.

10530 Rosehaven Street, Suite 400

Fairfax, VA 22030

OJJDP Grant 99–JW–VX–K001

Evaluation of Teen Courts

The Urban Institute

2100 M Street NW.

Washington, DC 20037

OJJDP Grant 98–JN–FX–0003

Evaluation of the U.S. Department of

Labor’s Education and Training of

Youthful Offenders Initiative

National Council on Crime and Delinquency

1970 Broadway, Suite 500

Oakland, CA 94612

OJJDP Grant 99–JN–FX–K007

Evaluation of the Youth-Led Substance

Abuse Prevention Program

University of New Hampshire

School of Health and Human Services

Hewitt Hall

4 Library Way

Durham, NH 03824–3563

OJJDP Grant 97–JN–FX–0019

Field-Initiated Research Program:

Juvenile Suicide in Confinement—

A National Survey

National Center on Institutions and Alternatives

40 Lantern Lane

Mansfield, MA 02048

OJJDP Grant 99–JN–FX–0005

Finding and Knowing the Gang

Naye’e in the Navajo Nation

Navajo Nation Judicial Branch

P.O. Box 520

Window Rock, AZ 86515

OJJDP Grant 95–JD–FX–0013

Frameworks for Designing and Evaluating

Community-Level Programs for Youth

National Academy of Sciences

National Research Council

Board on Children, Youth, and Families

2101 Constitution Avenue NW.

Washington, DC 20418

OJJDP Grant 99–JN–FX–0011
A–5

Hamilton Fish National Institute on School

and Community Violence

The George Washington University

Office of Sponsored Research

2121 I Street NW.

Washington, DC 20052

OJJDP Grant 97–MU–FX–K012

The Impacts of Childhood Abuse on

Juvenile Violence and Domestic Violence:

Measuring and Detecting the Intervening

Influences of Race and Poverty

University of Minnesota

Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs

Humphrey Center

301 19th Avenue South

Minneapolis, MN 55455

OJJDP Grant 99–JN–FX–0007

Integrated Juvenile Justice Standards

National Center for State Courts

300 Newport Avenue

Williamsburg, VA 23185

OJJDP Grant 2001–MU–MU–0003

Integration of Pregnancy and Early

Childhood Home Visitation Into

Operation Weed and Seed

University of Colorado Health Sciences Center

Department of Pediatrics

1825 Marion Street

Denver, CO 80218

OJJDP Grants 98–MU–MU–0006,

98–JN–FX–0005

Interagency Coordination and

Information Sharing Early

Intervention Model

Mayor’s Anti-Gang Office

City of Houston

P.O. Box 1562

Houston, TX 77251

OJJDP Grant 98–JN–FX–0010

Issues in Resolving Cases of International

Child Abduction

American Bar Association Fund for

Justice and Education

ABA Center on Children and the Law

740 15th Street NW.

Washington, DC 20005

OJJDP Grant 93–MC–CX–0007

Juvenile Crime, Prevention, Treatment,

and Control

National Academy of Sciences

National Research Council

2101 Constitution Avenue NW.

Washington, DC 20418

OJJDP Grant 97–JN–FX–0020

Juvenile Justice Evaluation Center

Justice Research and Statistics Association, Inc.

777 North Capitol Street NE., Suite 801

Washington, DC 20002

OJJDP Grant 98–JN–FX–0112

Juvenile Justice Statistics and Systems

Development Project

National Center for Juvenile Justice

National Council of Juvenile and Family

Court Judges

P.O. Box 8970

Reno, NV 89507

OJJDP Grant 95–JN–FX–K008

Juvenile Sex Offender Typology

University of Virginia

Department of Health Evaluation Sciences

P.O. Box 9003

Charlottesville, VA 22903

OJJDP Grant 00–JF–FX–1001
A–6

Juvenile Transfers to Criminal

Court Studies

Florida Department of Juvenile Justice

Juvenile Justice Accountability Board

2737 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32399–3100

OJJDP Grants 95–JN–FX–0030,

99–JF–FX–0100

A Longitudinal Multidisciplinary Study

of Developmental Patterns (Program of

Research on the Causes and Correlates

of Delinquency)

University of Colorado at Boulder

Institute of Behavioral Science

Campus Box 572

Boulder, CO 80309–0572

OJJDP Grant 96–MU–FX–0017

Missouri Juvenile Courts—A Technological

Reformation

Missouri Office of State Courts Administrator

P.O. Box 104480

Jefferson City, MO 65110

OJJDP Grant 00–JN–VX–0087

National Evaluation of SafeFutures

Program: Phase I Study of Program

Development and Implementation

The Urban Institute

2100 M Street NW.

Washington, DC 20037

OJJDP Grant 95–JN–FX–K012

National Evaluation of the Safe Kids/

Safe Streets Program

Westat, Inc.

1650 Research Boulevard

Rockville, MD 20850–3129

OJJDP Grant 97–MU–MU–0005

National Evaluation of the Safe Schools/

Healthy Students Initiative

Research Triangle Institute

P.O. Box 12194

3040 Cornwallis Road

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

OJJDP Grant 99–SI–FX–K001

National Juvenile Court Data Archive

National Center for Juvenile Justice

710 Fifth Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15219–4783

OJJDP Grant 99–MU–MU–0020

National Juvenile Justice Data

Analysis Project

National Center for Juvenile Justice

710 Fifth Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15219–4783

OJJDP Grant 99–JN–FX–K002

National Youth Gang Center

Institute for Intergovernmental Research

P.O. Box 12729

Tallahassee, FL 32317

OJJDP Grant 95–JD–MU–K001

A Panel Study of a Reciprocal Causal

Model of Delinquency (Program of

Research on the Causes and Correlates

of Delinquency)

University at Albany, State University of New York

Hindelang Criminal Justice Research Center

135 Western Avenue, DR–241

Albany, NY 12222

OJJDP Grant 96–MU–FX–0014
A–7

Pathways to Desistance: A Prospective

Study of Serious Adolescent Offenders

University of Pittsburgh

Office of Research

350 Thackeray Hall

139 University Place

Pittsburgh, PA 15260

OJJDP Grant 00–MU–MU–0007

Performance-based Standards for

Juvenile Detention and Corrections

Stonehill College

Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators

16 Belmont Street

South Easton, MA 02375

OJJDP Grants 95–JN–FX–K011,

98–JB–VX–K003

Planning for the Survey of Youth

in Residential Placement

Westat, Inc.

1650 Research Boulevard

Rockville, MD 20850–3129

OJJDP Grant 98–JB–VX–K002

Prevention of Parent or Family Abduction

of Children Through Early Identification

of Risk Factors

American Bar Association Fund for Justice

and Education

ABA Center on Children and the Law

740 15th Street NW.

Washington, DC 20005

OJJDP Grant 92–MC–CX–0007

Progressions in Antisocial and Delinquent

Child Behavior (Program of Research on

the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency)

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

Western Psychiatric Institute

3811 O’Hara Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15213–2593

OJJDP Grant 96–MU–FX–0012

Project To Design and Test Clinical

Intervention for Substance Abusing

Juvenile Offenders in Detention

Vera Institute of Justice

233 Broadway, 12th Floor

New York, NY 10279

OJJDP Grant 99–JR–VX–0004

Project To Study the Outcome of Juvenile

Transfer to Criminal Court

National Center for Juvenile Justice

National Council of Juvenile and Family

Court Judges

P.O. Box 8970

Reno, NV 89507

OJJDP Grant 95–JN–FX–0029

Proposal To Evaluate Community

Assessment Centers

National Council on Crime and Delinquency

1970 Broadway, Suite 500

Oakland, CA 94612

OJJDP Grants 95–JN–FX–0002, 98–JB–VX–0113

Proposed Scientific Panel To Report

to the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (Serious

Violent Juvenile Offender Study)

University of Pittsburgh

Office of Research

350 Thackeray Hall

139 University Place

Pittsburgh, PA 15260

OJJDP Grant 95–JD–FX–0018

Race, Overconfinement, and Crowding

in Juvenile Correctional Facilities

Regents of the University of Michigan

Institute for Social Research

3003 South State Street

Ann Arbor, MI 48106–1274

OJJDP Grant 96–JN–FX–0011
A–8

Re-engaging Youth in School:

Evaluation of the Truancy Reduction

Demonstration Project

Colorado Foundation for Families and Children

1580 Logan Street, Suite 315

Denver, CO 80203

OJJDP Grant 99–MU–MU–0014

Research on Native American

Delinquency and Juvenile Justice

The Regents of New Mexico State University

Arts and Science Research Center

MSC RC, Box 30001

Las Cruces, NM 88003–8001

OJJDP Grant 00–TY–FX–0035

Risk-Focused Policing at Places:

An Experimental Evaluation of the

Communities That Care Program in

Redlands, California

Police Foundation

1201 Connecticut Avenue NW., Suite 200

Washington, DC 20036

OJJDP Grant 00–JR–VX–0004

Screening and Assessment:

Instrument and Model

Policy Research Associates, Inc.

345 Delaware Avenue

Delmar, NY 12054

OJJDP Grant 99–JR–VX–0006

Second National Incidence Studies of

Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and

Thrownaway Children (NISMART 2)

Temple University

Institute for Survey Research

1601 North Broad Street

Philadelphia, PA 19122

OJJDP Grant 95–MC–CX–K004

Secondary Analysis of Childhood

Victimization Data

University at Albany, State University of New York

Hindelang Criminal Justice Research Center

135 Western Avenue, DR–241

Albany, NY 12222

OJJDP Grant 97–JN–FX–0015

Self-Reported Outcomes in a

Randomized Trial of a Community-Based

Multi-Agency Program for Mid- to

High-Risk Youth

University of Southern California

Social Science Research Institute

University Park

Los Angeles, CA 90089–0375

OJJDP Grant 00–JR–VX–0001

Sex Offender Typology

Health Related Research

825 Crawford Parkway

Portsmouth, VA 23704

OJJDP Grant 98–JN–FX–0008

Sex Offender Typology: Feasibility Study

of Data Collection

University of Illinois

Center for Legal Studies

P.O. Box 19243

Springfield, IL 62794–9243

OJJDP Grant 98–JN–FX–0006

Survey of School-Based Gang Prevention

and Intervention Programs

Gottfredson Associates, Inc.

3239 B Corporate Court

Ellicott City, MD 21042

OJJDP Grant 98–JN–FX–0004
A–9

Tools and Strategies for Protecting

Kids on the Internet

National Academy of Sciences

National Research Council

Computer Science and Telecommunications Board

2101 Constitution Avenue NW.

Washington, DC 20418

OJJDP Grant 99–JN–FX–0071

Updating the Juvenile Justice

Monograph

Policy Research Associates, Inc.

345 Delaware Avenue

Delmar, NY 12054

OJJDP Grant 99–JN–FX–0018

The Utility of Mental Health Assessments

in Incarcerated Youth

Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene, Inc.

1051 Riverside Drive

New York, NY 10032

OJJDP Grant 99–JR–VX–0005

Victimization In and Around Schools:

Explanations To Inform a Strategic

Response

The Urban Institute

2100 M Street NW.

Washington, DC 20037

OJJDP Grant 00–JR–VX–0003

Violence Prevention: Replication,

Evaluation, and Dissemination

of Information

The Regents of the University of Colorado

Institute of Behavioral Science

Campus Box 19

Boulder, CO 80303–0019

OJJDP Grant 99–JN–FX–K006

Women and Gangs: A Field

Research Study

Illinois State University

University Research Office

Box 3040

Normal, IL 61790

OJJDP Grant 00–JR–VX–0006

Youth-Focused Community Policing

Chicago Police Department

City of Chicago

1121 South State

Chicago, IL 60605

OJJDP Grant 98–JN–FX–0106

Youth-Focused Community Policing

Commission for Children, Youth, and

Their Families

City of Los Angeles

333 South Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90013

OJJDP Grant 98–JN–FX–0009

Youth-Focused Community Policing

Fox Valley Technical College

1825 North Bluemound Drive

P.O. Box 2277

Appleton, WI 54913–2277

OJJDP Grant 96–JN–FX–K001

Youth-Focused Community Policing

Kansas City Police Department

Unified Government of Wyandotte County

701 North Seventh Street, Room G–2

Kansas City, KS 66101–3065

OJJDP Grant 98–JN–FX–0013

Youth-Focused Community Policing

Office of the City Manager

City of Oakland

One City Hall Plaza, 3rd Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

OJJDP Grant 98–JN–FX–0011
A–10

Youth-Focused Community Policing

Office of the Mayor

City of Mound Bayou

106 South Green Avenue

Mound Bayou, MS 38762

OJJDP Grant 98–JN–FX–0089

Youth-Focused Community Policing

Rio Grande Valley Empowerment Zone

301 South Texas

Mercedes, TX 78570

OJJDP Grant 98–JN–FX–0056

Youth Gangs in Juvenile Detention

and Corrections Facilities

National Juvenile Detention Association

301 Perkins Building

Richmond, KY 40475–3127

OJJDP Grant 96–JD–FX–0004

Youth Groups and Gangs in Europe

University of Nebraska at Omaha

College of Public Affairs and Community Service

Department of Criminal Justice

6001 Dodge Street

Omaha, NE 68182

OJJDP Grant 99–JD–FX–0006

Interagency and

Intra-Agency Agreements

Center for Students With Disabilities

in the Juvenile Justice System

U.S. Department of Education

400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3531

MES Building

Washington, DC 20202

OJJDP IAA 00–JN–R–012

Children’s Mental Health: Developing

an Action Agenda

National Institutes of Health

9000 Rockville Pike

Building 31, Room B1B04

Bethesda, MD 20892

OJJDP IAA 00–JN–R–085

Data Collection Programs for OJJDP

(Includes Census of Juveniles in

Residential Placement, Juvenile

Residential Facility Census, National

Juvenile Justice Program Directory,

and Survey of Juvenile Probation)

U.S. Department of Commerce

Bureau of the Census

Government Division

Washington Plaza, Building 2

Washington, DC 20233

OJJDP IAA 98–JN–R–034, 00–JX–R–022

Development of Conduct Disorder in Girls

National Institute of Mental Health

6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 6200

Bethesda, MD 20892–9663

OJJDP IAA 99–JE–R–051

Diffusion of State Risk/Protective-Focused

Prevention

National Institute on Drug Abuse

6001 Executive Boulevard

Room 5153, MSC 9589

Bethesda, MD 20892–9589

OJJDP IAA 97–JN–R–072, 97–JN–R–079

Evaluation of Blended Sentencing

in Minnesota and Creation and

Implementation of Family Index in

Riverside County, CA

State Justice Institute

1650 King Street, Suite 600

Alexandria, VA 22314

OJJDP IAA 99–JR–R–096
A–11

Expedited Appeals for Dependency

Cases and Erie County Family

Treatment Court

State Justice Institute

1650 King Street, Suite 600

Alexandria, VA 22314

OJJDP IAA 00–JN–R–080

Interagency Forum on Child

and Family Statistics

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development

Bethesda, MD 20892–7510

OJJDP IAA 99–JN–R–075

Intergenerational Transmission

of Antisocial Behavior

National Institute of Mental Health

6001 Executive Boulevard

Room 6119, MSC 9621

Bethesda, MD 20892–9663

OJJDP IAA 98–JN–R–094

Multisite, Multimodal Treatment Study

of Children With ADHD

National Institute of Mental Health

Division of Service and Intervention Research

6001 Executive Boulevard

Bethesda, MD 20892–9663

OJJDP IAA 99–JP–R–050

National Evaluation of Performancebased Standards Program for Juvenile

Confinement Facilities

National Academy of Public Administration

P.O. Box 91

Mansfield, MA 02048

OJJDP IAA 98–JB–R–061

National Longitudinal Survey

of Youth 1997

U.S. Department of Labor

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics

2 Massachusetts Avenue NE., Suite 4945

Washington, DC 20212

OJJDP IAA 97–JN–R–045, 99–JF–R–077

Research on Child Neglect

National Institute of Mental Health

6001 Executive Boulevard

Room 6200, MSC 9617

Bethesda, MD 20892–9633

OJJDP IAA 00–JW–R–043

Risk Reduction Via Promotion of Youth

Development

National Institute of Mental Health

Mental Health Prevention Research Branch

6001 Executive Boulevard

Bethesda, MD 20892–9663

OJJDP IAA 97–JN–R–031

Study of the Marketing of Age-Restricted

Violent Entertainment to Children

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.

Washington, DC 20580

OJJDP IAA 99–JN–R–091

Contract

Contract To Evaluate OJJDP Programs

Caliber Associates, Inc.

10530 Rosehaven Street, Suite 400

Fairfax, VA 22030

OJP–95–C–006, OJP–99–C–007
B–1

Appendix B: OJJDP Publications and

Products From the Research Division,

August 1999 to the Present

The publications listed below are available free of

charge through OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse by calling 800–638–8736, visiting OJJDP’s

Web site at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org, or e-mailing the

Clearinghouse at puborder@ncjrs.org.

Publications

1998 National Youth Gang Survey (Summary). 2000.

84 pp. NCJ 183109.

Presents findings of the 1998 National Youth Gang

Survey, the fourth in a series of annual surveys administered by the National Youth Gang Center. To

facilitate comparative analyses, the 1998 survey used

the same nationally representative sample of law

enforcement agencies as its 1996 and 1997 predecessors. Survey results indicate that despite declines

from previous years, youth gangs remain a serious

problem. In 1998, an estimated 780,200 gang members were active in 28,700 youth gangs in 4,463 jurisdictions nationwide. The Summary provides

analysis and statistics on number and locations of

gangs; member demographics (age, sex, and race/

ethnicity); gang involvement in crime and drugs;

and antigang task force activity. Copies of the National Youth Gang Survey for previous years also are

available.

1999 Report to Congress: Title V Incentive Grants for Local

Delinquency Prevention Programs (Report). 2000.

55 pp. NCJ 182677.

Presents the efforts and accomplishments of grant

activities funded under Title V Incentive Grants for

Local Delinquency Prevention Programs. Under

this program, OJJDP provides the framework,

tools, and funding for States and communities to

establish comprehensive, community-based strategies that deter youth from becoming involved in the

juvenile justice system. The Report begins with a

review of current trends in juvenile justice and the

role of the Title V grants program in preventing and

controlling youth problem behaviors. The Report

goes on to describe the allocation of Title V resources

to participating States and communities and examine

the impact the program has had in changing community norms related to collaboration and systems-level

change. The Report also focuses on the coordination

of State and Federal efforts to support local delinquency prevention and reviews OJJDP’s commitment to delinquency prevention and the promise it

holds for moving toward a healthier, safer future for

America’s children, youth, and families. Reports for

previous years also are available.

America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being

2000 (Report). 2000. 114 pp. NCJ 186147.

Provides a comprehensive look at critical aspects of

child well-being, such as economic security, health,

behavior, social environment, and education. The

Report, the fourth annual synthesis of information

on the status of the Nation’s children, presents 23

key indicators of the well-being of children. The

Report was compiled by the Federal Interagency

Forum on Child and Family Statistics, a consortium

of 20 Federal agencies, including the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education, that gather data

on children. (Not available online. Call or e-mail the

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.)

Annual Report on School Safety, 1999 (Report). 2000.

66 pp. NCJ 181757.

Presents a description of the nature and extent of

crime and violence on school property. The Report,

prepared jointly by the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, examines data on homicides and

suicides at school, injuries at school, crimes against
B–2

students, crimes against teachers, weapons at school,

the consequences of bringing firearms to school, and

student perceptions of school safety. The Report

highlights 54 communities that have implemented

a collaborative, problem-solving model to prevent

school violence; presents summary information on

effective programs; and lists resources for more information about school safety and crime issues.

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook

(Fact Sheet). 2000. 2 pp. FS 200008.

Provides information on the Census of Juveniles in

Residential Placement (CJRP) Databook. This

online interactive data dissemination tool was developed for OJJDP by the National Center for Juvenile Justice. It enables users to access CJRP data

quickly and easily without using statistical analysis

software. CJRP is a comprehensive, manageable, and

reliable statistical series providing information about

juvenile offenders in residential placement. The

Databook can address a wide variety of questions

about juvenile detention, corrections, and placement.

Challenging the Myths (Bulletin). 2000. 8 pp.

NCJ 178993.

Evaluates the validity of the “superpredator” theory,

which concluded that a new breed of violent juveniles

was emerging in the early 1990s and predicted a wave

of violent juvenile crime that would continue into the

next decade. This Bulletin examines juvenile crime

statistics, concludes that recent data do not support

the superpredator theory, and offers alternative explanations of recent trends in juvenile crime. The

Bulletin is part of the 1999 National Report Series,

which highlights selected themes at the forefront of

juvenile justice policymaking and extracts relevant

National Report sections (including selected graphs

and tables).

Characteristics of Crimes Against Juveniles (Bulletin).

2000. 12 pp. NCJ 179034.

Examines data from the National Incident-Based

Reporting System (NIBRS) on the characteristics

of crimes committed against juveniles. Part of the

Crimes Against Children Series, this Bulletin analyzes 1997 NIBRS data (collected from 12 States)

for crimes such as assault, kidnaping, robbery, and

sexual assault. The Bulletin finds that juveniles

make up 12 percent of all crime victims known to

police, including 71 percent of all sex crime victims

and 38 percent of all kidnaping victims. Simple assault is the most commonly reported crime against

juveniles.

Children as Victims (Bulletin). 2000. 24 pp.

NCJ 180753.

Presents an overview of statistics on juveniles as

victims of crimes and maltreatment. The Bulletin

examines recent trends in violent crimes against

children and youth (murder, assault, and sexual

assault), analyzes patterns of victimization in cases

of child abuse and neglect, and summarizes data on

missing children. The Bulletin notes that juveniles

are twice as likely as adults to be victims of serious

violent crime and that children with a history of

maltreatment are at increased risk for delinquency.

The Bulletin is part of the 1999 National Report

Series, which highlights selected themes at the forefront of juvenile justice policymaking and extracts

relevant National Report sections (including selected graphs and tables).

Comprehensive Responses to Youth at Risk: Interim Findings From the SafeFutures Initiative (Summary). 2000.

96 pp. NCJ 183841.

Presents the findings from an evaluation of the first

3 years of the SafeFutures initiative in six sites—

Boston, MA; Contra Costa County, CA; Fort Belknap, MT; Imperial County, CA; Seattle, WA; and

St. Louis, MO. The Summary describes the SafeFutures initiative, its goals, and its theoretical foundation; includes an overview of the demonstration sites;

discusses each site’s management structure for

SafeFutures; examines each of the nine SafeFutures

components; and provides examples of local programs addressing each component. The examples

were chosen to illustrate the variety of programs

implemented and are not intended to serve as an

exhaustive inventory of SafeFutures programming.

Co-occurrence of Delinquency and Other Problem Behaviors

(Bulletin). 2000. 8 pp. NCJ 182211.

Provides information on the extent of overlap between delinquency and other problem behaviors.
B–3

Using data from the first 3 years of OJJDP’s

Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates

of Delinquency, this Youth Development Series

Bulletin examines the co-occurrence of serious delinquency with specific problem areas: school behavior, drug use, mental health, and combinations of

these behaviors. Preliminary findings show that a

large proportion of serious delinquents are not involved in persistent drug use, nor do they have persistent school or mental health problems; the problem

that co-occurs most frequently with serious delinquency is drug use; and, for males, as the number of

problem behaviors other than delinquency increases,

so does the likelihood that an individual will be a serious delinquent.

Counting America’s Youth: Easy Access to Population Data

(Fact Sheet). 2000. 2 pp. FS 200014.

Describes Easy Access to Juvenile Populations, a

new online interactive data dissemination tool that

provides demographic information about U.S. juveniles. A component of OJJDP’s online Statistical

Briefing Book, the data site enables users to view,

print, and download juvenile population estimates

according to age, sex, race, and Hispanic ethnicity.

Using estimates provided by the U.S. Bureau of the

Census, Easy Access to Juvenile Populations provides detailed tables of population estimates for 1990

and 1998 for the entire United States, each State,

and each of the Nation’s 3,141 counties.

Delinquency Cases in Juvenile Courts, 1997 (Fact Sheet).

2000. 2 pp. FS 200004.

Provides data on the estimated 1,755,100 delinquency cases processed in juvenile courts in the

United States in 1997. The number of these cases

handled by juvenile courts increased 48 percent

between 1988 and 1997. During this time period, the

number of drug law violation cases increased 125

percent, person offense cases increased 97 percent,

public order offense cases increased 67 percent, and

property offense cases increased 19 percent. The

estimates provided in this Fact Sheet are based on

data from more than 1,900 jurisdictions containing

nearly 70 percent of the U.S. juvenile population

(youth age 10 through the upper age of original

juvenile court jurisdiction in each State).

Delinquency Cases Waived to Criminal Court, 1988–1997

(Fact Sheet). 2000. 2 pp. FS 200002.

Presents estimates of the number of cases transferred

from juvenile court to criminal court through judicial

waiver between 1988 and 1997. These estimates are

based on data from more than 1,900 jurisdictions

representing nearly 70 percent of the U.S. juvenile

population. In 1997, U.S. courts with juvenile jurisdiction handled over 1.7 million delinquency cases.

More than half of these cases were handled formally

(that is, a petition was filed requesting an adjudication or waiver hearing). In 1997, waivers to criminal

court represented less than 1 percent of the formally

processed delinquency caseload.

Detention in Delinquency Cases, 1988–1997 (Fact Sheet).

2000. 2 pp. FS 200017.

Provides statistical information on the increased

number of delinquency cases handled by juvenile

courts and the proportion of delinquency cases detained. Between 1988 and 1997, the profile of the

national detention population shifted, with a greater

proportion of youth charged with person offenses

and a greater proportion of females and of black

youth in the detention population. The increase in

number of very young offenders in juvenile detention centers has placed new demands on these institutions. The previous Fact Sheet, Detention in

Delinquency Cases, 1987–1996, also is available.

Effective Intervention for Serious Juvenile Offenders

(Bulletin). 2000. 8 pp. NCJ 181201.

Presents the results of a meta-analysis (a systematic

synthesis of quantitative research results) that posed

two questions: whether intervention programs can

reduce recidivism rates among serious delinquents

and, if so, what types of programs are most effective.

This Bulletin describes the procedures used to select

studies for the meta-analysis, presents the methods

of analysis used to answer the above questions, and

discusses effective interventions for noninstitutionalized and institutionalized juvenile offenders.
B–4

Family Disruption and Delinquency (Bulletin). 1999.

6 pp. NCJ 178285.

Examines the impact that multiple changes in family

structure have on an adolescent’s risk of serious

problem behavior. Research teams in three cities—

Rochester, NY; Denver, CO; and Pittsburgh,

PA—interviewed 4,000 youth and their caretakers

to analyze the prevalence of delinquent behaviors

and drug use and the number of family transitions

the youth had experienced. The researchers found

that the youth had faced a substantial number of

family transitions, which can result in decreased

financial security and increased stress and conflict.

In Rochester and Denver, the number of transitions had a significant effect on delinquency and

drug use; the Pittsburgh data showed the same

trend, although not at a statistically significant

level.

Female Delinquency Cases, 1997 (Fact Sheet). 2000.

2 pp. FS 200016.

Describes the types of offenses committed by juvenile

female offenders and provides data on detention,

intake decisions, waiver to criminal court, and adjudication and disposition. Juvenile courts processed an

estimated 1,755,100 delinquency cases in 1997, nearly

one-fourth (23 percent) of which involved a female

offender, compared with 19 percent in 1988. Between

1988 and 1997, the number of delinquency cases involving females increased 83 percent.

Fighting Juvenile Gun Violence (Bulletin). 2000. 12 pp.

NCJ 182679.

Describes the implementation of OJJDP’s Partnerships To Reduce Juvenile Gun Violence Program at

demonstration sites in Baton Rouge and Shreveport,

LA; Oakland, CA; and Syracuse, NY. The program

seeks to increase the effectiveness of existing gun

violence strategies by enhancing and coordinating

prevention, intervention, and suppression efforts

and strengthening community links. This Bulletin

identifies the program’s goals, outlines strategies the

demonstration sites needed to achieve those goals,

describes the role of the national evaluation team in

providing technical assistance and helping the sites

develop comprehensive plans, and details each site’s

approach to gun violence. The Bulletin also explains

what has been learned after implementation and

provides program outcomes.

The High/Scope Perry Preschool Project (Bulletin). 2000.

8 pp. NCJ 181725.

Discusses the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project,

an early childhood intervention program that has

been in operation for almost 40 years. The more the

field learns about risk factors for delinquency, the

more obvious it is that effective prevention programs

targeting children at risk can provide benefits beyond their costs. This Bulletin reviews the results

to date from an ongoing, well-designed study of the

program, presents two positive cost-benefit analyses,

and examines the implications for future policy

decisions.

Highlights of the 1999 National Youth Gang Survey

(Fact Sheet). 2000. 2 pp. FS 200020.

Summarizes findings of the 1999 National Youth

Gang Survey, the fifth annual gang survey conducted

since 1995 by the National Youth Gang Center. The

Fact Sheet summarizes data on the percentage of

jurisdictions reporting active youth gangs in 1999; the

reported numbers of youth gangs and gang members;

the age, race/ethnicity, and social class of gang members; the proportions of gang members who were

involved in specific types of crimes and who were

migrants from other jurisdictions; and the percentage

of youth gangs that were considered drug gangs.

Facts Sheets that provide highlights of the 1995,

1996, 1997, and 1998 National Youth Gang Center

surveys also are available.

Implementation of the Intensive Community-Based Aftercare Program (Bulletin). 2000. 20 pp. NCJ 181464.

Provides an overview of the Intensive Aftercare

Program (IAP) model—the goal of which is to reduce recidivism among high-risk juvenile parolees—

and describes its implementation in participating

sites. The IAP model posits that effective intervention with serious, chronic juvenile offenders requires

not only intensive supervision and services after

institutional release, but also a focus on reintegration

during incarceration and a highly structured and

gradual transition process that bridges institutionalization and aftercare. The Bulletin also assesses the
B–5

extent to which implementation has been successful,

both overall and with respect to the specific components, and identifies factors that facilitated or impeded program implementation.

Innovative Information on Juvenile Residential Facilities

(Fact Sheet). 2000. 2 pp. FS 200011.

Describes the first Juvenile Residential Facility

Census (JRFC), an effort designed to collect information about the facilities in which juvenile offenders are held. JRFC will gather information on the

health care, education, substance abuse treatment,

and mental health treatment provided to youth in

these facilities. The census will also indicate the use

of screenings or tests conducted to determine counseling, education, health, or substance abuse needs

and will examine prominent issues about conditions

of confinement, including the restraint of youth and

improper absences from the facility.

Juvenile Arrests 1999 (Bulletin). 2000. 12 pp.

NCJ 185236.

Provides a summary and analysis of national and

State juvenile arrest data reported in the FBI’s

October 2000 report, Crime in the United States, 1999.

After peaking in 1994, juvenile violent crime arrests,

which had increased substantially since the late

1980s, declined dramatically. The juvenile arrest rate

for violent crime in 1999 was 36 percent below its

peak in 1994. From 1993 to 1999, the juvenile arrest

rate for murder decreased 68 percent—to its lowest

level since the 1960s. The number of juvenile arrests

has declined in every violent crime category despite

an 8-percent growth in the juvenile population from

1993 to 1999. Juvenile Arrests Bulletins also are available for 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998.

Juvenile Court Placement of Adjudicated Youth

(Fact Sheet). 2000. 2 pp. FS 200015.

This Fact Sheet is part of the Residential Placement

Series and reports out-of-home placements for youth

adjudicated by courts as delinquent offenders from

1988 to 1997. Residential placements—which include placements in residential treatment centers,

juvenile corrections facilities, foster homes, and

group homes—are among the types of dispositions

used by juvenile courts. The number of adjudicated

cases resulting in out-of-home placement rose from

104,800 in 1988 to 163,200 in 1997. However, from

1988 to 1997, adjudicated cases involving placement

increased least for white youth (52 percent), compared with black youth (60 percent) and youth of

other races (69 percent).

Juvenile Court Statistics 1997 (Report). 2000. 120 pp.

NCJ 180864.

Profiles more than 1.7 million delinquency cases and

158,000 status offense cases handled by the juvenile

courts in 1997. Detailed information is provided on

the offenses involved, referral sources, detention

practices, and case dispositions. This Report, the

71st in the Juvenile Court Statistics Series, also

includes demographic characteristics of offending

juveniles and describes various trends since 1988.

The national caseload estimates for 1997 contained

in this Report were based on approximately 917,400

automated case records plus court-level statistics

summarizing nearly 217,400 additional cases. Data

were contributed to the National Juvenile Court

Data Archive by nearly 2,000 courts (with jurisdiction over 71 percent of the juvenile population). The

analysis includes 88 tables, 29 figures, and an appendix with county- and State-level case statistics from

1997. Juvenile Court Statistics for previous years also

are available.

Juvenile Delinquency Probation Caseload, 1988–1997

(Fact Sheet). 2000. 2 pp. FS 200019.

Presents findings on the juvenile delinquency probation caseload that are based on national data on

delinquency cases processed by juvenile courts

from 1988 through 1997. The national estimates

were generated using information contributed to

the National Juvenile Court Data Archive. As set

forth in this Fact Sheet, courts with juvenile jurisdiction handled nearly 1.8 million delinquency cases

in 1997. Probation supervision was the most severe

disposition in almost 37 percent (645,600) of all

delinquency cases. The number of cases placed on

probation grew 48 percent between 1988 and 1997.

During that time, the overall delinquency caseload

also increased 48 percent.
B–6

Juvenile Justice: A Century of Change (Bulletin). 1999.

20 pp. NCJ 178995.

Reviews developments in juvenile justice system

structure and process from the establishment of the

Nation’s first juvenile court in 1899 to the present.

This Bulletin presents an overview of the history of

juvenile justice, discusses U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have shaped the modern system, compares

the juvenile and criminal justice systems, describes

current case processing, and summarizes changes

States have made with regard to juvenile court jurisdictional authority, sentencing, and confidentiality.

The Bulletin is part of the 1999 National Report

Series, which highlights selected themes at the forefront of juvenile justice policymaking and extracts

relevant National Report sections.

Juvenile Mentoring Program: A Progress Review

(Bulletin). 2000. 8 pp. NCJ 182209.

Describes OJJDP’s Juvenile Mentoring Program

(JUMP), which provides one-to-one mentoring

for youth at risk of delinquency, gang involvement,

educational failure, or dropping out of school. Youth

mentoring programs provide a forum in which volunteer adult mentors develop supportive relationships with at-risk youth to help them through childhood and adolescence. Currently, there are 164

JUMP projects in 41 States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Information on

JUMP projects is collected through an automated

JUMP management information system, intensive

case studies, and extensive communication with

grantee agencies.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report

(Report). 1999. 232 pp. NCJ 178257.

Presents comprehensive information on the juvenile

justice system and juvenile crime, violence, and

victimization. This OJJDP National Report brings

together the latest available statistics from a variety

of sources and includes numerous tables, graphs,

and maps, accompanied by analyses in clear, nontechnical language. The Report provides baseline

information on juvenile population trends; patterns

of juvenile victimization, including homicide, suicide, and maltreatment; the nature and extent of

juvenile offending, including data on arrest rates,

antisocial behavior, and juveniles in custody; and the

structure, procedures, and activities of the juvenile

justice system, including law enforcement agencies,

courts, and corrections. This Report updates information originally presented in Juvenile Offenders and

Victims: A National Report, the benchmark publication

issued in 1995. A subject index is included.

Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court in the 1990’s: Lessons

Learned From Four Studies (Summary). 2000. 68 pp.

NCJ 181301.

Presents the findings of four studies of juvenile

transfers to criminal court conducted by the National Center for Juvenile Justice. The studies,

conducted in Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and

Utah, addressed three basic research issues: the

criteria used in transfer decisions, changes in transfer decisionmaking criteria during the 1980s and

1990s over and above changes in legislation, and

the impact of new legislation that excludes additional offenders from juvenile court jurisdiction.

The Summary presents an overview of each study

and outlines key findings. Background on transfer

mechanisms, past research, and study methodology

is also provided.

Juvenile Vandalism, 1997 (Fact Sheet). 2000. 2 pp.

FS 200010.

Presents statistics on juvenile vandalism in 1997,

based on findings of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. The Fact Sheet reports that in

1997, law enforcement agencies made approximately

136,500 arrests of persons under age 18 for vandalism

and that vandalism arrests peak at age 16. Unlike

most offenses, vandalism is an offense for which the

racial distribution of youth arrested reflects their

profile in the general population. The Fact Sheet

also notes that formal court processing of juvenile

vandalism cases increased between 1988 and 1997.

Juvenile Victims of Property Crimes (Bulletin). 2000.

12 pp. NCJ 184740.

Presents data on juvenile victims of property crimes.

Part of OJJDP’s Crimes Against Children Bulletin

Series, this Bulletin describes juveniles’ risk for property victimization and the nature of such crimes. Data

from the National Crime Victimization Survey and
B–7

the National Incident-Based Reporting System illustrate that juveniles are at a particularly high risk for

victimization through property offenses. In 1997, one

in six juveniles ages 12 to 17 was a victim of a property crime—a rate 40 percent higher than the rate for

adults. The data also indicate that property crimes

against juveniles are seldom reported to the police.

Kidnaping of Juveniles: Patterns From NIBRS (Bulletin).

2000. 8 pp. NCJ 181161.

Examines data from the National Incident-Based

Reporting System (NIBRS) on kidnaping of juveniles. Part of OJJDP’s Crimes Against Children

series, this Bulletin analyzes 1997 NIBRS data

(collected from 12 States) on kidnaping that suggest that these crimes can be categorized into three

groups based on the identity of the perpetrator:

family kidnaping, acquaintance kidnaping, and

stranger kidnaping. The Bulletin provides statistical descriptions of these crimes as they relate to

factors such as the time of day and location of the

incident or the perpetrator’s use of a weapon.

Kids and Guns (Bulletin). 2000. 12 pp. NCJ 178994.

Presents an overview of statistics indicative of the

impact of gun availability on the lives of youth. The

Bulletin examines data on gun use in homicides

committed by and against juveniles, weapons arrest

rates, relationship of handgun carrying to other

problem behaviors, and firearm-related suicide. The

Bulletin notes that the recent decline in firearmrelated juvenile homicides and suicides is encouraging and reinforces the need to remain vigilant in

keeping weapons out of the hands of children. The

Bulletin is part of OJJDP’s 1999 National Report

Series, which highlights selected themes at the forefront of juvenile justice policymaking and extracts

relevant National Report sections (including selected graphs and tables).

Minorities in the Juvenile Justice System (Bulletin).

1999. 16 pp. NCJ 179007.

Presents information on overrepresentation of

minority youth in the juvenile justice system (compared with their proportion in the general population) and focuses on disproportionate confinement

of minorities. This Bulletin includes statistics on

racial-ethnic makeup of juvenile offenders from arrest, court-processing, and confinement records. The

Bulletin notes that there is substantial evidence of

widespread disparity in juvenile case processing of

minority and nonminority youth and that racialethnic differences can occur at all stages of the process. The Bulletin is part of OJJDP’s 1999 National

Report Series, which highlights selected themes at

the forefront of juvenile justice policymaking and

extracts relevant National Report sections (including selected graphs and tables).

Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1997 (Bulletin). 2000.

16 pp. NCJ 181204.

Presents findings from Juvenile Court Statistics 1997,

the latest in a series of annual reports on cases

handled by U.S. courts with juvenile jurisdiction.

Although courts with juvenile jurisdiction handle a

variety of cases, including abuse, neglect, adoption,

and traffic violations, the Juvenile Court Statistics reports focus on the disposition of delinquency cases

and formally processed status offense cases. Juvenile courts in the United States processed nearly 1.8

million delinquency cases in 1997, a 48-percent increase over the number of cases handled in 1988.

This Bulletin includes detailed tables and figures on

juvenile delinquency cases handled in U.S. courts.

OJJDP Research: Making a Difference for Juveniles

(Report). 1999. 55 pp. NCJ 177602.

Summarizes key initiatives undertaken by OJJDP’s

Research and Program Development Division in

research, evaluation, and statistics from 1996

through 1998. The Report (the first in a series on

the activities of the Research Division) provides a

review of critical findings on the root causes of juvenile delinquency and negative behavior, highlights

some of OJJDP’s innovative research efforts, and

explores emerging research on very young offenders, school violence, girls in the juvenile justice system, and other issues. The Research Division’s

mission is to generate credible and useful information for improved decisionmaking. Using this information, OJJDP’s other divisions implement model

demonstration programs, replicate successful programs, provide training and technical assistance, and

inform the public about the nature and extent of
B–8

juvenile crime and what works to prevent and stop

such crime.

Person Offense Cases in Juvenile Court, 1988–1997

(Fact Sheet). 2000. 2 pp. FS 200006.

Provides information on person offense cases handled

by juvenile courts from 1988 to 1997. In 1997, U.S.

juvenile courts handled an estimated 390,800 delinquency cases in which the most serious charge was

an offense against a person. Person offenses include

assault, robbery, rape, and homicide. The person

offense caseload was 97 percent greater in 1997 than

in 1988. Person offense cases accounted for 22 percent of all delinquency cases in 1997, compared with

17 percent in 1988. Fact Sheets providing information on person offense cases handled by juvenile

courts for previous years also are available.

Predictors of Youth Violence (Bulletin). 2000. 12 pp.

NCJ 179065.

Presents findings of OJJDP’s Study Group on

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders, which conducted a 2-year analysis of data collected by longterm studies of juvenile violence. This Bulletin, part

of OJJDP’s series of Bulletins on serious and violent juvenile offenders, describes risk and protective

factors for youth violence, including individual, family, school, peer-related, community/neighborhood,

and situational factors. It also includes a sidebar that

ranks predictors of violent or serious delinquency

for age groups 6–11 and 12–14.

Preventing Adolescent Gang Involvement (Bulletin).

2000. 12 pp. NCJ 182210.

Provides information on the history of American

youth gangs and current knowledge about gangs.

This Bulletin, part of OJJDP’s Youth Gang Series,

presents an overview of the research examining risk

factors associated with gang membership. It focuses

on the following five domains: individual and family

demographics, personal attributes, peer group,

school, and community. The Bulletin also describes

prevention and intervention strategies and programs

geared toward gang members and youth at risk of

becoming involved in gangs.

Prevention of Serious and Violent Juvenile Offending

(Bulletin). 2000. 16 pp. NCJ 178898.

Describes developmental precursors to serious and

violent juvenile offending and outlines effective approaches to prevention of such offending. Part of

OJJDP’s series on serious and violent juvenile offenders, this Bulletin describes family-, parent-, and

child-focused prevention programs and offers examples of well-designed intervention programs.

The Bulletin is based on work by OJJDP’s Study

Group on Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders,

which conducted a 2-year analysis of data collected

by long-term studies of juvenile violence.

Race, Ethnicity, and Serious Violent Juvenile Offending

(Bulletin). 2000. 8 pp. NCJ 181202.

Discusses racial and ethnic differences in rates of

serious and violent offending among juveniles. The

Bulletin describes various data sources (justice

system records and self-report offending and victimization surveys) and notes their strengths and

weaknesses for purposes of identifying racial and

ethnic patterns. The Bulletin also summarizes statistics on national trends in juvenile offending by

race and ethnicity, discusses research findings on

racial and ethnic differences among chronic offenders, and offers various explanations of the patterns

observed. Definitions of “race” and “ethnicity” are

discussed, and the need for consistency in data

comparisons is indicated.

Reintegration, Supervised Release, and Intensive Aftercare

(Bulletin). 1999. 24 pp. NCJ 175715.

Examines what has worked and what has not

worked in reintegrating juvenile offenders into the

community. In the late 1980s, OJJDP began supporting a long-term research and development initiative for an intensive juvenile aftercare model. The

Bulletin’s main text describes the intensive aftercare

program model, distinguishes it from other models

and programs, and analyzes individual intensive

aftercare programs. The Bulletin also includes an

evaluation of existing aftercare programs, describes

studies of these programs, and presents the authors’

conclusions.
B–9

Reporting Crimes Against Children (Bulletin). 1999.

8 pp. NCJ 178887.

Presents an analysis of National Crime Victimization

Survey (NCVS) data on reports of crimes against

juveniles to police and other authorities (e.g., school

officials). The findings presented in this Crimes

Against Children Series Bulletin indicate that a majority of juvenile victimizations are not being reported

to police or any other authority. Even serious victimizations involving weapons and injury are significantly less likely to be reported when juveniles are the

victims than when adults are victimized. The Bulletin

focuses on the categories of violent crime (rape and

sexual assault, robbery, and assault) and theft included in NCVS data.

Residential Placement of Adjudicated Youth, 1987–1996

(Fact Sheet). 1999. 2 pp. FS 99117.

Provides information on adjudicated delinquency

cases that resulted in out-of-home placement from

1987 to 1996. Juvenile courts employ a variety of

dispositions for youth adjudicated as delinquent

offenders. In 1996, 28 percent of these cases resulted

in a disposition ordering out-of-home placement,

including placements in residential treatment centers, juvenile correctional facilities, foster homes,

and group homes. As set forth in this Fact Sheet, the

number of adjudicated cases that resulted in outof-home placement rose from 105,600 in 1987 to

159,400 in 1996.

School and Community Interventions To Prevent Serious

and Violent Offending (Bulletin). 1999. 12 pp.

NCJ 177624.

Describes school and community interventions

shown to reduce risk factors for drug abuse and

serious and violent juvenile offending. Based on

findings of OJJDP’s Study Group on Serious and

Violent Juvenile Offenders, this Bulletin examines

five types of school interventions (structured playground activities, behavioral consultation, behavioral monitoring, metal detectors, and schoolwide

reorganization) and eight types of community interventions (citizen mobilization, situational prevention, comprehensive citizen intervention, mentoring,

afterschool recreation programs, policing strategies,

policy changes, and mass media interventions). The

Bulletin is part of OJJDP’s series on serious and

violent juvenile offenders.

Second Comprehensive Study of Missing Children

(Bulletin). 2000. 6 pp. NCJ 179085.

Describes the second National Incidence Studies of

Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART 2), which will measure the incidence

of each of eight categories of missing children. The

current study will update the findings of NISMART 1,

published in 1990. The Bulletin outlines the history

and components of both NISMART studies, defines

eight categories of missing children, includes a sidebar

that describes the National Center for Missing and

Exploited Children, presents photographs and case

details for five missing children, and lists seven planned

reports that will be based on NISMART 2 data.

Self-Reported Delinquency by 12-Year-Olds, 1997

(Fact Sheet). 2000. 2 pp. FS 200003.

Presents data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997. The first wave of the survey interviewed a nationally representative sample of

nearly 9,000 youth who were between the ages of

12 and 16 at the end of 1996. The survey asked

youth to report whether they had engaged in a variety of delinquent behaviors or other behaviors that

may lead to future delinquency. These youth will be

interviewed annually to track changes in these behaviors. This Fact Sheet presents estimates of these

self-reported behaviors by the youngest age group—

youth who were 12 years old at the end of 1996.

State Custody Rates, 1997 (Bulletin). 2000. 4 pp.

NCJ 183108.

Presents State-by-State statistics on custody rates

for juvenile delinquents and status offenders held in

public and private facilities. Using Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) findings for

1997, the Bulletin compares the role of private facilities, where most status offenders are held, with that

of public facilities, where most delinquent offenders

are detained. State rankings based solely on custody

rates for delinquents in public facilities differ from

those based on rates for all juveniles in both public

and private facilities. The detailed data provided in

this Bulletin enable readers to better understand the
B–10

role that public and private custodial facilities play

in their own States and across the Nation.

A Study of Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court in Florida

(Fact Sheet). 1999. 2 pp. FS 99113.

Provides a brief overview of the four research components of Florida’s study on juvenile transfers to criminal court. The study, funded by OJJDP since 1995,

is assessing the impact of transfer laws and practices,

including the effectiveness of using transfer as a crime

control strategy. Florida leads the Nation in juvenile

transfers to criminal court. The number of transfers

has come to rival the number of residential placement

dispositions for juvenile offenders in Florida. Therefore, the State is an ideal policy laboratory in which

to study questions about transfer.

Teen Courts: A Focus on Research (Bulletin). 2000.

16 pp. NCJ 183472.

Presents the results of a national survey of teen

courts conducted as part of OJJDP’s Evaluation of

Teen Courts Project by researchers at The Urban

Institute. Developed as an alternative to the traditional juvenile court system for younger and less

serious offenders, teen courts operate on the premise

that the judgment of a juvenile offender’s peers may

have a greater impact than the decisions of adult

authority figures. The teen court concept has gained

popularity in recent years as juvenile courts have

had to deal with increased numbers of serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. This Bulletin

examines several teen court evaluations but cautions

that empirical data are needed to fully evaluate the

effectiveness of this intervention.

Teen Courts in the United States: A Profile of Current

Programs (Fact Sheet). 1999. 2 pp. FS 99118.

Provides information on the results of a survey of

teen courts, which have become a popular intervention for relatively young and usually first-time offenders. The number of teen courts nationwide grew

from an estimated 50 programs in 1991 to between

400 and 500 programs in 1998. To document their

characteristics and effectiveness, OJJDP funded

an evaluation of these courts in 1998. As set forth in

this Fact Sheet, most teen courts have relatively

small caseloads (48 percent indicated that they received fewer than 100 referrals per year) and teen

courts nationwide handled approximately 65,000

cases in 1998.

Teenage Fatherhood and Delinquent Behavior (Bulletin).

2000. 8 pp. NCJ 178899.

Presents findings from the Rochester Youth

Development Study and the Pittsburgh Youth

Study on risk factors for teenage paternity, specifically the role of delinquency in early fatherhood.

Both studies concluded that early delinquency is a

highly significant risk factor for becoming a teen

father. In addition, the Rochester study reported

that the possibility of teen paternity rises dramatically as risk factors accumulate, and the Pittsburgh

study found that teen fatherhood may be followed

by greater involvement in delinquency. The Bulletin

includes a list of resources for teen fathers.

Vietnamese Youth Gang Involvement (Fact Sheet).

2000. 2 pp. FS 200001.

This Fact Sheet describes an OJJDP-funded study

in the city of Westminster in Orange County, CA.

Westminster’s study examined factors related to

gang involvement by Vietnamese American youth.

It is one of only a few systematic quantitative studies

on this topic. This Fact Sheet summarizes findings

from the study’s final report, Cultural Explanations for

Vietnamese Youth Involvement in Street Gangs.

Violence After School (Bulletin). 1999. 8 pp. NCJ 178992.

Presents information on temporal patterns (e.g.,

time of day and school versus nonschool day) of

violent crimes committed by and against juveniles.

The Bulletin presents the most recent available data

from victim survey and police incident reports, emphasizes that serious violent crime involving juveniles peaks in the hours immediately after the close

of school, and discusses implications of the data for

community strategies to reduce violent juvenile

crime. The Bulletin is part of OJJDP’s National

Report Series, which highlights selected themes at

the forefront of juvenile justice policymaking and

extracts relevant National Report sections (including selected graphs and tables).
B–11

Violent Neighborhoods, Violent Kids (Bulletin). 2000.

16 pp. NCJ 178248.

Presents findings of research that examined the types

of delinquent behavior found among boys living in

the three most violent neighborhoods in Washington,

DC, and the role that institutions such as families,

schools, churches, and youth-serving organizations

play in the boys’ lives. Findings are based on statistical analyses of data collected in interviews with a

random sample of 213 boys, ages 13 to 17, who in the

summer of 1996 lived in one of the three census tracts

identified. The Bulletin classifies the boys according

to the type of criminal behavior, if any, they reported

committing and describes patterns as to where and

when violence takes place and what types of boys are

engaged in violent acts.

Youth Gang Drug Trafficking (Bulletin). 1999. 12 pp.

NCJ 178282.

Presents nationally representative data on the extent

and nature of youth gang involvement in drug

trafficking, based on results from OJJDP’s 1996

National Youth Gang Survey. This Youth Gang Series

Bulletin analyzes survey data on both gang member

involvement in drug sales and gang control of drug

distribution. It discusses demographic factors including sex, age, and race/ethnicity of gang members and

presents data on connections between drug sales and

other offenses. The Bulletin also examines prevention

strategies and programs that may be effective in jurisdictions that report youth gang involvement in drug

trafficking.

Youth Gang Programs and Strategies (Summary).

2000. 96 pp. NCJ 171154.

Outlines programs and strategies that have been and

are being used to break the appeal of gangs and

reduce gang violence. As discussed in this Summary,

preventing gang formation is a challenging task.

Gangs emerge, grow, dissolve, and disappear for

reasons that are poorly understood. In addition to

describing existing programs and strategies used to

disrupt gangs and divert youth from joining them,

this Summary discusses evaluations and national

assessments of some of these programs and strategies. It also provides an overview of what practitioners and administrators need to know before

designing and implementing such programs and

strategies.

Youth Gangs in Schools (Bulletin). 2000. 8 pp.

NCJ 183015.

Presents results of analyses of gang-related data gathered by the 1995 School Crime Supplements (SCS).

This Youth Gang Series Bulletin examines characteristics of gangs in schools, reasons for greater gang

prevalence in some schools, and the impact of gangs

on victimization at school. It also considers the involvement of gangs in three types of criminal activity:

violence, drug sales, and gun carrying. More than

one-third of students surveyed in the SCS reported

gangs in their schools, and more than two-thirds

reported gang involvement in at least one type of

criminal activity. The Bulletin concludes that existing

school security measures are not sufficient; additional

interventions are needed to combat gangs in schools.

CD–ROM

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report

(CD–ROM). 2000. NCJ 178991.

Provides juvenile justice professionals, policymakers, the media, and concerned citizens with the

most comprehensive source of information about

juvenile crime, violence, and victimization and about

the response of the juvenile justice system to these

problems—all in a user-friendly CD–ROM format.

The CD–ROM allows users to view the 232-page

Report in a portable document format (PDF). It

also provides a comprehensive “educator’s kit,”

which includes statistical information in full-page,

presentation-ready graphs; data for the graphs; more

than 40 source documents in PDF; and links to government Web sites.
C–1

Appendix C: Research-Related

Online Resources

Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention Web Site

www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org

OJJDP’s Web site is designed to provide users with

information and links to resources on general topics

of interest in the juvenile justice and delinquency

prevention field—including conferences, funding

opportunities, and new publications—and on

OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy for Serious,

Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, which

provides a framework within which communities

can combat juvenile crime. Resources from

OJJDP’s Research and Program Development

Division are interspersed throughout the site.

OJJDP’s site includes eight main pages:

◆ About OJJDP (which provides important information on the agency’s organization, staff, authorizing legislation, and resources).

◆ JJ Facts & Figures (where users can obtain

the most recent facts and figures on juvenile

justice, delinquency prevention, and violence

and victimization).

◆ Highlights (which describes time-sensitive opportunities, recent additions to OJJDP’s site,

and new sources of information).

◆ Grants & Funding (where users can learn about

current and past funding opportunities and current grantees).

◆ Resources (which provides State-by-State lists

of contacts and information and links to other

youth-focused organizations and agencies).

◆ Programs (which provides information on the

design, implementation, evaluation, and training

and technical assistance components of OJJDP

programs, several of which are described in the

“Other Research-Related Web Sites” section of

this appendix).

◆ Publications (which includes summaries and text of

youth-focused publications and other resources and

links users to the NCJRS Abstracts Database).

◆ Calendar of Events (which provides information

on upcoming and past OJJDP-sponsored

conferences).

OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book

www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/index.html

The OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book includes detailed information on juvenile crime and victimization and on youth involved in the juvenile justice

system. Data in the following content areas provide

timely and reliable statistical answers to the most

frequently asked questions of policymakers, members of the media, and the general public: population

characteristics, juvenile arrests, juveniles as victims

and offenders, and juveniles in court and in corrections. Data analysis and dissemination tools available through the Briefing Book give users quick and

easy access to detailed statistics on a variety of juvenile justice topics. Among these online tools are the

Easy Access series and the Juvenile Court Data

Archive. The National Center for Juvenile Justice

developed and maintains the OJJDP Statistical

Briefing Book Web documents.
C–2

Easy Access Series

Easy Access is a family of electronic databases developed for OJJDP by the National Center for

Juvenile Justice to give a larger audience access to

recent, detailed information on juvenile crime and

the juvenile justice system.

Easy Access to Juvenile Populations. Available online at

www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/ezapop.

Includes juvenile population estimates derived from

two data files prepared by the U.S. Bureau of the

Census. The first provides annual estimates at the

county level of the number of males and females in a

single age group residing in the county on July 1 of

the calendar years from 1990 to 1999. The second

provides annual estimates of the resident population

at the county level in 5-year age groups subdivided

by sex, race, and Hispanic ethnicity.

Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics 1989–1998.

Available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/

ezajcs98.

Enables researchers, students, and juvenile justice

professionals to analyze the large database that underlies the annual Juvenile Court Statistics reports.

Demographic, offense, and case processing variables

are included, allowing users to develop detailed

descriptions of the delinquency cases processed in

the Nation’s juvenile courts. Results are presented

in tabular and graphic formats and can be stored in

output files that can be easily read by spreadsheet

or word processing packages.

Easy Access to State and County Juvenile Court Case

Counts 1997. Available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/

ojstatbb/ezaco/home.asp.

Uses data provided to the National Juvenile Court

Data Archive by State and county agencies responsible

for collecting and/or disseminating information on the

processing of youth in juvenile courts. Displays summary counts of petitioned and nonpetitioned delinquency, status, and dependency caseloads by reporting

jurisdictions.

Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement: 1997

Databook. Available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/

ojstatbb/cjrp97/openpage.asp.

Allows users to access data from the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) quickly

and easily without using statistical analysis software.

Data relate to juvenile detention, corrections, and

placement.

The following Easy Access programs will be available online in the near future:

Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics, 1994–1998. Available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/

ezaarr.html.

Presents national, State, and county estimates of

juvenile and adult arrests, rates, and trends for the

FBI’s Crime Index offenses. Results can be saved

to a print file for easy insertion in other documents.

Easy Access to the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports:

1980–1998. Available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/

ojstatbb/ezamu.html.

Explores variations and trends in State and national

homicide victim and offender profiles. Allows users

to receive immediate answers to questions about

age, sex, race, weapon, and victim-offender relationship. Results are presented in tabular and graphic

formats and can be stored in output files that can

be easily read by spreadsheet or word processing

packages.

National Juvenile Court Data Archive

www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/njcda/

Collects, stores, and analyzes data about young

people referred to U.S. courts for delinquency and

status offenses. Juvenile and family courts across

the country voluntarily provide the archive with

demographic information about juveniles involved in

delinquency and status offense cases, the reasons for

their referral to court, and the court’s response (e.g.,

whether the youth were adjudicated, given probation, ordered to pay restitution, or placed in a correctional facility). These data are used to develop
C–3

national estimates of the delinquency and status

offense cases handled by U.S. courts with jurisdiction over juveniles. The data also form the basis for

OJJDP’s annual Juvenile Court Statistics Report,

which includes the most detailed information available on youth involved in the juvenile justice system

and the activities of juvenile courts in the United

States. A national resource since 1927, the archive

offers low-cost, high-benefit data collection.

Other Research-Related

Web Sites

Evaluation of the Juvenile Mentoring

Program (JUMP)

www.itiincorporated.com/JUMP/jump

Examines the characteristics of youth, mentors,

matches, and program dynamics in some 162

JUMP projects located throughout the United

States. JUMP uses a variety of processes to collect

data and support the evaluation, including, for example, an automated JUMP Management Information System, where grantees can enter pertinent

information about their program; the Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teens (POSIT),

which is used to obtain pre- and postmentoring

data from teenage youth participating in JUMP;

and youth and mentor exit forms, which provide

valuable information about the mentoring experience. The research began in 1997 and is funded

through 2001.

Evaluation of the SafeFutures Program

www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/safefutures/evaluate.html

Measures the success of SafeFutures’ efforts to prevent and reduce juvenile violence and delinquency.

The evaluation compares desired program outcomes

(reducing delinquency, youth violence, and the associated risk factors) with the strategic planning process and the development of effective, integrated

services. The evaluation plan relies on qualitative and

quantitative components to describe the target population, monitor the juvenile justice system’s prevention and intervention services, and track the system’s

evolution. The process evaluation, which has been

conducted during the first 18 months of the program,

will continue over the life of the project.

Evaluation of the Truancy Reduction

Demonstration Project

www.coloradofoundation.org/

nationaltruancyproject/default.asp

Provides technical support for evaluating communitybased, interagency truancy reduction programs. Facilitates ongoing community self-assessments, strengthens

community collaboratives, assists with program development, and conducts evaluation activities. Defines

the scope and characteristics of truancy; identifies

community strengths and gaps; identifies, targets, and

recruits key local stakeholders who can contribute to

the program’s success; and develops program strategies

targeting students who are truant or at risk of being

truant. Conducts site-based and cross-program analyses to find the critical success factors of communitybased collaboratives and truancy reduction programs.

Juvenile Justice Evaluation Center

www.jrsa.org/jjec.

Provides assistance to States and localities in evaluating juvenile justice programs funded by the Title II

Formula Grant Program. The site offers information

on assessing program effectiveness to individuals

throughout the juvenile justice field. Users can

search specific juvenile justice program areas for

information on performance measures, evaluation

designs, evaluation instruments, and publications.

Users will also find links to the Federal Government’s juvenile-related programs and initiatives.

The site enables States to share evaluation information with one another by making available examples

of State reports, contracts, and forms.

National Center for Juvenile Justice

www.ncjj.org

Includes a brief overview of the National Center for

Juvenile Justice (NCJJ), founded in 1973 as the

research division of the National Council of Juvenile
C–4

and Family Court Judges, and links to NCJJ and

OJJDP publications and electronic databases, including the Easy Access series. NCJJ’s areas of expertise include data collection, research and analysis,

information management and dissemination, program

planning, facility design evaluation, and technical

assistance. Its information and services are designed

to meet the needs of juvenile and family court judges,

educators, State and Federal legislators, researchers,

parents, juvenile correctional personnel, attorneys,

and members of the media. NCJJ has also produced

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report, the

most comprehensive source of information about

juvenile crime, violence, and victimization.

The National Youth Gang Center (NYGC)

www.iir.com/nygc

Expands and maintains the body of critical knowledge about youth gangs and effective responses to

them. Assists State and local jurisdictions in the

collection, analysis, and exchange of information

on gang-related demographics, legislation, literature, research, and promising program strategies.

Coordinates activities of the OJJDP Youth Gang

Consortium—a group of Federal agencies, gang

program representatives, and other service providers. In carrying out its mission, NYGC performs six

major tasks: collects and analyzes statistical data on

gangs, compiles gang-related legislation, reviews

gang literature, identifies promising program strategies, coordinates Youth Gang Consortium activities,

and provides technical assistance to the Rural Gang

Initiative and the Gang-Free Schools and Communities Initiative.

Performance-based Standards (PbS)

for Juvenile Correction and Detention

Facilities

www.performance-standards.org

Implements performance-based standards that improve the services and practices at 57 youth detention and correction centers in 21 States across the

country. These standards cover the following areas

of correctional facility operation: safety, order, security, programming, health and mental health, and

justice. The project’s main goals are to develop a set of

standards that individual facilities should strive to

meet, create tools to help facilities attain these goals

through regular self-assessment and self-improvement,

allow facilities to evaluate their performance over time

and in comparison with other facilities nationwide, and

promote effective practices and help facilities support

one another. Participating facilities use this Web site

to tabulate data, receive reports, and obtain resources

and technical assistance for improving performance.

Visitors to the site may obtain information about the

tools used by the PbS project, including performancebased standards, data collection instruments, facility

improvement plans, site reports, diagnostic pages,

and resources.

Program of Research on the Causes and

Correlates of Juvenile Delinquency

www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ccd/index.html

Improves the understanding of serious delinquency,

violence, and drug use by examining how youth

develop within the context of family, school, peers,

and community. This program includes three coordinated longitudinal projects: the Denver Youth Survey at the University of Colorado, the Pittsburgh

Youth Study at the University of Pittsburgh, and the

Rochester Youth Development Study at the University at Albany, State University of New York. These

projects share a similar research design that involves

repeated contacts with youth during a substantial

portion of their developmental years. In each project, researchers conduct individual, face-to-face

interviews with inner-city youth considered at high

risk for involvement in delinquency and drug abuse.

Multiple perspectives on each child’s development

and behavior are obtained through interviews with

the child’s primary caretaker and, in two sites,

through interviews with teachers. In addition to

interview data, the studies collect extensive information from official agencies, including police,

courts, schools, and social services.
Publications From OJJDP

OJJDP produces a wide variety of materials,

including Bulletins, Fact Sheets, Reports, Summaries, videotapes, CD–ROM’s, and the Juvenile Justice journal. These materials and other

resources are available through OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC), as described

at the end of this list.

The following list of publications highlights the

latest and most popular information published

by OJJDP, grouped by topical areas:

Corrections and Detention

Construction, Operations, and Staff Training

for Juvenile Confinement Facilities. 2000,

NCJ 178928 (28 pp.).

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 1997

Update. 1998, NCJ 170606 (12 pp.).

Implementation of the Intensive CommunityBased Aftercare Program. 2000, NCJ 181464

(20 pp.).

Juvenile Arrests 1999. 2000, NCJ 185236

(12 pp.).

Reintegration, Supervised Release, and Intensive Aftercare. 1999, NCJ 175715 (24 pp.).

State Custody Rates, 1997. 2000, NCJ 183108

(4 pp.).

Courts

Employment and Training for Court-Involved

Youth. 2000, NCJ 182787 (112 pp.).

Focus on Accountability: Best Practices 

for Juvenile Court and Probation. 1999,

NCJ 177611 (12 pp.).

From the Courthouse to the Schoolhouse:

Making Successful Transitions. 2000,

NCJ 178900 (16 pp.).

Juvenile Court Statistics 1997. 2000,

NCJ 180864 (120 pp.).

Juvenile Justice (Juvenile Court Issue), Volume

VI, Number 2. 1999, NCJ 178255 (40 pp.).

Juveniles and the Death Penalty. 2000,

NCJ 184748 (16 pp.).

Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court in the

1990’s: Lessons Learned From Four Studies.

2000, NCJ 181301 (68 pp.).

Juveniles Facing Criminal Sanctions: Three

States That Changed the Rules. 2000,

NCJ 181203 (66 pp.).

Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1997. 2000,

NCJ 181204 (16 pp.).

Teen Courts: A Focus on Research. 2000,

NCJ 183472 (16 pp.).

Delinquency Prevention

1999 Report to Congress: Title V Incentive

Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention

Programs. 2000, NCJ 182677 (60 pp.).

Competency Training—The Strengthening

Families Program: For Parents and Youth

10–14. 2000, NCJ 182208 (12 pp.).

Comprehensive Responses to Youth at Risk:

Interim Findings From the SafeFutures Initiative. 2000. NCJ 183841 (96 pp.).

Co-occurrence of Delinquency and Other Problem Behaviors. 2000, NCJ 182211 (8 pp.).

High/Scope Perry Preschool Project. 2000,

NCJ 181725 (8 pp.).

The Incredible Years Training Series. 2000,

NCJ 173422 (24 pp.).

Juvenile Mentoring Program: A Progress

Review. 2000, NCJ 182209 (8 pp.).

Law Enforcement Referral of At-Risk Youth:

The SHIELD Program. 2000, NCJ 184579

(8 pp.).

The Nurturing Parenting Programs. 2000,

NCJ 172848 (12 pp.).

Prevention of Serious and Violent Juvenile

Offending. 2000, NCJ 178898 (16 pp.).

Gangs

1998 National Youth Gang Survey. 2000,

NCJ 183109 (92 pp.).

Preventing Adolescent Gang Involvement.

2000, NCJ 182210 (12 pp.).

Youth Gang Programs and Strategies. 2000,

NCJ 171154 (96 pp.).

The Youth Gangs, Drugs, and Violence

Connection. 1999, NCJ 171152 (12 pp.).

Youth Gangs in Schools. 2000, NCJ 183015

(8 pp.).

General Juvenile Justice

The Community Assessment Center Concept.

2000, NCJ 178942 (12 pp.).

Increasing School Safety Through Juvenile

Accountability Programs. 2000, NCJ 179283

(16 pp.).

Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants

Strategic Planning Guide. 1999, NCJ 172846

(62 pp.).

Juvenile Justice (Mental Health Issue), Volume

VII, Number 1. 2000, NCJ 178256 (40 pp.).

Juvenile Justice. (American Indian Issue). Volume VII, Number 2. 2000, NCJ 184747 (40 pp.).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National

Report. 1999, NCJ 178257 (232 pp.). Also

available on CD–ROM. 2000, NCJ 178991.

OJJDP Research: Making a Difference for

Juveniles. 1999, NCJ 177602 (52 pp.).

Special Education and the Juvenile Justice

System. 2000, NCJ 179359 (16 pp.).

Teenage Fatherhood and Delinquent Behavior.

2000, NCJ 178899 (8 pp.).

Missing and Exploited Children

Kidnaping of Juveniles: Patterns From NIBRS.

2000, NCJ 181161 (8 pp.).

Overview of the Portable Guides to Investigating Child Abuse: Update 2000. 2000,

NCJ 178893 (12 pp.).

Parents AnonymousSM : Strengthening America’s

Families. 1999, NCJ 171120 (12 pp.).

When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival

Guide. 1998, NCJ 170022 (96 pp.). Also available in Spanish. 2000, NCJ 178902.

Revised 1/19/2001

Substance Abuse

The Coach’s Playbook Against Drugs. 1998,

NCJ 173393 (20 pp.).

Developing a Policy for Controlled Substance

Testing of Juveniles. 2000, NCJ 178896 (12 pp.).

Family Skills Training for Parents and Children.

2000, NCJ 180140 (12 pp.).

Violence and Victimization

Characteristics of Crimes Against Juveniles.

2000, NCJ 179034 (12 pp.).

Children as Victims. 2000, NCJ 180753 (24 pp.).

The Comprehensive Strategy: Lessons Learned

From the Pilot Sites. 2000, NCJ 178258 (12 pp.).

Fighting Juvenile Gun Violence. 2000,

NCJ 182679 (12 pp.).

Kids and Guns. 2000, NCJ 178994 (12 pp.).

Predictors of Youth Violence. 2000, NCJ 179065

(12 pp.).

Promising Strategies To Reduce Gun Violence.

1999, NCJ 173950 (276 pp.).

Race, Ethnicity, and Serious and Violent Juvenile Offending. 2000, NCJ 181202 (8 pp.).

Safe From the Start: Taking Action on Children

Exposed to Violence. 2000, NCJ 182789

(76 pp.).

The materials listed on this page and many

other OJJDP publications and resources can

be accessed through the following methods:

Online:

To view or download materials, visit 

OJJDP’s home page: www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org.

To order materials online, visit JJC’s 24-

hour online store: www.puborder.ncjrs.org.

To ask questions about materials, e-mail

JJC: askncjrs@ncjrs.org.

To subscribe to JUVJUST, OJJDP’s electronic mailing list, e-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org,

leave the subject line blank, and type subscribe juvjust your name.

Phone:

800–638–8736

(Monday–Friday, 8:30 a.m.–7 p.m. ET)

Fax:

410–792–4358 (to order publications)

301–519–5600 (to ask questions)

800–638–8736 (fax-on-demand, Fact 

Sheets and Bulletins only)

Mail:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse/NCJRS

P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000

JJC, through the National Criminal Justice

Reference Service (NCJRS), is the repository for tens of thousands of criminal

and juvenile justice publications and resources from around the world. An abstract for each publication or resource is

placed in a database that you can search

online: www.ncjrs.org/database.htm.
Report

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

NCJ 186732

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300